Constitutional Carry Before the SCOTUS this November

[Carborendum]

The following case:

https://law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/supreme-court/2024/scap-22-0000561.html

may force SCOTUS to rule on whether the 2nd amendment is a right or a privilege.  It will have to answer the question on whether States have the right to require permits to own a gun or to carry a gun (open or concealed).

I have absolutely no respect for the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision that basically said (Regarding Bruin), "We don't care about SCOTUS decisions.  We know better, and we're going to imprison you for carrying a gun."

The principles here are "if you have a right to bear arms, then you shouldn't need permission to bear arms.  That's what makes it a right.

Past history has brought us to a point where states are essentially allowed "Time, Place, and Manner" restrictions.  And that is basically why they're allowed to pass laws restricting the carry of weapons at all.  But this particular case was so messed up that SCOTUS will have to draw some more lines in the sand because of draconian restrictions on the lawful carry of a weapon.

[person0]

I will be very interested to see the outcome of this case.

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

force SCOTUS to rule on whether the 2nd amendment is a right or a privilege. 

Ah yes.  The famous "Bill of privileges" that we all learned in school, until they stopped teaching it because of white privilege. 🤪

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Past history has brought us to a point where states are essentially allowed "Time, Place, and Manner" restrictions.  And that is basically why they're allowed to pass laws restricting the carry of weapons at all.  But this particular case was so messed up that SCOTUS will have to draw some more lines in the sand because of draconian restrictions on the lawful carry of a weapon.

I'm ok with limits to the rights.   I'm ok with the right to control what happens on your private property superseding my right to bear arms.  

I'm excited to hear how this turns out.   It's a good time to have the matter heard with the current makeup of SCOTUS being originalist.  

It's always fun to tell folks who want a better solution to firearm-related issues, that the constitution was built to be amended.   Americans are totally free to modify/change/clarify/delete the 2nd amendment as much as we want.   Just gotta follow the process, and convince enough people in enough states to get it done.    So if SCOTUS rules in favor of strong individual rights, the answer isn't to pack the courts or disband them or revolt.  Just get everyone on board to change the amendment, and SCOTUS' collective hands will be tied.  Pretty easy to do, unless your idea is stupid.

Edited October 31 by NeuroTypical

[Phoenix_person]

I guess we'll finally figure out how much weight that "well-regulated militia" line has. It always struck me as meaning that the maintaining of a militia was THE reason why the right to bear arms was not to be infringed. Then the Black Panthers said "Okay, cool" and suddenly the NRA was extremely pro-gun control for a decade or two.

I don't support abolishing 2A. That's step one to tyranny. I do, however, think it's worth exploring whether it may need to be amended to reexamine its purpose. Are we comfortable with its primary purpose being to protect anti-establishment groups like the Black Panthers, Proud Boys, and Oathkeepers? 2A was written by people who couldn't possibly fathom the density of 21st Century America's population centers, nor the lethality of 21st Century America's firearms. The founders never could have imagined the ease with which a single ordinary citizen could walk into a school, church, or theater and slaughter dozens of people in a matter of seconds with one weapon. I think modern gun policy should be written by people who understand the realities of modern gun culture and capabilities.

[JohnsonJones]

Part of the reason some of these items are rights are because they do not need a government for an individual to do them. 

For example, an individual could always say what they wanted to say.  It is a retroactive ability of a government to limit it, which means that you could outlaw someone from saying something, but you cannot actually prevent them from saying it.  You can only punish them once they do say it.

Unlike burglar's where you can put bars on windows and be proactive at prevention, you cannot actually prevent someone from speaking their mind unless you are willing to cut the voicebox out of every citizen in your nation (including those who govern).  

In this same way, nothing prevents someone from carrying a weapon.  You can make punishments for after the fact, once you notice they are carrying a weapon, but you normally cannot stop someone from carrying a weapon.  Even if you outlaw a weapon, many weapons can be created by hand (for example, guns now days can still be made in one's home if they know how to create one). 

You can tell someone that they cannot believe something, but you cannot control their mind.  They will believe what they wish to or not wish to, irregardless of what you try to impose upon them.

There are some rights that are not simply givens, such as freedom of the Press.  These are freedoms where they are granted, in order to guarantee freedoms which should be granted.  Freedom to bear arms is one that bridges the gap of where you can control (because many do not know how to create their own weapons, as well as creating a purpose for them...in this case...common defense) and where you cannot control (because there are those who can create their own weapons). 

It would be interesting if the Supreme Court came down with a ruling that states could not impose regulations on the control of firearms, thus allowing any and all to have firearms.  I would say some of the firearm restrictions are too strict these days (we have veterans that bore weapons in defense of our nation, but are not allowed to have guns in their home legally...which I find repulsive), where as sometimes they are too lax (someone should have a barrier on when they buy the gun and when they actually get it, this helps prevent crimes of passion for example).

I have no idea how the Supreme Court will rule or how extreme they may go.  I know they tend to lean conservative, but how that may influence this decision is anyone's guess. 

12 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I guess we'll finally figure out how much weight that "well-regulated militia" line has. It always struck me as meaning that the maintaining of a militia was THE reason why the right to bear arms was not to be infringed. Then the Black Panthers said "Okay, cool" and suddenly the NRA was extremely pro-gun control for a decade or two.

I don't support abolishing 2A. That's step one to tyranny. I do, however, think it's worth exploring whether it may need to be amended to reexamine its purpose. Are we comfortable with its primary purpose being to protect anti-establishment groups like the Black Panthers, Proud Boys, and Oathkeepers? 2A was written by people who couldn't possibly fathom the density of 21st Century America's population centers, nor the lethality of 21st Century America's firearms. The founders never could have imagined the ease with which a single ordinary citizen could walk into a school, church, or theater and slaughter dozens of people in a matter of seconds with one weapon. I think modern gun policy should be written by people who understand the realities of modern gun culture and capabilities.

They may not have imagined Nuclear Weapons, but I think they were well aware of how lethal the weapons they were talking about were.  A lot of the talk about them restricting it only to groups like the National Guard is a lot of poppycock in my opinion.

The 2nd Amendment has a basis in various groups during the Revolutionary War.  It was not just the Minute Men, but how the Army actually was able to get more weapons and men itself.

Part of the beginning of the Revolutionary War began with the British learning that the Colonials had military grade weaponry.  They sent a taskforce out to basically seize bronze Cannons that could be used in a very deadly fashion which a civilian would not be utilizing.  These were Not approved weapons and those who had these weapons were Not approved militia groups for these types of weapons.  This wasn't just  your rifles and other weapons and infantry man may have, these were military weapons.  (for context today, if we relate these to modern day weapons, these would not be automatic or even semi-automatic rifles, these would be howitzers, tanks, and rocket launchers).  This resulted in one of the first battles of the Revolutionary War (and the  Colonials actually are seen to have won this one).

As the war progressed, it was useful for men to be able to bring weapons which could be as deadly a combat weapon as what the British soldier had (so, in present day, if we were to use the analogy, everyone would be bringing a fully automatic with semi-auto options assault rifles.  They'd be bringing their own AK-47 or M-16/M-4/M-1 to the registration of the army.  They may even also have their own grenades and occasionally their own tank).  

This is what the founders were trying to protect.  They saw the populace as the armed militia.  The populace could have their own personal militias, as opposed to state sponsored ones (which is what were primarily fighting the British early on in the Revolutionary War), or, even each individual could be a part of a greater populace which was a militia (the people's militia, which is not something like the minute men, but where each individual has their own weaponry so that when war comes they can unite together to fight a common enemy).  

The US has lost this over the past few centuries, but it's not a historical mystery, and it shouldn't even be a question today of what the founders intended with the amendment.  

The US today does Not reflect their original intent.  Switzerland or Israel may, but slightly altered.  They probably are the closest to what the original intent of the founders were to what they intended for the 2nd amendment. 

I think it was Jefferson who made a comment that this idea would make it so no government could truly become tyrannical, because when your populace itself is well armed as a militia, it would be impossible for the government to use a military to effectively conquer them.  They, in turn, could use their weaponry to overcome a tyrannical government.

if we were true to the amendment today we probably would have far less restrictions on weapons and we'd have a Lot of assault rifles as something many more possessed...just in case the government went bad.  A distrust of government was built into many of the founder's ideas of why we should have protections on certain rights as well.

We'd probably have a lot of people with modern tanks, fighter jets, and munitions.  The best stuff would be available to citizens (if they could afford it).

On the otherhand, the founders also saw that society would change over time and values, as well as desires, would also change.  Thus, things and interpretations of what things meant would change.  Some of the founders even felt that there should basically be a new Constitution written every few years to every few decades to account for this change. 

Hence, what their original intent was, for some, was seen to only be good for a few decades, and then something else would have to take it's place.  In essence, in that interpretation, the concerns over weaponry and who has what are valid today and it may be, in that light, our laws are far too lax (afterall, who wants to see Donald Trump or Elon Musk or Walmart having their own personal armies with F-22's and M1A2 Abrahms)?

It was meant to evolve, but I think many have forgotten that aspect of the Constitution as well over the past few decades, as we have had fewer amendments passed in the past 30 years than we had on average for the couple hundred prior. 

Edited November 1 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

For an explanation of what is happening here is a video.  The video is biased, but it has a decent explanation of the course of events. 

 

[NeuroTypical]

11 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I guess we'll finally figure out how much weight that "well-regulated militia" line has. It always struck me as meaning that the maintaining of a militia was THE reason why the right to bear arms was not to be infringed.  
…

 Are we comfortable with its primary purpose being to protect anti-establishment groups like the Black Panthers, Proud Boys, and Oathkeepers?

The militia is the thing where there’s a need to have a bunch of armed citizens show up all at one place, and get organized, and go deal with what needs to be dealt with.  It works best when those citizens already know what the heck they’re doing, have experience, own their own weapons to a certain extent.

And nah, the primary purpose is not to have tiny little pockets of weirdos that make good headlines and keep people in a frenzy.  The primary purpose is twofold. My wife gets to defend herself with something at least as good as what the cartels are smuggling up from Mexico. And anyone in government or military that gets a wild itch to take over gets to understand they probably won’t make their first drive home.  For all the press the Boogaloos and proud boys and Oathkeepers and black nationalist NFAC-ers and black Panthers get, they really don’t do bad things with guns hardly ever.  Infinitely more good is done by letting Black people arm themselves in Chicago to defend themselves from their bad neighbors.

[Carborendum]

13 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I guess we'll finally figure out how much weight that "well-regulated militia" line has.

Since we have a majority of originalists on the SCOTUS, it should carry a lot of weight.

13 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

It always struck me as meaning that the maintaining of a militia was THE reason why the right to bear arms was not to be infringed.

Yes, that is so.  What is not often said in liberal circles is that the Founders were in an environment where it was implicitly understood that the average citizen having a weapon would automatically be a check against governmental over-reach.   They had proven it through the Revolutionary War.  They were not about to deny that power of the people.  In fact that was a primary argument by the Anti-Federalists.

"Militia" at the time were those private citizens who took up arms against a tyrannical government. While we know that this definition was what they intended back then, people argue whether it should still stand today for a variety of reasons.  And SCOTUS has struck it down every time.

13 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Then the Black Panthers said "Okay, cool" and suddenly the NRA was extremely pro-gun control for a decade or two.

And the State of California allowed the open carrying of all firearms by private citizens (incl Black Panthers) in government buildings. 

The NRA was wrong then.  State of California was right back then.  Oh, how things have changed.  Now the NRA wants ALL citizens (incl Blacks) to be as armed as possible.  And the State of California wants to ban all private ownership of firearms except for elites.

Black position on gun control is obscured.  They are for a lot of gun control measures "for the people."  But if you ask them if they want a gun in their home, they're overwhelmingly for it.  They don't realize that nearly all gun control measures that they support are going to disproportionately affect them.

13 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I don't support abolishing 2A. That's step one to tyranny.

We agree.  Awesome.

13 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I do, however, think it's worth exploring whether it may need to be amended to reexamine its purpose.

I'm actually OK with this.  But it needs to be via Constitutional Amendment, not legislation.

13 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Are we comfortable with its primary purpose being to protect anti-establishment groups like the Black Panthers, Proud Boys, and Oathkeepers?

I am.  I may be extreme on this, but I don't think so.  I have no problem with what the Black Panthers did as far as displaying their weapons in public.  I did have a problem with some of their riots and violent encounters. But I really don't know all the play-by-play details that might have made it justified or damning for them.

I still have no idea who the Proud Boys are/were.  They appear to be a "boogey man" term.  I haven't heard of anything that they've actually done.  Same with the Oathkeepers.

13 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

2A was written by people who couldn't possibly fathom the density of 21st Century America's population centers, nor the lethality of 21st Century America's firearms.

That may be true.  But I feel like this is just a "shock and awe" type of argument.  It is sensational.  But what does it really mean?  What would be the policy decision to come out of such mentality?

13 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

The founders never could have imagined the ease with which a single ordinary citizen could walk into a school, church, or theater and slaughter dozens of people in a matter of seconds with one weapon. I think modern gun policy should be written by people who understand the realities of modern gun culture and capabilities.

Sorry to have to say this.  But this is just a bunch of buzzwords to make an argument out of fear.*

Consider this:  The primary argument from the left about the criminality of illegal immigrants is that the criminal level among illegals represent only a small percentage of people (no matter how many crimes are committed by a single person).  But when it comes to gun ownership, the number of people shot illegally is even a smaller fraction of that percentage of violent illegals.

So, it's ok for illegal immigrants to kill people.  But it is not ok to have an even smaller percentage of citizens to have a constitutional right.

********

* Let's talk about what actually happens in a "mass shooting."  A term like "a matter of seconds" is both technically accurate and deceptive at the same time.  Yes, ANYthing that happens, can happen in a matter of seconds.  How many seconds? 3? 30? 300? 3000?  (625,600 minutes?)

Further, it conjures up images of Rambo going through the jungle shooting off unlimited rounds in a two hour movie.

That said, I'd like to address this point.  But I'm going to request that you put it in words that are more forensic so we're making logical/legal arguments instead of emotional ones.

You seem to have a perspective on the liberal side of things that I don't hear from politicians or from liberal media (yes, I do listen to and read a LOT of liberal media). So, I'd like to hear your position on the following sentiment:

My position regarding all such arguments is this: If we had to go to the extremes (No one has guns except government, or everyone has guns) which do you think would be safer?  I'm going to guess which one you would say.  But I'd like to hear the arguments. 

Edited November 1 by Carborendum

[Phoenix_person]

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think it was Jefferson who made a comment that this idea would make it so no government could truly become tyrannical, because when your populace itself is well armed as a militia, it would be impossible for the government to use a military to effectively conquer them.  They, in turn, could use their weaponry to overcome a tyrannical government.

On the otherhand, the founders also saw that society would change over time and values, as well as desires, would also change.  Thus, things and interpretations of what things meant would change.  Some of the founders even felt that there should basically be a new Constitution written every few years to every few decades to account for this change. 

Hence, what their original intent was, for some, was seen to only be good for a few decades, and then something else would have to take it's place.  In essence, in that interpretation, the concerns over weaponry and who has what are valid today and it may be, in that light, our laws are far too lax (afterall, who wants to see Donald Trump or Elon Musk or Walmart having their own personal armies with F-22's and M1A2 Abrahms)?

It was meant to evolve, but I think many have forgotten that aspect of the Constitution as well over the past few decades, as we have had fewer amendments passed in the past 30 years than we had on average for the couple hundred prior. 

Jefferson believed that each generation should have a chance to review and re-ratify the entire Constitution every 20 or so years. He believed that no one should be subjected to laws that they didn't have a say in creating or reaffirming. Our constitutional amendment process was the compromise for people like Jefferson. But yes, the idea was always for the Constitution to be a living, evolving document. That, moreso than technological advancements, is why I struggle to take originalists seriously. I don't respect their take on the Constitution because they take a stance on the Constitution that many, if not all, of the founders actively wanted to avoid.

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

For all the press the Boogaloos and proud boys and Oathkeepers and black nationalist NFAC-ers and black Panthers get, they really don’t do bad things with guns hardly ever.  Infinitely more good is done by letting Black people arm themselves in Chicago to defend themselves from their bad neighbors.

Agreed. My main beef with the Oathkeepers specifically is that they were tied to some of the more violent participants in the J6 riot, and from where I sit the Proud Boys are Oathkeepers-adjacent. In fact, I think there are a few PBs in federal custody along at least 6 people affiliated with the Oath Keepers. Two of those Oath Keepers were in leadership roles. They were charged with seditious conspiracy and sentenced to over a decade in prison. 

The fact that no one was dumb enough to bring an AR-15 to the US Capitol is incredibly fortunate. There surely would have been far more casualties. My current single greatest fear is the possibility of a J6 sequel if the extreme MAGA factions don't like Tuesday's results, and I fear they'll come more heavily armed next time. I think about that and find myself wondering how 2A supporters in the more rational pockets of the GOP feel about the possibility of bloodshed in the name of making Donald Trump president again if he loses this election.

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm actually OK with this.  But it needs to be via Constitutional Amendment, not legislation.

Agreed.

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I am.  I may be extreme on this, but I don't think so.  I have no problem with what the Black Panthers did as far as displaying their weapons in public.  I did have a problem with some of their riots and violent encounters. But I really don't know all the play-by-play details that might have made it justified or damning for them.

My understanding of it is that there were a handful of violent radicals in the Black Panther that wanted black people armed for an offensive campaign against white oppressors instead of simply being armed for self-defense. The racist forces that sought to crush the Civil Rights movement (which, in many instances, was exacerbated by the fact that the black nationalist movement was filled with known Marxists) included elements of our own federal government. They engineered a public smear campaign to paint the Black Panthers as a violent terrorist organization based on the actions of a few violent radicals.

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That may be true.  But I feel like this is just a "shock and awe" type of argument.  It is sensational.  But what does it really mean?  What would be the policy decision to come out of such mentality?

It's the exact premise for conversations about things like magazine capacity limits, bump stock bans, and red flag laws. The sticking point for a lot of gun owners on that last policy point is that gun ownership is a right, not a privilege.

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Consider this:  The primary argument from the left about the criminality of illegal immigrants is that the criminal level among illegals represent only a small percentage of people (no matter how many crimes are committed by a single person).  But when it comes to gun ownership, the number of people shot illegally is even a smaller fraction of that percentage of violent illegals.

So, it's ok for illegal immigrants to kill people.  But it is not ok to have an even smaller percentage of citizens to have a constitutional right.

I think that's a false equivalency, and it's easy to see that when you consider that the conservative reaction to a minority of immigrant criminals is to detain and deport all illegal immigrants. There are no serious efforts on the left to go after all gun owners or infringe on their Constitutional rights. 

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

* Let's talk about what actually happens in a "mass shooting."  Words like "a matter of seconds" is both technically accurate and deceptive at the same time.  Yes, ANYthing that happens, can happen in a matter of seconds.  How many seconds? 3? 30? 300? 3000?  

The Sutherland Springs shooting lasted 11 minutes (~660) seconds. No fully automatic weapons were used and there was a "good guy with a gun" on the scene. 26 people were killed and 22 injured with three guns. If someone walked into a church in 1789 with three guns and started shooting, the absolute worst they'd do is kill three people before being physically overpowered while reloading. The Sandy Hook shooter killed 26 people, 20 of them chuldren, in under 5 minutes. He fired over 150 rounds. Those 5 minutes could have been far deadlier. How would the founders have felt about someone having the capability to massacre children that quickly? We'll never know. But then, we don't need to. They gave us the means to make that judgement ourselves and amend our laws accordingly.

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Further, it conjures up images of Rambo going through the jungle shooting off unlimited rounds in a two hour movie.

My understanding is that survivors of the Vegas shooting felt like that was the exact scenario that was playing out, like someone was just going Rambo on the entire music festival. 

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, I'd like to hear your position on the following sentiment:

My position regarding all such arguments is this: If we had to go to the extremes (No one has guns except government, or everyone has guns) which do you think would be safer?  I'm going to guess which one you would say.  But I'd like to hear the arguments. 

A safer society would have no guns, but would be very susceptible to tyranny and oppression. A more free society would have unlimited guns, but with the consequence of far higher gun homicide rates. That is why dealing in extremes/absolutes isn't usually wise. The reality of our current gun debate, as I see it, is that there are a handful of very loud liberals who have had a loud handful of conservatives spooked about the government taking their guns for years. I'd say that far more Americans on both sides of the aisle are supportive of responsible gun ownership. There's even a saying on my side, "If you go far enough left, you get to keep your guns". We may disagree on some of the fineprint of what responsible gun ownership is, but I think it's long past time that we stop viewing things like bump stock bans and magazine capacity limits as a Constitutional crisis. 

Edited November 1 by Phoenix_person

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

The fact that no one was dumb enough to bring an AR-15 to the US Capitol is incredibly fortunate. There surely would have been far more casualties.

Odd, none of the millions of privately-owned AR-15's seemed to have created any casualties on that day where they happened to be...   How come you assume they'd suddenly go off and hurt people if they had been at the Capitol on J6?

 

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Jefferson believed that each generation should have a chance to review and re-ratify the entire Constitution every 20 or so years. He believed that no one should be subjected to laws that they didn't have a say in creating or reaffirming. Our constitutional amendment process was the compromise for people like Jefferson. But yes, the idea was always for the Constitution to be a living, evolving document. That, moreso than technological advancements, is why I struggle to take originalists seriously. I don't respect their take on the Constitution because they take a stance on the Constitution that many, if not all, of the founders actively wanted to avoid.

Remember, though, that Jefferson also anticipated that such ratifications had a very good chance of being bloody; and he was OK with that ("tree of liberty watered by the blood of patriots", and all that).  Jefferson, for all his greatness, was not at the Constitutional Convention; and among the founders he was something of an outlier in a lot of ways.  I think it strains credulity to suggest that a critical mass of the Constitution's authors felt that the document's clear meaning as it existed at time of authorship would or should be open to amendment by judicial fiat as an end-run around the amendment process that they themselves had written into the document.  

Quote

It's the exact premise for conversations about things like magazine capacity limits, bump stock bans, and red flag laws. The sticking point for a lot of gun owners on that last policy point is that gun ownership is a right, not a privilege.

The interesting thing to me about the "evolving technology" argument vis a vis the 2nd amendment, is that the ratchet only turns one way.  The Second Amendment exists so that the citizenry can effectively function as a check against the federal government; and for all our worries about evolving technology in the hands of the citizenry, we seem not to talk that much about how evolving technology in the hands of the government skews this carefully-crafted balance. 

In other words:  We're supposed to consider how much more lethal small arms supposedly are now; but we must never ever consider government's increased technological capacity for tyranny--its ability to track, monitor, and control human communication, association, and movement; its ability to wage open warfare on its own citizens and destroy entire cities (and some states) at the touch of a button.  Nor do we really engage much with institutional developments like the erosion of traditional checks on federal power; the decline of state sovereignty; or the fact that state militias are now virtually obsolete and their sort-of successor national guard units are now subject to unquestioned federalization on the barest of pretexts.  Might some of those argument suggest that we actually need more robust safeguards--and especially more effective armaments--against federal tyranny now than ever before; even if there is a higher collateral cost?

And really, I'm not sure I'm convinced that commonly-available small arms are particularly more lethal now than those that were commonly available in the United States during the 1950s or 60s; or indeed, even in the 1920s or 1930s.  What has changed is that a (compared to 1930s or 1960s) staggeringly large proportion of Americans now live in social isolation; seek meaning through notoriety rather than human intimacy, believe that life is an accident of nature, cannot articulate a cohesive basis for a universally-applicable moral code, see little reason to plan for either an individual or a collective future, and see neither the fact that they are humans nor the fact that they are Americans as giving them any sort of common bond with or obligation to their countrymen.

Frankly, it feels to me like progressives spent most of the last 50 years changing the culture and demanding stuff, and we conservatives warned them that it would cause problems, and they said "give it to us anyways!", and eventually they got what they wanted--and now that they've gotten it, the problems we prophesied of are coming to pass; and to solve those new problems, progressives want us to cede just a little bit more more of our liberty and safety.  (But this time it will work.  And shut up with that nonsense about "second order consequences" and "Chesterton's fence", you bigot!)

That's always how it is.  Just a little bit more; and just a little bit more again, until suddenly--people are having their kids taken away for publicly questioning the efficacy of NHS doctors, or being sent to jail for silently praying at a place where an abortionist might see them and have sadz.  

Quote

I think that's a false equivalency, and it's easy to see that when you consider that the conservative reaction to a minority of immigrant criminals is to detain and deport all illegal immigrants. 

But of course, not all conservatives are agreeing to detain and deport all illegals, either. 

Mass shootings--especially school shootings--are a tiny minority of the overall shootings in this country.  Progressives may tell us they don't actually want all of our guns; but there are two problems here:

• Progressives have a habit of lying about what they want until they're in a position to actually get it [e.g. government benefits, citizenship, and voting for illegal immigrants; gay marriage; unlimited elective abortion; transgender recruitment and porn in schools; racial quotas in school admissions and hiring; leveraging law enforcement authority to impose news blackouts on private media companies; coordination of prosecutions with friendly political campaigns; etc]; and
• this particular lie ("We'll stop when we get all the assault weapons.  Honest!") is a flagrantly unbelievable lie; because if a progressive wants to address the one-hundred-odd mass shooting deaths per year, then of course he'll also want to address the tens of thousands of non-mass shootings done by non-assault-weapons per year (because, what kind of monster wouldn't ?).    

 

Quote

The Sutherland Springs shooting lasted 11 minutes (~660) seconds. No fully automatic weapons were used and there was a "good guy with a gun" on the scene. 26 people were killed and 22 injured with three guns. If someone walked into a church in 1789 with three guns and started shooting, the absolute worst they'd do is kill three people before being physically overpowered while reloading. The Sandy Hook shooter killed 26 people, 20 of them chuldren, in under 5 minutes. He fired over 150 rounds. Those 5 minutes could have been far deadlier. How would the founders have felt about someone having the capability to massacre children that quickly? We'll never know. But then, we don't need to. They gave us the means to make that judgement ourselves and amend our laws accordingly.

Both of which were gun-free zones.  At Sutherland Springs, the "good guy with the gun" was not inside the church; he attacked the shooter as the shooter exited.  (As I understand it, Texas law designated churches as gun-free zones until it was changed in 2019; so Willeford may have been exposing himself to legal liability had he entered the church to engage the murderer.)

If you haven't read Larry Correia's MonsterHunterNation.com post about gun control, I highly recommend it.  He's kind of a potty-mouth, so I won't link to it here; but he does engage with the "reloading" scenario.  Google and ye shall find. 

Edited November 1 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

21 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I guess we'll finally figure out how much weight that "well-regulated militia" line has.

The idea that the second amendment is somehow about armies is fiction. "The militia" referred to able-bodied fighting-aged male citizens, not to standing armies (which did not exist in the Americas at that time). Adult men are and have always been the security backbone of a civilization. The second amendment simply recognizes and specifies that those who constitute "the militia" are not to be infringed in their right to bear arms.

You think that the second amendment is outdated and should be changed? Fine. Then change it. Don't change it by judicial activism, which is dishonest and in violation of the Constitution itself. Just change the amendment. That's how the country is supposed to work. Get a supermajority to change the law.

What's that? You can't get enough people to modify the amendment? Then you don't get to outlaw firearms. That's the rule of law.

[JohnsonJones]

On 11/1/2024 at 4:47 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Remember, though, that Jefferson also anticipated that such ratifications had a very good chance of being bloody; and he was OK with that ("tree of liberty watered by the blood of patriots", and all that).  Jefferson, for all his greatness, was not at the Constitutional Convention; and among the founders he was something of an outlier in a lot of ways.  I think it strains credulity to suggest that a critical mass of the Constitution's authors felt that the document's clear meaning as it existed at time of authorship would or should be open to amendment by judicial fiat as an end-run around the amendment process that they themselves had written into the document.  

Actually, much of the Constitution is about compromises from multiple sides of the field.  There were those that felt the Amendment idea was too open, and others who felt it wasn't open enough in changing the Constitution.  The ideas that some had about what should be in the Constitution at times were highly contested (for example, the Bill of Rights).

Anti-Federalists in many instances were uncomfortable with the items that Federalists were pushing, and in fact would have had a very different way of handling the Constitution's articles if they had the power.  Some of them would have desired to have the ability to have the Constitution rewritten (some...almost immediately) on a regular basis. 

Opposing this would be the Federalist which felt that they needed stronger governments and stronger writing on what our basis of government should be.  Some of them did not even want the Amendments included and were opposed to what Anti-Federalists were demanding (in what eventually would become the Bill of Rights). 

Amendments were included as a possibility, but the items in the Bill of Rights were not.  As the story goes, only under threat of non-ratification of the Constitution did some of the Federalists eventually relent in seeing the wisdom in accepting these amendments.

Overall, neither side got what they wanted.  They had to compromise (something our government should learn more about these days) to build a founding document that has withstood the test of time.  Working together they forged this Constitution that has created our great nation of today. 

On 11/1/2024 at 4:47 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

The interesting thing to me about the "evolving technology" argument vis a vis the 2nd amendment, is that the ratchet only turns one way.  The Second Amendment exists so that the citizenry can effectively function as a check against the federal government; and for all our worries about evolving technology in the hands of the citizenry, we seem not to talk that much about how evolving technology in the hands of the government skews this carefully-crafted balance. 

In other words:  We're supposed to consider how much more lethal small arms supposedly are now; but we must never ever consider government's increased technological capacity for tyranny--its ability to track, monitor, and control human communication, association, and movement; its ability to wage open warfare on its own citizens and destroy entire cities (and some states) at the touch of a button.  Nor do we really engage much with institutional developments like the erosion of traditional checks on federal power; the decline of state sovereignty; or the fact that state militias are now virtually obsolete and their sort-of successor national guard units are now subject to unquestioned federalization on the barest of pretexts.  Might some of those argument suggest that we actually need more robust safeguards--and especially more effective armaments--against federal tyranny now than ever before; even if there is a higher collateral cost?

That's a very good point. 

On 11/1/2024 at 4:47 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

And really, I'm not sure I'm convinced that commonly-available small arms are particularly more lethal now than those that were commonly available in the United States during the 1950s or 60s; or indeed, even in the 1920s or 1930s.  What has changed is that a (compared to 1930s or 1960s) staggeringly large proportion of Americans now live in social isolation; seek meaning through notoriety rather than human intimacy, believe that life is an accident of nature, cannot articulate a cohesive basis for a universally-applicable moral code, see little reason to plan for either an individual or a collective future, and see neither the fact that they are humans nor the fact that they are Americans as giving them any sort of common bond with or obligation to their countrymen.

Frankly, it feels to me like progressives spent most of the last 50 years changing the culture and demanding stuff, and we conservatives warned them that it would cause problems, and they said "give it to us anyways!", and eventually they got what they wanted--and now that they've gotten it, the problems we prophesied of are coming to pass; and to solve those new problems, progressives want us to cede just a little bit more more of our liberty and safety.  (But this time it will work.  And shut up with that nonsense about "second order consequences" and "Chesterton's fence", you bigot!)

I'd not say that the progressives are terrible and conservatives are great either.  Without the progressives we'd still have jim-crow laws, segregation, we'd have interracial marriage outlawed, we'd still have states which probably would make it so that Asian-Americans (even full blooded Americans who were born and raised in the US but had Asian backgrounds) could not own land or property in some states, Religious Discrimination against LDS in the Southern States, etc...etc...etc). 

50 years ago we still had places with segregation still in place, woman unable to have bank accounts (barely, they were finally allowed to in 1974), and lead in gasoline (which has been shown to have had an effect on mood, IQ, and behavior within those who were exposed to it, such as those along highways and other locales). 

I'd say a lot of the changes in society are far more complex than a simple conservative vs. liberal ideology.  It has to do a lot with the growing power of the media, the increased ability of bad actors to interact with our population (via internet exchanges like tiktok, facebook, or other social media), and the popularization of entertainment mediums such as hollywood, thus giving certain groups of people with agendas far more power and sway over younger generations than we've had in the past. 

Are there things that the liberals have proposed which conservatives probably will say have led to worse outcomes (Rock & Roll for instance, or promiscuity as portrayed in film and TV)...absolutely.  Have there been things that Conservatives have proposed that have led to worse outcomes (allowing government who have no medical training or education to dictate to doctors what they can or cannot do in regards to womans health, or to make the US healthcare system one of the most expensive in the world with less return then some third world nations)...absolutely.

We can all complain about the other side, the question I think is what I said above.  We are too busy pointing fingers and not working together enough.  We need to find a way to compromise between both sides to build up America rather than constantly trying to tear each other down. 

On 11/1/2024 at 4:47 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

That's always how it is.  Just a little bit more; and just a little bit more again, until suddenly--people are having their kids taken away for publicly questioning the efficacy of NHS doctors, or being sent to jail for silently praying at a place where an abortionist might see them and have sadz.  

But of course, not all conservatives are agreeing to detain and deport all illegals, either. 

Mass shootings--especially school shootings--are a tiny minority of the overall shootings in this country.  Progressives may tell us they don't actually want all of our guns; but there are two problems here:

• Progressives have a habit of lying about what they want until they're in a position to actually get it [e.g. government benefits, citizenship, and voting for illegal immigrants; gay marriage; unlimited elective abortion; transgender recruitment and porn in schools; racial quotas in school admissions and hiring; leveraging law enforcement authority to impose news blackouts on private media companies; coordination of prosecutions with friendly political campaigns; etc]; and
• this particular lie ("We'll stop when we get all the assault weapons.  Honest!") is a flagrantly unbelievable lie; because if a progressive wants to address the one-hundred-odd mass shooting deaths per year, then of course he'll also want to address the tens of thousands of non-mass shootings done by non-assault-weapons per year (because, what kind of monster wouldn't ?).    

 

Both of which were gun-free zones.  At Sutherland Springs, the "good guy with the gun" was not inside the church; he attacked the shooter as the shooter exited.  (As I understand it, Texas law designated churches as gun-free zones until it was changed in 2019; so Willeford may have been exposing himself to legal liability had he entered the church to engage the murderer.)

If you haven't read Larry Correia's MonsterHunterNation.com post about gun control, I highly recommend it.  He's kind of a potty-mouth, so I won't link to it here; but he does engage with the "reloading" scenario.  Google and ye shall find. 

Only one last comment  I personally do not like Larry Correia.  I won't get into details as that would not be appropriate, but due to my dislike, I have not read his books.  I'd also probably dissuade someone (only based on my personal feelings, so no facts, no anything more) from buying or reading his books. 

This has nothing to do with his thoughts on gun control (I haven't ever had a discourse to see what those are with him in any way).  I may even agree with his ideas on gun control.  This is more of me just not liking the guy for other reasons. 

[Phoenix_person]

57 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Have there been things that Conservatives have proposed that have led to worse outcomes

I recently watched a docuseries on Netflix on the recommendation of a state rep I sometimes cross paths with: How to Change Your Mind by Michael Pollan*. In it, he explains the medical research going on around psychedelic drugs to get people (including devout Christians) deeper in touch with their spirituality and heal the mind. Given my recent history, that last bit strikes a chord with me. He also hashes out the history of these drugs in the DEA's scheduling system and the ways the "War on Drugs" (fueled by conservative hysteria) harmed third world populations, especially indigenous ones, and likely set the psychiatry field back decades. To be clear, he's not making a case for full legalization of psychedelic drugs, nor am I. But the deeper I dig into it, the more I think that the "War on Drugs" played a significant hand in creating today's mental health crisis. The good news is that medical use is gaining traction again. The VA has already been given the green light to use MDMA (recreationally known as Ecstacy or molly) in a supervised clinical setting to treat PTSD. I'm having a conversation with my VA psychiatrist next week about that very topic.

*Pollan's name is what really got my attention. He's written several books about nutrition, healthy eating, and the ways food shape our physiology. In Defense of Food radically transformed the way I looked at cooking and partially inspired my short stint in culinary school in 2009. So as soon my former state rep mentioned his name, he had my attention.

[mirkwood]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Only one last comment  I personally do not like Larry Correia.  I won't get into details as that would not be appropriate, but due to my dislike, I have not read his books.  I'd also probably dissuade someone (only based on my personal feelings, so no facts, no anything more) from buying or reading his books. 

This has nothing to do with his thoughts on gun control (I haven't ever had a discourse to see what those are with him in any way).  I may even agree with his ideas on gun control.  This is more of me just not liking the guy for other reasons. 

 

Kind of pointless to have brought up.

 

I've met Larry a couple times.  Nice enough guy in my interactions.  His Monster Hunter series is great if you like urban fiction.

 

I agree with his gun control stance.

[NeuroTypical]

7 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

the "War on Drugs" (fueled by conservative hysteria)

Oof.  @Phoenix_person, I like you because you show plenty of signs of being a reasonable, thoughtful person.  My opinion is not changing.  Please keep that in mind when I say that whoever taught you US history should be ashamed of themselves.

https://time.com/6340590/drug-war-politics-history/

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/17/1006495476/after-50-years-of-the-war-on-drugs-what-good-is-it-doing-for-us

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/06/17/war-drugs-turns-50-today-its-time-make-peace/

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2000-democratic-party-platform

Some excerpts from the Dem party platform in 2000:

We will reform a justice system that spills half a million prisoners back onto our streets each year - many of them addicted to drugs, unrehabilitated, and just waiting to commit another crime.

We have to test prisoners for drugs while they are in jail, treat them for addictions, and break up the drug rings inside our prison system. Drug and alcohol abuse are implicated in the crimes of 80 percent of the criminals behind bars. Al Gore believes we should make prisoners a simple deal: get clean to get out, stay clean to stay out. And this deal should be non-negotiable.

 

Fighting the Scourge of Drugs and Gangs.

We should send a strong message to every American child: drugs are wrong, and drugs can kill you. We need to dry up drug demand, hold up drugs at the border, and break up the drug rings that are spreading poison on our streets. We should open more drug courts, to speed justice for drug-related crimes; double the number of drug hot-spots where we aggressively target our enforcement efforts; expand drug treatment for at-risk youth; and make sure that all of our school zones are drug-free zones - by stiffening the penalties to those who would use children to peddle drugs, and those who would sell drugs anywhere near our schools. We know that to dry up drug demand, we must provide drug treatment upon demand. To empower communities protect themselves from organized criminal conduct, the Democrats support giving communities relief against gang related crimes. We should be tough on drugs no matter which form they take and should not discriminate in sentencing.

[Phoenix_person]

48 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oof.  @Phoenix_person, I like you because you show plenty of signs of being a reasonable, thoughtful person.  My opinion is not changing.  Please keep that in mind when I say that whoever taught you US history should be ashamed of themselves.

https://time.com/6340590/drug-war-politics-history/

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/17/1006495476/after-50-years-of-the-war-on-drugs-what-good-is-it-doing-for-us

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/06/17/war-drugs-turns-50-today-its-time-make-peace/

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2000-democratic-party-platform

Some excerpts from the Dem party platform in 2000:

We will reform a justice system that spills half a million prisoners back onto our streets each year - many of them addicted to drugs, unrehabilitated, and just waiting to commit another crime.

We have to test prisoners for drugs while they are in jail, treat them for addictions, and break up the drug rings inside our prison system. Drug and alcohol abuse are implicated in the crimes of 80 percent of the criminals behind bars. Al Gore believes we should make prisoners a simple deal: get clean to get out, stay clean to stay out. And this deal should be non-negotiable.

 

Fighting the Scourge of Drugs and Gangs.

We should send a strong message to every American child: drugs are wrong, and drugs can kill you. We need to dry up drug demand, hold up drugs at the border, and break up the drug rings that are spreading poison on our streets. We should open more drug courts, to speed justice for drug-related crimes; double the number of drug hot-spots where we aggressively target our enforcement efforts; expand drug treatment for at-risk youth; and make sure that all of our school zones are drug-free zones - by stiffening the penalties to those who would use children to peddle drugs, and those who would sell drugs anywhere near our schools. We know that to dry up drug demand, we must provide drug treatment upon demand. To empower communities protect themselves from organized criminal conduct, the Democrats support giving communities relief against gang related crimes. We should be tough on drugs no matter which form they take and should not discriminate in sentencing.

1) I'm a leftist, not a Democrat.

2) The War on Drugs was officially started by Nixon in 1971. It makes sense that it would be wreaking quite a bit of havoc on our justice system after 30 years. It doesn't excuse the words and actions of centrist/conservative Dems of the time, but it's important to understand that their complicity in the war on poor people didn't exist in a vacuum. It was the result of years of very bad policy that, as very bad policies tend to do, snowballed into an entirely new crisis of mental health and imprisonment.

3) It's no secret that Republicans and Democrats were essentially the same party in a lot of ways in the years following the Dixiecrat defection. The Dems of the 80s, 90s, and early 00s (including Biden) have taken plenty of heat over the years for their reluctance to embrace judicial reform. It's a major reason why a lot of leftists, myself included, had Biden pretty far down our list in the '20 primary, which is probably why he chose a VP candidate who was both a WOC and a criminal prosecutor (who also didn't perform well with leftists). If you're expecting me to defend the Democratic Party, especially the things they stood for 20+ years ago, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Because as it turns out, history was always one of my favorite subjects. I'm a leftist for that reason, and I try to maintain a healthy distrust of the Dem/DFL Party for that reason as well. Heck, I stopped phonebanking for them because they refused to give me any kind of guidance to address questions about Gaza, which we've been getting pretty regularly. I'm still going to be grinding over the next few says, but strictly for state/municipal races. I very much want Kamala to win, and I already cast my 26 votes for her (🤪), but it seems like the party is at risk of moving further from my values, not closer.

But then, people don't seem to care much about what leftists think. And honestly, I kinda get it.

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

Fair enough.   I just need to remember that for leftists such as yourself, when you look out the window, the whole world is to the right of you.  And that has historically meant Democrats too. 

It's just that for the vast majority of Americans, there are enough current and historical differences between conservatives and liberals, dems and reps, that a statement like "the War on Drugs (fueled by conservative hysteria)" is gonna raise some eyebrows.  Historically, the D and R, the C and L, have competed with each other for decades on who could win more votes by being considered more strong on waging the war on drugs.   I was raised by a blue dog union Democrat, and remember endless griping about how the republicans were liars because they claimed it was Nixon's war on drugs, when the truth was the Dems were really against it and the R was just lying about being against it.

Eventually the rhetoric stopped winning votes for the Dems, and they spun on an Orwellian dime and became the "conservative hysteria" pointer-outers.

Edited November 4 by NeuroTypical

[Just_A_Guy]

16 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Actually, much of the Constitution is about compromises from multiple sides of the field.  There were those that felt the Amendment idea was too open, and others who felt it wasn't open enough in changing the Constitution.  The ideas that some had about what should be in the Constitution at times were highly contested (for example, the Bill of Rights).

Anti-Federalists in many instances were uncomfortable with the items that Federalists were pushing, and in fact would have had a very different way of handling the Constitution's articles if they had the power.  Some of them would have desired to have the ability to have the Constitution rewritten (some...almost immediately) on a regular basis. 

Opposing this would be the Federalist which felt that they needed stronger governments and stronger writing on what our basis of government should be.  Some of them did not even want the Amendments included and were opposed to what Anti-Federalists were demanding (in what eventually would become the Bill of Rights). 

Amendments were included as a possibility, but the items in the Bill of Rights were not.  As the story goes, only under threat of non-ratification of the Constitution did some of the Federalists eventually relent in seeing the wisdom in accepting these amendments.

Overall, neither side got what they wanted.  They had to compromise (something our government should learn more about these days) to build a founding document that has withstood the test of time.  Working together they forged this Constitution that has created our great nation of today. 

I don't disagree about the need for compromise.  I do disagree with the notion that the framers wrote an amendment process into the Constitution but didn't expect that it would need to be followed if folks wanted to present the document as meaning something other than what it said.  Take your example of the Bill of Rights:  Yes, there was compromise, through a process; the terms of which were outlined in the document itself.  

Quote

I'd not say that the progressives are terrible and conservatives are great either.  Without the progressives we'd still have jim-crow laws, segregation, we'd have interracial marriage outlawed, we'd still have states which probably would make it so that Asian-Americans (even full blooded Americans who were born and raised in the US but had Asian backgrounds) could not own land or property in some states, Religious Discrimination against LDS in the Southern States, etc...etc...etc). 

50 years ago we still had places with segregation still in place, woman unable to have bank accounts (barely, they were finally allowed to in 1974), and lead in gasoline (which has been shown to have had an effect on mood, IQ, and behavior within those who were exposed to it, such as those along highways and other locales). 

I'd say a lot of the changes in society are far more complex than a simple conservative vs. liberal ideology.  It has to do a lot with the growing power of the media, the increased ability of bad actors to interact with our population (via internet exchanges like tiktok, facebook, or other social media), and the popularization of entertainment mediums such as hollywood, thus giving certain groups of people with agendas far more power and sway over younger generations than we've had in the past. 

Are there things that the liberals have proposed which conservatives probably will say have led to worse outcomes (Rock & Roll for instance, or promiscuity as portrayed in film and TV)...absolutely.  Have there been things that Conservatives have proposed that have led to worse outcomes (allowing government who have no medical training or education to dictate to doctors what they can or cannot do in regards to womans health, or to make the US healthcare system one of the most expensive in the world with less return then some third world nations)...absolutely.

We can all complain about the other side, the question I think is what I said above.  We are too busy pointing fingers and not working together enough.  We need to find a way to compromise between both sides to build up America rather than constantly trying to tear each other down. 

You'll note, perhaps, that I picked the figure of "50 years" (ie, since 1974) very carefully.  Segregation was not legal in 1974.  And I would argue that many of the things you cite were created by progressives in the first place who were bucking the meaning of the Constitution's plain text.  

I think most of the changes over the past fifty years, specifically, have been primarily on conservative-versus-liberal lines.  The media trends have moved overwhelmingly towards secularization and social liberalism; and the movers and shakers in those industries have been overwhelmingly Democrats.  As you say, conservatives haven't been 100% right; particularly on environmental issues. 

That said:  I don't think stopping a government-mandated holocaust of infants is a bad thing, even if some state abortion regimens need some refinement to clarify the FUD about when abortions are or aren't medically necessary (which FUD is often created by abortionists themselves--see, e.g., the sad case of Amber Thurman, who could have gotten a perfectly legal DNC and who in fact would probably be alive today if the FDA hadn't rammed through approvals of the abortion pill in the first place).  And the US healthcare system--certainly since 2010, and really for a long time before that--is the opposite of the free market that conservatives have long been advocating for. 

I understand being tired of finger-pointing and the longing for a more cooperative political era.  But frankly, JJ--as I point out in my last post, we've been burned by fifty years of working with progressives; because progressives lie about what their true agendas are and because at this point it's become painfully obvious that "working together" is more or less Demspeak for "yield up unto this my people, your cities, your lands, and your possessions, rather than that they should visit you with the sword and that destruction should come upon you."  If the left came up with solutions to these Very Pressing Social Problems (many of which exist primarily in urban areas where their side already has nearly absolute power) that didn't entail me compromising my own or my family's stability, security, resources, and/or general liberty, then I would be happy to bless their efforts and quit asking inconvenient questions about just whose policies created the current mess.  But as long as the left keeps insisting upon their moral authority to govern me, I'm going to keep pointing out what incompetent (not to say malicious) governors they've proven themselves to be.  

[Phoenix_person]

8 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Fair enough.   I just need to remember that for leftists such as yourself, when you look out the window, the whole world is to the right of you.  And that has historically meant Democrats too. 

That's true, but less true than it was even 8 years ago. A lot of the liberals who bought into Obama's "Hope and Change" spiel ended up disappointed and moving further left, closer to the Occupy movement that protested the 2012 DNC. Leftist ideas have saturated the voter base at various parts of the "left of center" spectrum. Remember, we didn't think full gay marriage legalization would happen when we elected Obama. I'm not voting for a person. I'm voting for a platform. I'm voting for what I hope we can accomplish with Kamala, much of which I know we won't accomplish with Trump. Yes, I'm a leftist. Yes, there are socialist policy ideas that I wish the DFL/DNC would adopt, but know they probably won’t in my lifetime. I've also been on the front lines of the Dem electoral machine in two states, one of them notoriously red, post-Obama. The Democratic Party is going leftist. It's clear as crystal. The liberals in the party will get hung up on some of the leftist stances (see: Gaza, "missing middle", DEI) while embracing others (see: health care reform, abortion rights, LGB rights). But the needle is moving left. Progress moves slowly, but it moves nonetheless. 

8 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

It's just that for the vast majority of Americans, there are enough current and historical differences between conservatives and liberals, dems and reps, that a statement like "the War on Drugs (fueled by conservative hysteria)" is gonna raise some eyebrows.  Historically, the D and R, the C and L, have competed with each other for decades on who could win more votes by being considered more strong on waging the war on drugs.   I was raised by a blue dog union Democrat, and remember endless griping about how the republicans were liars because they claimed it was Nixon's war on drugs, when the truth was the Dems were really against it and the R was just lying about being against it.

Republicans aren't immune from liberal ideas, nor are Democrats immune from conservative ones. That's why I prefer to be known as a leftist rather than a Democrat despite the fact that I actively volunteer for the party. The truth is that the war on drugs was the result of the pharmaceutical industry picking winners and losers in the drug market. One of their prize stallions is one of the few that's legitimately dangerous, so now the "War on Drugs" has become "The Opioid Crisis". And one of our best weapons against it is a plant that interacts with our endocannabinoid systems to help our bodies heal in a variety of ways. You want to know how the left can similtaneously be pro-vaccine and anti-"Big Pharma"? There it is. Where it gets sticky is the fact that the pharm industry has a lot of money in a lot of pockets in both parties, as do other health care industries. This means that both parties have a perceived fiduciary obligation to the *real* people who engineered the war on drugs, the opioid crisis, AND the mental health crisis.

Money is the root of all evil and both political parties are corrupted by it. If Nixon hadn't started the war on drugs, it's just as likely that Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford would have. They were all servants to the donor class that pulls the strings on most of our government's doings. A lot of today's Democrats are fighting from within the party to claim our government back from these modern-day secret combinations. Can you say the same of your party? If you had asked me 6 months ago if there was anything that could make me LESS likely to vote for Trump, it would be the richest man on the planet "jumping around, skipping like a dip💩" (Coach Walz's words, not mine) at a Trump rally. And, well....

 

8 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Eventually the rhetoric stopped winning votes for the Dems, and they spun on an Orwellian dime and became the "conservative hysteria" pointer-outers.

Well, you're not wrong. And now Republicans are slowly starting to realize that anti-drug rhetoric may not be a winning strategy with their base. Hopefully that means bipartisan progress in cannabis legalization and reclassification of certain psychedelics. 

[JohnsonJones]

On 11/3/2024 at 9:59 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I understand being tired of finger-pointing and the longing for a more cooperative political era.  But frankly, JJ--as I point out in my last post, we've been burned by fifty years of working with progressives; because progressives lie about what their true agendas are and because at this point it's become painfully obvious that "working together" is more or less Demspeak for "yield up unto this my people, your cities, your lands, and your possessions, rather than that they should visit you with the sword and that destruction should come upon you."  If the left came up with solutions to these Very Pressing Social Problems (many of which exist primarily in urban areas where their side already has nearly absolute power) that didn't entail me compromising my own or my family's stability, security, resources, and/or general liberty, then I would be happy to bless their efforts and quit asking inconvenient questions about just whose policies created the current mess.  But as long as the left keeps insisting upon their moral authority to govern me, I'm going to keep pointing out what incompetent (not to say malicious) governors they've proven themselves to be.  

The problem is not just a left/right problem.  It's big corps and big money that pits people against each other that is the problem.  It's the distractions the adversary has set up for us so that no matter what we choose, we will chose his way over the Lord's way. 

I don't normally favor one side or the other (actually, that's not entirely truthful, I actually tend to favor Libertarians and Republicans over the rest, and a lot of that is due to my own selfish ideas of right and wrong, for example, restricting the rights of some because I feel those things are immoral that they are trying to push through and to allow themselves to do, but that does not necessarily make it the correct thing for me to choose). 

Even more important things, as Christians, should we not be concerned with ensuring that all are fed, all are housed, and that all can then receive the gospel of Jesus Christ?  We should be concerned more with helping people accept the gospel of their own free will.  Forcing people to live the gospel was the opposite of the Plan of Salvation.   However, helping our fellow man and trying to inspire them to accept the gospel and live it of their own free will can go very well with the gospel. 

When dealing with the general parties and their general trends of political impetuses...I feel that the Republicans today have very little in the realm of charity, mercy, or love.  On the otherhand I feel that the Democrats have very little in the realm of Morality, Chastity, or Propriety.  Both miss the bigger themes of which we, as Christians should be focused on. 

If we truly love the gay neighbor next door, we probably want them to be happy.  When we make choices, will our choices make our neighbors happy or sad?  If we want them to have freedom, shouldn't we allow them to have the ability to choose what will make them happy, even if we personally feel it is wrong?  Or should we force them to live the gospel principals (which will probably just make them bitter and hate Christianity, or our particular brand at least) against their will?

What is the right choice?  Should it even Be a choice?  Should that even be a topic of discussion.  Perhaps the more important thing to notice is that our Gay Neighbor is currently starving due to not being able to secure a good enough job to eat correctly, is behind on their house payment, and is sleeping in the cold because they can't afford the utility bills that would come with heating their house.

These are far more pressing issues, but instead of addressing those, we, and they are so concerned about fighting it out about morality or who is right and who is wrong that we ignore the bigger picture.  We are too busy pointing fingers and accusing one another of being too far left, or too far right, to simply love each other enough to try to find the Christian solution to things that are far bigger than what orientation or gender someone is or is claiming to be.

I don't think Christians are necessarily Republican or Democrat.  I find that trying to define a Christian by political party is not something the Lord would want us to do.  In fact, he may even be more of the mind of Washington who warned against us doing exactly what we are doing with our political system today in the US.  It should not be a binary decision or choice.  It should more be one where we consider what the Lord would do and how he would approach the matter.

I of course, speak as a hypocrite because even I do not do this, but I understand (and perhaps that makes me even worse of a  hypocrite than others) that he would want us to love and care about others just as much as we care about ourselves, and that is something neither party truly does completely. 

So, yes, I'm going to disagree with anyone who says it's all the Democrats doing bad things and the Republicans doing good things, or vice versa, because I do not see it in that fashion.  It's not just you and accusing Democrats, it's goes multiple directions in what I would disagree.  I can see the good that each party has done (but focused on the left in this case due to the direction of the discussion), but I also can see the bad.  Neither are truly followers of Christ, but we, as Christians should strive to be, even if we already know we probably will fail (as we are imperfect humans and imperfect mortals). 

 

[Carborendum]

UPDATE:

Wilson v Hawaii.pdf

@Just_A_Guy, I really can't make sense of this legalese.

Thomas and Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, urging a SCOTUS review.  But the majority wrote an opinion that says Hawaii messed up, but they (SCOTUS) are not going to correct it.  This doesn't make sense to me.

Apparently, this really had no effect on Constitutional carry, as originally reported.  And Hawaii just passed a new law changing from "may issue" to "shall issue."  So, it may make the initial case moot.  But the principles at stake here are still being argued and resisted.