The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-18-2020, 02:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Dude, the second amendment was outdated practically from the time it was put on paper. It remains only because it appeals to macho symbolism and because of the power of the rural and southern states in our constitution. I don't care about gun rights. But those who believe in them should be willing to accept regulations on their use and possession, or would you have there be no regulations on driving either? And no libel laws? Or perhaps you want "freedom" for a religion whose leaders molest children? I know your side wants "freedom" for religions to discriminate against gays.

If Trump wins, it will indeed be a time to consider jumping off some bridges, or at least burn a few bridges behind us and revolt in some way. That's how serious it is that folks like yourself have been swept up in this cult and can't see the threat that Crump poses to our republic and all of our lives.

And is there nothing sacred? Trump wants to put himself up on Mt. Rushmore too!

Several points.

The wording of the Second states the right shall not be infringed.  This forbids regulation.  Any attempt to infringe the Second would bounce out of any textual court that pays attention to what is written.

Driving is not a protected Constitutional right.  There is nothing in the constitution which limits the sovereign states from regulating driving.  Yes, the US is based on a bunch of sovereign states which cede specific powers to a federal government which is not sovereign. Thus, you commonly see state police policing federal interstates.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr put in a place a doctrine that a right does not grant the ability to harm another or infringe on another’s rights.  This principle is applied to having both free speech and libel laws.  You are granted a right to speak freely, but to be responsible while doing so not to harm others.  The ability to own or carry a weapon has been ruled by the courts to not infringe on another’s rights.  Actually using the weapon to commit crimes like theft, assault or murder would harm others.

This also applies to a freedom of religion to harm children.  A right does not grant an ability to harm or restrict the rights of another.  Thus, you do not have a right to harm children.  

Somehow, you do have a limited right to discriminate against gays.  If you are running a church or a private club, granting membership according to a sexual or racial prejudice is allowed.  One recent example was the country club that hosts The Masters golf tournament.  It is legal to ban female members, as they did for a long time.  If the people and the PGA make enough noise, it may not be prudent, but it is legal.  Solution?  Invite a woman who lives far away and doesn’t play golf to become a member.

If you are providing goods or services to the public, though, you are not acting as a church or private club.  Then you can get into trouble for discrimination.

And as Mt. Rushmore is a federal monument, Trump might be able to issue orders to modify it.  Then again, it costs money which the congress would have to approve.  I’m not worried about it.  Nothing is apt to get done now before the election and there are other things more important to worry about.

This post is an example of how blue people try to void the law in argument without knowing the law.  They make arguments which are frankly silly once you dig into things some.  Generally, you don’t force me again and again to say what the law actually is.  Still, occasionally you insist on repeating your badly flawed arguments.