re: SCOTUS (9-0): You can now own firearms and weed without reprecussions...

Thanks for the reply, cubbies.

quote:

---

It’s a survival instinct.

---

Right. An innate understanding that you own yourself, that you have a right to protect your life.

But, I won't drag us down a philosophical hole here, just wanted to get your take.

Don't know if you've ever read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat, but he had an amazing way of describing the Natural Law and the consequences of abandoning those principles. It's only like 50 pages long, but every page was an epiphany when I read it.

He understood economics incredibly well, human nature, and was basically Thomas Sowell 100 years before Thomas Sowell because of how easily he broke down supposedly complex issues, like the law itself.

Anyway, I don't think it's by random chance that societies all over the planet have improved dramatically when they have adopted principles largely based on the principles of Natural Law. Never perfect, obviously, but the more individual and their property rights are secured, the better off those societies become. Getting back the gun issue, if everyone was allowed to protect their property, their lives, their family and friends lives w/ lethal, overwhelming force, I truly believe we'd have a much more peaceful, considerate, and charitable society.

Just my opinion based a few people I know, non violent felons should be able to get their 2A rights restored. Obviously you don't want someone with 35 arrests getting a gun. But there are folks who have turned their shite around and deserved a chance to be made whole.

They've done plenty of surveys on prisoners about this. They just do not target people who they believe have guns. Imagine if they believed everyone had a gun. Not saying crimes wouldn't still happen, but it would massively curtail it.

I 100% agree w/ you that culture matters a ton. I'm just saying that if individual rights and property rights (just an extension of individual rights) are protected through overwhelming force, people, regardless of culture, will get the picture in a hurry.

Societies don't suffer because they get freer. They suffer when government continues to stomp on more and more of their rights.

quote:

---

My guy, trust me when I say, my field is strickly for recreational purposes.

---

quote:

---

According to the Constitution, yes.

---

First of all, that's not true—you are ignoring the "well-regulated" part.

But even if it were true, if you're going to take that much of a literalist interpretation of the Constitution, then the only form of communication that is protected by the first Amendment is an actual verbal utterance, the 4th amendment doesn't protect your privacy with regard to anything you type on your computer or your phone, the First Amendment would mean that no one could prohibit a crowd from gathering on your lawn or in your bedroom to peacefully protest, the Seventh Amendment would prohibit someone from receiving a new trial in the event that new evidence was brought to bear, the Ninth Amendment would prohibit people from being compelled to serve on a jury, and the Tenth Amendment would see to it that about a zillion powers that the federal government have taken would return back to the states.

I do not believe that you interpret the Constitution that way. I won't believe it even if you straight up claim that you do.

So why trolling on this one Amendment?

quote:

---

I do not believe that you interpret the Constitution that way. I won't believe it even if you straight up claim that you do.

---

I am participating in more of a thought exercise than debating my firmly held Constitutional principles.

Truthfully, I think it’s silly that we look to this 300-year-old document as some sort of sacred Gospel. The people who wrote it couldn’t possibly fathom the world we live in today so applying the archaic language and philosophies presented in it to modern dilemmas makes very little sense to me. I understand there needs to be some guiding framework for government and government restrictions, I just wonder if this one has run it’s course.

quote:

---

So why trolling on this one Amendment?

---

how do you define trolling?

Ngl, I never got a legal weed card because of this very reason.

quote:

---

haven't thought of a situation where I believe denying voting rights is justifiable yet.

---

How about accepting financial benefits from the government? It seems to be a fairly simple case to be made that when someone receives money from the gov, turning left or right can be influenced by the $. Of course, when you get off the gov nut, your right to vote should be restored.

Simple is best. Are you currently receiving government benefits in the form of welfare? Yes? Sorry, your voting rights have been suspended. Please return to cast your vote in the election after the payments are suspended.

The slippery slope you're introducing with your argument is that you want to restrict tax paying citizens the use of infrastructure based on the tax dollars paid? How WOULD that be done? Really? C'mon, Cubbies...that's ABSURD.