The General Chat Thread (2023)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Windigo said:
Well, with the recent ROE vs WADE situation I wouldn't say anything is impossible . Of course regulations would help.
Click to expand...

That "right" was not directly covered in the constitution. It was an interpretation of the constitution's intent. Actually changing our constitution is VERY difficult. Iw as intended to be difficult, so that the constitution wouldn't constantly change depending on who is in power, politically.

But, the overturn of Roe V Wade does point out that we have a conservative, Republican Supreme Court, so any future rulings on gun laws in this court will probably favor the Gun manufacturers and weaker gun laws.

CD
 
Lullabelle said:
Sadly no, she is so daft she would probably want to play with it :laugh:
Click to expand...

We have two feral cat's in the neighborhood now, and they are having a bit of a turf war. It would be nice to hav a second cat to keep the field rats under control.

CD
 
caseydog said:
That "right" was not directly covered in the constitution. It was an interpretation of the constitution's intent. Actually changing our constitution is VERY difficult. Iw as intended to be difficult, so that the constitution wouldn't constantly change depending on who is in power, politically.

But, the overturn of Roe V Wade does point out that we have a conservative, Republican Supreme Court, so any future rulings on gun laws in this court will probably favor the Gun manufacturers and weaker gun laws.

CD
Click to expand...

What it really points up is that there should be term limits. It's scary to know that the way the Court leans today is likely the way it will be leaning for the next several decades. Also, why did the framers of the Constitution think 90-year-old judges would be able to rationally rule on matters that affect the entire country?
 
TastyReuben said:
Well, back then, life expectancy was about 50, so they weren’t even thinking about that! :laugh:
Click to expand...

Likewise, there's a minimum age for becoming president (35), but no maximum age. There's no way they could have conceived of people routinely living into their 70s, much less the leaders of our country being that old.
 
TastyReuben said:
Well, back then, life expectancy was about 50, so they weren’t even thinking about that!
Click to expand...
And back in 1791, what with cowboys and outlaws and those bloody Brits marauding all over the place, I could understand "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." These days, that sentence is not only archaic and anachronistic, but also absurd. Fewer than 13% of the population owned guns, and the guns were so inaccurate, it was barely worth using them anyway. "Arms" also covers spears, axes, swords,pikes, halberds, bows and arrows and knives, which were probably more common at the time.
 
To make a point, in my previous post I said a future without violent shootings is impossible. But it's not true, we can do it, as we landed on the moon, what was considered impossible for thousands of years.

Instead of controlling the people, I would prefer to raise new generations of people who don't even think about killing each other. How? I've no idea, but there gotta be a way. Changing criminal energy into something productive isn't impossible
 
karadekoolaid said:
And back in 1791, what with cowboys and outlaws and those bloody Brits marauding all over the place, I could understand "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." These days, that sentence is not only archaic and anachronistic, but also absurd. Fewer than 13% of the population owned guns, and the guns were so inaccurate, it was barely worth using them anyway. "Arms" also covers spears, axes, swords,pikes, halberds, bows and arrows and knives, which were probably more common at the time.
Click to expand...

Ah, the second amendment. One sentence. The NRA and conservatives only quote the second part of that one sentence -- the part after the comma.

The framers of the constitution should have gone into more detail, but there was a battle between those who wanted a standing army, and those that didn't, so they compromised and glossed over it.

The separation of Church and State was controversial, even back then, so they glossed over that, too. So, we are still arguing over that today, too.

CD
 
PabloLerntKochen said:
To make a point, in my previous post I said a future without violent shootings is impossible. But it's not true, we can do it, as we landed on the moon, what was considered impossible for thousands of years.

Instead of controlling the people, I would prefer to raise new generations of people who don't even think about killing each other. How? I've no idea, but there gotta be a way. Changing criminal energy into something productive isn't impossible
Click to expand...

The internet is not helping. There are so many websites, forums and chat rooms that feed angry people with conspiracy theories, and tell people some "other" people are the reason "they" are suffering, in some way. "You are not succeeding because the (Asians, Mexicans, Jews, Back people, name your bogeyman) are stealing your country from you."

BTW, that is happening in Europe, too.

CD
 
caseydog said:
It's 44F here. About normal for January in North Texas. Maybe a touch warm.

CD
Click to expand...
It's a tad warm here but it's not going to last.

By Wednesday (?) next week we're back down to single figure nights again. Right though now I'd be happy if it dropped into the upper teens, it's still 25.5°C outside (28°C is 82F for reference) and its nearly 9pm. It's not going to be a great night for sleep. Neither was last night though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom