Tracking Earth's Future via Current Events, etc.

[Chaka-Z0]

Guns ARE a right, according to the Constitution of the US.

Of course, according to your people's interpretation that is based on an issue that was relevant... in 1790 -_-

"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."

Sad that the meaning and interpretation of this amendment has been twisted so much over the years that it became what it is today. Why not use medieval textbooks and apply it to our modern lives?

And now 228 years later, the US army, aka the feds, is the strongest military power in the World. Isn't that ironic?

[aretood2]

Guns ARE a right, according to the Constitution of the US.

According to the interpretation of the constitution. The Constitution clearly states that the right to bear arms is in relation to maintaining a well regulated militia, not personal ownership.

[Annoyed]

Of course, according to your people's interpretation that is based on an issue that was relevant... in 1790 -_-

"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."

Sad that the meaning and interpretation of this amendment has been twisted so much over the years that it became what it is today. Why not use medieval textbooks and apply it to our modern lives?

And now 228 years later, the US army, aka the feds, is the strongest military power in the World. Isn't that ironic?

According to the interpretation of the constitution. The Constitution clearly states that the right to bear arms is in relation to maintaining a well regulated militia, not personal ownership.

The first part states the rationale, and the 2nd part states that the right shall not be infringed.

I for one can't wait for the first 2nd amendment case to hit a properly constructed SCOTUS that reads the words in the constitution rather than embellishing them with their own spin.

There are a whole lot of liberal democrats in blue states (hello, Gov. Cuomo, how's that S.A.F.E act doing?) who are in for a cold shock.

Again and again and again, I cannot possibly stress the importance of judicial appointments. It is by far the most powerful branch of our govt.

And the left has no one but themselves to blame. The Democrats are the ones that elevated politicization of the SCOTUS to their current levels. Ever hear the term "Borked"? On the entire issue of judicial nominations, they are now reaping what they have sewn.

[Gatefan1976]

The first part states the rationale, and the 2nd part states that the right shall not be infringed.

The rationale provides the REASON why it should not be infringed, you simpleton.
However, you now do have a federal military, something that was FORBIDDEN whin the second amendment was written, so now you have destroyed the rationale, you still want the right.
Based on what?

I for one can't wait for the first 2nd amendment case to hit a properly constructed SCOTUS that reads the words in the constitution rather than embellishing them with their own spin.

There is no "spin", there is a totally different environment, and the law recognizes that.

There are a whole lot of liberal democrats in blue states (hello, Gov. Cuomo, how's that S.A.F.E act doing?) who are in for a cold shock.

Go live in a red state.

Again and again and again, I cannot possibly stress the importance of judicial appointments. It is by far the most powerful branch of our govt.

It was NEVER designed to be, but hey, screw what your FF wanted.

And the left has no one but themselves to blame. The Democrats are the ones that elevated politicization of the SCOTUS to their current levels. Ever hear the term "Borked"? On the entire issue of judicial nominations, they are now reaping what they have sewn.

Bork got "borked" for being a yes man in watergate, and Reagan still got to pick a right leaning justice, who was confirmed (Scalia, hardly a "leftist")
Once more you fail to see why opposing a -individual- on their merits is fine, and not an outright attack on the positions of one side or the other.

[Falcon Horus]

@Annoyed

I give you an abortion law:

The law authorizes women to obtain an abortion when they are feeling “distress” because of their pregnancy. The law does not define “distress” but it seems that it is interpreted in a very broad manner. Indeed, it appears that not feeling ready for a child is enough to qualify as “distress” under the law.

Abortions must be done before the end of the twelfth week after conception, and must be done by a medical doctor. Before performing the abortion, the doctor must inform the patient of the medical risks related to abortion, and must also inform her of options that would be available to her if she chose not to have an abortion, such as adoption. Furthermore, the law requires a six-day waiting period after the first consultation, before an abortion may be legally performed.

After the end of the twelfth week, an abortion is only legal if the pregnancy would seriously endanger the woman’s health, or if it is certain that the child would be born with a particularly serious health problem that is untreatable at the time of the diagnosis. The doctor must make this determination with the concurrence of another doctor.

No health care professional may be compelled to participate in an abortion. If a doctor refuses to perform an abortion, however, he/she must inform the patient of this refusal during the first consultation.

*** So yes... there's a perfect middle ground by not making the choice for someone else but letting them make the choice for themselves. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one, but you do not get to make that choice for every pregnancy in the world or land. You don't get to judge people for getting one because you have no idea what's hiding behind that choice.

I'm firmly pro-choice because it's none of my ******* business to decide on someone else's life.

Trump: Lies, Pride (Never asks God for forgiveness), Fornication, Adultery, Bribery, Foul language, Vindictiveness, Greed, pushes away the orphans, widows, and foreigners, divides families, finds that there are "good people" within neo-nazi groups, never reads the bible (you can tell by the way he speaks of it and quotes it), never attends Church, lascivious. He is no keeper of God's commandments. And this is just to name a few.

10th level of hell awaits... or wheverever people who talk during the film at the cinema and child molesters go.

[Annoyed]

@Annoyed

I give you an abortion law:

The law authorizes women to obtain an abortion when they are feeling “distress” because of their pregnancy. The law does not define “distress” but it seems that it is interpreted in a very broad manner. Indeed, it appears that not feeling ready for a child is enough to qualify as “distress” under the law.

Abortions must be done before the end of the twelfth week after conception, and must be done by a medical doctor. Before performing the abortion, the doctor must inform the patient of the medical risks related to abortion, and must also inform her of options that would be available to her if she chose not to have an abortion, such as adoption. Furthermore, the law requires a six-day waiting period after the first consultation, before an abortion may be legally performed.

After the end of the twelfth week, an abortion is only legal if the pregnancy would seriously endanger the woman’s health, or if it is certain that the child would be born with a particularly serious health problem that is untreatable at the time of the diagnosis. The doctor must make this determination with the concurrence of another doctor.

No health care professional may be compelled to participate in an abortion. If a doctor refuses to perform an abortion, however, he/she must inform the patient of this refusal during the first consultation.

*** So yes... there's a perfect middle ground by not making the choice for someone else but letting them make the choice for themselves. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one, but you do not get to make that choice for every pregnancy in the world or land. You don't get to judge people for getting one because you have no idea what's hiding behind that choice.

I'm firmly pro-choice because it's none of my ******* business to decide on someone else's life.



10th level of hell awaits... or wheverever people who talk during the film at the cinema and child molesters go.

And you thereby back the pro-choice side. That is not middle ground. For people like me, pro-choice is allowing murder for convenience. Do you see why I can't accept that? Do you condone murder?

There really is no middle ground on this issue. Which is exactly why I chose this issue for the question.

If child molesters go to the 10th level of Hell, what level to people who murder children go to?

[Chaka-Z0]

And you thereby back the pro-choice side. That is not middle ground. For people like me, pro-choice is allowing murder for convenience. Do you see why I can't accept that? Do you condone murder?

There really is no middle ground on this issue. Which is exactly why I chose this issue for the question.

If child molesters go to the 10th level of Hell, what level to people who murder children go to?

Middle ground is having laws, requirements, professionals involved and such to regulate abortion.

Black would be abortion can be done anywhere, anytime without any consequences.

White would be abortion cannot be done, on any grounds.

There is a fine line between abortion and murder, and the current regulations are working just fine to prevent that, in my humble opinion.

I think you're confusing concepts when you say there's no middle ground with this issue. There is no middle ground for the opinions of the people, that is true. Not for the regulations themselves. You could literally say that about anything in life.

There's no middle ground for war, either you're for or against it.

There's no middle ground for ... etc.

[Annoyed]

Middle ground is having laws, requirements, professionals involved and such to regulate abortion.

Black would be abortion can be done anywhere, anytime without any consequences.

White would be abortion cannot be done, on any grounds.

There is a fine line between abortion and murder, and the current regulations are working just fine to prevent that, in my humble opinion.

I think you're confusing concepts when you say there's no middle ground with this issue. There is no middle ground for the opinions of the people, that is true. Not for the regulations themselves. You could literally say that about anything in life.

There's no middle ground for war, either you're for or against it.

There's no middle ground for ... etc.

This discussion isn't really about abortion, I'm well aware that no one is going to change another's mind on that topic. It got started with FH claiming POTUS should pick a middle ground on an issue, because he is president of all the people, and I just chose abortion as the topic that renders that claim moot because there is no middle ground.

https://forum.gateworld.net/threads/...1#post14630167

[Gatefan1976]

This discussion isn't really about abortion, I'm well aware that no one is going to change another's mind on that topic. It got started with FH claiming POTUS should pick a middle ground on an issue, because he is president of all the people, and I just chose abortion as the topic that renders that claim moot because there is no middle ground.

https://forum.gateworld.net/threads/...1#post14630167

You chose it because you are using "Godwins law" of solutions, find the worst example, and have people argue against that.
It's exactly why you would never ask about the "how", but only the result.

[jelgate]

I thought we already proved the flaws that their is a middle ground

[Annoyed]

You chose it because you are using "Godwins law" of solutions, find the worst example, and have people argue against that.
It's exactly why you would never ask about the "how", but only the result.

We already know that I see things in a very black & white manner. The reason for that is that I firmly believe that shades of grey are feeble attempts to talk out of both sides of one's arse at the same time; to say one thing while doing another.

For folks who like to discuss politics and the utterances of politicians, I'm surprised you folks don't see that. It's also rampant in the world of corporatespeak. I swear, I'm convinced that a first year course in any business school has to be BS 101.

[Gatefan1976]

We already know that I see things in a very black & white manner. The reason for that is that I firmly believe that shades of grey are feeble attempts to talk out of both sides of one's arse at the same time; to say one thing while doing another.

For folks who like to discuss politics and the utterances of politicians, I'm surprised you folks don't see that. It's also rampant in the world of corporatespeak. I swear, I'm convinced that a first year course in any business school has to be BS 101.

Oh, we know you believe in black and white, but you are more than capable of calling black, white, because it's convenient for you.
In the real world, we call that grey.

[Chaka-Z0]

I swear, I'm convinced that a first year course in any business school has to be BS 101.

You got it all figured out buddy.

Gotta get em' stakeholders moneys!

Oh, we know you believe in black and white, but you are more than capable of calling black, white, because it's convenient for you.
In the real world, we call that grey.

Once again,

Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes!

[jelgate]

Black and White only works in simplistic scenarios.


Yep that checks out for Annoyed

[Annoyed]

You got it all figured out buddy.

Gotta get em' stakeholders moneys!



Once again,

Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes!

Darth Annoyed?