Critical Thinking

Apply all gun laws to voting, then tell me it’s ok. A right is a right is a right. Whether you like it or not. If they can infringe on any rights then they can infringe on them all.

Like the right to abortion? if the gun laws are voted for, then it's fine. But if you claim that gun laws are infringements, doesn't that include the 2nd amendment? Because technically, that's a gun law.

Abortion isn’t a right. It’s not in the constitution. Roe vs wade was overturned. Try to keep up. The constitution isn’t a law. It’s the framework of the country. There is a special process for amending the constitution. Take a civics class cause you have no ides what you’re talking about.

Yes, Les, and the great Ronald Reagan was right as well when he said, “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

It was a right untill it was stolen by the government. The first ten amendments, as with all others, are in the bill of RIGHTS not the constitution. Abortion was a right. Then the idiots in charge (i hate all politicians) overturned it, making abortion illegal in some states, taking away a right from the people

"It was a right untill it was stolen by the government."

"The first ten amendments, as with all others, are in the bill of RIGHTS not the constitution."

Wow... just wow, smdh. I'm starting to think our educational system has failed you, because you post so many things that are either just flat out wrong, or make no logical sense.

I think a remedial civics course may be in order, but for now I'll just point out that the SCOTUS decides if a law is constitutional or not. Your buy-in on that is not necessary for it to be true.

Also, in spite of your statement to the contrary, the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. In fact, all the amendments to the Constitution are part of the Constitution. That's why they're amendments *TO* the Constitution.

If they're not amendments to the Constitution... what are they amendments to? What are they amending?

It's sad that you're seemingly unaware that amendments are the mechanism the founders provided for changing the Constitution, which as Les accurately points out is a framework. If it weren't a framework, but a law as you incorrectly stated regarding the 2nd amendment, then the law could be re-written by politicians (congress) and signed into law by a politician (POTUS).

But the founders set up THREE equal branches of govt, not two, because being the smart people they were, they knew politicians could not be trusted to do what's legal.

So if you don't like the 2nd Amendment, then start the work necessary to have it rescinded. If you don't like the SCOTUS saying abortion is a state issue and not a federal issue, then start the work to pass an amendment that codifies the right to abortion.

That's how it works. So have some fun and get to it!

Bro, i never said the bill of rights didn't add on to the constitution, i said it wasn't the same thing. And technically it is still law! Warrants, double Jeopardy, quartering, etc, are laws. And i didn't say that i didn't like the second amendment, i said the flaw with your argument about gun laws being infringements was that gun laws can include ones keeping guns. I know that the founding fathers made it to add to the constitution, i know that the SCOTUS said that abortion was a state issue. I'm mainly saying the states ban on them. Like, the land of the free loves to make it the land of the free only for those who benefit.

"Bro, i never said the bill of rights didn't add on to the constitution..."

Bro, I never said you said that. I'm saying that you said: "The first ten amendments, as with all others, are in the bill of RIGHTS not the constitution."

That's a direct quote (hence the quotation marks) from your post (which is confirmed by the image I'm attaching to this reply) in which you clearly, obviously, distinguished the Bill of Rights and any additional amendments as being separate from the Constitution (when you used the word "not" right in front of the words "the constitution".)

So yeah, you said it.

"And technically it is still law!"

So now you're attempting to clarify by becoming less precise? But you're still not correct. As Les pointed out, the Constitution is the framework, not a law. It's used to determine *if* laws are Constitutional, but it's not a law. Hell, you know what? I don't care. I'll cede that point to you, because it's relatively unimportant compared to the other things you've stated as fact, which are in fact wrong.

Actually, after reading the rest of your post, I think I'll stop pestering you now. TBH, I'm having a very difficult time following any thread of logic or reasoning in how you write. I'm not saying you think that way, nor trying to insult you in any way, but since all we can do here is write to each other, there's really no point in me trying to respond.

If it determines what laws can and can't do, it's technically a law. End of story. Also, the bill of rights isnt the constitution, they are separate. It's like saying that the book and the universe within the book are the same. The bill of rights adds to the constitution, not Becomes the constitution. I don't see how you don't understand what I'm saying. And the fact that you've come all this way, without even addressing my original point. Gun laws is so broad that it includes ones that allow, and deny things to do with guns.

What kind of logic dictates that if "gun laws are wrong" that "shootings should be legal and unpunished"?

If you can explain that, and how any political party has advocated for that, I'd be interested in listening.

But until then, I just have to go with: 'nobody could make up anything less coherent.'