Well, they are underage.
Nobody considers children to be people. Don’t fuck with me Reasonable.
In other countries, like mine, guns are heavily restricted, yet chillrens from the age of 10 have no problem getting them, so strike 2.
I get it that you want to make guns illegal. But do you have to be dishonest to do it?
I would like, out of politeness and manners, for you to acknowledge that you came in here demanding that the very second amendment of no less than the US constitution said, in plain text, something different than it does.
And, if you are brave, I would like you to admit that you did it on purpose, for political agendas.
If you don’t like people, all adults, all of them, obviously that aren’t in jail, having the right to keep and carry arms, that’s something else.
And there are mechanisms, in the constitution, for repealing amendments.
But don’t try to shit on our faces Rease. The law is that they can.
i don’t want to make guns illegal and come on man you have to be dishonest to get anything done in politics dont single me out
are we even going by the constitution anymore what about emoluments
Just in case you decide to edit this later.
Yeah, asshole, the constitution is the highest law in the land, the one that all other laws yield to if there is a contradiction.
so what about emoluments or are we treating the constitution the way people do the bible
We are treating the constitution the way judges do: like the most basic, fundamental law.
You see, in law, there often happens that two laws contradict eachother. The way a judge decides which applies and which is illegal is they look at which outranks the other.
And the constitution trumps everything. That is why amending it is difficult, though it has been done. It is the basis, the constitutional document, of the law of the United States.
i remember a bunch of legal phl classes about this im saying why is the 2a so important but emoluments not
The law isn’t about priorities. It is about strict rank.
The constitution outranks any other law. If you don’t like a constitutional law, you cannot just pass a new law to abolish it. You have to amend the constitution itself.
i think that kids rights to guns should not be infringed and that public officials shouldn’t be allowed to profit from their office since i love the constitution did you see trump hawking goya beans
tell this to prolife red states that keep spending millions in taxpayer $ every year to try and get a case to scotus to overturn roe they want to legislate their way out of established precedent
Put it in the constitution, then.
You can definitely overturn established precedent. You can even overturn the constitution.
You just have to do it legally.
Me and phoneutria were having a discussion a while back, about why judges should all of them be people that consider their job to be to obey the law and enforce it as written, not to interpret it with a preexisting bias.
She insisted there has to be a balance, between Democrat appointees and Republican ones. Because there has to be a balance. This thread is why that is a mistake.
Just to remind you of the main idea why Democrats cannot be allowed near judge appointments:
Trump’s appointees aren’t perfect human beings. And they may not every time manage to be perfectly objective. But, unlike Democrat appointees, they actually honestly believe their job to be to follow the law as it was written, not to interpret based on a preexisting bias. Again, they may have biases of their own, that isn’t the point being made. The point being made is that at the very fucking least they have to think of that as their jobs.
Otherwise it’s just Soviet Russia, or Venezuela. The law is just a kind of religious artifact to be waved in one’s hand as one does what one pleases.
Judges don’t make laws. You don’t get to ignore one because you don’t like it.
Lawmakers make laws.
its already there thats my whole point