Heller, Bruen, etc., should be reversed

Being gay isn't the cause. See below:

One does not have to be gay to engage in drugs, promiscuity, sharing needles, so to say or imply that 'gay causes aids' reeks of bigotry, but it's certainly a false statement (you appear to be implying it) and so forth. This population was the entry point, which could have been elsewhere (and Africa, in regions that were poor in sanitation and nutrition, hunger, etc, and it developed concomitantly with needle sharers, ;prostitutes, other drug users, and the like.)

Demographics can increase the stat, but not 'identity' per se.

Gays don't kill people, AIDS kills people, which is not limited to any single group or behavior. It can affect anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, lifestyle, or socioeconomic status. Key factors and risk behaviors that can lead to HIV infection include:

HIV can be transmitted through unprotected sexual contact, which includes vaginal, anal, and oral sex. It's important to note that the risk isn't limited to any particular group based on sexual orientation or practices.

Sharing needles for drug injection is a high-risk behavior for HIV transmission. This is due to the direct exchange of blood, which can contain the virus.

People in poverty may face barriers to accessing healthcare, including HIV prevention and treatment services. This lack of access can increase vulnerability to HIV infection.

General health and nutrition status can affect an individual's susceptibility to HIV infection and progression to AIDS. A weakened immune system, for whatever reason, can make a person more susceptible to HIV.

Individuals with certain other diseases, such as tuberculosis or hepatitis, are more vulnerable to HIV infection. Co-infections can also accelerate the progression of HIV to AIDS

As for your miranda comment:

I think you need to understand that the commitment to saving lives by those who advocate for gun control is not contradictory to supporting constitutional protections for criminal defendants, as seen in landmark cases like Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona. The Bill of Rights is foundational to American law, ensuring fundamental rights and fair treatment for all individuals, including those accused of crimes. This principle of fairness and justice is a cornerstone of the legal system, separate from the debate over gun control.

Supporting constitutional rights for criminal defendants is about ensuring due process and fair trials (which means protecting YOU) which are key to maintaining a just society. It's a matter of upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights, not an indication of indifference to public safety or life preservation. In fact, many who advocate for gun control do so precisely because they value life and safety. They seek to implement measures to reduce gun violence and protect communities, which is a different aspect of public safety than the procedural protections afforded to individuals in the criminal justice system.

The belief in a fair justice system and the desire to reduce gun violence are not mutually exclusive. Both stem from a commitment to protect the rights and lives of individuals. It's possible to seek a balance where society can both uphold the rights of individuals in the justice system and take steps to reduce gun violence, thereby safeguarding communities. The issues are complex and multifaceted, and it's crucial to understand that advocating for one aspect of public safety and justice does not negate the importance or validity of the other.

 

They had a standing army at the same time as they had a militia.

 

I don't believe the avid gun restrictionists really are motivated by public safety because the laws they want to push are at best, extremely limited in increasing public safety but very effective in harassing honest gun ownership. Crap like registration, waiting periods, bans on certain guns and magazines are all designed to harass lawful gun owners. and why is this-because gun control was originally adopted-in large extent-by people who were being criticized for failing to crack down on criminals. that and the fact that many gun control advocates were virulent racists who wanted to disarm blacks, hispanics, asians or "papists"

 

Which doesn't negate the fact that they didn't want a standing army.

Teachinghistory.org

 

what they didn't want-and there is no denial of this-is a federal government with the power to restrict what arms private citizens could own. there is a school of thought that claims that what the founders were saying in the second was that a nation needs a well regulated militia to defend the country, and the citizens had to be armed to keep that well regulated militia in check. Nothing in the words of the second amendment can remotely be interpreted as pretending that the founders wanted the federal government to have gun control power

 

Don't try back pedaling now. You said they didn't have a standing army and Washington had the Continental army a good 12 years before The Constitution was ever written

 

Please point out where I said that.

 

what the founders didn't want was an unchecked standing army. one of the main purposes of the second was a check on a standing army and the central government

 

Which is what we have now.

 

Well, you're merely looking at it from the lens of someone who enjoys guns and are miffed should anyone want to even slightly burden them in their free use of them.

I use a different lens, And the lens I use says 'the right's obvious intent is to proliferate guns everywhere with no restrictions whatsover', which, my lens says is pure insanity.

 

sure

 

you don't understand the concept of burden

I don't know any gun owner who opposes laws against using firearms to improperly harm others or laws that ban using firearms in very risky or reckless ways. I don't know anyone who supports grade school kids buying firearms or carrying them to school. I don't know anyone who thinks violent felons should have guns. what we oppose are laws that are intended to burden lawful people and which are dishonestly pushed as "crime control". And your claim that the right wants no restrictions is clearly wrong. the problem is you ignore laws against using firearms to harm others as "gun control" and think the only laws that matter are ones that restrict harmless activity undertaken by lawful owners

 

All the more reason the people need to remain armed.
Thanks for supporting that.

 

Please point out where it says the right of the people in the Constitution means only the militia

 

yeah I don't know if he realized he was actually supporting our argument

 

or why "the people" has been interpreted as meaning individual rights in other parts of the first ten amendments-=or more importantly, since the militia is an ad hoc military force created only in response to an emergency, who is actually in the militia? claiming the right only vests for that brief period of service makes no sense whatsoever

 

If liberals don't want people to have guns that bad then I say give them what they want, if you are a liberal you should not have the right to own guns. Problem solved.

 

most of the liberals who own guns are already banned from owning them

 

Or if they own them legally they will certainly not tell their liberal buddies lest they be shunned.

 

Yes, there was a mistrust of 'standing armies', and a number of state's constitutions reflected that sentiment.

Thing is, that 'sentiment' is no longer relevant today. We no longer have the 'do not trust the military' sentiment any more, and any argument that relies on that sentiment to justify the second amendment is therefore MOOT.

One might say the following says the same thing or is just nuance of the same, but I would state it this way: The main purpose of the second was to prevent congress/the Prez from usurping state militias and subsuming them into the continental army (standing army). That, as I understand it, was the main focus of the arguments presented at the constitutional ratification convention round about 1787-88. This is evidenced by the reference to 'state' (instead of country) and 'militia', which clearly gives it a military context. Even the terms 'keep and bear arms', is historically used in a military context. Private citizens needed to 'keep and bear arms', FOR the militia. You don't keep and bear arms to hunt rabbit, deer, etc. The term 'keep and bear arms' connotes a region under attack, and folks rush to their gun lockers to grab their guns for their defence. "keep and bear" arms has a military defense/common defense connotation, and NOT a 'self defense and hunting' connotation. Now, they had 8 signatories to the ratification, and needed Virginia's signature. But, Virginia, representing the southern states, were also concerned about congress and the prez subsuming their militias, but they had another reason, they used their militias for patrols to prevent slaves from escaping and engaging in uprisings, for they had a plantation economy, mostly, down south. It could easily be argued that the second amendment had to be in the BOR in order to get Virginia's signature. There are a few books that detail this, but I haven't read them. I will, though, very soon. Now, sure, it could be applied to both military and individual., but I'm looking at the wording and the arguments presented to the convention, and the evolution of how the amendment was worded, reworded, until it's final wording.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constit...historical-background-of-the-second-amendment

The Second Amendment's language, focusing on 'a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' has been subject to extensive debate over whether it protects a collective right tied to militia service or an individual right to bear arms. Historically, the 'militia' was understood to comprise able-bodied males aged 18-45, as stated in early American laws. This interpretation seemed to be supported by the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller, which evaluated the right to bear arms in the context of militia service.

However, the understanding of the Second Amendment evolved over time. The landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller significantly shifted the interpretation by affirming an individual's right to possess firearms for lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, independent of service in a militia. This decision marked a resolution to the long-standing collective vs. individual rights debate but did not end the discussion or controversy surrounding gun rights in America.

Discussions about the Second Amendment's meaning have been influenced by various social, political, and legal factors. The National Rifle Association (NRA), especially under the leadership of Wayne LaPierre, played a role in shifting the public and legal discourse towards an individual rights interpretation. The movement advocated by the NRA and other groups contributed to a heightened focus on the issue, often accompanied by concerns about potential gun control measures.

The evolution of Second Amendment interpretation and the accompanying public discourse illustrate how legal interpretations can change over time and are often influenced by broader social and political movements.

 

Still not seeing where I said they DON'T HAVE a standing army.

 

Notice how no one has been able to argue against my points? All the gun control advocates are ignoring my posts.

 

Your extraordinarily cynical and misguided views make finding any kind of common ground with you on gun control impossible.

 

Hey if you guys think you can take on the military be my guest.

 

So the govt that they formed couldn't be overthrown like they did to england.