You argued that the founders didn't foresee ghost guns when they wrote the second amendment. Much like they didn't foresee other things that later Supreme Court decisions found to be acceptable limitations to the second amendment.
Yes, always. I made a point about serial numbers and registration of sales, the response was about the national firearms act, which has nothing to do with serial numbers or registration of sales to my knowledge, so I asked in good faith how anything about the types of weapons regulated by the national firearms act was at all responsive to the question of serial numbers and registration of sales - the only issues that I was talking about and the only issues that differentiate "ghost guns" from any other gun. No I didn't, I said that there were no requirements of serial numbers or registration of sales when the founders wrote the second amendment, that in effect all guns were ghost guns. I didn't mention foresight at all.
And I showed where there were no fully automatic machine guns or sawed off shotguns when the founders wrote the second amendment. But just like when courts decides laws regulating them were reasonable and didn't violate the second amendment, courts now felt regulations on ghost guns were reasonable and didn't violate the second amendment. btw, do you wonder why people ask if you ever argue in good faith? Maybe something to ponder at your next maga rally...
The problem with this argument is that they did have unserialized guns without documentation of sales at the time the Second Amendment was written, so they are not a new thing that needed to be adjusted to. Not at all, it is because they make terrible arguments that are easily dealt with and don't like my cogent responses. I am obviously not making bad faith arguments. When you respond to a point about ghost guns and lack of serialization with a comment about machine guns, it is an obvious deflection that requires nothing more than pointing out it's irrelevance to the issue of ghost guns. Sorry to disrupt your weird fantasies, but I have never been to a political rally of any stripe. The closest I have come are a couple small fundraisers for candidates for DA and judge.
Speaking of Roe v. Wade The one thing that seems to unite voters in Kansas, Ohio, and California is protecting abortion rights. 7 states have put abortion initiatives on the ballot. Protecting abortion rights have won every time.
Yes historically at the time do the Founders they didn’t have serial numbers and many were making their own firearms. That’s true but they also in addition to not having automatic weapons they didn’t even have bullets in cartridges and firearms were primarily muzzle loaders. So if the justification is the historical basis of the time of the Founders then you would also have to consider the state of technology at the time of the Founders. The logical extension would be that yes you could home manufacture without registration muzzle loading smooth bore firearms but not anymore fire arms more than that.
This is what I dont understand. If the argument in Bruen is that we're locked into analogous laws and regulations at the time of the Constitution then shouldn't public ownership of firearms also be locked into analogous types of weapons from that time as well. If the laws have to reflect what was around in the late 1700s, by extension shouldn't the classification of legal weapons also be reflective of that era. It doesn't make sense that the term "arms" from the second amendment is continuously updated to reflect current weapons but the types of regulations and restrictions on possession and use of arms can't be concurrently updated to reflect the modern era. Then again, Supreme Court decisions today are basically made up calvinball rules. So I guess we shouldn't be surprised.
Originalism is really something else because it asserts that the Founders' intent at the time of writing is sacrosanct, but is also fluid enough to be wholly applied to modern situations.
Are you mad that someone is no longer going to be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race? I thought you supported outlawing private discrimination. Personally, I think the guy should lose and they should find the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unconstitutional. If the Fearless Fund only wants to give grants to black women, that should be their prerogative (same for any other race, gender, or other arbitrary group).
The appeals court granted an injunction based on 42 U.S.C. 1981, which was enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, shortly after the Civil War, to grant equal rights and protection to Black individuals. I guess you think that should also be unconstitutional.
No, I think the injunction used the improper law. The VC wasn't denying anyone the ability to contract, they were choosing who to do business with on the basis of race and gender, which was still legal (and in fact, in many cases mandated) in 1866. Regardless of which law is applied or which struck down, I think people should be free to engage in whatever form of relationships they choose with whomever they choose, or not, as they see fit. If Fearless Fund only wants to invest in businesses owned by black women, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? If a gym only wants to allow Pakistani transgender women to work out there, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? If a hotel only wants to allow men under 5'6" to rent rooms, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? Private entities should be left to do business with who they choose and refuse to do business with anyone the don't.
What a paradise it would be going backwards to segregated neighborhoods, schools, jobs, and forget equal pay regardless of race and sexual orientation.
We already have segregated neighborhoods, schools, and jobs. We just don't say anything about it most of the time. This case was about a segregated venture capital firm that has been operating for four years, but none of us cared about it. Why should we? It is their money, if they want to invest in black women, why can't they?
