What is your opinion on the Second Amendment?

@MistyCee agreed

@MistyCee I hope you might edit your response do it makes sense.

What does that mean?


What?

@Budwick Sorry for being obtuse.


To keep it short:

I think DC v Heller was wrongly decided.

As to the second part, I'm really not a fan of giving first amendment rights to corporations. Plus, I'm concerned about the use of the anti establishment clause in the Masterpiece cake shop case.

@MistyCee
Most gun grabbers would agree with you.


So the New York Times for example should be regulated as to what they print?

@Budwick No doubt I'm in line with the gun grabbers on Heller, but regulation of the press isn't where I was going on the second point.

More like Citizens United and the extension of the Anti establishment clause.

Bigger picture, for me, is that I think the Constitution as a whole needs to be considered more by the Court, instead of letting the right or left prevail on individual issues and screwing up the balanced document as a whole.

I get Originalism and textualism, but both, IMO, should be considered tools of interpretation to be applied selectively.

Going back to the gun issue, for example, a realistic, IMO approach would recognize the need to more cautiously balance individual and collective rights.

Ideally, and this is just my opinion, there should be no question that the states have an interest in protecting life, liberty and property, and, that in appropriate circumstances, that interest should override individual rights.

Heller, and to some extent, McDonald were, IMO, not great opnions, even if you like the ultimate holdings.

@MistyCee
So, you only want to regulate SOME free speech.

Yeah, you're not alone about wanting to shitcan the Constitution.
Lot's of Commies want the same thing.

@Budwick I do think some speech should be subject to regulation because of legitimate government interests in doing so to protect other people's rights. E.g., yelling fire in a crowded theater.


I kind of like the ideas of greys instead of seeing everything as black and white as well.

Its out of Vogue in these days of polarized politics, government by tweet, etc, but it seems to me, we can get more accomplished by discussing where guns should be allowed and where they shouldn't then talking about whether there is a right to own them or whether an individuals right to do so is absolute and primes public safety.

I always really liked the idea of a social compact where, in exchange for the benefits of living with others, individuals agree to accept limitations on their own actions and freedoms.

How much restriction is a useful discussion, but the notion of absolute individual rights that never yield to the common good strikes me as screwed up.

@MistyCee My experience with discussion of 'rights' seems to always get out of hand shortly after capitulation.

Like gays demanding to teach gay sex in public school health classes, other whack jobs demanding historic statue removal - on and on. Everybody is a victim these days Misty. I'm growing weary of seeing normality being eaten alive, bit by bit.

@Budwick I do hear you. As a society, we struggle with these kinds of things, and while I tend to lean towards the progressive as opposed to the regressive on most issues, I'm more opposed to radical change in either direction.

Ideally, I'd like a government that is focusing on things like keeping us safe first, and resisting pushing social or private commercial agendas without damned good reasons.

@MistyCee
No, you wrestle. Like I said, I'm done wrestling. All the special interest groups can take a hike as far as I'm concerned.


On that, we agree.