th-cam.com/video/qKqCaLoNjeU/w-d-xo.html More Responses to B.S. Talking Points About Firearm Rights & Controls th-cam.com/video/lLyQLNw-8ps/w-d-xo.html When Does Life (Personhood) Begin? | Criminalizing Abortion In this video, I’m speaking specifically to the logic behind arguments in support of firearm and abortion rights. It’s not wrong to say that a similar issue to what I’m discussing here is present if the reverse argument is being made (supporting absolute abortion rights while completely discarding firearm rights). But here’s the difference. There are NO total bans on firearms being introduced anywhere in the country. With some exceptions (convicted felons, red flag laws, age restrictions, bans on specific types of weapons, etc.), firearms are still readily available and legal. Reasonable regulations on abortion are not the issue. But abortion is effectively being completely banned for half the women of child-rearing age in the entire nation. For millions of women, abortion is now only a possibility when they’re at the risk of near death. That’s what I find reprehensible. The same people who go to be hell and back to prevent any type of regulation that may inconvenience them run at lightning speed to regulate and even outlaw anything they don’t like. “Regulations/laws don’t work” except when we don’t like something and want to ban it, then they’re great “Big government is tyrannical and trying to control you” except when it can be used to take away someone else’s rights to get them to do what we want “We are pro-life” but only ever express outrage over fetuses, not born children being harmed Boil it down, what I’m arguing against are fundamentalist, absolutist interpretations that basically boil down to “if I like it, it’s constitutional…if I don’t, it’s not” “If it impacts me, it’s bad; if it impacts you, who cares” "my rights are absolute; yours don't matter" And I’m not saying an individual right can’t or shouldn’t be inferred from the Constitution. But the whole part of militias and regulation is typically (and conveniently) ignored when discussing the second amendment. In practice, it’s true we’ve always (or most always at least) had an individual right to arms at least to some extent (within the home, with restrictions outside the home). But constitutionally, the individual right wasn’t interpreted in this way until DC v Heller. Individual firearm rights, marriage equality, bodily autonomy…all of these were inferred as being protected by the Constitution. And while they’re not absolute, these fundamental rights should be protected.
Very good one mapping out a more reasonable position..but using the sh*t word at the very end weakened the tone of the argument. I also try to map out the middle ground. Some older folks still are not as comfortable using Carlin's 7 deadly words you can say on tv.
There's several arguments in the justification of abortion that are similar to the justification of slavery. "They're not human", "It's simply property I can control however I want."My property/bodily rights come before anything else." "If we were to release them/put them up for adoption, they'd be stuck on the streets." But I'm not going to facilitate the mind-boggling idea that if you support abortion you'd be contradicting yourself by not supporting slavery.
Additionally, when "The People" in the Constitution have not been interpreted as the general citizenry of the country, therefore "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The 8 other times it was mentioned, it was referring to the citizenry, so why wouldn't it now.
If you check out my video on Where Does Life (Personhood) Begin (th-cam.com/video/lLyQLNw-8ps/w-d-xo.html), you’ll find I don’t make any of these arguments. I think you missed the main point. I’m talking about the logic behind support for firearm and abortion rights. You’re not wrong in that a similar issue is present if the reverse argument is being made (supporting absolute abortion rights while completely discarding firearm rights). But here’s the difference. There are NO total bans on firearms being introduced anywhere in the country. With some exceptions (convicted felons, red flag laws, age restrictions, bans on specific types of weapons, etc.), firearms are still readily available and legal. Reasonable regulations on abortion are not the issue. But abortion is effectively being completely banned for half the women of child-rearing age in the entire nation. For tens of millions of women, abortion is now only a possibility when they’re at the risk of near death. That’s what I find reprehensible. The same people who go to be hell and back to prevent any type of regulation that may inconvenience them run at lightning speed to regulate and even outlaw anything they don’t like. “Regulations/laws don’t work” except when we don’t like something and want to ban it, then they’re great “Big government is tyrannical and trying to control you” except when it can be used to take away someone else’s rights to get them to do what we want “We are pro-life” but only ever express outrage over fetuses, not born children being harmed Boil it down, what I’m arguing against are fundamentalist, absolutist interpretations that basically boil down to “if I like it, it’s constitutional…if I don’t, it’s not” “If it impacts me, it’s bad; if it impacts you, who cares” "my rights are absolute; yours don't matter"
I’m not saying an individual right can’t or shouldn’t be inferred from the Constitution. But the whole part of militias and regulation is typically (and conveniently) ignored when discussing the second amendment. In practice, it’s true we’ve always (or most always at least) had an individual right to arms at least to some extent (within the home, with restrictions outside the home). But constitutionally, the individual right wasn’t interpreted in this way until DC v Heller. Individual firearm rights, marriage equality, bodily autonomy…all of these were inferred as being protected by the Constitution. And while they’re not absolute, these fundamental rights should be protected.
th-cam.com/video/qKqCaLoNjeU/w-d-xo.html More Responses to B.S. Talking Points About Firearm Rights & Controls
th-cam.com/video/lLyQLNw-8ps/w-d-xo.html When Does Life (Personhood) Begin? | Criminalizing Abortion
In this video, I’m speaking specifically to the logic behind arguments in support of firearm and abortion rights. It’s not wrong to say that a similar issue to what I’m discussing here is present if the reverse argument is being made (supporting absolute abortion rights while completely discarding firearm rights). But here’s the difference. There are NO total bans on firearms being introduced anywhere in the country. With some exceptions (convicted felons, red flag laws, age restrictions, bans on specific types of weapons, etc.), firearms are still readily available and legal. Reasonable regulations on abortion are not the issue. But abortion is effectively being completely banned for half the women of child-rearing age in the entire nation. For millions of women, abortion is now only a possibility when they’re at the risk of near death. That’s what I find reprehensible.
The same people who go to be hell and back to prevent any type of regulation that may inconvenience them run at lightning speed to regulate and even outlaw anything they don’t like.
“Regulations/laws don’t work” except when we don’t like something and want to ban it, then they’re great
“Big government is tyrannical and trying to control you” except when it can be used to take away someone else’s rights to get them to do what we want
“We are pro-life” but only ever express outrage over fetuses, not born children being harmed
Boil it down, what I’m arguing against are fundamentalist, absolutist interpretations that basically boil down to
“if I like it, it’s constitutional…if I don’t, it’s not”
“If it impacts me, it’s bad; if it impacts you, who cares”
"my rights are absolute; yours don't matter"
And I’m not saying an individual right can’t or shouldn’t be inferred from the Constitution. But the whole part of militias and regulation is typically (and conveniently) ignored when discussing the second amendment. In practice, it’s true we’ve always (or most always at least) had an individual right to arms at least to some extent (within the home, with restrictions outside the home). But constitutionally, the individual right wasn’t interpreted in this way until DC v Heller. Individual firearm rights, marriage equality, bodily autonomy…all of these were inferred as being protected by the Constitution. And while they’re not absolute, these fundamental rights should be protected.
Good one, well said.
Very good one mapping out a more reasonable position..but using the sh*t word at the very end weakened the tone of the argument. I also try to map out the middle ground.
Some older folks still are not as comfortable using Carlin's 7 deadly words you can say on tv.
Good thing unborn, yet gestating human life has no right to live.
There's several arguments in the justification of abortion that are similar to the justification of slavery. "They're not human", "It's simply property I can control however I want."My property/bodily rights come before anything else."
"If we were to release them/put them up for adoption, they'd be stuck on the streets." But I'm not going to facilitate the mind-boggling idea that if you support abortion you'd be contradicting yourself by not supporting slavery.
Additionally, when "The People" in the Constitution have not been interpreted as the general citizenry of the country, therefore "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The 8 other times it was mentioned, it was referring to the citizenry, so why wouldn't it now.
If you check out my video on Where Does Life (Personhood) Begin (th-cam.com/video/lLyQLNw-8ps/w-d-xo.html), you’ll find I don’t make any of these arguments.
I think you missed the main point. I’m talking about the logic behind support for firearm and abortion rights. You’re not wrong in that a similar issue is present if the reverse argument is being made (supporting absolute abortion rights while completely discarding firearm rights). But here’s the difference. There are NO total bans on firearms being introduced anywhere in the country. With some exceptions (convicted felons, red flag laws, age restrictions, bans on specific types of weapons, etc.), firearms are still readily available and legal. Reasonable regulations on abortion are not the issue. But abortion is effectively being completely banned for half the women of child-rearing age in the entire nation. For tens of millions of women, abortion is now only a possibility when they’re at the risk of near death. That’s what I find reprehensible.
The same people who go to be hell and back to prevent any type of regulation that may inconvenience them run at lightning speed to regulate and even outlaw anything they don’t like.
“Regulations/laws don’t work” except when we don’t like something and want to ban it, then they’re great
“Big government is tyrannical and trying to control you” except when it can be used to take away someone else’s rights to get them to do what we want
“We are pro-life” but only ever express outrage over fetuses, not born children being harmed
Boil it down, what I’m arguing against are fundamentalist, absolutist interpretations that basically boil down to
“if I like it, it’s constitutional…if I don’t, it’s not”
“If it impacts me, it’s bad; if it impacts you, who cares”
"my rights are absolute; yours don't matter"
I’m not saying an individual right can’t or shouldn’t be inferred from the Constitution. But the whole part of militias and regulation is typically (and conveniently) ignored when discussing the second amendment. In practice, it’s true we’ve always (or most always at least) had an individual right to arms at least to some extent (within the home, with restrictions outside the home). But constitutionally, the individual right wasn’t interpreted in this way until DC v Heller. Individual firearm rights, marriage equality, bodily autonomy…all of these were inferred as being protected by the Constitution. And while they’re not absolute, these fundamental rights should be protected.