Time To Dump The Second Amendment?

PoliTalker said:
Hello Flash,

It needs to be done with a bipartisan committee, not winner draws the districts.
Click to expand...

Bipartisan committees usually protect incumbents. Nobody can create the type of representation desired without gerrymandering. If the committee agrees to the number of Democrats and Republicans and blacks, whites, etc. the state should have, they have to gerrymander to achieve those goals.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Flash,

That's the bias from Fox News:
Click to expand...

Fox News did not determine the Georgia voter turnout. There was a large increase among Democratic primary voters.

Do you have any evidence that more would have voted without those laws? People make these claims but I have yet to see any evidence that voter IDs suppress voting, tougher voting laws suppress votes, voter IDs stop fraud, or that voter fraud existed in 2012, 2016, or 2020.

Trump claimed voter fraud in the Georgia Republican gubernatorial primary because his endorsed candidate lost. His proof? "Nobody get 74% of the vote."
 
Flash said:
A 4% loss is not necessarily a loss. They may have gained $10,000 in income but others gained more. They may have left for a job that paid less because they thought they would be happier. More for one does not mean less for others.

You are assuming a zero sum. If my income increases 10% to $110,000 and yours increases 10% to $55,000, we are both better off although my income increased twice as much as yours. I took nothing away from you and you are better off. However, if others increased more than 10% that may have dropped you out of the middle class.

The median family income in 2021 was $67,463 compared to $58,620 in 2015.


It is not the job of national leadership to maintain everybody's place in the class structure.

If you look at the Treasury Dept/IRS income mobility studies you will see only 42% of those in the bottom income quintile remained there ten years later. Only 69% of those in the top income quintile remained there ten years later.

How are you fixing the "fuck you, I've got mine"? Giving away most of your income?


So, as I stated earlier, the "decline" of the middle class is because more of moving up in income. Of course, that depends on how we measure middle class. If it is the middle three quintiles then the number will always remain the same.
Click to expand...

You are obviously unconcerned with the impact of inflation over time. What good does making an extra $10K do someone if all costs have gone up $15K-$20K?

Disagreed that I'm a zero sum game advocate, but thanks for remembering I mentioned that to you yesterday. :)

Sorry, but arguing in circles isn't fun; you only look at the 7% moving up, I'm looking at both the 7% going up and also the 4% going down. You don't see a problem and I do.

My solution is return the power of workers to self-help. The decline of unions and worker's rights parallels the fall of the Middle Class and the increasing size of the lower income groups. <-- the ones suffering the most in the US economy for the past few decades.
 
AssHatZombie said:
lol.

dumb globalist denies the obvious desctruction of the middle class.

watching these two dumb globalists jack each other off is hilarious.
Click to expand...

The "declining middle class" is only obvious to those who believe any crazy negative claims without checking any facts.
 
Flash said:
Not according to Madison who wrote those amendments or the states that ratified them. They all understood the Bill of Rights was added to restrict the federal government.
Click to expand...

And in federalism certain things ARE under the purview of protection in all states by the federal government.

The bills of rights are these things.
 
Flash said:
The "declining middle class" is only obvious to those who believe any crazy negative claims without checking any facts.
Click to expand...

Why the Global 1% and the Asian Middle Class Have Gained the Most from Globalization

It is by now well-known that the period from the mid-1980s to today has been the period of the greatest reshuffle of personal incomes since the Industrial Revolution. It’s also the first time that global inequality has declined in the past two hundred years. The “winners” were the middle and upper classes of the relatively poor Asian countries and the global top 1%. The (relative) “losers” were the people in the lower and middle parts of rich countries’

https://hbr.org/2016/05/why-the-glo...ed-the-most-from-globalization?referral=00060
 
AssHatZombie said:
but it was constitutional all along to protect rights nationally.

when courts finally realize things is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

the issue comes down to people not understanding federalism.......there were subjects that the feds had no power over.........arms was one of them. It was completely up to the states and most did with their own Constitutions.
 
Data shows that there's less than 20k gun deaths TOTAL in the US each year.

The only reason it's even news is because it is so highly politicized. The actual number of deaths is basically meaningless.

The seasonal flu is as deadly or up to 5x as deadly in any given year.
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
the issue comes down to people not understanding federalism.......there were subjects that the feds had no power over.........arms was one of them. It was completely up to the states and most did with their own Constitutions.
Click to expand...

yes.

that's true.

a vast number of people being dumb is a known phenomenon.

so they decided a case to reinforce constitutionality, but it was always the truth of the matter.
 
AssHatZombie said:
And in federalism certain things ARE under the purview of protection in all states by the federal government.

The bills of rights are these things.
Click to expand...

Nope. The federal and state governments are under the control of the Constitution. You are ignoring 200 years of constitutional law. See Barron v. Baltimore, Gitlow v. NY.

These cases disagree with your interpretation, but their decisions count. Yours is just an outlier opinion inconsistent to all constitutional law and history.
 
Flash said:
Nope. The federal and state governments are under the control of the Constitution. You are ignoring 200 years of constitutional law. See Barron v. Baltimore, Gitlow v. NY.

These cases disagree with your interpretation, but their decisions count. Yours is just an outlier opinion inconsistent to all constitutional law and history.
Click to expand...

NOpe what?

Those cases merely supported a truth that already existed.
 
AssHatZombie said:
NOpe what?

Those cases merely supported a truth that already existed.
Click to expand...

Nope to your statement that "And in federalism certain things ARE under the purview of protection in all states by the federal government. The bills of rights are these things."

You are correct in that those cases supported a truth that already existed--those rights only restricted the federal government until the incorporation process began in 1925.
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
the issue comes down to people not understanding federalism.......there were subjects that the feds had no power over.........arms was one of them. It was completely up to the states and most did with their own Constitutions.
Click to expand...

There were many federal laws regulating weapons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top