“ Those favoring abortion rights recognize that no compromise with the other side will ever hold. Give them a 20-week limit and they’ll start agitating for 15, then 12, then 6. Then they’ll push for an absolute ban. So why even start playing that game?”
Again, you articulate exactly what 2A advocates believe about all efforts to infringe their rights.
“ Those favoring abortion rights recognize that no compromise with the other side will ever hold. Give them a 20-week limit and they’ll start agitating for 15, then 12, then 6. Then they’ll push for an absolute ban. So why even start playing that game?”
Again, you articulate exactly what 2A advocates believe about all efforts to infringe their rights.
Because current 2A law rests on a wholly misguided interpretation of the text, and required Scalia to effectively ignore the whole "well-regulated" militia clause of the 2A. (It was widely criticized by legal scholars at the time.) The NRA and other even more extreme (I know, difficult to conceive, but true) gun-rights groups have leveraged the Heller decision to twist the meaning of the 2A so far beyond the what the Founders could have possible intended, as to make it a joke. (And, please note, that this opinion is coming from a person who has owned firearms for more than 45 years, a took an NRA-sponsored firearms safety class from my local police department when I bought my .22 rifle as a teenager. 45 years ago the NRA was interested primarily in firearm safety, not in promoting the annual sales of firearm manufacturers.)
You can take that up with SCOTUS, just like pro-life folks had to deal with Roe v Wade. The 2A absolutists certainly have more constitutional text supporting them than the abortion-rights absolutists. If you think it’s weak, what can you make of the constitutional right to abortion?
“ Those favoring abortion rights recognize that no compromise with the other side will ever hold. Give them a 20-week limit and they’ll start agitating for 15, then 12, then 6. Then they’ll push for an absolute ban. So why even start playing that game?”
Again, you articulate exactly what 2A advocates believe about all efforts to infringe their rights.
Because current 2A law rests on a wholly misguided interpretation of the text, and required Scalia to effectively ignore the whole "well-regulated" militia clause of the 2A. (It was widely criticized by legal scholars at the time.) The NRA and other even more extreme (I know, difficult to conceive, but true) gun-rights groups have leveraged the Heller decision to twist the meaning of the 2A so far beyond the what the Founders could have possible intended, as to make it a joke. (And, please note, that this opinion is coming from a person who has owned firearms for more than 45 years, a took an NRA-sponsored firearms safety class from my local police department when I bought my .22 rifle as a teenager. 45 years ago the NRA was interested primarily in firearm safety, not in promoting the annual sales of firearm manufacturers.)
You can take that up with SCOTUS, just like pro-life folks had to deal with Roe v Wade. The 2A absolutists certainly have more constitutional text supporting them than the abortion-rights absolutists. If you think it’s weak, what can you make of the constitutional right to abortion?