The left and the right have their radical sides. Yes, there are some on the right who are crazy and treat guns as gods.
Speaking as a supporter of second amendment rights: from my perspective, what concerns normal people on the right---is not necessarily gun control itself---but the slippery slope that causes. Thus, if we grant the government the authority to restrict AR 15's, which is not entirely unreasonable, the fear is that they will come after pistols next. This is the whole problem with government--when you give then an inch, the wind up taking 10000000000000000 miles, eventually.
Nothing you've said here changes the fact that according to your logic, the right worships guns, yet you're just fine with that.
The whole reason we were given the right to keep and bear arms---was for self-defense---and to be able to defend our rights against a potential tyrannical government. The American Citizen is the ultimate guarantee of their rights.
No, according to the Constitution, the reason you were given the right to keep and bear arms was because "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State:" Not a word about self defense.
The difference here is that the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly referenced in the Constitution. Abortion is not. In order to divine out of the Constitution the right to abortion, the SCOTUS had to use a lot of legal wizardry, manipulation, and convoluted logic.
Which is not the issue. The issue is that people can value and defend rights without worshipping them, which was your absurd contention.
Regarding your comments about the right to abortion - they're pretty obviously nonsense. That right was decided by the Supreme Court and has stood for 50 years. Despite decades of Supreme Court conservative majorities, despite years and years of Republicans having the Presidency, a majority in both houses and a majority in the Supreme Court, it hasn't been repealed. Obviously the reasoning that found that right was valid.
The founders of our nation knew about abortion. At the time the Constitution was ratified, several states restricted abortion, while others had it legal. Had the founders wanted to grant the right to abortion, they would have enshrined that right in the Constitution. For some on the right, the larger problem isn't abortion itself----but a SCOTUS conjuring Constitutional rights out of nothing. If abortion supporters want abortion, let them get it through the Constitutional process set up by the founders for getting legislation. The courts weren't created as an end run around the Constitution--so you can get what you cannot get through the Democratic process.
Oh, please. "For some on the right..." the right whines about "legislating from the bench" every time a decision goes against them. The court was interpreting the Constitution - which is entirely and completely their job. You might disagree with that interpretation, but to day they were doing something wrong by finding a right that was implied, rather than directly stated, is just laughable.
Abortion supporters love telling everyone how much the majority of Americans love abortion.
There are no such thing as "abortion supporters", nor does anybody "love abortion". The majority of Americans are supports of the right of women to choose to abort.
This being the case, it is difficult, if not impossible to understand why abortion supporters feel so threatened by Roe being overturned. If as they say, most Americans love abortion as much as they claim, they should have no problem getting abortion through the Democratic process.
There are no such thing as "abortion supporters", nor does anybody "love abortion". The majority of Americans are supports of the right of women to choose to abort.
Your last statement would reveal little except an ignorance of the US 'democratic' process - except that I know that you know better. You know as well as I that, given the state of the upper house legislating the right to abort would never pass and, even if it did, the heavily conservative SCOTUS might well strike it down. That has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of the country wants it.
One does not need legal wizardry to get to the right to keep and bear arms. It is right there in the Constitution in black and white.
Well....no. It is right there in the Constitution
iff "[a] well regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State:" It was 250 years ago; is it today, when we have a standing army?
Whatever else anybody thinks about the right to bear arms, the Constitution is clear that that right was given because the new State needed some sort of an armed force to defend it and didn't have one - so an armed populace which could make up a militia was the solution. That solution is no longer needed, because that problem no longer exists - we have an armed force to defend the state without the populace being armed.
