Re: Logical reasoning? Part 1

New Ipswich NH

Description

The OP wrote: If a Democrat doesn't like guns that can kill dozens of people in a few minutes, laws are suggested that reduce the capacity of assault type rifles, and insist that people who buy them be registered, just like Republicans insist that voters jump through hoops to be able to cast their vote. If a Republican doesn't like guns, insisting on following outdated amendments to the constitution in the same way as they were 250 years ago is the only path that we can take. ...or if a democrat doesn't like guns, he can demand more and more gun laws for criminals to ignore. Such an approach would lead to the conditions in NYC, Chicago, Detroit, etc. that ALREADY have the most gun laws. I am glad to see that the OP agrees with the GOP in that Voter ID is a good thing (since you support it for guns). ... and, YES, we should follow the 250-year-old LAW until it is properly revised. I wonder if he's also in favor of ignoring other 'old' laws in the constitution? Like the amendment that allows you to even voice your opinion here (1st), or should the Federal Government be able to live in your house (3rd), take your or search property (4th), testify against yourself (5th), have a speedy trial (6th) (of course, this doesn't currently apply to the political prisoners being held for Jan 6th), I suppose he's against a trial by peers (7th) or cruel punishments (8th). I assume that he considers the 'old' amendment(s) that allows blacks to vote or women to vote just as outdated?