Really no difference is an out and out falsehood. There is a critical difference between the 2A enumerated right and the court-created "right" to abortion. The courts aren't "government" in that they should have no power to create new rights. Period. People with lifetime appointments should not be creating or removing rights independent of the legislature. The only way that you can hold your argument is to deny the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature.
From a legal perspective there's no difference between an enumerated right and and an un-enumerated one. Both are subject to the case law that governs them. You personally view them differently, but legally they weren't until last Friday.
But your own argument there is key! While I'm not against letting the SCOTUS clarify indvidual rights, and am a
Roe v. Wade supporter, I still have to agree with
@sk8knight's point here ... they are not the same, legally. I do think they matter just as much, but ...
As what happened,
Roe v. Wade can be overturned, whereas the
2nd Amendment, like the
1st Amendment, is far more difficult. It's why bakers in Colorado win against their state too.
Amendments
are always the
most deterministic means by which the people can codify individual rights. And we could have and should have done this in the '90s.
The
'Family Values' Republicans were very much unlike the current Republican Religions Right, despite modern demonizations. They were open to
'hands off government' and 'individual rights.' But nope ... which brings me to ...
Why we, the people, haven't codified rights in an Amendment is beyond me. But if I had to guess ... a lot of this goes back to the Balanced Budget Amendment and a lot of lefties in the mid-to-late '90s saying,
"I don't want to mess with the Constitution."
And that's where a lot of Millennial, as well as many Gen-X'ers and even some Boomer attitudes come from. Which is also why many Millennials and Zoomers think tearing down the
US Constitution -- let alone the
Bill of Rights that was written from over 100 submissions from the people, even women! -- is needed, and it doesn't matter, because they were educated that they were a bunch of stupid, old, white men who owned slaves.
And I also remember saying at the time, in the '90s, when the economy was good, that it was the perfect time to strike with Amendments for both Equal Rights and Women's Rights. And sure enough, there were still many lefties that thought Marriage Equality was not only wrong, but ... they wanted Government to still codify marriage ... not just the Conservatives, who were growing into the Religious Right.
And you guys wonder why I'm such a hard-@$$ about such things? Because I've heard all this before. And then ... the lefties started throwing reporters in jail, and spying on reporters, claiming espionage and other things. Just like I recently pointed out ... Assange has been virtually incarcerated longer for allegedly
'encouraging someone with a clearance to break their contracts' than the person who actually did so!
I still cannot believe on the left make that argument, all because of Hillary, who was compromised via her campaign manager, who very much was a registered foreign agent of Russia! It kinda gets stupid at this point.
And why the left really has no standing. I honestly wish they'd stop being hypocrites, and let us true Liberals and Libertarians argue with Conservatives on why
Roe v. Wade still matters. But nope ... it's gonna be W.-like tactics and authoritarianism, all while the right embraces Liberal ideas out of self-preservation ... gasp!
But you seem far too deferential to government power here over individuals.
And you're not? Should we revisit the anti-science, pro-
'throw sh-- at the wall and hope it sticks,' and the endless resignation of our experts, during the pandemic?!
Every Liberal and Libertarian that was correct, was censored and silenced, just like with Theranos. Even now the US FDA Expert Panels are still trying to stop the bullsh-- that is still being flung.
The left and right are no longer defending rights, but destroying them ... each with their own arguments against the rights they do not like. It's comical how abortion and gun safety arguments are the exact same by the left/right and right/left, respectively.
This isn't a two way street. My opinion is that government has a very limited role in regulating personal medical decisions by adult US citizens based on moral beliefs.
What about self-defense then? I'm not even talking guns, but the right to take someone's life when they invade your home and assault your family? That's the thing.
If it was just
'gun safety,' I'd listen. But it's
'you'll get manslaughter' bullsh-- that empower criminals, along with outlawing self-defense insurance as well. And then we get the UK.
The hypocrisy of,
"Oh, that individual right doesn't count, and should be outlawed, but this one does," is leading to the erosion of all rights. Each side tearing down the other.
Your position is that as long as it's a state legislature, it's all fair game. That's not a "small government" position - it's a very big-government position.
And now I have to agree with
@sk8knight yet again, even though I don't want to. Yes, California is a powerful state government, but the left owns many of them. And yet, it's still smaller than federal, and it cannot declare war.
Most Republican states are much smaller, and far less powerful. So ... you cannot be on the left and say this. So ...
You have to come to the true Liberal position that all individual rights are to be protected by the federal. But as long as you say guns need to be restricted at the federal, you're just another hypocrite.
Which is why I wish people on the left would stop arguing from a position of hypocrisy, and join true Liberals and Libertarians who actually know how to argue from a position of non-hypocrisy, with Conservatives.
