Federal Judge In Colorado Blocks Law Raising Age Requirement For Gun Purchases

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Federal judge in Colorado blocks law raising age requirement for gun purchases

...Chief U.S. District Judge Phillip A. Brimmer ruled in favor of the gun rights group, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, who had filed a lawsuit against Gov. Jared Polis.

The state law, SB23-169, was one of several sweeping gun reform measures approved by the state legislature and signed by Gov. Polis in the spring. It sought to prohibit people under the age of 21 from purchasing a gun, with exceptions for active members of the U.S. armed forces, peace officers, and people certified by the Peace Officer Standards and Training board...

Why is it always a 'loophole' if the Left disagrees with it, but sacrosanct and binding if they believe in it?

RMGO, et al. vs. Polis

CONCERNING INCREASING THE LEGAL AGE TO PURCHASE A FIREARM TO TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE, WITH LIMITED EXCEPTIONS.

Naturally, the Left is upset...

[AlmostHeaven]

Why is it always a 'loophole' if the Left disagrees with it, but sacrosanct and binding if they believe in it?

Referring back to one of my previous posts, everything boils down to a rather simple concept.

The core principle on which progressive ideology stands is the self-righteousness of the adherent. Leftists truly believe in the outright ethical, moral, and intellectual superiority of themselves. If societal metrics have become worse after the implementation of left-wing policies, reactionary forces and nefarious actors must be undermining justice, and the government must enact even more laws to destroy the evil obstacles standing in the way of socialist utopia. Democrats believe the very sustainability of civilization itself hinges on whether their ideas come into effect.

This sense of unquestionable correctness makes the modern left in America the greatest enemy to the survival of the Republic and existence of liberty.

Progressives believe their views are correct about everything. Thus, there is no such thing as a double standard in their minds.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Referring back to one of my previous posts, everything boils down to a rather simple concept.



Progressives believe their views are correct about everything. Thus, there is no such thing as a double standard in their minds.

It's called a 'rhetorical question.' I think we all get what you're saying and those who don't at this point, well...

Truth be told, it's not about 'double standards' in their minds or ours'. That's not the point. It's about how you fight back against that type of... 'thinking.' In a very real sense, it's a fight against zealotry and zealousness is found on both sides of this issue. The problem is, it becomes self-feeding and, ultimately, destructive.

"Not one more inch!!!" has meaning and legitimacy within the context of our rights continuing to be undermined. But, does it have similar import in an overall sense? I believe this is what Scalia was getting at when he was discussing whether limitations existed at the time of the Founding and how they might be interpreted within today's context. Further, I believe this is what the text, history, and tradition metric is about in Bruen.

Put succinctly, it's a recognition that 'compromise' has existed in terms of "rights" (freedom) and their "exercise" (liberty) from the very beginning. We even see it in Genesis 2:15-17 when God tells Adam and Eve...

15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

What many don't seem to realize is that cries of "no compromise" are an indication that the 'war' has already been lost. Why? Because you are placing yourself in a position where, once you're outnumbered and/or don't have the right forces properly placed, guess which 'absolutist' viewpoint prevails, at least for a time? Sure. Zealots can hold out for awhile; but, against a determined enemy, they find themselves holed up in Masada with no exit route.

Now... Masada, the Alamo, and any number of 'stands' can act as something around which to rally. Unfortunately, they don't often end well for the defenders; i.e., not every circumstance is Bunker Hill or Valley Forge, where the reward for the 'sacrifice' is meted out to the actual participants (or most of them). If you're going to be a martyr for the cause, then you'd better know what is at stake and what the potential 'benefit' is and for whom?

In the case of whether there should be an 'age restriction' on guns, bear in mind that, by definition, saying you should be able to purchase a gun at 18 is already a restriction as I can think of many who are younger than 18 who are better prepared, mentally and in all other ways, to own guns, drive, get married, et al. than some who are in their 30's, 40's, and even older. Thus, doesn't fighting over whether one should be 'allowed' to exercise a fundamental right at 18 or 21 represent something of a 'double standard' in and of itself?

No? Then what is the fight really over? That is what we tend not to make clear or bear in mind as we, far too often, allow ourselves to get sucked into yet another 'shouting match' of absolutism. Just as 'they' often "believe the very sustainability of civilization itself hinges on whether their ideas come into effect," the same can be said about 'us' in many respects. In that sense, it's not just 'the modern Left' which can be cast as an "enemy to the survival of the Republic and existence of liberty." (A friend of mine used to point out that the Germans wore a belt buckle in WWII which declared "Gott Mitt Uns" or "God (is) With Us." It kinda makes you wonder if the phrase "If God is with us, who can be against us?" holds any meaning.)

In short, we need to be careful not to allow a 'scrupulous defense' of our freedoms and liberties to be turned into a touting of 'zealous rhetoric' which can be turned against us. It kinda reminds one of an episode of The Twilight Zone...



Who won?