Modern Political Legal Interpretations or ping pong history

I think I know what it’s like to be a ping pong ball.

The reason for my discovery is a continuing discussion on laws in American History which has led to some current events arguments.

It seems that the power of specific laws is directly related to one’s political stance on individual topics. Some laws will apparently solve every problem in one area but a law in another area will be totally ineffective and perhaps an infringement upon rights. Apparently one’s position is not influenced by if one believes these rights to have been bestowed upon them by God, man, nature, or some other entity.

Some examples:

If the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade, the passage of laws prohibiting abortion would stop the practice in its tracks.

I wasn’t really around, but I reckon that there were never abortions before the 1973 decision.

Of course some feel that any laws restricting abortions at any point and for any reason is an infringement.

Somehow though laws solve the issue according to what I’m hearing.

Voter ID laws will make all elections honest and fair.

Apparently there are no such things as fake IDs, and of course the ID you or I have is sufficient but the ID someone else has or doesn’t have is of course insufficient for a fair election.

Biometrics or anything that might be in a database or make an ID truly verifiable, however, is an infringement of rights.

All laws on the books should be enforced with no exceptions.

Of course that only applies when someone you do not know faces possible charges. Otherwise, it is selected enforcement or targeting.

Likewise in the case of immigration disputes, if you agree with the reason the person is here illegally they should be granted asylum and everyone else should be deported.

Background checks or any type of weapon laws will either stop all weapon related violence or will escalate it.

Seriously, I might have the Constitutional right to open carry let say a .306 or 20 gauge on the street, in a restaurant, grocery store, library, or at a Little League game and nobody has the right to question me, but I’ll be danged if somebody who looks like a terrorist or criminal can open carry.

I reckon open carry is better than concealed carry because others can see what type of weapon you have at the time.

Fortunately, however,  murderers must be easily identifiable so a good ole boy like me, Boudreaux, or Jim-Bob and even an urban sophisticate like Timothy Reginald the 4th knows which person with a rifle to take out and which one is merely exercising his or her rights near loved ones.

You can’t stop me from owning the type of gun I want either because that is infringement.

Of course Congress can by a wide margin pass legislation banning so called “plastic” guns or weapons manufactured by certain and future types of technology.

Somehow that is not infringement. I guess because the NRA supported the ban.

Shucks, I sure am happy that everything can be solved so darn simple like as many politicians, media types, and political pundits promote to multitudes of loyal followers.

Yep ain’t nothing wrong has do with society, people being lazy, people being selfish, people wanting stuff for nothing, people taking advantage of others, obsessions with popularity and attention, feelings of isolation, lack of hope, having bubbles burst, and so on, and on, and on….

I guess all that really counts is that you can reap ample financial rewards by just blaming Obama for doing something, not doing something, covering something up, not covering something up, dividing, multiplying, and actually for just being Obama.