Who takes care of the child after the mother has been forced to give birth? Adoptions are down - plus I doubt many (if any) of the people advocating for this will line up to adopt. I have talked to some, and each one said that they wouldn't because of the potential for the child to have "problems" because of the circumstances of the birth.
This has become a religion and control issue. Control women to keep them in their "rightful" place and force your religious beliefs onto someone else.

I agree.

The definition of "interests" then become the driver.

My recollection is that they did not want a standing army, the m*****a was intended to come together for anything needed at the national level.

The original intention was that the citizenry be the m*****a, and not have a standing army. Also that they retain weapons for hunting and personal protection. Reality is that I don't disagree with that. I do doubt that there was any prescient thought in their minds that semi-automatic weapons (or automatic weapons for that matter) would be developed . I also doubt that they thought there would be people acquiring layers of multiple weapons for their personal protection.
And for others that have piled on - you don't have to read slow and use small words. That is demeaning and not appropriate if there is to be civil discourse. Since that appears to be something some people have issues with, I will respectfully withdraw from this conversation and look elsewhere (within OPP) for other topics.

You are correct about the donations. The 2nd Amendment was not intended to allow citizens to gather arsenals, therfore the current interpretation is not necessarily "enshrined" by the Constitution.

Let's take that logic to another issue. Just because some people abuse the right to a******n does not give cause to take away that right from others.
I am sure the 1st thing you will say is that the Constitution doesn't mention a******n, but there are many things covered by decisions that aren't there - think Citizens United (a complete travesty).

A Cato Institute article dated 1/20/21 titled "President Trump reduced legal immigration. He did not reduce i*****l i*********n" would seem to disagree with your initial statement. There's no "pushing", simply an acknowlement that there are people on a sliding spectrum of sexuality. Plus, that isn't happening everywhere and not at lower grade levels. I am not sure where this coming from - I know it isn't happening where we live. The race card gets used by both sides, so give it a rest. Some Democrats have openly supported socialism, but Marxism, c*******m and socialism are different ideologies.

Yes, I deny that the Democrats have done any more damage to the nation than Trump did. We disagree on definitions. That is unlikely to change. I cannot believe how blind you are and you feel the same about me.
I agree to disagree with you and leave it at that.

He had McConnell working with him. Republicans had a majority in the Senate his entire presidency. They had a majority for the 1st 2 years in the House and then the Democrats had a slim majority the next 2 years.

With significant help from the obstructionism by McConnell.

I got it thru my head. It's the far right that hasn’t.

Not a chance, at least for me.

As soon as you do the same for Trump

My bad. Did not do my usual research. I don't agree with nor condone violence from either side.