This is very similar to the point that I made. However I didn't make the point on militias. It's true that this amendment was written during a time when militias were very prevalent. But it is true that the exact words say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is necessary to "the security of a free state". America, being a free state, must allow it's people to have a weapon. Suddenly saying that it is within the power of the federal government to restrict this when the words of the Constitution blatantly state it is the right of the PEOPLE just seems wrong.

Does the Constitution allow dramatic gun regulation? No. Should the Constitution allow dramatic gun regulation? Hell no. The 2nd amendment explicitly states that gun rights are allowed by the people and shall not be infringed. The word "infringed" in this context means that this amendment upholds a rule, an absolute, supreme law that cannot be encroached on or otherwise limited or undermined. Nothing could possibly be so blatantly straightforward or direct. Guns rights belong to the people and the federal government has no authority whatsoever to possibly restrict or prohibit that from them. To argue on the side that the federal government has any right to do so, would simply be foolish and outright wrong. Even if one believes such falsehoods the words of the Constitution simply do not support it. To give the Federal government power to regulate gun control of the people's natural born right, would demand drastic reform of the 2nd amendment, and possibly the 14th amendment as well. Such a process would take a long time, more than necessary. Such an ordeal hasn't even been done in decades. There is no reason to change anything in the 2nd amendment because the founders worded it in such a way that could not be misconstrued. Gun rights belong to the people, and the federal government, or even state governments under the 14th amendment, have no authority to keep that from them.

Abortions as a result of rape is probably rare because the woman can't find anywhere to get an abortion. Then she has to suffer through the trial just to hear the court say that she wasn't raped and now she has to carry that baby since a lot of states only allow abortions in the case of rape. So now she has to find a way to care for a child that she was in know way prepared for or put it into a flawed adoption system. Why make the child and mother suffer for years because of a mistake that took 10 minutes?

I disagree. I do not think the baby has rights from the moment it's conceived, but from the moment it's born. While still in the womb, it is a part of the mother and the mother's body. If she or a family member can't care for it, then she will look to either put it up for adoption or abort. Adoption isn't always the better alternative. A lot of children in foster care/adoption have mental issues later in life. Adopted children also have higher suicide rates than those in biological families. Adoptees could suffer more than abortees.

Abortion should remain legal because, the government has no right to infringe on individual rights of the pregnant mother. It is an invasion of privacy and at the very least just plain rude to tell a woman what to do with her body. And to those who would argue the same of the baby growing inside of her, I say that that baby does not have rights. It has not been born yet so it cannot have rights as a citizen. It is still a part of the mother's body, so it's her rights that are at question here. It should be the woman’s choice on what she does with her body. No one person or governing body should tell her how to live her life. And if she can't get an abortion, there's no guarantee the child will be better off. If the mother can't abort, or find someone else to care for the child there's only one other option. Adoption and foster care. And both of these things are far from the saving grace that some think they are. A 2017 study states that 12 to 14 percent of adopted children in the United States between the ages of 8 and 18 are diagnosed with a mental health disorder each year, and adopted children are almost twice as likely as children brought up with their biological parents to suffer from mood disorders like anxiety, depression, and behavioral issues. One could argue that the baby would suffer more to live away from its biological family than if it had been aborted. This is why it should be up to the mother to decide what is best for her child. And her decision alone.

Marijuana legalization should be kept as a state power. Each state is different. One state could have a higher marijuana economy than another so regulations could be stricter or lesser in varying degrees. Plus the medical marijuana issue. In MS people can only get marijuana if they have severe epilepsy. However, in other states marijuana is legal for recreational use and other medical treatments. If a federal government cracked down on weed use for the whole nation, it would be an abuse of power. The federal government needs to leave the states with some independence or there will be nothing but gridlock.

Although Taco Bell has delicious food, McDonalds would definitely be a better dumpster to take a dive. Sure swimming in Nacho Grande sounds like a dream, but think about floating down a lazy river of hot greasy fries. Yes, that sounds like 2nd degree burns waiting to happen, but at least it would taste good. Besides, I wouldn't want to drown in something that gives me gas. Big Mac sauce > Queso