# Kavanaugh Asks if Texas Abortion Law Could Be Model for Bans on Gun Rights



## Otis Mayfield (Nov 1, 2021)

Justice Brett Kavanaugh floated the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.

The associate justice, appointed by former President Donald Trump, specifically posed a theoretical law that would allow the seller of an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon to be sued for $1 million.

The Texas solicitor general acknowledged the possibility but said Congress could pass laws to protect such rights. Kavanaugh seemed wary of such intervention.

"Some of those examples, I think, would be quite difficult to get legislation through Congress," Kavanaugh said.









						Kavanaugh Poses Possibility That Texas Abortion Law Can Apply to Gun Rights
					

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the Supreme Court Monday that "no constitutional right is safe" if the Texas law is allowed to stand.




					www.newsweek.com
				





So you could use a Texas abortion style law to restrict guns in California? It gets around the Constitution.

I did not see this coming. Did you?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 1, 2021)

Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that even hints at a right for a woman to have her own child killed in cold blood.

  The case for a Constitutional right to abortion is based on a mountain of falsehoods piled on falsehoods.

  The Constitution does, however, explicitly affirm a right, belonging to the people, to keep and bear arms, and forbids government from infringing this right.

  There is no honest comparison between the two.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Nov 1, 2021)

abortion is a constitutional right?


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 1, 2021)

*GREAT!*

Abortion kills unborn children.
Guns enable suicide and murder.

*Human Life is precious.*


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Nov 1, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> abortion is a constitutional right?



It gets around the Constitution because Texas is allowing private citizens to sue when abortions happen. If a the fetus has a heartbeat, it can't be aborted under the law, but it's private citizens who enforce the law through lawsuits.

Justice Kavenaugh is saying the same can be done with guns.

I'm not a Supreme Court scholar so I'm not sure exactly but Justice Kavenaugh is on the Supreme Court.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 1, 2021)

Guns enable over 20,000 suicides and over 10,000 murders in USA each year.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 1, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Justice Kavenaugh is saying the same can be done with guns.


If relatives of suicide and murder victims could sue gun manufacturers, it would be great!


----------



## Hugo Furst (Nov 1, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> If relatives of suicide and murder victims could sue gun manufacturers, it would be great!





Relative Ethics said:


> If relatives of suicide and murder victims could sue gun manufacturers,



for what?


----------



## Colin norris (Nov 1, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> If relatives of suicide and murder victims could sue gun manufacturers, it would be great!



Oooooo.   It looks like by your boy doesn't like guns either.  
Watch the gun nuts buy more weapons and ammo.  That'll stop him. 

Tyranny in the SC. Who'd have thought it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 1, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that even hints at a right for a woman to have her own child killed in cold blood.



Nowhere in the constitution are blobs of tissue designated as children.   So your argument is faulty on its face. 

In fact, when the constitution was written, the child mortality rate was something like 50%, and they didn't even count children until they were old enough to wear pants.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 1, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> for what?


Guns, like hard drugs enable harm.  Neither guns nor opioids cause harm on their own.  Opioids are banned.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 1, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> *GREAT!*
> 
> Abortion kills unborn children.
> Guns enable suicide and murder.
> ...



  Guns also enable one to defend one's self against criminal attack; and for some, they allow hunting as a means of providing food.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Nov 1, 2021)

I didn't realize it but this topic is like the perfect storm, abortion and gun control.

Now all I need is figure out how to throw tipping into the mix.


lol


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 1, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Guns enable over 20,000 suicides and over 10,000 murders in USA each year.



  And prevent approximately 2.5 million violent crimes from being completed, per year.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 1, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> And prevent approximately 2.5 million violent crimes from being completed, per year.


That seems very dubious.  Justifiable homicides are very few.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 1, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Guns, like hard drugs enable harm.  Neither guns nor opioids cause harm on their own.  *Opioids are banned*.


  So what was that that the paramedics injected into me to control the pain, before they hauled me with a broken leg out of a construction site two years ago?

  And what was in the pills that my doctor gave me to control the pain during my early recovery from that mishap?


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 1, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> So what was that that the paramedics injected into me to control the pain, before they hauled me with a broken leg out of a construction site two years ago?
> 
> And what was in the pills that my doctor gave me to control the pain during my early recovery from that mishap?


WOW!  

Opioids are permitted but not for uncontrolled consumption by private citizens.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 1, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> That seems very dubious.  Justifiable homicides are very few.



  It's from a famous study carried out, I think, in the 1990s, by Gary Keck.  He initially estimated that approximately a million and a half crimes were prevented by the defensive use of firearms.  He later upped that estimate to about two and a half million.

  Your big error is in assuming that the only way a gun can be used to prevent a crime is by killing the would-be criminal.  The vast majority of legitimate defensive use of firearms have not involved killing the criminal, nor even discharging the firearm.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 1, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Opioids are permitted but not for uncontrolled consumption by private citizens.



  Which contradicts your earlier statement that opioids are banned.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 1, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Nowhere in the constitution are blobs of tissue designated as children.



  Nowhere in the Constitution does it deny that these innocent human beings are what they clearly are.  This denial comes from the exact same evil that once denied that blacks were fully human.  The very same degenerate ideology is responsible for both.  See also, _“Untermenschen”_ in 1930s-1940s Germany.  Or an of the other instance throughout history where one group denied the humanity of another, in order to excuse and justify horrific abuses against that other group.   That, Incel Joe, is the side on which you stand.


----------



## White 6 (Nov 1, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Justice Brett Kavanaugh floated the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.
> 
> The associate justice, appointed by former President Donald Trump, specifically posed a theoretical law that would allow the seller of an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon to be sued for $1 million.
> 
> ...


I did.  That is why the crafting of the Texas law was shortsighted and tunnel visioned.  It could be applied to other rights.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 1, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Which contradicts your earlier statement that opioids are banned.


My mistake.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 1, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> 1)  It's from a famous study carried out, I think, in the 1990s, by Gary Keck.  He initially estimated that approximately a million and a half crimes were prevented by the defensive use of firearms.  He later upped that estimate to about two and a half million.
> 
> 2) Your big error is in assuming that the only way a gun can be used to prevent a crime is by killing the would-be criminal.  The vast majority of legitimate defensive use of firearms have not involved killing the criminal, nor even discharging the firearm.


1)  I am very skeptical.

2)  Justifiable homicides make up under 4% of all homicides.  Thus real self-defense with guns is probably rare.


----------



## hadit (Nov 1, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Guns enable over 20,000 suicides and over 10,000 murders in USA each year.


Do you believe those suicides and murders would not take place if there were no guns?


----------



## hadit (Nov 1, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> 1)  I am very skeptical.
> 
> 2)  Justifiable homicides make up under 4% of all homicides.  Thus real self-defense with guns is probably rare.


You have to define self-defense. In many cases, merely demonstrating that you are armed is enough to make an assailant leave.


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 1, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> I did not see this coming. Did you?


I saw.the ramifications from day one.  I did not expect Bart O'kavenaugh to be the one who pointed it out.


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 1, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> for what?


You're the poster boy for your own signature.


----------



## surada (Nov 1, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that even hints at a right for a woman to have her own child killed in cold blood.
> 
> The case for a Constitutional right to abortion is based on a mountain of falsehoods piled on falsehoods.
> 
> ...



You have a JD?


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 1, 2021)

hadit said:


> Do you believe those suicides and murders would not take place if there were no guns?


About 30% of them would be "successful".


----------



## White 6 (Nov 1, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> I saw.the ramifications from day one.  I did not expect Bart O'kavenaugh to be the one who pointed it out.


I am not really surprised, he did.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Nov 1, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> You're the poster boy for your own signature.





Crepitus said:


> You're the poster boy for your own signature.


I had you in mind when I picked it.


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 1, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> I had you in mind when I picked it.


Obviously not.


----------



## Dekster (Nov 1, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Justice Brett Kavanaugh floated the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.
> 
> The associate justice, appointed by former President Donald Trump, specifically posed a theoretical law that would allow the seller of an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon to be sued for $1 million.
> 
> ...



Yep.  I have said from the beginning federal courts do not like efforts to divest them of the ability to hear cases which is what the Texas law was designed to do.  If upheld, it becomes a slippery slope into whatever nonsense a state wants to do---liberal or conservative.  I expect them to smack down Texas and uphold Mississippi.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 2, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Justice Brett Kavanaugh floated the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.
> 
> The associate justice, appointed by former President Donald Trump, specifically posed a theoretical law that would allow the seller of an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon to be sued for $1 million.
> 
> ...


Abortion isn't a constitutional right.  So, I'd say Kavanaughs concerns are unwarranted.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> If relatives of suicide and murder victims could sue gun manufacturers, it would be great!


Should car wreck victims be able to sue car companies?


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 2, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Should car wreck victims be able to sue car companies?


No.  Cars are much more needed then guns.  I do oppose motorcycles -- accident death rate 30 times higher then cars.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 2, 2021)

You


Relative Ethics said:


> No.  Cars are much more needed then guns.  I do oppose motorcycles -- accident death rate 30 times higher then cars.


That would violate the Equal Protection Clause.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 2, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> You
> 
> That would violate the Equal Protection Clause.


How?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> How?


You can't protect one company, while making another company fair game.  Either both can be sued, or neither can be sued.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 2, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> You can't protect one company, while making another company fair game.  Either both can be sued, or neither can be sued.


Perhaps.  If guns are not banned then over 20,000 lives per year will still be lost to suicide and over 10,000 lives per year to homicide.


----------



## edthecynic (Nov 2, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> He initially estimated that approximately a million and a half crimes were prevented by the defensive use of firearms. He later upped that estimate to about two and a half million.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 2, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Should car wreck victims be able to sue car companies?


In some instances, they already have.


----------



## Whodatsaywhodat. (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Guns enable over 20,000 suicides and over 10,000 murders in USA each year.


Don't be stupid .


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 2, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Abortion isn't a constitutional right.  So, I'd say Kavanaughs concerns are unwarranted.


For all intensive purposes, abortion is, just like the 2nd amendment.
Abortion was decided by the SC to be constitutional.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Guns enable over 20,000 suicides and over 10,000 murders in USA each year.


Suicides would happen with out firearms retard.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 2, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Guns also enable one to defend one's self against criminal attack; and for some, they allow hunting as a means of providing food.


No one needs to hunt to feed themselves at this point, guy.  We have supermarkets. 




Bob Blaylock said:


> It's from a famous study carried out, I think, in the 1990s, by Gary Keck. He initially estimated that approximately a million and a half crimes were prevented by the defensive use of firearms. He later upped that estimate to about two and a half million.



And both numbers were sheer bullshit.   

Here's the number we are sure about. The FBI states only 200 Americans kill an attacker in legitimate self-defense a year.   Now, no matter what number you use for non-lethal DGU's, you'd have to accept that 99.9% of the time, a gun nut has an opportunity to kill a darkie... I mean a bad guy... yeah, bad guy, that's the ticket, and doesn't.  Given how much you gun nuts fantasize about it, that's just not credible. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> Your big error is in assuming that the only way a gun can be used to prevent a crime is by killing the would-be criminal. The vast majority of legitimate defensive use of firearms have not involved killing the criminal, nor even discharging the firearm.



Again, works on the assumption someone who is desperate enough to commit a crime will be deterred by the mere sight of a gun 99.9% of the time.   Just doesn't pass the laugh test.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 2, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Nowhere in the Constitution does it deny that these innocent human beings are what they clearly are. This denial comes from the exact same evil that once denied that blacks were fully human. The very same degenerate ideology is responsible for both. See also, _“Untermenschen”_ in 1930s-1940s Germany. Or an of the other instance throughout history where one group denied the humanity of another, in order to excuse and justify horrific abuses against that other group. That, Incel Joe, is the side on which you stand.



Naw, man, I stand on the side that women are more than breeding machines, a concept kind of lost on your sick-ass cult.  

Women have been having abortions since Jesus lost his sandals.   Even when abortion was "illegal", no one was charged with murder for performing them. Women were never charged with a crime for having them and the only time providers were charged is if they fucked up and injured the woman. 

If you want a real analog to abortion laws, think Prohibition.  The moral do-gooders banned alcohol, but people kept drinking.  The laws were poorly enforced at led to worse things, like organized crime and people getting messed up when they drank alcohol that wasn't quality controlled in it's manufacture. 

The ironic thing was, SCOTUS, including 5 Republican appointees at the time, didn't think they were doing anything that radical when they struck down the nation's unworkable and unenforced abortion laws. They thought it was no more controversial than when they ended contraception laws eight years earlier in _Griswold v. Connecticut.  _What they hadn't counted on was a bunch of moralistic twit using the issue for political reasons.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 2, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Should car wreck victims be able to sue car companies?



If the car wasn't designed properly, sure.  Let's not forget the story of the Pinto, where Ford decided that it would be cheaper to pay out people who burned to death than to recall millions of cars to do an $11.00 repair. 



Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> You can't protect one company, while making another company fair game. Either both can be sued, or neither can be sued.



Except only one of those designs a product to kill people, and then markets them to the most irresponsible people imaginable.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 2, 2021)

Obama's Justice Department did the same study Gleck did and came up with similar numbers Joe shit stain.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 2, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Obama's Justice Department did the same study Gleck did and came up with similar numbers Joe shit stain.



Nope.   Obama just reprinted all studies on DGU's, including Kleck's (not Gleck), which is utter bullshit. 

The CDC is actually prohibited from studying gun violence.  Has been since Kellerman found that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 2, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Nope.   Obama just reprinted all studies on DGU's, including Kleck's (not Gleck), which is utter bullshit.
> 
> The CDC is actually prohibited from studying gun violence.  Has been since Kellerman found that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.


Ahh that LIE again you keep repeating it when it has been debunked almost since the day it was uttered.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 2, 2021)

https://firearmsandliberty.com/papers-shade/StatisticalMisgivingsandLies.PDF Here ya go retard, even Kellerman admitted that figure was wrong


----------



## Hugo Furst (Nov 2, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Obviously not.





Crepitus said:


> Obviously not.


Thanks for the proof I was right


----------



## Hugo Furst (Nov 2, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Should car wreck victims be able to sue car companies?


If the wreck was due to a mechanical malfunction, yes

Operator error, no


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 2, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> Thanks for the proof I was right


If that's what you got outta my post then I can't help you.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Nov 2, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> If that's what you got outta my post then I can't help you.


I doubt you could help anyone.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 2, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> I didn't realize it but this topic is like the perfect storm, abortion and gun control.
> 
> Now all I need is figure out how to throw tipping into the mix.
> 
> ...



The interesting thing is, the right to arms and the right to abortion are linked.

The storm you note could be kicked up a bit more if one were to say that the right to abortion (well actually the right to privacy) is actually dependent upon the fundamental and inviolate nature of the right to keep and bear arms.

One could say that dumb liberals don't understand at all, the legal doctrine by which the right to privacy was recognized.  One could say that dumb liberals don't get that if they are successful crushing the right to arms, they are giving the social/cultural right-wingers an irrefutable legal argument to kill the Court's recognition of the right to privacy and the derivative rights of abortion, contraception and of course, LGBTQ+ rights.

It is the ultimate '_be careful what you wish for_' scenario.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 2, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> If the wreck was due to a mechanical malfunction, yes
> 
> Operator error, no


The same standard should apply to gun manufacturers.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 2, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> If the car wasn't designed properly, sure.  Let's not forget the story of the Pinto, where Ford decided that it would be cheaper to pay out people who burned to death than to recall millions of cars to do an $11.00 repair.
> 
> 
> 
> Except only one of those designs a product to kill people, and then markets them to the most irresponsible people imaginable.


No manufacturer should be held responsible for abuse of their product.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 2, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> For all intensive purposes, abortion is, just like the 2nd amendment.
> Abortion was decided by the SC to be constitutional.


The Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to give citizens a right.

What Roe said, is that the government can't violate the 4th Amendment.  It never said abortion is constitutional.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 2, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Justice Brett Kavanaugh floated the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.
> 
> The associate justice, appointed by former President Donald Trump, specifically posed a theoretical law that would allow the seller of an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon to be sued for $1 million.
> 
> ...


I am glad we have justices who think like Kavanaugh.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 2, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> In some instances, they already have.


But, not in instances of homicide.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Perhaps.  If guns are not banned then over 20,000 lives per year will still be lost to suicide and over 10,000 lives per year to homicide.


Banning guns won't affect those numbers.


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 2, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> I doubt you could help anyone.


That's nice, kid.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> So you could use a Texas abortion style law to restrict guns in California? It gets around the Constitution.


First, California would have to make gun ownership illegal.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Guns enable over 20,000 suicides and over 10,000 murders in USA each year.


And 100,000 or more instances of self-defense.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Oooooo.   It looks like by your boy doesn't like guns either.


^^^
Quite possibly the most ignorant statement ever made on USMB.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Guns, like hard drugs enable harm.  Neither guns nor opioids cause harm on their own.  Opioids are banned.


M'kay.  So?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> That seems very dubious.  Justifiable homicides are very few.


You are fully aware that this is an utterly meaningless fact.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> 2)  Justifiable homicides make up under 4% of all homicides.  Thus real self-defense with guns is probably rare.


And yet, your source says it happens >100k times per year.
Did they lie?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> In some instances, they already have.


For design or manufacturing defects - not negligent or intentional misuse.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> For all intensive purposes, abortion is, just like the 2nd amendment.


Except that if someone tried to lay the same restriction on abortion that, say, CA and NY have on the right to keep and bear arms, liberal heads would explode.


----------



## justoffal (Nov 2, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Justice Brett Kavanaugh floated the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.
> 
> The associate justice, appointed by former President Donald Trump, specifically posed a theoretical law that would allow the seller of an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon to be sued for $1 million.
> 
> ...


I am pro life....but even I see the danger in this whole thing.  Kavanaugh is right....the slope isn't just slippery....it's steep and it's slicked up with Wet Teflon.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 2, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> For all intensive purposes, abortion is, just like the 2nd amendment.
> Abortion was decided by the SC to be constitutional.



  The Second Amendment is explicitly written into the Constitution.

  You can read, any complete copy of the Constitution and find these exact words therein:  _“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”_

  You cannot find any such language anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at any _“right”_ to kill an innocent human being in cold blood.  The closest that anything in the Constitution comes to this is in the Fifth Amendment, where it says that one cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.  How much due process is given to an innocent victim of abortion before his life is savagely snuffed out?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 2, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Guns also enable one to defend one's self against criminal attack; and for some, they allow hunting as a means of providing food.
> ...



  True, but that does not, in any way, invalidate hunting as a legitimate means of obtaining food.  It's not my thing, but my wife came from a family that was very much into hunting as a means of obtaining food.  She took and passed a hunter safety course at the age of seven or eight, getting the highest score therein in spite of being the only minor in the class.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 2, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the number we are sure about. The FBI states only 200 Americans kill an attacker in legitimate self-defense a year. Now, no matter what number you use for non-lethal DGU's, you'd have to accept that 99.9% of the time, a gun nut has an opportunity to kill a *darkie*... I mean a bad guy... yeah, bad guy, that's the ticket, and doesn't. Given how much you gun nuts fantasize about it, that's just not credible.





JoeB131 said:


> Again, works on the assumption someone who is desperate enough to commit a crime will be deterred by the mere sight of a gun 99.9% of the time. Just doesn't pass the laugh test.



  I find it funny, how you, who are always so eager to falsely accuse others of being racist, cannot help waving your own filthy racism around like a proud banner.

  I do not think there is anyone else on this forum who, as staunchly as you do, conflates _“darkies”_ with criminals; assuming that the former have a valid excuse for being criminals, and cannot help themselves; and that any actual Human beings seeking to defend themselves from criminals only do so for racist reasons, and deep down, would not pass up an opportunity to kill a _“darkie”_ and get away with it.

  The most extreme false accusations of racism that you so freely throw around at others do not come close to the reality of the racism which you routinely demonstrate on your own part.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 2, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Suicides would happen with out firearms retard.


I have normal IQ and low EQ.

About 70% of suicides would fail without guns.  Gun lobby is complicit in over a million deaths over decades.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 2, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, man, I stand on the side that women are more than breeding machines, a concept kind of lost on your sick-ass cult.



  We've seen enough of what you think of women, to know who the real misogynist is, here.

  It's no wonder that at your age, you're an incel loser who has never been married and never will.

  I hadn't really noticed before but the contrast between your view of women, and that of those of us who you like to falsely paint as misogynists; is not much unlike that between your view of black people, and that of those of us that you are so fond of falsely painting as racists.

  I guess there's a lot of sour grapes painting your view, along with a huge dose of psychological projection.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 2, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Banning guns won't affect those numbers.


Banning guns would reduce Murder and Suicide by about 70%.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 2, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > …since Kellerman found that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.
> ...



  Starting with the fact that Kellerman counted as _“a gun in the home”_, a gun brought into the home at the time of the incident, by a criminal, to use against the rightful inhabitants of the home—an act of willful fraud right there, on his part, that pretty much refutes any claim he might try to make after that.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> About 70% of suicides would fail without guns.


You cannot demonstrate this to be true.


Relative Ethics said:


> Gun lobby is complicit in over a million deaths over decades.


It does not matter how many times you repeat this lie, it remains a lie.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Banning guns would reduce Murder and Suicide by about 70%.


This is only true if people are unable or unwilling to find other ways to kill themselves or others..
Demonstrate this to be the case.

Then, resign yourself the fact guns won't be banned.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 2, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> This is only true if people are unable or unwilling to find other ways to kill themselves or others..


Most suicide attempts by other methods fail.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Most suicide attempts by other methods fail.


Even if true, it is irrelevant to the fact that your statement is only true if people are unable or unwilling to find other ways to kill themselves or others..
Demonstrate this to be the case.

Then, resign yourself the fact guns won't be banned.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Most suicide attempts by other methods fail.



Handgun suicides kill over 20,000 Americans a year.

And these are right wing, pro gun Americans for the most part. It's in the interest of the pro gun crowd to save these people.

The thing about handguns is once you pull the trigger and splatter your brains all over the head liner of your Ford F150, you're almost guaranteed to die. A shot to the head is very lethal.

Another bad thing about handgun suicides is that it's quick and can be done in about 5 seconds time. Hanging yourself takes a lot longer and in that time you might decide to put your suicide off for a few days.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Handgun suicides kill over 20,000 Americans a year.
> And these are right wing, pro gun Americans for the most part.


Demonstrate this to be true.


Otis Mayfield said:


> The thing about handguns is once you pull the trigger and splatter your brains all over the head liner of your Ford F150, you're almost guaranteed to die. A shot to the head is very lethal.


Indeed.  An indication the person has committed himself to dying.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> I have normal IQ and low EQ.
> 
> About 70% of suicides would fail without guns.  Gun lobby is complicit in over a million deaths over decades.


Simply not true as evidenced by such places as Japan.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 2, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Handgun suicides kill over 20,000 Americans a year.
> 
> And these are right wing, pro gun Americans for the most part. It's in the interest of the pro gun crowd to save these people.
> 
> ...


Agree 100%.  Thank you.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 2, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Simply not true as evidenced by such places as Japan.


Sadly Japanese people do not view Suicide as a sin.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Sadly Japanese people do not view Suicide as a sin.


Which does not address his point at all.
The Japanese do not have guns.  They are quite adept at killing themselves.
How can that be?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Sadly Japanese people do not view Suicide as a sin.


Which has nothing to do with successfully killing yourself.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Sadly Japanese people do not view Suicide as a sin.



Yes, in Japan suicide is a way of balancing things. It's not necessarily a bad thing.

So that would lead more people to doing the deed. 

Here, Christianity is against it. It's not a mortal sin anymore, but it's frowned on. It's also seen as a sign of weakness by some.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 2, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Yes, in Japan suicide is a way of balancing things. It's not necessarily a bad thing.
> 
> So that would lead more people to doing the deed.
> 
> Here, Christianity is against it. It's not a mortal sin anymore, but it's frowned on. It's also seen as a sign of weakness by some.


Which has jack all to do with successfully killing yourself.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 2, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Yes, in Japan suicide is a way of balancing things. It's not necessarily a bad thing.
> 
> So that would lead more people to doing the deed.
> 
> Here, Christianity is against it. It's not a mortal sin anymore, but it's frowned on. It's also seen as a sign of weakness by some.


Suicide is a sin.  As a Jew, I believe that their punishment will last *millennia* but not eternity.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Banning guns would reduce Murder and Suicide by about 70%.


Just like banning drugs reduced drug use?...lol


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 2, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Just like banning drugs reduced drug use?...lol


Probably it did to a great extent.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 2, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Probably it did to a great extent.


Banning guns will increase crime.


----------



## playtime (Nov 2, 2021)

lol ... brett isn't pro life in the least.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 3, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to give citizens a right.
> 
> What Roe said, is that the government can't violate the 4th Amendment.  It never said abortion is constitutional.


WTF?

_Dred Scott v. Sanford_ (1856) A major precursor to the Civil War, this controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision denied citizenship and basic rights to all blacks -- whether slave or free.


_Plessy v. Ferguson_ (1896) This decision allowed the use of "separate but equal" racially segregated accommodations and facilities.


_Brown v. Board of Education_ (1954) In this landmark case, the Court prohibited racial segregation of public schools.
In its landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Supreme Court recognized that the right to abortion is a fundamental liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Since Roe the Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the Constitution’s protection for this essential liberty, which guarantees each individual the right to make personal decisions about family and childbearing.
Accordingly, the Court has made clear that it cannot dismiss “the certain cost of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case.” Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 856 (1992). Over the decades since the Court first held that the Constitution encompasses protection for the right to abortion, including its most recent decision, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016), as revised (June 27, 2016), it has also recognized that without access to abortion, the right is meaningless.
These decisions granted people.............rights, they never had before.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 3, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> For design or manufacturing defects - not negligent or intentional misuse.


Hence, 'In some instances' part of my comment.
If an abortion isn't done properly they can sue the doctor for negligence or intentional harm.


M14 Shooter said:


> Except that if someone tried to lay the same restriction on abortion that, say, CA and NY have on the right to keep and bear arms, liberal heads would explode.


California or New York doesn't/can't ban guns.
Abortion clinics have to be registered and licensed.
Hospitals already are.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 3, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> The Second Amendment is explicitly written into the Constitution.
> 
> You can read, any complete copy of the Constitution and find these exact words therein:  _“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”_
> 
> You cannot find any such language anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at any _“right”_ to kill an innocent human being in cold blood.  The closest that anything in the Constitution comes to this is in the Fifth Amendment, where it says that one cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.  How much due process is given to an innocent victim of abortion before his life is savagely snuffed out?


So, what militia do you belong to?
The GQP, always ignore that part.

The abortion decision comes indirectly in the 14th amendment.

_*Roe v. Wade*_, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.

In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. But it also ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life.
The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

'You cannot find any such language anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at any _“right”_ to kill an innocent human being in cold blood'.

It's a fetus, so you gonna charge 4.5 million women with murder/manslaughter that miscarried their pregnancies?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 3, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> No manufacturer should be held responsible for abuse of their product.



They should if they are openly encouraging the abuse.  

Let's not forget, what happened with the tobacco industry.  When the tobacco suit went forward, they discovered that they were intentionally hiking the nicotine content to make it more addictive, using advertising campaigns to make the product more attractive to teens, and so on. 

So let's compare that to the gun industry.  They intentionally market to the crazies, they make it impossible to have meaningful background checks, all to create violence and fear so more people want to buy their products.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 3, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> he Second Amendment is explicitly written into the Constitution.
> 
> You can read, any complete copy of the Constitution and find these exact words therein: _“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”_



You left out the part about "Well-regulated militias"... you guys always want to leave that part out.  I'm all for well-regulated militias, I was a member of one for years.   Nuts with guns, not so much. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> True, but that does not, in any way, invalidate hunting as a legitimate means of obtaining food. It's not my thing, but my wife came from a family that was very much into hunting as a means of obtaining food. She took and passed a hunter safety course at the age of seven or eight, getting the highest score therein in spite of being the only minor in the class.



That's nice that animal cruelty is something else we an add to your cult's features. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> I do not think there is anyone else on this forum who, as staunchly as you do, conflates _“darkies”_ with criminals; assuming that the former have a valid excuse for being criminals, and cannot help themselves; and that any actual Human beings seeking to defend themselves from criminals only do so for racist reasons, and deep down, would not pass up an opportunity to kill a _“darkie”_ and get away with it.



For those playing along at home, Bob belongs to a cult that says that dark skin is a curse from God, and didn't admit black people until 1978.  

Really?  Have you missed all the times wingnuts on this forum point out that blacks commit more crimes than whites?   Or that our crime rates would be the same as Europe if you factor out minorities... .Or how you want to build a wall to keep "those people" out?   Come on, man, own your racism. 

The problem with the stupid reason (I needs my guns to shoot criminals) is that a gun is more likely to be used in an act of domestic violence or suicide than it is to ever be used in an act of self defense. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> I hadn't really noticed before but the contrast between your view of women, and that of those of us who you like to falsely paint as misogynists; is not much unlike that between your view of black people, and that of those of us that you are so fond of falsely painting as racists.



Naw, man, all we have to do is look at policies. In another thread on abortion, you thought it was perfectly okay to prosecute Purvi Patel for having a miscarriage under Indiana's silly fetal homicide laws.  (Please note, when the wingnuts go after women with these laws, they go after women of color.) You've advocated murdering demonstrators during the BLM riots. 

Point is, I use terms like Darkie and Breeding Machine to underscore the effects of your desired policies... one where it would suck to be anything other than a white male.  Or as you no doubt call them, "The Good Old Days".   Whenever you guys talk about the "Good old days", you mean, "When those people knew their place." 

Meanwhile, I have crazy ideas like "Women shouldn't be forced to have their rapist's baby" and "Black people shouldn't be murdered by the police over petty infractions".   I'm a white, straight male. (Sorry, man, you spend so much time obsessing about my sex life, I thought I would point that out before you stain your magic underwear).  I could look at the homophobic, racist and misogynistic shit the GOP advocates to keep stupid people like you angry, and say, "No skin off my nose." 

But unlike you, I realize that minorities, women, gays, etc are really in the same boat I'm in, trying to get by day to day, while those with wealth try to take more of what we have.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> They should if they are openly encouraging the abuse.
> 
> Let's not forget, what happened with the tobacco industry.  When the tobacco suit went forward, they discovered that they were intentionally hiking the nicotine content to make it more addictive, using advertising campaigns to make the product more attractive to teens, and so on.
> 
> So let's compare that to the gun industry.  They intentionally market to the crazies, they make it impossible to have meaningful background checks, all to create violence and fear so more people want to buy their products.


But, gun companies aren't doing that, so it's a non starter.

The gun companies have absolutely nothing to do with laws concerning background checks.  If you don't like the background check system currently in place, you can only complain to the legislators, because only they can make laws.

If you want to blame someone for spikes in gun purchases, you once again can only point the finger at the government, because it's they who are creating violence and fear.  I mean, you have Libtard congress critters who want to abolish police and prisons.


----------



## Rogue AI (Nov 3, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> I have normal IQ and low EQ.
> 
> About 70% of suicides would fail without guns.  Gun lobby is complicit in over a million deaths over decades.


Utter bullshit, suicidal people are responsible for every one of those suicides.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> California or New York doesn't/can't ban guns.


California requires the registration of firerams with the state, that gun owners obtain a license - which has a training requirement - to own a gun, limits ownership to only certain approved guns (thereby banning ownership of the rest), and allows people to carry a gun only in they can demonstrate a good reason for doing so.
Apply the relevant analogues of these limitations to abortion, and liberal heads would explode.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Hence, 'In some instances' part of my comment.


So, you agree that if somone gets drunk, steals a Mustang, and forces a loaded school bus over a cliff, Ford cannot be held liable.
Right?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> These decisions granted people.............rights, they never had before.


Like the 13th 15th and 19th amendments these decisions removed the restrictions placed upon the exercise of the relevant rights by the relevant parties.
The rights themselves were not granted by the amendments, or the court cases.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> So, what militia do you belong to?
> The GQP, always ignore that part.


As there is no requirement to be part of any militia to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, and to the enjoy the protection of the 2nd Amendment while doing so, it is only proper that the GOP ignore "that part".


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 3, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> So, what militia do you belong to?



  Per the Militia Act of 1903, which remains in effect to this day, and which only slightly altered the relevant principle set up by the Militia Acts of 1792, every able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 45, with a few sharply-defined exceptions, is a member of the militia.

  I'm no longer a member of the militia, as I am well past the age of 45.




Smokin' OP said:


> It's a fetus…



  A human being.



Smokin' OP said:


> …so you gonna charge 4.5 million women with murder/manslaughter that miscarried their pregnancies?



  How often are people charged with murder or manslaughter for deaths that happen from natural causes, where no one is at fault?

  And yes, I fully support the idea of prosecuting anyone for murder, and eligible for the death penalty, who has any willing part in the murder of an innocent human being at any age or stage of development, including the murder of an unborn human being.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 3, 2021)

For those playing along, Incel Joe is a pathetic loser, in his late fifties, who has never been married, who hates women, who hates blacks, who hates people with any religious faith, who hates truth in any form, who hates his country and his fellow Americans; and seldom speaks anything other than whatever lies he hopes will be most hurtful to those he hates, which is just about everyone; and who heavily practices psychological projection of his hate and his pathological dishonesty on anyone with whom he disagrees.



JoeB131 said:


> For those playing along at home, Bob belongs to a cult that says that dark skin is a curse from God, and didn't admit black people until 1978.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 3, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> 
> _Dred Scott v. Sanford_ (1856) A major precursor to the Civil War, this controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision denied citizenship and basic rights to all blacks -- whether slave or free.
> 
> ...


And those decisions can be over turned by future courts.  That means they aren't "rights"


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 3, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> So, what militia do you belong to?
> The GQP, always ignore that part.
> 
> The abortion decision comes indirectly in the 14th amendment.
> ...


We don't have to belong to a militia.  Nothing in the 2nd Amendment requires it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 3, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> But, gun companies aren't doing that, so it's a non starter.
> 
> The gun companies have absolutely nothing to do with laws concerning background checks. If you don't like the background check system currently in place, you can only complain to the legislators, because only they can make laws.



Actually, the NRA spends millions of dollars lobbying congress every year to keep background checks weak, to provide protections for gun sellers no matter how reckless their actions....  That's the point. 

They need fear to sell guns.  



Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> If you want to blame someone for spikes in gun purchases, you once again can only point the finger at the government, because it's they who are creating violence and fear. I mean, you have Libtard congress critters who want to abolish police and prisons.


..
Wait, aren't prisons and police part of the government?   The problem here is that if police and prisons really stopped crime, we'd have the lowest crime rates in the industrialized world, not the highest.  What we are doing ISN'T WORKING.... Maybe it's time to try something else.  




Bob Blaylock said:


> For those playing along,



Wow, it's fun how I can make you dance.

Look, buddy, I realize I hurt your feeling pointing out the sleazy history of your cult...  



Bob Blaylock said:


> Per the Militia Act of 1903, which remains in effect to this day, and which only slightly altered the relevant principle set up by the Militia Acts of 1792, every able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 45, with a few sharply-defined exceptions, is a member of the militia.



YOu are a bit confused.  The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act, established the National Guard. It was modified in 1933 to federalize all national guardsmen... so, no, not every man is a member of the militia. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> And yes, I fully support the idea of prosecuting anyone for murder, and eligible for the death penalty, who has any willing part in the murder of an innocent human being at any age or stage of development, including the murder of an unborn human being.



But Mormon Bob is totally not a misogynist....  

He just values globs of tissue more than actual women.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> YOu [sic] are a bit confused. The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act, established the National Guard. It was modified in 1933 to federalize all national guardsmen... so, no, not every man is a member of the militia.



  The Dick Act left the previously-defined militia intact, but established the National Guard as a separate form of militia.

  To this day, under the terms of this act, patterned after the earlier related acts, every able-bodied man in American, between the ages of 18 and 45 years of age, with few sharply-defined exceptions, is a member of the militia.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> But Mormon Bob is totally not a misogynist....
> 
> He just values globs of tissue more than actual women.



  Those _“globs of tissue”_ are human beings, no less than you or I.  Denying this puts you in the company of the Nazis, who denied the humanity of Jews and other _untermenschen_, and the slave-supporting members of our own early history who denied the full humanity of black people; and many other evil mobs who denied the humanity of other groups of humans in order to defend and excuse horrific violations of their human rights.  You are no better than any of them.

  I have no doubt at all that if you thought you could get away with it, and get others to go along with you, you would similarly treat members of my faith, and members of some other faiths; and happily see similar abuses carried out against us.  In fact, now that I think of it, you have, in fact, in other threads, explicitly defended similar abuses that have been carried out against my ancestors because of our faith.  I would guess that the only shame you feel concerning this is that you lack the guts to perpetrate abuses against modern day Mormons similar to what were carried out against my ancestors, and are pathetically reduced to merely hurling lies and insults against us that have little effect.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 3, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> So you could use a Texas abortion style law to restrict guns in California? It gets around the Constitution.


It would be used to get around the courts, actually.

And the Supreme Court would first need to strike down California’s assault weapon ban.

When the Court invalidates a law, the law doesn’t ‘go away’ – the law remains on the books, but unenforceable.

Following the Texas example, California could authorize private citizens to sue anyone who buys or sells an AR 15, and anyone known to be in possession of an AR 15.

Because California isn’t enforcing the ban with punitive measures, it wouldn’t be in violation of the Second Amendment and beyond the authority of the courts.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 3, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> 
> _Dred Scott v. Sanford_ (1856) A major precursor to the Civil War, this controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision denied citizenship and basic rights to all blacks -- whether slave or free.
> 
> ...


More precisely, these rulings prohibited government from violating the rights citizens have always possessed.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 3, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> The Dick Act left the previously-defined militia intact, but established the National Guard as a separate form of militia.
> 
> To this day, under the terms of this act, patterned after the earlier related acts, every able-bodied man in American, between the ages of 18 and 45 years of age, with few sharply-defined exceptions, is a member of the militia.



Okay... um, so when was the last time the "militia" was called up?  Hint. It wasn't.  They called up the National Guard or they drafted people directly into the Army, and funny thing, no one was expected to show up with his own gun.  Guns were issued.  

Using an obscure and outdated law to justify dumb policy is just... dumb.  




Bob Blaylock said:


> Those _“globs of tissue”_ are human beings, no less than you or I. Denying this puts you in the company of the Nazis, who denied the humanity of Jews and other _untermenschen_, and the slave-supporting members of our own early history who denied the full humanity of black people; and many other evil mobs who denied the humanity of other groups of humans in order to defend and excuse horrific violations of their human rights. You are no better than any of them.



Again- Should point out your cult introduced slavery into Utah and declared dark skin as the "Curse of Ham". So you really don't get to talk. 

Now- the problem with making Globby the Fetus a full-fledged legal human being is that doesn't stop with abortion.  Can you charge a woman with child abuse for smoking or drinking while pregnant, or even having a shitty diet.  Can you ban women from certain jobs that might cause birth defects?  (A company actually tried this in the 1980's) 

Unlike a Nazi or a slaveholder, a woman would need to be regulated to second class citizenship by merely giving Globby "human rights".  



Bob Blaylock said:


> I have no doubt at all that if you thought you could get away with it, and get others to go along with you, you would similarly treat members of my faith, and members of some other faiths; and happily see similar abuses carried out against us. In fact, now that I think of it, you have, in fact, in other threads, explicitly defended similar abuses that have been carried out against my ancestors because of our faith.



I think you are a little confused.  Your ancestors got abused because they were engaged in various sketchy behaviors, whether it be J. Smith's Gold Divining Scams, or the Kirtland Bank Scandal, or the Danite terror raids that led Missouri to ban your cult, or finally, when J. Smith tried to take over a chunk of western Illinois with his own private army while maintaining a harem of young girls.  Not to mention your attempts to carve out your own country in 1857 and the slaughter of the unarmed Francher Party.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> I would guess that the only shame you feel concerning this is that you lack the guts to perpetrate abuses against modern day Mormons similar to what were carried out against my ancestors, and are pathetically reduced to merely hurling lies and insults against us that have little effect.



Well, I do have this fantasy about throwing up a fence around Utah and turning it into a Cult Deprogramming Camp, but that would be harsh... 

Actually, just watching you squirm when you have to defend your crazy beliefs and sleazy history is more than enough fun for me.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 3, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You cannot find any such language anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at any _“right”_ to kill an innocent human being in cold blood.


This is a lie. 

No one advocates for any such thing.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense’ – but the Second Amendment nonetheless codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense because the Supreme Court determined that to be the case.

Likewise the Supreme Court has determined that the right to privacy exists, as codified by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The right to privacy prohibits government from interfering with citizens’ personal decisions, such as whether to have a child or not; the right to privacy prohibits government from compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > You cannot find any such language anywhere in the Constitution that even hints at any _“right”_ to kill an innocent human being in cold blood.
> ...



  Abortion is the murder of an innocent human being.  Denying this does not change what it is, nor what it indicates about you that you would defend this horrific act.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense’ – but the Second Amendment nonetheless codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense because the Supreme Court determined that to be the case.



  The Supreme Court exists because the Constitution says so, not the other way around.

  No court, including the Supreme Court, has any legitimate power to change what the Constitution explicitly says.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 3, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> So, what militia do you belong to?


Second Amendment absolutists – followers of the aspirational, political Second Amendment – subscribe to the wrongheaded notion that any collection of private citizens can designate themselves a ‘militia,’ entitling them to the same weapons as the US military, such as fully automatic rifles and carbines.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Second Amendment absolutists – followers of the aspirational, political Second Amendment –



I ascribe to the aspirational 2nd Amendment *and *the judicial 2nd Amendment with the 66 year perversion of the various lower federal court "collective right" theories excluded.  Problem is, all that collective right crap has to be shaken out of the judicial system, it still sits there at the dinner table like a rotting corpse . . .

In reality, hundreds of gun control laws were sustained citing collective right lower federal cases; the reasoning for supporting those laws has evaporated, has been abrogated but those laws still stand because those cases remain in those Circuits.  (e.g., CA, NY, MD and NJ)

Much of your "judicial" 2nd Amendment is sewage that needs to be jetted from the pipeline of Circuit court precedent. That needs to be done by the Circuits after they get firm direction from SCOTUS or by SCOTUS by direct ruling . . .   Either way, thousands of unconstitutional gun laws will be invalidated when the crap blockage breaks free.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> subscribe to the wrongheaded notion that any collection of private citizens can designate themselves a ‘militia,’ entitling them to the same weapons as the US military, such as fully automatic rifles and carbines.



I, as a 2nd Amendment absolutist, have no problem with _Heller_'s acknowledgement of what _Presser_ directs:

"Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886) , held that the right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that forbade “bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law.” Id., at 264–265. This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment; no one supporting that interpretation has contended that States may not ban such groups."​


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 3, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, the NRA spends millions of dollars lobbying congress every year to keep background checks weak, to provide protections for gun sellers no matter how reckless their actions....  That's the point.
> 
> They need fear to sell guns.
> 
> ...


We've already seen what happens when the police are ordered to stand down: crime sky rockets.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> No one advocates for any such thing.
> 
> ...


The right to privacy likewise prohibits the government from knowing what guns I own.  Until I cause harm with those guns, it's none of the government's business.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 3, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> We've already seen what happens when the police are ordered to stand down: crime sky rockets.



  Of course, you're saying that to a creature that consistently takes the side of its fellow criminals against that of human beings.  It wants crime to skyrocket.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 4, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> California requires the registration of firerams with the state, that gun owners obtain a license - which has a training requirement - to own a gun, limits ownership to only certain approved guns (thereby banning ownership of the rest), and allows people to carry a gun only in they can demonstrate a good reason for doing so.
> Apply the relevant analogues of these limitations to abortion, and liberal heads would explode.


That isn't a ban, moron.
That's like claiming the GQP are banning voting because an ID is required essentially banning the people who don't have one.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 4, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> So, you agree that if somone gets drunk, steals a Mustang, and forces a loaded school bus over a cliff, Ford cannot be held liable.
> Right?


Yes.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 4, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Like the 13th 15th and 19th amendments these decisions removed the restrictions placed upon the exercise of the relevant rights by the relevant parties.
> The rights themselves were not granted by the amendments, or the court cases.


WTF?
Yes, they were.

Those were some rights, people previously never had.
Therefore,  granted.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 4, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> As there is no requirement to be part of any militia to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, and to the enjoy the protection of the 2nd Amendment while doing so, it is only proper that the GOP ignore "that part".


There was at the time.

'The Second Amendment is explicitly written into the Constitution'.

'You can read, any complete copy of the Constitution and find these exact words therein: _“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”_

The "Act to Regulate the Militia of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" passed 17 March 1777, and the the subsequent Militia Act passed March 20, 1780, together with their amendments, required all white men between the ages of 18 and 53 capable of bearing arms to serve two months of militia duty on a rotating basis. Refusal to turn out for military exercises would result in a fine, the proceeds from which were used to hire substitutes. 

The term militia applied to the entire male population, ages 16-60, of the Province of Massachusetts. Each man was required by law to carry his own firearm with appropriate ammunition and accessories. He was to be enrolled in the company of his town. This militiaman was to report four times a year to his company for training. 

In the 2008 case _District of Columbia v. Heller_, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 4, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Per the Militia Act of 1903, which remains in effect to this day, and which only slightly altered the relevant principle set up by the Militia Acts of 1792, every able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 45, with a few sharply-defined exceptions, is a member of the militia.
> 
> I'm no longer a member of the militia, as I am well past the age of 45.
> 
> ...


Really?
So, this 'human' can survive without the mothers nutrition?
As well as the mothers oxygen.
What's it's name?
So, if everything goes normally, after 3 months of breathing air, it can have it's 1st birthday?


Bob Blaylock said:


> How often are people charged with murder or manslaughter for deaths that happen from natural causes, where no one is at fault?


How do you know the miscarriage wasn't intentional, like drunk driving, a glass of wine too many and she could have killed the fetus.


Bob Blaylock said:


> And yes, I fully support the idea of prosecuting anyone for murder, and eligible for the death penalty, who has any willing part in the murder of an innocent human being at any age or stage of development, including the murder of an unborn human being.


So while walking to enter the grocery store, a pregnant woman trips, land on her stomach, should be charged with murder?
What about a skiing, boat, or car accident?
What about a woman taking birth control pills, when she is pregnant but doesn't know it?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 4, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> And those decisions can be over turned by future courts.  That means they aren't "rights"


Yes, they are, moron.
*IF/UNTIL, *they are overturned.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 4, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> We don't have to belong to a militia.  Nothing in the 2nd Amendment requires it.


You're FOS.
' A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'.

The vision of an American militia goes back even before the United States Constitution or the founding of the United States. In most states in colonial America, all able-bodied men were considered to be part of the militia – through which the individual towns and cities would provide for the common defense.

A militia is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution, prior to the Bill of Rights. Article I, Section 8, drafted around the same time as the founding of the Springfield Armory (ground zero for American ammunition manufacturing), mentions it three times alone:


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
Article II, Section 2 designates the President of the United States as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.”


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 4, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The right to privacy likewise prohibits the government from knowing what guns I own.  Until I cause harm with those guns, it's none of the government's business.


Sure, try that in a traffic stop, a frisk or when the cops get a warrant to search your home.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 4, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> We've already seen what happens when the police are ordered to stand down: crime sky rockets.



When did we see that?  Crime has gone up, but that was because the economy collapsed, and people got fed up with police brutality. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> Of course, you're saying that to a creature that consistently takes the side of its fellow criminals against that of human beings. It wants crime to skyrocket.



Uh, Mormon Bob, Crime has gone up because your side has dismantled the middle class, and created a prison-industrial complex that perpetuates crimes.   Oh, yeah, and makes sure every criminal has easy access to guns. 

Funny thing, Europe has nowhere near our crime rates.  Now why is that? 

It's not because their cops are trigger happy like ours are.  While our cops shoot 1000 people a year, their cops shoot less than 10.   

It's not because they lock people up.  While we lock up close to two million people (more than Communist China!) most G-7 Nations lock up less than 100,000.  

Here's how you bring down crime. 

1) Create real poverty relief programs.
2) Have programs to treat the mentally ill and addiction.
3) Don't let average citizens have easy access to guns. 

Here's how you don't bring down crime. 

Make excuses for cops who panic and shoot civilians for petty offenses.  That just pisses people off.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 4, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> When did we see that?  Crime has gone up, but that was because the economy collapsed, and people got fed up with police brutality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We see it in several cities where the government has forced police to stand down.  It has nothing to do with the economy.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 4, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Sure, try that in a traffic stop, a frisk or when the cops get a warrant to search your home.


Right, but outside of that, I don't need to tell the government what guns I own.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 4, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> You're FOS.
> ' A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'.
> 
> The vision of an American militia goes back even before the United States Constitution or the founding of the United States. In most states in colonial America, all able-bodied men were considered to be part of the militia – through which the individual towns and cities would provide for the common defense.
> ...


You're lying about what the 2A actually says...lol


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 4, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Yes, they are, moron.
> *IF/UNTIL, *they are overturned.


If they can be overturned by a court, they're not rights...lol


----------



## miketx (Nov 4, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Guns enable over 20,000 suicides and over 10,000 murders in USA each year.


Good.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 4, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> You're FOS.
> ' A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'.
> 
> The vision of an American militia goes back even before the United States Constitution or the founding of the United States. In most states in colonial America, all able-bodied men were considered to be part of the militia – through which the individual towns and cities would provide for the common defense.
> ...


The Supreme Court SPECIFICALLY address that and RULED the right is not dependent on membership in a militia it is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 4, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> That isn't a ban, moron.


Fact remains:
California requires the registration of firearms with the state, that gun owners obtain a license - which has a training requirement - to own a gun, limits ownership to only certain approved guns (thereby banning ownership of the rest), and allows people to carry a gun only in they can demonstrate a good reason for doing so.
*Apply the relevant analogues of these limitations to abortion, and liberal heads would explode.        *

Why do you disagree?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 4, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Yes.


And so, you agree that if some psychopath steals an AR15 and shoots up a school, Bushmaster cannot be hald liable.
Right?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 4, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Those were some rights, people previously never had.


Incorrect.
These were rights the people has, but not allowed to exercise by the state.
The court (and the amendments) removed the restrictions placed on said exercise by the state.
Therefore, not granted.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 4, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> There was at the time.


False. 
At no point in time was there a requirement by any government that to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, a person had to be a member of a militia.  

Thus
As there is no requirement to be part of any militia to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, and to the enjoy the protection of the 2nd Amendment while doing so, it is only proper that the GOP ignore "that part".


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 4, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> You're FOS.
> ' A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'.


Nowhere in here is a requirement tha 'the people" who hold the right to keep and bear arms be part of a militia to enjoy the protections of the 2nd Amendment.
So says the USSC.
You can disagree, but it just means you choose to be wrong.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 5, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> You're lying about what the 2A actually says...lol


You're FOS.

'We don't have to belong to a militia. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment requires it'.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Of course, the GQP leaves out the first six words.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 5, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> If they can be overturned by a court, they're not rights...lol


What a moron.
*IF *rights can be overturned by a court, they're *not *rights?
Trump *really *loves you.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 5, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> False.
> At no point in time was there a requirement by any government that to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, a person had to be a member of a militia.


That's because at the time virtually everyone was in the militia.

A 1792 federal law required that every man eligible for militia service own a gun and ammunition suitable for military service, report for frequent inspection of their guns, and register his gun ownership on public records.

 Many Americans owned hunting rifles or pistols instead of proper military guns, and even though the penalty fines were high (over $9,000 in 2014 dollars), they were levied inconsistently and the public largely ignored the law.
*Unorganized Militia: *This is virtually every other man in the United States. Men are not part of the unorganized militia if they are part of the organized militia. All other able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45 are considered part of the militia.  


M14 Shooter said:


> Thus
> As there is no requirement to be part of any militia to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, and to the enjoy the protection of the 2nd Amendment while doing so, it is only proper that the GOP ignore "that part".



Not now, there isn't.
_*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 5, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Nowhere in here is a requirement tha 'the people" who hold the right to keep and bear arms be part of a militia to enjoy the protections of the 2nd Amendment.
> So says the USSC.
> You can disagree, but it just means you choose to be wrong.


'So says the USSC'.
That was the ruling.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 5, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Supreme Court SPECIFICALLY address that and RULED the right is not dependent on membership in a militia it is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT


No shit.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 5, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Fact remains:
> California requires the registration of firearms with the state, that gun owners obtain a license - which has a training requirement - to own a gun, limits ownership to only certain approved guns (thereby banning ownership of the rest), and allows people to carry a gun only in they can demonstrate a good reason for doing so.
> *Apply the relevant analogues of these limitations to abortion, and liberal heads would explode.        *
> 
> Why do you disagree?


A woman gets an abortion has to go to a licensed provider or hospital.
Her name and other personal records are kept on a permanent file, depending.
The unlicensed provider is banned and can be charged with murder if they terminate a pregnancy of the late term or if the woman tries an abortion herself.


----------



## Batcat (Nov 5, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> *GREAT!*
> 
> Abortion kills unborn children.
> Guns enable suicide and murder.
> ...


Guns also save lives when used for legitimate self defense.

I might not have ever been born had it not been for the fact that my mother carried a S&W Ladysmith .22 caliber revolver with her in her purse.

In Pennsylvania in the 1920s she was returning home from work. She had got off a bus in a fairly remote area and was walking to her house. A man who had been hiding in some bushes rushed her. She drew the revolver from her purse and fired two shots over his head. He turned and ran. Her father heard the shots and ran out of their home with his .Colt 45 pistol. The attacker (most likely a rapist) was never caught but my mother never had any further problems.

Firearms are neither evil or good. That is all up to the person using one.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 5, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Incorrect.
> These were rights the people has, but not allowed to exercise by the state.
> The court (and the amendments) removed the restrictions placed on said exercise by the state.
> Therefore, not granted.


Wrong.
They're were vigilantes and militias before there were state laws.
They were the law.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 5, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> We see it in several cities where the government has forced police to stand down. It has nothing to do with the economy.



That's one theory... it really doesn't hold any water, but you go with that.


----------



## SavannahMann (Nov 5, 2021)

Take it beyond the Second Amendment. This law, if it stands, could be used to abridge any rights you can imagine. Michigan has a growing Muslim Population. If they get enough votes in the Legislature, they could pass a similar law that anyone who attends a Christian Church can be sued by someone else, not the Government, under a mirror of this law. 

Sound insane? You bet it is. But if the Texas law is allowed to stand, that would be our future. States simply passing legislation to allow mob enforcement of laws through harassment lawsuits. 

And before you say that the Constitution protects this or that. Think again. The Constitution is already well beyond where the Founders wrote it. Take the First Amendment. 

The First Amendment says that Congress shall pass no law. What stops States and local governments from banning the rights listed in the First Amendment? Congress didn’t act. The Courts did. They determined that the rights listed were individual rights, and protected from infringement by any Government. So the City Council can’t screw with your First Amendment rights despite the fact that they are not Congress. 

That is always something the Originalists seem to ignore. 

And for those who argue that Abortion isn’t needed. There are alternatives available. Fine. Explain why you need a Semi Automatic Rifle. Isn’t there Bolt Action, Lever Action, and Pump Action rifles available? Why do you need a semi automatic rifle? 

The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say anything about the type of arms. So banning Semi Automatic Weapons would be fine wouldn’t it? 

FWIW I don’t think anything should be banned. In fact, I believe that Ex Cons should get their full rights back after completing their sentence. But I am a believer in freedom. I am merely playing Devils Advocate here. 

Your right to be secure in your person and papers. The Supreme Court ruled that these protections extended to phone calls and electronic communications. Where is that in the Constitution? Where does it say your email, which is not paper, is protected from unwarranted search and seizure? 

You all need to think.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 5, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> That's one theory... it really doesn't hold any water, but you go with that.


That's a fact, not a theory.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 5, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> You're FOS.
> 
> 'We don't have to belong to a militia. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment requires it'.
> 
> ...


What does "right of the people to keep and bear arms" mean?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 5, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> What does "right of the people to keep and bear arms" mean?





Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> What does "right of the people to keep and bear arms" mean?


What does 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' mean?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 5, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> What does 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' mean?


It means that since a militia is necessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in case of the government excercising tyrannical rule.  Say if military units decide to violate the 3rd Amendment, or the 4th and 5th Amendments, or the 8th Amendment.

Let's put it terms you can relate to: if Trump were reelected and deployed the Army to arrest you for being a Libtard.  In that scenario, you'll need to be able to defend yourself and you'll want your neighbors to be armed and able to assist in that defense.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 5, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> Yes, they were.
> 
> Those were some rights, people previously never had.
> Therefore,  granted.



That's not correct. 

Under our legal structure the right to vote has never been recognized for *all *people.  The right has certainly always existed from the founding and was being exercised by those who were recognized as having the franchise.

What the 15th Amendment did was invalidate any laws that conditioned the (already exiting) right to vote on a *citizen's* race, color or previous condition of servitude.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–​
Same goes for the 19th Amendment; again that Amendment just invalidated any laws that conditioned the (already exiting) right to vote on one's gender.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.​​What in the words, terms or structure of those Amendments would lead you believe that anyone understood the right was being "granted" by those provisions?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 5, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> It means that since a militia is necessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in case of the government excercising tyrannical rule.  Say if military units decide to violate the 3rd Amendment, or the 4th and 5th Amendments, or the 8th Amendment.
> 
> Let's put it terms you can relate to: if Trump were reelected and deployed the Army to arrest you for being a Libtard.  In that scenario, you'll need to be able to defend yourself and you'll want your neighbors to be armed and able to assist in that defense.


What a moron.

The militia is governed by the state or federal government or the military that called you to serve.
That's it.
If the orange, retard wanted me arrested, that would happen, so be it.
A militia isn't the army, it's more like the national guard, it's a militia, when either one requested you serve, you went.
What you are describing is sedition.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> That's because at the time virtually everyone was in the militia.


Women weren't.   Old people weren't.  They still had a right to own a gun.


Smokin' OP said:


> A 1792 federal law required that every man eligible for militia service own a gun and ammunition suitable for military service, report for frequent inspection of their guns, and register his gun ownership on public records.


This, however is a not a requirement to be a member of the militia in order to exercise the right to own of a firearm and have that exercise protected by the 2nd.

Thus, my statement stands:
Nowhere is a requirement the 'the people" who hold the right to keep and bear arms be part of a militia to enjoy the protections of the 2nd Amendment.
As such, the GOP is completely correct when it ignores 'well regulated militia".


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> A woman gets an abortion has to go to a licensed provider or hospital.
> Her name and other personal records are kept on a permanent file, depending.
> The unlicensed provider is banned and can be charged with murder if they terminate a pregnancy of the late term or if the woman tries an abortion herself.


There's no relecvance to your statement, above, and mypost that you responded to -- indeed, you need to twist the wrods slightly to even look relevant says all that needs said.

If the state required a woman to get a permit/license before she could have an abortion, the left would  cry bloody murder.
If the state required that abortion to be registered with the state, the left would cry bloody murder
If the state required training - sex ed classes - before a woman could have an abortion , the left would cry bloody murder
If the state requires a woman demonstrate a 'good reason' before she could hav an abortio, the left would  cry bloody murder.

You can disagree, but you'll have to lie to do it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Wrong.
> They're were vigilantes and militias before there were state laws.
> They were the law.


Your response does not in any way address what I said.
Try again.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> What does 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' mean?


Whatever it means it has no bearing whatsoever on who has the right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> No shit.


And thus, you understand why, as you claim,  the GOP ignores the "well regulated" part of the 2nd.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> Not now, there isn't.


Nor was there ever.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 5, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> If the state required a woman to get a permit/license before she could have an abortion, the left would cry bloody *murder*.
> If the state required that abortion to be registered with the state, the left would cry bloody *murder*
> If the state required training - sex ed classes - before a woman could have an abortion , the left would cry bloody *murder*
> If the state requires a woman demonstrate a 'good reason' before she could hav [sic] an abortio [sic], the left would cry bloody *murder*.



  Ironically, over it being made that much more difficult to legally commit actual murder.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 5, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> What a moron.
> 
> The militia is governed by the state or federal government or the military that called you to serve.
> That's it.
> ...


No, what I described is tyranny.  You really need to learn what words mean...lol


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 6, 2021)

Abatis said:


> That's not correct.


Yes, it is.


Abatis said:


> Under our legal structure the right to vote has never been recognized for *all *people.  The right has certainly always existed from the founding and was being exercised by those who were recognized as having the franchise.


Where could blacks and women vote? 


Abatis said:


> What the 15th Amendment did was invalidate any laws that conditioned the (already exiting) right to vote on a *citizen's* race, color or previous condition of servitude.


The struggle over voting rights in the United States dates all the way back to the founding of the nation. The original U.S. Constitution did not define voting rights for citizens, and until 1870, only white men were allowed to vote. Two constitutional amendments changed that. The Fifteenth Amendment (ratified in 1870) extended voting rights to men of all races. 

Hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule that women had a constitutional right to vote, suffragists made several attempts to vote in the early 1870s and then filed lawsuits when they were turned away. Anthony actually succeeded in voting in 1872 but was arrested for that act and found guilty in a widely publicized trial that gave the movement fresh momentum. After the Supreme Court ruled against them in the 1875 case _Minor v. Happersett_, suffragists began the decades-long campaign for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would enfranchise women.

Well before the Nineteenth Amendment was passed, women could vote in state and local elections in some US states and territories, especially in the West. After it became law, many women across the US were still excluded from voting because they were not citizens or because of state restrictions on certain populations voting.



Abatis said:


> The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–​
> Same goes for the 19th Amendment; again that Amendment just invalidated any laws that conditioned the (already exiting) right to vote on one's gender.
> 
> The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.​​What in the words, terms or structure of those Amendments would lead you believe that anyone understood the right was being "granted" by those provisions?


They were rights denied before then.

Except in some isolated cases at the state level, women were not permitted to vote in the United States during the 19th century. One notable exception was the territory of Wyoming, which had long enforced women's suffrage by the time it became a state in 1890. 

Most African-Americans could not vote throughout most of the 1800s. Black men were officially enfranchised in 1870 by the 14th Amendment.

In the early days of the state of New Jersey, women and black people could vote. They just had to be  “free inhabitants of [the] State” who were over the age of majority, had more than fifty pounds of wealth and had lived in New Jersey for more than six months.  The process of revoking these rights, which took place in the early 1800s, represented a narrowing of American potential.

New Jersey was unique in permitting women to vote. The other twelve original states all had constitutions specifically stating that voters had to be male. But in New Jersey, the framing of the state constitution, which occurred in 1776, permitted women to vote


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 6, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> No, what I described is tyranny.  You really need to learn what words mean...lol


It is obvious you do.

Sedition- noun.
Conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.

Anyone can be arrested, all someone has to do is file charges, then if your excuse isn't good enough or witnesses can't verify your whereabouts, you can go to jail.

Just because the army violates amendments, in your mind, doesn't give anyone the right to attack them.
So, Trump wants me arrested for my political views, that wouldn't hold up to anyone's scrutiny.

That's what courts are for.

It could happen without anyone scrutinizing the arrest.

Like Russia.

New Russian laws allow authorities to brand individual activists as “foreign agents,” while others have made it more difficult to express dissent, organize and protest. It follows constitutional changes last summer that gave Putin the opportunity to stay in power until 2036.

Saturday’s demonstrations came after a sweeping national crackdown in which police detained opposition activists and courts locked up Alexei Navalny’s press secretary, Kira Yarmysh, and another team member, Georgy Alburov.

That's tyranny.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 6, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Nor was there ever.


2 or 3 days of arguing is enough.
Way too petty for me to argue over.
You win.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> That's a fact, not a theory.



Nope, it's a theory. 

Here's a better one.  

Because Trump wrecked the economy and we all spent months locked in our homes, the murder rate went up because most murders are people killing people they know.  This is something the NRA doesn't want people to know, that a gun in the house is more dangerous to the people living with it than the bad guys. 



Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Let's put it terms you can relate to: if Trump were reelected and deployed the Army to arrest you for being a Libtard. In that scenario, you'll need to be able to defend yourself and you'll want your neighbors to be armed and able to assist in that defense.



Okay. Let's assume he could get the Army to obey that obviously illegal order. (They wouldn't.)  Well, your gun isn't going to do much good against a tank or a platoon of well-trained soldiers. 

This is why this excuse of "why I needs me muh guns" is pretty fucking retarded.  Tank Beats Gun. Bomber Beats Gun.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Nope, it's a theory.
> 
> Here's a better one.
> 
> ...



*Because Trump wrecked the economy and we all spent months locked in our homes, the murder rate went up because most murders are people killing people they know.  T

Wrong.....27 years, from the 1990s to 2015 more people owned and carried guns....and the gun murder rate went down 49%...the gun murder rate went down 75%, and the crime rate went down 72%....*

*What changed in 2015.....the democrat party created a strategy attacking the police.....the war on police caused the police to back off actually going after criminals ........... this caused the spike in murder in democrat party controlled cities......

And the "people are killed by people they know," lie you keep posting?   Gang members shooting at gang members from different gangs "know each other,".......criminals murdering their family members, "know each other.....".........you idiot....*

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


This means that access to guns does not create gun crime........

Why do our democrat party controlled cities have gun crime problems?

1) the democrat party keeps releasing violent gun offenders...they have created a revolving door for criminals who use guns, and will release even the most serious gun offenders over and over again....why?   Probably because they realise that normal people don't use their guns for crime, so if they want to push gun control, they need criminals to shoot people.....so they keep releasing them....

2)  The democrat party keeps attacking the police.....driving the officers into not doing pro-active policing, cutting detective forces so that murders go unsolved..........


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Nope, it's a theory.
> 
> Here's a better one.
> 
> ...





*This is why this excuse of "why I needs me muh guns" is pretty fucking retarded.  Tank Beats Gun. Bomber Beats Gun.

Hmmmmm....we have tanks, bombers, missles.....and the muslim terrorists in Afghanistan had rifles and IEDs........who gave up the fight first?  You idiot....*


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Nope, it's a theory.
> 
> Here's a better one.
> 
> ...


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Wrong.....27 years, from the 1990s to 2015 more people owned and carried guns....and the gun murder rate went down 49%...the gun murder rate went down 75%, and the crime rate went down 72%....



We aren't talking about the last 27 or five years.  We are talking about why Murder Spiked in 2020, when most of us were in our homes. 

It wasn't because of the BLM riots.  Only about 35 deaths can be linked to those.   Most of them were people killing their family members because being locked in your house for months can make you a little crazy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


>



Yet you can never really refute anything I say.. even about your own fucked up cult.  

So tell me again why it was okay for Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to fuck 14 year olds, but not okay for Roman Polanski?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Nope, it's a theory.
> 
> Here's a better one.
> 
> ...


That LIE again? Cant help your self can you? As for resistance, HISTORY shows you are wrong. Learn some.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 6, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> That LIE again? Cant help your self can you? As for resistance, HISTORY shows you are wrong. Learn some.



Actually, most history shows people are perfectly willing to go along with a bad government.  

No Germans rushed out to save their Jewish neighbors from being turned into bars of soap and lampshades. They had guns, they just didn't want to get involved.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Nope, it's a theory.
> 
> Here's a better one.
> 
> ...


Trump wrecked the economy?...lol

Tell the Taliban that...lol.  If an armed citizenry isn't a threat to the government's power, then why do so many politicians want to ban guns?  Surely you aren't stupid enough to think it's because they care about your safety.  Right?...lol


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, most history shows people are perfectly willing to go along with a bad government.
> 
> No Germans rushed out to save their Jewish neighbors from being turned into bars of soap and lampshades. They had guns, they just didn't want to get involved.


You're proving that.

The Jews were disarmed.  That happened for a reason.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Yet you can never really refute anything I say.. even about your own fucked up cult.
> 
> So tell me again why it was okay for Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to fuck 14 year olds, but not okay for Roman Polanski?



 A huge difference is that Roman Polanski actually fucked a 13-year old.

  Your persistent and outrageous lies notwithstanding, there is no evidence and no rational reason at all to believe that either Joseph Smith or Brigham Young did any such thing.

  In any event, your bizarre and hateful lies about my religion are not relevant to this topic, nor to any other topic in which you persist in telling them.  The only thing that they tell us about any topic is how little credibility you have on that or any other topic.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> We aren't talking about the last 27 or five years.  We are talking about why Murder Spiked in 2020, when most of us were in our homes.
> 
> It wasn't because of the BLM riots.  Only about 35 deaths can be linked to those.   Most of them were people killing their family members because being locked in your house for months can make you a little crazy.




Yes......after the democrat party began the direct attacks on the police in 2015, the police gradually stopped pro-active police work, you doofus.....

gangs started running around with guns in their pants because they knew cops wouldn't stop them.....you idiot.

Gangs didn't obey the covid lockdown, they continued to sell drugs and shoot each other...you know, the people they know.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 6, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, most history shows people are perfectly willing to go along with a bad government.
> 
> No Germans rushed out to save their Jewish neighbors from being turned into bars of soap and lampshades. They had guns, they just didn't want to get involved.




Moron....the national socialists, while the police watched, beat the crap out of anyone who stood up to them as they rose to power....by the time they murdered 12 million people, no one was willing to stick their necks out, knowing that the police weren't going to help them...

The same way the democrats have kept the police from stopping the blm, and Antifa terrorists the democrats have used to burn and loot these cities.

They haven't burned and looted the suburbs because they have guns there...as those two lawyers showed the blm rioters...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 6, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> The struggle over voting rights in the United States dates all the way back to the founding of the nation. The original U.S. Constitution did not define voting rights for citizens, and until 1870, only white men were allowed to vote.


Because all elections are state elections.
Two things to note:  
- Until 1864, not every state chose its electors through a vote of the people ( jus FYI)
- Free black men in certain states had the right to vote upon, or prior to,  the adoption of the US constitution


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 6, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> 2 or 3 days of arguing is enough.
> Way too petty for me to argue over.
> You win.


I know.   It just took you this long to admit it - and I am surprised you did.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 6, 2021)

Other Constitutional rights? Try as you might you will never find an Amendment in the Bill of Rights that authorizes the murder of the unborn.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Nov 7, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> I know.   It just took you this long to admit it - and I am surprised you did.


I give up.
Carry on your petty argument with someone else.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 7, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Trump wrecked the economy?...lol
> 
> Tell the Taliban that...lol. If an armed citizenry isn't a threat to the government's power, then why do so many politicians want to ban guns? Surely you aren't stupid enough to think it's because they care about your safety. Right?...lol



Politicians and a lot of Americans want to ban guns because we have 39,000 gun deaths, 70,000 gun injuries, 400,000 gun crimes...  

And if you really think Afghanistan with 40 years of civil war is a model you want to emulate, where a gang of armed thugs can come in and behead your daughter because she was showing too much ankle, you have some real problems.  



Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> You're proving that.
> 
> The Jews were disarmed. That happened for a reason.



But most Germans were not. (ALso, if you were a GERMAN Jew, you had a 75% chance of getting out of Germany and surviving the war...  Polish Jews, not so much.)  

The point was, the Germans who kept their guns never once got out their houses, ran to their Jewish Neighbor's house and said, "You can't take Goldstein, he's my friend!!!"


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 7, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> A huge difference is that Roman Polanski actually fucked a 13-year old.
> 
> Your persistent and outrageous lies notwithstanding, there is no evidence and no rational reason at all to believe that either Joseph Smith or Brigham Young did any such thing.
> 
> In any event, your bizarre and hateful lies about my religion are not relevant to this topic, nor to any other topic in which you persist in telling them. The only thing that they tell us about any topic is how little credibility you have on that or any other topic.



No evidence?  So you think they married all those teenagers for tax purposes?   

The fact that Smith and Brigham "Likes them" Young married these young girls is a matter of historical record. 

Now, yes, I'm sure your church told you for years this wasn't the case, but they are finally coming clean about it. 









						Mormon Church Admits Founder Joseph Smith Had A 14-Year-Old Bride
					

Mormon Church Admits Founder Joseph Smith Had A 14-Year-Old Bride




					www.huffpost.com
				












						New Mormon essay: Joseph Smith married teens, other men's wives
					

Mormon founder Joseph Smith took his first




					archive.sltrib.com
				




Brigham Young had 62 wives and 56 children...   





__





						Brigham Young's Wives and His Divorce From Ann Eliza Webb
					





					www.utlm.org


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 7, 2021)

Hate to break it to you but in the 1840's and up 14 was a marriable age Many people married that young, As for Smith he had numerous wives he never slept with and he married everyone including 60 year olds.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 7, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Hate to break it to you but in the 1840's and up 14 was a marriable age Many people married that young, As for Smith he had numerous wives he never slept with and he married everyone including 60 year olds.



Actually, the historical context wasn't any better. People were NOT cool with Joseph Smith's sex cult at the time. A local newspaper wrote stories about it, and Smith's reaction was to send in his thugs to break up their press.  When he was arrested for that, a mob heard that his militia was going to break him out and stormed the prison and shot him and his brother.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, the historical context wasn't any better. People were NOT cool with Joseph Smith's sex cult at the time. A local newspaper wrote stories about it, and Smith's reaction was to send in his thugs to break up their press.  When he was arrested for that, a mob heard that his militia was going to break him out and stormed the prison and shot him and his brother.
> 
> View attachment 561360


Ya the hatred of religious types runs deep with some.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 7, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya the hatred of religious types runs deep with some.



Not really. 

The Mormons actually made themselves unwelcome. 

They started in New York, where J Smith was run out of the state for fraud in 1825. 
They then moved to Ohio, where Smith started a "bank" and swindled people out of thousands of dollars. It included filling strongboxes with sand and a top layer of coins, and issuing bank notes that were worthless.  They got run out of Ohio. 









						Kirtland Safety Society - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Smith then took his merry band of cultists to Missouri.  They proceeded to try to take over a couple of counties by using terror squads called Danites.  The governor of Missouri, Lilburn Boggs, issued an extermination order.   









						1838 Mormon War - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




They then moved across the river to Illinois, where Smith declared himself a Lt. General and organized his own private army.  He also had a harem of little girls and other men's wives because that's what you do when you run a cult.  

The difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh?
Original and Extra Crispy!!! 

Finally, the Mormons under Brigham "I like them" Young moved to Utah while the US was in the process of stealing the west from Mexico, hoping to set up his own country.  (Seriously, these early Mormon leaders were like fucking Bond Villains!)  This resulted in a farce known as the Utah War of 1857, where the Mormons bravely murdered a wagon train of settlers heading to California.  The Army got quite fed up with this shit and put a bitchslap down on Young.  

Ah, the missed opportunity.   If only James Buchanan put them on trial for treason, hanged them, and sent the photos to Jefferson Davis as a warning.  We could have avoided the Civil war.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Not really.
> 
> The Mormons actually made themselves unwelcome.
> 
> ...


Keep up the lies you are so good at them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 7, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Keep up the lies you are so good at them.



Documented history are "lies"?  

Every last event I listed happen.  True, the Mormon Cult doesn't like to talk about them, which is why Mormon Bob gets so upset when I bring them up. . 

Just like when I grew up Catholic, the nuns didn't talk about all the sleazy shit the Church did over the centuries.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Politicians and a lot of Americans want to ban guns because we have 39,000 gun deaths, 70,000 gun injuries, 400,000 gun crimes...
> 
> And if you really think Afghanistan with 40 years of civil war is a model you want to emulate, where a gang of armed thugs can come in and behead your daughter because she was showing too much ankle, you have some real problems.
> 
> ...


Very few citizens of the republic want to ban guns and your numbers are lies.

Armed thugs coming to my home?  You just strengthened my argument for owning a gun.

Most Germans didn't know about the death camps.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 7, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Very few citizens of the republic want to ban guns and your numbers are lies.
> 
> Armed thugs coming to my home? You just strengthened my argument for owning a gun.



Yeah, funny thing, Afghanistan had a shitload of guns, has it brought them peace? Prosperity?  

Do you really want to live like Afghan people do?  I don't.  



Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Most Germans didn't know about the death camps.



Sure they didn't... 




YOu do realize why that was such a funny joke in the 1960's... it was all these Germans who claimed they had no idea what Hitler was doing.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> abortion is a constitutional right?



Yes,
Anything that is not specifically allowed to be regulated by government is automatically a constitutional right, like privacy.
Constitutional rights are not enumerated because they are infinite and can't.
Constitutional rights are anything the government is not explicitly authorized to control.
They were not constitutional rights very clearly until the 14th amendment, and then it was specifically written that not only was the federal government restricted from infringing, but so were all levels of government.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Nowhere in the Constitution does it deny that these innocent human beings are what they clearly are.  This denial comes from the exact same evil that once denied that blacks were fully human.  The very same degenerate ideology is responsible for both.  See also, _“Untermenschen”_ in 1930s-1940s Germany.  Or an of the other instance throughout history where one group denied the humanity of another, in order to excuse and justify horrific abuses against that other group.   That, Incel Joe, is the side on which you stand.



Abortion is not about self sustaining people that some would like to attack as untermenschen.
This is about the fetus infringing on the rights of the woman.
And there the woman has to win.
Doesn't matter what the age of the fetus, infant, child, adult, is.
The woman's rights are supreme to be done with it if she wants.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> That seems very dubious.  Justifiable homicides are very few.



Justifiable homicides have nothing to do with it.
You do not have to kill people in order to deter crime by brandishing.
Do police always have to shoot and kill, or are they able to just arrest people by brandishing a firearm?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, funny thing, Afghanistan had a shitload of guns, has it brought them peace? Prosperity?
> 
> Do you really want to live like Afghan people do?  I don't.
> 
> ...




Afghanistan is cold, rocky, mountainous, and poor.
But the guns in Afghanistan is not the cause of any of that, and obviously makes Afghanistan better than it would be.
If not for all the guns, then the British, Russians, and US would have enslaved them.
Peace is not prosperity if it is enslavement.

All countries used to be tyrannies.
That was because currency allowed for tyrants to be able to hired the mercenaries who wee strong and skilled with blade weapons.
We did not get democracies until firearms became the equalizer after about 1600 or so.
It was firearms that toppled every single evil monarchy.
If not for the general population getting firearms, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution, etc., would never have been possible.
We would still all have monarchies.
And if you disarm the general population, that is what it will return to, dictators.
We are almost there already.
We all know the War on Drugs, the invasion of Iraq, waterboarding, mandatory sentences, asset forfeiture, etc., are all totally illegal.
We all know eventually we are going to likely need another rebellion, on a regular basis, whether it is 100 years or 1000 years.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, most history shows people are perfectly willing to go along with a bad government.
> 
> No Germans rushed out to save their Jewish neighbors from being turned into bars of soap and lampshades. They had guns, they just didn't want to get involved.



Wrong.
The Zionist traitors caused the anger against Jews in WWI, by collaborating with the British with the formula for synthetic acetone for cordite, and stealing the Zimmerman Letter from Berlin and giving it to the US.
Everyone in the world knows that is why the British made the Balfour Declaration, essentially giving Palestine that the British did not even own, to the Zionists.
Why else would the British have made the Balfour Declaration?
It was not because of all the Jews they hoped would enlist.

People are willing to go against bad government, once it gets bad enough.
The French, American, and Russian revolutions are prime examples.
Are you going to claim there armed rebellions were not necessary, not a good idea, or that they will never be needed to repeat in the future?
Seems to me, the half million we murdered in the illegal invasion of Iraq, proves we need another rebellion very badly in the US.
Do we still have people illegally held in Guantanamo?
Are we still illegally waterboarding?
How many illegal murders and crimes before one decides to act?
For me, Vietnam was enough.
If you were one of those illegally murdered by the government, I would bet you would be a little more pro-rebellion.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Afghanistan is cold, rocky, mountainous, and poor.
> But the guns in Afghanistan is not the cause of any of that, and obviously makes Afghanistan better than it would be.
> If not for all the guns, then the British, Russians, and US would have enslaved them.



Or they'd have functioning government that provides for its people...  but again, dealing with a crazy person... can't really make that point. 



Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> The Zionist traitors caused the anger against Jews in WWI, by collaborating with the British with the formula for synthetic acetone for cordite, and stealing the Zimmerman Letter from Berlin and giving it to the US.
> Everyone in the world knows that is why the British made the Balfour Declaration, essentially giving Palestine that the British did not even own, to the Zionists.



Oooohhhh.... you just went into crazy town, didn't you?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Or they'd have functioning government that provides for its people...  but again, dealing with a crazy person... can't really make that point.
> 
> 
> 
> Oooohhhh.... you just went into crazy town, didn't you?



The Afghans did have a functioning government that provided for its people, the Taliban.
That is until we attacked and started murdering them.

Who is the crazy one?
The Germans do not have a history of abusing Jews like Poland, England, Russia, etc., did.
So then why do YOU think the Holocaust happened?
Are you trying to blame it on the German People?
You don't think the Zionists did anything to anger people?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Politicians and a lot of Americans want to ban guns because we have 39,000 gun deaths, 70,000 gun injuries, 400,000 gun crimes...
> 
> And if you really think Afghanistan with 40 years of civil war is a model you want to emulate, where a gang of armed thugs can come in and behead your daughter because she was showing too much ankle, you have some real problems.
> 
> ...




You keep using that fake number......

gun suicide is that majority of gun deaths....23,941 in 2019.

Gun murder is primarily against criminals, murdered by criminals....70-80% of gun murder victims are criminals murdered by other criminals......

10,258 in 2019.......

The rest of the murder victims, the majority are friends, family and associates of the criminals....

Then you have the fact that cars kill more people each year than gun murders and gun suicides combined...

39,107

Then you have the fact that Americans use their legal guns to save far more lives.......about 176,000 every year saved by people using their legal guns...

Your numbers don't add up....

then you have this....

600 million guns in private hands......over 21.25 million Americans can carry guns legally in public for self defense.........



American use those legal guns 1.2 million times a year to stop rapes, stabbings, beatings, robberies, and murders, as well as also stopping mass public shootings when they are allowed to have their legal guns with them...



Gun deaths...the truth....



2019...



Gun murder...10,235



Gun accidents...486



Of the gun murder deaths....over 70-80% of the victims are not regular Americans....they are criminals...murdered by other criminals in primarily democrat party controlled cities....where the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians have released them over and over again no matter how many times they are arrested for felony, illegal gun possession and violent crimes with guns...that's on you and your political party...not normal gun owners.





Gun suicides... 23,491...





Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop brutal rapes, robberies, beatings, knifings, murders......according to the Centers for Disease Control, and 1.5 million times according to the Department of Justice.



Lives saved....based on research?  By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct





* that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—*



Money saved from people not being beaten, raped, murdered, robbed?.......





_*So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.*_
_*
Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”
*_
*So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.*


Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 7, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Hate to break it to you but in the 1840's and up 14 was a marriable age Many people married that young, As for Smith he had numerous wives he never slept with and he married everyone including 60 year olds.



  Of course Incel Joe sees no meaningful distinction between a man having appropriate intimate relations with his lawfully-wedded wife, and a middle-aged predator drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl without her consent.  Remember, he's a pathetic incel in his late fifties, who has never been married, and has repeatedly expressed nothing but contempt for the very concept of marriage.

  I'm not going to get into any detail, but there were some rather odd practices in the early days of the church, that involved _“marriages”_ in which those supposedly _“married”_ did not live together as man and wife, and did not engage in marital relations.  Most of what Incel Joe claims about early church leaders _“marrying”_ young girls are outright lies, but what basis there is for truth of any such claims is not what Incel Joe claims it is, and does not support his outrageous lies about them _“fucking 14-year-old girls”_.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Who is the crazy one?
> The Germans do not have a history of abusing Jews like Poland, England, Russia, etc., did.



Of course they did.  Anti-semitism is kind of built into the German Culture.   Martin Luther, the father of the German Church, wrote a book called "The Jews and their Lies", 400 years before Hitler.   German passion plays routinely blamed the Jews for Jesus' death up until recently.  (Think Mel Gibson's religious snuff film but worse). The ground was fertilized long before Hitler got there.  



Rigby5 said:


> So then why do YOU think the Holocaust happened?
> Are you trying to blame it on the German People?
> You don't think the Zionists did anything to anger people?



I think the Zionists anger a lot of people... but that wasn't the case here.  The "Stabbed in the Back Myth was exactly that, a myth.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 7, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Of course @Incel Joe sees no meaningful distinction between a man having appropriate intimate relations with his lawfully-wedded wife, and a middle-aged predator drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl without her consent. Remember, he's a pathetic incel in his late fifties, who has never been married, and has repeatedly expressed nothing but contempt for the very concept of marriage.



The other marriages Joseph Smith had weren't LAWFUL, Mormon Bob. Polygamy was against the law in 1840's America.   the only "Lawful" wife smith had was his first one, Emma Hale. 

So the other women he married to scam old ladies out of their money or bang some 14 year old, was hardly Lawful.  It's why the people of my fine state killed smith and drove the creepy ass cult out. 

A middle aged predator giving a girl drugs is bad.  So is a middle aged predator pressuring his cult members to hand over their daughters... in fact... that actually sounds kind of worse.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> I'm not going to get into any detail, but there were some rather odd practices in the early days of the church, that involved _“marriages”_ in which those supposedly _“married”_ did not live together as man and wife, and did not engage in marital relations.



Okay, a bunch of issues here.  First, you really have no proof that Smith wasn't banging all of his wives.  He probably wasn't banging the old ladies... but his relationship with Fanny Alger (Wife #2, 16 years old) was definitely sexual.  





__





						Fanny Alger - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




_Nevertheless, historian Lawrence Foster disputed Compton's assumption, _*arguing that although "contemporary evidence strongly suggests" that Smith and Alger engaged in sexual relations,*_ the evidence does not indicate that the relationship was "viewed either by Smith himself or by his associates at the time as a 'marriage.'" Foster noted that before Smith's first documented plural marriage to Louisa Beaman in April 1841, Smith's "earlier sexual relationships may have been considered marriages, but we lack convincing contemporary evidence supporting such an interpretation."_




Bob Blaylock said:


> Most of what @Incel Joe claims about early church leaders _“marrying”_ young girls are outright lies, but what basis there is for truth of any such claims is not what @Incel Joe claims it is, and does not support his outrageous lies about them _“fucking 14-year-old girls”_.



Actually, it's not in dispute by anyone at all.  Smith was fucking teenage girls. 









						Helen Mar Kimball - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Smith gave Helen 24 hours to respond to this request. The girl consented only after Smith explained to her that it would ensure her eternal salvation, along with that of her family. Helen was sealed to Smith in May 1843 when she was 14 and he was 37. The marriage was kept secret, and Helen continued to live with her parents (Anderson & Faulring 1998).

Initially, Helen despised the concept of polygamy, stating that, "seeing the trials of my mother, felt to rebel. I hated polygamy with my heart." Later in her life, however, she became a vigorous defender of the practice and wrote a number of publications praising it (Brodie 1971, pp. 479–480; Whitney 1884). With regard to her feelings about Smith's implementation of the practice, Kimball wrote,



> It was a strange doctrine, and very dangerous too, to be introduced at such a time, when in the midst of the greatest trouble Joseph had ever encountered. The Missourians and Illinoisans were ready and determined to destroy him. They could but take his life, and that he considered a small thing when compared with the eternal punishment which he was doomed to suffer if he did not teach and obey this principle. No earthly inducement could be held forth to the women who entered this order. It was to be a life sacrifice for the sake of an everlasting glory and exaltation (Whitney & 1880-1883).



Sorry, man, Joseph Smith was fucking Teenage Girls....


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, funny thing, Afghanistan had a shitload of guns, has it brought them peace? Prosperity?
> 
> Do you really want to live like Afghan people do?  I don't.
> 
> ...


There are way more guns in the US than Afghanistan and we're nothing like Afghanistan.  That wasn't the point, however.  But, something you don't realize, not everyone is allowed to possess a gun in Afghanistan.  If the Taliban doesn't want you to have a gun, they take your gun.  So, banning guns has once again proved to be a bad idea.

Right.  They didn't.  Why do you think that none of the death camps (not to be confused with concentration camps) were located in Germany proper?  So, yes, it's an historical fact that the average German had no idea of the extent of the Holocaust.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Of course they did.  Anti-semitism is kind of built into the German Culture.   Martin Luther, the father of the German Church, wrote a book called "The Jews and their Lies", 400 years before Hitler.   German passion plays routinely blamed the Jews for Jesus' death up until recently.  (Think Mel Gibson's religious snuff film but worse). The ground was fertilized long before Hitler got there.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Zionists anger a lot of people... but that wasn't the case here.  The "Stabbed in the Back Myth was exactly that, a myth.



Wrong.
The anti Jewish feelings were strong in all Christian countries, but Germany was the LEAST anti Jewish country in the world until WWI.
The Martin Luther book on Jewish lies is not fake, exaggerated, or based on bigotry.
The Old Testament is simply horrific and based on lies.
The Hebrew were horrific invaders of the Land of Canaan, such as the massacre of Canaanite women and children at Jericho, but Jews constantly try to spread the lies they were the natives, that they were the Chosen People, and the Land of Canaan was the Promised Land.
When the Romans brought the Jews back into power by using the Roman Herod, who pretended to convert to Judaism, then Jews tried to falsely claim they were always in power.

Whether or not the "stabbed in the back myth" was a myth or not, the point is German anger against Jews was not at all based on racism or bigotry.
But I do not believe it was a myth, because we know for certain that Chaim Weizmann gave the British the formula for synthetic acetone for cordite, and someone gave the US the Zimmerman Letter.  Some people try to claim the US just intercepted and decoded it, but there were some syntax changes before being transmitted, and the US got the version from Berlin somehow.  While no one knows for sure who stole it, the fact remains the British then release the Balfour Declaration, which made no sense otherwise.  The British previously owed nothing to Zionists, and were always more hostile to them than the Germans were.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 7, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> There are way more guns in the US than Afghanistan and we're nothing like Afghanistan. That wasn't the point, however. But, something you don't realize, not everyone is allowed to possess a gun in Afghanistan. If the Taliban doesn't want you to have a gun, they take your gun. So, banning guns has once again proved to be a bad idea.



Somehow, I don't think Afghanistan has an ATF.  I realize you need to distract, but the argument you guys have is you need your gun to overthrow the government.  Well, since 1973, the government of Afghanistan has been overthrown seven times... starting with the toppling of the last King.  Only two of those were due to foreign invasions... 




Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Right. They didn't. Why do you think that none of the death camps (not to be confused with concentration camps) were located in Germany proper? So, yes, it's an historical fact that the average German had no idea of the extent of the Holocaust.



The German people knew exactly what was going on, and they were fine with it... you don't massacre 12 million people and keep it a secret.  



Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> The anti Jewish feelings were strong in all Christian countries, but Germany was the LEAST anti Jewish country in the world until WWI.
> The Martin Luther book on Jewish lies is not fake, exaggerated, or based on bigotry.
> The Old Testament is simply horrific and based on lies.



Yes, Germany had a very small Jewish population because of centuries of oppression.  of course, Yiddish is a corrupted form of German.  it wasn't always that way.  

I agree, the entire Bible is horrific and full of lies, (Although nowhere near the Book of Mormon) but Luther wasn't advocating throwing out the old testament.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 7, 2021)

Okay, this is a lot of weird conspriacy shit, and frankly, I don't know what to do with it, but here goes. 



Rigby5 said:


> Whether or not the "stabbed in the back myth" was a myth or not, the point is German anger against Jews was not at all based on racism or bigotry.
> But I do not believe it was a myth, because we know for certain that Chaim Weizmann gave the British the formula for synthetic acetone for cordite,



Okay, going off on this weird tangent that one Jew invented something once, the Stabbed in the Back Myth (Or in German, _Dolchstoßlegende_) had a lot more to do with the lies told by the German Military that they were really winning the war until the German Army was stabbed in the back by the November Revolution.  






It was, of course, utter Bullshit. Germany was exhausted and starving at that point, the last major offensive had failed and Germany was simply out of time as American men and materials were flooding France.  But like we saw after Vietnam, and we are starting to see now with Afghanistan, these kinds of lies are comforting.  



Rigby5 said:


> and someone gave the US the Zimmerman Letter. Some people try to claim the US just intercepted and decoded it, but there were some syntax changes before being transmitted, and the US got the version from Berlin somehow.



Okay, but the point was, Zimmerman REALLY did try to encourage Mexico to go to war with the US.  Germany was also resuming unrestricted submarine warfare on US Shipping after they promised they wouldn't. This is what nudged America away from neutrality and into the war, not "the Jews".  




Rigby5 said:


> While no one knows for sure who stole it, the fact remains the British then release the Balfour Declaration, which made no sense otherwise. The British previously owed nothing to Zionists, and were always more hostile to them than the Germans were.



Actually, the Balfour Declaration made perfect sense in context.  

First, after the February Revolution in Russia, keeping Russia in the war was a priority... and it was felt the Balfour declaration would keep the Jewish Revolutionaries in Russia in the war.  It didn't work, the Bolsheviks then had their revolution in November and got Russia out of the war. 

The British also saw resettlement of Jews in Palestine as a way to do colonialism by proxie.  The British Empire had LONG been built on the concepts of playing tribes off against each other, especially in the Middle East and India.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Somehow, I don't think Afghanistan has an ATF.  I realize you need to distract, but the argument you guys have is you need your gun to overthrow the government.  Well, since 1973, the government of Afghanistan has been overthrown seven times... starting with the toppling of the last King.  Only two of those were due to foreign invasions...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you think there is anything, law, government agency, etc that protects the rights of the people?  Or, would you agree that the local warlords make up the rules as they go?  There's no such thing as civil rights in Afghanistan.  That's because the unarmed population is at the mercy of the tyrannical government.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 7, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Do you think there is anything, law, government agency, etc that protects the rights of the people? Or, would you agree that the local warlords make up the rules as they go? There's no such thing as civil rights in Afghanistan. That's because the unarmed population is at the mercy of the tyrannical government.



Not really.  Afghanistan isn't a case of a dictatorship, it's a case of anarchy.  

I doubt the current Taliban government is going to last more than a year... they are desperately begging the rest of the world for money because they can't provide services like an actual government does.  

Then some other Mob will overthrow them.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Not really.  Afghanistan isn't a case of a dictatorship, it's a case of anarchy.
> 
> I doubt the current Taliban government is going to last more than a year... they are desperately begging the rest of the world for money because they can't provide services like an actual government does.
> 
> Then some other Mob will overthrow them.


Who controls Afghanistan?  Is it the Taliban?  They're not going anywhere.


----------



## Borillar (Nov 7, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Justice Brett Kavanaugh floated the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.
> 
> The associate justice, appointed by former President Donald Trump, specifically posed a theoretical law that would allow the seller of an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon to be sued for $1 million.
> 
> ...


I think this is quite predictable. If a law can be used to do an end run around one Constitutional right, in this case the right to privacy, a law could be taylored to negate other rights.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Somehow, I don't think Afghanistan has an ATF.  I realize you need to distract, but the argument you guys have is you need your gun to overthrow the government.  Well, since 1973, the government of Afghanistan has been overthrown seven times... starting with the toppling of the last King.  Only two of those were due to foreign invasions...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wrong.

Changing government by over throwing them is not at all a bad or evil tradition as you are implying.
It is just like the US elections every 4 years, and is not bad or evil.

Obviously everyone needs guns to overthrow evil corruption.
There are hardly any countries that did not become modern democracies by anything but violent revolution.
And there is still a very long way to go.
The US is still very corrupt, racist, lacking in egalitarian government, taxes, laws, legal representation, medical access, etc.
I personally think we are going to need at least 2 or 3 more revolutions, and only hesitate because of the risk of getting someone like Stalin instead of an improvement.

And absolute wrong about the German people.  They most certainly did NOT know of the death camps.
They were hundreds of miles outside of Germany, in the east.
They were kept so secret, not a one has ever been seen.
They were all totally and completely destroyed before being over run.
The only camps ever found were work camps instead.
For example, Dachau and Auschwitz were NOT death camps.
Birkenau death camp was not far from Auschwitz, but they were not in sight of each other.
And since the work camps had hundreds of thousands of people, there is not way people could know how many had been killed.

And wrong, Germany did not have a small Jewish population, but millions of Jews, and there had NEVER been any oppression of Jews until AFTER WWI.
Yiddish is not a corrupted form of German, but the ancient form of Germanic languages the Scythians spoke in the Balkans, which is where the Ashkenazi came from.
They did not come from Germany, but came from Poland and Russia, where they were badly treated, and went to Germany due to better treatment there.






The Khazars are Scythians who did a mass conversion to Judaism around 800 AD.
{...
. The ruling elite of the Khazars was said by Judah Halevi and Abraham ibn Daud to have converted to Rabbinic Judaism in the 8th century,[18] but the scope of the conversion to Judaism within the Khazar Khanate remains uncertain.
...}








						Khazars - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, this is a lot of weird conspriacy shit, and frankly, I don't know what to do with it, but here goes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, there was absolutely no reason for the German military to makeup lies about Jews.
There were hundreds of thousands of Jews in the German army in both wars, so the German military never would make up lies that would harm their own forces.

The reason the Germans were exhausted and starving was because of the US entering the war and US submarines conducting unrestricted sinking of civilian German food shipments.

The Germans never conducted unrestricted submarine warfare, but only sank shipping within the designated war zone around the British Isles.
The HMS Lusitania was carrying weapons and munitions, and the Germans took out newspaper ads warning it was going to be sunk.








						Newspaper Warning Notice and the Lusitania
					

Erik Larson explains a newspaper notice issued by the German Embassy warning of travel dangers prior to the Lusitania voyage. ** This clip is part of C-SPAN Classroom's FREE resources for teachers and students. Visit www.c-spanclassroom.org for more info. *




					www.c-span.org
				




Yes the Zimmerman letter did encourage Mexico.  But the point is the US would never have known about the Zimmerman Letter if not for SOMEONE stealing a copy from Berlin.  And while we will never know who did it, there were thousands of Jews working in secure facilities in Berlin.

The Balfour Declaration made no sense to try to keep Russia in the war.
The Russian Jews are Ashkenazi and are not from the Mideast at all, nor would it have kept Russia in the war if Russian Jews started emigrating to Palestine.
Jews were treated badly by Russia and Lenin and Stalin did not at all treat Jews well.

Nor does British colonialism explain the Balfour Declaration.
The British were far more anti-Jewish than the Germans were.
At one time the British had banned Jews entirely.
The British lost hundreds of their soldiers to the Zionists in Palestine, and finally left after Menachem Begin blew up the King David Hotel, murdering the British peacekeeper high command.
It was the Jews who forced the British to leave.
The Arabs had no problem with British administration, and wanted the British to stay.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Not really.  Afghanistan isn't a case of a dictatorship, it's a case of anarchy.
> 
> I doubt the current Taliban government is going to last more than a year... they are desperately begging the rest of the world for money because they can't provide services like an actual government does.
> 
> Then some other Mob will overthrow them.



Wrong.
The reason the Taliban are begging the rest of the world for money is that the criminals the US installed, made off with the Afghan treasury.
All the money of the Afghan banking system is illegal outside of Afghanistan, in the hands of thieves, and the Taliban is following the correct legal policy of demanding their arrest the return of their stolen money.

The Taliban were always popular because they were the least corrupt.
They still are, and will then be stable.
There is no one who can do any better.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2021)

Smokin' OP said:


> I give up.
> Carry on your petty argument with someone else.


I'm sorry you do not like the favt there is now not now, nor was there ever, a requiremrnt to be part of the "well regulated militia" for your right to keep and bear arms to enjoy the protection of the 2nd Amendment -- but that is indeed the case.
As such, you cannot in any way soundly explain why the fact the GOP "ignores " the "well-reulated" part has any significance.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Who controls Afghanistan? Is it the Taliban? They're not going anywhere.



Their regime probably won't last a year. They might still call themselves the "Taliban", but the current group of leaders will probably be dead.. 



Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Changing government by over throwing them is not at all a bad or evil tradition as you are implying.
> It is just like the US elections every 4 years, and is not bad or evil.



There's a difference between having peaceful elections within an established constitution, and angry mobs overthrowing the government every few years...  I'm sorry you can't see the difference... 

The rest of your post is the rantings of the crazy person.  I actually feel bad considering any of your advise on my Condo situation, as it's clear you are a couple tacos short of a combination platter.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 8, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Yes the Zimmerman letter did encourage Mexico. But the point is the US would never have known about the Zimmerman Letter if not for SOMEONE stealing a copy from Berlin. And while we will never know who did it, there were thousands of Jews working in secure facilities in Berlin.



Actually, it's far more likely the British intercepted the cable, decoded it, and passed it along to the Americans...  

But the main impetus for America getting into the war was that Ludendorff and Hindenburg convinced the Kaiser that if Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917, they could starve out the UK and France before the Americans could mobilize.  



Rigby5 said:


> The Balfour Declaration made no sense to try to keep Russia in the war.
> The Russian Jews are Ashkenazi and are not from the Mideast at all, nor would it have kept Russia in the war if Russian Jews started emigrating to Palestine.
> Jews were treated badly by Russia and Lenin and Stalin did not at all treat Jews well.



No, but some people in the British government thought they might.  Never said the British empire made GOOD decisions... 




Rigby5 said:


> Nor does British colonialism explain the Balfour Declaration.
> The British were far more anti-Jewish than the Germans were.



Exactly.  They were happy to dump their Jews into Palestine, and before the War started,  Hitler wanted to dump them there, too.  Except there wasn't really any desire to do that until Hitler went with plan B, which involved Xyclon B.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 8, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Their regime probably won't last a year. They might still call themselves the "Taliban", but the current group of leaders will probably be dead.



Old boss, same as the new boss.  Nothing will change, because the government has all the guns.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Nov 8, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Justice Brett Kavanaugh floated the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.
> 
> The associate justice, appointed by former President Donald Trump, specifically posed a theoretical law that would allow the seller of an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon to be sued for $1 million.
> 
> ...


The right to bear arms is specifically stated in the Constitution no where in that document does it mention abortions or any medical procedure. It is for the States to decide the issue.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 8, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Their regime probably won't last a year. They might still call themselves the "Taliban", but the current group of leaders will probably be dead..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wrong.
When regimes are over thrown in counties like Afghanistan, that does not mean anyone is killed.
It means people make deals in secret, and then the existing regime finds they have lost so much support, they have to step down.
That is how Saddam took over in Iraq around 1979.
It was a bloodless coup, and no one died.

What the US does with our established constitution we ignore, is just a joke.
We don't really have any election at all because the candidates are all the worst possible choices anyone could have imagined.
Vastly inferior in my opinion.
They don't waste nearly as much money as we do.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 8, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, it's far more likely the British intercepted the cable, decoded it, and passed it along to the Americans...
> 
> But the main impetus for America getting into the war was that Ludendorff and Hindenburg convinced the Kaiser that if Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917, they could starve out the UK and France before the Americans could mobilize.
> 
> ...



Wrong.
The copy cabled had slightly different wording.
The copy given to the US came from a spy in Berlin.

And Germany NEVER conducted unrestricted submarine warfare, so could not have resumed it.
The HMS Lusitania was armed and carried munitions to a war zone combatant, so was a legitimate target.
The Germans has posted a warning in the NY Times that they were going to sink it.
So that was NOT unrestricted submarine warfare.








						Newspaper Warning Notice and the Lusitania
					

Erik Larson explains a newspaper notice issued by the German Embassy warning of travel dangers prior to the Lusitania voyage. ** This clip is part of C-SPAN Classroom's FREE resources for teachers and students. Visit www.c-spanclassroom.org for more info. *




					www.c-span.org
				




The Balfour Declaration came out on Nov 1917, and the Bolshevik revolution was in March 1917, but the main Bolsheviks promise was to get out of WWI.  Although the Bolsheviks did not sign a peace treaty with Germany until March 1918, there was never any inclination for the Bolsheviks to like the Balfour Declaration.  The Balfour Declaration was to encourage Jewish emigration to Palestine, and the last thing Bolsheviks would want is their supporters to emigrate to Palestine.

And no the Balfour Declaration could not have been to increase colonial control over Palestine.
The natives were happy with British administration.  |The British has exactly what they wanted with the British Mandate for Palestine.
Increasing Jewish immigration into Palestine did the exact opposite of British colonialism.  It not only alienated and angered the natives, but it was the Zionist immigrants who then started murdering the British and made them leave.  It makes no sense at all to claim the Balfour Declaration was to enhance British colonialism in Palestine, or in fact anywhere in the Mideast, as it angered all Mideast countries.

The only possible reason for the Balfour Declaration was to pay back a secret debt incurred by Jewish espionage, that could  otherwise have been used as blackmail.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 8, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> The right to bear arms is specifically stated in the Constitution no where in that document does it mention abortions or any medical procedure. It is for the States to decide the issue.



Except the 14th amendment specifically puts individual rights back into the hands of the feds once again.
And states do not get to decide anything that would infringe upon the rights of any individual.
States simply have no standing on abortion.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 8, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> abortion is a constitutional right?


Privacy is a Constitutional right, prohibiting government from interfering in personal matters, such as whether to have a child or not.

The right to privacy is about limited government, it’s about individuals – not the government – knowing best about how to conduct their private lives.

Conservatives once believed in limited government, in respecting the privacy of individuals – that’s clearly no longer the case; that hasn’t been the case for nearly 50 years.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 8, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> The right to bear arms is specifically stated in the Constitution no where in that document does it mention abortions or any medical procedure. It is for the States to decide the issue.


Wrong.

Nowhere in the Constitution will you find an individual right to posses a firearm or a right to self-defense – but they’re there because the Supreme Court has determined that to be the case.

The same is true with regard to the right to privacy, prohibiting states from compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 8, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Nowhere in the Constitution will you find an individual right to posses a firearm or a right to self-defense – but they’re there because the Supreme Court has determined that to be the case.
> 
> ...



With abortion we are on the same side, but I disagree the Constitution is what the SCOTUS says it is.
The principles are higher than the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS can and has gotten it wrong before.
Like the Dread Scott decision.  That was truly awful.  And just like I think all state or federal abortion laws are illegal, I think all drug laws and federal gun laws are illegal.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Nov 8, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Nowhere in the Constitution will you find an individual right to posses a firearm or a right to self-defense – but they’re there because the Supreme Court has determined that to be the case.
> 
> ...


The right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no other way to interpret that. It is left to the States to decide issues not covered by the Constitution, the 10th Amendment covers this.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 9, 2021)

Wow, this is why you don't get your history from the Daily Stormer, people.  



Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> The copy cabled had slightly different wording.
> The copy given to the US came from a spy in Berlin.



Or that the person translating it didn't have great skills in German.  Slightly different wording really doesn't mean all that much.  




Rigby5 said:


> And Germany NEVER conducted unrestricted submarine warfare, so could not have resumed it.
> The HMS Lusitania was armed and carried munitions to a war zone combatant, so was a legitimate target.
> The Germans has posted a warning in the NY Times that they were going to sink it.
> So that was NOT unrestricted submarine warfare.



Uh, most places in the world, threatening to sink a civilian ship is considered terrorism. The problem was the Germans really underestimated how sick of that shit America would get. 



Rigby5 said:


> The Balfour Declaration came out on Nov 1917, and the Bolshevik revolution was in March 1917, but the main Bolsheviks promise was to get out of WWI. Although the Bolsheviks did not sign a peace treaty with Germany until March 1918, there was never any inclination for the Bolsheviks to like the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration was to encourage Jewish emigration to Palestine, and the last thing Bolsheviks would want is their supporters to emigrate to Palestine.



Guy, there were two revolutions in 1917.  The FEBRUARY revolution, which actually happened in March because they were using the old calendar, was not the Bolsheviks.  They did the October Revolution (which happened in November).  The problem was the people who took over in March insisted on keeping Russia into the war Nicholas II started with his cousin, the Kaiser.  The western allies did a whole lot of stupid shit to try to keep Russia in the war, and then intervened militarily to try to keep the communists from taking over completely, lest their own working class start getting "ideas". 




Rigby5 said:


> And no the Balfour Declaration could not have been to increase colonial control over Palestine.
> The natives were happy with British administration. |The British has exactly what they wanted with the British Mandate for Palestine.


Well, the British has what they wanted, the Arabs didn't have what they wanted, and that was the problem. You see, the British promised the Arabs that if they revolted against the Ottomans, they would get their own kingdoms... instead the British and French turned Jordan, Iraq and Syria into colonies and tried to established non-Muslim states in Palestine and Lebanon... colonialism by other means.  We're still dealing with the problems 100 years later. 



Rigby5 said:


> Increasing Jewish immigration into Palestine did the exact opposite of British colonialism. It not only alienated and angered the natives, but it was the Zionist immigrants who then started murdering the British and made them leave. It makes no sense at all to claim the Balfour Declaration was to enhance British colonialism in Palestine, or in fact anywhere in the Mideast, as it angered all Mideast countries.



The Zionists only turned on the British because it looked like the British were going to partition Palestine before they left.  

And, yes, the British pissed everyone off. It's kind of their thing.  




Rigby5 said:


> The only possible reason for the Balfour Declaration was to pay back a secret debt incurred by Jewish espionage, that could otherwise have been used as blackmail.



Again, you need to stop getting your history from the Daily Stormer.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 9, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives once believed in limited government, in respecting the privacy of individuals – that’s clearly no longer the case; that hasn’t been the case for nearly 50 years.


And yet, you believe the TX abortion law is constitutional.
Why don't you ever tell us this?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 9, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> Nowhere in the Constitution will you find an individual right to posses a firearm or a right to self-defense – but they’re there because the Supreme Court has determined that to be the case.


And yet, you believe the TX abortion law is constitutional.
Why don't you ever tell us this?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Wow, this is why you don't get your history from the Daily Stormer, people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wrong.
When you give a release to a country like the US and the Zimmerman Letter, you do NOT translate it.
You have to give it to them intact, as proof.
We know exactly what the German wording was in the Zimmerman Letter given to the US.
And it was NOT in English and did not have just translation differences from the one actually cabled.
There are also differences in sentence order, length, etc.
The Zimmerman Letter the US was given came from Berlin, not from decrypting the cable.
Decrypting was the false cover story to protect Berlin sources.

Like all British passenger liners, the HMS Lusitania was also registered as a naval warship.  It was built with gun mountings that had been fitted with cannon when the war started.  They were covered with canvas, but can be seen by divers going to the wreckage.  And the whole point of the Lusitania going to the US was to pick up munition, so then it was a legal target.  Haven't you read the NY Times warning yet, telling everyone the Lusitania was going to be sunk?  Or how about reading that the HMS Queen Elizabeth liner was used for war in the Falklands?

But your whole take on submarine warfare is totally wrong.  Germany did not start submarine warfare and was never the main player.  England had the larger submarine fleet, and the defeat of Germany came from British AND US submarines sinking civilian German shipping.  So your condemnation of Germany is totally and completely misplaced, totally a product of anti German WWI propaganda.  You probably also believe German soldiers barbecued and ate Belgian infants like the propaganda claimed?

With the timing of the revolution and Balfour Declaration, I was agreeing with you that it was a possible fit.
But the point is the Balfour Declaration could not have been to keep Russia in the war.  
The Balfour Declaration was to encourage Zionist emigration to Palestine.  
That would not appeal to Russian Jews who wanted Jewish revolutionaries to stay in Russia, nor would it appeal to anti-Jewish factions who would not want a Jewish country in the Mideast.  
The only possible explanation is that the British were forced to say something pro-Zionist because otherwise Zionist could reveal their part in things like providing the British with the formula for explosives and the stolen Zimmerman Letter.  The obvious motive was to prevent blackmail.

And yes the Arab did get what they wanted.  The Palestinians actually preferred neutral British rule over a corrupt local Arab kingdom.  
Palestine is not homogeneous.  It is the greatest mixture in the whole Mideast, of Canaanites, Akkadians, Urites, Nabatians, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Philistines, Shiites, Sunni, etc.  Why do you think they never strongly tried to establish a single, central Palestinian government?  It was the Zionists who attacked and murdered the British soldiers in Palestine, not the Arabs.  The Arabs wanted the British to stay.
If you look at Jordan, where the Hashemites were given rule, they are not local at all, and while it worked out, was not what the Arab inhabitants wanted really.  The Hashemites were a southern Saudi tribe, part of the Sarifian Solution of T.E. Lawrence.








						Sharifian Solution - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



And the ONLY reason why the British were considering partitioning Palestine was to appease the Zionists.  
According to the original Mandate, the Zionists were to get nothing.
The Balfour Declaration only allowed facilitated immigration.
It gave Jews NOTHING else.

And your political ignorance is very irritating.
YOU are the right winger.
I am a gazillion times more left wing than you could ever be.
And it is you who are babbling obvious propaganda, while I have carefully determined the facts from all possible sources.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 9, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> *GREAT!*
> 
> Abortion kills unborn children.
> Guns enable suicide and murder.
> ...


Human life is NOT precious.   Sorry to disappoint.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 9, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Human life is NOT precious.   Sorry to disappoint.


Human life is G-d's Creation.  Human Life is precious!


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Human life is NOT precious.   Sorry to disappoint.



Close human life is precious, distant human life is competition.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Human life is G-d's Creation.  Human Life is precious!



Rabbit life is no less G-d's creation.
When there are too many people, then people are the problem instead of being valuable.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 9, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that even hints at a right for a woman to have her own child killed in cold blood.


So what? We have courts that interpret the constitution. Abortion is a constitutionally protected right protected by right to privacy. Nowhere in the constitution does it say anyone can own an assault rifle, either. So you literalists undermine all of your own fantasies with this nonsense.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 9, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> The right to bear arms is specifically stated in the Constitution


Nowhere does it grant you the right to carry any weapon anywhere.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Rabbit life is no less G-d's creation.


Humans have unique souls.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Nov 9, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nowhere does it grant you the right to carry any weapon anywhere.


Nowhere does the 2nd have an except for clause.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 9, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Nowhere does the 2nd have an except for clause.


And nowhere does it give you the right to carry any weapon anywhere.

Seems like you are starting to catch on. The Constitution is often not very clear about things. So we have a SCOTUS that determines what is constitutional and what is not.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nowhere does it grant you the right to carry any weapon anywhere.



True, but the constitution does clearly deny any federal jurisdiction over firearms.
What regulations and restrictions there should be, have to be state, county, or municipal.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> True, but the constitution does clearly deny any federal jurisdiction over firearms.


It clearly does not, and clearly SCOTUS decisions deem that some federal gun laws are, in fact, constitutional.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 9, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nowhere does it grant you the right to carry any weapon anywhere.



  Well, other than that \is what it explicitly says, perhaps not.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that even hints at a right for a woman to have her own child killed in cold blood.
> 
> The case for a Constitutional right to abortion is based on a mountain of falsehoods piled on falsehoods.
> 
> ...



Yes the Constitution does demand the right of a woman to have her own child killed in cold blood.
It says that all people have the right to do what ever is not explicitly prohibited.
And the mother has total medical jurisdiction over their children, who are the product of her own body.
If she wants to cull a defective child, that is her right and authority.
It does not have to be explicitly in the Constitution.
No rights are granted by the Constitution.
Instead you would have to find an explicit prohibition, and there is none.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 9, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Well, other than that \is what it explicitly says, perhaps not.


It sure doesn't. Sorry.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 9, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So what? We have courts that interpret the constitution. Abortion is a constitutionally protected right protected by right to privacy. Nowhere in the constitution does it say anyone can own an assault rifle, either. So you literalists undermine all of your own fantasies with this nonsense.



  Their unjustifiable usurpations notwithstanding, the courts absolutely do not have the authority to _“interpret”_ the Constitution to mean other than what is says, and especially to _“interpret”_ it to mean the opposite of what it explicitly says.

  The Constitution explicitly affirms a right, belonging to the people, to keep and bear arms, and forbids government form infringing this right.  Every act of legislation or litigation that denies this is an act of corruption and malfeasance.

  And nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that even hints at a right to murder an innocents child in cold blood.  That was an act, not only of corruption and malfeasance, but outright murderous evil, to rule that it did.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Yes the Constitution does demand the right of a woman to have her own child killed in cold blood.



  Quote me the exact text from the Constitution that says any such thing.

  Not a ruling by a corrupt, murderous judge, but the text from the Constitution itself.

  You cannot, because it is not in there.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> It says that all people have the right to do what ever is not explicitly prohibited.
> And the mother has total medical jurisdiction over their children, who are the product of her own body.
> If she wants to cull a defective child, that is her right and authority.
> It does not have to be explicitly in the Constitution.
> ...



  So, by your logic, the Constitution demands a right to steal and destroy other people's property, to assault and murder other people, and to commit any act not explicitly addressed and prohibited in the Constitution.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It clearly does not, and clearly SCOTUS decisions deem that some federal gun laws are, in fact, constitutional.



The first federal gun law was not till 1937, and I see nothing authorizing it in the Constitution.
It is pretty clear the 2nd amendment is prohibiting federal infringement on bearing arms.
The implication of firearms "being necessary to the security of a free State", to me means that as a democratic republic, that this country is dependent upon an armed citizenry.  How then can there be any federal gun laws?  The 1937 law was due to Prohibition and the wholesale liquidation of tens of thousands of Thompson machineguns for like $30 each, mail order.  So the problem was totally federal, in making alcohol such a lucrative but yet unprotected product, and failing to retain these surplus machineguns they made and never used in WWI.

And it seems to me the SCOTUS agrees with me.  Here is their Cruikshank ruling:

{...  In _United States v. Cruikshank_ (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments [_sic_] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."[15] ...}


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Quote me the exact text from the Constitution that says any such thing.
> 
> Not a ruling by a corrupt, murderous judge, but the text from the Constitution itself.
> 
> You cannot, because it is not in there.



Yes it is in there by reverse.
It says all rights are retained by the people, if not explicitly granted federal jurisdiction.
There is nothing about criminalizing abortion, so then it is legal by default.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> So, by your logic, the Constitution demands a right to steal and destroy other people's property, to assault and murder other people, and to commit any act not explicitly addressed and prohibited in the Constitution.



Wrong.
The 4th and 5th amendments prohibit theft, assault, murder, etc.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> Humans have unique souls.



That is your opinion only, and not the basis for any legal action.
It would be just as valid for someone to say rabbits have unique souls, or that humans do not have a soul except when sentient.
And since we have a history of executions, wars, etc. I see no basis for claiming a human soul is unique or even that valuable.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> The 4th and 5th amendments prohibit theft, assault, murder, etc.



  Abortion is murder.  It is, objectively, the killing of an innocent human being.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Abortion is murder.  It is, objectively, the killing of an innocent human being.



Wrong.
It the health and choices regarding an unborn, are totally and completely under the jurisdiction of the woman.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> It the health and choices regarding an unborn, are totally and completely under the jurisdiction of the woman.



  You're talking about a human being.  And by speaking of that human being's health and choices being under the jurisdiction of his mother, you're arguing for the right of the mother to kill than human being in cold blood.

 There is no spin that you can pout on it, to hide the murderous evil which you are defending, nor to hide what it very clearly tells us about your own murderous character.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Nov 9, 2021)

Constitutional rights can go both ways.  You ban one persons rights in order to grant another's persons rights. Who's rights are more important.  Definitely a circular argument.

If the court rules in one way  then it is a model that can be used in different cases and it sets precedents.  Unfortunately precedents can change over time when you have different people sitting on the court years later. Precedents work if you really do not want to think about it to much and just want to go with the flow.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You're talking about a human being.  And by speaking of that human being's health and choices being under the jurisdiction of his mother, you're arguing for the right of the mother to kill than human being in cold blood.
> 
> There is no spin that you can pout on it, to hide the murderous evil which you are defending, nor to hide what it very clearly tells us about your own murderous character.



Absolutely.
The mother has the superior jurisdiction over anyone else.
If the mothers instincts aren't enough, no one else has anything better.
If a mother wants to murder her children, so be it.
The reality is that anyone else who claims otherwise is just a hypocrite.
There are thousands of infants dying due to poverty in the US every year, because no one cares.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> Constitutional rights can go both ways.  You ban one persons rights in order to grant another's persons rights. Who's rights are more important.  Definitely a circular argument.
> 
> If the court rules in one way  then it is a model that can be used in different cases and it sets precedents.  Unfortunately precedents can change over time when you have different people sitting on the court years later. Precedents work if you really do not want to think about it to much and just want to go with the flow.



Usually it is not a right of one vs a right of another.
It is almost always government trying to impose its desires over the rights of a defenseless individual.
Like Prohibition, the War on Drugs, mandatory sentences, asset forfeiture, federal gun laws, and all sorts of illegal legislation the court has failed to stop.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Nov 9, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And nowhere does it give you the right to carry any weapon anywhere.
> 
> Seems like you are starting to catch on. The Constitution is often not very clear about things. So we have a SCOTUS that determines what is constitutional and what is not.


Shall not be infringed is pretty damn clear.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Nov 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Absolutely.
> The mother has the superior jurisdiction over anyone else.
> If the mothers instincts aren't enough, no one else has anything better.
> If a mother wants to murder her children, so be it.
> ...


The US spends billions every year on poverty.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Nov 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Usually it is not a right of one vs a right of another.
> It is almost always government trying to impose its desires over the rights of a defenseless individual.
> Like Prohibition, the War on Drugs, mandatory sentences, asset forfeiture, federal gun laws, and all sorts of illegal legislation the court has failed to stop.


Well whenever the government impose its desire it really is the desire of some and not all. The government has become  the will of political parties or ideologies that determines what they can do and cannot do based on the majority of votes.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Nov 9, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Privacy is a Constitutional right, prohibiting government from interfering in personal matters, such as whether to have a child or not.
> 
> The right to privacy is about limited government, it’s about individuals – not the government – knowing best about how to conduct their private lives.
> 
> Conservatives once believed in limited government, in respecting the privacy of individuals – that’s clearly no longer the case; that hasn’t been the case for nearly 50 years.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  

It is the individuals decision but some seem to like to want to make that decision for others under the premise of deciding what makes them happy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 10, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Like all British passenger liners, the HMS Lusitania was also registered as a naval warship. It was built with gun mountings that had been fitted with cannon when the war started. They were covered with canvas, but can be seen by divers going to the wreckage. And the whole point of the Lusitania going to the US was to pick up munition, so then it was a legal target. Haven't you read the NY Times warning yet, telling everyone the Lusitania was going to be sunk? Or how about reading that the HMS Queen Elizabeth liner was used for war in the Falklands?



Yes, and that was the point.  Americans died on the Lusitania, Germany promised to not do that again, and then they kept doing it and even escalated.  



Rigby5 said:


> When you give a release to a country like the US and the Zimmerman Letter, you do NOT translate it.
> You have to give it to them intact, as proof.
> We know exactly what the German wording was in the Zimmerman Letter given to the US.
> And it was NOT in English and did not have just translation differences from the one actually cabled.
> ...



The point is, Zimmerman did admit the cable was geniuine. 

The cypher was numeric... so you'd have to decide which words those numbers meant in German vs. English.  

There was not some Jewish conspriacy... The Germans fucked up.  Then again, the Germans fucked up pretty much from the point Franz Ferdinand was shot up until the Kaiser got deposed because he wanted to send his navy on a suicide mission.  




Rigby5 said:


> But your whole take on submarine warfare is totally wrong. Germany did not start submarine warfare and was never the main player. England had the larger submarine fleet, and the defeat of Germany came from British AND US submarines sinking civilian German shipping. So your condemnation of Germany is totally and completely misplaced, totally a product of anti German WWI propaganda. You probably also believe German soldiers barbecued and ate Belgian infants like the propaganda claimed?



The ironic thing.  My grandfather fought in the Kaiser's army in World War I.  (He immigrated to the US in 1925, and stopped calling himself Ludwig and started going by Louis).   And, yes, the Germans were not only torpedoing British civilian ships, but AMERICAN ships.  That's what America was upset about. AMERICANS WERE DYING.   



Rigby5 said:


> And the ONLY reason why the British were considering partitioning Palestine was to appease the Zionists.
> According to the original Mandate, the Zionists were to get nothing.
> The Balfour Declaration only allowed facilitated immigration.
> It gave Jews NOTHING else.



But that was the point, wasn't it?  To put a population in Palestine that would require British protection. 

Keep in mind, the main goal of the British was to keep the Suez Canal Open to keep cheap goods flowing in from India.  While Egypt was essentially a British "Protectorate", it had its own government that at some point might throw the Brits out.  So having a nearby population dependent on them was a boon.  




Rigby5 said:


> And your political ignorance is very irritating.
> YOU are the right winger.
> I am a gazillion times more left wing than you could ever be.
> And it is you who are babbling obvious propaganda, while I have carefully determined the facts from all possible sources.



Actually, you are kind of a crazy person... I mean, sometimes I have fun toying with crazies and their know it all attitudes...


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 10, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You're talking about a human being. And by speaking of that human being's health and choices being under the jurisdiction of his mother, you're arguing for the right of the mother to kill than human being in cold blood.
> 
> There is no spin that you can pout on it, to hide the murderous evil which you are defending, nor to hide what it very clearly tells us about your own murderous character.



Fetuses aren't people.. if they were, then we would treat every miscarriage as a homicide investigation.  (You know, instead of just the occasional poor person of color like Purvi Patel) 

We would charge pregnant women with assault if they smoked or drank during their pregnancy.  

At the end of the day, you can't give Fetuses human rights without deducting the human rights of the women they are inside.  

A woman can give up her rights because she wants a baby, sure.  But that's her choice just as much as ending a pregnancy is her choice.


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 10, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Fetuses aren't people.. ...


Is a ten year-old a person?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 11, 2021)

Unkotare said:


> Is a ten year-old a person?



Since a 10 year old can live outside it's mother's body, obviously. 

Don't be stupid....


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 11, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Since a 10 year old can live outside it's mother's body, obviously.
> 
> Don't be stupid....




A 2 year old can't live outside the mothers body either........without care.....so we can now kill them too?


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 11, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Since a 10 year old can live outside it's mother's body, obviously.
> 
> ....


Is a 20 year-old a person?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 11, 2021)

Unkotare said:


> Is a 20 year-old a person?




Apparently not if they can't take care of themselves.......right?  According to Joe......without someone else to care for them, there are 20 year olds who can't survive outside the womb.....right?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 11, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> With abortion we are on the same side, but I disagree the Constitution is what the SCOTUS says it is.
> The principles are higher than the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS can and has gotten it wrong before.
> Like the Dread Scott decision.  That was truly awful.  And just like I think all state or federal abortion laws are illegal, I think all drug laws and federal gun laws are illegal.


The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, as originally intended by Framers, and as codified in Article VI of the Constitution.

The right to privacy is in the Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court, prohibiting the states from banning abortion; that the word ‘privacy’ isn’t in the Constitution is irrelevant.

The right to marry is in the Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court, prohibiting the states from banning interracial couples from marrying; that the word ‘marriage’ isn’t in the Constitution is irrelevant.

And the individual right to possess a firearm and the right to self-defense are in the Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court, prohibiting government from banning handguns; that the words ‘individual’ and ‘self-defense’ aren’t in the Constitution is irrelevant.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So what? We have courts that interpret the constitution. Abortion is a constitutionally protected right protected by right to privacy. Nowhere in the constitution does it say anyone can own an assault rifle, either. So you literalists undermine all of your own fantasies with this nonsense.


Correct.

If the Supreme Court holds that there is an individual right to possess a firearm in the Constitution, then there likewise exists a right to privacy, as held by the Supreme Court.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways just because they like guns and oppose the right to privacy.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 11, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Nowhere does the 2nd have an except for clause.


Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say the right is ‘unlimited’ and not subject to regulations and restrictions.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 11, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Abortion is murder.  It is, objectively, the killing of an innocent human being.


This is a lie.

Abortion is not ‘murder.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 11, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Shall not be infringed is pretty damn clear.


Not unlimited is pretty damn clear:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”






						DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
					






					www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 11, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Absolutely.
> The mother has the superior jurisdiction over anyone else.
> If the mothers instincts aren't enough, no one else has anything better.
> If a mother wants to murder her children, so be it.
> ...


Provide a link to prove the claim thousands of children die every year in the US due to poverty.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Nov 11, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Not unlimited is pretty damn clear:
> 
> “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
> 
> ...


Where are the limits in the 2nd Amendment ? Instead of making up shit why don't you loons do this the legal way. Call for a Constitutional Convention to add your except for clauses.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 11, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say the right is ‘unlimited’ and not subject to regulations and restrictions.



_“…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”_

  It could not be any clearer than that.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 11, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Not unlimited is pretty damn clear:
> 
> “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
> 
> ...




Yeah, I remember _Heller_ saying that but I must ask, does your understanding of, "_the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_", mean that the power of Congress is unlimited?  

Do you argue the right _can_ be limited whenever and however a legislature desires?

See, I remember _Heller_ saying:


"the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding"

and I remember _Heller_ quoting Rawle's explanation of the 2nd Amendment's restrictive clause:


"The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. . . "

I remember _Heller_ warning modern judges and legislators against engaging in an endless reassessment of the value of the right to arms in modern society;


"The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad."

And I remember _Heller_ doubling down on that theme . . . and this can only be taken as SCOTUS speaking directly to "the legislature" and its LIMITED power to dictate to the people what arms they are allowed to possess and use:


"But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."

So, what exactly are you trying to convey with your harping on "not unlimited", is that your only take-away from _Heller_?

.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 11, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, as originally intended by Framers, and as codified in Article VI of the Constitution.


And yet, you believe the TX abortion ban is constitutional.
Why do you never mention this?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 11, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> If the Supreme Court holds that there is an individual right to possess a firearm in the Constitution, then there likewise exists a right to privacy, as held by the Supreme Court.


And yet, you believe the TX abortion ban is constitutional.
Why do you never mention this?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 11, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> Abortion is not ‘murder.’


And yet, you believe the TX abortion ban in constitutional.
This means an abortion in TX past 6 weeks can indeed be murder.
Why do you never mention this?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 12, 2021)

2aguy said:


> A 2 year old can't live outside the mothers body either........without care.....so we can now kill them too?



Point is, they don't need to be attached to someone to keep living, unlike a fetus. 

Now, I think we should take every aborted fetus and put it inside a rightwinger instead, just line up.  We also need to find a way for men to carry them to term...


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 12, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> _“…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”_
> 
> It could not be any clearer than that.



Then why do you leave half the words out, if it's so clear?  I think the part about WELL-REGULATED MILITIAS would prove that the Founding Slave Rapists never intended it to be an unlimited right. 

They certainly didn't want black people to have guns... Sally Hemmings might have decided she was sick and tired of Tommy Jefferson raping her.  

Oh, Jefferson started raping Sally Hemmings when she was 15.   But thank God he's not Roman Polanski!!!


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Then why do you leave half the words out, if it's so clear?  I think the part about WELL-REGULATED MILITIAS would prove that the Founding Slave Rapists never intended it to be an unlimited right.
> 
> They certainly didn't want black people to have guns... Sally Hemmings might have decided she was sick and tired of Tommy Jefferson raping her.
> 
> Oh, Jefferson started raping Sally Hemmings when she was 15.   But thank God he's not Roman Polanski!!!




* the Founding Slave Rapists

Moron....you proudly admit you vote for the democrat party, the political party created by actual slave rapists...who started the Civil War so they could keep raping their slaves........are you really this stupid?*


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 12, 2021)

2aguy said:


> the Founding Slave Rapists
> 
> Moron....you proudly admit you vote for the democrat party, the political party created by actual slave rapists...who started the Civil War so they could keep raping their slaves........are you really this stupid?



There was no Democratic Party in 1776.   

They should have explained this to you in Home School....  

There were no political parties in the Confederacy, either.


----------



## Leviticus (Nov 13, 2021)

WillHaftawaite said:


> abortion is a constitutional right?


Yes.  There are several rights that were not originally part of the constitution but were rules as rights by the Supreme Court.  Interpreting the constitution when there is a dispute is literally the only job SCOTUS has under the Constitution.


----------



## Leviticus (Nov 13, 2021)

I dont think conservatives will be satisfied until we go full Irish, and ban all abortions in all circumstances.  Irish doctors have literally let woman die, from miscarriages when they knew terminating the pregnancy would save them.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 13, 2021)

Leviticus said:


> I dont [sic] think conservatives will be satisfied until we go full Irish, and ban all abortions in all circumstances.  Irish doctors have literally let woman die, from miscarriages when they knew terminating the pregnancy would save them.



  Since the Roe vs. Wade decision, over sixty million innocent American children have been killed in cold blood, via abortion.

  That's an awful lot of blood on the hands of murderous filth such as yourself, who defend this savage practice.  In their time, the Nazis didn't come anywhere close to this.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2021)

Leviticus said:


> Yes.  There are several rights that were not originally part of the constitution but were rules as rights by the Supreme Court.  Interpreting the constitution when there is a dispute is literally the only job SCOTUS has under the Constitution.


Except its not.
Most USSC decisions - and NONE of them, prior to _Marbury _- do not deal with the constitution.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 14, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Justice Brett Kavanaugh floated the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.
> 
> The associate justice, appointed by former President Donald Trump, specifically posed a theoretical law that would allow the seller of an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon to be sued for $1 million.
> 
> ...



I don't think it could legitimately, but we all know how much our so-called legal system cares about respecting the letter and spirit of the law.


----------



## Flash (Nov 14, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Justice Brett Kavanaugh floated the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.
> 
> The associate justice, appointed by former President Donald Trump, specifically posed a theoretical law that would allow the seller of an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon to be sued for $1 million.
> 
> ...


There is NO Constitutional right to kill a child.

There is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

These stupid uneducated Moon Bats don't know any more about the Constitution than they know about Economics, History, Biology, Climate Science or Ethics.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Nov 14, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> No.  Cars are much more needed then guns.  I do oppose motorcycles -- accident death rate 30 times higher then cars.



You do know there's a difference between "used more often" and "more needed", right?  Tylenol is used far more often than chemotherapy drugs are, but does that mean Tylenol is "more needed" than chemo?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 20, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Since the Roe vs. Wade decision, over sixty million innocent American children have been killed in cold blood, via abortion.
> 
> That's an awful lot of blood on the hands of murderous filth such as yourself, who defend this savage practice. In their time, the Nazis didn't come anywhere close to this.



Mormon Bob, there were just as many abortions going on before Roe as after Roe.  Women would go to their OB?GYN, he'd perform the abortion and write something else on the chart. 

Take a look at birth figures for 1973 and onward.  The birth rate actually INCREASED, it didn't drop.  

You seem to keep ignoring the fact that no one is driving around in trucks, snatching women off the street and making them get abortions. 

Instead, women are making appointments, going to the clinic, getting their little problem taken care of, and getting on with their lives.  

If you were serious about less of them doing that, then support paid family leave, universal health care, comprehensive sex education and availability of contraception.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 20, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Mormon Bob, there were just as many abortions going on before Roe as after Roe.  Women would go to their OB?GYN, he'd perform the abortion and write something else on the chart.
> 
> Take a look at birth figures for 1973 and onward.  The birth rate actually INCREASED, it didn't drop.
> 
> ...




You seem to keep ignoring the fact that no one is driving around in trucks, snatching women off the street and making them get abortions.

Correct...the democrat party is simply setting up abortion mills in black neighborhoods.......continuing their history of racism and killing blacks...but now under cover of law....


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You seem to keep ignoring the fact that no one is driving around in trucks, snatching women off the street and making them get abortions.
> 
> Correct...the democrat party is simply setting up abortion mills in black neighborhoods.......continuing their history of racism and killing blacks...but now under cover of law....



  It's funny how Incel Joe is so fond of falsely accursing others of _“racism”_, and of wanting to kill black people for no good reason; yet he supports murderous racist hate groups like Planned parenthood that have murdered more black people than all groups combined that can in any way be associated with those that he likes to call _“racist”_.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 20, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Correct...the democrat party is simply setting up abortion mills in black neighborhoods.......continuing their history of racism and killing blacks...but now under cover of law....



Funny, blacks have a higher population replacement rate than whites do... this is why Carlson gets on TV every night screaming about replacement theory.  

If PP has to set up in poorer neighborhoods, it's because the private practice OB/GYN can't be bothered, because he won't make any money.   This isn't exactly anything to be proud of.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> It's funny how @Incel Joe is so fond of falsely accursing others of _“racism”_, and of wanting to kill black people for no good reason; yet he supports murderous racist hate groups like Planned parenthood that have murdered more black people than all groups combined that can in any way be associated with those that he likes to call _“racist”_.



Fetuses aren't babies. 
Fetuses aren't people. 
If the woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she'll find a way to not be pregnant. 

I mean, if you want to throw a hissy, that's fine and all, but you have yet to tell me how you are going to stop women from terminating unwanted pregnancies...  Sure, you can close down the clinics, but that just means OB/GYN's will go back to performing them quietly, like they did before Roe. 

You can legislate morality, but you can't legislate conduct. 

Prohibition didn't work.  Our cities were awash in booze in the time between the 18th and 21st Amendments. 
Laws against prostitution don't work. You only have to look at all the escort services, massage parlors, and strip joints operating in states where prostitution is illegal. 
The war on drugs hasn't worked... they've pretty much raised the white flag on Marijuana, and most places are giving up on prohibition and moving on to rehabilitation as the answer. 

So you really only have two choices here. 

One is to be what we were before Roe, what the Philippines are now, where you have these laws on the books that people will find all sorts of creative ways to break and 

The other is to create a police state where medical privacy and freedom are things of the past. 

Neither is really appealing, at least to those of us who aren't religious crazies....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 20, 2021)

Flash said:


> There is NO Constitutional right to kill a child.


No one said there was.

There is a right to privacy, however – prohibiting the state from compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law.

That some might perceive an embryo/fetus as a ‘child’ is subjective, devoid of legal and Constitutional merit, in no manner mitigating the right to privacy.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 20, 2021)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You're talking about a human being.  And by speaking of that human being's health and choices being under the jurisdiction of his mother, you're arguing for the right of the mother to kill than human being in cold blood.
> 
> There is no spin that you can pout on it, to hide the murderous evil which you are defending, nor to hide what it very clearly tells us about your own murderous character.


As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections – the rights and protected liberties of the woman being paramount.

Given this fact, abortion is not ‘murder.’

The right to privacy concerns civil law; murder concerns criminal law – one having nothing to do with the other.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 20, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one said there was.
> There is a right to privacy, however – prohibiting the state from compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law.


And yet, you believe the TX abortion ban is constitutional.
Why do you never mention this?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 20, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections – the rights and protected liberties of the woman being paramount.


And yet, you believe the TX abortion ban is constitutional.
Why do you never mention this?


----------



## Flash (Nov 20, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one said there was.
> 
> There is a right to privacy, however – prohibiting the state from compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law.
> 
> That some might perceive an embryo/fetus as a ‘child’ is subjective, devoid of legal and Constitutional merit, in no manner mitigating the right to privacy.


The right of a child to live supersedes the right of a mother to kill it.

Basic human values.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 21, 2021)

Flash said:


> The right of a child to live supersedes the right of a mother to kill it.
> 
> Basic human values.



Except it doesn't stop there, does it? 

Under such a law, you'd have to investigate every miscarriage as a potential homicide. Did the woman do something that caused her to miscarry a fetus that now has more rights than she has. 

Women who smoke or drink or even have shitty diets while pregnant would be guilty of assault. You know all those pharma commercials that tell you in the disclaimer "don't take if pregnant", what happens when women unknowingly continue to take them before they realize they are pregnant? 

We've already seen the use of fetal homicide laws to go after women who have had miscarriages. Usually poor women of color because they'd never pull that shit on a white woman... at least not yet.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 21, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Except it doesn't stop there, does it?
> 
> Under such a law, you'd have to investigate every miscarriage as a potential homicide. Did the woman do something that caused her to miscarry a fetus that now has more rights than she has.
> 
> ...


You are a lying piece of shit. None of that would happen and you KNOW it, you just say it to try and scare the rubes.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 21, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are a lying piece of shit. None of that would happen and you KNOW it, you just say it to try and scare the rubes.



It has ALREADY happened, even with the fetal homicide laws.  

Check out these cases of women who miscarried and were charged with fetal homicide.  Check out these cases from New Gilead... er Indiana.  





__





						Purvi Patel - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				








__





						Bei Bei Shuai - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Flash (Nov 21, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Except it doesn't stop there, does it?
> 
> Under such a law, you'd have to investigate every miscarriage as a potential homicide. Did the woman do something that caused her to miscarry a fetus that now has more rights than she has.
> 
> ...




You are morally confused.

It is wrong for a woman to kill a child for the sake of her convenience.  

You being a stupid uneducated Moon Bat have a hard time understanding basic human values like it being wrong to kill a child, don't you?

I know you are afraid that the Feminazis will beat you up if you don't support the killing of the children but it is moral to be against abortion on demand for the sake of convenience.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 21, 2021)

Flash said:


> You are morally confused.
> 
> It is wrong for a woman to kill a child for the sake of her convenience.



A lot of things are wrong for the sake of convenience.  People should smoke, drink, use drugs, sit on their asses and not exercise, eat fatty foods, drive recklessly, etc.   But unless you are willing to live in the equivalent of North Korea, you should learn to mind your own fucking business. 



Flash said:


> You being a stupid uneducated Moon Bat have a hard time understanding basic human values like it being wrong to kill a child, don't you?



Actually, I was brought up Catholic and got 12 years of Fetus Porn propaganda.  Here's what I learned.  The girls who got that same propaganda for 12 years or worse (they separated the boys and girls after middle school) still ended up getting abortions when their half-ass attempts at contraception failed. 



Flash said:


> I know you are afraid that the Feminazis will beat you up if you don't support the killing of the children but it is moral to be against abortion on demand for the sake of convenience.



Again, I'd take your side more seriously on this subject if you weren't constantly trying to cut programs for poor children and single mothers.


----------



## Flash (Nov 21, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> A lot of things are wrong for the sake of convenience.  People should smoke, drink, use drugs, sit on their asses and not exercise, eat fatty foods, drive recklessly, etc.   But unless you are willing to live in the equivalent of North Korea, you should learn to mind your own fucking business.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When I have to argue to someone why it is wrong to kill children for the sake of convenience then I am wasting my time.  If a person doesn't understand that then they are crazy, confused and immoral and can never be reasoned with.

Basic human morality is lost on you.  Kinda of like it was on Hitler to use a historical analogy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 21, 2021)

Flash said:


> When I have to argue to someone why it is wrong to kill children for the sake of convenience then I am wasting my time. If a person doesn't understand that then they are crazy, confused and immoral and can never be reasoned with.
> 
> Basic human morality is lost on you. Kinda of like it was on Hitler to use a historical analogy.



Get real. Women have been having abortions since the dawn of time... and they will keep having them no matter how much you scream "JESUS!" at them.


----------



## Flash (Nov 21, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Get real. Women have been having abortions since the dawn of time... and they will keep having them no matter how much you scream "JESUS!" at them.




Get real Moon Bat.  It is wrong for anybody to kill a child for the sake of convenience.

You are one sick puppy if you don't understand that.

Of course all you Moon Bats are sick in the head to one extent or another.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 21, 2021)

Flash said:


> Get real Moon Bat. It is wrong for anybody to kill a child for the sake of convenience.
> 
> You are one sick puppy if you don't understand that.
> 
> Of course all you Moon Bats are sick in the head to one extent or another.



Fetuses aren't children. 

Half of zygotes that are fertilized never attach to the uterine wall. 
of the ones that do, 20% are miscarried, 20% are aborted and 60% might become a baby...  

Now, ideal world, women would never have abortions because contraception would always work and women would only get involved with men who are good father material. 

Realistically- abortion happens because we live in a less than ideal world.


----------



## Flash (Nov 21, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Fetuses aren't children.
> 
> Half of zygotes that are fertilized never attach to the uterine wall.
> of the ones that do, 20% are miscarried, 20% are aborted and 60% might become a baby...
> ...




You stupid uneducated Moon Bat.  By the time a woman knows she is knocked up the zygote stage has long passed.  It is a developing human being.

You sound like a Nazi saying that Jew is not human as a justification for killing them.  

You stupid uneducated Moon Bats don't know any more about Biology than you know about Economics, History, Climate Science,  Ethics or the Constitution, do you?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 22, 2021)

Flash said:


> You stupid uneducated Moon Bat. By the time a woman knows she is knocked up the zygote stage has long passed. It is a developing human being.



But that's not the point, you guys are against any form of contraception that prevents the zygote from attaching. You oppose IUDs or morning after pills for the same reason.... 

Unless you are willing to concede a zygote isn't a person.  Which is fine.  Neither is a fetus. 



Flash said:


> You sound like a Nazi saying that Jew is not human as a justification for killing them.



Nope, that's a dumb analogy.  Again, they aren't driving around in trucks snatching women off the street to abort fetuses...  the women come down to the clinic and get their little problem taken care of. 



Flash said:


> You stupid uneducated Moon Bats don't know any more about Biology than you know about Economics, History, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution, do you?



More than you, Cleetus...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 22, 2021)

Back to the topic – which is rightwing hypocrisy.

Conservatives have no problem with the Texas anti-privacy rights law that uses the threat of lawsuits to enforce the six-week ban rather than the state enforcing the measure, rendering the state immune from court challenges that the anti-privacy rights law is un-Constitutional pursuant to _Roe/Casey. _

But should the Court at some point in the future invalidate state AWBs, and those states continue to enforce those AWBs via the threat of lawsuits, rendering the states immune from court challenges, now conservatives have a problem.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 22, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Back to the topic – which is rightwing hypocrisy.


Speaking of which...
Why won't you tell evryone you believe the TX abortion law is constitutional?


----------



## Kilroy2 (Nov 23, 2021)

Kavanaugh point is the flip flop argument

How can you ban Abortion by using the law

yet using the law you say the state cannot ban guns

 The constitution can be changed and that is by using an amendment and then there is the matter of citizenship. The unborn child is not the citizen, it is the parents. 

The pursuit of being happy lies with the individual who is the citizen.


----------



## Stann (Jan 11, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Justice Brett Kavanaugh floated the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.
> 
> The associate justice, appointed by former President Donald Trump, specifically posed a theoretical law that would allow the seller of an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon to be sued for $1 million.
> 
> ...


I do not understand how the Texas abortion law still standing it is encounter with basics human rights. It totally violates both major aspects of the privacy laws 1. The general law of privacy, what's your Ford's a tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy and 2. The constitutional right of privacy which protects personal privacy from unlawful governmental invasion.


----------



## Stann (Jan 11, 2022)

Stann said:


> I do not understand how the Texas abortion law still standing it is encounter with basics human rights. It totally violates both major aspects of the privacy laws 1. The general law of privacy, what's your Ford's a tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy and 2. The constitutional right of privacy which protects personal privacy from unlawful governmental invasion.


What they've done is circumvent the law tervade its own responsibilities to protect its citizens right of privacy, which is a crime in of itself. Either we have some really stupid supreme Court judges or they are not fit to be judges on the supreme Court to not rule against this case.


----------



## hadit (Jan 11, 2022)

Stann said:


> What they've done is circumvent the law tervade its own responsibilities to protect its citizens right of privacy, which is a crime in of itself. Either we have some really stupid supreme Court judges or they are not fit to be judges on the supreme Court to not rule against this case.


Would you be so kind as to point out where the Constitution spells out a right to privacy? I know where the right to bear arms and the right to free speech can be found, what about privacy?


----------



## Stann (Jan 11, 2022)

hadit said:


> Would you be so kind as to point out where the Constitution spells out a right to privacy? I know where the right to bear arms and the right to free speech can be found, what about privacy?


Both the 4th and 9th amendments to the Constitution cover this.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 11, 2022)

Stann said:


> Both the 4th and 9th amendments to the Constitution cover this.



And now you're going to explain, using the actual text, how either the 4th or the 9th Amendment grant an unlimited "right to privacy".


----------



## Turtlesoup (Jan 11, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that even hints at a right for a woman to have her own child killed in cold blood.
> 
> The case for a Constitutional right to abortion is based on a mountain of falsehoods piled on falsehoods.
> 
> ...


Abortions have been around for thousands of years--there is nothing in the constitution that bans them ergo they arent banned.   AND FYI---terminating a pregnancy is not murdering a child.  Nature often aborts unwanted zygotes/fetus's.


----------



## Stann (Jan 11, 2022)

Cecilie1200 said:


> And now you're going to explain, using the actual text, how either the 4th or the 9th Amendment grant an unlimited "right to privacy".


I don't need to explain further. It's common sense. It was explained post 323. If that's not enough the Constitution was established so people in America could pursue, " Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ". No one has to live up to any religious code of conduct, or anyone else's mortal code other than their own.


----------



## Stann (Jan 11, 2022)

Turtlesoup said:


> Abortions have been around for thousands of years--there is nothing in the constitution that bans them ergo they arent banned.   AND FYI---terminating a pregnancy is not murdering a child.  Nature often aborts unwanted zygotes/fetus's.


The devious Texas anti-abortion law that was passed banning all abortions past 6 weeks is totally illegal. It is unchristian,  unAmerican and just plain inhuman. At 6 weeks it's still in the embryonic stage it isn't even a fetus yet. It has a primitive heart that just formed, it is about a half inch long, a third of its body length is a tail. It has no eyes it has no legs it has no arms it can't see it can't hear the lungs haven't begun to develop, the brain is not much more than a brain stem. And this is why they want to protect. Once it's born they don't give a damn about it. A child that isn't born into a loving family shouldn't be born at all. Love is the only reason to have a child. There are many, many reasons to have an abortion. This matter should have never gone to the courts they should have said it's a medical issue and they should have stayed the hell out of it this is ridiculous we're going through this again. how can people be that stupid.


----------



## Stann (Jan 11, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that even hints at a right for a woman to have her own child killed in cold blood.
> 
> The case for a Constitutional right to abortion is based on a mountain of falsehoods piled on falsehoods.
> 
> ...


You're right it's a silly comparison. Autonomy over one's body certainly is more important than the right to bear arms. It's the whole reason the Constitution was written, " Life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness ". That is the first right, that right for belongs to every person / citizen.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 11, 2022)

And yet there is a class of human beings where your whole position is to deny then the right to life, to deny that they are even human.

  And in accordance with that position, thousands of them are murdered in cold blood every day, with no legal consequences for those who are responsible for these murders.

  You really cannot go any lower than this, any more evil than this, to advocate for the murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings.


----------



## Stann (Jan 11, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> And yet there is a class of human beings where your whole position is to deny then the right to life, to deny that they are even human.
> 
> And in accordance with that position, thousands of them are murdered in cold blood every day, with no legal consequences for those who are responsible for these murders.
> 
> You really cannot go any lower than this, any more evil than this, to advocate for the murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings.


A fetus is a potential human being that is all, and with the Texas law it's not even a fetus it's just an embryo. You are trying to weigh " their rights " against the rights of people who actually exist that are already here and are protected by the laws they shouldn't be made victims of our laws especially insane stupid laws that are based on emotional ideas that aren't true about life. Stupidity is going lower than any human being should go and that's what this is it's all stupidity we've been through this s*** before we're not going through it again.


----------



## Stann (Jan 11, 2022)

Stann said:


> A fetus is a potential human being that is all, and with the Texas law it's not even a fetus it's just an embryo. You are trying to weigh " their rights " against the rights of people who actually exist that are already here and are protected by the laws they shouldn't be made victims of our laws especially insane stupid laws that are based on emotional ideas that aren't true about life. Stupidity is going lower than any human being should go and that's what this is it's all stupidity we've been through this s*** before we're not going through it again.


Name one single victim of abortion. You can't because they never existed in the first place.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 11, 2022)

Stann said:


> Name one single victim of abortion. You can't because they never existed in the first place.



  An absurd statement.  Of course they existed.  Whether they were ever given names, whether they were ever recognized for what they were, they were all precious, innocent human beings, brutally murdered for no better reason than that their existence was inconvenient to someone else.

*removed graphic images*


----------



## Rogue AI (Jan 11, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> Yes, they were.
> 
> Those were some rights, people previously never had.
> Therefore,  granted.


If it can be removed by a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, it is not a right. Roe v Wade is an interpreted privilege, nothing more. The 2nd Amendment is a right, even a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court cannot get it out of the Constitution.


----------



## westwall (Jan 11, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> *GREAT!*
> 
> Abortion kills unborn children.
> Guns enable suicide and murder.
> ...





Most of it is.  But not all.


----------



## Stann (Jan 12, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> An absurd statement.  Of course they existed.  Whether they were ever given names, whether they were ever recognized for what they were, they were all precious, innocent human beings, brutally murdered for no better reason than that their existence was inconvenient to someone else.
> 
> View attachment 586792View attachment 586793View attachment 586794View attachment 586796


No it's not. My mother's cousins, Joe and Olga Pulaski died in the concentration camps. There were people, they existed, they had names. People have names. Embryos and fetuses do not because they are not people. I know it's hard for you to accept but that's the truth.


----------



## Stann (Jan 12, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> If it can be removed by a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, it is not a right. Roe v Wade is an interpreted privilege, nothing more. The 2nd Amendment is a right, even a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court cannot get it out of the Constitution.


You are an idiot. You can do away with Roe versus Wade. That's not what I'm  talking about. I'm talking about the rights of more than half the population of the United States the women their rights to have control over their own bodies. You can't tell them they're equal citizens and then hijack their bodies from them that's insane there is no legal standing to prevent abortions, just as there is no legal standing to force people to have them. Which may someday be the case very soon when the world realizes the big problem is overpopulation when it's already too late when people are starving when supplies are dwindling and resources are scarce. If you give the government this power now, they will have the power to force people to have abortions in the future. Women will be second class citizens forever.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Jan 12, 2022)

westwall said:


> Most of it is.  But not all.


Almost all life is precious.  A possible exception may be lives of some serial killers.


----------



## Rogue AI (Jan 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> You are an idiot. You can do away with Roe versus Wade. That's not what I'm  talking about. I'm talking about the rights of more than half the population of the United States the women their rights to have control over their own bodies. You can't tell them they're equal citizens and then hijack their bodies from them that's insane there is no legal standing to prevent abortions, just as there is no legal standing to force people to have them. Which may someday be the case very soon when the world realizes the big problem is overpopulation when it's already too late when people are starving when supplies are dwindling and resources are scarce. If you give the government this power now, they will have the power to force people to have abortions in the future. Women will be second class citizens forever.


Hey moron, a 5-4 ruling could end Roe tomorrow.  What you are saying is just frivolous opinion. Legally Roe is simply a privilege being paraded around as a right.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 12, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> If it can be removed by a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, it is not a right. Roe v Wade is an interpreted privilege, nothing more. The 2nd Amendment is a right, even a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court cannot get it out of the Constitution.


WTF?
How many people got taken by the Trump U. "constitutional law" school correspondence course?
"Interpreted privilege"?

That's every right in the constitution, moron.

"The 2nd Amendment is a right, even a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court cannot get it out of the Constitution".
WTF?
Who do you think wrote the constitution?
Why do you think it was amended 27 times?

BTW, Trump never gives refunds.


----------



## westwall (Jan 12, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Almost all life is precious.  A possible exception may be lives of some serial killers.





Serial killers.  Serial rapists, serial child sex offenders.  Kill them all.


----------



## SavannahMann (Jan 12, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> And yet there is a class of human beings where your whole position is to deny then the right to life, to deny that they are even human.
> 
> And in accordance with that position, thousands of them are murdered in cold blood every day, with no legal consequences for those who are responsible for these murders.
> 
> You really cannot go any lower than this, any more evil than this, to advocate for the murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings.



Then I assume you advocate for research and programs to stem the horrific tide of infant mortality. As you certainly know the United States is a world leader, more children die within the first year of birth here than nearly any country. 

So what do you advocate for this horrific trend?


----------



## Rogue AI (Jan 12, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> How many people got taken by the Trump U. "constitutional law" school correspondence course?
> "Interpreted privilege"?
> 
> ...


What are babbling about?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 12, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> What are babbling about?


I was thinking the same about your claim. 
Post 336.

"If it can be removed by a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, it is not a right. Roe v Wade is an interpreted privilege, nothing more. The 2nd Amendment is a right, even a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court cannot get it out of the Constitution".

You're FOS.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 12, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> nd yet there is a class of human beings where your whole position is to deny then the right to life, to deny that they are even human.
> 
> And in accordance with that position, thousands of them are murdered in cold blood every day, with no legal consequences for those who are responsible for these murders.
> 
> You really cannot go any lower than this, any more evil than this, to advocate for the murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings.



Fetuses aren't people because they aren't viable.  Even when abortions were illegal, they weren't treated as "murder".  Women were never arrested for having them,and providers were only arrested for performing them if they seriously injured the woman. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> An absurd statement. Of course they existed. Whether they were ever given names, whether they were ever recognized for what they were, they were all precious, innocent human beings, brutally murdered for no better reason than that their existence was inconvenient to someone else.



If a fetus is being terminated at that late a stage, it's because something has gone horribly wrong in the pregnancy.  Most abortions occur in the 8-12 week range, when the fetus is the size of a kidney bean and looks like a cocktail shrimp. 

A late abortion is performed when a fetus is seriously damaged or represents a serious threat to the health of the mother.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 12, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> And yet there is a class of human beings where your whole position is to deny then the right to life, to deny that they are even human.
> 
> And in accordance with that position, thousands of them are murdered in cold blood every day, with no legal consequences for those who are responsible for these murders.
> 
> You really cannot go any lower than this, any more evil than this, to advocate for the murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings.


This is a lie.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 12, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> An absurd statement.  Of course they existed.  Whether they were ever given names, whether they were ever recognized for what they were, they were all precious, innocent human beings, brutally murdered for no better reason than that their existence was inconvenient to someone else.
> 
> *removed graphic images*


It is neither the role nor responsibility of the state to dictate to citizens when life begins, or to compel women to give birth against their will through force of law.

That is the only issue – government excess and overreach, the unwarranted authority of the state interfering in citizens private lives where the state has no business being.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 12, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Speaking of which...
> Why won't you tell evryone you believe the TX abortion law is constitutional?


Conservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy.

If the states should have the right to ban abortion, then they should likewise have the right to ban certain firearms.

The inconsistent right can’t have it both ways.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> I do not understand how the Texas abortion law still standing it is encounter with basics human rights. It totally violates both major aspects of the privacy laws 1. The general law of privacy, what's your Ford's a tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy and 2. The constitutional right of privacy which protects personal privacy from unlawful governmental invasion.


The Texas anti-privacy rights measure is still in place because the Supreme Court is dominated by authoritarian rightwing ideologues who have nothing but contempt for the right to privacy and settled, accepted precedent.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> Both the 4th and 9th amendments to the Constitution cover this.


Along with the Fifth and 14th Amendments.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 12, 2022)

Turtlesoup said:


> Abortions have been around for thousands of years--there is nothing in the constitution that bans them ergo they arent banned.   AND FYI---terminating a pregnancy is not murdering a child.  Nature often aborts unwanted zygotes/fetus's.



Nature also kills every single person who ever lived, but that doesn't mean it's okay to shoot someone.

Murder, assault, and robbery have also been around for . . . well, forever.  So what?

The Constitution is not the only law in this country.  So no, "It's not in the Constitution, therefore it's not banned."  That just means it's not the purview of the federal government.

FYI, make arguments that aren't predicated on demanding everyone accept your worldview from the start.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> I don't need to explain further. It's common sense. It was explained post 323. If that's not enough the Constitution was established so people in America could pursue, " Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ". No one has to live up to any religious code of conduct, or anyone else's mortal code other than their own.



"I don't need to explain further" = I can't explain, I just want to make assertions and demand that you accept them.

Glad we got that settled.


----------



## hadit (Jan 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> Name one single victim of abortion. You can't because they never existed in the first place.


Ask any pregnant woman what's growing in her stomach. I would wager that you've never been pregnant.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 12, 2022)

Stann said:


> No it's not. My mother's cousins, Joe and Olga Pulaski died in the concentration camps. There were people, they existed, they had names. People have names. Embryos and fetuses do not because they are not people. I know it's hard for you to accept but that's the truth.



  And now, you're no better than those who murdered your mother's cousins.  Just like them, calling for the deaths of people whom you wrongfully consider to be less than human.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 12, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Almost all life is precious.  A possible exception may be lives of some serial killers.



  I'll gladly lump all serious criminal in with that.  As far as I am concerned, there is some line of criminality, some point of being willing to unjustifiably cause harm and loss to human beings, where one forfeits one's own humanity.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jan 12, 2022)

*"Graphic Images, material or links to images, Videos, and or material, whether real, satirical or implied, depicting obscene, indecent, pornography, pornographic acts, or Morbid Images (at Moderator/Admin discretion) are not permitted. This includes Gifs and cartoons."*


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 12, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> How many people got taken by the Trump U. "constitutional law" school correspondence course?
> "Interpreted privilege"?
> 
> ...



  As much as it has tried to usurp this power, and as much as much of this usurpation has been allowed to stand, the Supreme Court cannot change the Constitution.  It cannot add to the Constitution, what is not written therein, and it cannot remove from the Constitution what is written therein.  Only by the Amendment process, can the Constitution legitimately be altered.

  Most of the rights explicitly named in the Bill of Rights were held by its authors to be inherent God-given rights, to which we are all entitled, regardless of what is or is not written in the Constitution or in any other law; that the Bill of Rights did not exist to grant these rights, but to acknowledge and protect them.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 12, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> Then I assume you advocate for research and programs to stem the horrific tide of infant mortality. As you certainly know the United States is a world leader, more children die within the first year of birth here than nearly any country.
> 
> So what do you advocate for this horrific trend?



  That's a kwanzaa argument, that in order to be oppose the the cold-blooded murder of human beings, that I must consider myself obligated to agree with whatever pollical agenda you want to claim for the benefit of human beings.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Stann said:
> 
> 
> > Both the 4th and 9th amendments to the Constitution cover this.
> ...



  Where, anywhere in these Amendments or in the Constitution as a whole, does it come anywhere close to affirming any right to brutally murder an innocent human being in cold blood?  Where doe sit even hint at any such thing?


----------



## Abatis (Jan 12, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> I was thinking the same about your claim.
> Post 336.
> 
> "If it can be removed by a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, it is not a right. Roe v Wade is an interpreted privilege, nothing more. The 2nd Amendment is a right, even a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court cannot get it out of the Constitution".
> ...



You don't understand how any of this stuff works.

As a programmed statist, your brain can not comprehend the foundational principles of the US Constitution.  

The founders / framers of the USA embraced and based their governmental model on the principles of conferred powers and retained rights. The entire establishment of the US government and every action it takes is bound by this principle; the people empower government by surrendering certain specific powers in a limited, delegated fashion. 

This established the principle that government cannot _legitimately_ be arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people because government's power is only the sum of those limited powers the members of the society gives up to the legislative assembly.

Under these principles, government only keeps that power with the consent of the governed and the citizens retained everything not delegated to the government. Our rights were understood to be inherent and among those rights a subset, called un/inalienable rights, were considered of such intrinsic value to being human that a person, even willingly, cannot confer them*.*

The government is contractually bound to treat our rights as inherent, existing before the Constitution, imbued in us simply by our capability of reason and the Supreme Court has never wavered in upholding / enforcing that principle, from our very beginning and including the decision you liberty hating leftist love to hate:

"The right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry. . . The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . . _Vanhorne's Lesse v. Dorrance_, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)​*_____________________*​​"The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections." -- _West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, _319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)​​*_____________________*​​"The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights." -- _United States v. Twin City Power Co_., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)​​*_____________________*​​"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .” -- _DC v. Heller_, 478 F. 3d 370, (2008)​​
This principle, this inviolate rule for the operation of our government, does not in any manner depend on your ignorant leftist beliefs . . .  *ALWAYS* remember, Marx was not a founding father, your collectivist beliefs have no import on operation of the US Constitution.

.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 12, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> "The 2nd Amendment is a right, even a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court cannot get it out of the Constitution".
> Who do you think wrote the constitution?
> Why do you think it was amended 27 times?


When it is amended to remove the 2nd, let us know.
His point, which you apparently do not understand, is the enumerated rights do not depend on the constitution for their existence.
Why do you disagree?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 12, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> Then I assume you advocate for research and programs to stem the horrific tide of infant mortality. As you certainly know the United States is a world leader, *more children die within the first year of birth here than nearly any country.*


^^^
_*This *_is a lie - out of the 193 countries listed here, the US ranks #47.








						List of countries by infant and under-five mortality rates - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It is neither the role nor responsibility of the state to dictate to citizens when life begins, or to compel women to give birth against their will through force of law.


And yet, you believe the TX abortion law is constitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy.
> If the states should have the right to ban abortion, then they should likewise have the right to ban certain firearms.


Fallacy:  _non sequitur_
Never mind the fact you believe the TX abortion law is constitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Texas anti-privacy rights measure is still in place because the Supreme Court is dominated by authoritarian rightwing ideologues who have nothing but contempt for the right to privacy and settled, accepted precedent.


^^^^^
This is a lie, as you know the constitutionality of the TX abortion ban has not been a question before the court.

Thus, you believe the TX abortion ban is constitutional.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 12, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> When it is amended to remove the 2nd, let us know.
> His point, which you apparently do not understand, is the enumerated rights do not depend on the constitution for their existence.
> Why do you disagree?



What these leftist statist authoritarians don't realize is how absurd they sound, how completely divorced their ideas are from the founding principles of the Constitution.

They just can't comprehend how the right can exist without being granted or established by the 2nd Amendment.  

It would not surprise me to hear them speculate that to stop injuries and deaths from falls, we should revise or even rescind Newton's Law of Gravitation from physics books . . . Problem solved, the words creating gravity have been removed!

Their ideas about the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment sound *that *absurd to me.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 12, 2022)

Abatis said:


> They just can't comprehend how the right can exist without being granted or established by he 2nd Amendment.


Truth.  They believe rights and freedoms are granted by the state.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 12, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Truth.  They believe rights and freedoms are granted by the state.



  And with that comes the premise that what the state grants, the state has the authority to take away.


----------



## SavannahMann (Jan 12, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> That's a kwanzaa argument, that in order to be oppose the the cold-blooded murder of human beings, that I must consider myself obligated to agree with whatever pollical agenda you want to claim for the benefit of human beings.



We are talking about the deaths of children. That is what you are talking about isn’t it?


----------



## Man of Ethics (Jan 12, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> I'll gladly lump all serious criminal in with that.  As far as I am concerned, there is some line of criminality, some point of being willing to unjustifiably cause harm and loss to human beings, where one forfeits one's own humanity.


No!

In Canada and Scandinavia, even the worst criminals are treated humanely.


----------



## westwall (Jan 12, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> No!
> 
> In Canada and Scandinavia, even the worst criminals are treated humanely.







And that's why more are being created.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Jan 12, 2022)

westwall said:


> And that's why more are being created.


Canada and Scandinavia have lower recidivism rate then USA.


----------



## westwall (Jan 12, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Canada and Scandinavia have lower recidivism rate then USA.






More and more violent crimes are happening every year.  In fact gun violence throughout Europe is exploding.

Why?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 12, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^
> _*This *_is a lie - out of the 193 countries listed here, the US ranks #47.
> 
> 
> ...



Let us also remember how many countries simply don't try to save high-risk pregnancies or count babies who die in the first year as having been live births.  I'm not planning to applaud the wonderfulness of any healthcare system that cooks the books.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 13, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> As much as it has tried to usurp this power, and as much as much of this usurpation has been allowed to stand, the Supreme Court cannot change the Constitution.  It cannot add to the Constitution, what is not written therein, and it cannot remove from the Constitution what is written therein.  Only by the Amendment process, can the Constitution legitimately be altered.


Another Trump U. constitutional "law" school correspondence school "gradiate"?

*1st amendment*

Near v. Minnesota, 1931 “The liberty of the press … is safeguarded from invasion by state action.”

Although the First Amendment ensures a free press, until this case, it only protected the press from federal laws, not state laws. Minnesota shut down J. M. Near’s Saturday Press for publishing vicious antisemitic and racist remarks. In what is regarded as the landmark free press decision, the Court ruled that a state cannot engage in “prior restraint”; that is, with rare exceptions, it cannot stop a person from publishing or expressing a thought.

*5th amendment *
Miranda v. Arizona, 1966 “You have the right to remain silent …” After police questioning, Ernesto Miranda confessed to kidnapping and raping a woman. The Court struck down his conviction, on grounds that he was not informed of his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Hereafter, the Miranda warnings have been a standard feature of arrest procedures.

*6TH amendment*
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 Defendants in criminal cases have an absolute right to counsel.
Too poor to afford a lawyer, Clarence Earl Gideon was convicted for breaking into a poolroom—a felony crime in Florida. He appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the government must provide free counsel to accused criminals who cannot pay for it themselves. At first, the ruling applied to felonies only. It was later extended to cover any cases where the penalty was six months imprisonment or longer.



Bob Blaylock said:


> Most of the rights explicitly named in the Bill of Rights were held by its authors to be inherent God-given rights, to which we are all entitled, regardless of what is or is not written in the Constitution or in any other law;


WTF?
Who were the authors, that gave people god-given "rights"?
If these rights were "god-given" why didn't colonists have these "rights' before the constitution was written?
The government, claims they are "god-given", so why don't other countries have these rights?


Bob Blaylock said:


> that the Bill of Rights did not exist to grant these rights, but to acknowledge and protect them.


Huh?
So, the states already had all these rights before 1789?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 13, 2022)

Abatis said:


> You don't understand how any of this stuff works.


It's beyond evident, you don't.



Abatis said:


> As a programmed statist, your brain can not comprehend the foundational principles of the US Constitution.


Being a Trump U. grad, you think you do.


Abatis said:


> The founders / framers of the USA embraced and based their governmental model on the principles of conferred powers and retained rights. The entire establishment of the US government and every action it takes is bound by this principle; the people empower government by surrendering certain specific powers in a limited, delegated fashion.


So.


Abatis said:


> This established the principle that government cannot _legitimately_ be arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people because government's power is only the sum of those limited powers the members of the society gives up to the legislative assembly.


So.


Abatis said:


> Under these principles, government only keeps that power with the consent of the governed and the citizens retained everything not delegated to the government. Our rights were understood to be inherent and among those rights a subset, called un/inalienable rights, were considered of such intrinsic value to being human that a person, even willingly, cannot confer them*.*


_YES, they can.
Who gave you those "inalienable rights"?
Was it "god"?_



Abatis said:


> The government is contractually bound to treat our rights as inherent, existing before the Constitution, imbued in us simply by our capability of reason and the Supreme Court has never wavered in upholding / enforcing that principle, from our very beginning and including the decision you liberty hating leftist love to hate:


WTF? 
"Contractually bound"?
Yeah, the government's "contracts" are good as gold.

"Before the constitution"?
Really?

So, why did the states have to actually ratify ANYTHING?


New Jersey: Articles One and Three through Twelve on November 20, 1789, and Article Two on May 7, 1992
Maryland: Articles One through Twelve on December 19, 1789
North Carolina: Articles One through Twelve on December 22, 1789
South Carolina: Articles One through Twelve on January 19, 1790
New Hampshire: Articles One and Three through Twelve on January 25, 1790, and Article Two on March 7, 1985
Delaware: Articles Two through Twelve on January 28, 1790
New York: Articles One and Three through Twelve on February 24, 1790
Pennsylvania: Articles Three through Twelve on March 10, 1790, and Article One on September 21, 1791
Rhode Island: Articles One and Three through Twelve on June 7, 1790, and Article Two on June 10, 1993
Vermont: Articles One through Twelve on November 3, 1791
Virginia: Article One on November 3, 1791, and Articles Two through Twelve on December 15, 1791[72]
(After failing to ratify the 12 amendments during the 1789 legislative session.
Why did it take so long?




Abatis said:


> "The right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry. . . The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . . _Vanhorne's Lesse v. Dorrance_, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)​*_____________________*​​"The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote they depend on the outcome of no elections." -- _West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, _319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)​​*_____________________*​​"The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights." -- _United States v. Twin City Power Co_., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)​​*_____________________*​​"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .” -- _DC v. Heller_, 478 F. 3d 370, (2008)​


So.


Abatis said:


> ​
> This principle, this inviolate rule for the operation of our government, does not in any manner depend on your ignorant leftist beliefs . . .  *ALWAYS* remember, Marx was not a founding father,


You're the one who got suckered into taking the Trump U. constitutional "law" school correspondence course.
Trump is Karl Marx part duh!


Abatis said:


> your collectivist beliefs have no import on operation of the US Constitution.





Abatis said:


> .


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 13, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> When it is amended to remove the 2nd, let us know.


Wasn't referring to amending anything.



M14 Shooter said:


> His point, which you apparently do not understand, is the enumerated rights do not depend on the constitution for their existence.


My point which you and Abatis do not understand.
The enumerated "rights" and the entire constitution depend on the government.


M14 Shooter said:


> Why do you disagree?


Some nut-job.

December 2 2020
A week after receiving his pardon from President *Donald Trump*, former White House national security adviser *Michael Flynn* promoted a call for the president to “temporarily suspend the Constitution” and put the country under martial law.

On Tuesday, weeks after the election Trump lost, Flynn shared a press release from the right-wing We the People Convention imploring Trump to implement martial law. The statement drew a connection to what *Abraham Lincoln* did with his presidential authority during the Civil War.

“Then, as now, a President with courage and determination was needed to preserve the Union,” the statement says. “Today, the current threat to our United States by the international and domestic socialist/communist left is much more serious than anything Lincoln or our nation has faced in its history – including the civil war.”


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 13, 2022)

westwall said:


> More and more violent crimes are happening every year. In fact gun violence throughout Europe is exploding.
> 
> Why?



Because you believe NRA propaganda? 

Europe has nowhere near the gun violence the US has.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 13, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> *1st amendment*
> 
> Near v. Minnesota, 1931 “The liberty of the press … is safeguarded from invasion by state action.”
> 
> ...



Those cases were applying the rights recognized and secured in the Bill of Rights on the states  Those cases were "incorporating" those rights under the 14th Amendment which was deemed necessary to force states to respect the rights as secured in the federal constitution.  Previous civil rights protections enacted by Congress (i.e., Civil Rights Act of 1866) were ineffective in forcing states to respect rights of Freemen, which forced making Freemen full US citizens and holding the states powerless to act against their rights.

The 14th *AMENDMENT* altered the relationship between the federal and state governments that the original Constitution established. 

A new *AMENDMENT* was required to do those actions in law you note above.



Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> Who were the authors, that gave people god-given "rights"?



LOL. You have proven you can't understand law, now you want to dip your toe into philosophy????  Think of the great philosophers from _The Enlightenment Period_ / _The Age of Reason._



Smokin' OP said:


> If these rights were "god-given" why didn't colonists have these "rights' before the constitution was written?



They did, that was the point.  That the people possessed those rights but the English crown was authoritarian and not established upon the free association and decisions of the people, the Crown's government was deemed (in the Lockean sense) illegitimate and thus subject to the people throwing it off (and they were duty-bound to do just that).



Smokin' OP said:


> The government, claims they are "god-given", so why don't other countries have these rights?



Because those governments are not predicated, established upon those principles (all power originates in the people, they freely choose the government. which is established to protect those inherent rights an only governs with their consent).   Just because a nation's people are willing to suffer the insults of tyranny doesn't mean it isn't tyranny.

Those fundamental principles (conferred powers and retained rights) means "We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish" government but we retain everything not conferred . . .   (again, see 9th and 10th Amendments). 

Try to comprehend that "unalienable rights" is an utterly meaningless concept if there isn't a government being established, to *NOT* surrender rights to.



Smokin' OP said:


> Huh?
> So, the states already had all these rights before 1789?



The states didn't "have" the rights; the principle of pre-existing rights is even more evident in the state constitutions . . .  Just read one; the rights of the citizen are called out, *excepted out* in Article I, before _any_ powers are set-out. 

The wording / construction of the provisions in the federal Bill of Rights flows from proposed amendments that came from the states who (along with anti-Federalists) demanded the citizen's rights that the states recognized, were secured against federal action. 

The Federalists argued against adding a bill of rights. They argued that since the powers of the government were so exactingly set-out, no power was ever granted to act against those rights so they were safe. 

The Federalists argued any attempt to list rights (which were considered *everything* not in the Constitution) was an absurd attempt to list what was uncountable.  The list was believed dangerous as well, because in the future, someone might think those were the ONLY rights the people possessed, and everything else was thrown into the hands of the government.  The 9th and 10th Amendments stand as the codification of Federalist arguments _against_ the Bill of Rights, written as rules of interpretation.

.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 13, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> It's beyond evident, you don't.



Snide remarks are not an argument



Smokin' OP said:


> Being a Trump U. grad, you think you do.



I was a student of the Constitution many decades before Trump came on the scene.  Nothing he did or said modified what I had/have learned.  Try to stay focused.



Smokin' OP said:


> So.



Proof my statement that your brain can not comprehend the foundational principles of the US Constitution is absolutely true.



Smokin' OP said:


> So.



Proof my statement that your brain can not comprehend the foundational principles of the US Constitution is absolutely true.



Smokin' OP said:


> _YES, they can._



Proof my statement that your brain can not comprehend the foundational principles of the US Constitution is absolutely true.



Smokin' OP said:


> _Who gave you those "inalienable rights"?_



They are rights that our ours simply by being capable of reason.

Specifically, the authors of the principles the USA is founded on were primarily John Locke, Algernon Sidney and especially for "unalienable rights", Francis Hutcheson, plus many more for the operational aspects of republicanism and federalism.

I get that I am presenting you with concepts completely foreign to you but I have little interest in giving you a rudimentary education in political philosophy. perhaps read about John Locke, even Wikipedia is better than profound ignorance.

There's a reason why the period Locke and Sidney and the other great philosophers rose, is called "The Enlightenment" and "The Age of Reason".



Smokin' OP said:


> _Was it "god"?_



The principle of inherent rights was a rebuttal to the King's divine right to rule and his unquestionable authority.  That "divine right" was why the founders framed the rights arguments in the Declaration of Independence as "Endowed by the Creator".

The DoI was an oppositional political treatise to the then current colonial legal situation under the King.  The primary purpose of "Endowed by the Creator" was to convey that rights are inherent and not granted by the King or flow from any legislative act of man.

It really wasn't a theological statement and especially one that your personal hostility for God or your atheist beliefs will or could alter or negate.

I do not personally take the "God given" path but I do not disparage those who do.  The most important thing to settle on is our rights are not granted by a King or government.



Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> "Contractually bound"?
> Yeah, the government's "contracts" are good as gold.



The Constitution is a contract between "We the People" and the government.  Only "We the People" can cancel it.



Smokin' OP said:


> "Before the constitution"?
> Really?



Yes, and I quoted 213 years of Supreme Court decisions on that point.



Smokin' OP said:


> So, why did the states have to actually ratify ANYTHING?



The process in Article V demands an amendment to the Constitution be ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths of the states. 

That means the two amendments that you pine for, giving the federal government power over the personal arms of the private citizen and then, rescinding the 2nd Amendment, would each need to be ratified by 38 states . . .   How many do you think you have?



Smokin' OP said:


> Why did it take so long?



The 12 proposed amendments were transmitted to the states on September 25, 1789 and enough states had ratified #'s 3-12 on December 15, 1791, they were renumbered and became the Bill of Rights.  One of the original two proposed amendments _not_ ratified in 1791, pertaining to monetary compensation of members of Congress, was ratified in 1992.



Smokin' OP said:


> So.



That's the SCOTUS enforcing the principles I speak of and that you deny.



Smokin' OP said:


> You're the one who got suckered into taking the Trump U. constitutional "law" school correspondence course.
> Trump is Karl Marx part duh!



Grow the fuck up.

.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 13, 2022)

Abatis said:


> What these leftist statist authoritarians don't realize is how absurd they sound, how completely divorced their ideas are from the founding principles of the Constitution.


As opposed to the RWNJ's reality of the constitution?


Abatis said:


> They just can't comprehend how the right can exist without being granted or established by the 2nd Amendment.


It wasn't a right, moron.
It took the bill of rights to make it a right, nationally.


Abatis said:


> It would not surprise me to hear them speculate that to stop injuries and deaths from falls, we should revise or even rescind Newton's Law of Gravitation from physics books . . . Problem solved, the words creating gravity have been removed!


Don't need one idiot, OSHA and state governments have construction codes for that.


Abatis said:


> Their ideas about the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment sound *that *absurd to me.


Trumptards "defending" an amendment sounds absurd to me.

Unless something nefarious happens, it won't be going anywhere, anytime soon.
But Trumptards feel the need to defend it?


----------



## Abatis (Jan 13, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> As opposed to the RWNJ's reality of the constitution?



I'll happily hold up my understanding and explanations to the crap you post.



Smokin' OP said:


> It wasn't a right, moron.
> It took the bill of rights to make it a right, nationally.



That ignores that before the federal Constitution many states had RKBA provisions in their Constitutions and the principle holds, since no power was ever granted to the feds to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen, no power exists, thus the right exists.   A right is simply an "exception of powers never granted" . . .

The 2nd Amendment doesn't give, grant, create or otherwise establish the right to arms.  The people don't have the right to arms because of what the 2nd Amendment says; they retained and possess the right today because of what the body of the Constitution _doesn't say.  _

I don't expect you to understand that.



Smokin' OP said:


> Don't need one idiot, OSHA and state governments have construction codes for that.



Sweet Merciful Jesus riding sidesaddle on a rainbow farting unicorn, waving a pink double-dong . . .



Smokin' OP said:


> Trumptards "defending" an amendment sounds absurd to me.



That you use the insult "Trumptard" as you prove how profoundly ignorant you are and incapable of higher order thought, is really, really, funny.


Smokin' OP said:


> Unless something nefarious happens, it won't be going anywhere, anytime soon.
> But Trumptards feel the need to defend it?



If leftist statist authoritarians like you weren't so hostile to the Constitution, "defending" the rights recognized and secured by the Bill of Rights from your attacks, wouldn't be necessary.

.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 13, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Those cases were applying the rights recognized and secured in the Bill of Rights on the states  Those cases were "incorporating" those rights under the 14th Amendment which was deemed necessary to force states to respect the rights as secured in the federal constitution.  Previous civil rights protections enacted by Congress (i.e., Civil Rights Act of 1866) were ineffective in forcing states to respect rights of Freemen, which forced making Freemen full US citizens and holding the states powerless to act against their rights.


Really?
So, the 5th and 6th amendments weren't followed by the states?


Abatis said:


> The 14th *AMENDMENT* altered the relationship between the federal and state governments that the original Constitution established.
> 
> A new *AMENDMENT* was required to do those actions in law you note above.


But the 5th and 6th amendments weren't?


Abatis said:


> LOL. You have proven you can't understand law, now you want to dip your toe into philosophy????  Think of the great philosophers from _The Enlightenment Period_ / _The Age of Reason._


_Yeah, LOL.
Who wrote the law and constitution?
Not philosophy in the slightest._


Abatis said:


> They did, that was the point.  That the people possessed those rights but the English crown was authoritarian and not established upon the free association and decisions of the people, the Crown's government was deemed (in the Lockean sense) illegitimate and thus subject to the people throwing it off (and they were duty-bound to do just that).


They did but it was a secret?
They didn't. because Britain never gave them their "secret" rights



Abatis said:


> Because those governments are not predicated, established upon those principles (all power originates in the people, they freely choose the government. which is established to protect those inherent rights an only governs with their consent).   Just because a nation's people are willing to suffer the insults of tyranny doesn't mean it isn't tyranny.
> 
> Those fundamental principles (conferred powers and retained rights) means "We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish" government but we retain everything not conferred . . .   (again, see 9th and 10th Amendments).
> 
> Try to comprehend that "unalienable rights" is an utterly meaningless concept if there isn't a government being established, to *NOT* surrender rights to.


No shit.
That's my point, the government gave you those "rights".
The government can take them away.

You're citing something the government created for it's people.


Abatis said:


> The states didn't "have" the rights; the principle of pre-existing rights is even more evident in the state constitutions . . .  Just read one; the rights of the citizen are called out, *excepted out* in Article I, before _any_ powers are set-out.


Sure 13 of them.
"Pre-existing" rights?
The rights they had before the war and US constitution were British.


Abatis said:


> The wording / construction of the provisions in the federal Bill of Rights flows from proposed amendments that came from the states who (along with anti-Federalists) demanded the citizen's rights that the states recognized, were secured against federal action.
> 
> The Federalists argued against adding a bill of rights. They argued that since the powers of the government were so exactingly set-out, no power was ever granted to act against those rights so they were safe.
> 
> ...


Correct.
That isn't guaranteed by anything but the US government.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 13, 2022)

Abatis said:


> I'll happily hold up my understanding and explanations to the crap you post.


I have no problems with your explanations.
You just keep repeating a document the government created and wrote.


Abatis said:


> That ignores that before the federal Constitution many states had RKBA provisions in their Constitutions and the principle holds, since no power was ever granted to the feds to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen, no power exists, thus the right exists.   A right is simply an "exception of powers never granted" . . .
> 
> The 2nd Amendment doesn't give, grant, create or otherwise establish the right to arms.


Yes, it does.
What other entity gave you rights to own guns before the 2nd amendment?


Abatis said:


> The people don't have the right to arms because of what the 2nd Amendment says; they retained and possess the right today because of what the body of the Constitution _doesn't say.  _





Abatis said:


> I don't expect you to understand that.


You still don't understand that right was given to everyone nationally by the constitution and the supreme court.


Abatis said:


> Sweet Merciful Jesus riding sidesaddle on a rainbow farting unicorn, waving a pink double-dong . . .


As you hug your Trumpy bear in one hand and your pea-shooter in the other?


Abatis said:


> That you use the insult "Trumptard" as you prove how profoundly ignorant you are and incapable of higher order thought, is really, really, funny.


As you think 'god" gave you "rights", not the constitution?


Abatis said:


> If leftist statist authoritarians like you weren't so hostile to the Constitution, "defending" the rights recognized and secured by the Bill of Rights from your attacks, wouldn't be necessary.
> 
> .


WTF?
Hostile towards the constitution?
A republican fantasy like the war on christmas.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 13, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Snide remarks are not an argument
> 
> 
> 
> I was a student of the Constitution many decades before Trump came on the scene.  Nothing he did or said modified what I had/have learned.  Try to stay focused.


SO.


Abatis said:


> Proof my statement that your brain can not comprehend the foundational principles of the US Constitution is absolutely true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Really?
So, if those rights were just reasoning, why have the bill of rights?


Abatis said:


> Specifically, the authors of the principles the USA is founded on were primarily John Locke, Algernon Sidney and especially for "unalienable rights", Francis Hutcheson, plus many more for the operational aspects of republicanism and federalism.


Were based on?
The actual document had authors, they were THE government.



Abatis said:


> I get that I am presenting you with concepts completely foreign to you but I have little interest in giving you a rudimentary education in political philosophy. perhaps read about John Locke, even Wikipedia is better than profound ignorance.
> 
> There's a reason why the period Locke and Sidney and the other great philosophers rose, is called "The Enlightenment" and "The Age of Reason".


You're presenting a concept that the constitution was somehow created by some superior entity, written in stone that can't be changed, even by the people that wrote it.


Abatis said:


> The principle of inherent rights was a rebuttal to the King's divine right to rule and his unquestionable authority.  That "divine right" was why the founders framed the rights arguments in the Declaration of Independence as "Endowed by the Creator".


Endowed by *their* creator.....................?
 Written by.........................?


Abatis said:


> The DoI was an oppositional political treatise to the then current colonial legal situation under the King.  The primary purpose of "Endowed by the Creator" was to convey that rights are inherent and not granted by the King or flow from any legislative act of man.


But granted by another entity..................the US government.


Abatis said:


> It really wasn't a theological statement and especially one that your personal hostility for God or your atheist beliefs will or could alter or negate.


Really?
Can you prove god gave you those rights, 1700 years prior to the constitution?


Abatis said:


> I do not personally take the "God given" path but I do not disparage those who do.  The most important thing to settle on is our rights are not granted by a King or government.
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is a contract between "We the People" and the government.  Only "We the People" can cancel it.


Last I checked, there on people in the government and that another item the government "promised' the people.


Abatis said:


> Yes, and I quoted 213 years of Supreme Court decisions on that point.
> 
> 
> 
> The process in Article V demands an amendment to the Constitution be ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths of the states.


Very good.


Abatis said:


> That means the two amendments that you pine for, giving the federal government power over the personal arms of the private citizen and then, rescinding the 2nd Amendment, would each need to be ratified by 38 states . . .   How many do you think you have?


Doesn't matter.


Abatis said:


> The 12 proposed amendments were transmitted to the states on September 25, 1789 and enough states had ratified #'s 3-12 on December 15, 1791, they were renumbered and became the Bill of Rights.  One of the original two proposed amendments _not_ ratified in 1791, pertaining to monetary compensation of members of Congress, was ratified in 1992.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the SCOTUS enforcing the principles I speak of and that you deny.


You're FOS.


Abatis said:


> Grow the fuck up.
> 
> .


You're the moron that thinks god gave you rights.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 13, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Really?
> So, the 5th and 6th amendments weren't followed by the states?
> 
> But the 5th and 6th amendments weren't?



Yes, really .  . .  The federal Bill of Rights was not enforceable on the states.  When I throw a word like "incorporation" in my post, try running it through Google; I'm not writing it for fun, it actually means something..



Smokin' OP said:


> _Yeah, LOL.
> Who wrote the law and constitution?
> Not philosophy in the slightest._



OK

Jefferson, who established the University of Virginia, mandated that Locke and Sidney's works be required reading. He wrote,

"Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Board that as to the general principles of liberty and the rights of man, in nature and in society, the doctrines of Locke, in his "Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government," and of Sidney in his "Discourses on government," may be considered as those generally approved by our fellow citizens of this, and the United States, and that on the distinctive principles of the government of our State, and of that of the United States, the best guides are to be found in, 1. The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these States. 2. The book known by the title of "The Federalist," being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the United States, on questions as to its genuine meaning. 3. The Resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia in 1799 on the subject of the alien and sedition laws, which appeared to accord with the predominant sense of the people of the United States. 4. The valedictory address of President Washington, as conveying political lessons of peculiar value. And that in the branch of the school of law, which is to treat on the subject of civil polity, these shall be used as the text and documents of the school." -- University of Virginia Library, Jefferson, Thomas, 1743-1826. Public Papers, "Report to the President and Directors of the Literary Fund, October 7, 1822​


Smokin' OP said:


> They did but it was a secret?
> They didn't. because Britain never gave them their "secret" rights



Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?



Smokin' OP said:


> That's my point, the government gave you those "rights".
> The government can take them away.
> 
> You're citing something the government created for it's people.



No, the people created the Constitution which is the charter of the specific, limited powers the government possesses.  No power was ever granted that would allow government to violate rights.   

If government does violate the principles of its establishment and exceeds the powers granted to it, it is no longer --_the government established by the Constitution--_ it is something else and subject to the citizens rescinding their consent to be governed and reclaiming the powers originally conferred.  If that depowering can not be done peacefully, then the people have the original right to keep and *bear* arms, as secured in the 2nd Amendment, using violence to unseat the usurpers.



Smokin' OP said:


> Sure 13 of them.



By all means, find a state constitution that does not begin with an Article I that calls out a declaration of rights.  Even the modern lefty states declare this along the lines of:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.​



Smokin' OP said:


> "Pre-existing" rights?
> The rights they had before the war and US constitution were British.



The rights recognized could be said to be British; the rights that were being violated were inherent rights, which is what compelled the Americans to throw-off the Brits.



Smokin' OP said:


> Correct.
> That isn't guaranteed by anything but the US government.



So your gig is to not even read what I write . . .  I'm not asking you to agree, I not even asking you compose a cogent rebuttal . . .   But to write the above, in complete opposition to what I wrote, saying "correct" shows you are just a contrarian and are not worth my time.  

.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 13, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> SO.
> 
> Really?
> So, if those rights were just reasoning, why have the bill of rights?



I align with the Federalists,.



Smokin' OP said:


> Were based on?
> The actual document had authors, they were THE government.



they were not the founders of the political philosophy



Smokin' OP said:


> You're presenting a concept that the constitution was somehow created by some superior entity, written in stone that can't be changed, even by the people that wrote it.



It can be changed, by the process in Art. V



Smokin' OP said:


> Endowed by *their* creator.....................?
> Written by.........................?
> 
> But granted by another entity..................the US government.



You are thick.



Smokin' OP said:


> Really?
> Can you prove god gave you those rights, 1700 years prior to the constitution?
> 
> Last I checked, there on people in the government and that another item the government "promised' the people.



I'm the one arguing it isn't a theological statement.



Smokin' OP said:


> Very good.



LOL



Smokin' OP said:


> Doesn't matter.



Of course it does, you can't do what you want to do without those amendments and the shear numbers and politics say you will never be able to do it.   Go shove your gun control up your ass.




Smokin' OP said:


> You're FOS.



How?  Can you formulate any argument that demonstrates any intelligence, knowledge and understanding?



Smokin' OP said:


> You're the moron that thinks god gave you rights.



You're the one that keeps writing shit and assigning it to me that not only didn't I say but I expressly denounced.

Are you really that slow?  I've tried to give you every opportunity to act like an adult and converse like an adult and you just revert to being a petulant child who just keeps saying they want a cookie before dinner.

To call you obtuse would require the assignment of at least 80 IQ points. 

.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 13, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Yes, really .  . .  The federal Bill of Rights was not enforceable on the states.  When I throw a word like "incorporation" in my post, try running it through Google; I'm not writing it for fun, it actually means something..


WTF?
The constitution had to be ratified by the states.
The bill of rights are part of the constitution.


Abatis said:


> OK
> 
> Jefferson, who established the University of Virginia, mandated that Locke and Sidney's works be required reading. He wrote,
> 
> "Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Board that as to the general principles of liberty and the rights of man, in nature and in society, the doctrines of Locke, in his "Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government," and of Sidney in his "Discourses on government," may be considered as those generally approved by our fellow citizens of this, and the United States, and that on the distinctive principles of the government of our State, and of that of the United States, the best guides are to be found in, 1. The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these States. 2. The book known by the title of "The Federalist," being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the United States, on questions as to its genuine meaning. 3. The Resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia in 1799 on the subject of the alien and sedition laws, which appeared to accord with the predominant sense of the people of the United States. 4. The valedictory address of President Washington, as conveying political lessons of peculiar value. And that in the branch of the school of law, which is to treat on the subject of civil polity, these shall be used as the text and documents of the school." -- University of Virginia Library, Jefferson, Thomas, 1743-1826. Public Papers, "Report to the President and Directors of the Literary Fund, October 7, 1822​


Yes, required reading.
Still doesn't make Locke and Sidney authors of the constitution.




Abatis said:


> Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?


Yes.




Abatis said:


> No, the people created the Constitution which is the charter of the specific, limited powers the government possesses.  No power was ever granted that would allow government to violate rights.


Really?

The people of the government.
George Washington started his term in 1789.
The constitution was ratified until 1791.



Abatis said:


> If government does violate the principles of its establishment and exceeds the powers granted to it, it is no longer --_the government established by the Constitution--_ it is something else and subject to the citizens rescinding their consent to be governed and reclaiming the powers originally conferred.  If that depowering can not be done peacefully, then the people have the original right to keep and *bear* arms, as secured in the 2nd Amendment, using violence to unseat the usurpers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, why don't all the countries of the world have these 'inalienable" rights?



Abatis said:


> The rights recognized could be said to be British; the rights that were being violated were inherent rights, which is what compelled the Americans to throw-off the Brits.


Really?
But you stated they were "inalienable"?


Abatis said:


> So your gig is to not even read what I write . . .  I'm not asking you to agree, I not even asking you compose a cogent rebuttal . . .   But to write the above, in complete opposition to what I wrote, saying "correct" shows you are just a contrarian and are not worth my time.


I know, you're completely missing the point, even after I explained it to you.


Abatis said:


> .


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 13, 2022)

Abatis said:


> I align with the Federalists,.
> 
> 
> 
> they were not the founders of the political philosophy


Really?
I'm am almost certain the authors to the constitution had to have had some sort of political philosophy in mind when they wrote the constitution.


Abatis said:


> It can be changed, by the process in Art. V



What if they changed that?


Abatis said:


> You are thick.


You are really dense.


Abatis said:


> I'm the one arguing it isn't a theological statement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You still don't get it, you think the government that wrote the rules are going to abide by them?


Abatis said:


> Go shove your gun control up your ass.


Go hug your Trumpy bear.



Abatis said:


> How?  Can you formulate any argument that demonstrates any intelligence, knowledge and understanding?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As everything flies over your head but keep repeating the document the government wrote.


Abatis said:


> To call you obtuse would require the assignment of at least 80 IQ points.


Right, you still think the government can't take your rights away because they are "Inalienable", because the government told you they were?

You're still in the single digits in IQ points, just like your dear leader.


Abatis said:


> .


----------



## Abatis (Jan 13, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> The constitution had to be ratified by the states.
> The bill of rights are part of the constitution.



I can understand your politics forcing you to have a f'ed up understanding of he 2ndA, but the fact that the states were not bound by the federal Bill of Rights is fundamental US history.




Smokin' OP said:


> Yes, required reading.
> Still doesn't make Locke and Sidney authors of the constitution.



Yes, required reading to understand the concept of rights under the Constitution.  Maybe you should follow his directive?

I didn't say authors of the Constitution, I said they were the authors of the philosophy the framers of the Constitution embraced and employed to form our government.



Smokin' OP said:


> Yes.



I said "Declaration of Independence, not _Das Kapital._



Smokin' OP said:


> Really?
> 
> The people of the government.
> George Washington started his term in 1789.
> The constitution was ratified until 1791.



Yes, really.  Read Federalist 84 for an explanation of the concept.



Smokin' OP said:


> So, why don't all the countries of the world have these 'inalienable" rights?



Already answered that.  You seem to be operating under a definition of un/inalienable that has no relationship to it's actual meaning and definitely without any reference to what I wrote.



Smokin' OP said:


> Really?
> But you stated they were "inalienable"?



Already answered that.  You seem to be operating under a definition of un/inalienable that has no relationship to it's actual meaning and definitely without any reference to what I wrote.



Smokin' OP said:


> I know, you're completely missing the point, even after I explained it to you.



You have no "point" your position has nothing it rests on; you argue without any base of knowledge or understanding.

Back in the late 1700's, there were only two competing political philosophies represented in a few treatises.  For the King and monarchy, aristocracy and absolutism there was Sir Robert Filmer and Jean Bodin . . .  For inherent rights, the concept of individual liberty and a legitimate government established on popular consent, there was Locke and Sidney.  

In a discussion of the Constitution, those are the only possibilities . . .  To introduce collectivist or other late 19th or even 20th Century political philosophies as being influential or instructive on discerning the meaning of the Constitution, is ignorant leftist garbage.

With your ungrounded, formless BS, you can't even claim that distinction.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 13, 2022)

Abatis said:


> I can understand your politics forcing you to have a f'ed up understanding of he 2ndA, but the fact that the states were not bound by the federal Bill of Rights is fundamental US history.


They still had had a right to outlaw them, make them mandatory or something in between.
So, the states had "Inalienable" rights?




Abatis said:


> Yes, required reading to understand the concept of rights under the Constitution.  Maybe you should follow his directive?
> 
> I didn't say authors of the Constitution, I said they were the authors of the philosophy the framers of the Constitution embraced and employed to form our government.


OK.


Abatis said:


> I said "Declaration of Independence, not _Das Kapital._
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, really.  Read Federalist 84 for an explanation of the concept.


Don't give a fuck about the concepts, concepts are not the constitution.


Abatis said:


> Already answered that.  You seem to be operating under a definition of un/inalienable that has no relationship to it's actual meaning and definitely without any reference to what I wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I understand just fine.
You're the one that doesn't understand.

The government wrote the constitution and they can change, amend or eliminate it.


Abatis said:


> Back in the late 1700's, there were only two competing political philosophies represented in a few treatises.  For the King and monarchy, aristocracy and absolutism there was Sir Robert Filmer and Jean Bodin . . .  For inherent rights, the concept of individual liberty and a legitimate government established on popular consent, there was Locke and Sidney.
> 
> In a discussion of the Constitution, those are the only possibilities . . .  To introduce collectivist or other late 19th or even 20th Century political philosophies as being influential or instructive on discerning the meaning of the Constitution, is ignorant leftist garbage.
> 
> With your ungrounded, formless BS, you can't even claim that distinction.


You keep repeating drivel about the constitution, it background how it came about and other BS.
I don't give a fuck.
You STILL can't grasp that the people in/that formed the government wrote the constitution and cannot be changed/suspended or eliminated by the government.

What makes you think all these "rights" were given to you by someone/something other than the government?


----------



## westwall (Jan 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Because you believe NRA propaganda?
> 
> Europe has nowhere near the gun violence the US has.





No, because it is true.  No shit.  Most of their violent population got killed off in two world wars.

Duh.

Now they are importing violent 3rd worlders and the crime rates are skyrocketing.

DURRRRRR


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 13, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> My point which you and Abatis do not understand.
> The enumerated "rights" and the entire constitution depend on the government.


The government, itself, disagrees:

The government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. *No rights can be acquired under the constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. *All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. _*The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.*_ The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,

*The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. 'To secure these rights,' says the Declaration of Independence, 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'*








						UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL.
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				




Your statement, proven false.

And so, again:  Why do you disagree?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 13, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> The government wrote the constitution and they can change, amend or eliminate it.


The -states- wrote the constitution, and they can change, amend, or eliminate it.
The -government- can do no such thing absent approval from the state.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 13, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, because it is true. No shit. Most of their violent population got killed off in two world wars.
> 
> Duh.
> 
> Now they are importing violent 3rd worlders and the crime rates are skyrocketing.



Wow, so you are saying soldiers are "violent populations"?  Really?


----------



## miketx (Jan 13, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> That seems very dubious.  Justifiable homicides are very few.


Prove it liar.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Wow, so you are saying soldiers are "violent populations"?  Really?


retard more civilians were killed then soldiers.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 13, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> No!
> 
> In Canada and Scandinavia, even the worst criminals are treated humanely.



  The result of that is that more human beings are victimized by these criminals.  Fuck the idea of treating these animals _“humanely”_.  I would much rather see human beings treated humanely, and this includes protecting human beings from the acts of criminals, no matter what must be done to criminals to achieve this.

  You can either be on the side of human beings, or you can be on the side of criminals.  It is not possible to be on both sides; for the interests of the two are irreconcilable one with the other.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 13, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Another Trump U. constitutional "law" school correspondence school "gradiate"?
> 
> *1st amendment*
> 
> ...




  Trying to answer you probably falls under the cliché about trying to teach a pig to sing.  You're too deeply and inseparably wedded to the delusion that government is the source of all rights, and that a right does not exist unless government recognizes and upholds it.

  Some emaciated Jew, in the 1940s, taking his last breath in one of Auschwitz's gas chambers—did he have a right not to be treated as he was?

  By your apparent [lack of] logic, we would have to say that no, he did not have any such right.  What was done to him was done in accordance with the laws and policies of the government under which jurisdiction he fell; was entirely legal under that government, and therefore, was ethically right as well.

  That's kwanzaa, of course.

  He did have a right not to be so treated.  God created him, as He created all of us, with certain inherent rights, which include the right not to be rounded up, imprisoned, tortured, and exterminated because of our religion or our ancestry.  The Nazis did not rightfully remove this right.  The right still existed, even as the Nazis, in defiance of God, violated this right.

  Governments do not create rights.  They do not have the authority to grant or to remove rights.  They have the duty under God to recognize, uphold, and protect rights; and wherever they fail to do so, their actions are illegitimate, and Godless.  Those who hold positions in government, who use those positions to violate the rights of others, who fail to fulfill their duty to protect rights, will one day stand before God, and will very harshly be held by Him to answer for it.  The worst parts of Hell will probably be populated mostly by politicians.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 14, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The government, itself, disagrees:
> 
> The government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. *No rights can be acquired under the constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. *All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States.
> 
> ...


No, it isn't.



M14 Shooter said:


> And so, again:  Why do you disagree?


WTF?
Did Trump U. really teach his cult to ignore parts of ANYTHING you don't understand?

I don't disagree with what you typed about the constitution, that is correct.
But what you and Abatis or you at the moment, fail to grasp is you're relying on a contract, the constitution that the government wrote.
 So, what makes you think they, the supreme court, and the states can't change that contract, the constitution, as THEY see fit?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 14, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The -states- wrote the constitution, and they can change, amend, or eliminate it.


No, they didn't, the states ratified it, they didn't write it.


M14 Shooter said:


> The -government- can do no such thing absent approval from the state.


Yes, they can.
You're still relying on the words written in a contract, the constitution.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 14, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Trying to answer you probably falls under the cliché about trying to teach a pig to sing.  You're too deeply and inseparably wedded to the delusion that government is the source of all rights, and that a right does not exist unless government recognizes and upholds it.


That's true.
Where else do your "rights" come from besides a government of ANY country that will recognize and uphold what you can and cannot do?


Bob Blaylock said:


> Some emaciated Jew, in the 1940s, taking his last breath in one of Auschwitz's gas chambers—did he have a right not to be treated as he was?


I think he did, but that is my opinion, along with like 75% of the world, at the time, not the NAZI's


Bob Blaylock said:


> By your apparent [lack of] logic, we would have to say that no, he did not have any such right.


By your lack of logic, you would believe that.


Bob Blaylock said:


> What was done to him was done in accordance with the laws and policies of the government under which jurisdiction he fell; was entirely legal under that government, and therefore, was ethically right as well.


The NAZI's had no such laws.
No, I think the Nazis knew it was ethically wrong.
The concentration and work camps were clandestine, with very little or no paper trail.


Bob Blaylock said:


> That's kwanzaa, of course.
> 
> He did have a right not to be so treated.  God created him, as He created all of us, with certain inherent rights, which include the right not to be rounded up, imprisoned, tortured, and exterminated because of our religion or our ancestry.  The Nazis did not rightfully remove this right.  The right still existed, even as the Nazis, in defiance of God, violated this right.


WTF?
Who told you that?


Bob Blaylock said:


> Governments do not create rights.  They do not have the authority to grant or to remove rights.  They have the duty under God to recognize, uphold, and protect rights; and wherever they fail to do so, their actions are illegitimate, and Godless.  Those who hold positions in government, who use those positions to violate the rights of others, who fail to fulfill their duty to protect rights, will one day stand before God, and will very harshly be held by Him to answer for it.  The worst parts of Hell will probably be populated mostly by politicians.


OK, now I know, a book that was written by man.
Some of the ancestors of the crusades?

A perfect example of god-given rights would be the Taliban, in Afghanistan.
All their laws, based on religion.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 14, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> But what you and Abatis or you at the moment, fail to grasp is you're relying on a contract, the constitution that the government wrote.
> So, what makes you think they, the supreme court, and the states can't change that contract, the constitution, as THEY see fit?



  It might have something to do with the fact that this contract—the Constitution—contains within itself the very terms by which it may be changed, and these terms do not allow any changes to be made in the manners that you suggest.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 14, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Trying to answer you probably falls under the cliché about trying to teach a pig to sing. You're too deeply and inseparably wedded to the delusion that government is the source of all rights, and that a right does not exist unless government recognizes and upholds it.



  Quod erat demonstrandum.



Smokin' OP said:


> Where else do your "rights" come from besides a government of ANY country that will recognize and uphold what you can and cannot do?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 14, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> It might have something to do with the fact that this contract—the Constitution—contains within itself the very terms by which it may be changed, and these terms do not allow any changes to be made in the manners that you suggest.


Really?
Who doesn't allow it?

The government?
Terms?
The ones that wrote it.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 14, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Really?
> Who doesn't allow it?
> 
> The government?
> ...



  We're back into _“trying to teach a pig to sing”_ territory with you.

  The Constitution is very clear about how it may or may not be legitimately amended.

  If you're too damn lazy, or too damn stupid, or both to read and understand it for yourself, then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you understand.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> We're back into _“trying to teach a pig to sing”_ territory with you.
> 
> The Constitution is very clear about how it may or may not be legitimately amended.
> 
> If you're too damn lazy, or too damn stupid, or both to read and understand it for yourself, then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you understand.



Except we aren't talking about "legitimately amended", we are talking about interpretation.  

You see, there used to be this whacky cult where the leaders were practicing polygamy and marrying 14 year old girls....  which if you read the constitution they should totally be allowed to do because Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of religion.   Well, except the people not in that cult weren't too cool with that and passed a bunch of legislation to put a stop to that sort of thing.  So eventually, the leaders of the Cult had a vision from God that the Polygamy had to come to an end. 

NOW- in a more practical method, you have the Second Amendment as a guiding rule, but then you have to decide what constitutes a "Well-regulated militia" in relation to "right to bear arms".  Which is why your average person can't own a howitzer or cook up Weapon's Grade Anthrax in his kitchen. 






In short, the government can make laws based on pragmatism.  The question is, does the right to bear arms really mean we all have to tolerate Joker Holmes buying an assault rifle with a 100 round magazine because what could possibly go wrong. 




Looks totally sensible to me.  

Now, I'm going to be very straight up.   I actually think that Roe v. Wade is a bad ruling.  It invents a right out of whole cloth.  If you had an absolute right to do with your body whatever you want, we could dispense with the laws against prostitution, drug abuse, or selling your kidney on Ebay.  

But it was addressing the reality that a law against abortion is impossible to really enforce.   Not unless you are going to put a woman under house arrest from the point of conception to birth.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 14, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> I don't disagree with what you typed about the constitution, that is correct.
> But what you and Abatis or you at the moment, fail to grasp is you're relying on a contract, the constitution that the government wrote.


"The government" didn't write the constituion - the states did, and created "the government" with it.
How do you not know this?


Smokin' OP said:


> So, what makes you think they, the supreme court, and the states can't change that contract, the constitution, as THEY see fit?


The states can change the constitution as they see fit.   The USSC cannot.
The USSC can -interpret- the constitution as it sees fit, but that's not the same thing, and, ultimately,  any such decision is subject to states' approval.
Not sure why you think you have anything resembling a meaningful point here.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 14, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> No, they didn't, the states ratified it, they didn't write it.


They did., through their delegates to the constitutional convention.
How do you not know this?


Smokin' OP said:


> Yes, they can.


Not constitutionally, they can't.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 14, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Really?
> Who doesn't allow it?
> 
> The government?
> ...



And _who_ is that?
Who established "the government"?
Who are the final arbiters and enforcers when "the government" usurps authority, ignores the principles of its establishment and exceeds the powers granted to "the government" by the Constitution? 

I always thought Justice Patterson's eloquent explanation of what the Constitution *IS* compelling:
​"What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the  mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only  by the authority that made it.​​The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution: they derive their powers from the Constitution: It is their commission; and, therefore,  all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void.​​The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature  in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature.​​The Constitution fixes limits to the  exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all Legislative, Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve.​​Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be  no doubt, that every act of the Legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, as absolutely void."​​_VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE_, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)​


----------



## Abatis (Jan 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Except we aren't talking about "legitimately amended", we are talking about interpretation.
> . . .
> 
> NOW- in a more practical method, you have the Second Amendment as a guiding rule, but then you have to decide what constitutes a "Well-regulated militia" in relation to "right to bear arms".  Which is why your average person can't own a howitzer or cook up Weapon's Grade Anthrax in his kitchen.



And another Porky, with his nose in the mud, is grunting out what he believes is an opera.


----------



## theHawk (Jan 14, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights,


Abortion is not a “constitutional right.”

So the law cannot be used to restrict actual constitutional rights.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2022)

Abatis said:


> And another Porky, with his nose in the mud, is grunting out what he believes is an opera.



Naw, man, if you are going to argue your main reason for people to have weapons is so they can overthrow the eeebil gummmit, then why can't private citizens have weapons grade Anthrax?   I mean, more effective for bringing down government than your "compensator".  

Mind you, if everyone is going to have a variety of weapons, coordinating that Militia to overthrow the government might be difficult. "Okay, I brought the Anthrax... Um, Cleetus, did you bring the tank?"


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, man, if you are going to argue your main reason for people to have weapons is so they can overthrow the eeebil gummmit, then why can't private citizens have weapons grade Anthrax?   I mean, more effective for bringing down government than your "compensator".
> 
> Mind you, if everyone is going to have a variety of weapons, coordinating that Militia to overthrow the government might be difficult. "Okay, I brought the Anthrax... Um, Cleetus, did you bring the tank?"


strategic weapons are barred from private ownership always been that way.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, man, if you are going to argue your main reason for people to have weapons is so they can overthrow the eeebil gummmit,



That's not my primary argument.  My primary argument is that the federal government was never given any power to even compose a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen.

That fact disallows any grading of "reasons" for securing the right to arms; you have no justification for assigning any degrees of importance for the *many *reasons why the right to arms is excepted out of the powers granted to government. Put simply, government has no legitimate reason to qualify reasons.



JoeB131 said:


> then why can't private citizens have weapons grade Anthrax?   I mean, more effective for bringing down government than your "compensator".



I would point to the principle of conferred powers and retained rights.  The interests "We the People" have _conferred_ (granted) to government (warmaking powers, maintaining an army) we can no longer claim any power / right to (to your quesiton, we have no claimable right to possess and use the weapons of open, indiscriminate warfare).

The obverse of that principle is of course, for those interests that "We the People" *never *granted government any aspect of any power over, the people retain full and complete rights to and government has no claim of authority in those interests (in this case, the right to keep and bear arms).



JoeB131 said:


> Mind you, if everyone is going to have a variety of weapons, coordinating that Militia to overthrow the government might be difficult. "Okay, I brought the Anthrax... Um, Cleetus, did you bring the tank?"



No doubt it would be undisciplined.  It was assumed (by the framers) that the people would always have the state governments on their side and their organization and structure in a dispute with a tyrannical federal government and much ink was used explaining that.

Interestingly, Hamilton discussed in *Federalist 28* what would happen if it was the state government that went tyrannical and the obvious deficiencies in order within the citizens fighting against that government.  Of course _defending Liberty from usurpers_ remains the priority no matter what the obstacles (and yes, a reason why the RKBA is secured). . . .


"In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."​​​I don't expect a reasoned reply from you but a least you have been presented with the truth.  I know it will make no difference to you because all you argue is that the "main reason for people to have weapons" is so they can murder.

.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 15, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> "The government" didn't write the constituion - the states did, and created "the government" with it.
> How do you not know this?


Where else would they come from?
But that was the only governing bodies the US had at the time, 13 different ones.
The federal government is what they were trying to establish.
STILL NOT my point.


M14 Shooter said:


> WTF?





M14 Shooter said:


> The states can change the constitution as they see fit.   The USSC cannot.


You're STILL relying on the constitution, a contract written by the government.



M14 Shooter said:


> The USSC can -interpret- the constitution as it sees fit, but that's not the same thing, and, ultimately,  any such decision is subject to states' approval.


True.
STILL NOT my point.


M14 Shooter said:


> Not sure why you think you have anything resembling a meaningful point here.


The one keeps flying over your head.

December 3 2020
Michael Flynn, the recently pardoned three-week national security advisor for Donald Trump, shared an alarming message on Twitter Tuesday from something called the “We the People Convention.” The press release, titled “WTPC Calls for Trump to Declare Limited Martial Law,” not only does that but also calls for a temporary suspension of the entire U.S. constitution so that the one-term president can hold a new election.

“When the legislators, courts and/or Congress fail to do their duty under the 12th Amendment, you must be ready Mr. President to immediately declare a limited form of Martial Law, and temporarily suspend the Constitution and civilian control of these federal elections, for the sole purpose of having the military oversee a national re-vote,” wrote TEA Party leader Tom Zawistowski.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 15, 2022)

Abatis said:


> And _who_ is that?
> Who established "the government"?
> Who are the final arbiters and enforcers when "the government" usurps authority, ignores the principles of its establishment and exceeds the powers granted to "the government" by the Constitution?



December 3 2020
Michael Flynn, the recently pardoned three-week national security advisor for Donald Trump, shared an alarming message on Twitter Tuesday from something called the “We the People Convention.” The press release, titled “WTPC Calls for Trump to Declare Limited Martial Law,” not only does that but also calls for a temporary suspension of the entire U.S. constitution so that the one-term president can hold a new election.

“When the legislators, courts and/or Congress fail to do their duty under the 12th Amendment, you must be ready Mr. President to immediately declare a limited form of Martial Law, and temporarily suspend the Constitution and civilian control of these federal elections, for the sole purpose of having the military oversee a national re-vote,” wrote TEA Party leader Tom Zawistowski.




Abatis said:


> I always thought Justice Patterson's eloquent explanation of what the Constitution *IS* compelling:
> ​"What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the  mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only  by the authority that made it.​​The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution: they derive their powers from the Constitution: It is their commission; and, therefore,  all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void.​​The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature  in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature.​​The Constitution fixes limits to the  exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all Legislative, Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve.​


That is what they are doing following Trump.


Abatis said:


> ​Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be  no doubt, that every act of the Legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, as absolutely void."​​_VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE_, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)​


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 15, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> We're back into _“trying to teach a pig to sing”_ territory with you.
> 
> The Constitution is very clear about how it may or may not be legitimately amended.


No, shit, dumbass.
What if it was suspended?
What then "genius"?


Bob Blaylock said:


> If you're too damn lazy, or too damn stupid, or both to read and understand it for yourself, then there's nothing that I or anyone else can do to help you understand.


Holy fuck what a retard.
Right back at you, IDIOT.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> strategic weapons are barred from private ownership always been that way.



But why not?  I want my weapons grade anthrax, dammit! 



Abatis said:


> That's not my primary argument. My primary argument is that the federal government was never given any power to even compose a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen.



Yes, that's a pretty crazy argument.  



Abatis said:


> That fact disallows any grading of "reasons" for securing the right to arms; you have no justification for assigning any degrees of importance for the *many *reasons why the right to arms is excepted out of the powers granted to government. Put simply, government has no legitimate reason to qualify reasons.



Sure they do.  Public safety, for instance.   We shouldn't have to wait for this guy 


 to kill someone before they take away his right to own major firepower.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 15, 2022)

Abatis said:


> That's not my primary argument.  My primary argument is that the federal government was never given any power to even compose a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen.
> 
> That fact disallows any grading of "reasons" for securing the right to arms; you have no justification for assigning any degrees of importance for the *many *reasons why the right to arms is excepted out of the powers granted to government. Put simply, government has no legitimate reason to qualify reasons.
> 
> ...


That fact disallows any grading of "reasons" for securing the right to privacy; you have no justification for assigning any degrees of importance for the many reasons why the right to privacy is excepted out of the powers granted to government. Put simply, government has no legitimate reason to qualify reasons.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 15, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> The Constitution is very clear about how it may or may not be legitimately amended.


The Constitution is also clear that like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 15, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> The one keeps flying over your head.


Because I'm a rational, reasoned person, and your "point" is the fartherst thing from that.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> But why not?  I want my weapons grade anthrax, dammit!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah, that's on his mental health professional...not on the owners of 600 million guns who didn't shoot anyone that day.....and again.....the theater he attacked was the only gun free zone theater in the area....he targeted it because it was a gun free zone...and surrendered as soon as he was confronted by a cop......had someone in that theater been armed, he could have been stopped at the time....

At the same time, a muslim terrorist in Nice, France, using a rental truck, not a gun, murdered 86 people to his 13, and wounded 435....in 5 minutes of driving..

Of the two, the rental truck was deadlier...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 15, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That fact disallows any grading of "reasons" for securing the right to privacy; you have no justification for assigning any degrees of importance for the many reasons why the right to privacy is excepted out of the powers granted to government. Put simply, government has no legitimate reason to qualify reasons.


And yet, you agree with Roe v Wade, which does exactly that.

And, you believe the TX abortion law to be constitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 15, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Constitution is also clear that like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.


But it -does- protect the right of the people to own and use all bearable arms for traditionally lawful purposes from infringement.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 15, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Because I'm a rational, reasoned person, and your "point" is the fartherst thing from that.


Sure, the same shit you played about guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 15, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Sure, the same shit you played about guns.


You and I both you know you have no ability to rationally, reasonably demonstrate anything I have said about guns to be unsound -- that's why you run away from -every- such conversation.
Every.  Single.  One.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 15, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Constitution is also clear that like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.




You idiots keep saying that....as if the Right being "not unlimited," means you get to ban every gun and magazine as long as you allow us to keep a toy gun....then you will say see....you still have the 2nd Amendment....

What Scalia actually stated.......in the actual Supreme Court opinion...the parts you idiots like to ignore....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

*Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. *

*We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),*

*the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Scalia in Friedman v Highland Park....after Heller...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


And Alito...in the Caetano Supreme Court Ruling...*



> *Opinion of the Court[edit]*
> 
> Ihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf




Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------
*As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. *

*First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). *

*Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. *


*If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis*


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 15, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You and I both you know you have no ability to rationally, reasonably demonstrate anything I have said about guns to be unsound -- that's why you run away from -every- such conversation.
> Every.  Single.  One.


Yes, everything you said about guns was unsound.
I get tired of arguing with a brick.
Like right now.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 15, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Yes, everything you said about guns was unsound.


You and I both know you know you cannot demonstrate this to be true.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 15, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> December 3 2020
> <-snip->



Posting this just so you don't think I'm ignoring you.  

I don't have time for goofballs; I've written you off as competent to debate this topic.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, that's a pretty crazy argument.



Why, that is the most fundamental principle of the US Constitution; it is the reason why the Federalists argued against adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.

You suffer from the most common affliction amongst authoritarian anti-gunners. You think going on and on about what the Constitution* isn't* and what the 2ndA *doesn't do,* is an actual argument.

You never give us an explanation of what specific powers the Constitution has granted to government (citing Article, Section and clause) and who and what the 2nd Amendment protects, citing actual cases showing the party claiming the immunity being granted standing *and *the holding of the Court explaining their legal reasoning for sustaining the immunity claimed.

All you have is a collectivist theory with no support in the philosophical, historical or legal history of the nation, stolen from a racist, discriminatory practice in the rebel states, a theory that had no presence in the federal courts before 1942.



JoeB131 said:


> Sure they do.  Public safety, for instance.



The government has no express power to write or enforce laws on gun possession and use geared towards public safety.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 15, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Constitution is also clear that like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.



No, the Constitution is *not* "clear" on that point.

As SCOTUS in _Heller_ said, all the 2nd Amendment can be said to "say" is:


to implicitly recognize that the right to arms pre-existed the Constitution, thus the RKBA is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution.
to expressly and unequivocally say the right to arms shall not be infringed.

That's it . . .  everything else you want to divine from _Heller_ is _you_ inventing against the SCOTUS, misrepresenting what the Court said.

That statement / holding you quote is a creation of and derived from many *courts* assuming the power to discern _why_ the right to arms was forever excepted out of the powers granted to government.

Those courts wanted to discover what the "object" was of the provisions composed to recognize and secure the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Answering the question of "why" the right was secured, informed the courts (including SCOTUS) as to the types of arms that were protected and by extension, _what types of arms could be regulated / restricted_ (which is of course what _you_ -- being a statist authoritarian, not a constitutionalist, focus on).

One thing I know for sure is you have no real understanding of what you quoted above.  Go read *Aymettte v Tennessee*, the case SCOTUS used to decide _Miller_ and you come back and we can discuss your quote.

*That challenge goes for anyone here.*


----------



## Abatis (Jan 15, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That fact disallows any grading of "reasons" for securing the right to privacy; you have no justification for assigning any degrees of importance for the many reasons why the right to privacy is excepted out of the powers granted to government. Put simply, government has no legitimate reason to qualify reasons.



You are confusing what is expressly stated in the Constitution and what is derived from the Warren Court working their magic.

Actually though, I agree 110% with what you said there; I apply my beliefs across the board.

I am among those who think the penumbral rights theory is an acceptable and necessary workaround (but admittedly constitutionally clunky) to arrive at a legal place where *ALL* rights, unenumerated and enumerated, are protected.  I don't want to give judges any wiggle room to rationalize restrictions where government has no authority to act.

I would prefer to have the Court revisit _Slaughterhouse_ (1873) and reverse it and reinvigorate the _privileges or immunities_ clause of the 14th Amendment and have "Liberty" reassume its place in jurisprudence -- and fully enforce what I said earlier *and* what you turned to apply to the right to privacy . . .

The Court had that opportunity in 2010 with _McDonald_ and many were excited that they might at least entertain the argument but no, the Court fell back on "due process".

With Scalia gone and Thomas' significant philosophical influence on the current Court, perhaps that will happen and the disputes and argument over the constitutional protection of the right to privacy (abortion) will be settled (and a teaching moment will arise for the nation about "conservative" Justices; that they can put aside personal beliefs and truly decide on law applying the Constitution).

.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 19, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution is very clear about how it may or may not be legitimately amended.
> ...



  The Constitution cannot legitimately be _“suspended”_.

  It is the highest law in this nation, and it remains so no matter what excuses corrupt politicians might try to use to get around it.


----------



## Flash (Jan 19, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> It gets around the Constitution because Texas is allowing private citizens to sue when abortions happen. If a the fetus has a heartbeat, it can't be aborted under the law, but it's private citizens who enforce the law through lawsuits.
> 
> Justice Kavenaugh is saying the same can be done with guns.
> 
> I'm not a Supreme Court scholar so I'm not sure exactly but Justice Kavenaugh is on the Supreme Court.


The right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights.

The only connection the right of abortion has is Roe v Wade and that can be redefined.

Bogus argument.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2022)

Flash said:


> The right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The only connection the right of abortion has is Roe v Wade and that can be redefined.
> 
> Bogus argument.



Second Amendment is about militias, not gun ownership.   The word "Gun" appears nowhere in that amendment.  

If you want to include "arms", then why are so many weapons illegal to own, from Weaponized Anthrax to Num-chuks.


----------



## tyroneweaver (Jan 19, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Guns enable over 20,000 suicides and over 10,000 murders in USA each year.


Guns didnt commit any murders


----------



## Flash (Jan 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Second Amendment is about militias, not gun ownership.   The word "Gun" appears nowhere in that amendment.
> 
> If you want to include "arms", then why are so many weapons illegal to own, from Weaponized Anthrax to Num-chuks.




Just shut the fuck up Moon Bat.  You don't know what you are talking about most of the time when you post your silly horseshit.

You stupid uneducated Moon Bats don't know any more about the Constitution than you know about Economics, History, Biology, Climate Science or Ethics.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 19, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> The Constitution cannot legitimately be _“suspended”_.
> 
> It is the highest law in this nation, and it remains so no matter what excuses corrupt politicians might try to use to get around it.


Really?
Corrupt people wanted Trump to suspend it.

December 3 2020
Michael Flynn, the recently pardoned three-week national security advisor for Donald Trump, shared an alarming message on Twitter Tuesday from something called the “We the People Convention.” The press release, titled “WTPC Calls for Trump to Declare Limited Martial Law,” not only does that but also calls for a temporary suspension of the entire U.S. constitution so that the one-term president can hold a new election.

“When the legislators, courts and/or Congress fail to do their duty under the 12th Amendment, you must be ready Mr. President to immediately declare a limited form of Martial Law, and temporarily suspend the Constitution and civilian control of these federal elections, for the sole purpose of having the military oversee a national re-vote,” wrote TEA Party leader Tom Zawistowski.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 19, 2022)

Flash said:


> The right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The only connection the right of abortion has is Roe v Wade and that can be redefined.
> 
> Bogus argument.


Bogus argument indeed.

Look at the firearms control act of 1934.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 19, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Really?
> Corrupt people wanted Trump to suspend it.


Even if true, it does not mean it -can- be legitimately suspended.
But good to know -you- know you could not address his point.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 19, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Bogus argument indeed.
> 
> Look at the firearms control act of 1934.



You must be talking about the National Firearms Act of 1934.
What point do you think you make by bringing it up?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 19, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Look at the firearms control act of 1934.



  That the government has blatantly violated the Constitution on many occasions, and has been allowed to get away with it, does not mean that these violations are justifiable or legitimate.  It only shows that government is corrupt.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> That the government has blatantly violated the Constitution on many occasions, and has been allowed to get away with it, does not mean that these violations are justifiable or legitimate. It only shows that government is corrupt.



The Constitution is not a suicide pact.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.



  No one has ever credibly claimed that it is.

  The only creatures who ever make this absurd statement are those who support lawlessness and corruption, who do not want the Constitution to be obeyed.

  The underlying premise that there is anything suicidal about obeying the Constitution is, of course, a blatant lie, and those who make this claim know damn well that it is a lie.

  The only significance that any sane person should ever grant to this statement is to take it as a complete refutation of any and all credibility of any creature who makes this statement.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The Constitution is not a suicide pact.


Be specific and tell us what exactly you think is suicidal about following the Constitution?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> No one has ever credibly claimed that it is.
> 
> The only creatures who ever make this absurd statement are those who support lawlessness and corruption, who do not want the Constitution to be obeyed.
> 
> ...



Actually, the first person who expressed such an opinion was - wait for it - Thomas Jefferson. 

Jefferson offered one of the earliest formulations of the sentiment, although not of the phrase. In 1803, Jefferson's ambassadors to France arranged the purchase of the Louisiana territory in conflict with Jefferson's personal belief that the Constitution did not bestow upon the federal government the right to acquire or possess foreign territory. Due to political considerations, however, Jefferson disregarded his constitutional doubts, signed the proposed treaty, and sent it to the Senate for ratification. In justifying his actions, he later wrote:



> A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. *The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the mean*s.[1][2]



Stop dissing Tommie Jefferson!  That's my job! 

The actual formulation of the phrase came from a riot case in Chicago. 

In the 1949 case _Terminiello v. City of Chicago_, the majority opinion by Justice William O. Douglas overturned the disorderly conduct conviction of a priest whose rantings at a rally had incited a riot. The court held that Chicago's breach of the peace ordinance violated the First Amendment.

Associate Justice Robert Jackson wrote a twenty-four page dissent in response to the court's four page decision, which concluded: *"The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.*"





RetiredGySgt said:


> Be specific and tell us what exactly you think is suicidal about following the Constitution?


Oh, allowing people to spread Covid because "Freedom". 
Letting crazy people own guns because the Founding Slave Rapists couldn't clearly define a militia.  

You know, crazy stuff like that which gets people killed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, the first person who expressed such an opinion was - wait for it - Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Jefferson offered one of the earliest formulations of the sentiment, although not of the phrase. In 1803, Jefferson's ambassadors to France arranged the purchase of the Louisiana territory in conflict with Jefferson's personal belief that the Constitution did not bestow upon the federal government the right to acquire or possess foreign territory. Due to political considerations, however, Jefferson disregarded his constitutional doubts, signed the proposed treaty, and sent it to the Senate for ratification. In justifying his actions, he later wrote:
> 
> ...


In other words you have no valid complaint. Noted.

As for the specifics crazy people are already barred from owning firearms and vaccinated people spread the virus more then unvacced.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> In other words you have no valid complaint. Noted.





RetiredGySgt said:


> As for the specifics crazy people are already barred from owning firearms and vaccinated people spread the virus more then unvacced.


Did you need someone to explain the big words to you?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 20, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Even if true, it does not mean it -can- be legitimately suspended.


No shit, genius.


M14 Shooter said:


> But good to know -you- know you could not address his point.


I did, it just flew over your head, as usual.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jan 20, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> That the government has blatantly violated the Constitution on many occasions, and has been allowed to get away with it, does not mean that these violations are justifiable or legitimate.  It only shows that government is corrupt.


So, for 85 years no one thought to fix this injustice?
Thought all those retarded candidates with AR-15's in their campaign ads would remedy that.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 20, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> I did, it just flew over your head, as usual.


----------

