Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Numerous Supreme Court opinions on the topic.
Are you seriously going to maintain that American citizens do not have a right to vote??
"all of them" is pretty amorphous. I named several. Are you maintaining that babies have the right to keep and bear arms?
Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Numerous Supreme Court opinions on the topic.
Are you seriously going to maintain that American citizens do not have a right to vote??
"all of them" is pretty amorphous. I named several. Are you maintaining that babies have the right to keep and bear arms?
The Constitution makes it clear that it's the States who decide on how elections are held. The 15th merely says a persons' 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
Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Numerous Supreme Court opinions on the topic.
Are you seriously going to maintain that American citizens do not have a right to vote??
"all of them" is pretty amorphous. I named several. Are you maintaining that babies have the right to keep and bear arms?
Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Numerous Supreme Court opinions on the topic.
Are you seriously going to maintain that American citizens do not have a right to vote??
"all of them" is pretty amorphous. I named several. Are you maintaining that babies have the right to keep and bear arms?
The 15th does not establish any rights. It merely prevents the state from denying a vote to anyone on the basis or race, etc
And yes, babies have 2nd Amendment rights. However, SCOTUS has decided that the state can limit the rights of babies when the state has a compelling interest to do so, such as public safety.
Just as the Miranda rights of an adult can be limited in cases where the publics safety is threatened. It's known as "the public safety exclusion"
Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Numerous Supreme Court opinions on the topic.
Are you seriously going to maintain that American citizens do not have a right to vote??
"all of them" is pretty amorphous. I named several. Are you maintaining that babies have the right to keep and bear arms?
The 15th does not establish any rights. It merely prevents the state from denying a vote to anyone on the basis or race, etc
And yes, babies have 2nd Amendment rights. However, SCOTUS has decided that the state can limit the rights of babies when the state has a compelling interest to do so, such as public safety.
Just as the Miranda rights of an adult can be limited in cases where the publics safety is threatened. It's known as "the public safety exclusion"
Total, complete and utter bullshit.
For starters, age limits are federal laws, not state laws.
Second, where did the Supreme Court enunciate the idea that babies have a right to keep adn bear arms?
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.
Further, mention of a prohibition on restricting the right to vote implies that there is an underlying right.
So your position is that babies have a right to keep and bear arms. OK. Even though they don't and anyone under 18 who goes to buy a gun is violating the law.
So your position is that babies have a right to keep and bear arms. OK. Even though they don't and anyone under 18 who goes to buy a gun is violating the law.
In another thread, you ignored links a posted posted.
In this thread, you're ignoring that I've said the govt has the power to limit a persons right when the state has a compelling interest.
I can give one of my guns to my 13 year old niece. Many children have received firearms as gifts from their parents.
So your position is that babies have a right to keep and bear arms. OK. Even though they don't and anyone under 18 who goes to buy a gun is violating the law.
In another thread, you ignored links a posted posted.
In this thread, you're ignoring that I've said the govt has the power to limit a persons right when the state has a compelling interest.
I can give one of my guns to my 13 year old niece. Many children have received firearms as gifts from their parents.
No, actually you can't. Parents and guardians can buy guns for their children. But that isnt the same thing, of course.
What's what difference? Parents and guardians can buy firearms for their underage children. The children cannot because, ta-da, they have no right to keep and bear arms.In another thread, you ignored links a posted posted.
In this thread, you're ignoring that I've said the govt has the power to limit a persons right when the state has a compelling interest.
I can give one of my guns to my 13 year old niece. Many children have received firearms as gifts from their parents.
No, actually you can't. Parents and guardians can buy guns for their children. But that isnt the same thing, of course.
What's the difference?
If a squirrel eats the strawberries you're growing, what is the libertarian response?
Under NAG, the proper response would be to arrest, try, convict, and imprison the squirrel.
If a squirrel eats the strawberries you're growing, what is the libertarian response?
Under NAG, the proper response would be to arrest, try, convict, and imprison the squirrel.
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant understanding you have of the Non Agression Principle.
I thought I was discussing libertarianism with someone who had a kindergarten level understanding of it. I guess I way overestimated you.
If a squirrel eats the strawberries you're growing, what is the libertarian response?
Under NAG, the proper response would be to arrest, try, convict, and imprison the squirrel.
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant understanding you have of the Non Agression Principle.
I thought I was discussing libertarianism with someone who had a kindergarten level understanding of it. I guess I way overestimated you.
And another wingnut that I've reduced to slinging insults
You're so dumb it takes you 2 hours to watch 60 minutes
That's actually true: they don't have rights. The ability to reason is your own invention. I never said that.
Reason and free will I would consider the same thing for purposses of this argument. Unless you can explain some woth while difference. So for the record babies and the mentally handicapped don't have rights according to you?
Actually according to common law, not me. Reason and free will are different.
What rights do babies possess, btw?
Are you so defeated now that you need to change the topic? Start a new one if you want. Drugs have been done to death. So to speak.
Reason and free will I would consider the same thing for purposses of this argument. Unless you can explain some woth while difference. So for the record babies and the mentally handicapped don't have rights according to you?
Actually according to common law, not me. Reason and free will are different.
What rights do babies possess, btw?
The right to life for starters.
No.Actually according to common law, not me. Reason and free will are different.
What rights do babies possess, btw?
The right to life for starters.
Nope. Not at all.
Didn't Obama oppose a bill that would have outlawed saving the child if it lived through an abortion?
No.The right to life for starters.
Nope. Not at all.
Didn't Obama oppose a bill that would have outlawed saving the child if it lived through an abortion?
You are either lying or ignorant.Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute
Actually, that would be you. And I do believe you are both lying and ignorant.No.Nope. Not at all.
Didn't Obama oppose a bill that would have outlawed saving the child if it lived through an abortion?
Yup
You are either lying or ignorant.Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute
Actually, that would be you. And I do believe you are both lying and ignorant.
Yup
You are either lying or ignorant.Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute
Keep up the good work quoting from WorldNutDaily.
