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

[Rigby5]

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



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.

View attachment 561547

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.



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".




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.

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]

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]

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]

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..

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]

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.

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...

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]

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]

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?

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]

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..



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.

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]

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.



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




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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.’

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]

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.’

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]

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

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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



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




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.



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".



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.



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.




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

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]

GREAT!

Abortion kills unborn children.
Guns enable suicide and murder.

Human Life is precious.

Human life is NOT precious. Sorry to disappoint.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Human life is NOT precious. Sorry to disappoint.

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