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

[Rigby5]

Human life is NOT precious. Sorry to disappoint.

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

 

[Rigby5]

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]

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]

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]

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

Humans have unique souls.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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

Nowhere does the 2nd have an except for clause.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Rigby5]

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.

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]

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

It sure doesn't. Sorry.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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