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

[Nuthin' Fancy]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

It's a fetus…

A human being.

…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]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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?

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

 

[JoeB131]

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.

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.

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...

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[JoeB131]

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.

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".

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.

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]

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.