Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

[Ghost of a Rider]

A hiring policy is not a doctrine. You're just being facetious anyway.

I'm hardly being facetious...

First, you eliminate anyone who already had healthy sex lives with your idiotic celibacy program.
Second, you create a system where they are all required to cover for each other.

Sorry, but you have displayed far too much biased contempt against Catholics and the church to take you seriously on the matter at this point. I'm aware there was pedophilia and that there was covering up and I agree that both of these things were wrong. But you have shown that you have a penchant for exaggeration, assumptive leaps and confusing correlation with causation.

How many years I went back is irrelevant.

It's completely relevent. The problem is you want to make the perfect the enemy of the Good.

The problem is you made two assertions that were false. I corrected you and there's nothing more to it than that.

I'd rather have one mass shooting a decade than one mass shooting a week.

Me too. Surprise, surprise.

And Cruz purchased his own weapons legally.

Exactly my point. He was batshit crazy and STILL able to buy a gun, because he lived in a Gun Nut state.

This was due to a failure of the system, not the existence of semiautomatic rifles.

Thing is, in the cases of both gun deaths and automobile deaths, both the gun and the automobile are just objects or tools. The one factor that contributes to deaths in both cases is behavior and intent.

Actually, not all the clergy are perverts. I know this, they know this and you know this.

You're oversimplifying again because you're too lazy to see the bigger picture.

I grew up Catholic. We really did know all the Clergy were perverts.

No you didn't. You assumed all the clergy were perverts because some were.

I would go a step further. Pre-1970 or so, when Little Timmy started singing show tunes or otherwise showed signs of being gay or some other "alternative lifestyle", they shipped his ass off to a seminary. So you essentially had an adult gay man whose sexual development stopped at 14 or so. Then you unleash him as an adult on a community, because he didn't find himself.

I've heard this theory before and I've no doubt there's some truth to it. But there is no way you can prove or reasonably claim that this was the case with all Catholic clergy. Some of these guys are genuine in their desire to serve God and the church. We probably both agree that the whole idea is silly but it is narrow minded hubris to assume that all of them are perverts or running from homosexual tendencies.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, but you have displayed far too much biased contempt against Catholics and the church to take you seriously on the matter at this point. I'm aware there was pedophilia and that there was covering up and I agree that both of these things were wrong. But you have shown that you have a penchant for exaggeration, assumptive leaps and confusing correlation with causation.

Um, yeah, no need to "exaggerate"... I lived it for 12 years... couldn't run away screaming fast enough.

It's a perverted church run by pedos... what else are we supposed to have for it?

This was due to a failure of the system, not the existence of semiautomatic rifles.

Thing is, in the cases of both gun deaths and automobile deaths, both the gun and the automobile are just objects or tools. The one factor that contributes to deaths in both cases is behavior and intent.

I agree. The INTENT of the gun designer was to design something that can kill a lot of people. That's what they are designed to do.

And then they decided to sell and market them to Cruz and Mama Lanza and Joker Holmes and a whole list of other nuts.

Lawn Darts got pulled after one or two fatalities... Remington considers a mass shooting "Good Marketing".

I've heard this theory before and I've no doubt there's some truth to it. But there is no way you can prove or reasonably claim that this was the case with all Catholic clergy. Some of these guys are genuine in their desire to serve God and the church. We probably both agree that the whole idea is silly but it is narrow minded hubris to assume that all of them are perverts or running from homosexual tendencies.

Funny, after it became cool to be gay, membership in the Holy Orders did this...

Note the start date.. 1965. The Stonewell Riots (considered the begining of the gay liberation movement) were in 1969.

People started dealing with their sexuality rather than trying to pray it away.

We were all better off for it.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Sorry, but you have displayed far too much biased contempt against Catholics and the church to take you seriously on the matter at this point. I'm aware there was pedophilia and that there was covering up and I agree that both of these things were wrong. But you have shown that you have a penchant for exaggeration, assumptive leaps and confusing correlation with causation.

Um, yeah, no need to "exaggerate"... I lived it for 12 years... couldn't run away screaming fast enough.

You exaggerate, make assumptive leaps and confuse correlation to causation in every discussion we've had. That's why I never take you seriously.

It's a perverted church run by pedos... what else are we supposed to have for it?

In other words, you hate Catholics.

This was due to a failure of the system, not the existence of semiautomatic rifles.

Thing is, in the cases of both gun deaths and automobile deaths, both the gun and the automobile are just objects or tools. The one factor that contributes to deaths in both cases is behavior and intent.

I agree. The INTENT of the gun designer was to design something that can kill a lot of people. That's what they are designed to do.

I said: "The one factor that contributes to deaths is behavior and intent." Meaning, intent to kill. What the gun designer and manufacturer intended is irrelevant, they're not the ones committing the act.

I've heard this theory before and I've no doubt there's some truth to it. But there is no way you can prove or reasonably claim that this was the case with all Catholic clergy. Some of these guys are genuine in their desire to serve God and the church. We probably both agree that the whole idea is silly but it is narrow minded hubris to assume that all of them are perverts or running from homosexual tendencies.

Funny, after it became cool to be gay, membership in the Holy Orders did this...

View attachment 296967

Note the start date.. 1965. The Stonewell Riots (considered the begining of the gay liberation movement) were in 1969.

People started dealing with their sexuality rather than trying to pray it away.

We were all better off for it.

And? What does that have to do with priests who join the clergy for genuine reasons of faith and never molest anyone? I'm not sure what your point is here.

Finally: Did Phillips approach Sandmann?

 

[JoeB131]

You exaggerate, make assumptive leaps and confuse correlation to causation in every discussion we've had. That's why I never take you seriously.

Yeah, you take me so not seriously you've been following me around on this thread for a month. I enjoy living in your head rent free.

I said: "The one factor that contributes to deaths is behavior and intent." Meaning, intent to kill. What the gun designer and manufacturer intended is irrelevant, they're not the ones committing the act.

Intent is meaningless without means. The problem with gun proliferation is that it turns moments of anger into moments of tragedy...

And? What does that have to do with priests who join the clergy for genuine reasons of faith and never molest anyone? I'm not sure what your point is here.

It kind of has everything to do with it. The point is, men of faith who had normal relations with women weren't encouraged to join the priesthood. Nope. Not the Catholic Way. Their job was to go out and make babies. And don't you dare think about wearing a rubber or getting your old lady an abortion!!!!

Nope, the priesthood was reserved for those who weren't into chicks... So you got pedophiles and frustrated homosexuals who all covered for each other.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You exaggerate, make assumptive leaps and confuse correlation to causation in every discussion we've had. That's why I never take you seriously.

Yeah, you take me so not seriously you've been following me around on this thread for a month. I enjoy living in your head rent free.

There you go again, pretending you're not doing the exact same thing I am.

I said: "The one factor that contributes to deaths is behavior and intent." Meaning, intent to kill. What the gun designer and manufacturer intended is irrelevant, they're not the ones committing the act.

Intent is meaningless without means.

Tell that to the families of the 86 people killed in Nice. Tell that to the families of the victims of Oklahoma City. Tell that to the family of Lesandro Guzman-Feliz, the 15 year old boy who was murdered with machetes in New York. Go ahead, I dare you. See if one of them doesn't knock you on your ass.

The problem with gun proliferation is that it turns moments of anger into moments of tragedy...

The gun doesn't turn a goddamn thing. It's an inanimate object.

And? What does that have to do with priests who join the clergy for genuine reasons of faith and never molest anyone? I'm not sure what your point is here.

It kind of has everything to do with it. The point is, men of faith who had normal relations with women weren't encouraged to join the priesthood. Nope. Not the Catholic Way. Their job was to go out and make babies. And don't you dare think about wearing a rubber or getting your old lady an abortion!!!!

Nope, the priesthood was reserved for those who weren't into chicks... So you got pedophiles and frustrated homosexuals who all covered for each other.

This is why I can't take you seriously. You don't cite any examples or sources or numbers or anything. When I see somebody say things like "Little Catholic Bastard" in a context that has no bearing on the Catholic person's religion, the impression I get is not of someone with warm feelings or indifference towards the church. So these comments are just more of the same petty vitriol you've been spewing the whole time.

You've had an opportunity for well over a month now to prove your case or at least validate your position and you fucking blew it. All I keep getting is scornful adolescent rhetoric and hate, hate and more hate.

Finally, did Phillips approach Sandmann?

 

[JoeB131]

Tell that to the families of the 86 people killed in Nice. Tell that to the families of the victims of Oklahoma City. Tell that to the family of Lesandro Guzman-Feliz, the 15 year old boy who was murdered with machetes in New York. Go ahead, I dare you. See if one of them doesn't knock you on your ass.

Nothing to do with my point, but never mind.

This is why I can't take you seriously. You don't cite any examples or sources or numbers or anything. When I see somebody say things like "Little Catholic Bastard" in a context that has no bearing on the Catholic person's religion, the impression I get is not of someone with warm feelings or indifference towards the church. So these comments are just more of the same petty vitriol you've been spewing the whole time.

They were out there in a Church Sponsored event protesting a woman's right to choose. The LCB's actions had everything to do with their fucked up religion.

Now, if they were our there protesting pedophile priests, I'd be more impressed.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Tell that to the families of the 86 people killed in Nice. Tell that to the families of the victims of Oklahoma City. Tell that to the family of Lesandro Guzman-Feliz, the 15 year old boy who was murdered with machetes in New York. Go ahead, I dare you. See if one of them doesn't knock you on your ass.

Nothing to do with my point, but never mind.

It is precisely your point. Your point is that if a killer does not have the means then he can't carry out his intent. This much is true (although one's bare hands can and have been used times beyond count to kill). The problem here is that you see the means as the devil when the real devil is the intent.

After all this time it continues to escape you that the two worst mass killings in history were committed by 1) a fucking truck and 2) in a country that has "common sense" gun laws. Actually, both of these countries have more restrictive gun laws than the U.S. and in both cases they still managed to outkill "retards" with AR-15s.

This is why I can't take you seriously. You don't cite any examples or sources or numbers or anything. When I see somebody say things like "Little Catholic Bastard" in a context that has no bearing on the Catholic person's religion, the impression I get is not of someone with warm feelings or indifference towards the church. So these comments are just more of the same petty vitriol you've been spewing the whole time.

They were out there in a Church Sponsored event protesting a woman's right to choose. The LCB's actions had everything to do with their fucked up religion.

No, they didn't. His actions were in response to some stranger getting in his face for no reason. Neither his religion nor Phillips' ethnicity had anything to do with that event.

The group's actions that day were in response to the slings and arrows being thrown at them by the Black Israelites. They obtained permission from their chaperone to do the school cheer to drown out the BAs and began doing so. The commotion caught Phillips' attention and he zeroed in on the MAGA hat. Nevermind the fact that the BAs had been heckling his own group and everyone else all afternoon; the white kid in the MAGA hat was the real culprit.

Again, this is why I can't take you seriously. Your bitterness and anger at the church are a poison that infects your objectivity. Hell, you are not even capable of answering a simple question and acknowledging that Phillips approached Sandmann. You refuse to answer because it's the one question you are not able to respond to by somehow making it about Catholics, Sandmann's supposed entitlement and privilege or Phillips' ethnicity without looking like an idiot. Which you've already done numerous times.

Now, if they were our there protesting pedophile priests, I'd be more impressed.

What would impress you as to the reason for their being in D.C. is irrelevant. It had nothing to do with why Phillips approached them. They could have been there on a tour of the museums and Phillips still would have approached them because of the MAGA hat.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

They were out there in a Church Sponsored event protesting a woman's right to choose. The LCB's actions had everything to do with their f•••ed up religion.

Let's be clear what you are talking about here, when you say ”a woman's right to choose.” Those who use that absurd euphemism are always too cowardly and too deceitful to honestly say what they really mean.

You're talking about murdering innocent children in cold blood; and asserting a right to do exactly that. And not only do you assert this as a right, but you condemn anyone who dares to disagree, who would stand up for the right of these innocents not to be slaughtered. To you, it's not the murderer who is to be condemned, but those who dare to speak out against murder.

This is what pure evil looks like.

So, of course, it makes sense, that with regard to other sorts of murder, you refuse to hold the perpetrator responsible, instead blaming the tool used to commit that murder, and by extension, anyone who wants to possess a similar tool strictly for legitimate reasons.

 

[JoeB131]

It is precisely your point. Your point is that if a killer does not have the means then he can't carry out his intent. This much is true (although one's bare hands can and have been used times beyond count to kill). The problem here is that you see the means as the devil when the real devil is the intent.

After all this time it continues to escape you that the two worst mass killings in history were committed by 1) a fucking truck and 2) in a country that has "common sense" gun laws. Actually, both of these countries have more restrictive gun laws than the U.S. and in both cases they still managed to outkill "retards" with AR-15s.

Again, the fact is, a retard couldn't pull off a mass killing with a truck. The Paris attack was pulled off by an organized terror group. McVeigh was a highly trained military man.

Easy access to guns means any loser can do a mass shooting, and that's the problem.

No, they didn't. His actions were in response to some stranger getting in his face for no reason.

YOu mean it was okay that he was a rude, smirking little punk... Yes, how dare this uppity person of color get into his face.

 

[JoeB131]

Let's be clear what you are talking about here, when you say ”a woman's right to choose.” Those who use that absurd euphemism are always too cowardly and too deceitful to honestly say what they really mean.

You're talking about murdering innocent children in cold blood; and asserting a right to do exactly that. And not only do you assert this as a right, but you condemn anyone who dares to disagree, who would stand up for the right of these innocents not to be slaughtered. To you, it's not the murderer who is to be condemned, but those who dare to speak out against murder.

Fetuses aren't children. And one more time, I would be a LOT more impressed with you guys if you stopped trying to yank food out of the mouths of hungry children to give tax breaks to billionaires.. then I'd be impressed with your concern for "the children".

Anti-choice has always been about the misogyny. How dare those women control their own bodies?

So, of course, it makes sense, that with regard to other sorts of murder, you refuse to hold the perpetrator responsible, instead blaming the tool used to commit that murder, and by extension, anyone who wants to possess a similar tool strictly for legitimate reasons.

The thing is, if you aren't a solider, you don't have a "legitimate reason" to own an assault rifle. I'm all for holding people responsible. But giving crazy people the tools to do mass murder... that's just nuts.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It is precisely your point. Your point is that if a killer does not have the means then he can't carry out his intent. This much is true (although one's bare hands can and have been used times beyond count to kill). The problem here is that you see the means as the devil when the real devil is the intent.

After all this time it continues to escape you that the two worst mass killings in history were committed by 1) a fucking truck and 2) in a country that has "common sense" gun laws. Actually, both of these countries have more restrictive gun laws than the U.S. and in both cases they still managed to outkill "retards" with AR-15s.

Again, the fact is, a retard couldn't pull off a mass killing with a truck.

Just how difficult do you think it is to drive a truck? Besides, Lanza was, by all accounts, very intelligent. I don't know about Cruz but I will say that the mental and emotional problems they both suffered from do not affect intelligence in any way. They were not retarded, stupid, slow or dim witted, they just had trouble dealing with their emotions and interacting with other people.

The Paris attack was pulled off by an organized terror group.

I didn't say anything about the Paris attacks.

McVeigh was a highly trained military man.

Whatever his training, McVeigh didn't learn bomb making in the Army. He was taught by his friend Terry Nichols and Nichols' brother.

Easy access to guns means any loser can do a mass shooting, and that's the problem.

Any person can get behind the wheel and kill others by driving while impaired or distracted. It happens every day.

No, they didn't. His actions were in response to some stranger getting in his face for no reason.

YOu mean it was okay that he was a rude, smirking little punk... Yes, how dare this uppity person of color get into his face.

Phillips still approached him for no reason, person of color or not. A fact you continue to avoid and refuse to acknowledge.

 

[JoeB131]

Just how difficult do you think it is to drive a truck? Besides, Lanza was, by all accounts, very intelligent.

He was an autistic retard....

Whatever his training, McVeigh didn't learn bomb making in the Army. He was taught by his friend Terry Nichols and Nichols' brother.

Who learned those skills in the Army. Also, McVeigh was 11B, and went to Special Forces Training.

Sandman was still an entitled smirking punk.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Just how difficult do you think it is to drive a truck? Besides, Lanza was, by all accounts, very intelligent.

He was an autistic retard....

Sources and links.

Whatever his training, McVeigh didn't learn bomb making in the Army. He was taught by his friend Terry Nichols and Nichols' brother.

Who learned those skills in the Army.

No, he did not learn it in the Army. From a CNN article - Terry Nichols Fast Facts - CNN:

"Nichols learned how to mix fuel and fertilizer to make bombs while growing up on a farm. His father, a farmer, used such bombs to blow up tree stumps."

Also, McVeigh was 11B, and went to Special Forces Training.

Irrelevant. He learned bomb making from Nichols and Nichols learned it from working on the family farm.

It might interest you to know that both McVeigh and Nichols had an interest in guns and survivalism. In other words, going by your criteria, they were waiting for the Zombie Apocalypse. I suppose they learned this in the Army too.

Sandman was still an entitled smirking punk.

Who only smirked when Phillips approached and got in his face. If Phillips had not been triggered by the MAGA hat and not approached the Covington kids, there never would have been a "smirking punk" for snowflakes to revile and threaten with violence (which also, by the way, is a rather non-adult behavior). The whole thing would not have happened and would have been a non-event.

Some things you need to remember here:

1) Both Phillips and the Black Israelites were the adults in this situation so they both should have behaved like adults. Meaning, the BAs should not have been insulting and heckling people and Phillips should have minded his own business and not inserted himself into a situation that didn't involve him.

2) Both Phillips and the BAs allowed themselves - in a decidedly un-adult manner - to be triggered by the MAGA hats. The hats were the only pertinent and causal factor in the entire incident and is the only reason the story went viral in the first place. Not Sandmann's religion; not the BAs' race and not Phillips' ethnicity.

2) The BAs disrespected Phillips and his entire group long before Sandmann entered the picture. And, they didn't know Phillips was a veteran either.

3) The BAs heckled Phillips and his group because of...wait for it....their ethnicity.

4) Phillips contradicted himself in interviews as to why he approached the Covington group.

All the adults in this story, from Phillips to the BAs to the celebrities to all the SJWs across the country, behaved terribly and did and said things they should not have. Phillips stuck his nose in a situation he had no business getting involved in; the BAs heckled and insulted people all afternoon and all the SJWs and celebrities insulted the group and threatened or suggested violence to the point where the school had to shut down for a time.

All these adults saw the MAGA hat and had grand mal seizures and behaved like children by issuing threats and insults because an actual child - who never uttered a single fucking word during the incident - had the temerity to smile in response to an unprovoked intrusion.

 

[JoeB131]

It might interest you to know that both McVeigh and Nichols had an interest in guns and survivalism. In other words, going by your criteria, they were waiting for the Zombie Apocalypse. I suppose they learned this in the Army too.

Oh, these guys were nuts. They were HIGHLY TRAINED NUTS, that was the problem. The Army should have given them bad conduct discharges before they learned anything.

Who only smirked when Phillips approached and got in his face. If Phillips had not been triggered by the MAGA hat and not approached the Covington kids, there never would have been a "smirking punk" for snowflakes to revile and threaten with violence (which also, by the way, is a rather non-adult behavior). The whole thing would not have happened and would have been a non-event.

Oh, poor little white entitled baby... how dare this person of color get into his face when he was a fucking bigot.

This kind of explains the whole MAGA movement, a bunch of stupid white bigots who just find their whole behavior isn't acceptable. Kind of their last desperate cry for attention.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It might interest you to know that both McVeigh and Nichols had an interest in guns and survivalism. In other words, going by your criteria, they were waiting for the Zombie Apocalypse. I suppose they learned this in the Army too.

Oh, these guys were nuts. They were HIGHLY TRAINED NUTS, that was the problem. The Army should have given them bad conduct discharges before they learned anything.

Bad conduct discharges for what? And before they learned what?

Who only smirked when Phillips approached and got in his face. If Phillips had not been triggered by the MAGA hat and not approached the Covington kids, there never would have been a "smirking punk" for snowflakes to revile and threaten with violence (which also, by the way, is a rather non-adult behavior). The whole thing would not have happened and would have been a non-event.

Oh, poor little white entitled baby... how dare this person of color get into his face when he was a fucking bigot.

Oh poor little snowflake baby. How dare this white kid force me to leave my designated protest area by exercising his rights to have an opinion and support a politician that I hate while waiting for a bus to go home. Doesn't he know that liberals have granted minorities like myself the right to not be responsible for our actions?
Doesn't he know that SJWs are physically and mentally incapable of not allowing themselves to be triggered and threatening and committing violence even against children and minors?
Doesn't he know that even when the truth comes out that I got in his face and not the other way around that brainless assholes will hate him anyway just for being Catholic?

The nerve of some white kids, huh?

This kind of explains the whole MAGA movement, a bunch of stupid white bigots who just find their whole behavior isn't acceptable. Kind of their last desperate cry for attention.

The Black Israelites were heckling and taunting people all afternoon and Phillips left his group to beat his drum in someone's face while Sandmann simply stood there wearing a hat and not saying a fucking thing. Tell me again who was looking for attention.

 

[JoeB131]

Bad conduct discharges for what? And before they learned what?

For being racists.... and before they learned how to kill people.

The Black Israelites were heckling and taunting people all afternoon and Phillips left his group to beat his drum in someone's face while Sandmann simply stood there wearing a hat and not saying a fucking thing. Tell me again who was looking for attention.

Again, shouldn't have been out there at all, considering he was protesting a woman's right to choose.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Again, shouldn't have been out there at all, considering he was protesting a woman's right to choose.

So, people should only be allowed to go out and protest for causes that you agree with?

And once again, I'll point out here that in this case, you objection seems to be that he was protesting against the murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, which only underscores how evil and soulless you are, to find that objectionable. You surely would have approved if he was there to protest in support of this savage slaughter of innocents.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Bad conduct discharges for what? And before they learned what?

For being racists.... and before they learned how to kill people.

Perhaps. But that probably would have only increased his hatred of the government and he still probably would have blown up a federal building.

The Black Israelites were heckling and taunting people all afternoon and Phillips left his group to beat his drum in someone's face while Sandmann simply stood there wearing a hat and not saying a fucking thing. Tell me again who was looking for attention.

Again, shouldn't have been out there at all, considering he was protesting a woman's right to choose.

Well that's just tough shit, isn't it? If a woman has the right to kill a child then any other person has the right to disagree with it and say so.

Don't you just hate it when they apply rights and liberties to all Americans, including the ones you hate? This must be maddening for you.

 

[JoeB131]

So, people should only be allowed to go out and protest for causes that you agree with?

Works for me. Here's a better idea....If you don't have a uterus, don't tell other people what to do with theirs.

And once again, I'll point out here that in this case, you objection seems to be that he was protesting against the murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, which only underscores how evil and soulless you are, to find that objectionable. You surely would have approved if he was there to protest in support of this savage slaughter of innocents.

Again, Fetuses aren't people, and I don't get worked up about how medical waste is disposed of. I'm tired of religious nuts trying to impose themselves on the rest of us.

I'm sorry that you are such a dupe that you let that get you so upset that you let the rich destroy the middle class.

Well that's just tough shit, isn't it? If a woman has the right to kill a child then any other person has the right to disagree with it and say so.

Naw, I think what we need to so is develop a method to take unwanted fetuses and transplant them into self-righteous religious assholes like Sandmann and Mormon Bob... then they won't be so keen on the rights of fetuses.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

So, people should only be allowed to go out and protest for causes that you agree with?

Works for me. Here's a better idea....If you don't have a uterus, don't tell other people what to do with theirs.

And once again, I'll point out here that in this case, you objection seems to be that he was protesting against the murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, which only underscores how evil and soulless you are, to find that objectionable. You surely would have approved if he was there to protest in support of this savage slaughter of innocents.

Again, Fetuses aren't people, and I don't get worked up about how medical waste is disposed of. I'm tired of religious nuts trying to impose themselves on the rest of us.

I'm sorry that you are such a dupe that you let that get you so upset that you let the rich destroy the middle class.

Well that's just tough shit, isn't it? If a woman has the right to kill a child then any other person has the right to disagree with it and say so.

Naw, I think what we need to so is develop a method to take unwanted fetuses and transplant them into self-righteous religious assholes like Sandmann and Mormon Bob... then they won't be so keen on the rights of fetuses.

Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with Sandmann's right to disagree with abortionists.

You're not very good at this deflection thing, are you?

You might be interested to know that, according to a recent poll by Gallup for 2019, pro-life women outnumber pro-life men by a margin of 5%. Even if they don't outnumber men in years before or after that, the margin is so small as to not make any difference. So the least we can say is that roughly half of all pro-life advocates are women. Which means just as many people of the child-bearing gender are telling others of the child-bearing gender what to do with their bodies.

It never occurs to you clowns talking about men telling women what to do with their bodies that there are just as many women saying the same goddamned thing.