The left: “we MUST protect children”. The left: “we have a right to kill children”

[P@triot]

Are you trying to claim that the Constitution in no way protects your right to privacy?

What does “the right to privacy” have to do with committing cold-blooded murder? Did you support Ted Bundy’s “right” to rape and murder as long as he did it on his own private property?

You're doing what is called 'begging the question'.

You’re doing what’s called “desperately throwing shit at the wall and praying something sticks”. No where does the U.S. Constitution make abortion a right.

Your rights end where someone else’s rights begin. And that baby’s right to life trumps that woman’s “right” to end lives.

 

[Moonglow]

The left is never consistent in their views. Never.

“When you see the effect of this extreme violence on a human body and especially the body of a child, maybe it will shock some people into understanding,” Harris told MSNBC while calling for gun control. “We cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with any level of pride when our babies are being slaughtered.”

Uh....Kamala? You people have been barbarically slaughtering hundreds of millions of babies for decades. Even selling their dismembered body parts. And you celebrate it. Literally celebrate it. The left proudly started a #ShoutYourAbortion twitter campaign and celebrated each and every one.

Pro-Abortion, Pro-Gun Control Senator Has Double Standard on ‘Slaughtered’ Babies

Explain what the "left" is so people might understand your blathering rant...

 

[basquebromance]

insisting on children's angelic nature, one moves them from a protected to an elevated category: it shifts the the emphasis from the availability of guns to the moral purity of those they might be used to kill.

"It isn't any more terrible when anyone else other than children dies a gun death" - Dees Thomases

 

[P@triot]

Okay, so we don't need a Supreme Court to determine constitutionality? So what happens, with no SCOTUS, if a state passes a law banning private ownership of handguns?

You misunderstand (as usual). We do need a Supreme Court. It is supposed to serve as another fail-safe against tyranny. Their job is not to interpret the U.S. Constitution itself (ie what the 2nd Amendment “means”). Their job is to review laws (like the example you gave) and decide whether those laws are within the confines of the constitution.

This is not rocket science. Why does the left struggle with this so much?

 

[jknowgood]

The right only cares about from conception to the delivery.... after the baby is born they say GO FUCK YOURSELF..

Well...the right always has defended the weakest among society. So yeah, we do defend the baby the most vigorously.

Meanwhile...the left only cares about children when they can kill them or when they can exploit those that have been killed.

Prove it. Go ahead, prove who cares about children more. Republicans or Democrats. Go ahead, prove it. I dare you.

Well?

Well?

Thought so.

Well we don't try to turn them queer, or teach them they can change their gender.

 

[P@triot]

If you don't have a final authority on what is constitutional or not, then nothing is unconstitutional.

We already have a “final authority” on what is constitutional or not. It’s called the U.S. Constitution. It was passed into law by the people and it clearly defines what is and what is not constitutional.

Okay, where in the Constitution does it say that laws against publishing child pornography are constitutional?

Let me ask you - can adult disseminate pornographic material of other adults? Of course they can. So why is child pornography outlawed? Because a child cannot consent. And your rights end where someone else’s begin. A child has a right to privacy until they are of age to consent to not having that privacy.

 

[P@triot]

If you don't have a final authority on what is constitutional or not, then nothing is unconstitutional.

We already have a “final authority” on what is constitutional or not. It’s called the U.S. Constitution. It was passed into law by the people and it clearly defines what is and what is not constitutional.

You win dumbest post of the day.

Leave it to a left-wing fascist to proclaim that a constitutional fact is “the dumbest post of the day”.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, so we don't need a Supreme Court to determine constitutionality? So what happens, with no SCOTUS, if a state passes a law banning private ownership of handguns?

You misunderstand (as usual). We do need a Supreme Court. It is supposed to serve as another fail-safe against tyranny. Their job is not to interpret the U.S. Constitution itself (ie what the 2nd Amendment “means”). Their job is to review laws (like the example you gave) and decide whether those laws are within the confines of the constitution.

This is not rocket science. Why does the left struggle with this so much?

How can the Supreme Court decide if a law is constitutional or not if they don't interpret the meaning of the text of the Constitution?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Okay, so we don't need a Supreme Court to determine constitutionality? So what happens, with no SCOTUS, if a state passes a law banning private ownership of handguns?

You misunderstand (as usual). We do need a Supreme Court. It is supposed to serve as another fail-safe against tyranny. Their job is not to interpret the U.S. Constitution itself (ie what the 2nd Amendment “means”). Their job is to review laws (like the example you gave) and decide whether those laws are within the confines of the constitution.

This is not rocket science. Why does the left struggle with this so much?

How can the Supreme Court decide if a law is constitutional or not if they don't interpret the meaning of the text of the Constitution?

No more necessary than Dick, Jane and Sally, save for those who cannot read.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, so we don't need a Supreme Court to determine constitutionality? So what happens, with no SCOTUS, if a state passes a law banning private ownership of handguns?

You misunderstand (as usual). We do need a Supreme Court. It is supposed to serve as another fail-safe against tyranny. Their job is not to interpret the U.S. Constitution itself (ie what the 2nd Amendment “means”). Their job is to review laws (like the example you gave) and decide whether those laws are within the confines of the constitution.

This is not rocket science. Why does the left struggle with this so much?

How can the Supreme Court decide if a law is constitutional or not if they don't interpret the meaning of the text of the Constitution?

No more necessary than Dick, Jane and Sally, save for those who cannot read.

Where in the Constitution does it say that freedom of the press does not apply to the publication of child pornography?

Show me that, with NO 'interpretation' on your part.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you don't have a final authority on what is constitutional or not, then nothing is unconstitutional.

We already have a “final authority” on what is constitutional or not. It’s called the U.S. Constitution. It was passed into law by the people and it clearly defines what is and what is not constitutional.

You win dumbest post of the day.

Leave it to a left-wing fascist to proclaim that a constitutional fact is “the dumbest post of the day”.

Where in the Constitution does it say that polygamy as a religious tenet is not protected by freedom of religion?

 

[P@triot]

How can the Supreme Court decide if a law is constitutional or not if they don't interpret the meaning of the text of the Constitution?

How can I answer your question if I don’t “interpret” the meaning of what you posted? So here is my “interpretation” of what you posted:

“My name is NY Crabby Queer. I openly admit to being a parasite. I want to mooch off of society and I can’t do that if I accept the U.S. Constitution as it is written”.

Now - because I’m not a left-wing tool - I don’t do that. I simply read what you post and accept it exactly as it is written without agenda or “interpretation”. And so I will give an actual answer to your very stupid question rather than a snarky left-wing “answer”: all the Supreme Court has to do is read the U.S. Constitution and accept exactly what is written. It is crystal clear and passed into law. Despite your most twisted desires otherwise, nobody is entitled to come along and decide that it means something else.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How can the Supreme Court decide if a law is constitutional or not if they don't interpret the meaning of the text of the Constitution?

How can I answer your question if I don’t “interpret” the meaning of what you posted? So here is my “interpretation” of what you posted:

“My name is NY Crabby Queer. I openly admit to being a parasite. I want to mooch off of society and I can’t do that if I accept the U.S. Constitution as it is written”.

Now - because I’m not a left-wing tool - I don’t do that. I simply read what you post and accept it exactly as it is written without agenda or “interpretation”. And so I will give an actual answer to your very stupid question rather than a snarky left-wing “answer”: all the Supreme Court has to do is read the U.S. Constitution and accept exactly what is written. It is crystal clear and passed into law. Despite your most twisted desires otherwise, nobody is entitled to come along and decide that it means something else.

Why can child pornography be outlawed if the Constitution protects freedom of the press?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How can the Supreme Court decide if a law is constitutional or not if they don't interpret the meaning of the text of the Constitution?

How can I answer your question if I don’t “interpret” the meaning of what you posted? So here is my “interpretation” of what you posted:

“My name is NY Crabby Queer. I openly admit to being a parasite. I want to mooch off of society and I can’t do that if I accept the U.S. Constitution as it is written”.

Now - because I’m not a left-wing tool - I don’t do that. I simply read what you post and accept it exactly as it is written without agenda or “interpretation”. And so I will give an actual answer to your very stupid question rather than a snarky left-wing “answer”: all the Supreme Court has to do is read the U.S. Constitution and accept exactly what is written. It is crystal clear and passed into law. Despite your most twisted desires otherwise, nobody is entitled to come along and decide that it means something else.

So what is the meaning of the Ninth Amendment?

 

[P@triot]

Why can child pornography be outlawed if the Constitution protects freedom of the press?

I just answered that in post #106. Are you off of your meds again?

 

[P@triot]

So what is the meaning of the Ninth Amendment?

There you go again. Good grief. So what is the meaning of your question regarding the meaning of the 9th Amendment? I cannot answer that question until you explain to me the meaning of your question. Unless you'd like me to "interpret" it for myself and others?

 

[Norman]

If they love children so much, why are they for:

- Public schools
- Single mothers

The worst enemies of kids #1.

 

[JoeB131]

You’re doing what’s called “desperately throwing shit at the wall and praying something sticks”. No where does the U.S. Constitution make abortion a right.

Your rights end where someone else’s rights begin. And that baby’s right to life trumps that woman’s “right” to end lives.

except fetuses still aren't babies, and as long as they require attachment to the woman to survive, it's her choice. Not yours.

You misunderstand (as usual). We do need a Supreme Court. It is supposed to serve as another fail-safe against tyranny. Their job is not to interpret the U.S. Constitution itself (ie what the 2nd Amendment “means”). Their job is to review laws (like the example you gave) and decide whether those laws are within the confines of the constitution.

This is not rocket science. Why does the left struggle with this so much?

Here's the thing. The "Well Regulated Militia" part was read for 200 years as, "States can determine who can have weapons and what kind of weapons they can have". Until Heller, where they took the crazy NRA position of gun ownership as a "Right".

 

[P@triot]

fetuses aren't children

All of your progressive pals disagree with you, sparky. Well, at least when it is convenient for them to disagree with your dumb ass.

America's abortion laws are one giant case-study in cognitive dissonance. If a pregnant woman is murdered, laws in some of the most liberal states call it double-homicide; however, if the woman were to "terminate" that same child just moments before, it's called empowerment.

When it is convenient for them (like when they want the convenience to be able to kill their own baby so they don’t have to have any responsibilities), then they claim it’s not a baby/life. But when that narrative isn’t so convenient (such as a Lacy Peterson situation), then suddenly the unborn child is a baby/life.

Indiana Gov. Signs Historic Pro-Life Bill: Killing Unborn Babies Is Murder

 

[P@triot]

What about the born? Are they human?

Yep. And when you progressives try to kill them, I’ll do everything I can to try to stop you (in accordance with our laws against murder). See how that works?