Why are pro choicers afraid to fight it out state by state?

[BlackSand]

Why won’t you allow that for gun regulation?

.

Because it is a Constitutionally Protected Right defined in the Constitution ... And they even went as far as stating it shall not be infringed.
If you don't like it ... All you need is a supermajority in the House and Senate, and 38 States to agree.

.​

 

[Coyote]

It's hilarious when abortion supporters screech THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

(Firearms now the leading cause of death in children)

 

[daveman]

Why won’t you allow that for gun regulation?

This has been explained to you. Owning firearms is a right specifically protected by the Constitution. Abortion isn't.

 

[Coyote]

.

Because it is a Constitutionally Protected Right defined in the Constitution ... And they even went as far as stating it shall not be infringed.
If you don't like it ... All you need is a supermajority in the House and Senate, and 38 States to agree.

.​

….and beginning with the claus “a well regulated militia….”

It does not specify an individual right (that is a relatively recent interpretation that has been argued extensively).

 

[daveman]

View attachment 662617









(Firearms now the leading cause of death in children)

How many of those deaths were caused by people legally owning firearms?

 

[daveman]

….and beginning with the claus “a well regulated militia….”

It does not specify an individual right (that is a relatively recent interpretation that has been argued extensively).

It's been argued by people who want to disarm other people. Rational people agree it's an individual right.

 

[Dayton3]

Bullshit. There are a lot of things that are rights today that were not written in the constitution. By your interpretation, the Air Force is unconstitutional and women have no rights. Neither are mentioned in the constitution.

Actually the Air Force is merely an extension of the Army.

 

[Dayton3]

Why won’t you allow that for gun regulation?

2nd Amendment.

 

[BlackSand]

….and beginning with the claus “a well regulated militia….”

It does not specify an individual right (that is a relatively recent interpretation that has been argued extensively).

.

So ... Nothing is stopping a state or local government from forming, arming, and regulating a legal well-regulated militia.
It also says the Right of the People to Bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Neither part is hard to understand ... And if you have trouble interpreting it, that's because you want it to mean something it doesn't
However ... It's also not the Topic of the thread, and if you would like me to explain it in any further detail ... Send me a Personal Message.

.​

 

[Rambunctious]

In what way did your response address my question?

It answers it directly... politicians don't want to have to answer for their votes.... so they create blue ribbon commissions instead or they get their judges to do the hard work and take the heat for them....
This ruling by the supreme court removes that as a tactic at at least the highest court in the land....

 

[Coyote]

.

So ... Nothing is stopping a state or local government from forming, arming, and regulating a legal well-regulated militia.
It also says the Right of the People to Bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Neither part is hard to understand ... And if you have trouble interpreting it, that's because you want it to mean something it doesn't
However ... It's also not the Topic of the thread, and if you would like me to explain it in any further detail ... Send me a Personal Message.

.​

We won’t agree on this one, BlackSand.

 

[IM2]

Yep, and Lees surrender at Appomattox Courthouse cemented that fact.

It should have, but the lost cause people seem to believe it didn't.

 

[IM2]

Actually the Air Force is merely an extension of the Army.

Sorry but it's not mentioned in the constitution.

 

[BS Filter]

These leftist loons cry and scream "democracy", but then they tear things up in anger when authentic democracy is applied. Mentally ill and stupid.

 

[BlackSand]

We won’t agree on this one, BlackSand.

.

We don't have to agree, you can continue to have no basis to object.
That accurately reflects the Dissenting Opinion in the Dobbs case, so I would expect the same in any matter.

However ... If you would like to discuss it anymore, and for me to point out exactly where you are wrong ...
Send me a personal message, I will put forth the effort, because I encourage you to ... And try harder to stay on Topic in the thread.

.​

 

[IM2]

These leftist loons cry and scream "democracy", but then they tear things up in anger when authentic democracy is applied. Mentally ill and stupid.

Authentic democracy was applied in the 2020 election. This supreme court as it is constituted was not done by the democratic process. Merrick Garland was denied a seat, and Coney-Barrett was rushed during an election year, which was the excuse used not to hear Garland.

 

[Dayton3]

Sorry but it's not mentioned in the constitution.

Who cares?

 

[BlackSand]

Authentic democracy was applied in the 2020 election. This supreme court as it is constituted was not done by the democratic process. Merrick Garland was denied a seat, and Coney-Barrett was rushed during an election year, which was the excuse used not to hear Garland.

.

Even if the composition of the Supreme Court changes, it still won't grant the Supreme Court the Power to Legislate from the bench.
Eventually any attempts to do so will be overturned ... Even if it takes 50 Years.

Tell your elected Representatives what you want at both the State and Federal Level.

If what you want is a defined Constitutional Right to Abortion ...
All you need is a supermajority in the House and Senate, and 38 states to agree.

.​

 

[Slade3200]

Because they said they would if Trump was elected.

And you thought those were serious statements?

 

[Slade3200]

What part of "THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO" is in debate right now?

The fact that you took those statements seriously. Did you think Mexico was going to pay for Trumps wall? He did say they would several times.