Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

[Ralph]

Because Americans don't understand science.

Exactly: DNA proves that life exists within the womb.....LEGALLY. How else can DNA establish pre-birth parenthood in order to demand CHILD SUPPORT? Some people just don't understand SCIENCE and how its actually applied to reality.

Another question? If life does not exist before birth within the same species. Why does the endangered species act of the same year as Roe. v. Wade make it a crime to destroy UNBORN life of certain species? Its a shame that science does not apply to human life the way its applied to animal life. Example: Its a federal crime to destroy the eggs (the unborn) in certain species of birds......one can face fine and or imprisonment under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 16 U.S.C 73. Just what type of common sense declares in one act that LIFE does indeed exist before birth in the animal kingdom.....but life does not exist in humanity until the magic vagina contracts? ITS MAGIC.

A human life does not apply because a human life is not unique and endangered? Really? Name one other human on earth that has the exact same DNA signature of any unborn human child on earth? One example. An unborn child has its own DNA SIGNATURE.....just like the unborn bird does.

I simply can't wait for this to go to SCOTUS. SCIENCE will defeat the emotion of hate every time.

[StoneByStone]

Exactly: DNA proves that life exists within the womb.....LEGALLY. How else can DNA establish pre-birth parenthood in order to demand CHILD SUPPORT? Some people just don't understand SCIENCE and how its actually applied to reality.

DNA proves that there is material which can eventually become a human life. It's the same thing with sperm. Sperm has human DNA, but would you say sperm should count as human life? If so, every ejaculation is mass murder.

[Ralph]

DNA proves that there is material which can eventually become a human life. It's the same thing with sperm. Sperm has human DNA, but would you say sperm should count as human life? If so, every ejaculation is mass murder.

Why does legislation exist that contradicts your lack of logic and applied science? Ever read the endangered species act of 1973? The same year SCOTUS decided different than legislation in Roe v. Wade? Why is it a crime to kill UNBORN examples within the same species as identified by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 16 U.S. 703? Why is it a crime to kill unborn animal life.....but acceptable to kill unborn human life?

Another question? If that material is not alive.....why the need to KILL IT and stop its growth and development? (if its not alive then its perfectly acceptable to go break a dozen or so bald eagle eggs for breakfast....after all you are the superior lifeform...no?"

If its not human life....simply leave it alone and nothing will happen. Actually DNA exists when the first cell exists. DNA is a signature of human life a Scientific Marker that is totally unique to only one human on earth...that life from which it was drawn from. Even at conception when the egg meets the sperm and connects both parents DNA to form one new DNA totally unique from either parent...50% inclusive of either parent that is a human life in a stage of development. Prove that its not. Just go knock up some slut and see how far you get in court when your DNA is compared to that within her womb....see if you are legally required to pay child support.

One more question? When does a human life stop gestating and is not longer in need of parental protection? Legally.....developmental growth continues until the age of 18. Things that make you go hummmmmmm? Its ok to kill that life in a state of development before it exists the magical vagina, but it illegal to kill that still gestating growing human and the rule of law requires protection and responsible oversight for 18 more years of child development.

[StoneByStone]

Ever read the endangered species act of 1973? The same year SCOTUS decided different than legislation in Roe v. Wade? Why is it a crime to kill UNBORN examples within the same species as identified by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 16 U.S. 703? Why is it a crime to kill unborn animal life.....but acceptable to kill unborn human life?

Isn't that for endangered species?

Another question? If that material is not alive.....why the need to KILL IT and stop its growth and development? If its not human life....simply leave it alone and nothing will happen.

Like I said, it's material that can eventually become human life. It's not alive, doctors don't KILL IT, they just remove the clump of cells before it becomes alive. And the same thing goes for sperm. Do you think sperm is human life too?

[Ralph]

Isn't that for endangered species?



Like I said, it's material that can eventually become human life. It's not alive, doctors don't KILL IT, they just remove the clump of cells before it becomes alive. And the same thing goes for sperm. Do you think sperm is human life too?

And being endangered changes SCIENCE? Really? As you said...….just present your SCIENCE that declares that DNA markers do not define human life to be totally unique to only one human. If that's not endangered enough for you......why kill the only example of that life that will ever exist? And claim you have the right to end that totally unique bloodline?

[StoneByStone]

And being endangered changes SCIENCE? Really?

I didn't say it did. The reason we have those laws is to preserve certain species and the ecosystem. Not because destroying a clump of cells in a panda is murder.

[Ralph]

Not the point. If people can obtain guns illegally, that means they can also get abortions illegally, correct?

Exactly what is your point? If any Law stopped criminals acts form existing...…..there would be no crime of murder with the first act of legislation making that act a crime. Crimes exist because Laws don't have the capacity to establish morality or eliminate anything. Laws simply identify what acts society defines as being unacceptable and immoral. Moral societies enact moral laws.....immoral societies make immoral laws. Criminals exist because FREE WILL exists. If you can rescind the right of self protection from the law abiding....then only the criminals will have guns to slaughter the sheep at will.....just like exampled in the acts of mass murder, always perpetrated upon the defenseless.

[USFREEDOM911]

If banning guns is pointless because people can just get guns on the black market, is banning abortion also pointless?

Nope and the two aren't equal, no matter how hard you try.

[Ralph]

I didn't say it did. The reason we have those laws is to preserve certain species and the ecosystem. Not because destroying a clump of cells in a panda is murder.

Its not? How can certain species SURVIVE if the unborn is not allowed to live? You have no rational argument based the least bit upon logic, reason or science. You keep repeating the same false premise void of disproving or proving anything....yet you declare through Psychological Projection that its others that don't understand science.

I did not ask the reason why those laws existed. I asked why is UNBORN life protected (if its not life....why does it require protecting?) in the animal kingdom and not in humanity? Another thing you failed to address. If a fetus is not alive and growing.....why the need to KILL/ABORT it? If its not alive nothing will come of that non life. Have you ever heard of the Law of the Excluded Middle?

Apparently not. No position holds the logical position of being both true and false at the same instance. On one hand LIFE exists in unborn animal life that requires the protection of the rule of law.....at the same time the court found that LIFE does not exist in humanity until the actual birth cycle takes place. One of these principles is full of shit....and logically negates the other. I choose door number 1.....the endangered species act is actually on the side of applied science.

[USFREEDOM911]

Banning abortion is also unconstitutional.

Where specifically are abortions mentioned in the Constitution??

[domer76]

Banning guns is unconstitutional. Not pointless. Attempted bans fail because there is no consequence.

Gun regulations are not unconstitutional. Even your hero, Scalia, recognized that.

[USFREEDOM911]

Maybe if we started calling them undocumented weapons, liberals would be more concerned of protecting the right to have them.

[USFREEDOM911]

Isn't that for endangered species?



Like I said, it's material that can eventually become human life. It's not alive, doctors don't KILL IT, they just remove the clump of cells before it becomes alive. And the same thing goes for sperm. Do you think sperm is human life too?

Then why do liberals want to protect bird and turtle eggs, seeing as how they're not alive??

[Ralph]

Gun regulations are not unconstitutional. Even your hero, Scalia, recognized that.

Guns......just like all rights can be regulated through common law which does not totally rescind any protected constitutional right. Why? Because the same people who ratified the constitution is also responsible for common sense regulation of those rights. Hell......life and liberty are both regulated through common law. But the only method of regulation is through due process. Anyone can become imprisoned and lose their constitutional right of LIBERTY. Even life is regulated through due process as some crimes against humanity carry the death penalty.

You can regulate gun ownership....but you can't totally rescind a constitutional right void of a Constitutional Amendment. You can regulate the right to vote. You can regulate the right to speak, to assemble...etc., But you can't rescind any of those rights void of amending the Constitution. Its like the DEMOCRAT history of SLAVE OWNERSHIP being legal....it only became illegal when the constitutional was actually amended...why? Before the constitution was amended, slavery existed because the people wanted it to exist...when society evolved, the constitution evolved to reflect that evolution of morality. It took an attitude adjustment among the democrat slave holding states like getting head behind the head with a 2x4....(the civil war)….but society eventually evolved. Truth does not evolve but societies do.

[StoneByStone]

Exactly what is your point? If any Law stopped criminals acts form existing...…..there would be no crime of murder with the first act of legislation making that act a crime. Crimes exist because Laws don't have the capacity to establish morality or eliminate anything. Laws simply identify what acts society defines as being unacceptable and immoral. Moral societies enact moral laws.....immoral societies make immoral laws. Criminals exist because FREE WILL exists. If you can rescind the right of self protection from the law abiding....then only the criminals will have guns to slaughter the sheep at will.....just like exampled in the acts of mass murder, always perpetrated upon the defenseless.

So then if we make abortion illegal, it will still happen, correct?