Murder is never a right, even for deranged liberals (leftists).
Canada bans handguns
- Thread starter Into the Night
- Start date
True. But calling abortion murder is similar to calling eating meat murder. It's not the typical understanding of what the word means. If your particular religion forbids abortion or meat-eating, then you should, of course, have every right not to get an abortion and not to eat meat. And you are fully at liberty to try to convince others that killing a fetus or a pig is murder. The problem is when you try to hijack our shared government in order to impose your personal religious taboos by force against those who don't share your faith.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
there are half a dozen federal court cases that specifically declared the 2nd Amendment an individual right that needed no membership in a militia..........why didn't the Supreme Court correct those?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
That's a human baby in development, not a slab of cooked meat on the dinner table. Stupid comparison, but not surprising coming from a diapered lunatic such as yourself.
Abortion is wrong and the SC knows it. It's why they kicked Roe to the curb. They should've made it illegal across the nation but we'll take what we can get.
Not a lawyer, but I understand the concept of precedent. Do you really want to set the precedent of severely restricting rights on the Second Amendment then be in denial about the impact of precedent it has on all other rights? Do you see how this relates to the meaning of Pastor Martin Niemöller's "first they came for.." poem?
Yes, nutjobs with guns are a problem. Gang-bangers with guns are a problem in Big Blue City shitholes. Domestic violence is a problem. Suicide is a problem.
IIRC, you and I agreed about 2/3s of all "gun violence" victims are suicides and only a fraction over half of all suicides are a single shot, mainly from a pistol.
IMO, it's smarter to work toward saving the 46K+ annual suicides each year than deprive innocent Americans of their rights. If we focus on preventing suicides, how many of these mass murdering/suicides would be stopped?
The citizens voted for Trudeau
What if it's the baby of a crack whore gang-banger? Do you want to help there too?
It's a fetus, as opposed to born animal, which potentially has much more developed capacity for thought than a fetus. But I get that under your particular religion, the unborn fetus has more of a right to life.... just as under someone else's religion, the born pig has more of a right to life. We're fine as long as you follow your rule, she follows hers, and neither of you tries to force the other to follow your rule by way of law.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Mina, something i've tried to understand about women who are pro choice......especially when they make claims like 'bits of unorganized tissue' or counter with the vasectomy argument and body regulations............is it intentional on the part of women to intimate that they are incapable of saying NO to sex, knowing that pregnancy can result despite the precautions taken?????
Yup, because that baby would still be innocent of any crimes. Of course a stunted pervert such as yourself wouldn't be able to make that distinction because you're just a tool.
I am curious how one can keep a gun with an altered magazine if the gun is confiscated?
In the US shotguns are required to be altered when hunting waterfowl so they can only carry 3 shells. I don't see anyone claiming that is confiscation. Only a fool would do so. But then you prove every day that you are that fool.
They haven't intimated anything of the sort.
Perhaps it would make sense to think it through in some other context. Like say you want liposuction because you're not happy with your beer belly.... but some religious cultists in government take the view that God wants you to have a beer belly and so they want to criminalize the procedure. If you insist on your right to control your own body, would it make sense to suggest you were intimating that you were incapable of saying no to junk food?
There are all sorts of things that we could reduce the risk of, by way of different behaviors. Those wrinkles you've got may not have shown up if you'd been better about wearing sunscreen. The tear in you meniscus might not have been an issue if you'd warmed up before exerting yourself the way you knew you should. Your teeth might not be so dingy if you'd avoided coffee and wine. You might not even need glasses if you had spent less time staring at screens and more time out in the sun. But we don't jump from that to saying that, therefore, it's OK for religious zealots in government to deprive you of medical procedures to address those. So, why treat pregnancy differently? Sure, a woman may have only gotten pregnant because she chose to have sex, just as you may only have gotten fat because you chose to eat poorly, but in each case it's your own damn body and you retain the moral right to deal with it as you see fit. Other people's religions shouldn't trump that.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
but you ARE intimating that you can't say no. you claim to want to control your own body but don't want to take responsibility for your own actions that resulted in the unwanted pregnancy
We already restrict rights all over the place. I have the right to peaceably assemble, but not in the Oval Office. I have the right to free speech, but I'm still subject to noise ordinances. There's freedom of the press, but the government can still force me to pay someone else money if I use that freedom to libel someone. My freedom of religion doesn't, for example, give me the right to murder witches, even though the Bible very clearly orders me not to suffer a witch to live. I have a right generally not to be searched without a warrant, but if I want to fly on a commercial airline or visit a secure government building, or all sorts of other daily things, I'm going to have to submit to a search without a warrant.
Press freedom doesn't mean you can broadcast anything you want on any frequency you want. The advent of radio communications created a bunch of issues that were different in key ways from what the founders were thinking of when they spoke about a free press, and so we have FCC regulations limiting what you can do. Similarly, the advent of semi-automatic weapons created a bunch of new issues, and new regulations make sense.
As for the Niemoller, the argument wasn't that if you allow one government regulation, then it's a slippery slow to totalitarianism. In fact, the first people they came for were the communists, who were pushing for more government regulation. Niemoller was talking about attacks on individuals, not regulations about what you can buy.
The liberal cities in liberal states tend to be in pretty good shape, and that's partly due to gun control at the state level. NYC, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, etc., all have lower murder rates. They're not as peaceful as big cities that are in COUNTRIES with tighter gun control (London, Berlin, Tokyo), but they're not bad. Sadly, there are also big cities in red states, where gun regulations are a whole lot looser, and they tend to be shitholes. Memphis, KC, St. Louis, New Orleans, etc., are all plagued by guns.
Gun control can definitely help with that. It's no coincidence that most of the high-suicide states have high gun ownership. Having a gun conveniently at hand means depression has to only be bad enough to drive self harm for an instant, and the person will be dead. In a place where guns aren't conveniently at hand, there's a lot more chance for a person to come to his senses, and a mere moment of despair isn't going to do it.
If we want to focus on suicides, a good start would be figuring out what's going wrong in shitholes like Wyoming, Alaska, and Montana (which lead the nation in suicide rates), and what's going right in happier places like NJ, NY, and MA (the lowest suicide rates). Since I take it you aren't interested in coming at the issue through the obvious method of gun control, what other ways would you work on to make WY, AK, and MT more like NJ, NY, and MA? How do we clean up the shitholes?
But, as you're very aware, I'm not. That's why you haven't been able to point to anything that intimates that. I get that you love how this argument sounds, but as you can see, it's based on a lie. There was no such intimation.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you are aware that sex can result in pregnancy, right?
You are aware that these brainless rhetorical questions reflect badly on you, right?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so if you're aware that sex can lead to pregnancy, why does abortion exist? can't a woman just say no to sex?
Yup, because that baby would still be innocent of any crimes. Of course a stunted pervert such as yourself wouldn't be able to make that distinction because you're just a tool.
Sooo...you'd do nothing until they were 18 then shoot them down or put them in prison?
What kind of pervert are you accusing me of being, Granny?
Anything like this?:
