General Gun Discussion

[Dichotomy]

not if you have your bullet carrying card Mac

and  for the 5 supreme court members

[Elfie]

Amen! bro

And yet the little lambs continue to perform the same experiment while expecting different results.

When do we just toss these tossers?

When Americans wake up and pull their heads out of their anal orifices and realize that both Republican and Democratic parties lost all credibility years ago. Then and only then will a third party become truly viable.

[AWMac]

The card lets you carry one bullet in the top left shirt pocket that must remain buttoned at all times Barney.

"But, But, Andy....."  *sigh*
 

[Elfie]

It would seem that this one gives women the right:

Quote
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Read it again, I don't think "State" and "women" are synonymous.

You are really reaching on that one MT. No one has the right to deprive anyone else of the rights to life, liberty or property.

[lasersailor184]

I think this is a landmark decision by the SC. This decision will over turn many gun laws in the US. Like the one in Morton Grove IL that bans all firearms within city limits. How todays decision will affect the gun ban lobbys remains to be seen. I'm sure it won't kill their efforts or even change their minds one bit on this issue though.

You missed a key word.  *Eventually.  From my understanding, the Supreme Court hasn't incorporated the ruling, thus instantly invalidating every gun ban.  The Supreme Court has set precedent for which the laws can now be challenged.  So basically, every gun ban is illegal, but each has to be challenged individually.

[Toad]

It would seem that this one gives women the right:

Help me out here MT; there's no mention in the text of the Constitution and there is nothing to suggest that framers of Fourteenth Amendment intended to protect such a right,

Unless you found it in the text or the found some documentation that the framer's of the 14th meant to protect it?

Basically, Roe v Wade was more legislation from the bench. It had no basis in the Constitution itself. Blackmun wrote the opinion; do you know what his clerk had to say?

"As a practical matter, was not a bad decision--but as a constitutional matter it was absurd."

[Hornet33]

Guns are allowed but bullets are strictly prohibited. Shows intent.
 

Prohibiting bullets falls inline with mandating that a firearm be disassembled or have a trigger lock. It denies a person of their right to have a functioning firearm for their personal protection so that would be unconstitutional.

[rabbidrabbit]

What disturbs me the most is that it was a 5/4 vote.

[Elfie]

You missed a key word.  *Eventually.  From my understanding, the Supreme Court hasn't incorporated the ruling, thus instantly invalidating every gun ban.  The Supreme Court has set precedent for which the laws can now be challenged.  So basically, every gun ban is illegal, but each has to be challenged individually.

Exactly, each one will have to be challenged individually. Yet, today's decision most certainly does spell the end of these types of laws.

[WWhiskey]

"It is the first time the Supreme Court has unequivocally taken this position on the second amendment." That wouldn't be consider a shift in policy?

cant be a shift if its the first time!!

[Rich46yo]

Its really kinda funny when you think about it. A gun ban in DC, CHGO, NYNY, LA... It makes me want to laugh hysterically.

But that is how ingrained it is for Politicians to use guns as an "out" for their failures, and how ingrained it is for citizens to allow them to.

Imagine a guy running for mayor in a big city to show up to a neighborhood meeting and telling the folks to quit making fatherless, throw-away, babies. And to start showing some family values and personal responsibility? Imagine that?

Much easier just to blame guns. And far safer. Yaknow this country started going to hell when Politicians started looking at their job as a lifelong career. That was never the intent of our founding fathers.

[DREDIOCK]

need I remind some of you...



There is no amendment that gives women the right to "choose" to kill their unborn..

lazs

 Need you be reminded there is no ammendment denying a woman the right to do so.

I would imagine a womans right to choose would be and rightfully so coverd under natural rights.
Which would deny anyone the right to tell a woman that they had to have an abortion or that they coudnt have one.

In order to be fair to all. A womans right to choice has to remain intact.

If you are against abortion. the answer is simple. Dont have one.

I am not pro abortion. I would never tell anyone to have one
but I am not anti abortion either. I would never tell anyone not to have one.

I am pro choice.

As strongly as I would defend the right to keep and bear arms.
Or a communities decision to display Chistmas items during he holidays
Or any number of issues a conservative holds near and dear
 I would just as strongly defend a womans right to that choice.

Just as it is your right to own or not own a gun.
Or a communities right to display religious itemsOr to speak for or against your government.
It is a womans right to choose.

As we keep repeatedly saying here.
Rights arent only for the things we personally like or agree with.
Rights must cover everyone

[lasersailor184]

Need you be reminded there is no ammendment denying a woman the right to do so.

I would imagine a womans right to choose would be and rightfully so coverd under natural rights.
Which would deny anyone the right to tell a woman that they had to have an abortion or that they coudnt have one.

In order to be fair to all. A womans right to choice has to remain intact.

If you are against abortion. the answer is simple. Dont have one.

I am not pro abortion. I would never tell anyone to have one
but I am not anti abortion either. I would never tell anyone not to have one.

I am pro choice.

As strongly as I would defend the right to keep and bear arms.
Or a communities decision to display Chistmas items during he holidays
Or any number of issues a conservative holds near and dear
 I would just as strongly defend a womans right to that choice.

Just as it is your right to own or not own a gun.
Or a communities right to display religious itemsOr to speak for or against your government.
It is a womans right to choose.

As we keep repeatedly saying here.
Rights arent only for the things we personally like or agree with.
Rights must cover everyone

What about the rights of the baby?

[DREDIOCK]

I read it that no one has the right to deprive another of life..  "choose" doesn't make it right.  Where does it say that you can deprive another of life so long as you call it "choose"?  does that mean parents can choose to starve kids to death?

lazs

no but it used to be that way.
Its where the saying
"I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it" came from.

that being said. Those children are already born.

tell me laz
When is your birthday?
Do you count it from the day you were born or 9 months before?

Untill a child is born or can live on its own outside ofhe womb. It is only a potential life.

[DREDIOCK]

What about the rights of the baby?

read the last line of my last post.

Unborn babies should have no rights.
the only reason why they have been granted any rights whatsoever is to give prosecuters another charge they can throw at people who abuse or murder pregnant woman.
It had nothing to do with intentiona abortion by the mother herself.

The correct additinal charge would be in the assault or murder of a pregnant woman.
A denyal of her natural rights to be a mother or to give birth..

The unborn inand of themselves should have no rights.
ALL rights pertaining to the unborn child should be referred to the mother carrying it.