General Gun Discussion

[DREDIOCK]

The unborn child has a heartbeat long before it can live outside the womb. What about children that are born premature? They live on life support and cannot survive w/o it. Is that child still only a potential life?

Then why can people be charged with a double murder for killing a pregnant woman? If the unborn should have no rights, then there is no additional crime committed beyond killing the mother because you have only denied one person their right to life.

Point A
Cake batter forms a crust before it fully bakes.
That doesnt make it a cake

Seeds sprout roots before they break the surface of the earth.
That doesnt make it a tree
And all sorts of this can go wrong inbetween the heartbeat and the birth.
happens all the time.

Preatures would not other wise live if not on artifical life. therfore it would not have lived if left to its own devices without and artificial mother.
Its alive but not on its own.
Just as if inside the mother its alive but not on its own.
really your talking apples and oranges here.
Your talking intentionally terminating a potential life as opposed to intentionally extending a potential life.

If the latter is the case as in premies. then yes It should be granted every right
But so long as it lies within the mother. It is the mother who bears the burdon and the rights
 BTW I am against Abortions after the second trimester.
Though to be honest if I had my way. I would limit abortions to about the first 18 weeks (or about halfway between conception and birth.)
If you cant make up your mind in the first hald of your pregnancy. you should be stuck with what you get.

That "choice" should only go so far.

I already explained why people are charged with double murder.
Dont kid yourself. Its not about the rights of the child but to provide an added charge that can be thrown onto the criminal.
Only the mother should have that right to decide if the child is born or not.
By commiting such an act. the murderer has denied the mother of the choice to have the child.
He has denied the mother of her life. And the the mother the option of having said child.

[DREDIOCK]

In any event.

and to get back on topic

Hurrah! For the SC Ruling.

I just think it should have went farther

[bustr]

Blackmun's papers were released.

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2005/feature_saleton_mayjun05.msp


Blackmun didn't interpret the Constitution here; he created someting that wasn't there. Not the legacy I'd want.

Toad,

Have you ever noticed when you catch the left with their hand in the cookie jar you get the same answer: "So what if I cheated, I still got the cookie".

Notice how quiet the left is with the Heller decision today?

So now CA, MA, MD, CT and NY will tell their citizens "SO WHAT" it was 5 of Bush's lacky's who stold the true decision and your rights are what we tell you they are anyway!

And and....just wait till January 1, 2009. President Obama will declaire the 2nd amendmant a domestic WMD and a real and present danger to the United States..... and and.... pass a messiahanic decree from the mountain top...errr white house banning all private rights to citizens for their own protection......yeah the messiah will fix that peice of toilet tissue realll good this time........rotten constitution always gettin in the way of our teenie boper prono, drugs and sex and bribes from soros.... yeah .......he'll fix it really good this time!     

[DREDIOCK]

Wrong, it's just as much my baby as it is hers whether it has been born or not. It takes 2 to make a baby not 1 and both parents should have equal rights in this.

And when you carry your first baby to term yourself.
I will agree with you on that.

Untill the child is born. The mother bears all the responcability, the burdon. and the pain.
thus she has all the rights.

Sorry you dont like it. Its just the way it is

[Hornet33]

And when you carry your first baby to term yourself.
I will agree with you on that.

Untill the child is born. The mother bears all the responcability, the burdon. and the pain.
thus she has all the rights.

Sorry you dont like it. Its just the way it is

You know I might agree with you on this point provided the woman isn't married. HOWEVER if a woman goes behind her husbands back and has an abortion with out his consent or him even knowing she is pregnant is wrong. The husband/father should have a right to decide what happens.

Again I have a very personal take on this issue because it happened to me.

[DREDIOCK]

You know I might agree with you on this point provided the woman isn't married. HOWEVER if a woman goes behind her husbands back and has an abortion with out his consent or him even knowing she is pregnant is wrong. The husband/father should have a right to decide what happens.

Again I have a very personal take on this issue because it happened to me.

And given the marriage circumstances I might be more inclined to agree with you.

On the other hand. what kind of a marriage is it if she didnt at least discuss the matter with you before hand.

But that sword of having he right to decide would have to swing in both direction.
What if you didnt want the child and felt just as strongly as you do about having it and she did want it?

who's say matters most?

[bsdaddict]

I hate to add to the off-topicness (that even a word?) going on, but I will say this...  The fact that the abortion topic is such as divisive, polarizing issue is reason enough to leave it up to the states and get this debate the heck out of the federal arena.

[ZetaNine]

Gun Lobby Quickly Sues To Overturn Chicago Ban

The Illinois State Rifle Association filed a lawsuit with just that purpose in mind at 9:15 a.m.

The National Rifle Association also plans to file lawsuits in Chicago and several suburbs, as well as San Francisco, challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

[Halo]

The pro-gun decision would have been better if it had been 9-0.  
The thread would have been better if it had not been hijacked into abortion.

 

[ZetaNine]

lol

[Elfie]

The pro-gun decision would have been better if it had been 9-0.

Sure it would have, but how many SC decisions have been unanimous as opposed to split decisions?

[Angus]

I don't like severe cold.. I don't even like snow so I wouldn't know from first hand experience but I have never heard of any gun freezing up unless it was wet or the type of grease or oil was too heavy.

lazs

What I know, as in the Fin-USSR winter war,even the bolts on rifles would jam. The Russians, having their own stocks while the Fins were armed with imports (? Germany???) had bolts that were not as tight, leaving better space for the (thin) lube.
The Fins quickly caught that one up.

AFAIK, a big factor in the Germans having problems in the winter of 1941-1942 was all sorts of equipment not working due to the frosts.

Hence the question.

[bustr]

Just a thought on how abortion was fabricated then injected into the constitution without the amendment process. It can cover many subjects not original to the document.

Before RoeVwade abortion was available if the mothers life was indangered by the fetus. After RoeVwade you now have a womans choice by "conveinience" aborted into the document by judicial farce, or as Toads post shows, an outright collusion of ideology to rewrite the constitution without the permission of We the People.

Men had a choice historicly and legaly because of paternity being directly related to inheritance, legitimacy in society and societal morality. At one time it mattered to people to have heirs and heirs had much to loose by not being legitiment.

Fast forward to a womens right to choose because of "convienience". Until RoeVwade the language of the constitution maintained the sense that rights belonged to "We the People". No gender given stature over the other. The 19th amendment addressed a wrong by specifying women are also included in "We the People".

RoeVwade as a judicial fiasco violated the sacred importance to the foundation of the constitution of "We the People" by elevating a class of citizen above all other citizens when WOMEN were found to have the RIGHT to CHOOSE by convienience to kill their unborn children.

You now have the constitution descriminating against all other citizens in "We the People" by saying one gender has this greater right to decide life and death as a conveinience than even the judiciairy. Consider with this newly found status of women under the constituion, women are the largest group of care givers for the elderly and infirm. If women are now willing to kill the unborn as a convienence for themselves protected by the constitution, what is really stopping them from allowing those in their care from passing away as a convienience?

[DREDIOCK]

The pro-gun decision would have been better if it had been 9-0.  
The thread would have been better if it had not been hijacked into abortion.

 

I agree even though I have been an active participent in the highjacking
I henceforth bow myself out of said highjacking and will no longer be a participent in the highjack in question in this thread. If anyone wishes to continue that debate I will be happy to in another thread  created specifically for that discussion.

My apologies to all

[FrodeMk3]

There's a poll up on Yahoo!'s front page about the ruling. Here's the results' so far:

Do you agree with gun rights ruling? Results
Q. Thursday's landmark Supreme Court decision, which strikes down a handgun ban in D.C., says Americans have a Constitutional right to keep guns at home for self-defense.

The controversial pronouncement has been praised by the NRA for "providing relief for law-abiding Americans," and criticized by gun-control activists who say it may spark more violence.

Do you agree with the decision?

Yes. Americans should legally have the right to keep guns at home.  82%
No. The justices have dangerously misapplied the Constitution.  13%
It may be a Constitutional ruling, but I don't like it.  4%
I'm not sure.  1%

9510 votes