Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting point. So we should repeal the 2A and throw the decision back to the states, right? Supposedly that is what SCOTUS is doing with respect to abortion. Then each state can decide for themselves how much restriction to put on abortion and gun rights.
All you states rights fans are on board with repealing the 2A then, right?
Not that I'm an expert or anything but it is not as you describe.
Abortion "rights" were never part of the original constitution and should never have been controlled by the feds. That is what is happening with the SCOTUS decision now - they are delegating it back to the states where it (presumably) belongs, according to the Constitution.
2A was part of the original Bill of Rights and Constitution as ratified by the original 13 states, which made it a federal issue that all but 6 states subsequently added to their own state constitutions. Guess they were okay with it.
You mean feinstein who broke hospital rules and brought a gun into the hospital while she went to see her husband?
Quote:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
Absolute Bullsquat. Where did this come from , please...?
This is not BS - here the remarks of the Governor of Virginia talking about abortion after birth;
Quote:
"So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon, told Washington radio station WTOP. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk. Accordingly, a second terminological specification is that we call such a practice ‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.
New York's Reproductive Health Act striped the murder of a newborn from the state’s criminal code and non-doctors would be allowed to perform abortions - so technically a woman can kill a newborn born at home legally.
Interesting point. So we should repeal the 2A and throw the decision back to the states, right? Supposedly that is what SCOTUS is doing with respect to abortion. Then each state can decide for themselves how much restriction to put on abortion and gun rights.
All you states rights fans are on board with repealing the 2A then, right?
Abortion isn't in the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is.
BTW, if the 2nd amendment were somehow repealed, the Fed govt still would have no authority to make laws restricting or banning guns. Because no part of the Constitution gives them that power, and never did.
Only difference would be that now states could make such laws. They had that authority (if they wanted to take it), on the first day the original Const was ratified. But when the Bill of Rights was added a few years later, the 2nd amendment took away the states' power to restrict or ban guns.
The 14th amendment didn't change that, since the 2nd amendment already extended to all governments in the U.S.
Your post really ignores that the 2nd amendment is why the Fed Government has the authority on gun laws and why the 14th amendment does not apply. Also kind of skips the first step that the 2nd amendment will not be repealed anytime soon.
Governor Abbott has a disconcerting way of avoiding straight questions.
Cites Chicago's gun violence when asked about implementing gun control laws in Texas.
Cites a case where a child took a gun owned by the father to carry out a school shooting when asked about implementing background checks.
Illinois has nothing to do with Texas and it would do only something positive to carry out a mandatory background check on every gun buyer in Texas. As Governor he has the responsibility to work with the State Legislature to pass laws to make his State safer for everyone not using Chicago as an excuse to do nothing.
Abbott was so concerned about abortion that he passed an oppressive law outlawing the practice yet his nonchalant attitude towards doing something to protect the rights of the living in his State makes him look like a prize A-hole or a willing recipient of NRA dollars to help ensure he stays on in the cushy job of Governor
Governor Abbott has a disconcerting way of avoiding straight questions.
Cites Chicago's gun violence when asked about implementing gun control laws in Texas.
Cites a case where a child took a gun owned by the father to carry out a school shooting when asked about implementing background checks.
Illinois has nothing to do with Texas and it would do only something positive to carry out a mandatory background check on every gun buyer in Texas as well as the rest of the States. As Governor he has the responsibility to work with the State Legislature to pass laws to make his State safer for everyone not using Chicago as an excuse to do nothing.
Abbott was so concerned about abortion that he passed an oppressive law outlawing the practice yet his nonchalant attitude towards doing something to protect the rights of the living in his State makes him look like a first prize A-hole or a willing recipient of NRA dollars to help ensure he stays on in the cushy job of Governor
There are background checks in texas.
Illinois laws serve as a datapoint for determining the effectiveness of those laws.
Governor Abbott has a disconcerting way of avoiding straight questions.
Cites Chicago's gun violence when asked about implementing gun control laws in Texas.
Cites a case where a child took a gun owned by the father to carry out a school shooting when asked about implementing background checks.
Illinois has nothing to do with Texas and it would do only something positive to carry out a mandatory background check on every gun buyer in Texas. As Governor he has the responsibility to work with the State Legislature to pass laws to make his State safer for everyone not using Chicago as an excuse to do nothing.
Abbott was so concerned about abortion that he passed an oppressive law outlawing the practice yet his nonchalant attitude towards doing something to protect the rights of the living in his State makes him look like a prize A-hole or a willing recipient of NRA dollars to help ensure he stays on in the cushy job of Governor
You have to look at the entire situation. You seem like one of those that only care about when many children at a single time are killed, but don't give a damn when a child is killed here or there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
