“By taking away the privacy afforded to folks who seek treatment on their own, there will be a major gun ban because the right wanted Roe vs. Wade overturned. Roe vs. Wade protects people rights of citizens to own a firearm and by getting rid of this right to privacy, you allow the government to take away something your cherish…why? Because, you are deemed incapable of being mentally cognizant of owning and firing your gun…Roe vs. Wade prevents this.” – Tim from LA in Gun Owners Need Roe Vs. Wade [at politicususa.com]

Recommended For You

70 Responses to Quote of the Day: Roe v. Wade Protects Gun Owners (Apparently)

    • Roe v. Wade was a case in which SCOTUS ruled that laws prohibiting abortion was an infringement of privacy. The same was ruled in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down Texas sodomy and homosexuality laws. This same precedent could be used for gun owners in establishing a certain right to privacy. It is legal fenangling, but I see no reason to pass up an opportunity to irritate the hell out of the left with their own legal arguments.

  1. Huh. Even after reading the linked article, I’m still not following the logic chain there.
    Time for more coffee.

    • That was my thought after reading the quote only. Thanks for saving me the trouble of trying to find the missing links in the logic chain.

    • The first thing to always remember when dealing with the Left, They have no logic. I can’t ever imagine Roe v. Wade being overturned anyway, and if the men haters can feel less threatened by guns because they can have lots of sex with no responsibilities then, at least in the short term, that one less fight for us to worry about.

      • So “treatment” is the Lefts word du jour for jamming a pick into the brain of a 9 month partial birth abortion? Just want to be correct on the verbiage.

        • Doesky,

          It’s not a baby or a person until it comes out – or if the mother actually wants it. So if it the mother doesn’t want it – its a fetus with no rights. If the mother wants it – it is a baby with rights. Also, once it comes out – it is magically a person with rights, but not before.

          https://youtu.be/AMwkQVpy98A

    • I wanted to disagree with this article but I can’t even tell the point of it. The title doesn’t really even seem to match up to any supported thesis. It’s written as a series of disjointed statements without appropriate punctuation. Ed. Itor. Sare, good idea.

      • It’s a stretch, but it looks like Tim is arguing that Roe is the underpinning for HIPAA, and that HIPAA is the underpinning for mental health protection.

        He takes some salient points and stretches them past the breaking point. I’d give some consideration to the idea that Roe was the initial support for HIPAA, but I don’t know if I’d agree that it underpins the continued existence of patient privacy, especially as we enter a more litigious era and demand greater accountability for the use of PII. I would consider HIPAA to be the strongest legal support for patient privacy, but there are other structures in place that keep that going. Where HIPAA helps is that it codifies and lays in specific enforcement mechanisms.

        It isn’t a good argument, but it reads like it was written by a (junior) high school student that wants to be an attorney because he thinks he can make tenuous connections in his head, but lacks the skills needed to consider exactly what he is saying.

        • Even if the logic were overwhelmingly compelling (which it is not), I would be loathe to tie my Second Amendment rights to a questionable SCOTUS decision which has allowed, even encouraged, the death of 50 million plus innocent lives.

          Sorry, not going there.

        • The author seems to believe that HIPAA protects the right for people receiving mental health treatment to buy a gun. Simply not true. The author misunderstands his own citation re: HIPAA: “An individual who seeks help for mental health problems or receives mental health treatment is not automatically legally prohibited from having a firearm; nothing in this final rule changes that.” HIPAA is neutral and makes no adjustment to gun rights, it restates the status quo. Regarding privacy, HIPAA does not change the requirement that governments must have warrants to obtain private medical records.

          I am not a lawyer but from my research Roe v. Wade did not grant any privacy rights, but narrowly ruled abortions fell under the right to privacy. It was a right to privacy case but it didn’t not establish the right to privacy. I have no idea how the author arrived at his assumption HIPAA is an outgrowth of Roe vs. Wade. They do not seem to be connected in any way.

      • That is what happens when a population has degenerated so far into childish lawyer/politician/king/junta worship, that “legal arguments” and those engaged in them, are viewed differently than sandbox fights and those engaged i those.

        In less systemically retarded environs, people take care of themselves. And leave others to do the same. “Voting” and “suing” and “debating” about what others do and don’t, are activities reserved for trash, and trash only.

  2. Oh look, the feminazi beta male rears his carefully coiffed head again.

    Hey this one sound familiar?

    Gun freedom needs Roe v. Wade the way a fish needs a bicycle.

    • Isn’t it amazing that Progressives can “find” a right to abortion in the Constitution when it suits them, but they cannot read the plain text of the Second Amendment.

      • That’s what happens when you think the supreme law of the land is a ‘living document’ ready to be reshaped into whatever the hell you want it.

  3. Was this translated from some other language? I think I can kind of make out a snarky finger wag at us for not believing in the “penumbras” in which the “right to privacy” was found. And a sort of “shame on you for hating Obamacare,” but it was like a child wrote it.

  4. Um, first of all we have an inherent (Natural) right to privacy. This should be apparent in the fact that our government exists for the SOLE purpose of serving us, not the other way around.

    Second, we can see this actually codified in our United States Constitution Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures …”. Yes. The Fourth Amendment codifies our pre-existing, Natural right to privacy from government.

    All of this is utterly and totally separate from debates about women aborting babies. Speaking of, the debate about women aborting babies should be centered on women’s health and the right of the baby to survive.

    • MMMM, not really… I think you might want to consider that everyone has a “right” to safeguard their privacy as they see fit. It’s like anything else… each individual is responsible for themselves. Any dependence on government (at any level) to protect and somehow enforce one person’s “right” will inevitably result in the infringement of rights of others. That’s just how they operate.

      And bringing abortion into this discussion is just so typical of the people who want to control everyone’s lives, actions and “rights.”

      • Clarification: I am not claiming that our right to privacy compels government to create a privacy “safe bubble” around us. I am claiming that government has no legitimate authority to invade our privacy beyond reasonable search and arrest warrants … where “reasonable” means that those warrants should always be substantiated with tangible evidence and reliable witness affidavits and be extremely limited in scope.

        • Well, except that I don’t think any involuntary government has any authority to invade our privacy that way either. 🙂 IT actually has no legitimate authority over anyone who does not consent. I do not consent.

          The point was that ONLY the individual and his/her voluntary association has the AUTHORITY and the right to protect their own privacy or anything else.

        • MamaLiberty,

          Let us suppose that you murdered someone. A witness happened to record crystal clear video of the event and knew your identity and where you live. The witness shares the video and your identity with the local Sheriff who wants an iron-clad case to prosecute you. So the local Sheriff obtains a search warrant (based on the crystal clear video and the witness affidavit stating your identity) to look for the murder weapon at your home. And you are telling me that the local Sheriff has no legitimate authority to search your home for the murder weapon because you do not consent to government?

          That is not even libertarianism. That is just plain utter and total anarchy. Whether you like it or not, when utter and total anarchy is the condition of society, “might makes right”.

          In the real world evil-doers exist and murder innocent victims which is always wrong. Righteous governments exist to serve justice on evil-doers. And the actions of righteous governments to serve justice on evil-doers are always legitimate when their actions pursue justice without infringing on the rights of the innocent. Whether or not you consent to such a government does not make their actions legitimate or illegitimate.

  5. As best as I can follow, I think this was an attempt at reverse psychology saying abortion and firearms are tied. His logic appears to go like this:

    Step 1: Roe v Wade overturned, all privacy lost.
    Step 2: ???????
    Step 3: Gun Ban

    Clearly, he could have put more than the cursory few minutes into constructing his argument, but his emotions must have pushed him to blurt it out in a way that made sense only to him.

  6. Not directly on topic, but Obamacare and it’s requirement that medical records be turned over to the gov kind of makes the key argument for roe v wade (privacy and the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship) moot, does it not?

    But, then, the only consistency the left has ever valued is consistent opposition to all aspects of Western culture and heritage.

    • Obamacare has gutted HIPPA to the point that it’s all but a dead document, except in the parts where it still causes inconveniences for the citizen.

      • Indeed. It really seems to be a general trend here. Legal restrictions on private citizens…comply, citizen. It’s for the common good. Expecting those legal restrictions to apply equally to government…now don’t be silly.

  7. There is actually some truth to the overall statement but not in any way that the author suggests.

    The way Roe was decided in the supreme court was based on the due process clause of the 14th amendment (equal protection). The scotus decision for McDonald v Chicago was similarly based on the 14th.

    It has been speculated that if Roe is overturned, the manner in which it is overturned could have implications on 2A.

    Food for thought….

    • Judical Activism – allowing lifetime, appointed, bureaucrats in black robes to bat around our rights like a ping-pong ball – is one of, if not the greatest, threats to our freedom as Americans.

    • That’s not far off. McDonald vs Chicago, along with a few other decisions in recent years (gay marriage, etc), have pillared upon 14th amendment protection, something which wasn’t really heavily considered until recent times. This has shot the 14th up hugely in its importance just in the last 10 years.

  8. The claim is HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) legislation, expanded via Roe vs. Wade shields medical information. Repeal the law that allows the murder of an unborn child then selling of its body parts will lead to the removal of guns of depressed adults seeking treatment. Meaning repeal Roe vs.Wade opens up medical information for gun confiscation for people seeking help.

    Basically saying if you want to keep your guns continue to allow the murder of unborn. Nothing says HIPAA goes away when roe v wade is repealed.

  9. Quite a feat of mental gymnastics to get from point D to point Pi. Tim so desperately wants to connect two fundamental ideas of “right wingers” and show a fundamental flaw. He wants to make a narrative of “either-or”, saying you can have guns if you give up on abortion, knowing full well that if they can get you to capitulate on one they will eventually want to get the other.

  10. Roe v Wade is an unsound legal decision. Any rights derived solely from that decision are already on tenuous ground.

    The right to keep and bear arms is recognized as an inherent natural right that predates and supercedes human laws. That right is explicitly protected against all government infringement, via the second amendment.

    The ability of the government to deny that right on specious mental health claims is curtailed by search, seizure, and due process rights protected by the fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments.

    Roe v Wade does not strengthen any of those protections.

  11. I read the article, too, and cannot follow his “point” with certainty, either. It seems to me he is saying that overturning Roe vs, Wade (a Supreme Court Ruling) somehow requires or results in overturning the HIPAA Law (a Legislated package). Those two things will strip gun owners of the shield of Medical Privacy and result in banning several tens of millions of gun owners who have received Medical Treatment for mental health from owning guns resulting in a massive gun ban.
    I guess he’s trying to scare gun owners and the “right” into supporting abortion in order to preserve the Second Amendment (a provision of the Constitution).

    Not sure the chain he is making out of a SCOTUS Ruling, piece of Legislation and Constitutional Amendment holds together, but I am sure the abysmal grammar and syntax of his final paragraph obfuscates his intended conclusion whatever it is supposed to be.

  12. I am adamant in my support for a woman’s right to bodily self-autonomy, but even I cannot see the link between gun rights and Roe vs. Wade.

  13. lkfjhgfo;pkFO DOFJFOJF SDFJFJF NFJ’sa;dfkjdfi dfjdifjkjjkdoiweoiuivnvjkvkkk,,,???!!!!!!!

    There, that should clear things up.

  14. Here’s an idea: let’s amend the constitution so it explicitly recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms and protects that right from infringement.

    This seems like such a good idea! Why haven’t we thought of doing this before?

  15. The problem is, HIPAA only applies to the non anointed, through Obummercare in one way or another everything is laid bare to the almighty machine that is our government. Ask the veterans, they’re the test case, and they lost. So even if this argument were to be laid out in some logical manner, it’s essentially a moot point, you have no privacy now, from the overlords.

  16. So I guess the argument is:
    Roe vs wade overturned will cause HIPPA to be rolled back.
    HIPPA being rolled back will result if firearm confiscation from people with mental issues.

    The implication seems to be that all gun owners have mental issues.

  17. I’m totally ok with stooooopid mammals insisting on keeping their population down by their own means while I get to keep mine.

    I would even offer this ‘compromise’ national abortion rights legislation in exchange for: universal concealed carry, removal of SBR/SBS rules, silencer regs, and AP(rifle…and yes I’m looking at you mr .308)

  18. Even if it DID protect my rights as a gun owners, which is a ludicrous notion, I’d still want Roe v Wade overturned.

    Abortion isn’t about “privacy” or “choice”. It’ infanticide, plain and simple. You guys think Hitler and the Nazis were mass murderers?
    We’ve outdone them and made them look like amateurs. 6 million in the Holocaust vs nearly 60 million from abortion since RvD.
    Future generations are going to look back on us with horror and disgust, even worse than the way we look at those who practiced slavery.

    I dont know about you, but I carry a gun to protect innocent lives, including those of babies inside or outside the womb.

    • Wow… grey man next in line to go shooting up a Planned Parenthood. Feeling justified in forcing your adopted idea of morality on the rest of us. People like you are exactly the reason that the anti-gun crowd feels justified in pushing legislation to strip us of our gun rights. Way to be a stereotype there, buddy.

      • So in response to me being against the systematic mass murder of the most innocent and helpless people on this planet, you think that makes me disposed to murdering people?

        Your logic is flawed, please try again.

        And yeah, I think society would be better if we didn’t murder babies, so yeah, it’s sad that we even have to argue about that because that’s seems like it’s something we should have figured out in the last 10,000 years.

        And I don’t really care what the antis think. Someone who’s okay with mass genocide is morally and ethically retarded, or just downright evil.

  19. A liberal reading of a court decision brought about by a liberal reading of the constitution. I’ve reached my meta for the day….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *