Supreme Court protest demonstration
Courtesy Kevin Hulbert
Previous Post
Next Post

Discuss.

Previous Post
Next Post

90 COMMENTS

  1. The second amendment is the clearest of all constitutional amendments, I’ve never required the Supreme Court to determine that for me.

    • The 2A is to basic and straightforward for the leftists. They need lots of mumbo-jumbo so they can twist it to their feels.
      If the 2A was written today it would look like the Manhattan phone book.

    • Correct Ross! In plain and simple language, the text of 2A states in a self-executing manner that “the people”, all of us, have ‘the right to keep (own) and bear (carry, possess on one’s person) Arms’. It also forbids the government(s) from infringing upon that right. Why can’t the leftards understand that simple concept?

    • If a leftist treated abortion like they treat gun control, getting an abortion would require:
      – medical behavioral health examination
      – training and certification renewed annually
      – federal background check
      – state background check
      – local sheriff approval
      – waive medical privacy
      – 10 day waiting “cooling off” period, up to 30 days depending on government resources
      – limit of 1 abortion every 9 months with no more than 3 in a lifetime
      – limit to the type of abortion performed and no off label prescribing of non-abortive meds
      – only receive abortion from government approved abortion clinic
      – all abortion clinics must have security, cameras, lock up surgical equipment, pay fees, keep all recorded indefinitely
      – family members, ex-husbands, friends, and teachers can report anyone to authorities who they think should not have an abortion
      – no pre-emption laws allowed, cities, counties and homeowners associations can make their own laws that override state and federal law
      – patient must be 21 years old or older and have state identification
      – pay registration fees and taxes on each abortion
      – all abortion clinics can be sued by anyone at any time for anything
      – can not pay for or receive an abortion across state lines
      – of course the patient can not be under the influence of substances except marijuana, fentanyl, LSD, and mushrooms

      • “If a leftist treated abortion like they treat gun control, getting an abortion would require…….”

        Nailed it.

  2. I really dislike these people who operate under the premise that a thing not specifically permitted by an authority is somehow not possible or even should not be possible.

    Ironically the holders of this belief overlap greatly with users of illicit drugs. Does the Constitution say they can access all the fentanyl they want and carry it around in public? Yet somehow they still can. They can even engage in a market of sorts. Possibility abounds.

  3. You can have my abortion when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

    Mothers don’t kill babies. Abortions do.

    When abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will have abortions.

  4. If I had a twitter account I’d have to ask him if I could take my wife to court and compel her to pay gun support for a firearm she never wanted and had no idea it wasn’t hers.

  5. The difference? There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution.

    There is an enumerated right to bear arms.

    • Another difference, you don’t have a right to kill people with your gun because they are an inconvenience to you. Banning abortion would be banning an act, not an inanimate object. There are no laws restricting the possession of forceps.

    • Abortion is morally wrong. But so is your argument. Read the 9th Amendment. Our rights do not have to be enumerated. Driving, self medication, and refusing to do business with anyone for any reason are all basic human rights infringed upon by tyrannical government.

      • Regarding
        “In response to alien:

        The difference? There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. There is an enumerated right to bear arms.

        Word!”
        There is no constitutional strata regarding enumerated, or non-enumerated rights. The unenumerated rights are valid, without any mention in the Constitution or Amendments. A simple reading of the 9th and 10th amendments indicates even individuals can assert natural, human and civil rights not called out in the Constitution (as amended). This is not to mention that zero rights are created, introduced, initiated, or a result of the federal constitution.

        If the SC declares “abortion rights” are the purview of the states, then state regulation permitting/”enshrining” abortion would be an exercise of state power, or non-exercise. No person in either sort of state could sue for violation of “Constitutional rights”, based on the federal constitution.

        The talk of Dims demanding Congress “codify” abortion rights is just silly. Federal legislation cannot supersede the federal constitution. “Codification” is always then at risk of future Congressional legislation to the opposite, without the need to amend the federal constitution. And, unless Congress passes legislation to set abortion beyond the jurisdiction of the SC, any federal “codification” of abortion could be appealed all the way to the SC. The only semi-permanent solution would be ratification of an amendment to the federal constitution, either permitting or prohibiting abortion.

  6. While the Constitution does not specifically indicate you can have a firearm without a permit, it does say you have the right to bear arms. So any requirements subtle or otherwise that would prevent you from doing that would be unconstitutional. The Constitution does not specify what types of arms you can have or not have only that you have the right to bear them. The Constitution doesn’t require a great many things. Its because we have abrogated many of the rights we do have that we find them chipping away at back door attacks on people who want a firearm. We all know it has nothing to do with safety or humanity, it is strictly a Leftist well published technique to dominate anyone who disagrees with them by disarming them and making it difficult for people to defend themselves. Precisely why we have a 2nd Amendment in the first place.

    • In regards to the Constitution saying whether or not you can have a firearm without a permit it very specifically says you can have one without a permit. When you ask for a permit it implies that the government has to give permission that can also be denied. Inherent enumerated civil rights are inalienable rights that the government has no authority over. They don’t get to say yes or no even though they’ve been trying to and are partially successful in doing so for a long time.

  7. peter hang on to your testicles fred is coming. Actually peter your baseless guesswork rhetoric is no match for fred who by all accounts has allowed himself to be guided by an agenda rooted in racism and genocide. It’s dumb you vs dumber fred. Instead of blowing smoke and setting yourself up to lose to losers on Twitter keep it simple stupid…

    1) The Second Amendment is One Thing.

    2) The Criminal misuse of firearms, bricks, bats, knives, vehicles is another thing.

    3) History confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is a racist and nazi based Thing.

    Fact check the aforementioned fred and stfu.

  8. The comparisons of abortion to the second amendment is so flawed. Its not the same thing.

    So…. say for example, New York City requiring a background check and permit for an abortion, the permission of New York City if you can show a need justification acceptable to New York City, is some how acceptable?

    Pro-abortionists women say “My body, my right” – and for around 50 years they have ‘enjoyed’ the constitutional protection supporting that. Yet, no where in the constitution does it ever say a woman or man has constitutional protection of “My body, my right” in terms of an unborn fetus or embryo – take your pick, and it took a SCOTUS interpretation to give that constitutional protection to abort that fetus or embryo. On the other hand there is the second amendment that clearly says “… shall not be infringed” and it has been subjected to as many tactics as possible to infringe it as much as possible. No the two are not the same, the comparisons between abortion and the second amendment are bogus. The constitutional protections for abortion were granted by government through SCOTUS interpretation. The constitutional protections for the second amendment are inherent in the Bill of Rights and not granted by government.

    • This^

      It’s one thing to begin a discussion of rights by proposing restrictions that may or may not violate a clearly written enumeration of those rights (2nd Ammendment). It’s another discussion entirely to propose restrictions that may or may not violate the extrapolation of an enumerated right (reproductive rights). One begins with an already defined and objective limitation, the other begins with a subjective interpretation which can change.

    • “The comparisons of abortion to the second amendment is so flawed. Its not the same thing.”

      Actually, it is. This is where we strangle ourselves with bold mantras and slogans.

      Abortion, no matter its reason, was declared a constitutionally protected right of individuals. There is no requirement that all such rights be enumerated (9th and 10th amendments).

      If RvW is overturned, and if the court rules that the matter remains with the states, there will likely be a patchwork of legislation, and state constitutional protection (or not). The first line of offense will be simple, majority rule, legislation declaring abortion legal under whatever conditions the state likes. Essentially, the same condition as “constitutional” carry; simple legislation subject to the vagaries of political will in each state. The Dims are currently proposing that somehow, simple federal legislation will somehow be more effective than a constitutional amendment. (a’ la “constitutional” carry.

      Without a federal amendment, “incorporated” to the states, federal legislation on abortion, or “constitutional” carry are always at risk of the hurricane winds of simple legislation.

      An enumerated right declared in the federal constitution is not superior to an unenumerated right retained by the people, or the states. A political policy supported by simple legislation is not superior, or equal, to either enumerated, or unenumerated rights. Simple legislation is not superior, no matter the issue, to either enumerated, or unenumerated rights.

      It will be difficult, to argue that pro-abortion legislation is the equivalent to a federal constitution protected natural, human and civil right. If RvW is overturned, the unhinged pro-abortion crowd might well be thrown in the same room with “consititutional” carry afficionados.

      • Sam, but it would seem to me that the “constitutional carry legislation” already does exist as a “federal amendment” right there in the Second Amendment. No? That certain States are having to see fit to back that with State policy (solely in an effort to prevent federal overreach/abuse) doesn’t mean that constitutional carry per say is automatically demoted to existing as State legislation. So no, one can’t (properly) put both both groups in the same room, that would more apply to constitutional carry as compared with bringing to term and giving birth to a child; both are beyond argument a human right, enumerated or not. Unless I miss your gist (is it that you are simply but not so simply saying pro abortionists and pro con carryists will be viewed alike, even though incorrectly?). Cheers.

        • “Sam, but it would seem to me that the “constitutional carry legislation” already does exist as a “federal amendment” right there in the Second Amendment. ”

          Yes it does. So, why the need for the states to do anything? Why the belief that somehow (s)tate action makes the Second Amendment more valid, more legitimate, more enforceable? Why the need for any legislation, or constitutional amendment in the (s)tates to somehow make RTKBA effective in a (s)tate?

          When (s)tates only pass a law enabling citizens to carry firearms openly, or concealed, that law is always subject to majority vote. When (s)tates amend their constitutions to prohibit (s)tate authorities from enabling gun control, that too is a matter of political power (voting).

          If RvW is overturned, “abortion rights” become a matter of (s)tate action, via simple legislation or (s)tate constitutional amendment; just like “constitutional” carry. Meaning, all legislation/amendments are conditional, even temporary. “Abortion rights” become like “gun rights”.

          NOTE: the SC did not invent an individual “right” to abortion, but extended the “logic” of existing enumerated, constitutionally protected rights. The logic ignored the 9th and 10th as the controlling law, in hopes of avoiding assertion of the 9th and 10th of a means to take the matter out of federal control.

      • Sam, yes, absolutely. Is it not however as difficult to amend a States Constitution as the (National) Constitution proper? It seems all of this (legislation only and precedentially dangerous as it may seem) is all blowing smoke up derriers as the original Constitution remains intact. Lawyers creating job security? It would seem to me fwiw that just as with Free Speech and the Right to Keep and Bear that no individual nor group of individuals possess the authority to make determinations nor can it be granted to them: it is truly either all or none. Arbitrary decisions regarding time limits and pseudo scientific definitions (first trimester/ten round mag limits) are all half measures and purely an exercise in control: it’s either extinguishing a life (or an infringement), planned for or not, or it isn’t, whereupon it all centers on matters of convenience. Sorry to navel gaze but yes, I hear what your saying.

        • “…as the original Constitution remains intact.”

          Well….there are those nuisance amendments to the original. Which kinda indicate the original has been altered, either for clarity, or other purposes.

          It must be understood, however, that while the document exists today, the 14th Amendment (1868) ended federalism, and established a nation having an all powerful central government, with subordinate governmental precincts identified as “states”, not States.

      • One of the things that’s often overlooked here is that the fact that a right is trampled has no bearing on the existence of that right but reflects merely on the recognition of the right.

        No different than a gem buried in the ground. That gem doesn’t cease to exist simply because no one has found it. The stone may not be appreciated by people and may, as a practical matter, not exist in terms of human society or commerce but it doesn’t actually blink out of existence.

        This is also true of yet undiscovered aspects of any science. Chemistry gonna chemistry and physics gonna physics whether anyone on the planet has a clue why or how doesn’t change what happens within the parameters of reality dictated by the laws of the universe.

        Personally, I don’t really find the argument around abortion to be that interesting. It seems fairly cut and dried to me once the nuance of the baseline argument(s) is established. Therefore the comparison to the 2A is something I find wanting.

        What I do find fascinating is how there’s a slice of the Left that has, somehow, turned abortion into almost some sort of strange religious sacrament. In something like 25 years we went from the mantra of “safe, legal and rare” to Lena Dunham whining that she wished she’d had an abortion even though, lacking children and never having had an abortion, she’s clearly never had a reason to have an abortion in the first place.

        I mean, that’s some serious culty shit right there. According to the Left themselves it’s on par with wishing one could get a *serious disease* just so they could have the enjoyment of being cured of it.

        • Ha! And yes, agreed, I find it relatively uninteresting as well. Any ‘decisions’ will necessarily be arbitrary half measures and thus wrong for whichever affected party is concerned (unless it is 100% in favor of life starting at conception and termination under any circumstances is 1st degree murder as the default position, zero exceptions). It ain’t like there’s a shortage. As well: nobody has the authority to decide these things for others. All I know for sure is that nobody knows for sure and after a half dozen pint n a halfs of 7.89% Red Collar Brewery Double Dubbel Belgian Strong Ale Infused Wit Coffee n Crap it’s all Come n Fucking Take It ya fucking fuckers and nobody rides for Free!! Cheers. Dammit.

      • No, Sam, the rights are NOT congruent, for one simple reason: I can exercise my RKBA, with no damage to anyone. If I exercise my RKBA, and subsequently USE my gun, I am solely responsible for that use and its consequences. EVERY abortion results in the loss of a human life, PERIOD. Now, I’m perfectly willing to discuss the issue of what rights a fetus has, when, and why, but is it your position that a fetus has NO rights whatsoever?? If the Leftist/fascists had had the brains God gave a Home Depot doorknob, they would have been willing to have that debate. Instead, they pretended to ignore the argument altogether, or make stupid statements like “it’s just a clump of cells”. Now they are being hoist on their own petard. Whatever your argument is in re: the rights of a fetus, no one arguing in good faith can argue that a fetus is not human. So, EVERY abortion results in the death of a human; MOST exercises of the RKBA do not. The two “rights” are not congruent in any way, regardless of “enumeration”.

        • My comment was not related to the wisdom, morality, or desirability of abortion. The comparison between abortion and second amendment was that both were declared to be constitutionally protected.

          Depending on the SC ruling, “abortion rights” may end up being subject state legislation. Both suffering, or profiting from temporary and volatile political majorities, but state level actions are not more legitimate than national, constitutional protections.

          “Constitutional carry”, “permitless carry”, whatever the term, installed state legislation can be overturned by simply majorities. “Constitutional carry” in one state, but not another; abortion even after birth in one state, but not another. Back and forth, side to side.

          Anti-gunners, who I believe are all pro-abortion, are now in the same category with gun owners; subject to the retained powers of the individual states, and the majority vote of the people voting.

          A whole bunch of people seem to be ignoring the fact that, like pro-gun supporters, pro-abortion people will be in court, fighting to have abortion declared protected by the federal constitution, over state action.

        • Sam,

          I got your point, but that is not my argument. If you are a historian (and you seem to be), you are well aware that the 2A was NOTHING more than a prohibition on the Federal government infringing on an INHERENT right. The folks who argued against the BoR made that exact argument . . . if you list a few rights that MAY NOT be infringed (and somehow, still are, anyway), that implies that those are the only ones. I wish the 9th and/or 10th had contained a laundry list of rights that are inherent, or we had listened to the wisdom of the anti-BoR argument, because that is EXACTLY what the Left has been doing.

          But there IS a fundamental difference between the two, and I am not talking about the wisdom or morality of abortion. As I said, EVERY abortion results in the termination of a human life. We can debate what status or rights that human life possesses in utero, but I don’t see any way to make a coherent argument that a fetus possesses no rights whatsoever. What about an accident victim in a profound coma? A severely retarded person? A severe dementia sufferer?

          In Con Law, when two human rights conflict (the right to life and the “right” to abortion), it is resolved by a “balancing of interests” test. Long, boring story there about different standards, etc., but that is and has been SCOTUS’ standard way of dealing with conflicting rights. The Left could have taken that approach, and probably would have come out with a VERY favorable “balancing of interests” test that would have permitted many abortions, and would have been difficult to overturn. Instead, that babbling halfwit, Brennan, gifted them with Roe, and they were off to the races. Unfortunately, the inherent idiocy of that pathetic “opinion” was its own downfall – Roe is simply a nonsensical, poorly-written, illogical, quasi-metaphysical POS. Whatever your position on abortion, Roe is a TERRIBLE opinion. But the Left grabbed that bone and wouldn’t let go. Now they’ve (likely) lost it. Now they’ll have to go back and fight it out, state-by-state.

          But there is no comparison between RKBA and abortion, since RKBA applies to ONE human, and abortion necessarily involves at least two. That makes it different.

  9. “To all who might swarm me shouting SECOND AMENDMENT: until DC v Heller (2008) the 2A was *never* construed to guarantee a right to a personal firearm. Since then, it has meant a right to have one in the home for personal protection, subject to reasonable regulation.”

    Mr. Peter Sagal, you’re in for a very unpleasant surprise in a few weeks.

    And I (and a whole lot of other people) will be laughing our asses off at your expense… 🙂 🙂 🙂

    • Where in Heller did it say anything about “reasonable regulation” of a firearm in the home? Seems to me the opinion concluded that D.C.’s regulation of firearms in the home (unloaded, disassembled, locked up, and in a room away from where the locked up ammo was kept) were held to be unconstitutional.

      Fookin’ idgits, as they used to say in the old country.

  10. The pro-abortion crowd wants to be in your bedroom. And in every room in your house. Showing you how to store your guns and where to store your guns. And if you are not storing your guns properly, they will come into your home and tell you how to do it.

  11. The pro-abortion crowd wants to tell parents when they can, or when they cannot teach their children about guns. But the pro-abortion crowd does want to teach your children, about the joys and power of “Leather daddies”.

  12. “Nothing in the Constitution dictates that everyone can have a handgun without permits,”

    Nothing? The Bill of Rights literally says “shall not be infringed.”

    Technology is amazing. It allows someone to post on Twitter while being clearly illiterate.

  13. Just another leftist spinning the web of lies. They spin and weave, compounding each others delusions, deceptions, and discongruencies. They lose themselves in their stark, fettered, self-imposed prisons. But remember, flies and moths may get caught in the web, but we mammels just smash through them.

    The left will trap each other in their web of lies, never seeing the world as it is. The will feed off of each others juices, draining each others life force, shriveling into tiny, dry, husks.

    We will enjoy the freedom God gave us, strengthen each other, protect each other, and raise our children to be self-reliant and free.

    • “The left will trap each other in their web of lies, never seeing the world as it is.”

      A recent example of that is the about-face they did on men becoming pregnant. They suddenly dumped the trans crowd because saving unlimited, nationwide abortion is the priority. Women suddenly exist again.

      I also just discovered that abortion is the fault of Republicans for not paying to care for their children.

  14. True that the 2nd does not grant the right. It ACKNOWLEDGES and REAFFIRMS the basic human right of self defense with armaments.

  15. I’d guess I already know these guys’ view on Richard Rorty and Moral Relativism in general.

    Which, is essentially the only rational starting point for this argument. From that point one can extrapolate that the society of the US has changed and therefore what is morally acceptable has, necessarily, changed enormously based on what was could be considered to be widely approved at any given time. From there it’s possible to argue that the “expansion” of codified gun rights represents some sort of hard-right shift politically.

    That’s the general essence at the root of the people who argue against human rights on multicultural/diversity grounds. That one can’t have universally accepted individual rights in a society where there is no agreement about the relationship between the individual and the larger society.

    It’s a great way to just ignore half of reality and insert your own preferences.

  16. Might makes rights. If you believe in the God of the Bible, then you must believe in His authority to declare what our rights are. If you don’t, then the most powerful entity you believe in is where you think you get your “rights”. If government is that authority, you are relying on a whimsical and poorly motivated guardian. If you’re feelings are that entity, then you’re even worse off. I can see how the godless are in a nearly constant state of fear drifting from one terrifying boogeyman to another. They have terrible guardians.

    • To James

      Sorry sky rider but the Average American today does not even belong to a church and few believe in an afterlife. They do not engage in prayer, ritual, incantations or painting their bodies blue and dancing naked by the light of the moon.

      • dacien —

        Then it follows from James’s post that you believe that the government, or your own feelings, is the source of your rights. Which is it?

        Of course you realize (?) that one need not belong to a church to believe in a higher power.

        • To the Alien Klingon.

          quote————-Then it follows from James’s post that you believe that the government is the source of your rights.———quote

          Now you are catching on as to the fact that it is the Government who always has been the one who determines your rights. To deny that fact simply shouts to the world that you know nothing about U.S. History or World History for that matter.

          And a personal belief of the possibility of a higher power is very different than the religious fanatics that pretend to be pious in church on Sunday while screwing even their own mother out of her last penny the other 6 days of the week as well as trying to tell people how to run their personal lives.

          I might add that a believe in an after life has been steadily shrinking in all countries of the world in the last 1/2 Century. Many of the old and stupendously decorated European Churches because of a lack of a congregation have closed and have been turned into everything from bingo parlors to Library’s and even bed and breakfast hotels. Many old time American Churches have shut down as well.

          For the combined 15 countries of Western Europe the percentage of believers in life after death is 59%.

          Much the same has happened in America as well. Roughly a quarter of all U.S. adults (26%) say that they do not believe in heaven or hell, including 7% who say they do believe in some kind of afterlife and 17% who do not believe in any afterlife at all.

          Most people who are products of higher education are well aware of the fact that America eventually follows Europe in its changing social mores which include people who no longer believe in an after life, or marriage or attend Church or believe that there is nothing wrong with sex for pleasure including outside of marriage.

          I might add the belief that there is nothing wrong with Homosexuality is returning to Europe after an absence of 1,642 years which came about with the unfortunate adoption of Christianity which regarded sex as morally depraved and only just barely tolerated for the procreation of children during marriage.

          Romans thought Christians were a depraved cult of Lunatics and history has certainly proved them correct. The psychological damage inflicted on people by Christianity and its warped view of sex is glaringly proof of this.

    • Why do the religious always feel that there must be an “entity” of some sort, even for an atheist (or more correctly: an a-thiest)? Is it so impossible for you guys to think outside your self imposed and constricted box? This is a textbook example of brainwashing. Neither your god, our government(s) nor my “feelings” are in any way, shape or form (except for you) a granting entity. Rights (entirely a man made construct/concept) exist in and of themselves and are derived solely from rational thinking, logic and a sense of justice. They are inherent in our condition and that condition is simply that you exist and we, society, have determined that it is beneficial and correct that these or such Rights should exist, at least in principle. Thus we have law, a legal system to define and uphold these concepts. No supreme entity is required. But yes, ultimately only might is the guarantor of these Rights and if we are unwilling to use force when need be then we shall most assuredly lose these artificial constructs to the most predatory amongst us. You guys commit a fundamental error in your reasoning when you constantly apply a religious framework and thought process to those of us who disagree with the proposed existence of a god (or gods). None of us “live in fear, turning from one boogeyman to another…”; that is entirely YOUR province, it is what the religious do, literally, even if you now focus your attention and fear on just one single deity. You guys project like progressive liberals and viewing it from the outside (thank god 😉) let me tell you, it ain’t a good look.

  17. If the left had a clue, and they have known Roe vs Wade was a weak argument, they would have had a better argument Constitutionally by now. They have the opportunity now to show a strong argument and litigate it. However they are lazy. The want emotion over substance.

  18. Is not it amazing that the hypocrite Republicans who scream against Government intrusion into peoples private lives did exactly that with their new rubber stamp Far Right Radical Supreme Court that rapes the right of poor people to have an abortion (not rich people)

    The Far Right scream incessantly about 2A rights but are the very first to crush the 1st Amendment, Voting rights, Minority rights and abortion rights and equal rights for Gay and LGBT rights. Like Hitler and the Nazi’s Far Right Republicans classify all these groups as sub-human. And History would repeat itself if the Republicans were ever given even half a chance because again history as proven them that dangerous.

    As NPR stated this week the new laws mean nothing to rich white women (many who are Republicans) who will simply fly to the nearest Liberal State for an abortion but it is the poor who will be denied the right to an abortion. Most of the poor vote for Democrats as well as they know its the Republicans that always screw them the most.

    It is the stingy and greedy Far Right that are always screaming about paying too much in taxes but by denying abortion the millions of unwanted children will end up on welfare for the next couple of decades after being born and it is unwanted children who often become mass murders or people who become the next generation of criminals because they grew up in broken homes or in orphanages. The Far Right are always their own worst enemies.

    • You are the most vile, filthy, disgusting, degenerate, insignificant, moronic, vomitous, imbelic, lying, nonsensical, worthless, insipid, hypocritical, piece of fecal matter imaginable. All you do is misquote lies, cite incorrect “statistics,” parrot the garbage from the left, incite and foment discord, accuse the “right” of the vile tactics of the left and insult others. Abortion is murder, pure and simple, it has nothing to do with relative wealth, color or voting preference. Those who defend it are irredeemable.

      On the other hand, the 2nd Amendment is a Constitutionally protected and enshrined right. Protecting a right to self defense is totally consistent with protecting the right of an innocent child’s life. Anyone who cannot see the logic in that is a total imbecile, which explains your viewpoint. Now please dry up and blow away.

      • Constantine,

        “Anyone who cannot see the logic in that is a total imbecile, . . . “. You DO realize you are addressing dacian the stupid, I presume?? Although, as an admirer of exceptional wordsmithing, that list of adjectives you applied to dacian the stupid was a near-masterpiece! (“Near” only because you left out “uneducated” – dacian always PURPORTS to be “educated”, but when confronted about the details of that claim, he slinks off like the little b**** he is.).

      • And Constantine the Moron the new abortion pill renders the Republican Nazi Bills outlawing abortion inert. Even in Far Right Nazi States make women into sex slaves, if they are too poor to take a jet plane to a liberal state the new abortion pill will be available one way or another making the Jack Booted Abortion bills only symbolic and nothing more than a political grandstand to fool the ignorant of the Far Right.

        The Liberals are always a mile ahead of the Neanderthal religious fanatics of the Far Right who spend too much time in prayer, ritual, incantations and painting their bodies blue and dancing naked by the light of the moon.

        • Wow, dacian the stupid, you really are dumber than a box of rocks. “Abortion pills” are effective if taken within a few DAYS of conception. After that, there are stronger abortifacients, but they involve substantial risk to the mother, and have quite nasty side effects (which you would know, IF you were actually educated). I suspect you’d find grudging agreement by most except the most ardent pro-life advocates to grumble, bitch and moan . . . and accept the “morning after” pill, to coddle those pathetic dips***s like you (if you were ever fortunate enough to feel the touch of a woman) to “clean up the mess” after the irresponsibly failed to properly protect themselves from their amorous activities. What it does prevent is the barbaric practices around mid-to-late term abortions, which are fully worthy of a Joseph Mengele. But, since you’ve never been in the arms of a woman, or had children, you wouldn’t know about that. Toddle off to your afternoon circle jerk; MinorIQ and the nameless, brainless, d***less troll are waiting.

        • To the Lamp that went out in his Neanderthal head you must practice constantly at making a complete fool of yourself.

          It was announced this evening on MSNBC News that the abortion pill can be taken up to 10 weeks into the pregnancy. Most women by then know damn well that they are pregnant.

        • Did somebody say “abortion pill?”

          1. RESEARCH SHOWS THE ABORTION PILL IS FOUR TIMES MORE DANGEROUS THAN FIRST-TRIMESTER SURGICAL ABORTION.

          2. RESEARCH SHOWS APPROXIMATELY 6% OF WOMEN WHO TAKE THE ABORTION PILL NEED EMERGENCY CARE FOR COMPLICATION

          3. THE ‘NO-TEST’ ABORTION PILL PROTOCOL PUTS WOMEN’S FUTURE PREGNANCIES AT GREATER RISK.

          4. ER VISITS FOR ABORTION PILL-RELATED COMPLICATIONS HAVE SKYROCKETED.

          5. THE FDA DOES NOT REQUIRE COMPLICATIONS FROM THE ABORTION PILL TO BE REPORTED

          https://www.liveaction.org/news/abortion-pill-dangers-women/

          P.S. Don’t bitch at me about the all-caps. I copied and pasted each bullet point and didn’t feel like re-typing them in lower case. So there.

        • Ah, dacian the stupid, you never cease to disappoint your parents, do you??? First, you cite MSNBC as an authoritative source on medical matters??? That’s pathetic, even for you. The “Plan B” or “morning after” pill is NOT effective up to 10 weeks after impregnation. There ARE abortifacients that are effective up to that long from impregnation . . . and they have SEVERE side effects, and are increasingly dangerous to the mother, the further from impregnation they are administered. (IF you ever had an actual education, you might know this.)

          And thanks for admitting that (i) women know they are pregnant well before 10 weeks (one of the major arguments of you pro-death fascists is that “women don’t even know they are pregnant that early!” – which is a lie, so thanks for admitting that, and thanks for acknowledging that EVERY abortion ends a life. I would congratulate you on your insight, but I fear you are simply too stupid and illogical to understand the logical implications of your admissions.

          You are a pathetic @$$clown, dacian the stupid. Return to your circle jerk, or go micturate up a cable. You are contributing nothing but irrelevant, illogical noise to this discussion. Go tell your mother she loves you.

    • “The Far Right are always their own worst enemies.”
      Right is Right be it near or far and either is better than being a murderer or an accessory to murder.
      The inalienable right to self protection extends to all human life and abortion for any convenience is just wrong and there is nothing right about it.
      The left wants to attack guns instead of criminals, then let’s castrate men who father babies who are aborted.

    • When two dogs mate, what is produced? A flower? A carrot? When two humans mate what is produced?

      What has the far right boogey man to quell your First Amendment rights? How have they kept you from voting? Who led Civil Rights legislation? Name them and their parties. And as a statement to your dividing groups, all people have the same civil rights.

      And to claim millions of children are better off dead because you feel they will become criminals is exactly why the Left must be defeated. If Hitler and Stalin had a love child, you and your ilk would be the poster children.

      • Trooper,

        Right in spirit, wrong in application, in this case. Stalin and Hitler at least had functioning brains (albeit, quite insane). dacian the stupid hasn’t got two functional brain cells that are on speaking terms; he’s an uneducated, ignorant, classless, brainless buffoon, with delusions of adequacy. But if Hitler and Stalin had a SEVERELY retarded child, that child might very well be dacian.

      • Storm Trooper you seem hell bent on proving your usual Far Right ignorance.

        In 2020 a study by Donohue and Levitt was published in American Law and Economics Review to review the predictions of the original 2001 paper. Overall the authors concluded that the predictions did hold up with strong effects. “We estimate that crime fell roughly 20% between 1997 and 2014 due to legalized abortion.

        • Data re-evaluation shows abortion associated with increased murder rate — Abortion Link to Crime Decrease Debunked

          By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D. and Laura Antkowiak

          https://www.nrlc.org/archive/news/2001/NRL06/randylaura.html

          “Problems lie not just in what Donohue and Levitt did with their numbers. At least one scholar noted problems with Donohue and Levitt’s initial data itself. Says economist Ted Joyce of Baruch College and the National Bureau of Economic Research, ‘Can you tease out that effect [of abortion] from crude aggregate data on crime 15 to 20 years later? I don’t think so.'”

        • You can’t prove crime was affected by the abortions, just as you cannot prove any of the aborted could have been the one to cure cancer. But your just dodging your true character as a evil person who justifies abortion because they may grow up to be criminals even though the probability exists they could also contribute greatly.

          I notice the other questions about your boogey man keeping you down were unanswered.

        • to Strom Trooper and Alien Klingon.

          You can always count on the uneducated Far Right to be complete Morons because they lack even common sense. Even without the Levitt and Donahue studies common sense tells you that unwanted children grow up with less education therefore less job opportunities. Unwanted children are often abused by boyfriends who are not the fathers of the children. The Florida School Shooting was by a deranged young man named Cruz who was an orphan and his adoptive parents died and that was just one case of many.

          And Alien Klingon every link you give is far right nonsense. I started laughing my ass off when your outrageous link was quoting John Lott who’s work on gun control was a complete joke and debunked by numerous studies.

        • Spin all you want. You are still an evil human.

          Common sense, i don’t believe you know the definition as you repeatedly parrot points that are fail.

          You prove it by not even considering that one of the aborted could grow up and be a productive person. Saying that all who grow up in broken homes turn into criminals is devoid of common sense.

        • dacien —

          “Even without the Levitt and Donahue studies common sense tells you … ”

          Study. Singular. You’ve only quoted one study to support your case. And when I proved that’s it’s been debunked, you tossed it and replaced it with “common sense.” Which is hilarious, because you lack it.

          ” … every link you give is far right nonsense.”

          Yeah, economist Ted Joyce of Baruch College and the National Bureau of Economic Research, quoted in the conclusion — a raging conservative if ever there was one.

          The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is an American private nonprofit research organization “committed to undertaking and disseminating unbiased economic research among public policymakers, business professionals, and the academic community”. The NBER is well known for providing start and end dates for recessions in the United States.

          Many of the Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers have been NBER Research Associates, including the former NBER President and Harvard Professor, Martin Feldstein.

          Keep pounding that table.

  19. “To all who might swarm me shouting SECOND AMENDMENT: until DC v Heller (2008) the 2A was *never* construed to guarantee a right to a personal firearm. Since then, it has meant a right to have one in the home for personal protection, subject to reasonable regulation.”

    I’m pretty sure it DOES say the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. With that reasoning, should abortions only be allowed in one’s home? Or did I miss the part about “the right to abortions shall not be infringed”?

  20. The liberals are deflecting the most important issue here, the fact that it was leaked in the first place.

  21. Don’t tie gun rights to a position on an extraneous issue like abortion. You don’t want potential supporters to ask themselves which right they are willing to sacrifice in order to advance their position on the other. There’s room in the pro-gun community for people on both sides of the abortion debate. Whatever happened to “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?”

  22. “Whatever happened to “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it?” ”

    Balderdash.

    If you don’t agree entirely with me, on whatever matter I choose, you are a nudnick, and should be treated like Texas Aggies.

    • ISWYDT, Sam!

      Q: How do you tell an Aggie from a steer?
      A: The steer has a more intelligent look on its face.

      • “Q: How do you tell an Aggie from a steer?
        A: The steer has a more intelligent look on its face.”

        Texas A&M is an excellent engineering school (not sure how engineering and Agricultural and Mineral relate, but anyway….).

        To their great credit, Aggies are still befuddled and fascinated with how a thermos bottle can keep hot content hot, and cold content cold, without possessing information regarding exactly what and which the content is, before being placed in the thermos bottle. For Aggies, the eternal cosmic question about the thermos bottle is, “How does it know?”

        • Just tell them “The contents are the system and the system always knows -q for obvious reasons”.

          They’ll light up like a child on Christmas morning and go on about their day eternally grateful that you cleared that up for them in plain language they can understand.

  23. The 2nd Amendment only applied to the Federal Gov (so basically the FFL is unconstitutional) BUT, with the passage of the 14th Amendment, it was extended to all the states. What Lefties forget is that many states, like Pennsylvania, guaranteed an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms- it wasn’t just about militias.

    Yes- the SCOTUS chipped away at it every which way it could- because the SCOTUS is by definition elitist, and there were serious worries about the Labor Movement, Communism (the Brits lost most of their gun rights due to that- see George Orwell), and a bit later, the Public Enemy era.

    Freedom of Speech took a real beating during this era as well, and the 1st Amendment is about as clear as day as well.

    Basically, the American Government was well on its way to full Authoritarianism, but people were woken up by Hitler’s Germany and the Civil Rights era, and the NRA getting off their asses, moved the dial back.

    We have to stay vigilant and shut down what elitists (like Sagal) think.

  24. @LampOfDiogenes
    Yes, the debate between federalists and anti-federalists represented another point of contention among the founders, another point that could have led to retaining the Articles of Confederation. The fundamental difference was that as a governing restriction implemented by the sovereign States (formerly independent colonies), the Constitution was obviously a list of restraints on the central government, not a list of all powers sovereign States (and the people) retained. If a power/permission was not listed in the Constitution, the government had no authority to rule/control. The corollary was that powers not specifically granted to the central committee did not permit the central government to act in the absence. The anti-federalists (whom I think were more attune to the core corruption of people, thus governments) were very skeptical of a government not nailed to the floor.

    As to listing, somewhere in the Constitution or BOR, “all” the rights not granted the central government, the same confusion, and opportunity for mischief, would arise when the States, or the people, attempted to either assert an unenumerated right, or when the government assumed that even with an extensive list, where the document was silent, government could control.

    We are living the result of the absolute declaration of the rights and powers of the States, and “the people”. “Shall not be infringed”, and “Congress shall make no law” are very dramatic, and perfectly clear in wording. Yet, here we are. Confine a prisoner, and he/she/it will scheme and scheme a way to break free. So it is with governments of humans.

    No document can enforce itself. Thus, Franklin’s admonition that the people are ultimately, and ever, responsible for preserving the government established by the constitution. National politicians were to be our messengers. Instead, we made them our proxy, and delegated the safety of the Constitution to elected politicians.

    (Note: if RTKBA is declaring a natural, human and civil right, undeclared/retained rights are equivalent. If RTKBA, and abortion are declared natural, human and civil rights, one enumerated – the other not, they both are equivalent. There is no scale of “rights” contemplated by the founders.)

  25. @strych9
    “Just tell them “The contents are the system and the system always knows -q for obvious reasons”.

    Excellent tip !!

    Will file it for future use.

    • Just don’t ask them if the system does work on the surrounding or vice versa. Heads will explode when you get to the idea that a modern thermos is a self-contained area of not-surroundings which is how it “works” but “works” doesn’t mean w….

      Yeah, just don’t go there. Unless you’re trolling.

      • “Heads will explode when you get to the idea that a modern thermos is a self-contained area of not-surroundings which is how it “works” but “works” doesn’t mean w….”

        To be fair to Texas Aggies (but why?)….my head exploded when I learned that merely observing sub-atomic particles can influence their properties. And let’s not even begin with that cat proposition.

        • Everyone’s heard of Schrodinger’s cat but have you heard of Doppler’s cat?

          mmmmmeeeeEEEEEOOOOWwwwww

          First time I heard that I just looked at the person. They asked if I got it. I said it was the worst joke I’d ever heard and walked away.

          But, as it turns out, it’s like Napoleon Dynamite the first time it’s awful. After a few times it gets a chuckle.

  26. dacien —

    “You [sic] link was to a radical right wing web site that is pure bullshit and hysteria. Its [sic] a complete joke

    “Here is the real truth”

    PLANNED PARENTHOOD?!? Well, sure, OK. From the link:

    What are the possible risks of taking the abortion pill?

    Medication abortion has been used safely in the U.S. for more than 20 years. Serious complications are really rare, but can happen. These include:

    the abortion pills don’t work and the pregnancy doesn’t end

    some of the pregnancy tissue is left in your uterus

    blood clots in your uterus

    bleeding too much or too long

    infection

    allergic reaction to one of the medicines

    These problems aren’t common. And if they do happen, they’re usually easy to take care of with medication or other treatments.

    In extremely rare cases, some complications can be very serious or even life threatening. Call your doctor or health center right away if you:

    have no bleeding within 24 hours after taking the second medicine (misoprostol)

    have heavy bleeding from your vagina that soaks through more than 2 maxi pads in an hour, for 2 or more hours in a row

    pass large clots (bigger than a lemon) for more than 2 hours

    have belly pain or cramps that don’t get better with pain medication

    have a fever of 100.4 or higher more than 24 hours after taking misoprostol

    have weakness, nausea, vomiting, and/or diarrhea that lasts more than 24 hours after taking misoprostol

    My comment: I find it interesting that Planned Parenthood promotes the use of the abortion pill. Why would they cut themselves out of the highly-profitable business of selling baby parts from those they aborted?

    “In a recent preliminary hearing in the court case against the Center for Medical Progress, a Planned Parenthood official admitted to harvesting aborted fetal parts for the purpose of selling them to human tissue procurement companies.”

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/planned-parenthood-was-just-forced-to-admit-in-court-to-harvesting-aborted-fetal-parts

  27. @strych9
    “Everyone’s heard of Schrodinger’s cat but have you heard of Doppler’s cat?
    mmmmmeeeeEEEEEOOOOWwwwww”

    Same sound our last cat made when hungry; but he was standing still.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here