Roe v Wade overturned

What was the mag capacity limit in the constitution? Where bump stocks in it. Full auto? That’s a tired argument. What wasn’t around in the late 1700s which is common place today?
Actually if you think about what was around then. Private people had the same weapons as the government...canons, war ships, etc. Some of which I don't think your allowed to legally have/use now without permits (I could be wrong). So they wrote that law knowing that private people had access and rights to the same weapons as the government. Part of the reason that they wanted that was so that citizens could protect themselves from a government. You can't look at one aspect of that time without looking at the full aspect. So who really knows if they would have done anything differently if they had auto guns etc.

So technically, according to the constitution it should be legal for me to own a nuke. Do I think that is OK? No, it isn't but the law/ammendment should be changed legally through due process, and until then...
 
Last edited:
The majority of the court were put there by a president who didn’t win with a majority vote. For context
I'm confused as to why you are trying to make this point on a comment about the House/Senate...those representatives are elected officials. SCOTUS doesn't make laws...
 
The majority of the court were put there by a president who didn’t win with a majority vote. For context
Doesn't matter. We are not a democracy. Majority does not rule. Heck there are a lot of things getting changed these days for a very slim majority of the population (and beliefs). If straight majority ruled, I would think many of those things would not be happening.

The constitution and law was followed in those elections, whether you like it or not. I disagree with a bunch of things that happened in this last election, and some illegal things as far as state constitutions, but I am not screaming he is not my president etc. It is what it is. Rule of law was followed. Court cases were fought over it. Next election we all get to vote again in this great constitutional republic.
 
“Keep and bear arms” has always been crystal clear to me and many others. Finally SCOTUS agrees.
That's one interpretation. Just like the "right to...liberty" in the 14th could be interpreted as abortion is a constitutional right.

And what of the first part of the 2nd? You know, the part about a REGULATED militia. What regulations exist? There's no training, no structure, no communication. All you have is a bunch of gun nuts shooting each other.
 
I'm confused as to why you are trying to make this point on a comment about the House/Senate...those representatives are elected officials. SCOTUS doesn't make laws...
Fair point. You replied about if the majority of people want abortions legal why hasn’t it passed through house and senate, which is a good question. The political system doesn’t work based on majority with my post giving a strong example. Broken system for people of all viewpoints
 
@Boomslang I get it. Your point is certainly valid. At the end of the day all we really have are arguments and interpretations.

I would note, however, that the left doesn’t like militias either. Anytime a group of armed Trump supporters (for example) gathered pretty much anywhere they were not called a militia even if they were well regulated and trained. They were called “homegrown terrorists” or right wing vigilantes.

Let’s face it: even if we had the worlds best trained and most “regulated” militia (whatever the court decides that means), our media would not call it that. They would be deemed a threat to democracy, a terrorist group, or -gasp- insurrectionists.
 
@Bucknut the other problem too is that in today's America militias are moot. Back when the Constitution was written the US didn't have a particularly large or well-trained standing army. And with a huge territory to protect it made sense to have everyday people armed. Today however, armed citizens are like ants versus the power of the United States military. It's no contest.

People want guns to "protect" them from the other people with guns. But that protection rarely occurs.
 
I agree with most of that. I think of it like this: Good, kind, moral, law abiding citizens never get to decide if or when they are a victim. But (at least in my state) they do get to decide whether they are a helpless victim. I choose not to be helpless if I’m ever in a life/death situation.

Depending on my destination, I almost never leave the house without my gun. (Although admittedly I don’t have it at work. Would be impossible to work with it and irresponsible to leave it in the truck IMO).
 
This smells a little like the "haves" screwing the "have nots" once again.

The "haves" are not at all affected. They still have access to abortion, whether in another state or another country. The "have nots" will suffer the botched underground abortions, the unwanted children (the mothers and unwanted children themselves), slipping further into poverty, etc.

But at least it creates a future generation of low wage workers for the "haves."

I do believe the dividing line is primarily drawn on moral grounds, yet I also believe there's some truth in the above statements.
 
I agree with most of that. I think of it like this: Good, kind, moral, law abiding citizens never get to decide if or when they are a victim. But (at least in my state) they do get to decide whether they are a helpless victim. I choose not to be helpless if I’m ever in a life/death situation.

Depending on my destination, I almost never leave the house without my gun. (Although admittedly I don’t have it at work. Would be impossible to work with it and irresponsible to leave it in the truck IMO).
But isn't that an attitude you would like to see changed? What you describe is unheard of in most 1st world countries.
 
People gonna do what people gonna do. You can't legislate morality. You can criminalize things, but that doesn't stop the behavior or act. If it did, we wouldn't need jails or prisons because they'd be empty.
During the prohibition consumption went up, not down
 
There is a huge difference between those two rulings. One is talked about in the constitution and one is not. Plus they didn't really strike down NY law. State are allow to deny gun permits if they have a clearly defined reason to do so. NY you had to prove you needed one, and they could deny it without reason...so therefore illegal under the constitution.
“Keep and bear arms” has always been crystal clear to me and many others. Finally SCOTUS agrees.


I posted a snippet of Kavanaugh's concurrence above in post #29. He explicitly says he would find against any state trying to criminalize going out of state seeking an abortion. He bases this on the right to interstate travel. I agree with him, and you.
Woah I go make dinner and do the dishes and I’ve missed a lot.

I’m glad you both agree. I found those threats of persecution to be the scariest thing I have heard in a long time. I dug a little deeper and while a bill in Missouri wants to do something like this, it doesn’t look like it will pass. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/04/23/politics/abortion-out-of-state-legislation/index.html
 
The 8th...cruel and unusual punishment comes to mind. Cruel for the mother being coerced into being a parent in a society that provides no support. Cruel to a child being brought in to the world unwanted and likely to live in poverty. But hey, maybe they'll be lucky and get shot during second period math class in 9 years. Since apparently that's an inalienable right.
The 14th too mentions privacy, which roe vs wade was drafted from
 
If that is the case, then why hasn't abortion been made into a Federal law through legislation? My guess is because there wouldn't be enough votes in the House/Senate for the needed/required majority vote for it to pass. A recent example would be H.R. 3755 - Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 which was introduced in June 2021. It was a bill that would effectively codify a right to an abortion, but it failed to pass when it died in the Senate this past May because it didn't reach the Senate's 60-vote threshold.
That's not a lack of will, or desire for change, among the popular majority; it's the concerted effort of the obstructionist Republican senators. It's been shown that about 80% of the policy changes that the majority of citizens endorse suffer defeat in Congress, which is bought and paid for (and staffed in many cases) by the ultra rich.

How many times have the Republicans been asked what they would replace ObamaCare with? They have no answer and they don't care enough about common folk to even cobble together an alternative. They would simply take it away, get their bonuses from the insurance companies, and never think about you and me again. In 2020, the Republica-Nazis couldn't even find the will to develop a party platform: Whatever trump wanted to do was fine with them. "Oh, what will I do if trump gets mad at me!" They are despicable, disgraceful, duplicitous, anti-democratic, immoral cowards (as are, in my opinion, those who continue to vote for them).

This time it's abortion which, like health care, they are happy to crush with complete disregard for the terrible sociological results that will ensue. I know, I know, the states can still support abortion if they wish. But, as of yesterday, America can no longer say that abortion is a national civil right--and that is a damned shame! The life of a fetus is nothing when compared to that of a teenage rape victim, or a destitute mother who cannot raise the child. But, oh yeah, if the mother is willing to admit her sins and forthwith adhere to the pro-lifers' religious tenets, she may be offered support and adoption services. Oh my god!

Republican anarchists like Bannon, Cruz, Jordan, and hundreds more, simply want to "blow it up" while putting forth no policies or plans to make America better. What do they envision for America after our institutions are gone? What will happen when neo-Nazis in the northwest go completely rogue? Will Republicans continue to look to trump (a man who knows less about world history than a five-year-old, and wouldn't recognize a teachable moment if it bit him) and the insurrectionists for guidance? I'll tell you what I don't understand: Why didn't the officers protecting the Capitol simply open fire on the insurrectionists? I no doubt would have. And when it was over, I would have proudly proclaimed that, "I am a good guy with a gun."

If Congressional Republicans had any courage or some respect whatsoever for their oaths of office, they wouldn't still be campaigning for office while claiming that the last election was a fraud (even though many of them were elected/reelected in that same election). Republicans of this ilk should be ashamed of themselves, removed from current office, condemned by all, and prevented from ever holding office in the future. Their behavior is treasonous, as it undermines our constitution, circumvents the will of the people, and weakens the integrity of our elections.

Perhaps this week's best example is Clarence Thomas, who instead of resigning in disgrace (like he didn't know what his "best friend" was up to!) is running around looking for other civil rights to dismantle. You know what's been so great about the January 6th hearings? No screaming, lying Jim Jordan and friends--just cohesive, linear, indisputable facts. If trump and his ilk are not severely sanctioned and disallowed from public office because of this evidence, our country is finished. And I guess that's when the Republicans will rejoice?
 
@Boomslang I get it. Your point is certainly valid. At the end of the day all we really have are arguments and interpretations.

I would note, however, that the left doesn’t like militias either. Anytime a group of armed Trump supporters (for example) gathered pretty much anywhere they were not called a militia even if they were well regulated and trained. They were called “homegrown terrorists” or right wing vigilantes.

Let’s face it: even if we had the worlds best trained and most “regulated” militia (whatever the court decides that means), our media would not call it that. They would be deemed a threat to democracy, a terrorist group, or -gasp- insurrectionists.
This left/right thing has to stop for us to proceed as a society. I can easily be labeled as left but I detest the stereo typical “leftist”.
It’s a fucken spectrum and one can have view points all over the map. The us vs them is a classic form of psyop warfare.

We need to find common ground and build upon that, that must be done to go forward in understanding others differences.
 
Maybe it's semantics, but I disagree. Laws can't change my morals, only criminalize them.
Yes, I likely misunderstood your meaning. I guess I was thinking of something like prohibition, wherein government prohibits behavior based on "moral" grounds. Or criminalizes abortion for similar reasons.
 
@Bucknut the other problem too is that in today's America militias are moot. Back when the Constitution was written the US didn't have a particularly large or well-trained standing army. And with a huge territory to protect it made sense to have everyday people armed. Today however, armed citizens are like ants versus the power of the United States military. It's no contest.

People want guns to "protect" them from the other people with guns. But that protection rarely occurs.
This question should be answered by the cave dwelling goat farmers with 70 year old weapons who held the militaries of several world powers at bay
 

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom