A comparison of reproductive rights and gun rights

[JakeStarkey]

So I will re-open it. With the new shootings in San Bernadino ongoing right now, Americans must discuss fully and openly the role of firearms in America.

I do not want to hear stupdities like "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." If that were the case just send military people to the ME and clean up the mess there tomorrow.

Reproduction rights and gun rights are constitutional facts.

That does not mean we cannot discuss them.

 

[amrchaos]

I thought we were going to force women to license their breasts as weapons of mass distraction!

 

[martybegan]

So I will re-open it. With the new shootings in San Bernadino ongoing right now, Americans must discuss fully and openly the role of firearms in America.

I do not want to hear stupdities like "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." If that were the case just send military people to the ME and clean up the mess there tomorrow.

Reproduction rights and gun rights are constitutional facts.

That does not mean we cannot discuss them.

Dumb comparison is still dumb.

Fine, in NYC a woman would have to wait 3-6 months, fill out about 20 different forms, and promise to keep her vagina unloaded, with her ovaries in a separate storage container. It would also cost her $1000 or so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"A comparison of reproductive rights and gun rights"

This also illustrates the hypocrisy common to most on the right, and how most conservatives are inconsistent with their 'arguments.'

Most on the right have no problem with the errant, wrongheaded notion that states should be allowed to violate or deny women their right to privacy by 'banning' abortion, reflecting the 'will of the people.'

Yet when a state enacts a Constitutional firearm regulatory measure, reflecting the 'will of the people,' conservatives seek to violate the 'will of the people' by challenging that measure in Federal court.

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

If states have the 'right' to violate a woman's right to privacy by 'banning' abortion, reflecting the 'will of the people' of that state, then states also have the right to ban AR 15s, likewise reflecting the 'will of the people.'

As a fact of Constitutional law, of course, the people completely lack the 'authority' to violate either a woman's right to privacy or a citizen's right to possess a firearm, which is an accurate, factual, and consistent application of Constitutional jurisprudence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

MartyBegan writes,"Dumb comparison is still dumb. Fine, in NYC a woman would have to wait 3-6 months, fill out about 20 different forms, and promise to keep her vagina unloaded, with her ovaries in a separate storage container. It would also cost her $1000 or so."

You have no idea of the procedures a woman must undergo to gt an abortion in terms of $$$, red tape, time, and people in her business. The comment on vagina and ovaries is irresponsible and ridiculous. We are talking about constitutional rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And, Jones, your comment about conservatives can't have it both ways is wrong. Sure, they can. So do liberals. Both groups are progressive statists. The cons are more than willing to use Big Government. They just deny it is all.

 

[goofyfoot2001]

So I will re-open it. With the new shootings in San Bernadino ongoing right now, Americans must discuss fully and openly the role of firearms in America.

I do not want to hear stupdities like "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." If that were the case just send military people to the ME and clean up the mess there tomorrow.

Reproduction rights and gun rights are constitutional facts.

That does not mean we cannot discuss them.

Reproductive rights, assuming you mean abortion have never been constitutional rights. Unless someone amended the bill of rights while I was away someplace. Just sayin. Havent even finished reading your post yet.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

 

[JakeStarkey]

I suggest goofy read Roe v Wade and all the legal literature since then.

Just saying: one can have an opinion but it does not supplement the law.

 

[goofyfoot2001]

Read your post and again, abortion isnt a constitutional right. Its the result of a ruling on a law. It is possible for this law to be struck down by future supreme courts. Especially since this lawless group on the court has set all kinds of precedents of how to not follow it. So abortion is legal. Fine, but the problem is now you want me to pay for it. So, is the left prepared to pay for my bullets? The jacketed kind, not the spermasoa.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

 

[JakeStarkey]

Goofy, read Roe v. Wade again. SCOTUS says abortion is a part of a constitutional right to privacy. That you don't agree does not matter. Interpretation by SCOTUS irritates you, I gather.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Goofy, read Roe v. Wade again. SCOTUS says abortion is a part of a constitutional right to privacy. That you don't agree does not matter. Interpretation by SCOTUS irritates you, I gather.

The feds don't pay for abortion. States, however, through medicaid, often do. I did not like my tax money going to support an illegal war in Iraq, but there it is.