In response to Texas abortion ban, Newsom calls for similar restrictions on assault weapons

[C_Clayton_Jones]

LefTard Logic:
”We must continue to allow dark people to use abortion as a contraceptive as they are too stupid to know how to visit planned parenthood for free ****** funded birth control.”

This is rightwing racism.

 

[BrokeLoser]

The thread premise is a lie, and an example of the dishonest right.

No one advocates for ‘killing babies.’

The same weirdos who fight to protect the eagles egg also fight to destroy the human fetus.
hahaha….LefTard Logic….nobody sane understands it.

 

[BrokeLoser]

This is rightwing racism.

Hahaha…the problem is; that’s the position of the Left unveiled without spin.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Apparently Newsom wants revenge…
’If you’re going to stop us from killing babies, I’ll retaliate by taking your guns.’
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the Left.

In response to Texas abortion ban, Newsom calls for similar restrictions on assault weapons

The proposed law would let California citizens sue gun manufacturers, similar to how Texas has made it easier for its residents to sue abortion providers.

www.latimes.com

Fantastic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think you’re confused…where’s the correlation?
How does overturning Roe or upholding the Texas abortion law negate the validity of the Second?

You’re the one confused – and ignorant.

The Texas anti-privacy rights measure is un-Constitutional; to avoid the law being invalidated by the courts, it uses lawsuits by private citizens to enforce the law, not officers of the state.

AWBs are Constitutional, in no manner violating the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court having never ruled on the constitutionality of AWBs.

Should the Court invalidate AWBs – which it likely will in the near future – states with AWBs will continue to enforce the law using lawsuits by private citizens, the same way Texas is using private lawsuits to enforce its un-Constitutional abortion ‘ban.’

If you oppose California enforcing its AWB using private lawsuits, then you should likewise oppose Texas using private lawsuits to violate a woman’s right to privacy – conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Rightard logic...Oh wait a minute, rightards don't operate on logic...

View attachment 574878

What about vaccine mandates?

 

[Hellokitty]

All weapon manufacturers and ammo suppliers should stop selling to law enforcement in Kommie Kalifornia.

Right, and how will Hollywood make all those movies glorifying gun violence

 

[BrokeLoser]

You’re the one confused – and ignorant.

The Texas anti-privacy rights measure is un-Constitutional; to avoid the law being invalidated by the courts, it uses lawsuits by private citizens to enforce the law, not officers of the state.

AWBs are Constitutional, in no manner violating the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court having never ruled on the constitutionality of AWBs.

Should the Court invalidate AWBs – which it likely will in the near future – states with AWBs will continue to enforce the law using lawsuits by private citizens, the same way Texas is using private lawsuits to enforce its un-Constitutional abortion ‘ban.’

If you oppose California enforcing its AWB using private lawsuits, then you should likewise oppose Texas using private lawsuits to violate a woman’s right to privacy – conservatives can’t have it both ways.

You’re failing to realize the obvious Tard.
The 2A is written in the constitution…state law cannot supersede a constitutional right.
Roe was simply a bad court ruling…there is nothing in the constitution that affords you baby killers the right to kill babies.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Fantastic.

Democrats:
“Please Father Government, please deprive me of the rights gifted by our great framers, please protect us filthy Liberals from ourselves by controlling us via unconstitutional legislation.”

Republicans:
“We need to keep guns out of the hands of dark Democrats if we want to solve our gun problems.”

 

[pknopp]

You’re failing to realize the obvious Tard.
The 2A is written in the constitution…state law cannot supersede a constitutional right.
Roe was simply a bad court ruling…there is nothing in the constitution that affords you baby killers the right to kill babies.

The state has nothing to do with the enforcement. If one sues an abortion provider in Texas, it's not the state doing it.

 

[BrokeLoser]

The state has nothing to do with the enforcement. If one sues an abortion provider in Texas, it's not the state doing it.

There’s no basis or standing for such a lawsuit to have any validity. Sue away baby killers.
You have no fed or state constitutional right to kill the unborn.
Sucks huh?

 

[Dana7360]

I put this article up last night in a thread.

It was moved to the rubber room. I found out why it was moved.

So I'm reposting it without the part that I was told was the reason why it was moved to the rubber room.

The conversation on this subject can resume here. So everyone can see and read this.

MSN

www.msn.com

​

 

[pknopp]

There’s no basis or standing for such a lawsuit to have any validity. Sue away baby killers.
You have no fed or state constitutional right to kill the unborn.
Sucks huh?

I'm pro-life. I'm just not a political zealot such as yourself.

 

[Confederate Soldier]

What a waste of time.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I'm pro-life. I'm just not a political zealot such as yourself.

One does not need to be a “political zealot” to know we have a humane duty to protect the sanctity of life.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Already a thread on the complete nonsense

 

[pknopp]

One does not need to be a “political zealot” to know we have a humane duty to protect the sanctity of life.

Which in itself is fine but I will note, we have this duty even after the life is born.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

California democrats want to eliminate the ability of citizens to defend themselves. Why don't they pass a law tacking on 25 years to a prison sentence if an assault weapon is used. Nooo. The perpetrators of violent crimes are the victims.

 

[Donald H]

I put this article up last night in a thread.

It was moved to the rubber room. I found out why it was moved.

So I'm reposting it without the part that I was told was the reason why it was moved to the rubber room.

The conversation on this subject can resume here. So everyone can see and read this.

MSN

www.msn.com

​

Do you know enough about it to say whether or not it's a parallel to the Texas maneuver of the same nature?
Or is it possible that this would only work as a scare tactic that can move the Scotus back in the right direction?

 

[Polishprince]

I put this article up last night in a thread.

It was moved to the rubber room. I found out why it was moved.

So I'm reposting it without the part that I was told was the reason why it was moved to the rubber room.

The conversation on this subject can resume here. So everyone can see and read this.

MSN

www.msn.com

​

The reason why it goes into the Rubber Room is that the whole idea is complete nonsense- in the viewpoint of the administrators of course.