Kavanaugh Asks if Texas Abortion Law Could Be Model for Bans on Gun Rights

[edthecynic]

He initially estimated that approximately a million and a half crimes were prevented by the defensive use of firearms. He later upped that estimate to about two and a half million.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Should car wreck victims be able to sue car companies?

In some instances, they already have.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Guns enable over 20,000 suicides and over 10,000 murders in USA each year.

Don't be stupid .

 

[Smokin' OP]

Abortion isn't a constitutional right. So, I'd say Kavanaughs concerns are unwarranted.

For all intensive purposes, abortion is, just like the 2nd amendment.
Abortion was decided by the SC to be constitutional.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Guns enable over 20,000 suicides and over 10,000 murders in USA each year.

Suicides would happen with out firearms retard.

 

[JoeB131]

Guns also enable one to defend one's self against criminal attack; and for some, they allow hunting as a means of providing food.

No one needs to hunt to feed themselves at this point, guy. We have supermarkets.

It's from a famous study carried out, I think, in the 1990s, by Gary Keck. He initially estimated that approximately a million and a half crimes were prevented by the defensive use of firearms. He later upped that estimate to about two and a half million.

And both numbers were sheer bullshit.

Here's the number we are sure about. The FBI states only 200 Americans kill an attacker in legitimate self-defense a year. Now, no matter what number you use for non-lethal DGU's, you'd have to accept that 99.9% of the time, a gun nut has an opportunity to kill a darkie... I mean a bad guy... yeah, bad guy, that's the ticket, and doesn't. Given how much you gun nuts fantasize about it, that's just not credible.

Your big error is in assuming that the only way a gun can be used to prevent a crime is by killing the would-be criminal. The vast majority of legitimate defensive use of firearms have not involved killing the criminal, nor even discharging the firearm.

Again, works on the assumption someone who is desperate enough to commit a crime will be deterred by the mere sight of a gun 99.9% of the time. Just doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

[JoeB131]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it deny that these innocent human beings are what they clearly are. This denial comes from the exact same evil that once denied that blacks were fully human. The very same degenerate ideology is responsible for both. See also, “Untermenschen” in 1930s-1940s Germany. Or an of the other instance throughout history where one group denied the humanity of another, in order to excuse and justify horrific abuses against that other group. That, Incel Joe, is the side on which you stand.

Naw, man, I stand on the side that women are more than breeding machines, a concept kind of lost on your sick-ass cult.

Women have been having abortions since Jesus lost his sandals. Even when abortion was "illegal", no one was charged with murder for performing them. Women were never charged with a crime for having them and the only time providers were charged is if they fucked up and injured the woman.

If you want a real analog to abortion laws, think Prohibition. The moral do-gooders banned alcohol, but people kept drinking. The laws were poorly enforced at led to worse things, like organized crime and people getting messed up when they drank alcohol that wasn't quality controlled in it's manufacture.

The ironic thing was, SCOTUS, including 5 Republican appointees at the time, didn't think they were doing anything that radical when they struck down the nation's unworkable and unenforced abortion laws. They thought it was no more controversial than when they ended contraception laws eight years earlier in Griswold v. Connecticut. What they hadn't counted on was a bunch of moralistic twit using the issue for political reasons.

 

[JoeB131]

Should car wreck victims be able to sue car companies?

If the car wasn't designed properly, sure. Let's not forget the story of the Pinto, where Ford decided that it would be cheaper to pay out people who burned to death than to recall millions of cars to do an $11.00 repair.

You can't protect one company, while making another company fair game. Either both can be sued, or neither can be sued.

Except only one of those designs a product to kill people, and then markets them to the most irresponsible people imaginable.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Obama's Justice Department did the same study Gleck did and came up with similar numbers Joe shit stain.

 

[JoeB131]

Obama's Justice Department did the same study Gleck did and came up with similar numbers Joe shit stain.

Nope. Obama just reprinted all studies on DGU's, including Kleck's (not Gleck), which is utter bullshit.

The CDC is actually prohibited from studying gun violence. Has been since Kellerman found that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nope. Obama just reprinted all studies on DGU's, including Kleck's (not Gleck), which is utter bullshit.

The CDC is actually prohibited from studying gun violence. Has been since Kellerman found that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

Ahh that LIE again you keep repeating it when it has been debunked almost since the day it was uttered.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

https://firearmsandliberty.com/papers-shade/StatisticalMisgivingsandLies.PDF Here ya go retard, even Kellerman admitted that figure was wrong

 

[Auld Phart]

Obviously not.

Obviously not.

Thanks for the proof I was right

 

[Auld Phart]

Should car wreck victims be able to sue car companies?

If the wreck was due to a mechanical malfunction, yes

Operator error, no

 

[Crepitus]

Thanks for the proof I was right

If that's what you got outta my post then I can't help you.

 

[Auld Phart]

If that's what you got outta my post then I can't help you.

I doubt you could help anyone.

 

[Abatis]

I didn't realize it but this topic is like the perfect storm, abortion and gun control.

Now all I need is figure out how to throw tipping into the mix.


lol

The interesting thing is, the right to arms and the right to abortion are linked.

The storm you note could be kicked up a bit more if one were to say that the right to abortion (well actually the right to privacy) is actually dependent upon the fundamental and inviolate nature of the right to keep and bear arms.

One could say that dumb liberals don't understand at all, the legal doctrine by which the right to privacy was recognized. One could say that dumb liberals don't get that if they are successful crushing the right to arms, they are giving the social/cultural right-wingers an irrefutable legal argument to kill the Court's recognition of the right to privacy and the derivative rights of abortion, contraception and of course, LGBTQ+ rights.

It is the ultimate 'be careful what you wish for' scenario.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

If the wreck was due to a mechanical malfunction, yes

Operator error, no

The same standard should apply to gun manufacturers.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

If the car wasn't designed properly, sure. Let's not forget the story of the Pinto, where Ford decided that it would be cheaper to pay out people who burned to death than to recall millions of cars to do an $11.00 repair.



Except only one of those designs a product to kill people, and then markets them to the most irresponsible people imaginable.

No manufacturer should be held responsible for abuse of their product.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

For all intensive purposes, abortion is, just like the 2nd amendment.
Abortion was decided by the SC to be constitutional.

The Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to give citizens a right.

What Roe said, is that the government can't violate the 4th Amendment. It never said abortion is constitutional.