Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You are so lost in all of this. 60 million unborn children have been blood thirsty killed because they were in the way. There is nothing more disgusting than that and that is mostly on Democrats. It's a sickness.This is a truly sick and ghoulish comment, made by a man apparently lacking a soul or moral compass, or any shred of humanity.
Like this comment …
Woodwork’s comment evidences a bizarre connection between violent fantasies, rightwing gun fetishism, extremist anti-abortion views and “ghoulish” attitudes toward pregnant women. In both cases we see that these lunatics have no concern for real women, or for their future children either.
Almost a fourth of real American women — our sisters and daughters — make the difficult and often painful decision to have an abortion. Decent men stand by their women when they get into trouble.
The sad hard truth is …
“If men could have babies, abortion would be a sacrament.”
Religious fanatics and ideologues like wordwork201 sometimes seek to hide their authoritarian and murderous impulses by pretending to be “libertarian” or by claiming respect for “small government” — but it is clear in this case we are dealing with an amoral nihilist who just wants state laws and power to control women’s bodies … even fantasizing about murdering pregnant women. These types want to punish women. They also want laws to jail or murder family planners and doctors who help women make their difficult decisions about when to bring children into the world.
Mothers being able to raise healthy children, waiting to create a loving environment with two mature parents to support them — this takes a back seat to such men’s violent fantasies and authoritarian impulses.
The creep woodwork201 claims to understand men like Thomas Paine — one of our most “enlightened” and “progressive” founding fathers. Do the quotes by him and Cougarbear sound even remotely like something Thomas Paine (or other prominent “Founding Fathers”) could have written more than two centuries ago?
Good job idiot. Why do you want rapists and murders to have guns? But Like I said, I never said anything about the 5th amendment. So you go right ahead and continue your retarded witch hunt, you get more stupid each day. This guy wants violent criminals to have guns. What a patriot.
I'm coming for your guns!
Listen you, what you all have done is taken everything to damned far, and it's come back to bite you all in your ace, so no one is regretting seeing you all get your just desert's for acting like the most deranged people on earth. Education eh ??? If you are part of the Dimocrat party, then I wouldn't even mention that you have been educated, because how does someone so uneducated on life especially concerning matters or ethical and moral behaviour's in general, have any type of education or call it that ?I never said there was a right to abortion in the Constitution. But Roe established that it was unconstitutional to outright ban the practice.
As such for most of YOUR LIFE the US Government has said it is a RIGHT of women to have access to abortion services.
The interesting thing (you wouldn't understand it because you are exceptionally stupid) is that Roe also hinged on the IMPLIED right to "privacy". In fact that has come up a lot in the conversations around Roe. The US Constitution does NOT provide a right to privacy so it has been "inferred" in a number of cases. Roe being one among them.
As such you would be interested to know that you may be opening a door here that you don't actually want opened. But you are so short-sighted and blinkered by your general lack of education that you don't realize what has just happened and how it may very well, one day, come around to bite you.
Remember: all your favorite justices who penned this decision may very well have come close to LYING before Congress. I have no doubt they parsed their words closely. Which is fun because they were effectively lying for God. Especially Amy Barrett. You know, Handmaid #675? LOL.
Settled Law doesn't mean much these days. Maybe that will apply elsewhere? We'll see.
For the meantime, though, enjoy your guns. Because you are SOOOOO pro-life you have a gun.
Dam that Google spell correct... ROTFLMBO... Love the way it anticipates a word, and if you don't proof read afterwards oh well... You know what the statement meant or you couldn't have corrected me you ole spell check Nazi you.. lolI bet it's mostly made up of people who know the difference between the word "pole" and "poll".
Obviously, such an extremist, anarchistic claim is untrue.Background checks are unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, they are eminently suitable for that application, depending on who is allowed to wield them.Guns are not made to use on innocent, helpless unborn babies.
This is a lie.Background checks are unconstitutional.
www.scotusblog.com
Dam that Google spell correct... ROTFLMBO... Love the way it anticipates a word, and if you don't proof read afterwards oh well... You know what the statement meant or you couldn't have corrected me you ole spell check Nazi you.. lol
Guns are not made to use on innocent, helpless unborn babies. They are used to deter or kill dangerous predators,
When the evil works of Democrats come back to bite them in the rear, Democrats invariably try to lie their way out of what was certain to follow to thinking people, Republicans.
woodwork201 :
Background checks are unconstitutional.
THANK YOU C_Clayton_Jones ! At last a clear and concise report on the decision and dissents, with an objective presentation of some relevant history.This is a lie.
Background checks are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Indeed, in Bruen, the Court reaffirmed the fact that requirement such as background checks are lawful:
‘Kavanaugh quoted at length from the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 opinion affirming the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. “[N]othing in our opinion,” Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”’
In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York's concealed-carry law - SCOTUSblog
This article was updated on June 23 at 4:06 p.m. The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves. The 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, is the court’
Mostly because it is an easy argument to make.As you say, you and the link clearly expose the LIES and madness of lunatics like woodwork201 who argue that “background checks are unconstitutional.”
Demonstrate this to be true.The argument that “background checks are unconstitutional” is “easy to make” only if one ignores reality, social and Constitutional history and “Common Sense.”
The comparison with walking down the street minding your own business and being stopped and harassed by police is artificial
You do not have a right to drive on public roads.. You do have a right to own a gun. Your analogy fails.The proper analogy for “gun background checks” is the background checks given before drivers licenses are granted...
My statement is neither extremist nor anarchist. I'm a firm believer in the rule of law and in our Constitutional Republic - not the Constitution part of that.Obviously, such an extremist, anarchistic claim is untrue.
Background checks are routinely conducted for private sector and government employment, housing, Class C driver licensing, etc. , etc., etc. Federal law requires that all states to implement state and federal criminal background checks that include fingerprints for child care providers.
41 States require some form of background check for firearm purchases. Permissiveness in accruing personal arsenals does not extend to homicidal crackpots.
This is a lie.
Background checks are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Indeed, in Bruen, the Court reaffirmed the fact that requirement such as background checks are lawful:
‘Kavanaugh quoted at length from the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 opinion affirming the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. “[N]othing in our opinion,” Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”’
In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York's concealed-carry law - SCOTUSblog
This article was updated on June 23 at 4:06 p.m. The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves. The 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, is the court’
Neither Kavanaugh nor Scalia ruled that those things were constitutional. They said that the current decisions did not address the constitutionality of those issues just as overturning Roe and Casey did not overturn gay marriage.This is a lie.
Background checks are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Indeed, in Bruen, the Court reaffirmed the fact that requirement such as background checks are lawful:
‘Kavanaugh quoted at length from the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 opinion affirming the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. “[N]othing in our opinion,” Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”’
In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York's concealed-carry law - SCOTUSblog
This article was updated on June 23 at 4:06 p.m. The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves. The 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, is the court’
Idiotic post.THANK YOU C_Clayton_Jones ! At last a clear and concise report on the decision and dissents, with an objective presentation of some relevant history.
Your comment and the link clearly exposes the LIES and misrepresentations of lunatics like woodwork201 — who argue that “background checks are unconstitutional.”
Fools — and woman-haters — like woodwork201 want to permit the mentally deranged, abusers of women and criminals to assemble unlimited caches of all types of weapons (why not fully automatic weapons?) without any background checks. Their insane interpretations of the 2nd Amendment would of course outlaw registration and fingerprinting as widely practiced, thus hamstringing necessary anti-crime law enforcement efforts.
It makes you wonder if people like woodwork201 are fearful of background checks because they themselves are not a part of the “people” whose “right to bear arms” is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, but instead actually are part of the criminal class … who working people need police and courts and even guns to protect themselves from.
