National Big 2A win today at US Supreme Court

[44Brent]

Always Guns vs Abortions, have fun losing rights by pushing possible supporters away.

Look closely at this political sign at a pro-abortion rally. The sign is a little blurry, but I will post the text for you. It says "MY UTERUS IS MORE REGULATED THAN YOUR GUNS".

So, I have a question for you: is this woman's uterus more regulated than your guns? Don't be shy, answer the question:

Is this woman subjected to red flag laws?
Does she have to get a license to have an abortion?
Does she have to sign a 4473-like form to have an abortion?
Does she have to go through a waiting period to have an abortion?
Does her abortionist have to have a federal license to perform an abortion?
Does she have to provide proof of having training in sex education before having an abortion?
Does this woman have to undergo background checks before having an abortion?
Does this woman have to have multiple references to testify to her good moral character in order to get a license to have an abortion?

 

[User 1234]

One thing I will point out is that 2A supporters don't even have the option of buying 2A votes by trying to become friends with abortion supporters. Even if it was morally correct somehow, they'd never suddenly do a 180 from their fanatical totalitarian policy menu and start voting 2A.

 

[Dr Prepper]

I totally don't get why they even care. Of you believe its a fundamental right and basically encouraged to kill people, especially young/unborn people. Why would they care about age limitations on that? Seems like they would most likely be the strongest gun supporters.

But whatever, if your looking for logic in the world when it comes to most *some people you came to the wrong planet!

 

[BAJ475]

And here we have an illustrated example from a woman holding a sign that says "PROTECT WOMEN NOT GUNS".

View attachment 1229807

While I think that women should be protected, I would love to ask her why I should support protecting women if she is not willing to protect me and my guns? You ask for my support and then tell me to go F myself? But, of course, that would fall on deaf ears.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

While I think that women should be protected, I would love to ask her why I should support protecting women if she is not willing to protect me and my guns? You ask for my support and then tell me to go F myself? But, of course, that would fall on deaf ears.

I wonder if you share the same definition of 'protecting' that she does and if that might make a difference in how it all plays out

 

[BAJ475]

I wonder if you share the same definition of 'protecting' that she does and if that might make a difference in how it all plays out

I do not know but you have pointed out a valid point.

 

[American123]

We're a government of the people, start by not alienating people who have different ideas then you. If voters on both sides demand their representatives respect the 2nd ammendment then the authoritarians won't be in power.

You realize that they say that because "The party you have to vote for to protect your guns" has actively fought against them for control of their body.

Going back throughout history in the U.S. was there two different primary political parties before abortion was legalized widespread by Roe v Wade and was there prior to abortion being widespread legalized, already a push by some politicians to infringe on 2nd amendment rights?

It is impossible to please everyone 100% of the time, and alienating no one is impossible.

 

[nwslopoke]

Here's the AP News feed that a lot of news (propaganda) agencies are using.

Supreme Court expands gun rights, with nation divided

The Supreme Court has ruled that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, a major expansion of gun rights.

apnews.com

It's a joke to say gun rights are being expanded, as they do in the article. Say your gun rights are $1. The government can't take that dollar, give you back eighty cents and say they've expanded your money. You already had a dollar.

The fact media lies so openly with no consequences is a big part of the problem. Gun owners aren't the only ones numb to the lies. Normies just want to hitch their wagon to the first one claiming to have an answer. Regardless how little sense it makes.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Oh, you want an open debate with no restrictions? You should look here

Top 10 Website Creation Tools for 2022

We've compared top website creation tools for platform features, pricing & rating. Choose the best website creator from the comparison chart & create your own website easily!

www.top10.com

 

[Dr Prepper]

No, not really, I re read my post and can't figure out where you got I said even remotely "I want an open debate with no resitricrions"

I said I can't even MENTION it. I didn't even really talk about it. I said its name and that it was a good documentary and that was enough to get shlit canned. And that I thought someone already posted it. That's it.

also didn't say that " no restrictions" But I would like to talk about topics closely related to or that impact fire arms and 2A topics. And I think looking at the voting and elections can't really get any closer to home when we are talking about the people who "make" the laws that impact this sport. but that's just my ¢.02. Maybe I'm alone on this.

And anyway I just posted it not to moan but I thought folks might be interested in knowing what's going on on this platform I think it pertains to this thread and what we were discussing earlier.

I'd rather keep people involved and informed than see this site die out. I like the site but I'm kinda in the fence a little when it comes to stuff like this.

And at that. I'm don't talking about it. I'd rather stay on topic any responses will be ignored.

 

[nehalemguy]

The activists, politicians and media pundits who are vehemently disagreeing with this Decision are babbling about all the harm it will cause while completely ignoring the legal/constitutional basis for the Decision. They avoid discussing this important factor.
Same applies to that 'other Decision' from yesterday.

That is the mindset that got us where we are. The two-tiered scrutiny that Justice Thomas wrote about in his decision. It's the idea that lower court judges have been applying where a right can be justifiably restricted or denied if doing so serves some greater purpose that outweighs the individual's right (safety, harm, the children, gun violence, etc.).

What Thomas and the other five Justices have now said is that the second scrutiny can no longer be used. The only scrutiny left is "Does it restrict or deny a right?" and if the answer is "Yes", it's a hard stop. No weighing the restriction against these other vague ideals or politically driven motives.

It is such a well written opinion by Thomas that the activists, politicians and media pundits have nothing left to talk about........except the now dead second tier scrutiny of "safety and harm".

-E-

 

[Pandaz3]

This IS A GUN THREAD!!!!!! If you want a Abortion thread go there. HiJacking is against the law!

 

[ilikegunspdx]

That is the mindset that got us where we are. The two-tiered scrutiny that Justice Thomas wrote about in his decision. It's the idea that lower court judges have been applying where a right can be justifiably restricted or denied if doing so serves some greater purpose that outweighs the individual's right (safety, harm, the children, gun violence, etc.).

What Thomas and the other five Justices have now said is that the second scrutiny can no longer be used. The only scrutiny left is "Does it restrict or deny a right?" and if the answer is "Yes", it's a hard stop. No weighing the restriction against these other vague ideals or politically driven motives.

It is such a well written opinion by Thomas that the activists, politicians and media pundits have nothing left to talk about........except the now dead second tier scrutiny of "safety and harm".

-E-

Agree about the two tier approach. But The part that is confusing is the traditional regulation piece. Apparently restrictions are ok if the regulations have been used "historically". What does that mean I wonder?

 

[User 1234]

Agree about the two tier approach. But The part that is confusing is the traditional regulation piece. Apparently restrictions are ok if they have been used "historically". What does that mean I wonder?

No Punisher skull slide plates, no stolen valor "battleworn" finishes, and no gold chrome cartel guns.

 

[Diamondback]

Looks like "Good Character" and "Good Ideology" are the replacements for "Good Cause."

State Attorney General Suggests Considering Applicants' Ideological Viewpoints in Denying Carry Licenses

Friday, the day after the New York State Rifle & Pistol bubblegum'n v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, the California Attorney General…

reason.com

 

[Oro]

No Punisher skull slide plates, no stolen valor "battleworn" finishes, and no gold chrome cartel guns.

I could get behind those kind of gun restrictions, actually.

Looks like "Good Character" and "Good Ideology" are the replacements for "Good Cause."

State Attorney General Suggests Considering Applicants' Ideological Viewpoints in Denying Carry Licenses

Friday, the day after the New York State Rifle & Pistol bubblegum'n v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, the California Attorney General…

reason.com

If there is a better example of the fact we have politicians who no idea of what the law is about - I haven't seen it. They will happily trample all over the constitution regardless of the legality. We really need laws that hold officials accountable for illegal actions, whether done in office or not. There should be no legal exemption for holding office and doing unconstitutional or taking blatantly discriminatory actions.

 

[Diamondback]

I could get behind those kind of gun restrictions, actually.


If there is a better example of the fact we have politicians who no idea of what the law is about - I haven't seen it. They will happily trample all over the constitution regardless of the legality. We really need laws that hold officials accountable for illegal actions, whether done in office or not. There should be no legal exemption for holding office and doing unconstitutional or taking blatantly discriminatory actions.

View attachment 1230203

Hence my longstanding proposal of a "Public Trust Amendment" requiring that any government official found to have committed misconduct face triple the penalty of an ordinary citizen for the same offense, and in a civil case PTA bypasses all damages caps.

 

[Oro]

Hence my longstanding proposal of a "Public Trust Amendment" requiring that any government official found to have committed misconduct face triple the penalty of an ordinary citizen for the same offense, and in a civil case PTA bypasses all damages caps.

Getting something like that on a ballot initiative in WA or OR would be a great move.

 

[3MTA3]

Looks like "Good Character" and "Good Ideology" are the replacements for "Good Cause."

State Attorney General Suggests Considering Applicants' Ideological Viewpoints in Denying Carry Licenses

Friday, the day after the New York State Rifle & Pistol bubblegum'n v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, the California Attorney General…

reason.com

Like slime was ever going to stop being slime?

 

[Diamondback]

Like slime was ever going to stop being slime?

Just noting, Precisely As Predicted.

Getting something like that on a ballot initiative in WA or OR would be a great move.

I'm envisioning a Constitutional Amendment--that's the only way some pizz-sucking chomo garbage in a black robe doesn't get a chance to kill it as you know they would.