California Governor Newsom

[Xaevian]

This isn't about The Constitution. It's about someone, a human, being harmed and it being legal to sue the ones deemed responsible for that harm. An unborn child is "Murdered" the person(s) facilitating that can be sued. A person uses a firearm to "Murder" a human being, the maker of that firearm can be sued. I see the correlation. I don't agree with it, but I don't see it as a huge stretch either.

There is no correlation. There is no constitutional protection for or against abortion. Period. Never was. As for your example, the person performing the abortion can be sued, so THE PERSON USING THE FIREARM can be sued. Not the manufacturer of the firearms nor the manufacturer of the anesthetic used during a medical procedure.

C'mon, man. Don't get trapped in the creative linguistic gymnastics of the fairy tale party. Not the same thing at all, unless your an easily manipulated sheep.

 

[Member 53328]

One of my kids lives in ID and its tempting. Problem is people from CA are flocking there. One party is famous for voting to make the place they live a sewer. Then many of them with "means" look and see a place that's nice. So they sell out and move away from the sewer they made to the nice place. Problem then is they start voting to turn the new place into the sewer they just fled. Reason it works? Too many in the nice place will ignore what is happening as the nice place slowly becomes a sewer too. Many of them not only ignore it they vote along for it. Saying they just need to "compromise". They soon compromise themselves into living in a sewer. A wise man said those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Damn guy sure knew what he was talking about.
Lets compromise and shut down the economy for two weeks to flatten the curve. Damn this has been a long two weeks. Lets go Brandon. We need some more compromise. Maybe some free money to go with it.

Yup. My best friend is a cop in Idaho and he says he is already seeing the landscape/politics begin to shift. It's slow but noticeable.

 

[BAJ475]

I looked and I looked, but couldn't find the right to abortion ANYWHERE in the constitution...

It is in the Penumbra.

 

[ScatPackLife]

Two wrong things with this: he is punishing CA residents for something they have no control over. Arms are specifically protected by the Bill of Rights, abortion is only protected because some lawyers spun the words of the constitution.

Also, he is already using that logic to infringe on the constitution, "AW" registration Handgun Roster, 10 round mags.

I'm pro abortion but there is a point where it'sa developing child in the womb and the woman should not be allowed to abort.

Here is a story where abortion should be 110% legal. Someone I know, a grown woman, had a miscarriage at five months. The dead embryo would not detach and leave her body. If she couldn't get an abortion pill she would have eventually gotten an infection and died. It's not always a teenage girl who doesn't want a child in high school.

 

[billdeserthills]

If this belongs elsewhere or needs to be removed, please do so:

MSN

Meanwhile abortion has killed over 60 million in under 50 years, how many have ghost guns offed?

 

[Cavedweller]

This isn't about The Constitution. It's about someone, a human, being harmed and it being legal to sue the ones deemed responsible for that harm. An unborn child is "Murdered" the person(s) facilitating that can be sued. A person uses a firearm to "Murder" a human being, the maker of that firearm can be sued. I see the correlation. I don't agree with it, but I don't see it as a huge stretch either.

It's not really a correlation, tho. The Texas law allows one to sue the abortionist, not the maker of the abortionist's tools. It's apples and oranges.

 

[Cavedweller]

There is no correlation. There is no constitutional protection for or against abortion. Period. Never was. As for your example, the person performing the abortion can be sued, so THE PERSON USING THE FIREARM can be sued. Not the manufacturer of the firearms nor the manufacturer of the anesthetic used during a medical procedure.

C'mon, man. Don't get trapped in the creative linguistic gymnastics of the fairy tale party. Not the same thing at all, unless your an easily manipulated sheep.

Should have read the whole thread before posting. You made my point for me.

 

[Mikej]

There is no correlation. There is no constitutional protection for or against abortion. Period. Never was. As for your example, the person performing the abortion can be sued, so THE PERSON USING THE FIREARM can be sued. Not the manufacturer of the firearms nor the manufacturer of the anesthetic used during a medical procedure.

C'mon, man. Don't get trapped in the creative linguistic gymnastics of the fairy tale party. Not the same thing at all, unless your an easily manipulated sheep.

Why is it people will read something someone writes and completely ignore one, very, important part?

I see the correlation. I don't agree with it, but I don't see it as a huge stretch either.

I'm not buying into their argument. I don't agree with their stand. But you have to admit that if people are being murdered, it needs to stop. If someone is responsible for that murder they need to pay. That's all I'm saying. Don't climb down my throat because I wrote out a point of view.

 

[BAJ475]

Meanwhile abortion has killed over 60 million in under 50 years, how many have ghost guns offed?

That is a poor showing because it sell left enough libtards to elect Biden

 

[BAJ475]

...

I'm pro abortion but there is a point where it's a developing child in the womb and the woman should not be allowed to abort.

Here is a story where abortion should be 110% legal. Someone I know, a grown woman, had a miscarriage at five months. The dead embryo would not detach and leave her body. If she could get an abortion pill she would have eventually gotten an infection and died. It's not always a teenage girl who doesn't want a child in high school.

I'm not pro abortion but pro choice, except for liberal Dems. I do not think that it is any of my or anyone else's, especially the government's, business whether or not a woman wants to carry full term. I think that they should have challenged the TX heart beat law on the grounds that it imposes involuntary servitude on the pregnant woman.

 

[Nosferatu]

I looked and I looked, but couldn't find the right to abortion ANYWHERE in the constitution...

I was about to post the exact same thing.

Then I scrolled down more.

Get. Out. Of. My. Head.

 

[Mono1]

I looked and I looked, but couldn't find the right to abortion ANYWHERE in the constitution...

Yup. Quite the contrary... "That among these rights is Life...." That's the Declaration, but samey-same.

 

[TTSX]

I have no opinion on abortion. Literally zero care one way or the other. What I do care about is whether or not I need to write the check for an irresponsible young person getting raw dogged on a one night stand. I believe it is an elected procedure, much like a boob job and therefore should not be covered by insurance or federal/state funding. I also think this country is far too sue happy and far too many people without a dog in the fight/skin in the game get a say on far too many things. Like my guns.

 

[Nosferatu]

I have no opinion on abortion. Literally zero care one way or the other. What I do care about is whether or not I need to write the check for an irresponsible young person getting raw dogged on a one night stand. I believe it is an elected procedure, much like a boob job and therefore should not be covered by insurance or federal/state funding. I also think this country is far too sue happy and far too many people without a dog in the fight/skin in the game get a say on far too many things. Like my guns.

And no government has any business telling anyone what to do or not do in their own household with their own body.

 

[GWS]

There is no correlation. There is no constitutional protection for or against abortion. Period. Never was. As for your example, the person performing the abortion can be sued, so THE PERSON USING THE FIREARM can be sued. Not the manufacturer of the firearms nor the manufacturer of the anesthetic used during a medical procedure.

C'mon, man. Don't get trapped in the creative linguistic gymnastics of the fairy tale party. Not the same thing at all, unless your an easily manipulated sheep.

I doubt he's advocating for the lawsuits. He is simply pointing out that they are a likely probability. Like the magazine article I mentioned. The Texas law gives a framework for how to sue gun stores. And where Planned Parenthood has the deep pockets to defend any abortion provider, your local gun shop will not.They don't have to win the case, bankrupting/closing a gun shop is a better outcome than winning a lawsuit to these people and having the likes of Bloomberg ready and willing to fund these spurious lawsuits means they will happen.

 

[Xaevian]

Why is it people will read something someone writes and completely ignore one, very, important part?

I see the correlation. I don't agree with it, but I don't see it as a huge stretch either.

I'm not buying into their argument. I don't agree with their stand. But you have to admit that if people are being murdered, it needs to stop. If someone is responsible for that murder they need to pay. That's all I'm saying. Don't climb down my throat because I wrote out a point of view.

Sorry, Mike. Not my intention to jump all over you, more targeted to the article and the pro-abortion extremists that think one is the same as the other. It is very different, as they will find out in court.

These feelings based idiots that just read headlines (or write the headlines) knee-jerk and assume, just like some states' new voting regulations, that something means what it doesn't. The media is 100% culpable for this stupidity because they no longer report facts, just biased opinions.

What it is, is sour grapes, plain and simple.

 

[RedRover]

 

[L84Cabo]

That is when Idaho will start building the wall! Some in Idaho already have plans to concur 3/4th of Oregon.

If they played their cards right, they could probably get it done in a long weekend...except for what to do with Portland. Portland is really the outlier. I mean, you could nuke it from orbit, which would definitely solve the problem. But there are some good conservative folks there and that's not really fair to them. So that leaves walling it off to isolate it. Then you'd have to go through a sorting process to identify and free the good folks. THEN...you could nuke it from orbit.

WOLVERINES!

 

[Diamondback]

IIRC, Texas specifically planned this case to spike third-party-plaintiff interactions, they MEAN for this law to be struck down.

 

[Cavedweller]

Why is it people will read something someone writes and completely ignore one, very, important part?

I see the correlation. I don't agree with it, but I don't see it as a huge stretch either.

I'm not buying into their argument. I don't agree with their stand. But you have to admit that if people are being murdered, it needs to stop. If someone is responsible for that murder they need to pay. That's all I'm saying. Don't climb down my throat because I wrote out a point of view.

Nobody's climbing down your throat, nor did anyone accuse you of agreeing with their position. However, you did say "I see the correlation." Just pointing out that there is none. It is a stretch, IMO. That's all. Take it easy.