Tulsa County Democrats want to infringe on 2A rights

[Raoul Duke]

After seeing this thread, I went back and re-read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I didnt' see the word abortion anywhere.

An individual's Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not clearly there either and was not actually adequately protected until the Supreme court upheld this right in the Heller decision, much the same as an individual's Constitutionally protected right to an abortion was upheld in the decision of Roe V. Wade.

Considering the circumstances of both not being specifically spelled out in the Constitution and only being validated by Supreme Court decisions, it's really intellectually dishonest to attempt to claim one is a Constitutionally protected right while the other is not.

That is, of course, assuming that you agree that the Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

 

[vvvvvvv]

An individual's Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not clearly there either and was not actually adequately protected until the Supreme court upheld this right in the Heller decision, much the same as an individual's Constitutionally protected right to an abortion was upheld in the decision of Roe V. Wade.

Considering the circumstances of both not being specifically spelled out in the Constitution and only being validated by Supreme Court decisions, it's really intellectually dishonest to attempt to claim one is a Constitutionally protected right while the other is not.

That is, of course, assuming that you agree that the Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

So limiting the protection provided by the Second Amendment to a single handgun within the home for self defense is "adequate".

Duly noted.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[TerryMiller]

If you are someone who cosigns and defends the B.S. of appealing to emotion rather than intellect, making exaggerations, declarations and assertions based on fraudulent junk science, citing superstitions as a justification for imposing your beliefs on others, while pimping and parading children into the discussion to divert or distract attention away from a rational adult debate as legitimate means to justify an end, nothing I type will make you any stupider than you already are.

Raoul,

Just out of curiosity, what "fraudulent junk science" are you referring to with this statement?

The flaw you this argumentis that it could be applied to pedophilia, which affects two, or rape, also two or just about any other immoral activity or crime.

What???

 

[Raoul Duke]

Raoul,

Just out of curiosity, what "fraudulent junk science" are you referring to with this statement?

Well, besides the glaringly bogus examples of masterbating fetuses and the female body's capability to detect and abort rape pregnancies, how about the fetus feels pain at 20 weeks myth, just for starters?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19089-24week-fetuses-cannot-feel-pain.html#.UeCE8D7720K

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201429

Or maybe rape kits being abortifacients?

[video=youtube_share;9d7CZokVaoY]http://youtu.be/9d7CZokVaoY[/video]

Reminds me of the dubious and specious claims like 40% of all firearms sales at gun shows are sold without background checks or semi-auto AR platform rifles sold on the civillian market are the same as military issue select fire or fully automatic "assault rifles that groups like MAIG and MDAGS spout.

Overall, I stand by my observations that anti-abortion and anti-2A supporters are more alike than they are different in their methods, marketing, and madness to manipulate the masses.

 

[n2sooners]

An individual's Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not clearly there either

The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I really don't see how it could be any more clearly spelled out. It is a right it belongs to the people the right involves keeping and bearing arms and the constitution clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. Just because courts and politicians have bent over backwards to bastardize the meaning doesn't mean it isn't there and isn't very clearly spelled out.

 

[mugsy]

I've got no complaints or problems with opposition to taxpayer funded abortion, as it is based on sound logic, as opposed to the other reasons I've mentioned. I think that is perfectly reasonable restriction on abortion rights that I happen to support.

So, if a group of men were to hold that you, I, and others "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" - that would be irrational BS that you couldn't support?

 

[ripnbst]

Can we all show up wearing shirts that say "your mom should have swallowed you" while OC? These mothers should just about love us I would guess...

 

[Raoul Duke]

So limiting the protection provided by the Second Amendment to a single handgun within the home for self defense is "adequate".

Duly noted.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Perhaps affirm instead of protect would be a better choice of words. By adequate, I mean it could always be better, but it's better than nothing.

 

[DFarcher]

The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I really don't see how it could be any more clearly spelled out. It is a right it belongs to the people the right involves keeping and bearing arms and the constitution clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. Just because courts and politicians have bent over backwards to bastardize the meaning doesn't mean it isn't there and isn't very clearly spelled out.

The problem is that first "The" is actually a "the"....the small 't' means something came before. If you study the entire sentence, and the men who wrote it and what was going on at the time it was written and what had happened before it was written it is no so clear what the intent was.

 

[n2sooners]

The problem is that first "The" is actually a "the"....the small 't' means something came before. If you study the entire sentence, and the men who wrote it and what was going on at the time it was written and what had happened before it was written it is no so clear what the intent was.

If you understand English it is perfectly clear what it means. The first part is just a reason why the right must not be infringed, but the right is specifically spelled out as a right of the PEOPLE not just a right of militia members, the states, or the federal government.