Shooting at UCLA

[eolesen]

I understand. The difference is that whether we like it or not, abortion is legal in this country. Killing someone with a gun is not.

Here's a test for you, Kev:

Laws passed to infringe or restrict someone's constitutional and/or court defined rights [ ] are illegal or [ ] are legal


Both gun ownership and abortion are protected rights.

We each find one of the two to be utterly repugnant, and yet it's still the law.

Why is it OK to change, challenge or limit one legally protected right but not the other?

 

[Kev3188]

There's an adage that says "if you don't like abortion, don't have one."

You can't make the same statement about being shot.

 

[eolesen]

There's an adage that says "if you don't like abortion, don't have one."

You can't make the same statement about being shot.

Yeah, and if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex.

You still didn't answer the question, though.

Why is it OK to disregard one right but not the other?

 

[Kev3188]

Because one has been decided by SCOTUS, and one is still very much being interpreted.

 

[700UW]

 

[Kev3188]

You can have my refrigerator when you pry it from my cold, dead hands...

 

[eolesen]

Because one has been decided by SCOTUS, and one is still very much being interpreted.

Yeah, not quite on either point, Kev.

SCOTUS has ruled failry definitively on the 2nd within the last ten years:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html

They have declined to hear cases involving gun bans, but I suspect they'll eventually have to do so over whether the bans violate the 2nd, just like it's inevitable that they'll eventually hear a case over states restricting abortion to licensed medical facilities or after 22 weeks.

 

[delldude]

Yeah, not quite on either point, Kev.

SCOTUS has ruled failry definitively on the 2nd within the last ten years:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html

They have declined to hear cases involving gun bans, but I suspect they'll eventually have to do so over whether the bans violate the 2nd, just like it's inevitable that they'll eventually hear a case over states restricting abortion to licensed medical facilities or after 22 weeks.

 
Or legally define when life and Constitutional rights begin in the womb.

 

[townpete]

Yeah, not quite on either point, Kev.

SCOTUS has ruled failry definitively on the 2nd within the last ten years:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html

They have declined to hear cases involving gun bans, but I suspect they'll eventually have to do so over whether the bans violate the 2nd, just like it's inevitable that they'll eventually hear a case over states restricting abortion to licensed medical facilities or after 22 weeks.

 
Those on the left really no interest in anything less then a full on gun ban.
 
Because we all know more gun laws work*
 
*except for chicago
and for DC
and.....

 

[townpete]

 
as usual...
 
 

 
Because somehow some think there's a constitutional amendment about refrigerators...or something.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Some think public protection is a good thing.

 

[Kev3188]

Here's an out of the box solution:

http://www.clickhole.com/article/future-gun-safety-company-developed-gun-too-slippe-4503

 

[townpete]

Here's an out of the box solution:

http://www.clickhole.com/article/future-gun-safety-company-developed-gun-too-slippe-4503

 
Come on Kev, you know that's a joke (onion).

 

[Kev3188]

Too late in the day for droll wit?

 

[townpete]

Too late in the day for droll wit?

 
Its hard to tell with you at times. Sometimes you seem on the right track, other times just totally off the rails and rationalizing the absurd.