The NRA Is Facing A String Of Defeats In The States

[Que]

The "courts" you're talking about here is the US Sup Ct and they have determined that abortion is a CONSTITUTIONAL Right, not just a judicial decision subject to being overturned because they got it wrong somehow. SLAVERY was never a Constitutional Right, thus the analogy doesn't apply.

The definition is within the code. In a nutshell, "born alive" means birthed or removed from the mother and the infant is breathing with a beating heart. On the surface, this definition COULD BE used for abortion EXCEPT that the homicide statutes make exceptions for abortion and do not include it as a homicide. This is the law, not an opinion.

Equating the Right to bear arms to abortion Rights, is not so simplistic. The 2nd Amendment specifically states that it shall not be infringed, while the Right to an abortion has no such limiter on governmental intrusion.

Tge Court invented a right to privacy, that exists nowhere in the Constitution nor body of Law. And it is uniquely applied to the relationship between a doctor and their patient and only as it relates to abortion. You will notice that there is no such right to privacy under Obamacare.

The court didn't hold that you had a right to an abortion the court simply held that there would be no way to determine if such an offense occurred because you can't compel a doctor to testify against their patient, or vice versa.

 

[HisArpy]

Tge Court invented a right to privacy, that exists nowhere in the Constitution nor body of Law. And it is uniquely applied to the relationship between a doctor and their patient and only as it relates to abortion. You will notice that there is no such right to privacy under Obamacare.

The court didn't hold that you had a right to an abortion the court simply held that there would be no way to determine if such an offense occurred because you can't compel a doctor to testify against their patient, or vice versa.

No, they didn't. They used an obscure analysis of the Bill of Rights to delineate the extent of the Right but they didn't "invent" it. They used the 14th Amendment "Right to Privacy" to provide support for the premise that woman have a right to an abortion inherent in their personal privacy Rights. They rejected the District Court's 9th Amendment analysis in favor of the Equal Protection argument. What they failed to do was use the 4th Amendment's a Right to Privacy in your PERSON, papers and effects to support their 14A based opinion. That, however, does not defeat their decision. On the contrary, it supports and affirms it.**

One need only read the BoR to understand that there are certain liberties delineated there and those liberties so enumerated are not the total sum of liberties possessed. Nor do all liberties need be specifically enumerated to exist. This can be shown by merely reading the text of the 10th Amendment.

The whole "invented the Right" talking point is BULLSHIT from soup to nutz. It's propaganda put out by the anti-abortion fringe to suck in those who cannot reason for themselves. to me it is amazing that, in this day and age where this knowledge is well distributed and known, that anyone still buys into the lie and repeats it as fact.




** it is my personal opinion (as well as other legal scholars) that the reference to the 14A is actually a typo and the court mean 4th Amendment since the argument they gave actually tracks with the language in the 4A and not with the 14th. However, their argument is equally valid as written.

 

[Rightguide]

Tge Court invented a right to privacy, that exists nowhere in the Constitution nor body of Law. And it is uniquely applied to the relationship between a doctor and their patient and only as it relates to abortion. You will notice that there is no such right to privacy under Obamacare.

The court didn't hold that you had a right to an abortion the court simply held that there would be no way to determine if such an offense occurred because you can't compel a doctor to testify against their patient, or vice versa.

However, conversations between doctor and gun owners will probably be admissible in court soon.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Back to the topic of the NRA and how evil it is...

Many people who support gun control are angry that the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are not legally allowed to use money from Congress to do research whose purpose is "to advocate or promote gun control." (This is not the same as doing no research into gun violence, though it seems to discourage many potential recipients of CDC money.)

But in the 1990s, the CDC itself did look into one of the more controversial questions in gun social science: How often do innocent Americans use guns in self-defense, and how does that compare to the harms guns can cause in the hands of violent criminals?

Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.

Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.

This is part of the reason why the Progressive elements who want to attack the second amendment are so woefully uniformed. The very governmental institutions that they rely on for emotional ammunition ( think about it, I think they read this stuff in magazines) are cooking the books to also join in on the movement.

http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o

 

[WoundedKnee]

On a tangent, Harvard economics professor Jeffrey Miron, explains why he thinks arresting drug kingpins causes more [gun] violence (not the NRA).

http://reason.com/reasontv/2018/04/19/el-chapo-arrest-drug-war-deadly

 

[BotanyBoy]

On a tangent, Harvard economics professor Jeffrey Miron, explains why he thinks arresting drug kingpins causes more [gun] violence (not the NRA).

http://reason.com/reasontv/2018/04/19/el-chapo-arrest-drug-war-deadly

That all runs back to prohibition causing black markets and violence within them.

For 99 years we've been doggedly pursuing prohibitionist policy and it's been a total failure on pretty much every level.

We should stop with the prohibition

 

[WoundedKnee]

No argument here.
Let's make sure their Vicodin and heroin are of a known quality and dosage. Prince would probably still be alive. Probably...

 

[WoundedKnee]

Whoops!

Okay, I found it. Another great example of how the right-wing tries to intimidate those whom they disagree with!

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/04/20/far-left-protesters-target-nra-lobbyists-home/

Original source: WaPo

(There's a link there, I just cannot get it to load.)

 

[eyerphobia]

** it is my personal opinion (as well as other legal scholars)...

You pronounce yourself a legal scholar now?

 

[HisArpy]

You pronounce yourself a legal scholar now?

Oafishly been 1 for over 26 years. Reg'stirred, lasensed and everthang. You betcha.

 

[thehaircutgirl]

i have a license too but i don't proclaim myself a "haircutting scholar".

 

[HisArpy]

i have a license too but i don't proclaim myself a "haircutting scholar".

But think of the MONEY you could make if you did!!!!!!! Missed opportunity here.

 

[thehaircutgirl]

But think of the MONEY you could make if you did!!!!!!! Missed opportunity here.

i know! i just don't feel the need to mislead people.

 

[HisArpy]

i know! i just don't feel the need to mislead people.

The fact that I say I'm an ASS and make dumb jokes about all kinds of random stuff is the misleading part. It's the other part that really is as scary as your nightmares.

Now, why don't you climb up there and bring us each back a nice apple? You can share yours with someone special if you want to. *whistles tunelessly while waiting*