Question for our gun enthusiast friends.

[StoneByStone]

But you can't take the Constitution out of the argument; because when you discuss guns, the Constitution is a large part of the discussion.

But the question is about consistency in saying making something illegal won't make a difference. Whether or not it's constitutional is a different issue.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

But the question is about consistency in saying making something illegal won't make a difference. Whether or not it's constitutional is a different issue.

But it's not a different issue; because one is mentioned in the Constitution and one isn't.

 

[StoneByStone]

Then why do liberals hold the collection of cells, of birds and turtles, so high and why do those cells hold more value then human cells??

That's only for endangered species.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

That's only for endangered species.

But why are them being considered as being "endangered", make them more valuable then the cells of a human??

 

[StoneByStone]

But it's not a different issue; because one is mentioned in the Constitution and one isn't.

But the question is will these things happen even if we did make them illegal, not if we should or shouldn't.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

But the question is will these things happen even if we did make them illegal, not if we should or shouldn't.

And yet you intend to try and equate the two of them, when they aren't; just because it's all you have.

 

[StoneByStone]

But why are them being ruled as being "endangered", make them more valuable then the cells of a human??

Because when a species dies out, it affects the entire ecosystem. If one woman gets an early abortion, it's not really going to have an impact on the world.

 

[StoneByStone]

And yet you intend to try and equate the two of them, when they aren't; just because it's all you have.

I'm not trying to equate them. I'm asking if it's possible to stop either of them from happening through law.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Because when a species dies out, it affects the entire ecosystem. If one woman gets an early abortion, it's not really going to have an impact on the world.

So you're OK with limiting it to one woman??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I'm not trying to equate them. I'm asking if it's possible to stop either of them from happening through law.

Laws don't stop anyone; because if they did, no one would run stop signs or red lights, no one would drive faster then the posted speed limit, no one would steal from someone else, no one would kill someone else, there would be no bank robberies, etc., etc..

So what is your point??

 

[RB 60]

I'm not saying there are similarities between the two.

Gun enthusiasts often say gun control doesn't work because people will just get guns on the black market. My question to people who believe that is if they also believe banning abortions won't work because people will just have black market doctors perform abortions.

Again, abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with gun ownership.
That said, when there was less gun control (back when you could mail order a rifle from Sears), why wasn't there the gun crime that we see now?

 

[rjhenn]

Gun regulations are not unconstitutional. Even your hero, Scalia, recognized that.

Actually, they are. That's the whole point of the "shall not be infringed" language of the 2nd Amendment. That, plus there's no evidence that any gun regulations do any good. They're just infringements on legal gun owners. They have no real effect on criminals at all. Just more wishful thinking.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

I'm not saying there are similarities between the two.

Gun enthusiasts often say gun control doesn't work because people will just get guns on the black market. My question to people who believe that is if they also believe banning abortions won't work because people will just have black market doctors perform abortions.

Well that was quite common before Roe v. Wade.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

A collection of cells can have value. They're just not a living thing yet.

Value is often very personal.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Again, abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with gun ownership.
That said, when there was less gun control (back when you could mail order a rifle from Sears), why wasn't there the gun crime that we see now?

Because stricter gun laws appear to have only made things worse.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[domer76]

Actually, they are. That's the whole point of the "shall not be infringed" language of the 2nd Amendment. That, plus there's no evidence that any gun regulations do any good. They're just infringements on legal gun owners. They have no real effect on criminals at all. Just more wishful thinking.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

A Constitutional ignoramus, as well

 

[rjhenn]

A Constitutional ignoramus, as well

Yes,you are. If SCOTUS applied the same strict scrutiny standard that they require for other limitations on constitutional rights, most gun control laws would be declared unconstitutional. But the courts are biased against the 2nd Amendment.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[domer76]

Yes,you are. If SCOTUS applied the same strict scrutiny standard that they require for other limitations on constitutional rights, most gun control laws would be declared unconstitutional. But the courts are biased against the 2nd Amendment.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Better look up Heller, dumbfuck.

 

[CFM]

If banning guns is pointless because people can just get guns on the black market, is banning abortion also pointless?

Someone owning a gun doesn't mean a life will be taken. Every abortion takes a life.

 

[CFM]

Banning abortion is also unconstitutional.

The 2nd amendment makes it so. Which amendment specifically says "abortion".?