1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[Politico] Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by DonnyMost, May 2, 2022.

  1. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    53,509
    Likes Received:
    41,337
    Not just natives as one of the first uses of the militia was by the Federal government to crush a citizen's militia in the Whiskey Rebellion.
     
  2. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    53,509
    Likes Received:
    41,337
    Since you like to discuss historical parlance arms at the time pertained specifically to weapons which could be carried. As such pointy sticks would be arms. Heller clarified that to mean firearms specifically. In fact my understanding is that current law is primarily about firearms where as there are still plenty of restrictions on carrying swords and spears which the Founders would've understood as being arms.
     
  3. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,928
    Likes Received:
    4,238
    The insurrection attempt at Arizona State Capitol involving the legitimate vote procedure has failed …The constitutional republic prevails


    The senators were safely secured in an area away from the threat and allowed to proceed to lawfully and duty bound continue with the voting process without infringement- At least one of the senators was armed in case the rioters reached there area -
     
    #963 ROXRAN, Jun 25, 2022
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2022
  4. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    15,042
    Likes Received:
    2,084
    Arms were understood to mean weapons of war. I agree that the restrictions on swords, spears, brass knuckles, nunchaku, maces, clubs, halberds, etc. probably are violative of the 2nd Amendment and should be overturned, though more practically the melee weapons of the modern battlefield are the butt of a rifle, a knife, an entrenching tool, a baton, or a small axe.
     
  5. AroundTheWorld

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2000
    Messages:
    66,383
    Likes Received:
    44,017
    I believe what you are saying is technically correct, but when I see the outcome, I wish the constitution could be changed.

    Abortion is a complex topic, but I think the outcome of this decision will be harmful for women. There will not be fewer abortions, but more dangerous ones.

    And personally, I just don't understand this obsession with guns in this country. Just looking at the statistics with regard to gun violence and mass shootings, it seems obvious that this is an unhealthy situation.

    All that said, I also find it concerning when judges get threatened and bullied at their private homes.
     
  6. deb4rockets

    deb4rockets Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    19,319
    Likes Received:
    25,236
  7. deb4rockets

    deb4rockets Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    19,319
    Likes Received:
    25,236
    Just as concerning is the blatant Racism in the Republican Party.

    .
     
    #967 deb4rockets, Jun 26, 2022
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2022
  8. Amiga

    Amiga I get vaunted sacred revelations from social media
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    21,622
    Likes Received:
    18,397
    The personal right to a gun for self-protection was not granted until 2008 by the Court. One of these days, that right will be overturned. Maybe by a future true "originalism" Court that goes back to the founding father's time when guns were meant to be part of a well-regulated militia for the protection of the State.

    Anyhow, definitely agree with Abortion as a very complex, personal, and sensitive issue. Taking a life is immoral. Authoritarian rules forcing women (and sadly children as well) to bring possibly something as early as a 2-cell thing (zygote) to term is immoral. The much better approach is to understand this complexity, have compassion, and work to reduce abortion, not to see this as a straight black/white thing and criminalize it causing more harm than good.

    This woman refused to get an abortion, almost dying the in process, but finally decided to. Many similar future cases will end up in women dying unnecessarily.

     
    AroundTheWorld likes this.
  9. AroundTheWorld

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2000
    Messages:
    66,383
    Likes Received:
    44,017
    The Twitter thread is very moving and illustrates the complexity of the abortion topic. And how divided this country is. And how senseless it is that so many crazy fanatics and other unstable people have access to weapons.
     
    Amiga likes this.
  10. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    53,509
    Likes Received:
    41,337
    Yes that doesn't exclude that "Arms" could just mean rocks or pointy sticks. But again you're making my point that "arms" can and are restricted.
     
  11. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,713
    Likes Received:
    18,911
    If @StupidMoniker is saying arms is what is constitutionally protected, and saying arms of weapons of war, then why do we need to protect people having weapons of war while to shop at Walmart? What war are they fighting in?
     
  12. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    53,509
    Likes Received:
    41,337
    I'm not usre if you're being sarcastic and I'm sure @StupidMoniker can and will give an response. But just to respond in my own words.
    The Second Amendment purpose is to provide for a militia for common defense at a time when the US didn't have a standing army and was suspicious of a standing army. Also use of the militia could provide for common defense of the states against emenies that would include the Federal government or other states. To make that possible then individuals would have weapons of their own which they would use in service of the militia.

    Leaving aside the question of anacrhonism now that we have a standing army and states have National Guards. It has long been understood that the "arms" for personal ownership can be regulated. The National Firearms act of 1934 prohibited private ownership of fully automated weapons and as noted in the debate above there are all sorts of restrictions on "arms" such as swords. Heller reaffirmed this and in writings such as the Federalist Papers there is nothing that would say that there can't be regulation, regisitration or tracking sales of firearms.
     
    Sweet Lou 4 2 likes this.
  13. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    15,042
    Likes Received:
    2,084
    The Constitution can be and has been changed. In fact, the right to bear arms is one of those changes, as it is found in the second amendment.
    I think the outcome of this decision will be beneficial for the babies, because there will be fewer abortions, though those that do occur may be more dangerous (or more likely just more time consuming, as they will require travel to a state that allows abortions).
    Fundamental rights should be protected, even if you don't like what is done with them. I don't like the way some people use their freedom of speech, but I think it is important that they be allowed to exercise it.
    Arms includes, but is not limited to, rocks and pointy sticks. If your point was that laws are passed that are facially unconstitutional, I certainly agree with you. I just don't agree that it is a good practice and we should continue doing it.
    Your rights to keep and bear the arms are not limited to when you are fighting the wars. I am just telling you what the word Arms means and meant in the context of the Second Amendment. As it turns out, weapons of war can be used for other purposes as well. Airplanes and ships and trains and trucks are also all weapons of war, but we use them even when not at war. Tools can be used in a variety of ways and circumstances.
     
  14. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    37,713
    Likes Received:
    18,911
    An airplane isn't a weapon but a means of transport. It can carry weapons though.

    But what you are saying though is that people should be allowed to carry weapons of war anywhere. Not just walmart but into airplanes for instance. That's their right. And they should be allowed to bring them into prison with them - again that's their right. A police office should never be able to tell someone to drop their gun. That's a violation of their 2nd amendment then.
     
    Ubiquitin likes this.
  15. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    15,042
    Likes Received:
    2,084
    Actually, being a criminal is one of the ways you lose your rights. That's why your rights to liberty, movement, and life can all be taken away from your for committing crimes (capital crimes in the case of taking away your life, though I am not a supporter of the death penalty). The airlines and WalMart can deny you bringing weapons into their business as well. I certainly don't think the government has a place in telling you not to take a gun into WalMart.
     
  16. MojoMan

    MojoMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    [​IMG]

    Gov. Noem says she will ban abortion pills prescribed online

    Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) advanced a bill to ban abortion pills from being prescribed online. During CBS’s Face the Nation, Noem told host Margaret Brennan that abortion care providers will no longer be able to prescribe the pills through telemedicine appointments. “These are very dangerous medical procedures,” Noem told Brennan, adding “we don’t believe it should be available because it is a dangerous situation for an individual without being medically supervised by a physician.”

    In March, the Republican governor signed a bill requiring patients seeking an abortion through medication, to go to a third appointment in-person before being given the second dose. The first appointment would be for an initial screening, then they must wait 72 hours before they can return to the clinic to get both drugs in the two-dose regimen. They can take the second dose at home.

    On Friday, South Dakota banned abortions though a trigger law, which went into effect immediately once Roe v. Wade was overturned. Noem praised the SCOTUS's decision, saying "the constitution does not give a women the right to an abortion...the power to make these decisions really goes to each individual state.”
     
  17. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,180
    Likes Received:
    109,841
    she's picking a fight she doesn't need to fight
     
  18. deb4rockets

    deb4rockets Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    19,319
    Likes Received:
    25,236
    Don't give the NRA blood money GOP policy makers ideas.
     
  19. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    53,509
    Likes Received:
    41,337
    Actually those restrictions aren't facially unconstitutional given that both the Second Amendment and the Federalist Papers speak of regulation and "regulation" exactly as we think of it with discipline and system of controls.

    To go even further if we take those documents very litterally and limited to text then firearms couldnt' be used for hunting as "hunting" isn't in the Constitution.

    Airplanes, ships, and trains are very regulated. Ownership and use of them is based on permitting and they are licensed and sales tracked. If that is the argument you want to make regarding weapons then you're reinforcing my point even more.
     
  20. StupidMoniker

    StupidMoniker I lost a bet
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    15,042
    Likes Received:
    2,084
    The Federalist papers are not law, so they cannot possibly influence the facial validity of something. They influence our interpretations (perhaps more than they should, what Hamilton had to say about things should not be the be all end all of our understanding, for example). The Second Amendment makes no mention of regulating weapons, it talks about how having a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The militia is what is being regulated in that sentence, not the Arms or the right of the people to keep and bear them.
    No. Again, you for some reason think that something not being a right guaranteed by the Constitution means that it is banned. That is not the case. Hunting is legal in all 50 states, even though there is no Constitutional protection for hunting (in the US Constitution that is, several states have put the right to hunt in their state Constitutions). You are not forbidden from doing many, many things, even though they are not Constitutional rights. You can have sex outside of marriage, you can eat potatoes, you can count on your fingers, and any of a trillion other specific activities. Hunting has been very heavily regulated (I can't speak to specific state laws in every state, but I do know in California you need a license and tags and there are limits on what can be hunted and when).
    Firearms are very regulated. That doesn't mean that they should be, or that I agree that those regulations are constitutional. The regulations on planes, ships, and trains also tend to be largely related to their use. Use of firearms is also very strongly regulated, especially when it comes to their use against other people. In fact, that is exactly where the regulations are supposed to be, because while you have the right to keep and bear Arms, you don't have the right to murder people.
     

Share This Page