Well...Everyone who supports mandatory firearms insurance should also support mandatory medical insurance to pay for those abortions.
Well...
If the liberals read the 2nd amendment the way they read the rest of the Constitution, there'd be a federal program to buy guns for people that cannot afford them.
As seen in AZ:
Governor signs bills on guns, abortion
Does this infringe on the right to have an abortion?
If so, how?
If not, why not?
I'm still looking for that personal right to an abortion in the words of our US Constitution. One would think that abortion, like so many other so called Federal rights and Federal restrictions really fall under the Tenth Amendment, i.e., fall under the purview of the States. But silly me, I'm not PC.
We all know that at one point, every able-bodied male was required to have a gun. Imagine that.And mandatory gun-ed programs in the public school.
We all know that at one point, every able-bodied male was required to have a gun. Imagine that.
What if you couldn't afford one?
If we have the governemnt we have today, the federal government wudl supply you one.What if you couldn't afford one?
But, back before the infestation of the idea that the government exists to provide you with the means to exercise your rights, if you did not provide yourself with said equimpent, you would be punished.
Obama should step in and give you one.
No... its a law that provides for the security of the individual states as well as the entire country. Poor people are just as responsible for this as people of means.I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about some poor chap who, in that era, couldn't afford a gun, yet would be punished for not having one. It's basically a law against poor people who felt that it would be more responsible to purchase household items than a gun.
Why are 'you' poor in the first place? That information is critical.So if you had almost no money, and were forced to decide between food for your family and a gun, you had to go buy a gun, or be punished by the gov't? How retarded.
No... its a law that provides for the security of the individual states as well as the entire country. Poor people are just as responsible for this as people of means.
Why are 'you' poor in the first place? That information is critical.
If you didn't have food chances are it was because you didn't have a gun.
So your choices are to buy food and get punished for not having a gun, or learn to fish and trap and buy a gun.
I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about some poor chap who, in that era, couldn't afford a gun, yet would be punished for not having one. It's basically a law against poor people who felt that it would be more responsible to purchase household items than a gun.
Statesmen would privately sponsor the local militia. If you were poor one of your best opportunities was to join the militia. Now you have food, a gun, and a paying job. Problem solved.
If you have some disability which prevents you from earning any living at all, and that's why you're poor, then you aren't "able bodied" to begin with and the law requiring you to have a gun does not apply to you.
Each time my wife had an abortion we had to wait about a week.
He would probably be fined, and if he contined to break the law, he would then be jailed.Okay, so some poor chap who can't afford a gun, what do you do, put him in jail?
If jailed, yes.Then the state has to provide for him until he serves his time.
The government back then was not interested in such silliness -- when it passed a law, it expected compliance, not excuses.Then when he gets out he'll break that law again because he has even less money with which to buy a gun. Then he's back in jail causing more dollars to be spent on him. And just think, all they had to do was give him a certificate that showed he was too poor to purchase a gun and make the law not applicable to him.
Its no different than the government forcing you to do any number of things, like provide health care for the old and poor.The government shouldn't tell people that they have to go purchase certain items. That's not freedom, that's oppression.
Welcome to the welfare state.A gov't telling its citizens how they must spend their money sounds like despotism to me.
How many people starved because of the Militia Act of 1792?The guy might be a day laborer in a state with few or no slaves. He might only have enough to have a small shack and a few food stuffs. You're going to tell that guy that he's got to force his family to starve for a few weeks until he puts together enough money to buy a gun? LOL!!!
He would probably be fined, and if he contined to break the law, he would then be jailed.
The government back then was not interested in such silliness -- when it passed a law, it expected compliance, not excuses.
Its no different than the government forcing you to do any number of things, like provide health care for the old and poor.
Welcome to the welfare state.
How many people starved because of the Militia Act of 1792?
The guy might be a day laborer in a state with few or no slaves. He might only have enough to have a small shack and a few food stuffs. You're going to tell that guy that he's got to force his family to starve for a few weeks until he puts together enough money to buy a gun?
LOLOLMURLOKLOL!!1!!!1LOLZLOLOLMAO1!!1LOLLOL!!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?