• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge blocks two abortion laws in Alabama

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Chalk up yet another victory against the forced birther authoritarians.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-judge-blocks-two-abortion-laws-alabama-080733650.html
 
That guy once said that abortion rights are equal to gun rights. Abortions rights is something that came about from a court ruling, while gun rights is something that came about from an amendment speaking directly towards the subject. I fail to see how those things are on equal footing.
 

Hmm...well gun rights did not come about from an amendment; they are simply a part of each individual's inherent right to self-defense with the best means available. All the amendment did was insure the government would not easily be able, as most do and ours is still trying to do, to "legally" disarm citizens.

Abortions right's are also pre-existing, since the ability to abort a child is as old (if not older) than civilization.

Ancient Egypt Abortion - Ancient Egyptian Facts

Or you can check Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

Women always had the choice, with permission or by hook or crook. :shrug:
 

I was only talking about how the state came about those things. If the courts ruled against abortion rights they would be ruling against an earlier decision by the court, but if they ruled against gun rights they would be nullifying a constitutional amendment. I don't see how anyone can say the two things are equal.
 

Or coathanger. :mrgreen:
 
Hmm...well gun rights did not come about from an amendment; they are simply a part of each individual's inherent right to self-defense with the best means available.

No, the right to bear arms is granted by an amendment.

Though British subjects had the right of self defense, the ability defend ones self with a carried specific weapon (as opposed to an improvised one) was not guaranteed.

Rather, the British crown reserved the right to restrict or ban the ownership of weapons as they saw fit. Outright bans were rare, restrictions, however, were and are common. The U.S. Second Amendment, however, guarantees the right to own weapons and also guarantees the ability to defend oneself with a weapon.
 
Last edited:

No, the right to bear arms is NOT "granted by an amendment," it is only guaranteed against government interference by the amendment.

A guarantee is only a promise to support something. A natural "right," like that of self-defense by access to the best means available, is something that simply exists in a state of nature.

You are confusing privileges granted by society with inherent rights one enforces oneself.
 

I think it is a fair comparison. Gun rights, as we understand them today, come from many court rulings that interpret the 2nd amendment a particular way. It is unlikely that the founding fathers envisioned Americans owning the modern guns today which would have massacred a musket men line in their time, but it has been interpreted as such.
 

Sigh. I'm sure the founders were aware technology moves forward. I'm also sure that gun technology moved along quite a bit in their lifetime to the point where the precursors to semi-automatic rifles were invented.
 
Sigh. I'm sure the founders were aware technology moves forward. I'm also sure that gun technology moved along quite a bit in their lifetime to the point where the precursors to semi-automatic rifles were invented.

Did it? The founders were pre-industrialism. They were an agrarian economy. They wouldn't recognize the technological rate of progress by the middle of the 19th century, let alone anything that followed that. And if you went back in time and showed them an iphone they'd burn you as a witch.
 

:roll: Considering that Jefferson himself owned one of the guns in question, yes, they were aware of it. To act like somehow they were so primitive that they didn't realize things advance is more than a little insulting to historical fact and to human intelligence.
 

Yet some wish to ban the safe medical method for woman.
 

The founders lived during the tail end of the Age of Enlightenment, so they weren't primitive, per se, but before the Industrial Revolution made its debut there's no way they could have foreseen the rate of technological advancement we're familiar with today.
 

Since the 2nd amendment was written so we would not have to have a large standing army and we have one now anyway, that 250 year old amendment is no longer valid. The Roe b Wade decision was made in our lifetimes and remains valid to this day. So you are right the 2nd amendment is not nearly as valid as Roe vs Wade. We would need to get rid of our armed forces in favor of State Militias to make it valid.

The Second Amendment Has Nothing to Do with Gun Ownership
 
Last edited:

I'm not interested in your leftist propaganda.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…