• 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!

If you are losing your mind over a potential overturning of Roe V Wade, but believe Congress should act to further infringe on gun rights...

VanceMack

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
88,373
Reaction score
39,504
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
then you are nothing more than a hypocrite and have absolutely no leg to stand on. You CANNOT with any shred of integrity get upset that supreme court justices might make rulings that eliminate previous rulings...settled law...while at the same time demanding that the rights of law abiding citizens, specifically enumerated in the Constitution and supported by ruling...should be overturned or eliminated. Similarly...if you support state governments infringing on federally protected rights, but dont think state governments should be able to enact laws on abrotion or gay marriage...again...you are shredding your own integrity and arguments.
 
The constitution doesn't say you can have a gun LOL.
What it does say is very dated and now irrelevant.

There was no law forbidding gay marriage, LOL.
 
The constitution doesn't say you can have a gun LOL.
What it does say is very dated and now irrelevant.

There was no law forbidding gay marriage, LOL.
Thanks for making my point.
 
your point was the right wing are all morons? Cool, then
I'm pretty sure that not even with the most twisted delusions could you make your first comment = your second. And unless someone hacked your computer and posted in your name, sadly...you have to own that ridiculous shit you keep posting.
 
I'm pretty sure that not even with the most twisted delusions could you make your first comment = your second. And unless someone hacked your computer and posted in your name, sadly...you have to own that ridiculous shit you keep posting.

This must be the fabled debating ability of the right wing
 
Making law that passes constitutional muster as respects the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not comparable to completely overturning the constitutional right of a woman to make the choice of an abortion. The OP's premise to justify conclusion and claim is that of a false analogy and thus unfounded.
 
You are comparing women's bodies to a consumer good.
 
"Further infringe on gun rights?" Are you serious?

The United States has a lot of guns, especially for a massive, peaceful, and prosperous country. In fact, about 1/3 of all the civilian guns in the world are in the hands of Americans.


Anyone in this country can get their hands on a gun.
 
You are comparing women's bodies to a consumer good.
No...I am comparing actual clearly defined rights to un-enumerated rights and the hypocrites that attack one while demanding the other.
 
"Further infringe on gun rights?" Are you serious?

The United States has a lot of guns, especially for a massive, peaceful, and prosperous country. In fact, about 1/3 of all the civilian guns in the world are in the hands of Americans.


Anyone in this country can get their hands on a gun.
You arent seriously suggesting there arent people attempting to attack those rights.....
 
No...I am comparing actual clearly defined rights to un-enumerated rights and the hypocrites that attack one while demanding the other.

Which involves comparing women's bodies to a consumer good.
 
Old men have no idea what hell they have unleashed upon themselves.

It'll last for 50 years.
 
then you are nothing more than a hypocrite and have absolutely no leg to stand on. You CANNOT with any shred of integrity get upset that supreme court justices might make rulings that eliminate previous rulings...settled law...while at the same time demanding that the rights of law abiding citizens, specifically enumerated in the Constitution and supported by ruling...should be overturned or eliminated. Similarly...if you support state governments infringing on federally protected rights, but dont think state governments should be able to enact laws on abrotion or gay marriage...again...you are shredding your own integrity and arguments.
Congratulations. This is the first time Ive seen a strawman thread.
"I know! I'll describe a ridiculous position that's easy to scorn and ridicule and then I'll heap scorn and riidicule on it! That'll be fun!"
 
Last edited:
Which involves comparing women's bodies to a consumer good.
No...it involves the killing of unborn children...and in some case, that means guaranteeing the right to kill a baby as it is being delivered.

 
LOL … pathetic little gunners' heads would be exploding if the court voted to regulate their precious little guns they way they want to regulate/infringe on women's bodies/privacy/rights.

2a-wavin' right-wing gun-huggers ---> A bunch of filthy, pathetic HYPOCRITES...
 
then you are nothing more than a hypocrite and have absolutely no leg to stand on. You CANNOT with any shred of integrity get upset that supreme court justices might make rulings that eliminate previous rulings...settled law...while at the same time demanding that the rights of law abiding citizens, specifically enumerated in the Constitution and supported by ruling...should be overturned or eliminated. Similarly...if you support state governments infringing on federally protected rights, but dont think state governments should be able to enact laws on abrotion or gay marriage...again...you are shredding your own integrity and arguments.

Libs are hypocrites. In other news,.water is still wet.
 
VanceMack is correct.

The Second Amendment is an enumerated, explicit right. It's right there in plain text, yet some try to say it doesn't mean what it says.

Roe established an "implied" right to an abortion, through an interpretation of the Constitution which was widely considered controversial and questionable.

To treat the latter as inviolate principle while working to destroy the first is illogical and inconsistent... but since when has politics ever been logical, let alone consistent.
 
Last edited:
Libs are hypocrites. In other news,.water is still wet.
And in fairness...a lot of conservatives are as well. This is just an opportunity for self reflection.
 
And in fairness...a lot of conservatives are as well. This is just an opportunity for self reflection.

I suggest you take advantage of it.
 
The constitution doesn't say you can have a gun LOL.
What it does say is very dated and now irrelevant.

There was no law forbidding gay marriage, LOL.
The constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms, and what it says is always relevant as long as humans run governments.

There was no law forbidding gay marriage because the idea was so absurd that it wasn't even worth considering.
 
Owning a gun, birthing a child...ponders.
 
Just what the forum needed. Another ancient, conservative guy telling women that losing the right to determine the outcomes of their pregnancies is no big deal.
 
Back
Top Bottom