Roe V Wade has been repealed

[MariArch]

Sure, and it does so completely neutrally with no personal bias, it's the perfect system.

Question: if the supreme court truly didn't rule in direct accordance with constitution, why didn't they just say "a baby in the womb has a complete right to life and so abortion is to be banned nationwide"?

 

[Hanafuda]

What always puzzle me with Americans talking about their Constitution is how they talk about it as if everything was set in stone.
The Constitution was written in a very different era with people of very different principles. By itself, it's a piece of paper, by itself, it can and should be challenged when it stops being relevant. Saying "but the Constitution said" by itself is a weak argument.
Also getting your rights taken away by people you have not elected is a big no no, it's never okay. Wake up USA.

Meanwhile none of the urgent issues like healthcare, infrastructure or education are not addressed by either side, what a fantasy.

The US Constitution can be amended. We've done it 27 times.

 

[wartutor]

Say you care more about guns than people without saying you care more about guns than people

You do realize guns dont kill people but abortions do...I mean thats just 100% fact right there.

 

[hippy dave]

Question: if the supreme court truly didn't rule in direct accordance with constitution

If they truly did, how was it a different answer than last time?

 

[hippy dave]

You do realize guns dont kill people but abortions do...I mean thats just 100% fact right there.

You're right, it's not the guns, it's the bullets passing through the kids' flesh that probably killed them. Guns are fine then, just ban bullets.

In other news, a clump of cells is not a person.

 

[gnmmarechal]

So much for the american freedom or whatever it is

 

[Foxi4]

You're right, it's not the guns, it's the bullets passing through the kids' flesh that probably killed them. Guns are fine then, just ban bullets.

In other news, a clump of cells is not a person.

Emotional appeal is never a good argument in a debate. Many things “kill children” all the time, but we don’t restrict them because their utility outweighs the cost. The correct way to approach the problem is to minimise fatalities without sacrificing the citizen’s ability to exercise their freedoms.

 

[MariArch]

If they truly did, how was it a different answer than last time?

Because last time they came up with shit lmao! As we've been saying. Precedence doesn't make something right or true. If it did a lot of racist shit would still be protected

 

[hippy dave]

Many things “kill children” all the time, but we don’t restrict them because their utility outweighs the cost.

Agreed.
That does absolutely not apply to automatic weapons in the hands of the public.

 

[Dakitten]

Here's an idea. Move to a state where they agree with all the bullcrap other people don't .

Tbh this brings up the bigger question of why we don't just split up the nation into like 4 different countries. We obviously all think so differently on a wide variety of topics. Idk why I should be forced to live in a country where people that live hundreds of miles away and have a completely different lifestyle can legislate how me and my community lives

This worked so well with slavery back before the civil war. States having individual control over rights is a terrible idea that leads to pockets of oppression. As for dividing the country up... while I don't think it is the worst idea ever, we're all people in a society that works towards a common good, dependent on the trade and well being of our neighbors. Dividing up the USA would destabilize things on a global level, be extremely messy, and in all probability excessively bloody for all sides.

We should also factor in the autonomy of the baby, eg. foreskin removal would seem to be an autonomy issue.

Now imagine instead of shootings we had car attacks and in response to all these car attacks the gov't wanted to pass a law that restricts car ownership to only those who need it, eg. you could only buy a car if there is no public transport available in your area.

Hey, if you want to take this to no more circumcision and better regulate cars and public transportation in return for regulating guns, welcome to the movement, comrade! Please don't threaten us with a good time!

It’s a bad analogy. Even if it was perfectly aligned, it still wouldn’t apply because there is no constitutionally protected right to travel using an automobile. I would argue that it falls under freedom of movement as the automobile is the de facto modern mode of transportation, but there’s two problems with that - firstly it would invalidate driver’s licenses and secondly it’s not enumerated as such, whereas arms are.

It applies due to the level of regulation on a travel vehicle being more involved and thorough as opposed to... well, killing tools. Firearms are only the de facto item for shooting things and or people, a non-essential thing in anybody's life, whereas vehicular transportation may well be the only feasible way to make enough money to earn a living to survive on depending on your area.

It’s called a temporary compromise, with full intention of revisiting the matter at a more opportune time, which is precisely what happened historically. The seeds of abolishing slavery nationwide were in the Constitution before it was even ratified.

A temporary compromise to enslave other human beings that would end at some point unspecified that was universally agreed on by all parties involved? I believe this still qualifies as immoral, didn't work out historically until treason was committed and people were murdered, and then persecution persisted until... well it is still going on. Honestly, your defense of this is kinda alarming and off-putting. Maybe re-evaluate your position on owning other human beings.

 

[hippy dave]

Because last time they came up with shit lmao! As we've been saying. Precedence doesn't make something right or true. If it did a lot of racist shit would still be protected

So you're saying the supreme court is not a perfect neutral/objective system but a bunch of fallible biased humans, got it.

 

[MariArch]

Ywabinde

So you're saying the supreme court is not a perfect neutral/objective system but a bunch of fallible biased humans, got it.

Yes indeed. They could come up with stuff that's simply not written down and call it a right. When they do do that, it's wrong. The supreme court has set the record straight and has decided to follow what is written down

 

[hippy dave]

The supreme court has set the record straight and has decided to follow what is written down

In your fallible biased opinion.

 

[wartutor]

Great, that excuses all the murdered children then right?

It's just embarrassing for the right wing shitheads when abortion and gun debates are mixed in the same thread, because it's suddnely screamingly obvious how hypocritical the "pro life" bullshit is.

Whats the rate 1 million abortions to 1 child mass shooting death? 2 million to 1 even hell i bet its more than that. You are stretching to compare apples to oranges.

 

[Hanafuda]

So you're saying the supreme court is not a perfect neutral/objective system but a bunch of fallible biased humans, got it.

I'd agree with that. Not sure how any government that has ever existed isn't that, exactly. But flawed and biased in 2022, or in 1973? Or both? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Roll Tootsie Pop?

 

[Creamu]

In your fallible biased opinion.

@MariArch Just for context:

[Thread title Poll: 73% of Trump Voters Think Democrats Are Trying to ‘Replace White Americans With Immigrants And People Of Color’]

I didn't read the thread, just the title, but it sounds like a plan, let's do it.

White people will become a minority. Here's hoping. You fucking racist piece of shit.

 

[hippy dave]

Whats the rate 1 million abortions to 1 child mass shooting death? 2 million to 1 even hell i bet its more than that. You are stretching to compare apples to oranges.

Living breathing people having their active lives taken from them and being mourned by their families is more of an issue to me than clumps of cells not becoming people. I'm comparing tragedies to clump removals.

 

[Foxi4]

It applies due to the level of regulation on a travel vehicle being more involved and thorough as opposed to... well, killing tools. Firearms are only the de facto item for shooting things and or people, a non-essential thing in anybody's life, whereas vehicular transportation may well be the only feasible way to make enough money to earn a living to survive on depending on your area.

I mean, you can think that if you want - I’m not going to have a weird argument with you about what is and is not essential to a given person because it’s a highly individual matter. I certainly never needed to drive anywhere, and I don’t.

A temporary compromise to enslave other human beings that would end at some point unspecified that was universally agreed on by all parties involved? I believe this still qualifies as immoral, didn't work out historically until treason was committed and people were murdered, and then persecution persisted until... well it is still going on. Honestly, your defense of this is kinda alarming and off-putting. Maybe re-evaluate your position on owning other human beings.

It’s what happened. The Constitution was ratified in the immediate aftermath of the Independence War, the country was still threatened by invasion of foreign powers and a consensus needed to be reached. It was a bitter sweet compromise, rights for most were better than rights for none. It’s a good thing that the original promise of the Constitution was fulfilled and slavery was abolished - I’d argue that you cannot read the original document and get the impression that slavery was permissible, so the situation today is not too dissimilar to what happened back then - a constitutional wrong was corrected.

Agreed.
That does absolutely not apply to automatic weapons in the hands of the public.

You cannot buy automatic weapons in the United States except for a few select pieces that are considered collectible antiques (manufactured pre-1986). Automatic weapons are NFA-registered items and the government reserves the right to deny any transfer of ownership of such firearms, nationwide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

Where are these automatic weapons in the hands of the public? Whoever has one can consider themselves exceedingly lucky to own an increasingly rare piece of history.

 

[hippy dave]

You cannot buy automatic weapons in the United States except for a few select pieces that are considered collectible antiques (manufactured pre-1986). Automatic weapons are NFA-registered items and the government reserves the right to deny any transfer of ownership of such firearms, nationwide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

Alright my brain churned out the wrong word. Semi-automatic, assault weapons etc, take your pick. Guns designed for mowing down swathes of people.

 

[AmandaRose]

You cannot buy automatic weapons in the United States except for a few select pieces that are considered collectible antiques (manufactured pre-1986). Automatic weapons are NFA-registered items and the government reserves the right to deny any transfer of ownership of such firearms, nationwide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

Where are these automatic weapons in the hands of the public? Whoever has one can consider themselves exceedingly lucky to own an increasingly rare piece of history.

Looking at the requirements to get one it's really not that hard other than the time it takes.

https://www.silencercentral.com/blog/can-you-own-a-fully-automatic-weapon-legally/