Roe V Wade has been repealed

[Deleted member 114266]

 

[MariArch]

Thanks i have been lookin for one of those. Now to do some light shopping.

If you're in the market for a firearm, I recommend Family Firearms. They sell a wide variety of stock for very small margins. I only shop from them and it's really easy to get the gun shipped over to your local FFL.

 

[Foxi4]

You are both running away from the question, which is quite simple: would if be better if states could legislate on slavery individually? Forget the current federal law or constitution.

Why would I forget the key legal document of the U.S. Government and the foundation upon which the rest of the union rests? I see what you’re doing - you’re arguing backwards. In your mind, access to abortion is good, therefore Roe v. Wade should’ve been preserved as the legal precedent. My argument is that it’s the job of the SCOTUS to decide whether things are or are not featured in the Constitution, and that’s it. Abortion is ostensibly not covered by the Constitution, therefore Roe v. Wade was an erroneous decision that had to be overturned, any other outcome would make the court usurp the function of the legislature. If you think it should be constitutionally protected, there’s an existing mechanism for adding new rights to the Constitution - pass an amendment. As it stands today, it is not a constitutionally protected right, so there is *no* alternative to passing it on to the states *unless* federal law governing the issue is passed. I’m not “dodging” the question, the question is a weird hypothetical that doesn’t function in the U.S. legal system. Ask what you mean instead of laying elaborate traps, that won’t work.

 

[NoobletCheese]

Wow, you really believed you came up with a good point

Under your worldview, mothers are wrong to think their own babies have any intrinsic, inherent value: if the mother decided she no longer values her baby, then her baby no longer has any value.

But what if her husband still values the baby, does it still have value? Suppose that it does, then who else could value the baby? Family members only? Cousins? Friends? Members of the public?

 

[Elodain]

It's a lot easier to kill more school kids before being stopped with one than the other.

"Seung-Hui Cho, an undergraduate student at the university and a U.S. resident who was from South Korea, killed 32 people and wounded 17 others with two semi-automatic pistols."

Virginia Tech Shooting - Wikipedia

Seems dude had no problem murdering a lot of people with two semi automatic pistols.

He shouldn't have had the guns. He was obviously mentally unstable. That's not the gun's fault. Be it a pistol or an AK-47 (which, according to This information, was in combination with several other weapons, involved in only two shootings (that this source has documented at the least) in around seven years, both of which resulted in far less casualties, and according to this info rifle style weapons tend to be the LESS (Edited to rephrase) used gun in mass shootings in favor of standard handguns) Guns don't do anything unless manipulated by a person (or animal if they somehow manage to figure out the trigger mechanism)

To blame guns for the actions of the mentally ill with unfortunate and unwarranted access to the guns is, quite frankly, asinine. Most gun collectors/owners don't shoot random people because they are unhinged.

Quite frankly, I could care less if gun control was more strict or what kind of guns I'm allowed to have. I'm not super interested in the things. I like to shoot them at targets at the range or a target taped to a tree sometimes, but I'm not gonna die if I cant have whatever gun I want or have one at all. I'm just pointing out that blaming certain kinds of guns/guns period for the actions of those that have them is, yet another strawman argument that is misguided at best and malicious at worst.

 

[hippy dave]

"Seung-Hui Cho, an undergraduate student at the university and a U.S. resident who was from South Korea, killed 32 people and wounded 17 others with two semi-automatic pistols."

Virginia Tech Shooting - Wikipedia

Seems dude had no problem murdering a lot of people with two semi automatic pistols.

He shouldn't have had the guns. He was obviously mentally unstable. That's not the gun's fault. Be it a pistol or an AK-47 (which, according to This information, was in combination with several other weapons, involved in only two shootings (that this source has documented at the least) in around seven years, both of which resulted in far less casualties, and according to this info rifle style weapons tend to be the LEAST used gun in mass shootings in favor of standard handguns) Guns don't do anything unless manipulated by a person (or animal if they somehow manage to figure out the trigger mechanism)

To blame guns for the actions of the mentally ill with unfortunate and unwarranted access to the guns is, quite frankly, asinine. Most gun collectors/owners don't shoot random people because they are unhinged.

Quite frankly, I could care less if gun control was more strict or what kind of guns I'm allowed to have. I'm not super interested in the things. I like to shoot them at targets at the range or a target taped to a tree sometimes, but I'm not gonna die if I cant have whatever gun I want or have one at all. I'm just pointing out that blaming certain kinds of guns/guns period for the actions of those that have them is, yet another strawman argument.

Guy got skills.

Yeah it's the people who are to blame for their actions, but their actions wouldn't be possible if they weren't holding the guns.

I respect your view on gun control changes, it's more honest than the people here who say any increased controls would be a crime against their precious constitution and therefore must be avoided at all costs, but also that it's the dodgy people doing mass shootings who are spoiling it for the nice normal sensible people, therefore the dodgy people are the problem and shouldn't be allowed have guns - but no restrictions!

 

[Foxi4]

Yeah it's the people who are to blame for their actions, but their actions wouldn't be possible if they weren't holding the guns.

We agree on that, actually. The disagreement comes from throwing the baby out with the bath water. You see that some (very few) people abuse access to firearms to commit atrocities, so your first thought is to restrict access for *everybody*. You want to punish the many for the sins of the few, and I have a problem with that. For the record, the most commonly used weapon in mass shootings, by far, is the handgun - rifles are a distant second. You cannot own a handgun in the UK, period, but you can own “an assault rifle”, including semi automatic ones, provided they’re of appropriate calibre and you have a permit (the restriction for semi automatic rifles is .22LR), and the UK is pretty damn restrictive about this stuff. You’re barking up the wrong tree, buddy.

 

[Deleted member 114266]

Guy got skills.

Really, that's all you can say?

What about other mass casualty events like this that happened 8 months ago? No guns were used here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack

 

[NoobletCheese]

You are both running away from the question, which is quite simple: would if be better if states could legislate on slavery individually? Forget the current federal law or constitution.

I think your question presupposes that if states were allowed to legislate on slavery that this carries a risk of slavery becoming legal in some states, when in reality no state would ever vote for slavery, so it's a moot point.

It might be more risky leaving slavery up to a federal law because if a bad guy gets in power then the whole country could end up with slavery, whereas with state law you could just move to another state if you didn't like the laws in that one.

 

[pustal]

Personally I’m glad that the decision was overturned - it was unconstitutional from day one. Now individual states should move to enshrine it in law, either in the state’s constitution like Florida or via other legislation. Naturally some states will choose to ban the practice, but that can’t be helped. The people will vote accordingly during election season if it’s an important issue for them.

Why would I forget the key legal document of the U.S. Government and the foundation upon which the rest of the union rests? I see what you’re doing - you’re arguing backwards. In your mind, access to abortion is good, therefore Roe v. Wade should’ve been preserved as the legal precedent. My argument is that it’s the job of the SCOTUS to decide whether things are or are not featured in the Constitution, and that’s it. Abortion is ostensibly not covered by the Constitution, therefore Roe v. Wade was an erroneous decision that had to be overturned, any other outcome would make the court usurp the function of the legislature. If you think it should be constitutionally protected, there’s an existing mechanism for adding new rights to the Constitution - pass an amendment. As it stands today, it is not a constitutionally protected right, so there is *no* alternative to passing it on to the states *unless* federal law governing the issue is passed. I’m not “dodging” the question, the question is a weird hypothetical that doesn’t function in the U.S. legal system. Ask what you mean instead of laying elaborate traps, that won’t work.

I'm merely following up on you saying you were glad as it gives the opportunity for states to enshirne into law.

Nothing prevented an amendment before, nothing prevented protected legislation before. Giving states the opportunity to legislate it first will accomplish nothing but make it illegal in some states.

 

[Foxi4]

I think your question presupposes that if states were allowed to legislate on slavery that this carries a risk of slavery becoming legal in some states, when in reality no state would every vote for slavery, so it's a moot point.

I don’t know about that. In the absence of a constitution I would enslave all of GBAtemp, with glee and relative ease. “Master” has a nice ring to it.

 

[hippy dave]

We agree on that, actually. The disagreement comes from throwing the baby out with the bath water. You see that some (very few) people abuse access to firearms to commit atrocities, so your first thought is to restrict access for *everybody*. You want to punish the many for the sins of the few, and I have a problem with that.

Depends what you mean by "restrict". Assess people individually for their application for a specific gun for a specific purpose, and you'll hopefully weed out more of the nut jobs. Testing on a par with what's needed to get a driving licence wouldn't stop "the right" people from getting their gun for a valid reason. These are screamingly obvious possibilities that I'm sure have been discussed to death and would solve some of the worst problems, appease some people and not piss off some other people that much, but hard-line "no restrictions under any circumstances" shitheads would rather change nothing and let the problem people keep causing the problems.

For the record, my personal opinion would be full ban apart from exceptional circumstances, but the above would be an easy and obvious step in the right direction that would save countless lives and would take a certain kind of real shithead to object to.

 

[Foxi4]

I'm merely following up on you saying you were glad as it gives the opportunity for states to enshirne into law.

Nothing prevented an amendment before, nothing prevented protected legislation before. Giving states the opportunity to legislate it first will accomplish nothing but make it illegal in some states.

It corrects the court’s error and provides impetus for proper legislation to be created regarding the issue. Congress has been napping this entire time, decades, relying on a SCOTUS decision that was always on shaky ground. It’s their fault, if anyone’s, that this situation is taking place.

 

[hippy dave]

Really, that's all you can say?

Sure, that's all I can say. That's why it's the only thing I said, rather than, say, a flippant comment irrelevant to the points I've been making.

 

[Foxi4]

For the record, my personal opinion would be full ban apart from exceptional circumstances, but the above would be an easy and obvious step in the right direction that would save countless lives and would take a certain kind of real shithead to object to.

Then we have a fundamental disagreement regarding the function of firearms as a prerequisite for a free society. Liberty isn’t free, the right to bear arms is fundamental and cannot be infringed as it protects the populace from the whims of a tyrannical government as well as internal and external threats.

 

[Deleted member 114266]

It corrects the court’s error and provides impetus for proper legislation to be created regarding the issue. Congress has been napping this entire time, decades, relying on a SCOTUS decision that was always on shaky ground. It’s their fault, if anyone’s, that this situation is taking place.

Exactly, they had just under 50 years...

 

[hippy dave]

Then there’s a fundamental disagreement regarding the function of firearms as a prerequisite for a free society. Liberty isn’t free, the right to bear arms is fundamental and cannot be infringed as it protects the populace from the whims of a tyrannical government as well as internal and external threats.

Yeah, the delusion that America is a "free society", and even more so than all the other countries that don't have horrendous gun problems.

 

[Foxi4]

Yeah, the delusion that America is a "free society", and even more so than all the other countries that don't have horrendous gun problems.

The U.S. has a gun solution, and a gang problem. The gross majority of so-called mass shootings are related to organised crime, not school massacres.

 

[Elodain]

Nevermind I misread the point of what I responded to with this one

 

[hippy dave]

The U.S. has a gun solution, and a gang problem.

Atta boy, keep those delusions piling up