Tex-s

....of media bias and leftism at work in media.

Here we have a 'lovely' article looking, longingly, forward to the day when Harris can (finally) gut the 2nd Amendment, an amendment penned in black ink within the text of the Constitution,

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/kamala-harris-chance-enact-major-142600528.html

Funny, but I just can't seem to find the articles praising the Trump administration and looking longingly forward to the day Mike Pence might push through legislation restricting a******n, a 'right' , of course, not written anywhere AT ALL in the Constitution, but invented by the SCOTUS, first in Griswold and then in Roe.

I'm not sure how a nation dev**ed to the individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has ended up with an entire political platform dev**ed to ending life (a******n), restricting liberty (forced financial and social relations, lock down policy, gun restriction, restricting the free practice of religion, banning free speech, and a 1000 others), and defining happiness as 'what we tell you' (24/7 narratives about male, white, police, or other fabricated evils and the supposed solution to such.) What's making sane folks insane, though, is that we have 50+ percent of what should be a well-educated populace v****g to be oppressed and controlled.

We won't need to wonder, I fear, what it was like to live in Soviet Russia or N**I Germany when our guns are gone, when certain ethnicities or religions (not just political thoughts) end up restricted by law to subservient status, and when government controls all means of production. Hope I'm wrong, but articles like the above, praising the removal of rights, make me sure I'm right.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

You have stated nicely my concern

Triple G

Many believe that gun ownership rights under the constitution are not “unfettered”. There are restrictions put in place, so that precedent has been met. Now it’s a matter of what restrictions go toward public safety that don’t conflict with the constitution. Stay tuned as these issues have been brewing for a long time and need to be settled all the way to SCOTUS. Now should be the time for the GOP to force these to SCOTUS with their conservative judges in place. Or, don’t you trust The Federalist and Heritage assessment of where Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett will rule? Those restrictions under consideration shouldn’t affect upright citizens’ rights.

https://www.dw.com/en/8-facts-about-gun-control-in-the-us/a-40816418

→Revoke the licenses of gun manufacturers & dealers that break the law

→Require anyone who sells more than 5 guns/yr to run a background check on all gun sales

→Ban the importation of AR-15-style assault weapons"

anotherview Loc: California

Good morning. Like it or not, the legal right to a******n on demand has become the law of the land.

Which or wh**ever legal reasoning underlies this outcome, it goes to the the private decision of a woman to opt for an a******n or to give birth. This decision excludes the state.

It also by its operation excludes the irrational intrusions of religion and like emotional positions that purport to know better than the individual woman when she makes this decision.

Other rights have come under fire by irrational forces; for example, the anti-gun fanatics seek every avenue to suppress or to hinder if not to deny the constitutional right to own and use guns. The SCOTUS has settled this matter by its recent ruling that the Second Amendment means what it says, that citizens may own and use guns.

Consider that the Founding Fathers could have outlawed private gunownership. Instead, they they gave us the Second Amendment.

We also live in a time when the news media workers riddle their reportage with lies, bias, and propaganda, instead of doing straight reporting. This misconduct fails to serve the interests of the citizenry in a democracy.

Triple G

Some fact checks:

A******n is not “on demand”; there are restrictions.

Roe V Wade makes a distinction of when fetus rights outweigh woman’s right to privacy. Each state can and does modify that ruling to be less restrictive; only 17 adhere to the Roe v Wade definition of viability. Now is the time to get this before SCOTUS again.

https://b****tpedia.org/A******n_regulations_by_state

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

To all you folks that want to ban a******ns based upon their religious beliefs. That's one of the great things about this country. You can worship and believe any deity you like but you can't force me to comply with your religion. If you do, you'd be violating the very concept of Freedom of Religion.
Tell you what: Take care of your own lives and when they're perfect, give me a call.

Tex-s

This comment is not directed at you, but at the term 'assault weapon'. There is no such category. The AR-15 is only one of literally 30 shoulder weapons that have the same caliber and/or capacity. The uneducated love to call the AR out because it looks like a military weapon, but no soldier in the US military would EVER be sent out into combat with so little fire power.

https://reason.com/2018/10/31/neither-capacity-nor-power-distinguishes/

As for trusting the SCOTUS? Not. At. All.

Judge Roberts recently reversed his v**e to uphold a previous ruling for which he offered not only a dissenting v**e, but penned the dissent. Rationale? Precedent. He actually wrote in the recent case that he still thought the precedent wrong but refused to 'right' it. THAT kind of Justice needs to go. This is of course only one of many recent cases in which Justices supposed to defend the Constitution have chosen to rule based on feelings or the potential social or economic ramifications rather than law. And THAT on top of the frequent rulings of liberal Justices whose rationale frequently seems to be to empower government or weaken religious liberty.

Again, I hope to be proven wrong, but I see the US moving towards a system in which the SCOTUS effectively begins writing the laws, and where the Executive-of -the-day effectively appoints the law makers to posts from which v**ers cannot remove them. The Congress, via inaction and VASTLY misguided action, has rendered itself not only impotent, but obsolete.

Triple G

How should they be labeled? Maybe language in the banning document will need to be very specific.

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

Excellent comments.

Tex-s

Somehow I missed your response initially. You are very wise to note / admit that both parties / ideologies tend to enjoy the imposition of government into the lives and choices of citizens, only in different ways.

Unlike the attributes assigned me by those who generally refuse to debate, and possibly a t***h incomprehensible to the same folks, I am a true feminist. (I have a wife, a daughter, and maybe 700 or so current and former girl athletes I consider family.) I don't wish to impose my opinions of a******n on others, and only cited that example as a contrast to the blatant activism of media / media bias when it comes to guns. My solution to a******n is neither to legalize nor criminalize, but rather to reduce demand. Education, both biological and ethical, for both boys and girls, is the best answer IMO.

RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

Many people were talking about restricting gun ownership after the attack on the Capitol. Gun owners that are not moronic, i***ts should be wary of gun owners that act out like the group of terrorists that under the behest of President Trump. Those types do nothing to support the reasoning that the Second Amendment should remain as written.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Maybe you can explain why "right to life" booths almost always have anti birth control literature. I would think more birth control would cut down on a******ns more than any other single thing. I think most "right to lifers" are mostly about controlling others lives.

Triple G

Pro-birth, not pro-life. They wouldn’t be for the executions if pro-life.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Of course you are right, but I wanted to use a term they would recognize.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

A slight aside comment here...

So many things are being pushed to SCOTUS to resolve. Why is that? Are lower courts incompetent? What makes SCOTUS the be-all and end-all? Maybe soon you can do away with the lower courts and have an Ultra Supreme Court that can hear appeals of a SCOTUS decision.

Put that on the back burner to resolve after the US fixes the outdated EC system (it’s “r****d!”).