Are these 'infringements'?

My point is one of objective law. It seems that many who suport 'sensible regulations' of one right will oppose those same regulations as 'infringements' if applied to another. That makes the law subjective. Thus there isnt any effective or meaningful difference between 'regulations' and 'infringements.' And certainly this due in no small part to partisans sticking it to the other team... but its going to bite us all in the ass once all our rights are so heavily 'regulated' that only the regulators can actually exercise them. Which IMO is the ultimate goal of subjectivizing the law.

 

I don't think women in general who have an unwanted pregnancy are as paranoid as conspiracy seeking right-wingers like the gun nuts. They are willing to do what is best for society and other women unlike the gun lobby.

 

What does having to jump through a lot of meaningless hoops to exercise a constitutionally protected right have to do with being paranoid? Which option in the poll are you arguing for?

 

lol... 236 views, 6 votes

 

Constitutional amendments are too slow for our "ten pages a minute" hyper speed electronic attention spans.
The first challenge is to define the boundaries:
When life begins, and the reason for ending it.
Next comes the "other when" of termination, plus all of the exceptions: incest, murder, rape, etc.
I doubt pro abortion forces can come together to define the "when", let alone the "why".
I think the best bet is for Big Election to quit jerking the abortion proponent's chains and support them. If they did they could swamp the red states by hook or by hook and get it done. But they won't because they need the issue. We decide our choices based on a river of media disinformation, so it is up to Big Election to decide what we want.

 

None of your "infringements" are based on public health or safety concerns besides a tracking database of abortions. Your laundry list is a list of right-wing gripes about gun laws that have to do with public safety, which the right doesn't care about. They choose individual rights over a healthy society. All rights have limits.

 

Public safety has limits too. Thats why alcohol and cars are both still legal. The only difference between 'safety concerns' and infringements is the opinion of the individual being restricted. Thats why we have rights.

...still not sure on your position tho. Are the restrictions in the OP 'infringements' or not? Im not asking whether you think they're warranted, Im asking whether you think they would violate the constitution and infringe upon a protected right.

 

your definition of what is best for society and dismissing the rights of gun owners is purely subjective. You don't like gun owners-most likely due to how a majority of them vote-and pretend that gun rights are bad for society. The founders and most of us disagree

 

public safety is only a facade democrats drum up to hide their real motivations for trying to harass gun owners. Democrat gun control schemes only advance the public safety of felons and Democrat politicians who coddle violent criminals

 

Democrat theory is if everyone is unarmed the criminals will eventually run out of guns.

It is the same government overreach as having all girls at puberty be required to use under the skin contraceptives, and get a permit when they want to have a child. The WFA* federal agency will review and issue the permit.
Why should they be vulnerable to pregnancy against their will?

*W&F "Womb and Family Agency"

 

Sure but the constitution allows the infringement of a persons rights if they have committed a crime and have received due process.

 

Ya, but whats the justification for depriving them of constitutional rights after they've served their time?

 

Because it's part of their time/punishment . Jail isn't the only punishment for a crime. The constitution allows for "punishment" not just jail.

In fact I'd prefer we take away other things rather then put them in jail longer. This ensures their have more rights preserved while still protecting the public.
Would you rather a violent person be in jail longer in order protect a wife and child or we take measures to limit the damage they can inflict while letting them enjoy as many freedoms as possible?

Now 'excessive' punishment is not constitutional so if you want to argue that taking away their guns for the amount of time that they do is excessive, that might be a fair argument but that would be situational.

 

The way it works now is they get out of prison but can never own a gun again. Ever. If cant have guns is just part of their sentence, then all felons are getting life sentences. And not the 'life = 30 years' kind, but literally until they die. Is that not excessive?

Certainly anyone incarcerated can also be deprived other rights. Same with parole. But once thats over, they should be full citizens again ...or their sentence never actually ends.

 

In most cases, I'd agree that's excessive. There a few cases were it probably isn't.

 

What would be an example of a case where someone doesn't need to be locked up, can be trusted to walk about freely in society with access to things like machetes, explosive chemicals, playgrounds, cars and booze ...but can't be trusted with a firearm?

 

I was going to say premeditated murder where they only give 15 years... But you are probably right murder should be life always. Society should never trust a person capable of murder.

 

That seems a bit excessive as well. Do you not think murderers might eventually be rehabilitated?

 

WTAF?

Which Xtofascist controlled GOP a/hole gets to CAPRICIOUSLY decide what constitutes "someone who has had too many abortions"?

The MEDICAL term for MISCARRIAGES are "SPONTANEOUS ABORTIONS".

Do you have any idea how many SPONTANEOUS ABORTIONS occur each YEAR?

But YOU want to PROHIBIT a woman from having an abortion just because she had prior MISCARRIAGES?

WTAF?

Tell us ALL where in the CONSTITUTION do YOU have the POWER to REGULATE what happens INSIDE another person's BODY?

YOUR bogus OP is a COMPLETE and utter FAILURE because it dishonestly CONFLATES something that ANYONE, including a SMALL child, can USE to KILL another person with a MEDICAL PROCEDURE.

Seriously, WTAF is the massive pile of crap OP intended to "prove"?

The UTERUS has NOTHING in common with a GUN.

Women are not PACKING their uteruses.

Women are not LOADING their uteruses with 30 fetuses in order to go and MURDER school children.

Women are not BRAGGING about how many uteruses they have at home.

Women do NOT take their uteruses to a FIRING RANGE and PRACTICE having abortions.

WTAF!

 

The Xtofascist controlled GOP consider abortion to be MURDER.

They are going to have to BUILD massive PRISONS to hold the MILLIONS of women who have had abortions since they just PROVEN to SOCIETY that they are "CAPABLE of MURDER".

There is NO statute of limitations on murder either.

Every woman still alive who has had an abortion in the last 50 years must be tried, convicted and sentenced to LIFE imprisonment according to the BELIEFS of the Xtofascist controlled GOP.

That comes to around 50 million women, one sixth of the entire population INCARCERATED thanks entirely to the Xtofascist controlled GOP.

Does this sound far fetched?

I can assure you that they WILL do exactly that because there are NO LIMITS to what they BELIEVE.

 

I was too blinded by the huge amounts of stonking ignorance in the post to discern a “point”

 

Excuse me?? Who are YOU to judge?


Shall we go back to public shaming? How about shaving women’s hair for having sex? I know you are trying (and failing) to draw some sort of false equivalency between pregnancy and gun ownership but last time I checked you didn’t automatically grow a gun if you are raped

 

A false and stupid equivalency but keep it up because it is giving me a wonderful chance to educate people on reproductive issues

 

Yet

give the gop time

 

Bodily autonomy is one right that should never be infringed or are you on board with forced sterilisation of all men to stop them causing unwanted pregnancies? I mean it is a solution - make them donate sperm and then and only when they are able to support a child do they get to approach a woman to enter into a reproduction contract