Supreme Court strikes New York gun law in major ruling

Which should be dwarfed by your thoughts and prayers to all the ghetto blacks being shot now.

 

What rights of the mother are being infringed on again? Are you referring to retroactive prophylactic action? Asked another way, women have the ability to end pregnancies at their inception, do they not? morning after, plan b, etc. Lots of other options, birth control, abstinence, etc. I find it incredulous that unless life of the mother is involved, or rape/incest, that the mother's rights might overcome their natural responsibility to the health and viability of their unborn child. Is that really the rub? Women can't, in your estimation, be expected to act responsibly, or otherwise morally in society these days?

 

They laugh so hard that millions of them stream into the nation to be a part of the folly. right?

 

Good point. Liberals never actually think about the platitudes they precariously hang on to....

 

You clearly haven't read the relevant SCOTUS opinions. Try doing that first, and then get back to us if you still have this question.

 

Although I agree with you, permit me to make one minor correction. This ruling doesn't give law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves. The 2nd amendment acknowledges that we always had that right and the government can't infringe on that inalienable right.

 

This may come as a shock to you, but the 2nd Amendment, just like all the other amendments, and the rest of the Constitution, does not touch on abortion.

 

OMG the USSC actually followed the constitution and didn't give a damn about irrelevant issues such as Breyer's pathetic bed wetting dissent where he whined about 45K in gun deaths-most of those being suicides and felons (meaning NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER) to the issue before the court. TIME FOR THE COURT to apply strict scrutiny to all theBS Democrat gun control nonsense and also get rid of the 1934 NFA, the Hughes Amendment and other clearly unconstitutional crap

 

Oh you poor dear. The constitution is upheld and the leftwing is having fits.

 

Wait a minute, you are telling us that five quotes without context pulled from a century of literature now defines what “well regulated” means?

Don’t have to repeal anything, rather apply the Amendment as it was written

 

They didn’t follow the Constitution, in fact they ignored the Constitution, which is proven in their own exceptions they included in the ruling

 

When is the right going to comprehend the very Constitution they so often tell us they supposedly revere

Nothing in this case “upholds” anything in the Constitution

 

"The right to keep and bear arms" is in the Constitution. The definition of bear according to Websters "to move while holding..." What are you talking about? NY violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court told them to stop. Democracy won today. The authoritarians lost.

 

LOL @ salty liberal tears

 

Yes, drluggit.
Your thread was started at 10:48 AM (53 minutes BEFORE this one):
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...g-strikes-down-new-york-conceal-carry.600917/
Why is it that people feel the need to SPAM the board with Duplicate Threads?

 

Wrong, once again, your understanding omits the prefatory clause to the Amendment

And if the Court did what you claim, why did they purposely include expectations to their ruling, so this supposed violation of the Constitution applies to some areas but not “specific areas?”

 

Hey, Mr. Ddyad...
Everybody KNOWS:
The 2A is here to STAY...

 

It upholds "the right to keep and bear arms"

 

A prefatory clause has no effect to add to, take away from, or otherwise alter an operative clause.
Thank you for playing.

 

The basic right of body autonomy.

The rest of what you wrote is irrelevent once those rights are recognized. So have fun with your hypocritical inconsistent views. It's garnered you quite a following with the Trump cult I see.

 

My thoughts and prayers to the future dead tied directly to the FACT! that the New York Liberal justice system continues to catch and release these violent criminal offenders back onto the streets to continue their violent behavior that results in assaults and murders of innocent law abiding citizens. Now people have a way to fight back and ventilate these creeps before they kill them. YEAH! for Donald Trumps Supreme Court for having some common sense to allow law abiding people their RIGHT! to defend themselves against the murderous hordes Liberals wish to unleash upon them.
In CELEBRATION of this fantastic ruling, I just ordered one of these babies to conceal carry in Washington State

Thank you for giving me the motivation to purchase this fantastic piece of Cold Hard Steel.

 

Perhaps you could reference that in the constitution. We have time........

 

https://reason.com/2022/06/23/unenumerated-rights-and-roe-v-wade/




"That analysis falls short in at least two crucial ways.

First, Alito fails to grapple with the argument that the right to terminate a pregnancy can be understood as a subset of the right to bodily integrity. As the legal scholar Sheldon Gelman detailed in a 1994 Minnesota Law Review article, the right to bodily integrity can be traced back to the Magna Carta. That makes it one of the many rights "retained by the people" (in the words of the Ninth Amendment) that were imported into the Constitution from English law. That right, in other words, is "deeply rooted" in American history and tradition.

Second, Alito's draft opinion distorts the relevant legal history and thus misstates the historical pedigree of abortion rights. "When the United States was founded and for many subsequent decades, Americans relied on the English common law," explains an amicus brief that the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians filed in Dobbs. "The common law did not regulate abortion in early pregnancy. Indeed, the common law did not even recognize abortion as occurring at that stage. That is because the common law did not legally acknowledge a fetus as existing separately from a pregnant woman until the woman felt fetal movement, called 'quickening,' which could occur as late as the 25th week of pregnancy."

A survey of founding-era legal authorities confirms this view. William Blackstone's widely read Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in 1765, noted that life "begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb." Under the common law, Blackstone explained, legal penalties for abortion applied only "if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb." That means abortion was legal in the early stages of pregnancy under the common law."

 

LMAO.. "concealed"....