(06-28-2016 10:42 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-27-2016 11:24 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  But then again the constitutional right to abortion on demand is basically a right constructed out of wishes, social engineering, chicken wire, and make-believe time limits.

There is nothing 'make believe' about a SCOTUS ruling...it's the law of the land

Yeah, yeah, yeah, separate but equal was also the law of the land, and slavery, and no abortion, and sodomy laws, and asset forfeiture, and citizens united, and Heller, and on and on. All were/are "law o' the land!!!!!"

Your appeal to authority doesn't quash debate on whether a Supreme Court ruling is/was bad, good, logical, or consistent.

Roe v. Wade is a bunch of gobledygook to try to justify a liberal dogma and nothing more. It's as pitiful as the asset forfeiture rulings and Dred Scott.

The Supreme Court is not to be questioned on crap you like...but on Citizens United you can scream bloody murder.

Bush v. Gore...law of the land from the black robed deities. Did you applaud?

(06-28-2016 11:02 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 10:57 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 10:44 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Comparing the Texas TRAP law to restrictions on firearms is foolish.

You see in Texas,it was impossible for a women's health center to comply with the laws...Not hard, impossible. And these laws weren't passed for the benefit of 'women's health', but rather to shut down women's health providers.

Telling Americans you have to register your guns, sell them under supervision, and be strictly responsible for those firearms is NOT an undue burden. Neither is telling wife beaters they can't have a gun. Or shutting down an open air no questions asked gun show market.

Quote:the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

unless you know the meaning of undue burden... I would advise that you stop if you dont want to look uneducated once again.

name me a gun control law that shut down access to guns to entire sections of a state and at an overall rate of 90%. show me a gun control law that left all but one gun store open in a state.

nvm Tom, John decided to step in for you.

Yep, seems that you also do not know the meaning of undue burden...

(06-28-2016 11:11 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:02 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 10:57 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 10:44 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Comparing the Texas TRAP law to restrictions on firearms is foolish.

You see in Texas,it was impossible for a women's health center to comply with the laws...Not hard, impossible. And these laws weren't passed for the benefit of 'women's health', but rather to shut down women's health providers.

Telling Americans you have to register your guns, sell them under supervision, and be strictly responsible for those firearms is NOT an undue burden. Neither is telling wife beaters they can't have a gun. Or shutting down an open air no questions asked gun show market.

Quote:the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

unless you know the meaning of undue burden... I would advise that you stop if you dont want to look uneducated once again.

name me a gun control law that shut down access to guns to entire sections of a state and at an overall rate of 90%. show me a gun control law that left all but one gun store open in a state.

nvm Tom, John decided to step in for you.

Yep, seems that you also do not know the meaning of undue burden...

name me an example.

(06-28-2016 11:17 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:11 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:02 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 10:57 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 10:44 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Comparing the Texas TRAP law to restrictions on firearms is foolish.

You see in Texas,it was impossible for a women's health center to comply with the laws...Not hard, impossible. And these laws weren't passed for the benefit of 'women's health', but rather to shut down women's health providers.

Telling Americans you have to register your guns, sell them under supervision, and be strictly responsible for those firearms is NOT an undue burden. Neither is telling wife beaters they can't have a gun. Or shutting down an open air no questions asked gun show market.

Quote:the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

unless you know the meaning of undue burden... I would advise that you stop if you dont want to look uneducated once again.

name me a gun control law that shut down access to guns to entire sections of a state and at an overall rate of 90%. show me a gun control law that left all but one gun store open in a state.

nvm Tom, John decided to step in for you.

Yep, seems that you also do not know the meaning of undue burden...

name me an example.

your definition of undue burden is a gun control law that shut down access to guns to entire sections of state and at an overall rate of 90%, a gun control law that left all but one gun store open in a state right?

Don't Chicagoans cross state lines to get guns.

(06-28-2016 11:19 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:17 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:11 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:02 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 10:57 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  unless you know the meaning of undue burden... I would advise that you stop if you dont want to look uneducated once again.

name me a gun control law that shut down access to guns to entire sections of a state and at an overall rate of 90%. show me a gun control law that left all but one gun store open in a state.

nvm Tom, John decided to step in for you.

Yep, seems that you also do not know the meaning of undue burden...

name me an example.

your definition of undue burden is a gun control law that shut down access to guns to entire sections of state and at an overall rate of 90%, a gun control law that left all but one gun store open in a state right?

go reread the thread. I am saying that burdens of TRAP laws are nowhere close to the "burdens" (note my use of " ") of gun control laws. nothing more...nothing less.

(06-28-2016 11:38 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:19 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:17 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:11 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:02 AM)john01992 Wrote:  name me a gun control law that shut down access to guns to entire sections of a state and at an overall rate of 90%. show me a gun control law that left all but one gun store open in a state.

nvm Tom, John decided to step in for you.

Yep, seems that you also do not know the meaning of undue burden...

name me an example.

your definition of undue burden is a gun control law that shut down access to guns to entire sections of state and at an overall rate of 90%, a gun control law that left all but one gun store open in a state right?

go reread the thread. I am saying that burdens of TRAP laws are nowhere close to the "burdens" (note my use of " ") of gun control laws. nothing more...nothing less.

well maybe you should go reread the post that I replied to... which it was Tom's, not yours. You made the decision to butt in... I wasnt replying to any of your post.

(06-28-2016 11:45 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:38 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:19 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:17 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:11 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  nvm Tom, John decided to step in for you.

Yep, seems that you also do not know the meaning of undue burden...

name me an example.

your definition of undue burden is a gun control law that shut down access to guns to entire sections of state and at an overall rate of 90%, a gun control law that left all but one gun store open in a state right?

go reread the thread. I am saying that burdens of TRAP laws are nowhere close to the "burdens" (note my use of " ") of gun control laws. nothing more...nothing less.

well maybe you should go reread the post that I replied to... which it was Tom's, not yours. You made the decision to butt in... I wasnt replying to any of your post.

the post where he said: "Comparing the Texas TRAP law to restrictions on firearms is foolish."

seems like I'm right on topic.

also, the mods on here have been very strong in their defense of this being a public forum everyone is free to respond to anyone. so get with the program

(06-28-2016 11:47 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:45 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:38 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:19 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:17 AM)john01992 Wrote:  name me an example.

your definition of undue burden is a gun control law that shut down access to guns to entire sections of state and at an overall rate of 90%, a gun control law that left all but one gun store open in a state right?

go reread the thread. I am saying that burdens of TRAP laws are nowhere close to the "burdens" (note my use of " ") of gun control laws. nothing more...nothing less.

well maybe you should go reread the post that I replied to... which it was Tom's, not yours. You made the decision to butt in... I wasnt replying to any of your post.

the post where he said: "Comparing the Texas TRAP law to restrictions on firearms is foolish."

seems like I'm right on topic.

also, the mods on here have been very strong in their defense of this being a public forum everyone is free to respond to anyone. so get with the program

yeah, he said it, not you. My post still stands.

and why would I go read a post that you posted when I am replying to him?

and where did I said that you couldnt reply to my post?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/43...s-decision

The perspective of someone born 3 months before Roe v. Wade and put up for adoption.

(06-28-2016 03:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/43...s-decision

The perspective of someone born 3 months before Roe v. Wade and put up for adoption.

very hard for me to take that person seriously.

(06-28-2016 04:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 03:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/43...s-decision

The perspective of someone born 3 months before Roe v. Wade and put up for adoption.

very hard for me to take that person seriously.

Cause you're so openminded...

(06-28-2016 04:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 03:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/43...s-decision

The perspective of someone born 3 months before Roe v. Wade and put up for adoption.

very hard for me to take that person seriously.

Should have throw in some bs about the difficulties abortion butchers face getting AP for you eh. How dare he mention the only reason he's here to write anything at all is because his mommy didn't have the option of murdering him.

Apparently, women's "privacy" is more than important than the rights of the child.

(06-28-2016 04:46 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 04:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 03:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/43...s-decision

The perspective of someone born 3 months before Roe v. Wade and put up for adoption.

very hard for me to take that person seriously.

Cause you're so openminded...

give me a break. that OP used inflammatory rhetoric, relied on loaded language, and inserted personal opinions as fact to make a point.

being open minded is willing to see the BS if it is coming from your own side.