This case is important not because of its specific subject matter of abortion, but instead for Texas’s cavalier and contemptuous mechanism for shielding from review potential violations of constitutional rights as determined by this Court’s precedents. It is one thing to disagree with precedents and seek their revision or reversal through judicial, congressional, or constitutional avenues; it is another simply to circumvent judicial review by delegating state action to the citizenry at large and then claiming, with a wink and a nod, that no state actors are involved.
From Amicus’s perspective, if pre-enforcement review can be evaded in the context of abortion it can and will be evaded in the context of the right to keep and bear arms. While the political valences of those issues seem to be opposites, the structural circumstances are too similar to ignore. As with Roe and Casey, many States view Heller as wrongly decided.
Those States, with the help of many circuit courts, have showed an ongoing refusal to accept the holding in Heller and a continuing creativity in seeking to circumvent any protections for, and to chill the exercise of, Second Amendment rights. It is hardly speculation to suggest that if Texas succeeds in its gambit here, New York, California, New Jersey, and others will not be far behind in adopting equally aggressive gambits to not merely chill but to freeze the right to keep and bear arms.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.
— Firearms Policy Coalition in a friend of the court brief arguing for Supreme Court cert.
Well, FPC, no more donations for you. Done. I refuse to lay down with baby killers.
You will all be salty about it, but FPC is right
All FPC has done is injected themselves into a part of the culture war they have no business in. Conservatives are finally starting to use the tactics of the left against the left. The left has been pulling this nonsense for YEARS. The left has not abandoned their tactics, nor will they have a sudden change of heart because FPC decides to commit financial suicide on their behalf. CA, NJ, NYC and their communist brethren aren’t going to go “wow look how principled FPC is! We’ll just repeal all our unconstitutional infringements and end-runs around the Second Amendment.” All this does is politicize FPC in a way that will cost them politically. If the argument is ever made that “well SCOTUS overturned the law for abortion that was using the same tactics” expect the judicial response of “well that was different.”
FPC has accomplished nothing but alienating a decent portion of their constituency. Add another gun org that forgot they were about gun rights to the scrap pile.
“Conservatives are finally starting to use the tactics of the left against the left. The left has been pulling this nonsense for YEARS.”
Exactly! Well said. The difference with the situation in Texas is that conservatives are finally using these tactics to save defenseless, innocent life instead of destroying life and degrading our country. Republicans are NOTORIOUS for getting power and saying, “Well we can’t use our power because, you know, that wouldn’t be conservative. Hey, I know, let’s use our power to lower corporate taxes! Sorry, that’s all we can do as conservatives…”
“Conservatives are finally starting to use the tactics of the left against the left.”
FPC’s point is that the Texas method of enabling lawsuits is novel and dangerous. FPC isn’t taking a stance on abortion — they’re trying to stop similar laws being passed against guns. CA, NY, NJ, etc could pass similar laws allowing citizens to sue gun shops for straw purchases, or other citizens for possession of scary semiautos, large magazines, too many guns, “unsafe storage,” or too much ammo. They wouldn’t be banning or limiting guns directly, but they could let your neighbors sue you for $10k because you had more than 100 rounds of ammo, which created a potential “threat to the public.” How many lawsuits would you put up with, even if you never violated the stupid restrictions? Gun stores would be constantly dragged into court and bled dry from legal fees, even if there wasn’t any evidence against them.
What anymouse said.
It’s amazing how many of you righties thank texas for being the most free and would be the “first to seceed” state, when they wouldn’t even allow NWA to play “fuck the police” because it promoted violence against authority. But secession is totally opposite….
It’s about freedom. Plain and simple. Fuck every state that aint bout it.
FPC is VERY right.
If you think the left isn’t going to pass ordinances like this and run with them think again. “It’s different when we do it” is the mantra of the left and SCOTUS rarely (if ever) has the guts to call them on it even when it’s flagrantly unconstitutional.
templar…Put your silly salt shaker away. The difference is night and day and there is no connection except in your imagination. However the political party that owns the legacy of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, lynching, the kkk, Gun Control also owns Eugenics which connects to planned parenthood which connects to abortion, etc. In other words the few at FPC HQ are going to have a heck of a time finding support for their hot air.
why do you say it is night and day?
The political right is committed to ideological suicide. Allowing unchecked illegal immigration, refusing covid vaccination, and trying to ban abortions (which democrats overwhelmingly get) means the right will be surrounded and overwhelmed in short order. Embarrassing this even needs to be pointed out.
What anymouse said.
It’s amazing how many of you righties thank texas for being the most free and would be the “first to seceed” state, when they wouldn’t even allow NWA to play “fuck the police” because it promoted violence against authority. But secession is totally opposite….
It’s about freedom. Plain and simple. Fuck every state that aint bout it.
Well now I’ll be donating to the FPC even harder! Stay the fuck out of my body, bedroom, and gun case.
potty mouth kellen…By all accounts the FPC is in your body, bedroom and gun case. Tell this forum how many times you opened your Gun Case, went to a gun store, went shooting, discussed Gun Rights and anything connected to the word “Abortion” popped up in that canyon between your ears? Since the honest answer is zero then you allowed a few blowbags at the FPC to f you harder.
Do you even read what the fuck you type?
Don’t flatter yourself. I doubt very seriously anybody wants anything to do with your body. 🤮
“Stay the fuck out of my body”
As in, don’t allow some sick doctor to go inside you to dismember and kill your child? I agree. What’s the difference between a baby just before and just after passing through the birth canal?
Too bad nobody aborted YOU.
Oh sorry: too bad your mother didn’t “Make a choice to have a better life”.
How do you feel, knowing that you “punished her with a baby”?
Why? An overwhelming majority of aborted babies are those that most of us wouldn’t mind to abort once they reach adulthood, or even sooner. So why not let the parents do it early on? If it wasn’t for abortions, Mogadishu-on-the-Lake, for example, wouldn’t have a thousand homicides every year, but five thousand. I sincerely thank those thoughtful parents of taking care of the problem early on.
Perhaps some of us wouldn’t mind if you had been aborted.
^^^
alexander reasons like a hit and run driver…especially if the victim is Black.
Are you saying you disagree that some people are trash? Cuz you know it’s true. I don’t agree with labeling it “a problem”, and I do believe people should assess the risk of their decisions, but how often that does truly happen? You see the world, right? It’s overpopulated and thanks to “society”, it’s ruined. You truly believe that some people are better of being “forced” to raise a child? What programs do you think will raise a better child than these shitbags? The ones that exist currently? Do you really see these programs getting any better? lol. Naive.
It’s freedom. It’s violent and chaotic and above all else, it’s personal choice. The only reply you idiots have is “what if you’d been aborted?” Then there would be some other human making the same argument. The other argument is that it’s murder. Do you remember your first conscience thought as a child? Was it inside the womb? When was it? Is sperm considered a human?
Alexander said, “An overwhelming majority of aborted babies are those that most of us wouldn’t mind to abort once they reach adulthood, or even sooner.”
How can you possibly know this/that?
Debbie W. said, “alexander reasons like a hit and run driver”, which is right on.
There is no validity to Alexander’s statement which is mere opinion with no factual evidence or any other evidence to substantiate the claim(s) made.
If the certain people on here are stupid enough to think that abortion is murder I don’t think you are mentally stable enough to be having any guns no one is ripping out live baby’s during an abortion maybe in Mexico but not in the sweet USA
All life is precious.
Really? All life is precious? Will you, and pretty much everyone else here, including myself, not shoot (and kill) a human being if we are attacked? Is that person’s life not “precious”? No need to wait for your answer, as we already know that you are hypocrite, even if with a dozen excuses. Now, if the statistics very clearly support my statement, and pretty much everyone here is willing to extinguish a life that threatens us directly, why do you have a problem with the parents extinguishing that life before it threatens you and others? This comment is not addressed just to you, but to all the people here that are beating themselves in the chest of righteousness, while being hypocrites or plain illogical. And to address other commenters, this has nothing to do with color – abortion is not a color-specific act; as to how can one know what future genius or college-hopeful is being aborted – I’m not the one doing the aborting, nor would I force anyone to do it – but if they choose to, I would not interfere.
“Really? All life is precious?”
Yes. Unequivocally.
“…shoot (and kill) a human being if we are attacked?”
All life being precious and the right to self-defense can simultaneously exist. I don’t want anyone to be killed. If someone puts me in a position to stop the threat, then that was their choice. I choose to live. I’m sorry for anyone that lost their life, especially when they’re young.
“…people here that are beating themselves in the chest of righteousness, while being hypocrites or plain illogical.”
You failed to explain any of this. We obviously have different opinions. How does that make me self-righteous, hypocritical, or illogical? I’m willing to listen to your explanation if you’ll give it.
“…everyone here is willing to extinguish a life that threatens us directly, why do you have a problem with the parents extinguishing that life before it threatens you and others?”
That’s simple. We can’t tell the future. We have no way of knowing if a baby will threaten someone some day in the future. Killing someone that is threatening a life is not the same as aborting a child. I don’t understand how someone could think like that. That doesn’t sound logical to me.
Dude, replying here to your last comment, as there is apparently a limit on thread depth. Anyway, glad that you are willing to listen to my explanation. First, phrases like “shoot to stop the threat”, or “I don’t want anyone to be killed” are all good for the lawyers, but, in all honesty, we (and everyone else) shoot to kill; let’s be honest. In my personal experience, years ago in NYC, I was attacked by an armed robber. I fought him, trying to get his gun, but couldn’t. In all honesty, the only thing that I regret is that I didn’t succeed in wrestling the gun away and executing him with it. If you think that under those circumstances you would find his life “precious”… well, I just doubt it. And if you agree with me here, then logically, wouldn’t you agree that not all lives are precious? (When our “justice” system executes a criminal, or rots his life away, it too does not see that life as worth preserving). Now, it is true that there is no guarantee as to the future of any child, but again, is it not fair to say that an overwhelming majority of inner-city trash (of all colors – this is for Debbie W.), such as in Mogadishu-on-the Lake, will be either shooting each other or shooting you and me. Of course, they all become college-hopefuls posthumously and, like I said earlier, had it not been for early termination, the hunting competition in the cities would have been much more intense. I wish it wasn’t so, and I wish that parents would have children with bright futures (let’s start with a wish that children would have parents – in plural), but wishing is certainly less logical than reality, is it not?
“Stopping the threat”
That doesn’t mean I don’t shoot to kill. What that means is if the criminal becomes incapacitated, and is no longer a threat, I don’t walk over there and execute him after the confrontation is over. Now, there are always exceptions to the rule, and you have to be in a situation to really know what you’ll do. The exception might be that you know this specific person is still a threat because they will keep coming after you or your family until they kill you. Is it murder at that point? Probably. By the way, there’s a nut out there that promised to murder me and my children. I know he has firearms despite being a prohibited person due to a violent past. I’ve thought about what would happen if it comes to that. I never claimed to be perfect. And yes, I want him to live, but I also have the right to live and defend myself and my family.
“And if you agree with me here, then logically, wouldn’t you agree that not all lives are precious?”
No. I don’t agree with that at all. We all live and die by our decisions. Criminals decide to forfeit their lives when they attack the wrong person. That was their CHOICE. If they survive, and make it to prison, they can also CHOOSE to redeem themselves. Anyone can choose to redeem themselves, even if they’re on death row. After they decide to redeem themselves, they still have to live with the consequences of their actions, even if that means being executed by the state. They got the chance to make their own choice. I hope everyone gets the chance to redeem themselves, even if they are sentenced to death. The baby in the womb never gets to make their choice to live or die. Would you have wanted to be aborted?
“…but wishing is certainly less logical than reality, is it not?”
We’re looking at this differently. It isn’t about wishful thinking for me. It’s about giving every life the opportunity to make their own decisions about their life instead of making it for them. I see that as the ultimate freedom.
You realize FPC isn’t siding with pro-abortionists, right? They’re siding with what is supposed to be proper Constitutional process when regarding areas with extensive and established case precedence.
If states can decide to ignore what have already been settled (via Supreme Court precedent) nationally, you will indeed see California, New York, et al unilaterally ban firearms and say to-hell with the 2nd Amendment.
Granted, there is no Constitutionally-protected right involving abortion, but there is a case-precedent (Roe v. Wade) that establishes it on a federal level anyway. The point of FPC’s stance here, is if Texas can ignore Roe v. Wade without repercussions, then what’s to stop CA from abjectly ignoring the Heller decision?
This. Too many here only see “They’re siding with the Other!” and not the legal malfeasance.
For twenty years we’ve had bipartisan attempts to evade judicial review of policies that violate 4A. Certainly by now we’d be aware that laws designed to evade such really aren’t cool, even when written by someone of one’s own political tribe?
Too many people are incapable of seeing reason these days; all it takes is mention of the word “abortion” and brains shut down, blinding them to the principles under assault.
You sir are a idiot no one is killing babies
That all depends on how you define “baby” — that was the issue in the ancient church, and there was never full agreement: some argued there was no “living soul” until a newborn took a first breath, basing their argument on the verse saying that God breathed life into Adam’s lungs, and he became a living; others argued there was a soul at the moment of conception, basing their argument on the Incarnation; and still others argued that the unborn became a living soul at “quickening”, when the unborn started moving in the womb.
With today’s medical knowledge, that first position appears ludicrous to us, so the argument is between the other two.
“I knew you before you were born.”
Are you trying to tell me that pregnant women aren’t carrying human babies? If not human, what species is it that they’re pregnant with?
Abortion ALWAYS ends a human life. No way around it.
yes it is part of a human just like sperm or egg or any other part of a human. leave government out of it. let private interaction between doctors and patients remain private. it’s not complicated.
You are kidding right Ing? Everyone except maybe you, knows that women, or in reality, those who “Identify” as such are not “pregnant” with a human baby. It is not a human until it is actually born.
It can be, just like those who “Identify” not a human “baby” at all. Maybe it will be a puppy, everyone likes puppies, maybe it will be a toaster, one with wide slots for bagels. It’s people like you Ing, who just wanna suppress the toasters from becoming their full potential.
I thought you were serious at first. Puppies and toasters… 😀
The problem with the Firearms Policy Coalition thinking is the “red communist” states like California or New Jersey already don’t recognize the residence 2A civil rights. In fact California already refuses to do business with states that don’t allow men to use a woman’s bathroom.
And the pro-abortion crowd has never supported the 2A. So is the FPC just trying to show how much more intellectually honest they are???
There is an old saying. When you lay down with dogs you get fleas! I don’t think this move will help the 2A cause and only highlights the slezzyest side of lawyers. I may not stop donating but I don’t think this is FPC’s finest hour. I think our funds could be better spent then siding with baby killers.
You Right Wingers are the biggest hypocrites in Capitalvania. You scream about banning abortions but then refuse to fund through taxes Socialist programs that give women affordable day care, programs that pay for preventive medical care for children, affordable higher education, federal funded school lunch programs, federal funds for planned parent hood that provide free birth control (which has always ben 95 per cent of their expenditures) State funded after school programs to keep children off the streets until parents get home from work.
When unwanted children are born they often if they are males grow up to stick a gun in your face and if female get pregnant like their mothers and also end up on welfare which again raises everyone’s taxes something the far right are always screaming about in regards to paying higher taxes.
And how many of the far right volunteer to adopt all these unwanted children which often end up in orphanages which raise the far rights taxes?
Yes the Far Right are always screaming about paying taxes yet for every unwanted child born the majority of the women end up on welfare because they cannot afford to take care of the children both through a lack of job skills , and no affordable day care.
Yes the Morons of the Far Right are always their own worst enemies and show their hypocrisy in about everything they mouth off about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04
Daclan has never had an original thought in his life.
Duncian.
Maybe you don’t quite understand Conservatism. If you want to do something, fine. Just don’t look to me to approve your actions, or pay for their consequences. I believe life begins at conception, and you are responsible for your actions and their results. If you screw up and get pregnant, r get someone else pregnant that child is your responsibility. If you can’t or won’t take care of the baby, there re many people who would love the opportunity. If you can’t afford a baby, why is it someone else’s problem to pay for? I want a Bass Boat and a pretty truck to pull it. do I have the right to pick your pocket for the money?
(1) Child care subsidies (also called vouchers and fee assistance): Each state receives funds from the federal government for a state-run child care subsidy program. These programs help low-income families pay for child care so they can work or attend school
(2) The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) provides health coverage to eligible children, through both Medicaid and separate CHIP programs. CHIP is administered by states, according to federal requirements. The program is funded jointly by states and the federal government
(3) The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally funded meal program operating in public, public charter, and nonprofit private schools as well as residential child care institutions (RCCIs). The NSLP provides cash subsidies to assist schools with meeting meal costs while providing students nutritious lunches during the school day. This program was even continued during the “WUFLU” school closures delivering meals directly to children at home.. And that is just the Federal program, millions of dollars are provided through private charities annually to feed and shelter indigent families with children…
(4) ED administers programs authorized and funded by Congress. These programs provide financial aid. for eligible applicants for elementary, secondary, and college education; for the education of individuals with disabilities and of those who are illiterate, disadvantaged, or gifted; and; for the education of immigrants, American Indians, and people with limited English proficiency.
Aug 25, 2021 · Congress set aside approximately $14.25 billion of the $30.75 billion allotted to the Education Stabilization Fund through the CARES Act for the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF). The Department will award these grants to institutions of higher education (IHE) based on a formula stipulated in the legislation.
(5) A report published last month by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), a nonpartisan research arm of Congress, found that Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, spent $271 million in federal money from fiscal years 2016 to 2018,
(6) Not able to find FBI or other reports that confirm your speculation that “unwanted” male babies grow up to be criminals
You throw the word “moron” around so much that has become as meaningless as the overused “racist” that seems to cover just about everyone and everything in the news today.. Could it be that you, much like the MSM, are “projecting” a self-image (or self-loathing) into YOUR commentary, considering nearly EVERYTHING you post is a blatant falsehood..
I highly doubt that abortion rights advocates will return the favor in other cases where constitutional rights are threatened. I bet most of them were perfectly fine with allowing people to sue firearms manufacturers for any harm done even if the firearm was sold legally which is a fairly close comparison to the Texas law.
The FPC is acting in the interest of firearm owners, sellers, manufacturers, etc. If the law stands it is a threat to the 2nd Amendment. The fact that pro-abortion advocates aren’t deep enough thinkers to see the other side of a coin is basically irrelevant to the cause.
No more support or donations to FPC!! They shit the bed on this. I read the Constitution and there is NO Constitutional right to Abortion. Absolutely NONE! On the other hand, there is an inalienable right to LIFE which is taken from the unborn thru Abortion. LIFE is a right. Abortion is nowhere in the Constitution! In fact the right to life supercedes the poor court decision on abortion. Time to reverse Roe V Wade or scale it back to pre heartbeat only.
Regardless, FPC stuck their nose where it doesn’t belong. FPC is dead to me!!! Not another nickel from me””
Nothing in the Constitution that specifically prevents it neither. Government has no place in the womb. Government also has no place in my gun safe. You’ll never totally stop abortion just like you’ll never stop criminals from getting firearms like you’ll never stop treasonous idiots from wanting to restrict and/or totally ban private ownership of firearms. FPC will definitely get some funds from me from now on.
Constitutionally Guaranteed =\= “Not mentioned in the Constitution”
You’ll never totally stop murder, so why have laws against it? 🙃
The answer is “because we are not a society of monsters and we recognize that disposing of human life at will for the sake of convenience is monstrous.”
For every one donor FPC gains I guarantee they’ve lost 2-3 at a minimum. And their virtue signaling will mean nothing when they make the same argument. The response will be “It’s different when the left does it.” Just as it has been for decades.
As you not qualified to determine “murder” in this regard. As long as the DNC medical procedure exists you’ll never eliminate “abortion”. Execution is argued as murder also but like abortion it’s just as necessary. Your statement and argument reflects appropriately for you; IGNORANT AND HYPOCRITICAL.
I’m genuinely curious. Why do you think abortion is necessary?
@GRA – I’ve read Alinsky’s handbook (as apparently have you my little Marxist) so I’m afraid the tactic of “make them live up to their own standards” won’t work on me. Conservatives have to play by the RULES! They have to respect the LAW! Of course the left is not constrained by anything whatsoever and has no rules. Yeah, tired of that game. SCOTUS was the last real hope I had for what was left of the Constitution, and they have roundly and utterly failed in their duty to the Constitution and to the US.
This is no longer a civil society where principles mean anything. We are a Banana Republic and justice is dead. We are fully demoralized and on the cusp of destabilization and subsequent dictatorship. The mantra of the left is “there is no truth but power” and if conservatives don’t wake up and smell the roses they’ll be shipped off in cattle cars.
So you’ll forgive me if I hold FPC in contempt for something as dumb as this. Whether the Texas law is or is not struck down, the left will still use this tactic, conservatives will fight it in court and get to SCOTUS either to be denied cert or told “it’s different when the left does it.” (I note that no one here has disagreed with this point.. because we all know it’s true.)
FPC accomplished NOTHING except dividing a camp that didn’t need to be divided and creating unnecessary drama.
Resorting to name calling makes you look a bit childish, but given the arguments you’ve made I guess you can’t do any better. You have my pity.
LOL …
Seems like politics has less to do with standing for your own ideals and more to do with “sticking it” to the other guy even if doing so harms yourself. In this regard FPC is right.
Yea man..Stick it to the fetus.
Yes, FPC is absolutely doing the right thing here.
Time and time again, Republicans fix some problem by enlarging the scope of government or inventing a legal workaround — and conservatives all hop on board, because we can trust our side (no, you can’t, but that’s a different story), and it fixes a very real problem — and a few years later, in the hands of “progressive” Democrats and statist “conservatives,” it becomes a weapon used against all of us.
Whenever someone proposes a new government power, ignore the good they say it’ll do.
Instead, imagine that power in the hands of your worst enemy — because at some point, it will be.
Once again; a most excellent article and idea to post this. Thank you for sharing.
Godspeed to the FPC for their labors and discretion. The Texas law is beyond ridiculous and a perfect example of how ignorant and tyrannical liberals will continually create more ways to dominate and control those that believe in such personal liberties.
@ GRA, uh…🤮
Same to you … oIo
This particular law was written by so-called conservatives…but it’s straight out of the progressives’ dystopian police-state playbook, so yes, in that sense, you could call it “liberal.”
If it isn’t slapped down, you can look forward to a “progressive” government (probably with the sorrowful acquiescence of “conservative” politicians you used to think were on your side) using to its fullest evil potential against actual, constitutionally protected rights in the not-too-distant future.
As I said above, it doesn’t matter what good this law is designed to achieve or how horrible a thing it’s meant to stop.
Look at the powers and precedent it creates, and then imagine them in the hands of your worst enemies — because they surely will be at some point — and then you’ll see why the FPC is doing what it’s doing.
“Look at the powers and precedent it creates, and then imagine them in the hands of your worst enemies — because they surely will be at some point — and then you’ll see why the FPC is doing what it’s doing.”
Never understand(understood) the notion that if “conservatives” don’t do something, the leftists will not do that whatever, either.
The underlying premise seems to be that somehow, Dims/leftists/statists need “conservatives” to generate ideas, so that those ideas can be co-opted, and used against “conservatives”. Is there any evidence to support the efficacy of theory, “If we don’t do XYZ to them, they will refrain from doing XYZ to us.” ?
In the case of the Texas law, the cat is already out of the barn. The legal theory of the Texas law cannot be hidden from Dims/leftists/statists. Even if the current law is overturned by the courts, or even by legislation, when the Dims try it for their purposes, the theory will be welcomed by the courts and the media.
I get the impression more and more every day a lot of folks in here are in a total state of confusion about what a liberal is vs a leftist. Glad to say I’m not one of them that’s confused.
And yes the Texas abortion law was crafted by bleeding-heart liberals in the Republican Party. It is one of the most ridiculous stunts I’ve ever seen pulled by the Texas state govt. and will never assist our state or national legal system.
Of course the “progressive” left will pervert, distort, and weaponize every piece of the system the possibly can. It’s a given.
My point, Sam, is that we shouldn’t allow our side to do the hard work for them.
Making a law like this is akin to finding a prowler on your property and saying, “There’s a crowbar right over there, and I’ll be out working in the back 40 the rest of the day, but I trust you won’t break into the house while I’m out.”
“Never understand(understood) the notion that if “conservatives” don’t do something, the leftists will not do that whatever, either.”
That’s not the point. The point is that when you adopt their tactics without great care and forethought you end up working FOR them.
To get all religious about it; Jesus didn’t fight the Devil by lining up souls for Hell, did he? No he didn’t. So why would Conservatives do the work of far-Leftists in utterly destroying the Rule of Law that said Conservatives claim to cherish?
Because they got a truckload of sand in their vag. That’s why. They didn’t think, they emoted.
That’s exactly how manipulation works.
What so many people seem to forget about this whole “principles” thing is that the principles are there for a reason and mostly that’s to prevent short-sighted behavior that will come back to bite you very, very hard.
Here, a PDF copy of a book I’ve recommended before. Check it out, you can greatly increase your knowledge of what’s being done to the public these days (and has been for decades with increasing efficiency).
1961 edition of The Rape of the Mind: the Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide and Brainwashing.
https://archive.org/details/TheRapeOfTheMind1961
I assumed Texas intended for this to set up a Supreme Court battle about abortion. I would welcome a Supreme Court battle about the 2A as well. The Left know they would lose both battles. That’s why those tyrants want to pack the court. They only care about law and precedent when it suits them. They have zero principles.
It is always refreshing to read authoritative, inimitable wisdom here on TTAG- I tip my hat to you, strych9.
The challenge with wisdom continues to be, unfortunately, getting people to receive it…
“The point is that when you adopt their tactics without great care and forethought you end up working FOR them.
To get all religious about it; Jesus didn’t fight the Devil by lining up souls for Hell, did he? No he didn’t. So why would Conservatives do the work of far-Leftists in utterly destroying the Rule of Law that said Conservatives claim to cherish?
They didn’t think, they emoted.
That’s exactly how manipulation works.
What so many people seem to forget about this whole “principles” thing is that the principles are there for a reason…”
Be smarter
Honestly it is a woman’s choice, some might not be ready to have a baby, hell as teenagers im sure we all had sex before marriage and possibly even slipped up from time to time. Some women might have been raped and there are also women who haven’t know they were pregnant. Abortion could also be necessary for health reasons. Adoption is another option as well, but I support freedom for all. Hell if you don’t want a baby cool, aborted it if you want. Don’t want to own a gun well don’t buy one. Let me people life their life the way they want to. And FPC is right and I will continue to donate to them.
‘…some might not be ready to have a baby…’
And what if the baby isn’t ready to die?
Give me a fuckin break. If the woman isn’t ready to have a child don’t engage in risky behavior that could lead to the production of said child. The child shouldn’t be sentenced to death because to woman and her partner decided to do the deed. Actions of consequences.
Thank you for that. Abortion is murder period!
@ Freedom, don’t forget to triple up those donations now that FPC has gone full fuktard.
True it is a woman’s body and her business. But, the unborn is not hers to abort for her convenience. The unborn is a human being and that life inside the female of our species is not hers. The female is the carrier of this life and it is her God given duty to deliver this life into the world. After birth she can allow the baby to be adopted for there are couples standing in line to adopt. The female’s body is the vehicle by which new life enters the world and even though it is her body, the LIFE inside her is NOT hers to treat as she pleases.
Of course there are medical complication exceptions; however, these are EXCEPTIONS and not rules of convenience. If a young lady is not ready, then abstain or get protection of which plenty is readily available.
“After birth she can allow the baby to be adopted for there are couples standing in line to adopt.”
Well over thirty couples per child up for adoption. Some couples can’t produce a child. Being able to get pregnant is a blessing.
“The unborn is a human being”
Scientifically that’s easily disputed, just as it is theologically. Plainly after the first trimester, once the unborn has brain waves showing dreaming, enjoyment, and all the other things that children have, there can be no dispute: the unborn is human in both appearance and in mental activity, and thus is a human being. But before the start of the second trimester it’s an open debate and the position anyone takes doesn’t rest on reason but on a priori assumptions.
Does that mean you think abortion should be banned after the second trimester? This would be a specific day after conception, correct? Would the day start at midnight? What’s the biological difference in the baby one second before and one second after midnight?
…the position anyone takes doesn’t rest on reason but on a priori assumptions. That’s a load of crap.
Think about it: A fetus is self-evidently a living thing. That’s not an a priori assumption, it’s an observable fact. It’s alive and growing. From this, we can reason with absolute clarity.
— If it’s a living thing, what kind of living thing is it? (Human. The answer is human. To argue otherwise would be insane.)
— If it doesn’t die before birth, what will it become? (Answer: A human infant. A baby. To argue otherwise would be insane.)
— Therefore, from the moment of conception to the last moment before birth, the unborn are human.
You can try to dance around that answer with words like “fetus” and “unborn,” but even those seemingly nonspecific words work against your attempt to obfuscate the logic here. (An unborn what? And look up the etymology of “fetus” sometime.)
The question, then, is this: When is it okay to take an innocent life? Who gets to kill that defenseless unborn human being?
The only way out of answering that question is to decide that human life is worth nothing at all (there’s an a priori assumption for you), so choose carefully.
@ ing
LOL
You just demonstrated the a priori assumption — you assume that something living that has human DNA is a human being, and you also assume that if something will become a human being then it is a human being.
This would work if you think human beings are just animals without sentience, i.e. if we were just homo with no sapiens. But since we are not just animals, there has to be the sapiens part — and there is no sapiens part until those brainwaves appear.
You actually make a convincing argument that before those brainwaves appear, there is no human being because your position requires assuming that we are nothing but animals.
…you assume that something living that has human DNA is a human being, and you also assume that if something will become a human being then it is a human being.
I don’t assume it; I observe it.
Everything that makes a human being is there from the moment of conception, and there’s no scenario in which it keeps living but somehow doesn’t become human — because it always was human. The only way to stop it from being human is to kill it.
All you’ve done is to pick an arbitrary line at which purposefully ending a human life isn’t murder.
@ ing
“All you’ve done is to pick an arbitrary line at which purposefully ending a human life isn’t murder.”
I haven’t picked anything.
And no, “everything that makes a human being” isn’t there from the moment of conception” — there’s no hands, no legs, and most significantly no mind. If you pluck that cell out and sit it on a platform, there’s no one ever who would look at it and say “That’s a human being”, any more than they would of any other individual cell.
I have to say, your a priori assumptions are doing a great job of convincing me that prior to those brainwaves showing up, there’s no human being!
@Hush
That’s the best argument I believe I’ve ever heard.
Let’s just extend abortion rights past birth. If your kid has adopted a pseudonym starting with “lil” or has 5 arrests before adulthood, abort them! The woman’s right to choose could single handedly solve the crime problem in American cities.
Actually FPC is dead wrong! Whereas Roe created a “Right” out of thin air, Heller affirmed A Constitutionally protected, preexisting, GOG Given Right. Major difference!
If the left will not play by the rules, which we know they won’t, and we won’t play by the rules, despite us advocating for general obedience to the rules, then there is no reason to have or to obey any of the rules that we don’t agree with.
I see a lot of comments stating this is the same.
Last I checked abortion is not in the constitution or bill of rights.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Abortion is not a constitutional right according to a direct reading of the text of the Constitution. But its constitutional foundation is based upon and justified under the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy and the Fifth amendment.
In Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS established a right of personal privacy protected by the “Due Process Clause” that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child.
SCOTUS also held that this right of privacy to be “fundamental” and, upon the strict standard of review found in equal protection litigation, held that the “Due Process Clause” required that any limits on this right be justified only by a “compelling state interest” and be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake.
So its not written in the Constitution, but according to SCOTUS its a constitutional right.
“So its not written in the Constitution, but according to SCOTUS its a constitutional right.”
clarify: … because its protected under the 4th and 5th Amendments.
@Gov. William J Le Petomane
“Booger, not sure what you’re getting at. Roe hinged on declaring human fetus to be not human. ”
I’m not getting at anything.
the facts are the facts, that’s all I said
The part that’s been ignored for nearly 5 decades now is the part where Justice Blackmun wrote in the majority decision that if the humanity of the fetus can be scientifically established it would render the decision void. Since science has done nothing but affirm the humanity of the fetus since then, then the taking of a human fetus is the taking of a human life and if the state does not have a compelling interest in protecting the most vulnerable human lives then it doesn’t have an interest in protecting any human lives. The 4th and 5th Amendments don’t make murder a constitutional right.
doesn’t matter what a persons viewpoint is on the subject in terms of it being a Constitutional right or not, the fact remains that as long as SCOTUS says its protected under the 4th and 5th Amendments its an individual constitutional right.
The SCOTUS has been cherry picking parts of the decision while ignoring others in order to advance a political ideology. The decision pivoted on the states’ ‘compelling interest’ in protecting the human fetus which pivots on the humanity of the human fetus. I’m not sure what they thought was in there in the first place, it ain’t a possum baby in there. While the SCOTUS may have the power to strike down states’ laws, they’re violating the 10th Amendment when they do so. (Ironically, the SCOTUS would uphold abortion laws if it were a possum baby in there as the states have a recognized compelling interest in protecting wildlife.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/right-to-an-abortion
“Ironically, the SCOTUS would uphold abortion laws if it were a possum baby in there as the states have a recognized compelling interest in protecting wildlife.”
…And the pro-abortion libs would be horrified if anyone killed a bald eagle because priorities.
Booger, not sure what you’re getting at. Roe hinged on declaring human fetus to be not human. Similar to Dred Scot where they deemed black slaves to be non human and therefore couldn’t sue for their freedom any more than a horse could. Just because no subsequent court has ruled that they were wrong doesn’t make them any more right than the SCOTUS that made the Dred Scott decision.
Dude, yet the same liberals give a free pass for to electric companies when their bird choppers chop the bald eagles.
“science has done nothing but affirm the humanity of the fetus since then”
Science by itself can’t say that the unborn is a human being before the end of the first trimester; after that point there’s no avoiding it because the unborn then has both body and mind that match those of a young child. So the arbitrary choice of the first trimester as the cutoff for abortion has turned out to have a reasonable scientific basis.
Definition of life:
a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism (see metabolism sense 1), growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
“has both body and mind that match those of a young child”
I don’t think that’s an accepted definition of life.
Roymond, if a fetus has a beating heart pumping human blood that’s frequently not even the same blood type as the mother, but it’s not human, what is it? The only significant difference between first and second trimester is the ability of the fetus to feel pain (we think).
““has both body and mind that match those of a young child”
No offense intended, but I don’t think that’s an accepted definition of life.”
Please read before writing — it wasn’t given as a “definition of life”.
“The only significant difference between first and second trimester is the ability of the fetus to feel pain (we think)”
The ability to feel pain is one part of the advent of an obviously human brain that has brainwaves showing dream states and enjoyment, among other things.
The point is that anyone advocating that the unborn is not a person after that point is not interested in reality: an entity with a human form and human brainwaves is a human person.
The problem with linking humanity with brain development is that the line can be drawn just about anywhere. Cats and dogs have the intelligence of a 3 year old human. They can feel pain, are self aware, etc. but they’re not human. If you can legally euthanize your dog for no other reason than it’s an inconvenience then why not your toddler?
@ Gov. William J Le Petomane
Boy, it sure is popular here to reduce humans to mere animals!
Cats and dogs have no human DNA, so they are not relevant to the definition of a human being unless you think we are just animals.
‘Cats and dogs have no human DNA…’
Ah! But you know what DOES have (unique) human DNA – every human from the point of conception.
BTW, it’s not me that wants to reduce humans to mere animals, it’s the people who think it’s a ‘choice’ to kill humans because they don’t deem them to be humans. I believe Hitler called them ‘untermenschen’.
@ Gov. William J Le Petomane
“BTW, it’s not me that wants to reduce humans to mere animals, it’s the people who think it’s a ‘choice’ to kill humans because they don’t deem to be humans.”
But you did — you say toddlers are like cats and dogs.
What separates us from them is mind — and until the second trimester, there is no mind.
You can claim conception is the point where a human being begins, but that’s pure metaphysics and personal opinion, and it reduces humans to just animals.
Please read before writing — it wasn’t given as a “definition of life”.
I did read your comment. I also continued to read the rest of your comments, and it still looks like you came up with your own definition of life, well human life to be specific.
By using the fourth and fifth to justify, wouldn’t that also make mandated vaccines unconstitutional?
Also the fourth and fifth are long and more open ended than the second, yet we still have serous limits on it. Limits on the fourth and fifth have been well established as well, if abortion is not limited from conception to birth then the second should also have no limits. The powers that be would not take away the second limits in trade for unobstructed abortions, to me that makes their argument both false and hypocritical.
SCOTUS said abortion is an individual constitutional right.
SCOUTS said the 2nd amendment was an individual constitutional right.
Basically, if a state can set a precedent to infringe and remove a right that is based upon a SCOTUS declaration of it being an individual constitutional right then the state can do the same to any individual constitutional right. In short, this is developing into the slippery slope pro-gun advocate organizations have always feared overall might happen one day, a case that sets a precedent for state infringement and removal of a SCOTUS declared individual constitutional right including the 2A right for individuals.
If you are a gun owner no matter what your stance is on abortion, if this Texas abortion thing is allowed to stand as precedent then as soon as the legislature changes to more anti-gun they will be infringing and removing your second amendment right too.
“……Abortion is not a constitutional right according to a direct reading of the text of the Constitution. But its constitutional foundation is based upon and justified under the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy and the Fifth amendment.
In Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS established a right of personal privacy protected by the “Due Process Clause” that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child……. ”
I wonder if this could be used against restrictions to the 2nd A. 🤔
Let’s see here………
SCOTUS established a right of personal privacy protected by the “Due Process Clause” that includes the right of a CITIZEN to determine whether or not to bear a FIREARM.
If the ridiculous Texas abortion law is upheld by the SCOTUS, you can bet that some demanding mom’s will have anti-gun versions of it ready for the state legislators they have in their pocket. FPC is right to do this.
FPC is fighting the wrong battle at the wrong time and alienating its core constituency at the same time. It’s just a dumb move.
Sorry, folks, no more support for FPC. Not after this.
Good. It wasn’t too long ago that this site showed an article from a law professor (I think) who argued that if this is upheld, it will give gun control proponents a way to attack gun owners.
I’ve been telling anti-gun people for years that they need to stop weaponizing the courts, otherwise someone is going to use the court against one of your “sacred cows”. The right beat them too it, but that doesn’t change the issue.
Let’s be clear for all of you championing these kinds of laws, in our current system the rich will win out. They don’t actually have to win the lawsuit, they just have to cause the victim to waste enough money that they go bankrupt. In terms of money, anti-gun cities>gun companies.
These tactics are dangerous for everyone.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/dershowitz-how-to-use-the-new-texas-abortion-law-to-choke-off-gun-sales/
This is one of those things that a lot of folks will read but some will miss the point(s).
What the fuck does this have to do with anything GUNS ?????????
Really, what does the Firearms Policy Coalition have to do with anything guns? Oh wait…
Taking a more realistic viewpoint. Comparing the two i.e. gun rights and the right to choose under the Roe v/s Wade decision simply shows that the Courts are always partisan and pay zero attention to the Constitution because simply they always have been corrupt as hell.
Remember the prior court decision like the Dred Scott case which legalized slavery??
Or how about the obscene decision upholding segregation Plessy v. Ferguson
law case [1896]
Or the 4 times the Court changed their minds on 2A rights going from a steady progression of protecting the use of military weapons to eventually only protecting weapons used for duck hunting to the latest Scalia decision that gave the courts full reign to ban any weapons they deemed a danger to themselves or the public.
The Constitution of the U.S. has always been only a complete joke and a “feel good” document while in reality the only really practical use for the U.S. Constitution is “to wipe your ass with it”.
I had my toilet rolls engraved with parts of the Constitution so I can remind myself every day that the only good use of the Constitution is to wipe my ass with it.
FPC really created a damnable heresy here. There’s no “right” to murder your baby. Just as a narrow margin of SCOTUS created homosexual “marriage”. I thought they were the good guys. If you ally with with dogs you get fleas…2A & pro-baby are my 2 main voting concerns.
The govt. has no right to fully prohibit abortion neither.
The govt. has no right to restrict private ownership and possession of small arms neither.
It figures that lil’d needs to buy toilet paper that is thick enough to actually ENGRAVE … he has proven time and again that he is full of shit !!
Good one!
“Taking a more realistic viewpoint.”
yeah, we all wish you would do that.
Only conservatives are dumb enough to canibalizar their own wins.
No more FPC donations from me.
FPC is absolutely correct on this.
Abortion has killed far more Americans than COVID. It’s probably killed more Americans than firearms of any type. I’ll stand behind any law that decreased the number of dead babies.
And liberalism has been the worst killer of them all. Abortion will continue no matter what laws you pass against it.
government has no right to tell a lady and her doctor what to do. it’s the same issue
Thanks for moderating my comment TTAG. Maybe I’ll just comment on fakebook…FPC van get lost.
I was moderated on every single comment the other day made from a different device. I don’t think any of the comments were ever approved. One comment was simply “Test.” Why is that Dan? Anyone?
I think that FPC is correct in their use of amicus curiae to get our position entered into court documents in a case that is nearly guaranteed to be decided by SC action well before any of the upcoming 2A decisions. No, I am definitely not an attorney, but as someone whom succeeded in winning a labor decision against my ( major city) employer, I have seen what all goes into evidence to arrive at the outcome… It’s sort of like how hotdogs are made. The thing to remember is that you also need to keep in mind the law of unintended consequences down the road – its what you don’t know that you don’t know that will bite you in the ass. There is a reason why attorneys recommend not asking questions that you don’t already know what the answer is.
“There is a reason why attorneys recommend not asking questions that you don’t already know what the answer is.”
Another tip while you’re under oath: Don’t answer any unasked question.
The Texas government gave us a very slippery slope. It should be plain to see by everyone that this law has holes that can be exploited and used against many of the ideals the state says it holds dear. I do not believe this was carefully thought through. I think it rushed into existence. Like so many things the left has done. This swiss cheesy law is due some attention.
The FPC could have applied more scrutiny in its desire to deal with this. They ARE correct in that there are serious issues. Siding with the other side is a conflict of interest in my view and justifies my refusal to be a member. This is sleeping with the enemy and is quite likely to backfire on them.
Abortion is the COVID of prior decades. Something that so obviously should be a medical concern has turned into mostly political. More death is a result of that. If you expect me to allow you to take the life of the unborn then I expect you to allow me to make my own choices with regard to COVID. Pro-abortion groups that want to take everyone’s legally owned guns is a conflict THEY have within them. That does NOT justify in itself the FPC colluding with them. It’s self defeating.
Agreed
“If you expect me to allow you to take the life of the unborn then I expect you to allow me to make my own choices with regard to COVID.”
This is just more proof (as if you required more) of the Left’s hypocrisy. They have no principles. “My body, my choice” is just another one of their unscientific, catchy slogans designed to shut down the conversation. They don’t believe a word of it, as has been proven with Covid.
gun owners do the same thing when they say or do, in reference to the 2A, something like “my right my choice” in exercising that right.
Everyone does it when its a right, for example in reference to exercising the first amendment its still “my right my choice”.
I don’t see the similarity. I was pointing out the typical hypocrisy of the Left. “It’s my body, therefore I get to choose what I do with it. The government can’t tell me what to do with my body. Shut and take your government required pharmaceuticals rube!” That sounds like a hypocrite that doesn’t really believe in my body my choice. “Believe all women!” Remember that one? LOL
The FPC may be correct in this instance, but aligning with pro-abort murderers is really a bad look.
That’s this entire comment thread in a nutshell. What to do when doing the right thing turns your own “side” against you?
If it’s the right thing you keep doing it and explain why you’re doing it. If that doesn’t work you tell the overly emo smoothbrains on your side to fuck off and hope they see the light later on.
What? You choose to do the wrong thing because someone whines about their feelz? The fuck is this, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion at an Ivy League university?
The high road is called the high road because it’s hard to walk. The unfortunately truth about most Americans, including the 2A communit,y is that in the big scheme of things they’ve never suffered or made a truly hard decision in their life. We have “first world” problems and we often treat them like it’s somehow on par with the historical problems our species has faced.
Which is to say, we’re soft. Physically, intellectually, morally. Steel sharpens steel and the vast majority have never seen actual steel, nevermind felt it.
Libruls. Go figure. They get upset when you shoot a vicious animal masquerading as a man, but then they’ll kill an innocent baby. There is no logic to be found in librul camps.
If Texas wants to crack down on baby-killing, they should just pass a law banning it rather than playing cutesy. “Hey, we’re just making it legal for anyone to sue any abortionist.”
“It’s not a ‘mandate’ 😉 it just says that companies should require their employees to be vaccinated. What’s the big deal?”
“We’re not banning guns, we’re just suing the gun industry into poverty so they’ll comply with our demands.”
Laws should be straightforward, and lawsuits and cutesy regulations should not be the substitute for laws that legislators don’t have the will to simply pass to stand or be taken down.
“they should just pass a law banning it”
They can’t legally do that due to Roe v. Wade.
Well if we’re going to go full potato and say that a woman has a right to 100% freedom to kill a baby up until the moment when it falls out of her then I want to see McNukes sitting on the store shelves of walmart. I mean, as long as we’re going with stupid arguments then why not take it as far as you can?
Has anyone else actually bothered to take a look at the legal arguments that underpins Row v Wade? Because I have they’re one of the most outlandish judicial over reaches in modern history. The TL;DR of it is that while SCOTUS agrees that the government has a clear duty to protect the unborn a ‘mothers’ has a right to privacy and this, somehow, is placed before the right of the unborn not to be killed. SCOTUS just flat out pulled this decision right out of it’s collective ass and just invented a right whole-cloth.
The kind of ironic thing is that I’m nominally pro-choice. I find just the idea of unrestrained abortion adherent, but I have yet to see a balanced argument or even an attempt to find a middle ground. It’s usually either no abortion under any circumstances and nut jobs that openly call for infanticide even after the kid was born. See that psychopath that currently runs Virginia.
To me this argument about abortion is just another exampled or the potential danger of SCOTUS’ out of control power every time the democrats get a slight edge and they began just start re-writing reality to fit their orthodoxy.
Right i don’t agree with after the child is born for obvious reasons or even late into the pregnancy. Technically a miscarriage is an abortion by the body and even sometimes the woman has to undergo what is called a Dilation and curettage where they have to get the rest of it out. I know that because my wife had one. So l would say after a certain time, it shouldn’t be done unless for health reasons
“one of the most outlandish judicial over reaches in modern history.”
Even left wing legal scholars have acknowledged that it was an extremely weak ruling.
“Well if we’re going to go full potato and say that a woman has a right to 100% freedom to kill a baby up until the moment when it falls out of her”
That is just a strawman argument, no serious politician is advocating legislation that would permit so-called ‘unrestrained abortions’.
The Reproductive Health Act passed in New York (2019) lifted all restrictions on late term abortion even when it isn’t necessary to save the life of the mother. It even lifted the restriction that it has to be performed by a physician.
There is no reason to get involved in another issue that might alienate potential supporters. I can understand about the possible precedential the Texas legislation might have for gun grabbers. But it is outweighed by the divisive nature of taking such a stand, on a substantively unrelated issue that is highly controversial, can have on Second Amendment supporters.
They’re right with their argument, kind of, they’re seriously wrong with voicing support of the baby killers fight for “right” to murder unborn children for their convenience. 😮
But FPC is a California based organization. So what did you expect? 🙂
If you listen carefully you can hear Ruth Bader Ginsburg turning over in her grave over the abortion thing.
Nobody who believes firearms are tools to protect the innocent and weak should associate in any way with people who gleefully murder the most innocent and helpless life that exists in the name of their own convenience.
The FPC is moving in the right direction. We can’t have it both ways, and we need to make some difficult decisions. If I choose to value individual freedoms and individual rights, and the right to bear arms which can do others harm, then being pro-choice follows naturally. An individual has the rights and freedoms over their own bodies. As I value personal liberty above all else, I choose to side with the FPC here.
If a species aborts its babies it’s either hard times and the babies wouldn’t have survived anyway or there are too many of that certain species.
Humans have the latter.
I don’t think that killing babies is moral or right or right. However, i understand why the FPC is worried about things not being done the right way. Good intentions aren’t the same as good outcomes, and the road to hell is full of good intentions. If we want to protect unborn children, we owe it to them to do it the legally correct way. Same for gun rights.
Not understanding the “judicial review” complaint. Every law suit is subject to “judicial review”…by the judge(s). The trial court judge can declare any suit to be frivolous, and reject it.
On the entertainment front, let’s presume the Texas law is allowed to remain in place. Now, we have the perfect storm: 2A supporters having to chose between a candidate (or law) that defends the Second Amendment, but also supports abortion as one of the un-enumerated rights protected by the fourth, ninth and tenth amendments.
Let’s see the battle between the infringeable Second Amendment, and the uninfringeable right to abortion.
I had a bad feeling about FPC, something just seemed off. They won’t be getting a dime of my money.
Most of you assholes on this thread who don’t give a damn about human life will be singing the same tune years from now when mission creep sets in and the FPC become the ACLU for guns
Yep…siding with satan is not a good optic!
It’s 2021. The law has no meaning. None. Zero, zip, zilch. Only prosecution and enforcement matters. The law matters not even a little bit to Biden, Soros, Democrats, etc. Take illegal immigration as a blatantly obvious example. Will Alec do time? I’m sure any of us would, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. There is no “right” to abortion even though SCOTUS disagrees. Killing a baby ends all of their future decisions, and not a single person here has been aborted. The “my body, my choice” crowd would happily have you fired for refusing to be vaccinated. The few who have survived abortion attempts have become vocal and ardent anti-abortion speakers.
Destroy eagle eggs and you no longer have bald eagles. Eggs and feathers are protected. Hmmm.
I normally like the FPC and disagree with them here. Sometimes we as responsible gun owners have the law on our side, and sometimes we do not. Ask the Mark McCloskey.
“and not a single person here has been aborted.”
except dacian, and he lived through it.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Donation on the way to FPC. All the big government bible thumping liberals in this post never actually gave any money to then anyways.
You either support government power or not. Those on the side of the 2A should not.
This. Been a member. Staying a member. Freedom is chaotic and violent.
Don’t like guns? Don’t own one.
Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.
I get the FPC to an extent, but Abortion is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights as is the Second Amendment.
Roe v. Wade solidified Abortion while Heller was additive to the Second Amendment, but it was the Bill of Right that enumerated the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that shall not be infringed.
“I get the FPC to an extent, but Abortion is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights as is the Second Amendment.”
The framers would not understand the concept of stratified rights. Indeed, they took the effort to describe unenumerated rights as existing, and being “reserved to the states, …or to the people” in two amendments to the US Constitution.
Roe v. Wade was posited on the 4th Amendment in order to prevent/avoid a patchwork of differing regulations by the several states; clearly suppressing federalism, and simultaneously avoiding the 9th and 10th amendments.
The NRA started out good, then it got into politics.
@Roymond
Humans are mammals, mammals are animals.
It’s a wanna be god, but it’s just an animal.
One of, if not the, most vicious animals on the planet.
I have to agree with FPC here. Those who can not realize this are simply too stupid to see the bigger picture. If you let things like abortion pull at your heart strings the liberals will be bending us over and forcibly removing our gun rights in 1 generation or less. Don’t be sheeple. See through the fog.
Remember kids, you never say you “shot to kill” but that you “shot to stop the threat.” Or even better, you say you were forced to shoot in order to “retroactively abort” the attacker.
You don’t kill, you just “retroactively abort” deadly threats if you are forced to. Your body, your choice to keep it healthy, intact, and alive.
Creative!
FPC’s not wrong on this. That’s obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature. This situation has nearly nothing to do with abortion, it’s the assault on law and order, due process and the Constitution that matter.
Were I conspiratorially minded I might be tempted to say that this is a deft stroke by anti-gun Republicans to turn their constituents against each other.
It’s not. It’s midwit pols leading the witless portion of their base to the slaughter for immediate political advantage at any medium/long term cost.
Ah, 2A, we hardly knew thee (before we ruthlessly murdered you by being easily manipulated into giving up any semblance of fidelity to the document you are contained in).
Divide yourselves and you’ve done the conquering for them. There are days when I think think Conservatives are going to have to be literally loaded on to boxcars before they realize how fucking stupid some of their leaders are. And the cynic in me thinks “Well, it’s not like it would be that big of a loss, they’ve been asking for this for decades”.
Get emo in politics and I hope you pre-lubed your asshole because you’re about to get fucked.
“a deft stroke by anti-gun Republicans to turn their constituents against each other“
“Attention control, we have identified a subject who is getting suspiciously close to the truth, activate termination and liquidation team… “
“My point, Sam, is that we shouldn’t allow our side to do the hard work for them. ”
The work is already done. How can “walking it back” accomplish anything? Is it really rational to believe that effectively saying, “My bad; we didn’t want to give you any ideas, so we are going about trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.”, is an effective political move? These are the people who had a state supreme court rule that a law impossible to comply with is not an invalid law.
@strych9
“The point is that when you adopt their tactics without great care and forethought you end up working FOR them. ”
Not adopting the tactics of the Dims has worked really well.
No matter the tactics, evil never rests, and will twist anything to its favor.
A suicide vest is a suicide vest regardless of who convinces you to put it on.
There are parts of the Lefty playbook that are useful, others are simply destructive.
Knowing the difference requires you put emotion on the shelf and abortion is a topic where the Right is severely handicapped in this regard.
Texas Republicans did one of two things here. They either took the bait or they laid it out. If it’s the latter the trap’s not set for the Left, it’s set for you.
“Knowing the difference requires you put emotion on the shelf and abortion is a topic where the Right is severely handicapped in this regard.”
Here we definitely agree. Reading the comments here, it is instructive how many think the issue is abortion, supporting abortion, or ending abortion. The issue is whether a law regarding abortion can be morphed into another weapon with which to attack gun owners. A secondary concern, though hard to take seriously, is whether “conservatives” feed the other side ideas the other side would not have come to on their own. Can’t find an example in history where assuming the enemy is not capable of coming up with devastating tactics unless first “conservatives” put the idea/tactic in place first.
As noted earlier, what we have is conundrum: support policies that foster defense of the Second Amendment put forth by politicians who just as avidly support abortion, or lose the 2A battle because the candidate/elected official also supports what we see as unacceptable policies? Perfect as the sworn enemy of good.
IMHO it’s not that one should assume they won’t come up with it. They already have.
It’s that we shouldn’t do them the favor of *helping* them by using such tactics in other arenas and setting a precedent. If for no other reason: Imagine the crying to the sky and rending of clothing that would occur right here in the TTAG comment section if this precedent were picked up by a Lefty judge to further a state-level gun control law in a court case that goes against the 2A.
HFS people would go nuts. And they’d scream about it and place blame. Well, here’s your warning motherfuckers, this is a BAD idea. It’s not even “maybe” a good idea. It’s just BAD. From the jump. It’s exactly what you expect from people emoting rather than thinking.
The issue is whether a law regarding abortion can be morphed into another weapon with which to attack gun owners.
It can and it will. You can see this is Obama’s rules that older folks who have someone else manage their finances are “mentally incompetent” to own a gun.
I went through this with my parents a few year back. They wished to travel outside the US for a lengthy period of time in very remote areas in Africa and the concept was brought up that I might pay some of their bills while they were out of the country.
As we were advised by his lawyer, my lawyer and his accountant this was a no-go because it could theoretically actually get my dad’s *right* to own guns revoked when I took over his finances even though it was for a predetermined amount of time and had zero to do with mental competence.
The answer ended up being a sat-phone.
I get the issue of abortion rubbing people the wrong way here but this is exactly the place NOT to lose your cool about this kind of thing. And one need not support abortion to support the FPC here. One merely needs to support not eviscerating the Rule of Law.
The thing that sucks about having actual principles is that you often end up, in some manner or another, defending behavior with which you disagree. That’s the price of principles and principles are part of the price of freedom.
Like everything else, there’s a cost. Everything, absolutely everything humans do involves a trade-off of some type.
Wow, modded into oblivion (tomorrow) for… nothing I can find.
Lovely WordPress, lovely.
In the meantime though, I did manage to find something I was looking for in terms of a pretty good quote in reference to your comment here, it’s something we should be on guard against:
“One day in 1672, the lonely philosopher of reason, Spinoza, had to be forcibly restrained by his friends and neighbors. He wanted to rush out into the streets and shout his indignation at the mob which had murdered his good friend Jan De Witt, noble statesman of the Dutch Republic, who had been falsely accused of treason.
But presently he calmed down and retreated to his room where, as usual, he ground optical lenses according to a daily and hitherto unbroken routine. As he worked, he thought back to this own behavior, which had been no more rational or sensible than the behavior of the rioting crowd which had killed De Witt. It was then that Spinoza realized the existence of the emotional beast hidden beneath human reason, which, when aroused, can act in a wanton and destructive fashion, and can conjure up thousands of justifications and excuses for its behavior…
To the extent that we are victims of unchecked unconscious drives, to that extent we may be vulnerable to mental manipulation….”
It’s very much a case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Or at least in this case, “the enemy of my enemy is someone that can help me hurt my enemy.”
You work with them long enough to make the change you need, then you go your separate ways.
A baby has completely unique DNA from the mother and father, and is a unique person. It’s not legal to murder a unique person.
FPC just took the wrong legal stance. Killing innocent children isn’t an enumerated right in the constitution, or naturally lawful. The second amendment is.
Lotsa shit aint in the constitution, and lotsa shit our “limited freedoms” were founded on were straight fucked up, same as everywhere else. You know what defines freedom? CHANGE. Like it or not, freedom is violent and chaotic. You are either for it, or against it. It’s personal choice above all else. You can label them whatever you want. Exactly how long does it take for a baby to become a baby and when do they become consciously aware? Do you remember coming out of the womb?
Lotsa butthurt in this place over Texas. The same state that banned NWA’s album from being sold because it “promoted violence against authority”.
Idiots. It’s their body, it’s their right. Sad but true. I agree, they should have done better, but would you rather force someone to have a baby that quite frankly, shouldn’t be having one? lol. Typical republican bullshit. The world needs centrists. Not idiots like you that don’t support individuals rights. You all want freedom of speech, freedom to carry, but some freedoms should be limited?
contemptuous mechanism for shielding from review potential violations of constitutional rights as determined by this Court’s precedents.
Okay, not a Constitutional scholar but having at least read the entire document (which is more than MOST Congressional members have done) I am STILL searching for that amendment that PROTECTS a womans RIGHT to KILL a fetus growing in her womb… Piss off FPC
I just wanted to say them filing a brief on the case being taken to establish states having rights is way different than them believing abortion is a right. One of these “rights” is explicitly spelled out in The Constitution, the other is a made up standard via some mental gymnastics half a century ago.
I will say I find it funny that the libs want to limit peoples actual rights while making up a bunch of purported ones that don’t actually exist.
There’s definitely a risk of strengthening Roe, but there’s also a real risk of weakening Heller. I will see what garbage mental gymnastics the SC has to do to uphold Roe and weaken Heller. The fact they haven’t taken any cases from lower courts that are flat out ignoring it is obnoxious to absurd.
“I will say I find it funny that the libs want to limit peoples actual rights while making up a bunch of purported ones that don’t actually exist.”
Recommend consulting amendments 9 and 10.
SCOTUS used an interpretation of the 4th Amendment so as to prevent the argument that abortion legislation is a matter reserved to the states. Which is precisely what would happen should R v. W be overruled by SCOTUS.
I just wanted to say them filing a brief on the case being taken to establish states having rights is way different than them believing abortion is a right.
Maybe they should have chosen a different hill to “die” on… Like any number of anti-gun laws, rules and regulations currently on the table in the several gun grabber states that will in all likelihood wind up before the SCOTUS… Maybe they should have jumped on board of any one OR all of the anti-gun (or any number of “real” freedom stealing cases) that have made it to the SCOTUS (IE actual Constitutional cases)… They may not believe abortion is a right but “association” is a painting that is hard to cover up AND it gives the Left Wing Progtards an opportunity to claim “kinship” and support from a supposed pro-gun group… How many other “Conservative” (pro-Constitution) groups filed briefs in support of this particular issue… Might be the right war but it’s damn sure the wrong battle…
Abortions:
When does the sperm and egg become life? When should it be called murder?
At what point can you pull the plant out of the ground and say you have not killed it.
Once moisture penetrates the seed and if the seed is good life has begun.
To till the dirt early or pull the plant when its mature, you’ve still killed the plant.
The problem with abortion, and using the constitution, the states, the laws, is defining the morality of death.
As far as abortion and gunm rights being constitutionally protected and the cohesiveness of the two.
“Shall not be infringed” only one ammendment states that.
Everyone knows the definition of life. Yet, people are willing to look the other way when it comes to human life solely due to convenience. It doesn’t get more selfish than that. If people are for freedom, then why are they okay with making the choice to end someone else’s innocent life? That isn’t freedom, that’s tyranny.
Spot on Dude. It is just. That. Simple.
The human animal is the only animal to which the concept of death is abhorrent.
The human animal is the only animal to which the concept of fetal death is abhorrent.
The human animal is the only animal to which the concept of abortion is abhorrent. Its fairly common in nature for animals capable of bearing live off spring to have abortions (to abort) naturally. For humans this is up to about 20% of pregnancies that end in what we call “miscarriage” that we slyly define generally as “the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week” to keep from saying anything indicating the death/loss of the fetus. We don’t officially or as society as a whole label miscarriages “murder” or abortion or even death, and never have, even when that miscarriage is the result of bad or dangerous behavior or habits of the mother. Then we say its ’cause excuses the result of any number of things natural or other wise yet we excuse abortion by this natural method already part of nature and want it all nice and tidy so we can not say death of a fetus very much at all. The human animal is the only animal that tries to redefine or deny or explain away death especially fetal death.
The human animal is the only animal that tries to regulate or organize or cater to death.
The human animal is the only animal that argues or disagrees over death fetal or otherwise.
The human animal is the only animal that has ritualized death to be unique for being abhorrent so it can be disagreed with.
It all gets very dizzying and confused and radical and false and true and loud and soft and everyone is right and everyone is wrong, and it goes on and on and on. Sometimes I think the birds should be in charge at the top of the food chain, the sparrows, at least when they fuss its all done and over and they fly off and don’t keep bitching about it.
Using my plant, seed, reference.
I look at misscariges as a drought, it wasn’t a chosen death.
[url=http://www.getyourboomback.com/#_l_2ps]The Norwegian Miracle AminoBoosters are 3 times more affordable, the concentration is twice as strong as Laminine by LPGN. Норвежский ламинин от д-ра Эскеланда в 3 раза дешевле американского Laminine LPGN[/url]
@strych9
“To the extent that we are victims of unchecked unconscious drives, to that extent we may be vulnerable to mental manipulation….”
It is why I comment so often on challenging our prejudices and inconsistent stances.
‘The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?’
@strych9
“It’s that we shouldn’t do them the favor of *helping* them by using such tactics in other arenas and setting a precedent.”
Just cannot see that avoiding “helping” the Dims and Lefties will stymie the Dims and Lefties. To make sense of not “helping”, one must have blind faith that the Dims and Lefties would not launch a similar tactic simply because “we” didn’t launch the tactic in the first place. This is a reasoning I find to be beyond reason.
“One merely needs to support not eviscerating the Rule of Law.”
How does the Texas law not follow “the Rule of Law”?
(I may be mistaken about your intention here)
“The thing that sucks about having actual principles is that you often end up, in some manner or another, defending behavior with which you disagree.”
True, but humans can and do claim there are legitimate excuses for modifying principles when it is useful. For instance 2A “absolutists” who always have a “common sense” explanation for their favored exception(s) to the Second Amendment.
This is a terrible idea and will further divide the pro second amendment movement so that it will be more easily defeated. I used to support FPC, no more money from me. It’s always wrong for big strong people to kill small innocent people.
Agreed. Totally. FPC can KMA.
Alexander said, ” in all honesty, we (and everyone else) shoot to kill; let’s be honest.” Once again, how does, Alexander, know that “we” shoot to kill? Your assumption of “we” is false. Count me out of the that “we”……… “In my personal experience, years ago in NYC, I was attacked by an armed robber.
In all honesty, the only thing that I regret is that I didn’t succeed in wrestling the gun away and executing him with it.” ……………….In all honesty!!!
FPC assumes they are going against an enemy that fights by a set of rules. They are wrong. And this is fucking retarded. Adios donations.
Yup.
Reading is fundamental, ya’ll. Slow down.
FPC is not endorsing abortion. In the current instance, FPC is attempting to thwart the crazies from using the precedent: allowing private citizens to enforce a law.
Setup: The 6-week law should stand, but the enforcement mechanism, if successful, allows the crazies to use the conservative tactic of public enforcement to further restrict/remove any activity the crazies want to squelch. This is a classic conundrum.
Option 1: let the Texas law stand, as is, and open the door to providing the crazies leverage to destroy the freedom of half the country (you and I).
Option 2: strategically destroy, via the courts, the potential leverage for the crazies, thus eliminating that option for the crazies.
Note: Option 2 provides an opportunity to construct abortion controls, via new legislation, that do not put our rights in further peril. Now that, is using the left’s techniques against them.
The Texas law permits a group of people authority to sue: an alleged offender (a person who offended someone, about something), anyone who made it possible for the offender to offend (such as: transportation manufacturer, dealer, agent, distribution point, and so it goes endlessly).
This isn’t about abortion; it is about preventing the left from a new form of lawfare. Consider, if the private enforcement stands, you can be sued for publicly expressing opposition to abortion, because that opposition caused severe mental anguish on a birthing person. Acts of “bullying” would be eligible for legal action against any person one can identify as contributing to bullying…say for instance TTAG.
Yeah, not so much. FPC should not have sided with baby killers and wannabe baby killers. Period.
“FPC should not have sided with baby killers and wannabe baby killers. Period.”
The upshot is that gun owners should leash upon gun owners a mechanism by which the crazies can destroy our freedom to “keep and bear arms” (among other rights and actual privileges of freedom)?
Even knowing that when the crazies write laws that permit private citizens to sue gun owners, and pro-abortion groups for making the pro-abortionists feel bad about what they are doing, both “gun rights” and the pro-life constituents will lose both battles?
Not sure what you are saying….and why the question marks?
“Not sure what you are saying….and why the question marks?”
I can’t explain the question mark.
The issue at hand is not abortion, but a legal tool that can be quite easily used by the anti-gun mafia against gun owners/manufacturers/dealers, indeed the entire firearm supply chain.
Granting “standing” (deputizing?) the public to individually sue any person connected with a disfavored activity means such law can be used to actually destroy the pro-life movement. All it takes is a change in state political power. FPC is attempting to prevent that eventuality. It appears that FPC is of the mind that the anti-gunners would not have come up with the tactic on their own, and repealing the heart-beat law will convince the leftists from copying the legislation for their own purposes. That cat is already out of the bag.
Now, looking at this from long distance, either the pro-life organizations were frothing at the mouth morons in passing this law, or there is more here than what is on the surface. I think most likely it is the latter; an intention to have the law challenged successfully, a precedent that will preclude the leftists from turning the current law against us.
(note: if the law stands up to challenge, PLACA can be effectively gutted”
Hang with dogs, get flea bit. Fuck FPC and their baby killing bros.
“Hang with dogs, get flea bit. Fuck FPC and their baby killing bros.”
I understand your confusing of the issues. However, you forfeit the right to complain when the left unleashes a facsimile of the Texas heartbeat law to destroy you, others, and the civilian firearms industry.
Here are just some of the fun to be had if the Texas heartbeat law is used as precedent:
– sued by an unlimited number of people for..
1. environmental damage caused by use of “fossil” fuels
2. shaming someone for any of their characteristics or conditions
3. “hate speech”
4. refusing to use preferred pronouns
5. holiday decoration lights because it they disturb the neighborhood due to increased vehicle traffic that creates noise pollution, and results in higher taxes to repair accelerated damage to roadways
6. creating, in the neighbor hood, a climate of fear because you have firearms in you house
7. creating a fire hazard because you store ammunition in your home
8. child endangerment because you have firearms and ammunition in your home
9. making a person feel bad about themselves, for any reason
And the beat goes on.
“Beware of firing that Silver Bullet; a Golden BB may be on its way in return.”
(I made that up)
Except, none of that has happened….and yet fleas. Got it.
The Firearms Policy Coalition’s alliance with abortion rights activists against Texas’ new law is a powerful display of cross-advocacy. It emphasizes the broader need for individual rights and autonomy.
Comments are closed.