Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
846 Posts
Looks like someone's Mother flubbed the birds and bees talk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,438 Posts
So following that logic, we should also tax women masturbating as they are interfering with a man (somewhere) who needs to ejaculate and potentially father a child.

And then we'll need to tax wet dreams and women riding horses as well.
 

·
Member Georgia Carry
Joined
·
11,904 Posts
Her "logic" completely fails. A sperm is not a fertilized egg. Idiots abound in this world.
 

·
Old, Slow, Boring Dude
Joined
·
2,526 Posts
By that logic, women should pay a fine... about once a month!

:lol:
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
15,140 Posts
You may note that is alot more sarcasm than anything else. Done in coordination with the ideas regarding limits and requirements for termination of a pregnancy.

Think about it from that point gents.

Nemo
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
15,140 Posts
Lets not get in to the good/bad/choice/life/me/us/person/fetus debate.

Defending your voters/party's positions or views by sarcastic comments or filings is not a bad method of operating in a legislature. Its all in the name of personal (live, standing, breathing, voting person) equality, regardless of physical organs aka treat all people equal.

Nemo
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
You may note that is alot more sarcasm than anything else. Done in coordination with the ideas regarding limits and requirements for termination of a pregnancy.

Think about it from that point gents.

Nemo
Yes, because chopping up babies is a fundamental civil right. It's in the constitution.

Nemo, what in the world makes you think everybody reading but you failed to understand her stupid point?
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
15,140 Posts
Yes, because chopping up babies is a fundamental civil right. It's in the constitution.
Yes it is. SCOTUS said so. Roe v Wade. SCOTUS knows more than I do about that stuff. They may not know more than you do but your views and beliefs do not count in this situation. In the situation where you are on the bench they will. Until then, not so much.

Nemo, what in the world makes you think everybody reading but you failed to understand her stupid point?
Because of some of the responses above and complete objection to any consideration of any ideas regarding support of the other side in way, manner, or writing that I have read here.

Or it could be I an just not very good at understanding some of the sarcasm here.

Nemo
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
Yes it is. SCOTUS said so. Roe v Wade.
Usurpation by 9 robed oligarchs does not change reality. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution. That is a fact, not an opinion.

SCOTUS knows more than I do about that stuff.
Not necessarily. I have faith in your ability to increase your knowledge base. You can read. Google text of the constitution and read it for yourself. Determine on your own whether abortion is mentioned at all.

They may not know more than you do but your views and beliefs do not count in this situation. In the situation where you are on the bench they will. Until then, not so much.
Why do you bother responding to a person whose views and beliefs do not count? Anyway, this is not a view or a belief. I have read the constitution to see for myself rather than trusting that 9 robed oligarchs are being honest when they claim it is in there.

Roe v. Wade was a naked power grab. The majority of Justices in 1973 could not resist the temptation to exercise political power in a situation in which the constitution did not authorize them to do so.
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
15,140 Posts
Why do you bother responding to a person whose views and beliefs do not count? Anyway, this is not a view or a belief.
IN THIS SITUATION <-- You forgot to quote that part but your views do not count in this situation. Perhaps I should have included interpretations, but in this situation they do not count either

I have read the constitution to see for myself rather than trusting that 9 robed oligarchs are being honest when they claim it is in there.
I have read it also. Remember, Me-- Juris Doctor, Cum Laude. Burned out and retired a dozen years back. Keep in mind that ARs, Internet, Pepper Spray cans, cars, telephones (cell and landline) and lots of other things were not mentioned but SCOTUS has interpreted them to be included in the Constitution.

Roe v. Wade was a naked power grab. The majority of Justices in 1973 could not resist the temptation to exercise political power in a situation in which the constitution did not authorize them to do so
.

Or was it a view of the Constitution by highly learned and experienced judges giving that case due consideration.

Was Terry v Ohio a power grab? Could it have been if it went the other way?

Dred Scott v Sanford? Jones v. Van Zandt? They can easily be seen a power grabs. Keeping only the white people in power.

How about US v Miller. Keep guns away from civilians. Start at short barrel shotguns and go from there. Power grab to keep the govt in power. Give civilians only pitchforks and hoes to get rid of it if and when needed.

That argument is a bit thin methinks.

Nemo
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
lots of other things were not mentioned but SCOTUS has interpreted them to be included in the Constitution.
At least you see the problem. I am bothered by the fact that you can write this and are not only ok with it, but seem to think this is a good argument to support the principle of making rulings on constitutional issues that are not in the constitution. Disturbing.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
69,784 Posts
Was Terry v Ohio a power grab? Could it have been if it went the other way?
This case at least was discussing an actual, real constitutional text!

Dred Scott v Sanford?
I am surprised you even have to ask the question.
Jones v. Van Zandt?
Have not read it, so I do not know, but I am not sure (going off memory) that this was a constitutional case as opposed to a statutory case, so I cannot answer your question.

How about US v Miller. Keep guns away from civilians. Start at short barrel shotguns and go from there. Power grab to keep the govt in power. Give civilians only pitchforks and hoes to get rid of it if and when needed.
It is obvious from your comment that you have never read US v. Miller. I will just say you are wrong about what it says and what it held. Having actually read it, I would answer your question in the negative. It was not a power grab of any sort.

Miller arose from a case in Arkansas where the federal judge dismissed a case of illegal possession of a short barreled shotgun based on a Second Amendment motion. The Supreme Court, on appeal, simply remanded for a determination, based on evidence, of whether a short barreled shotgun "is any part of the ordinary military equipment."

No, not exactly a naked power grab. Again, this is a case discussing an actual constitutional provision. This constitutional provision exists.

That argument is a bit thin methinks.

Nemo
It is obviously thicker than you have considered. I think you need to study it a little more carefully. It is hardly appropriate to point to another case and say, "Hey, look! They ignored the constitution in that case, too! Accordingly, it is proper to ignore the constitution whenever it is inconvenient for their political goals."
 

·
Man of Myth and Legend
Joined
·
15,140 Posts
I guess it will have to say that our views of interpretations of the Constitution as well as our own abilities on that are different.

We will have to agree to disagree on which one of us always right and which is never wrong.

Nemo
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top