New Mexico Passes Law to Execute Babies at Birth

a reply to: Krakatoa

A religious gathering isn't inherently a violent thing. A gun, by definition, is a deadly weapon. That's it's entire purpose, to kill things. Comparing something that was literally invented to kill with a group of people gathering to talk about their religion is like comparing apples to water bottles, it just doesn't make any sense.

Oh please please please go get him! I would do it myself but I don't wanna! Guns do other things other than just kill, right? Or are clay pigeons life now?

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Graysen

originally posted by: narrator


They ruled on it based on an amendment to the constitution. Yes, that can theoretically change. So can the 2nd.

Wrong.
while the court's ruling can be changed by a later course, the 2nd amendment can only be changed by a constitutional convention...

Also, having to go through a more rigorous background check and waiting period isn't infringing your right at all. You can still get the gun.

Can you get the gun while the check is still pending? No. See, That's infringement.

The first point: So...it can be changed. What I said is accurate. I didn't say how, I just said that it could. And it can. How was I wrong in what I said?

The second point: But you can still get the gun, so no actual infringement, just inconvenience. If you can't wait a week or 2 for a gun, I'd say you're probably planning something nefarious with it. Otherwise, what's a couple weeks? You have to wait months to get a driver's license, and pass 2 tests to get it. Do you feel that infringes on your right to drive, or do you look at that as a common sense way to make sure people know how to drive? Because that's how I look at buying a gun. You should have to demonstrate that you're of sound mind and capable of using it properly before you get one.

Point of important clarification, you do not have a Constitutionally protected right to drive. So, that is a red herring example. How about we use choice of religious gathering instead. Do you need to get approval and a background check to go to your local area to worship the way you want?

No, oh, I guess there is a Constitutional right to do that....and it doesn't even specifically say "shall not be infringed" in the amendment either.


There is a biog difference in your choice of analogy and the truth.

Your example is a red herring too though. A religious gathering isn't a deadly weapon. It's just a group of people.

Ignore my comparison if you don't like it. But you honestly feel that making sure someone is capable of properly using a gun before they get it infringes on that person's rights? That's gun safety 101.

Religious gatherings and followers are responsible for MANY deaths throughout history. IMO, religion is just as deadly as a physical weapon. More so in many ways, so it is relevant

It might be relevant in your head, but it's ridiculous to compare a gun to a Mass. A crazy guy goes to church...nothing happens, he gets to eat a wafer and listen to horrible music. A crazy guy buys a gun without proper vetting...bad stuff happens.

I guess Jim Jones doesn't qualify, huh?
I guess the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo doesn't qualify, huh?
I guess A crazy Islamic Jihadi goes to worship, and decides to blow up a mall because he is told there that his god demands it doesn't qualify huh??
I guess the whole Spanish Inquisition doesn't qualify huh?


Should I continue, or have I made my point yet?

You're listing violent religious organizations. I understand your point, I just completely disagree with it.

A religious gathering isn't inherently a violent thing. A gun, by definition, is a deadly weapon. That's it's entire purpose, to kill things.

Comparing something that was literally invented to kill with a group of people gathering to talk about their religion is like comparing apples to water bottles, it just doesn't make any sense.

I beg to differ. Religion. from its early inceptions, was also meant to kill. It. by definition, creates a separation of "us" vs. "them". The believers and the non-believers. That is the first step toward dehumanizing those that do not believe.

A gun is a tool, period. A gun isn't inherently a violent thing. And gun owners are not all killers either. It can be used for both purposes, good and bad, based upon the intent behind the person wielding it. Just as religion can be used for good or evil intent.


I get it, you hate guns. That is your decision, and right to make that for yourself. However, do not attempt to evangelize that same thing upon others when it is a protected right. I say the same thing for religion as well (another similarity, imagine that).


In fact, statistically, and historically, you are more likely to be killed by a religious fanatic than a gun.

dup deleted

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Graysen

originally posted by: narrator


They ruled on it based on an amendment to the constitution. Yes, that can theoretically change. So can the 2nd.

Wrong.
while the court's ruling can be changed by a later course, the 2nd amendment can only be changed by a constitutional convention...

Also, having to go through a more rigorous background check and waiting period isn't infringing your right at all. You can still get the gun.

Can you get the gun while the check is still pending? No. See, That's infringement.

The first point: So...it can be changed. What I said is accurate. I didn't say how, I just said that it could. And it can. How was I wrong in what I said?

The second point: But you can still get the gun, so no actual infringement, just inconvenience. If you can't wait a week or 2 for a gun, I'd say you're probably planning something nefarious with it. Otherwise, what's a couple weeks? You have to wait months to get a driver's license, and pass 2 tests to get it. Do you feel that infringes on your right to drive, or do you look at that as a common sense way to make sure people know how to drive? Because that's how I look at buying a gun. You should have to demonstrate that you're of sound mind and capable of using it properly before you get one.

Point of important clarification, you do not have a Constitutionally protected right to drive. So, that is a red herring example. How about we use choice of religious gathering instead. Do you need to get approval and a background check to go to your local area to worship the way you want?

No, oh, I guess there is a Constitutional right to do that....and it doesn't even specifically say "shall not be infringed" in the amendment either.


There is a biog difference in your choice of analogy and the truth.

Your example is a red herring too though. A religious gathering isn't a deadly weapon. It's just a group of people.

Ignore my comparison if you don't like it. But you honestly feel that making sure someone is capable of properly using a gun before they get it infringes on that person's rights? That's gun safety 101.

Religious gatherings and followers are responsible for MANY deaths throughout history. IMO, religion is just as deadly as a physical weapon. More so in many ways, so it is relevant

It might be relevant in your head, but it's ridiculous to compare a gun to a Mass. A crazy guy goes to church...nothing happens, he gets to eat a wafer and listen to horrible music. A crazy guy buys a gun without proper vetting...bad stuff happens.

I guess Jim Jones doesn't qualify, huh?
I guess the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo doesn't qualify, huh?
I guess A crazy Islamic Jihadi goes to worship, and decides to blow up a mall because he is told there that his god demands it doesn't qualify huh??
I guess the whole Spanish Inquisition doesn't qualify huh?


Should I continue, or have I made my point yet?

You're listing violent religious organizations. I understand your point, I just completely disagree with it.

A religious gathering isn't inherently a violent thing. A gun, by definition, is a deadly weapon. That's it's entire purpose, to kill things.

Comparing something that was literally invented to kill with a group of people gathering to talk about their religion is like comparing apples to water bottles, it just doesn't make any sense.

I beg to differ. Religion. from its early inceptions, was also meant to kill. It. by definition, creates a separation of "us" vs. "them". The believers and the non-believers. That is the first step toward dehumanizing those that do not believe.

A gun is a tool, period. A gun isn't inherently a violent thing. And gun owners are not all killers either. It can be used for both purposes, good and bad, based upon the intent behind the person wielding it. Just as religion can be used for good or evil intent.


I get it, you hate guns. That is your decision, and right to make that for yourself. However, do not attempt to evangelize that same thing upon others when it is a protected right. I say the same thing for religion as well (another similarity, imagine that).


In fact, statistically, and historically, you are more likely to be killed by a religious fanatic than a gun.

You don't "get it", apparently. I don't hate guns at all, I own 7, including the dreaded AR-15. But I'm also very much in favor of common sense gun laws.

You are correct, a gun is a tool. Every tool has a purpose. What is that tool's purpose?

originally posted by: TheElectricPriest
a reply to: Krakatoa

A religious gathering isn't inherently a violent thing. A gun, by definition, is a deadly weapon. That's it's entire purpose, to kill things. Comparing something that was literally invented to kill with a group of people gathering to talk about their religion is like comparing apples to water bottles, it just doesn't make any sense.

Oh please please please go get him! I would do it myself but I don't wanna! Guns do other things other than just kill, right? Or are clay pigeons life now?

You seem like a real gem. Very priestly.

So, the original reasoning for inventing a gun was to shoot clay pigeons?

originally posted by: JBurns
How long til patriotic citizens start enacting retribution for these senseless acts of genocide and mass murder?

How will our elected "officials" respond? Can we starve the enemy out, by targeting their welfare their environment and their healthcare? Or will something more..... direct .... be required?

The lives of these unborn Americans are worth far more than the mothers who would abort them. Abortionists are merely vessels for an unborn American, to be discarded after the birth is complete. Lock them up in a hospital and force the birth if needed.

This is war. The MILLIONS dying demand it.

Indeed it feels the time is ripe all across the board regarding scum telling us how to live our lives...telling us how to think and subjecting us to de-evolution.

The Ones who lead these causes are my primary concern..and the Ones who control them.

They are dangerously close to Igniting a War that will see them exterminated 100%...and with Extreme Prejudice.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: JBurns
How long til patriotic citizens start enacting retribution for these senseless acts of genocide and mass murder?

How will our elected "officials" respond? Can we starve the enemy out, by targeting their welfare their environment and their healthcare? Or will something more..... direct .... be required?

The lives of these unborn Americans are worth far more than the mothers who would abort them. Abortionists are merely vessels for an unborn American, to be discarded after the birth is complete. Lock them up in a hospital and force the birth if needed.

This is war. The MILLIONS dying demand it.

Indeed it feels the time is ripe all across the board regarding scum telling us how to live our lives...telling us how to think and subjecting us to de-evolution.

The Ones who lead these causes are my primary concern..and the Ones who control them.

They are dangerously close to Igniting a War that will see them exterminated 100%...and with Extreme Prejudice.

So...kill people that disagree with you?

Seems reasonable. sarcasm very much intended

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: TheElectricPriest
a reply to: Krakatoa

A religious gathering isn't inherently a violent thing. A gun, by definition, is a deadly weapon. That's it's entire purpose, to kill things. Comparing something that was literally invented to kill with a group of people gathering to talk about their religion is like comparing apples to water bottles, it just doesn't make any sense.

Oh please please please go get him! I would do it myself but I don't wanna! Guns do other things other than just kill, right? Or are clay pigeons life now?

You seem like a real gem. Very priestly.

So, the original reasoning for inventing a gun was to shoot clay pigeons?

Oh, just seeing how long it took to trigger you. Not too quickly, congrats. No, a gun kills, there's no doubt. You'd be surprised to hear, possibly, that I'm actually for gun restriction. I actually read the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety and feel that we're ignoring a major part of it, you know, that whole well regulated militia thing. Do I think gang bangers should own guns...nope. Loonies...nope. Fanatics...depends upon their fanaticism I suppose. Point being, I think that membership in an inactive yet well regulated militia, the words used in the actual 2nd Amendment would be the line of responsibility that need be met in order to have the right of ownership of something so clearly powerful and destructive. I've never understood why this has been so completely ignored.

Probably surprised to find we agree (somewhat) upon this, huh? But you're still a jerk...

originally posted by: JBurns

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The ultimate irony is that bombing an abortion clinic is murder.

But what goes on inside isn't.

I salute every last person who has done that. They may have broken the law, but they did the objectively right thing.

Abortionists are sick, twisted and real low life # stains.

Yep worse than anything in Game of Thrones..these scum that gladly perform abortions and LATE TERM abortions are the types that will be subjected to a special kind of sword..they scoff for as of now they have no idea they can lose.

These foolish beings have literally a clock ticking on them now..they can let us know when it is time to have it out..we just waiting for the last of them to arrive and expose themselves....95% there........

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Let me see if I got this straight, the same people in favor of killing a child up to and including the moment of birth want to ban guns because someone might get hurt or killed and yet also have no problem letting people enter the country that might want to hurt or kill others.

yep, that about covers it.

originally posted by: TheElectricPriest

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: TheElectricPriest
a reply to: Krakatoa

A religious gathering isn't inherently a violent thing. A gun, by definition, is a deadly weapon. That's it's entire purpose, to kill things. Comparing something that was literally invented to kill with a group of people gathering to talk about their religion is like comparing apples to water bottles, it just doesn't make any sense.

Oh please please please go get him! I would do it myself but I don't wanna! Guns do other things other than just kill, right? Or are clay pigeons life now?

You seem like a real gem. Very priestly.

So, the original reasoning for inventing a gun was to shoot clay pigeons?

Oh, just seeing how long it took to trigger you. Not too quickly, congrats. No, a gun kills, there's no doubt. You'd be surprised to hear, possibly, that I'm actually for gun restriction. I actually read the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety and feel that we're ignoring a major part of it, you know, that whole well regulated militia thing. Do I think gang bangers should own guns...nope. Loonies...nope. Fanatics...depends upon their fanaticism I suppose. Point being, I think that membership in an inactive yet well regulated militia, the words used in the actual 2nd Amendment would be the line of responsibility that need be met in order to have the right of ownership of something so clearly powerful and destructive. I've never understood why this has been so completely ignored.

Probably surprised to find we agree (somewhat) upon this, huh? But you're still a jerk...

I hate that word. "Triggered". Do you get off thinking that you upset a random internet person? That borders sociopathic behavior.

For what it's worth, random internet people don't "trigger" me, you and what you say hold zero power over my emotions.

Why would I be surprised? I don't know you. I'm glad that we agree. It does raise the question though: If you agree with me, were you literally just trying to troll me?

a reply to: TheElectricPriest

You're such a hypocrite. Sorry this thread was so exclusive that people cant state opinions mid way through. I think you dont understand how a forum works. Also you are assuming on my viewpoints on this subject. But since I'm such a hyper intellect you wont care either way. I'm to smart for you.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: JBurns
How long til patriotic citizens start enacting retribution for these senseless acts of genocide and mass murder?

How will our elected "officials" respond? Can we starve the enemy out, by targeting their welfare their environment and their healthcare? Or will something more..... direct .... be required?

The lives of these unborn Americans are worth far more than the mothers who would abort them. Abortionists are merely vessels for an unborn American, to be discarded after the birth is complete. Lock them up in a hospital and force the birth if needed.

This is war. The MILLIONS dying demand it.

Indeed it feels the time is ripe all across the board regarding scum telling us how to live our lives...telling us how to think and subjecting us to de-evolution.

The Ones who lead these causes are my primary concern..and the Ones who control them.

They are dangerously close to Igniting a War that will see them exterminated 100%...and with Extreme Prejudice.

Allllllrighty then! Ok, between the two of you I would definitely say that you represent a very radical viewpoint on the issue. However, I have thought somewhat about what you're saying, because I have also wondered if the ultimate backlash is coming.

So something interesting happened when Trump was elected. If y'all will remember, Hillary was KILLING him in the polls. Well one day leading up to the election, I was listening to NPR and they had an analyst on there who openly was refuting the other pundits who were already basically declaring a victory for Clinton based upon the polls. He said not to trust the polls, and that the polls could prove so wrong that on election night we actually end up with a Trump presidency. He was obviously correct. What he said, however, was very interesting and apropos to my admittedly long and drawn out point. He said that people were being dishonest in the polls. Because of the climate, PC and the like, people were afraid to admit their true feelings to one another in society and when asked by pollsters, but, given the privacy of the voting booth, they would vote their true conscience, and that that has not been truthfully captured by the polls. Very very interesting.

So, we might all be running around doing little dances in the streets for the transgender movement, applauding a woman's right to choose, but what is the truth of people's actual beliefs on these issues when they're alone, when they're alone with their own thoughts? Are they truly reflective of what we're being told...I suspect not. I've sometimes wondered if, when that damn breaks, when that bubble pops, will there be a violent backlash to these ideologies that have run ramshot over the populace? I certainly hope not, but I wouldn't be surprised, and there will be no "safe space" to hide from the very opposite of these "micro-aggressions".

a reply to: narrator

No...not trolling you, just looking at you from afar. By the way, you realize this is not a thread about gun control, right?

a reply to: SteamyJeans

Wtf is with the recent push for baby killing!?

Last 3 weeks it’s been a different state.
It’s like the “caravan” of migrants but instead it’s dems and baby killers marching forward.

Disgusting.

They've done their analysis & seem to believe that the metrics are good to push forward the infanticide aspect of their long-term agenda. Yes, they are suggesting that it be legal to actually, literally murder babies outside the womb for no more reason than the mother feels a bit tired, stressed, and possibly unsure about how the child will affect her emotional condition in the coming weeks, months & years. That's a good enough reason to murder a newborn baby.

They are seeing how far they can push you! They are testing if their moral bankruptcy conditioning program has been successful to the point that you will allow babies to be murdered for no reason! They are rolling out the red carpet for Satan! The next step is to lobotomise you using 5G & HAARP technologies, then they will take your young daughters for their harems & your young boys for hunting as a sport. Those in power will be culled too, until only the most blatantly evil remain, and then what is left for the rest of us? We'll probably be wiped out with targeted bioweapons.

I'm speculating of course - but this is dark sh1t...!!!!!

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

You're such a hypocrite. Sorry this thread was so exclusive that people cant state opinions mid way through. I think you dont understand how a forum works. Also you are assuming on my viewpoints on this subject. But since I'm such a hyper intellect you wont care either way. I'm to smart for you.

Oh, I'm pretty sure I understand how forums work, or do you want to explain it to me. That's just so you, sweetheart.

Secondly, I think it's lovely when people enter a thread and begin contributing to the topic. You should try it sometime.

originally posted by: TheElectricPriest
a reply to: narrator

No...not trolling you, just looking at you from afar. By the way, you realize this is not a thread about gun control, right?

I do. The thread is about the constitutionality of a woman's right to abortion. I simply compared it to the constitutionality of something that a lot of ATS folks don't want touched in any way, shape, or form, but are A-ok with overturning the ruling that abortions are protected under the constitution of the US.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Whoa! You should write reverse greeting cards or something...

a reply to: neo96

Over here in Europe we had the exact same headlines around three weeks ago. And then of course, we were informaed that the migration epidemic was the optimal solution. As if those people are going to care for us in our old age & not kill us off, shunt us out of the way & steal from us at every opportunity they get. It's in their dogma to kill, steal & destroy! This world itself is being sacrificed to the god who controls it, and he is clearly loving the current status quo. God help us.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: TheElectricPriest
a reply to: narrator

No...not trolling you, just looking at you from afar. By the way, you realize this is not a thread about gun control, right?

I do. The thread is about the constitutionality of a woman's right to abortion. I simply compared it to the constitutionality of something that a lot of ATS folks don't want touched in any way, shape, or form, but are A-ok with overturning the ruling that abortions are protected under the constitution of the US.

Well, maybe you should start a new thread on that. You see, as I explained in a previous post, many many people disagree with judicial activism and see it as a farce rather than a Constitutional mandate (read: Amendment). The 2nd Amendment, which it seems you and I agree upon in it's interpretation more than we perhaps disagree, is a clearly delineated amendment, listed 2nd actually in importance! Abortion is not spoken of AT ALL!!! It's no where in there...it doesn't exist. Now, as I previously said, I sat down with a sitting Supreme Court Justice and had an in-depth conversation, personally, about this very topic. I know, you're going to say this doesn't matter, but I would disagree...that's the nature of education and learning. He taught me about Constitutional Law that day, about how this was an end-run around the addition of an amendment which is what the founders envisioned and allowed for. Roe v. Wade is simply something that a group of leftists MADE UP out of thin air.

Point is it's the wrong topic for the thread...