comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
Ok. I think I get it. What you're saying is that it's unconstitutional for the US Gov to dictate to the individual states yes?
It's still crazy though IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo
By signing up to the union, you agree to abide by the constitution of the Union. If you don’t well then you can secede, just like the civil war.
But you are free to self govern provided your state laws do not contradict the constitution. That is the whole purpose of the Supreme Court. To be the final judge on whether a state law contradicts the constitution.
It’s vaguely similar to being a member of the EU. The UK could do as it feels but it had to fall in line with some EU laws.
US works in a similar way, states are like countries that do as they please provide they don’t break the overarching laws of the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory would a state be in breach of the second amendment if they banned the sale of ammo?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they’d be enlightened and facking heroes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I only ask because I read it as the right to keep and bear arms. There's actually nothing in the constitution about buying the ammo or indeed the guns for that matter.
Yep.
The second amendment reads “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Arms are defined as “weapons and ammunition; armaments”
In fact only a few days ago a New York law restricting concealed carry from every day citizens was overruled because of the final part of the amendment “shall not be infringed”
A couple months ago a California law banning semiautomatic weapons to under 21s was overruled using the second amendment.
That new fancy law Biden just signed will probably get overruled next year too when the NRA takes it to the SCOTUS as making it more difficult for people to bear arms is clearly against the second amendment.
The only way to change the constitution or it’s amendments is to amend it, which as I said earlier requires 38 states, or a 2/3 majority in the house and senate which is arguably harder to achieve than 38 states given the electoral college structure
I think it's all men having this discussion. It would be better if it were women. Seriously, what do we know?
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
Ok. I think I get it. What you're saying is that it's unconstitutional for the US Gov to dictate to the individual states yes?
It's still crazy though IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo
By signing up to the union, you agree to abide by the constitution of the Union. If you don’t well then you can secede, just like the civil war.
But you are free to self govern provided your state laws do not contradict the constitution. That is the whole purpose of the Supreme Court. To be the final judge on whether a state law contradicts the constitution.
It’s vaguely similar to being a member of the EU. The UK could do as it feels but it had to fall in line with some EU laws.
US works in a similar way, states are like countries that do as they please provide they don’t break the overarching laws of the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory would a state be in breach of the second amendment if they banned the sale of ammo?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they’d be enlightened and facking heroes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I only ask because I read it as the right to keep and bear arms. There's actually nothing in the constitution about buying the ammo or indeed the guns for that matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s an idiotic piece of legislation 200 years out of date, yet they cling to it blindly like fools.
Yet all the outrage about roe v Wade was hiding behind that same constitution.
Like I said earlier, if you don’t believe a right can be taken from the constitution because you’re in support of it, you can’t also hold the opinion that one you dislike should be removed without being a clearly biased hypocrite
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I think it's all men having this discussion. It would be better if it were women. Seriously, what do we know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t need to be a woman to discuss whether SCOTUS was right or wrong to overrule it in the eyes of the law.
When it comes to an opinion on whether it’s morally right or wrong then sure, but I’m purely talking about law. gender has no relevance in that discussion.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
Ok. I think I get it. What you're saying is that it's unconstitutional for the US Gov to dictate to the individual states yes?
It's still crazy though IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo
By signing up to the union, you agree to abide by the constitution of the Union. If you don’t well then you can secede, just like the civil war.
But you are free to self govern provided your state laws do not contradict the constitution. That is the whole purpose of the Supreme Court. To be the final judge on whether a state law contradicts the constitution.
It’s vaguely similar to being a member of the EU. The UK could do as it feels but it had to fall in line with some EU laws.
US works in a similar way, states are like countries that do as they please provide they don’t break the overarching laws of the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory would a state be in breach of the second amendment if they banned the sale of ammo?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2nd Amendment was put there to protect the people from the Govt.
Those chaps truly knew how power corrupts therefore............
So they’ve taken away some of women’s rights but done sweet FA about mass shootings. What a stupid country. Priorities, America. .
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I think it's all men having this discussion. It would be better if it were women. Seriously, what do we know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t need to be a woman to discuss whether SCOTUS was right or wrong to overrule it in the eyes of the law.
When it comes to an opinion on whether it’s morally right or wrong then sure, but I’m purely talking about law. gender has no relevance in that discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are. But there is also plenty of chat about whether it is right or wrong.
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
You do realize what I posted was the UK laws about legally accessing abortion?
All this furore about the US has brought our judgemental folks, especially everyone’s favorite Australian who loves commenting on America with zero context outside of what he reads online, who seem to think this kinda thing is unique to America.
There’s an irony in this whole decision. Obviously the topic is highly sensitive, but a lot of the people outraged by this are the same people who are also banging on about Jan 6th and how the republicans want to destroy democracy.
This judgement is actually the most democracy favoring judgement ever. The SCOTUS has literally ruled that the federal government cannot say what you can or cannot do.
They have handed the power to judge abortion rights back to the people. They have empowered the states to self govern.
If you want abortion vote for it, if you don’t vote against it. The hyperbole that the abortion is now banned is so ignorant and naive.
13 states will enact trigger laws, if you don’t like it, vote your state senate out. Elect officials who believe in pro choice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"This judgement is actually the most democracy favoring judgement ever. The SCOTUS has literally ruled that the federal government cannot say what you can or cannot do.
They have handed the power to judge abortion rights back to the people"
Right. Let's clarify. You think taking the choice of whether to have an abortion away from the individuals affected and giving it to a bunch of completely unrelated parties is handing power "back to the people"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You realize that in the UK the right to abortion is not a guarantee and is controlled by the government too right?
The House of Commons could easily vote to scrap it and there wouldn’t be a damn thing any woman in the UK could do about it?
What is with this elitist view that america has suddenly become the only western country to do this?
All yesterday did was put abortion back in the hands of politicians just like it is currently today in the UK?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow holy fvk. Not long ago you were spouting off about how it would put the decision in the hands of the people.is that your final answer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you also special?
Before it was overturned the people had no say, pro life or pro choice.
Now the state governments can enact laws, repeal them, amend them, whatever.
Who puts people into state government? The people of that state.
So yes over turning roe v wade has now put the power back in the hands of the people. If they want their state to be pro choice it’s pretty simple, vote for politicians who support that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fvkwit. Are you now trying to tell us there are no federal elections?
Stick to baiting ozzies.
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 17 minutes ago
You are saying that the decision to remove the civil rights if an entire demographic is the most democracy favouring decision ever.
Of course it’s facking reeetarded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s not. You just perceive it that way because you don’t like it, while also clearly not actually knowing a thing about the US political institution.
The Supreme courts sole job is review, uphold or overturn laws enacted by states if they do or don’t comply with the national constitution.
It’s not about whether you like or dislike the law, it’s a binary fact.
If you actually read their ruling yesterday it’s a statement of fact that Roe vs Wade was a bad judgement. It is not supported by the constitution and the US federal government has no right to tell anyone what to do with their own bodies in regards to abortion.
States are free to make their own laws because the right is not guaranteed in the constitution.
You don’t have to like the fact but it is a fact.
So now people have to vote in officials at a state level that agree with their views.
A pro lifer would tell you it wasn’t democratic that they had no say in the matter. A pro choice person will tel you they just lost a right.
Both now have a chance to make their voices heard at a state level to ensure they get the outcome they want. Just like every other laws that states have that are not constitutionally protected.
Throwing big fits and threatening to harass, intimidate and attack SCOTUS judges by the way is the most hypocritical thing the left has done in some time.
When the right wing nut jobs didn’t like the election, and protested and tried to overrule that judgement it was an insurrection against democracy and a US institution.
Now the left is threatening to do the same thing just because they too, don’t like the outcome of a certain institutions ruling.
Can’t have it both ways
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When did these left wingers break into the SC and $hit all over it. You really are a fvkin idiot.
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 17 minutes ago
Yep.
The second amendment reads “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Arms are defined as “weapons and ammunition; armaments”
In fact only a few days ago a New York law restricting concealed carry from every day citizens was overruled because of the final part of the amendment “shall not be infringed”
A couple months ago a California law banning semiautomatic weapons to under 21s was overruled using the second amendment.
That new fancy law Biden just signed will probably get overruled next year too when the NRA takes it to the SCOTUS as making it more difficult for people to bear arms is clearly against the second amendment.
The only way to change the constitution or it’s amendments is to amend it, which as I said earlier requires 38 states, or a 2/3 majority in the house and senate which is arguably harder to achieve than 38 states given the electoral college structure
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could someone argue that allowing people to keep catapults and rocks means their rights haven't been infringed? Is there a definition there that it has to be guns?
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
I think it's all men having this discussion. It would be better if it were women. Seriously, what do we know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would it be better if it was women chatting bud? Are you the French version of James O'Brien?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
It’s sad when a country gives more rights to guns than a woman to have autonomy over their body.
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
It’s sad when a country gives more rights to guns than a woman to have autonomy over their body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s actually so idiotic that it’s hard to fathom.
SCOTUS is a democratic institution?
Who elects them?
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 32 minutes ago
So they’ve taken away some of women’s rights but done sweet FA about mass shootings. What a stupid country. Priorities, America. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you not seen how the Police reacted regarding the last school shooting? Ouch.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 15 minutes ago
It’s sad when a country gives more rights to guns than a woman to have autonomy over their body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't.
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 20 minutes ago
SCOTUS is a democratic institution?
Who elects them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The democratically elected president recommends appointments which are voted on by democratically elected officials
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 20 minutes ago
SCOTUS is a democratic institution?
Who elects them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The democratically elected president recommends appointments which are voted on by democratically elected officials
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The president who may not be democratically elected (the last two republican presidents lost the democratically popular vote) recommends them and they are voted on by officials who represent vastly different numbers of the population
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 47 minutes ago
It’s sad when a country gives more rights to guns than a woman to have autonomy over their body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What an absolutely “reeetarded” comment.
Guns have zero rights. People have the right to have guns.
Bodily autonomy, ah that old chestnut, so you’re fine with being told you must get a vaccination to travel and show proof, that isn’t a violation of a woman’s bodily autonomy too?
Sure an abortion and a vaccine are two different things but being told what to do with your body as a concept seems to be fine when it suits an agenda you have
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 20 minutes ago
SCOTUS is a democratic institution?
Who elects them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The democratically elected president recommends appointments which are voted on by democratically elected officials
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The president who may not be democratically elected (the last two republican presidents lost the democratically popular vote) recommends them and they are voted on by officials who represent vastly different numbers of the population
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The democracy of the US is based on the electoral vote, not the popular vote. So you cannot say the President was not elected democratically.
The officials in the house and senate however are democratically elected by the folks of their states.
Each state irrespective of size gets 2 seats in congress and a pro rata’d amount of seats in congress.
California and New York for example have 53 and 27 respectively out of the 435 seats.
Sign in if you want to comment
Abortion furore & trigger laws
Page 6 of 18
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
Ok. I think I get it. What you're saying is that it's unconstitutional for the US Gov to dictate to the individual states yes?
It's still crazy though IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo
By signing up to the union, you agree to abide by the constitution of the Union. If you don’t well then you can secede, just like the civil war.
But you are free to self govern provided your state laws do not contradict the constitution. That is the whole purpose of the Supreme Court. To be the final judge on whether a state law contradicts the constitution.
It’s vaguely similar to being a member of the EU. The UK could do as it feels but it had to fall in line with some EU laws.
US works in a similar way, states are like countries that do as they please provide they don’t break the overarching laws of the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory would a state be in breach of the second amendment if they banned the sale of ammo?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they’d be enlightened and facking heroes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I only ask because I read it as the right to keep and bear arms. There's actually nothing in the constitution about buying the ammo or indeed the guns for that matter.
posted on 25/6/22
Yep.
The second amendment reads “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Arms are defined as “weapons and ammunition; armaments”
In fact only a few days ago a New York law restricting concealed carry from every day citizens was overruled because of the final part of the amendment “shall not be infringed”
A couple months ago a California law banning semiautomatic weapons to under 21s was overruled using the second amendment.
That new fancy law Biden just signed will probably get overruled next year too when the NRA takes it to the SCOTUS as making it more difficult for people to bear arms is clearly against the second amendment.
The only way to change the constitution or it’s amendments is to amend it, which as I said earlier requires 38 states, or a 2/3 majority in the house and senate which is arguably harder to achieve than 38 states given the electoral college structure
posted on 25/6/22
I think it's all men having this discussion. It would be better if it were women. Seriously, what do we know?
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
Ok. I think I get it. What you're saying is that it's unconstitutional for the US Gov to dictate to the individual states yes?
It's still crazy though IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo
By signing up to the union, you agree to abide by the constitution of the Union. If you don’t well then you can secede, just like the civil war.
But you are free to self govern provided your state laws do not contradict the constitution. That is the whole purpose of the Supreme Court. To be the final judge on whether a state law contradicts the constitution.
It’s vaguely similar to being a member of the EU. The UK could do as it feels but it had to fall in line with some EU laws.
US works in a similar way, states are like countries that do as they please provide they don’t break the overarching laws of the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory would a state be in breach of the second amendment if they banned the sale of ammo?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they’d be enlightened and facking heroes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I only ask because I read it as the right to keep and bear arms. There's actually nothing in the constitution about buying the ammo or indeed the guns for that matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s an idiotic piece of legislation 200 years out of date, yet they cling to it blindly like fools.
posted on 25/6/22
Yet all the outrage about roe v Wade was hiding behind that same constitution.
Like I said earlier, if you don’t believe a right can be taken from the constitution because you’re in support of it, you can’t also hold the opinion that one you dislike should be removed without being a clearly biased hypocrite
posted on 25/6/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I think it's all men having this discussion. It would be better if it were women. Seriously, what do we know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t need to be a woman to discuss whether SCOTUS was right or wrong to overrule it in the eyes of the law.
When it comes to an opinion on whether it’s morally right or wrong then sure, but I’m purely talking about law. gender has no relevance in that discussion.
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
Ok. I think I get it. What you're saying is that it's unconstitutional for the US Gov to dictate to the individual states yes?
It's still crazy though IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo
By signing up to the union, you agree to abide by the constitution of the Union. If you don’t well then you can secede, just like the civil war.
But you are free to self govern provided your state laws do not contradict the constitution. That is the whole purpose of the Supreme Court. To be the final judge on whether a state law contradicts the constitution.
It’s vaguely similar to being a member of the EU. The UK could do as it feels but it had to fall in line with some EU laws.
US works in a similar way, states are like countries that do as they please provide they don’t break the overarching laws of the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory would a state be in breach of the second amendment if they banned the sale of ammo?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2nd Amendment was put there to protect the people from the Govt.
Those chaps truly knew how power corrupts therefore............
posted on 25/6/22
So they’ve taken away some of women’s rights but done sweet FA about mass shootings. What a stupid country. Priorities, America. .
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 4 minutes ago
I think it's all men having this discussion. It would be better if it were women. Seriously, what do we know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t need to be a woman to discuss whether SCOTUS was right or wrong to overrule it in the eyes of the law.
When it comes to an opinion on whether it’s morally right or wrong then sure, but I’m purely talking about law. gender has no relevance in that discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are. But there is also plenty of chat about whether it is right or wrong.
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
You do realize what I posted was the UK laws about legally accessing abortion?
All this furore about the US has brought our judgemental folks, especially everyone’s favorite Australian who loves commenting on America with zero context outside of what he reads online, who seem to think this kinda thing is unique to America.
There’s an irony in this whole decision. Obviously the topic is highly sensitive, but a lot of the people outraged by this are the same people who are also banging on about Jan 6th and how the republicans want to destroy democracy.
This judgement is actually the most democracy favoring judgement ever. The SCOTUS has literally ruled that the federal government cannot say what you can or cannot do.
They have handed the power to judge abortion rights back to the people. They have empowered the states to self govern.
If you want abortion vote for it, if you don’t vote against it. The hyperbole that the abortion is now banned is so ignorant and naive.
13 states will enact trigger laws, if you don’t like it, vote your state senate out. Elect officials who believe in pro choice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"This judgement is actually the most democracy favoring judgement ever. The SCOTUS has literally ruled that the federal government cannot say what you can or cannot do.
They have handed the power to judge abortion rights back to the people"
Right. Let's clarify. You think taking the choice of whether to have an abortion away from the individuals affected and giving it to a bunch of completely unrelated parties is handing power "back to the people"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You realize that in the UK the right to abortion is not a guarantee and is controlled by the government too right?
The House of Commons could easily vote to scrap it and there wouldn’t be a damn thing any woman in the UK could do about it?
What is with this elitist view that america has suddenly become the only western country to do this?
All yesterday did was put abortion back in the hands of politicians just like it is currently today in the UK?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow holy fvk. Not long ago you were spouting off about how it would put the decision in the hands of the people.is that your final answer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you also special?
Before it was overturned the people had no say, pro life or pro choice.
Now the state governments can enact laws, repeal them, amend them, whatever.
Who puts people into state government? The people of that state.
So yes over turning roe v wade has now put the power back in the hands of the people. If they want their state to be pro choice it’s pretty simple, vote for politicians who support that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fvkwit. Are you now trying to tell us there are no federal elections?
Stick to baiting ozzies.
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 17 minutes ago
You are saying that the decision to remove the civil rights if an entire demographic is the most democracy favouring decision ever.
Of course it’s facking reeetarded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s not. You just perceive it that way because you don’t like it, while also clearly not actually knowing a thing about the US political institution.
The Supreme courts sole job is review, uphold or overturn laws enacted by states if they do or don’t comply with the national constitution.
It’s not about whether you like or dislike the law, it’s a binary fact.
If you actually read their ruling yesterday it’s a statement of fact that Roe vs Wade was a bad judgement. It is not supported by the constitution and the US federal government has no right to tell anyone what to do with their own bodies in regards to abortion.
States are free to make their own laws because the right is not guaranteed in the constitution.
You don’t have to like the fact but it is a fact.
So now people have to vote in officials at a state level that agree with their views.
A pro lifer would tell you it wasn’t democratic that they had no say in the matter. A pro choice person will tel you they just lost a right.
Both now have a chance to make their voices heard at a state level to ensure they get the outcome they want. Just like every other laws that states have that are not constitutionally protected.
Throwing big fits and threatening to harass, intimidate and attack SCOTUS judges by the way is the most hypocritical thing the left has done in some time.
When the right wing nut jobs didn’t like the election, and protested and tried to overrule that judgement it was an insurrection against democracy and a US institution.
Now the left is threatening to do the same thing just because they too, don’t like the outcome of a certain institutions ruling.
Can’t have it both ways
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When did these left wingers break into the SC and $hit all over it. You really are a fvkin idiot.
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 17 minutes ago
Yep.
The second amendment reads “ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Arms are defined as “weapons and ammunition; armaments”
In fact only a few days ago a New York law restricting concealed carry from every day citizens was overruled because of the final part of the amendment “shall not be infringed”
A couple months ago a California law banning semiautomatic weapons to under 21s was overruled using the second amendment.
That new fancy law Biden just signed will probably get overruled next year too when the NRA takes it to the SCOTUS as making it more difficult for people to bear arms is clearly against the second amendment.
The only way to change the constitution or it’s amendments is to amend it, which as I said earlier requires 38 states, or a 2/3 majority in the house and senate which is arguably harder to achieve than 38 states given the electoral college structure
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could someone argue that allowing people to keep catapults and rocks means their rights haven't been infringed? Is there a definition there that it has to be guns?
posted on 25/6/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
I think it's all men having this discussion. It would be better if it were women. Seriously, what do we know?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would it be better if it was women chatting bud? Are you the French version of James O'Brien?
posted on 25/6/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 25/6/22
It’s sad when a country gives more rights to guns than a woman to have autonomy over their body.
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
It’s sad when a country gives more rights to guns than a woman to have autonomy over their body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s actually so idiotic that it’s hard to fathom.
posted on 25/6/22
SCOTUS is a democratic institution?
Who elects them?
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 32 minutes ago
So they’ve taken away some of women’s rights but done sweet FA about mass shootings. What a stupid country. Priorities, America. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you not seen how the Police reacted regarding the last school shooting? Ouch.
posted on 25/6/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 15 minutes ago
It’s sad when a country gives more rights to guns than a woman to have autonomy over their body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They haven't.
posted on 25/6/22
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 20 minutes ago
SCOTUS is a democratic institution?
Who elects them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The democratically elected president recommends appointments which are voted on by democratically elected officials
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 20 minutes ago
SCOTUS is a democratic institution?
Who elects them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The democratically elected president recommends appointments which are voted on by democratically elected officials
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The president who may not be democratically elected (the last two republican presidents lost the democratically popular vote) recommends them and they are voted on by officials who represent vastly different numbers of the population
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 47 minutes ago
It’s sad when a country gives more rights to guns than a woman to have autonomy over their body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What an absolutely “reeetarded” comment.
Guns have zero rights. People have the right to have guns.
Bodily autonomy, ah that old chestnut, so you’re fine with being told you must get a vaccination to travel and show proof, that isn’t a violation of a woman’s bodily autonomy too?
Sure an abortion and a vaccine are two different things but being told what to do with your body as a concept seems to be fine when it suits an agenda you have
posted on 25/6/22
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 20 minutes ago
SCOTUS is a democratic institution?
Who elects them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The democratically elected president recommends appointments which are voted on by democratically elected officials
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The president who may not be democratically elected (the last two republican presidents lost the democratically popular vote) recommends them and they are voted on by officials who represent vastly different numbers of the population
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The democracy of the US is based on the electoral vote, not the popular vote. So you cannot say the President was not elected democratically.
The officials in the house and senate however are democratically elected by the folks of their states.
Each state irrespective of size gets 2 seats in congress and a pro rata’d amount of seats in congress.
California and New York for example have 53 and 27 respectively out of the 435 seats.
posted on 25/6/22
2 seats in the senate*
Page 6 of 18
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11