Gun Control Age Discrimination Lawsuit
I hope he is victorious in his suit against Dick's Sporting Goods.
Comments
-
This sounds like the situation when the Christian Bakers refused to participate in homosexual weddings as a matter of conscience.
-
@Dave_L said:
This sounds like the situation when the Christian Bakers refused to participate in homosexual weddings as a matter of conscience.No actually. The bakers have a right under the Constitution because of religious freedom. This has nothing to do with religious freedom.
Also different, the purchaser has a right that is ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the Constitution, the right to bear arms. The homosexuals have no such written right in the Constitution. It was invented by the courts in their liberal interpretation of rights.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
This sounds like the situation when the Christian Bakers refused to participate in homosexual weddings as a matter of conscience.No actually. The bakers have a right under the Constitution because of religious freedom. This has nothing to do with religious freedom.
Also different, the purchaser has a right that is ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the Constitution, the right to bear arms. The homosexuals have no such written right in the Constitution. It was invented by the courts in their liberal interpretation of rights.
I'm only saying Walmart's and Dick's refusal to sell guns to people below a certain age remind me of the Christian Bakers who also defied written law to avoid sinning, for reasons of conscience.
But this brings up an interesting point. Let's say the law defeats Walmart and Dick in their endeavours. Will they be innocent of the bloodshed along with all who supported them? And will their opposition be guilty the next time a crackpot under age 21 kills a bunch of kids?
How much blood do we have on our hands supporting laws that kill others?
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
This sounds like the situation when the Christian Bakers refused to participate in homosexual weddings as a matter of conscience.No actually. The bakers have a right under the Constitution because of religious freedom. This has nothing to do with religious freedom.
Also different, the purchaser has a right that is ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the Constitution, the right to bear arms. The homosexuals have no such written right in the Constitution. It was invented by the courts in their liberal interpretation of rights.
I'm only saying Walmart's and Dick's refusal to sell guns to people below a certain age remind me of the Christian Bakers who also defied written law to avoid sinning, for reasons of conscience.
But this brings up an interesting point. Let's say the law defeats Walmart and Dick in their endeavours. Will they be innocent of the bloodshed along with all who supported them? And will their opposition be guilty the next time a crackpot under age 21 kills a bunch of kids?
How much blood do we have on our hands supporting laws that kill others?
No. I do not feel one bit guilty for supporting gun rights and I definitely do not have blood on my hands. That is a liberal attack point that makes no logical sense and quite frankly makes me wonder about the mental capacity of those who say such things.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
This sounds like the situation when the Christian Bakers refused to participate in homosexual weddings as a matter of conscience.No actually. The bakers have a right under the Constitution because of religious freedom. This has nothing to do with religious freedom.
Also different, the purchaser has a right that is ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the Constitution, the right to bear arms. The homosexuals have no such written right in the Constitution. It was invented by the courts in their liberal interpretation of rights.
I'm only saying Walmart's and Dick's refusal to sell guns to people below a certain age remind me of the Christian Bakers who also defied written law to avoid sinning, for reasons of conscience.
But this brings up an interesting point. Let's say the law defeats Walmart and Dick in their endeavours. Will they be innocent of the bloodshed along with all who supported them? And will their opposition be guilty the next time a crackpot under age 21 kills a bunch of kids?
How much blood do we have on our hands supporting laws that kill others?
No. I do not feel one bit guilty for supporting gun rights and I definitely do not have blood on my hands. That is a liberal attack point that makes no logical sense and quite frankly makes me wonder about the mental capacity of those who say such things.
I'm neither liberal nor conservative. But as a Christian, I know the depravity of the human heart. And I question laws that enable a single person to kill masses at will. And I believe any who support these laws share in the guilt for making it possible.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
This sounds like the situation when the Christian Bakers refused to participate in homosexual weddings as a matter of conscience.No actually. The bakers have a right under the Constitution because of religious freedom. This has nothing to do with religious freedom.
Also different, the purchaser has a right that is ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the Constitution, the right to bear arms. The homosexuals have no such written right in the Constitution. It was invented by the courts in their liberal interpretation of rights.
I'm only saying Walmart's and Dick's refusal to sell guns to people below a certain age remind me of the Christian Bakers who also defied written law to avoid sinning, for reasons of conscience.
But this brings up an interesting point. Let's say the law defeats Walmart and Dick in their endeavours. Will they be innocent of the bloodshed along with all who supported them? And will their opposition be guilty the next time a crackpot under age 21 kills a bunch of kids?
How much blood do we have on our hands supporting laws that kill others?
No. I do not feel one bit guilty for supporting gun rights and I definitely do not have blood on my hands. That is a liberal attack point that makes no logical sense and quite frankly makes me wonder about the mental capacity of those who say such things.
I'm neither liberal nor conservative. But as a Christian, I know the depravity of the human heart. And I question laws that enable a single person to kill masses at will. And I believe any who support these laws share in the guilt for making it possible.
Well that is where you are wrong. The law DOESN'T enable a person to kill masses at will. It is illegal and a heinous act. So no, nobody who supports those laws is guilty of anything.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
This sounds like the situation when the Christian Bakers refused to participate in homosexual weddings as a matter of conscience.No actually. The bakers have a right under the Constitution because of religious freedom. This has nothing to do with religious freedom.
Also different, the purchaser has a right that is ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the Constitution, the right to bear arms. The homosexuals have no such written right in the Constitution. It was invented by the courts in their liberal interpretation of rights.
I'm only saying Walmart's and Dick's refusal to sell guns to people below a certain age remind me of the Christian Bakers who also defied written law to avoid sinning, for reasons of conscience.
But this brings up an interesting point. Let's say the law defeats Walmart and Dick in their endeavours. Will they be innocent of the bloodshed along with all who supported them? And will their opposition be guilty the next time a crackpot under age 21 kills a bunch of kids?
How much blood do we have on our hands supporting laws that kill others?
No. I do not feel one bit guilty for supporting gun rights and I definitely do not have blood on my hands. That is a liberal attack point that makes no logical sense and quite frankly makes me wonder about the mental capacity of those who say such things.
I'm neither liberal nor conservative. But as a Christian, I know the depravity of the human heart. And I question laws that enable a single person to kill masses at will. And I believe any who support these laws share in the guilt for making it possible.
Well that is where you are wrong. The law DOESN'T enable a person to kill masses at will. It is illegal and a heinous act. So no, nobody who supports those laws is guilty of anything.
The law does allow, in fact it encourages one person to kill masses in a few minutes on impulse, or else it would not be happening. Take the weapons away, and then if it happens, the perpetrator is to blame.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
This sounds like the situation when the Christian Bakers refused to participate in homosexual weddings as a matter of conscience.No actually. The bakers have a right under the Constitution because of religious freedom. This has nothing to do with religious freedom.
Also different, the purchaser has a right that is ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the Constitution, the right to bear arms. The homosexuals have no such written right in the Constitution. It was invented by the courts in their liberal interpretation of rights.
I'm only saying Walmart's and Dick's refusal to sell guns to people below a certain age remind me of the Christian Bakers who also defied written law to avoid sinning, for reasons of conscience.
But this brings up an interesting point. Let's say the law defeats Walmart and Dick in their endeavours. Will they be innocent of the bloodshed along with all who supported them? And will their opposition be guilty the next time a crackpot under age 21 kills a bunch of kids?
How much blood do we have on our hands supporting laws that kill others?
No. I do not feel one bit guilty for supporting gun rights and I definitely do not have blood on my hands. That is a liberal attack point that makes no logical sense and quite frankly makes me wonder about the mental capacity of those who say such things.
I'm neither liberal nor conservative. But as a Christian, I know the depravity of the human heart. And I question laws that enable a single person to kill masses at will. And I believe any who support these laws share in the guilt for making it possible.
Well that is where you are wrong. The law DOESN'T enable a person to kill masses at will. It is illegal and a heinous act. So no, nobody who supports those laws is guilty of anything.
The law does allow, in fact it encourages one person to kill masses in a few minutes on impulse, or else it would not be happening. Take the weapons away, and then if it happens, the perpetrator is to blame.
That's just lunacy Dave. Take away the weapons.... You think the people that want to do this are going to hand in their weapons? No. The perpetrator is ALWAYS to blame, even now. I am not to blame. The NRA is not to blame. The Constitution is not to blame. Nickolas Cruz is the only one to blame here.
That being said, cars have been used in mass killings. Do you agree people should have cars? If so, does that mean there is blood on your hands?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
This sounds like the situation when the Christian Bakers refused to participate in homosexual weddings as a matter of conscience.No actually. The bakers have a right under the Constitution because of religious freedom. This has nothing to do with religious freedom.
Also different, the purchaser has a right that is ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the Constitution, the right to bear arms. The homosexuals have no such written right in the Constitution. It was invented by the courts in their liberal interpretation of rights.
I'm only saying Walmart's and Dick's refusal to sell guns to people below a certain age remind me of the Christian Bakers who also defied written law to avoid sinning, for reasons of conscience.
But this brings up an interesting point. Let's say the law defeats Walmart and Dick in their endeavours. Will they be innocent of the bloodshed along with all who supported them? And will their opposition be guilty the next time a crackpot under age 21 kills a bunch of kids?
How much blood do we have on our hands supporting laws that kill others?
No. I do not feel one bit guilty for supporting gun rights and I definitely do not have blood on my hands. That is a liberal attack point that makes no logical sense and quite frankly makes me wonder about the mental capacity of those who say such things.
I'm neither liberal nor conservative. But as a Christian, I know the depravity of the human heart. And I question laws that enable a single person to kill masses at will. And I believe any who support these laws share in the guilt for making it possible.
Well that is where you are wrong. The law DOESN'T enable a person to kill masses at will. It is illegal and a heinous act. So no, nobody who supports those laws is guilty of anything.
The law does allow, in fact it encourages one person to kill masses in a few minutes on impulse, or else it would not be happening. Take the weapons away, and then if it happens, the perpetrator is to blame.
That's just lunacy Dave. Take away the weapons.... You think the people that want to do this are going to hand in their weapons? No. The perpetrator is ALWAYS to blame, even now. I am not to blame. The NRA is not to blame. The Constitution is not to blame. Nickolas Cruz is the only one to blame here.
That being said, cars have been used in mass killings. Do you agree people should have cars? If so, does that mean there is blood on your hands?
If laws permitted or encouraged drunk driving, it would be no different than laws that permit or encourage mass killing. Laws that place guns, designed specifically for mass killing, in the hands of even the most stable people who often fall over the edge.
Do you think abortion clinics should be outlawed? If so, why not the means that kills thousands of innocent people each year? Do those who vote pro choice share in the guilt of innocent bloodshed? Then so do those who vote to sustain or loosen present gun laws.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
This sounds like the situation when the Christian Bakers refused to participate in homosexual weddings as a matter of conscience.No actually. The bakers have a right under the Constitution because of religious freedom. This has nothing to do with religious freedom.
Also different, the purchaser has a right that is ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the Constitution, the right to bear arms. The homosexuals have no such written right in the Constitution. It was invented by the courts in their liberal interpretation of rights.
I'm only saying Walmart's and Dick's refusal to sell guns to people below a certain age remind me of the Christian Bakers who also defied written law to avoid sinning, for reasons of conscience.
But this brings up an interesting point. Let's say the law defeats Walmart and Dick in their endeavours. Will they be innocent of the bloodshed along with all who supported them? And will their opposition be guilty the next time a crackpot under age 21 kills a bunch of kids?
How much blood do we have on our hands supporting laws that kill others?
No. I do not feel one bit guilty for supporting gun rights and I definitely do not have blood on my hands. That is a liberal attack point that makes no logical sense and quite frankly makes me wonder about the mental capacity of those who say such things.
I'm neither liberal nor conservative. But as a Christian, I know the depravity of the human heart. And I question laws that enable a single person to kill masses at will. And I believe any who support these laws share in the guilt for making it possible.
Well that is where you are wrong. The law DOESN'T enable a person to kill masses at will. It is illegal and a heinous act. So no, nobody who supports those laws is guilty of anything.
The law does allow, in fact it encourages one person to kill masses in a few minutes on impulse, or else it would not be happening. Take the weapons away, and then if it happens, the perpetrator is to blame.
That's just lunacy Dave. Take away the weapons.... You think the people that want to do this are going to hand in their weapons? No. The perpetrator is ALWAYS to blame, even now. I am not to blame. The NRA is not to blame. The Constitution is not to blame. Nickolas Cruz is the only one to blame here.
That being said, cars have been used in mass killings. Do you agree people should have cars? If so, does that mean there is blood on your hands?
If laws permitted or encouraged drunk driving, it would be no different than laws that permit or encourage mass killing. Laws that place guns, designed specifically for mass killing, in the hands of even the most stable people who often fall over the edge.
Dave this is where your argument doesn't hold water. No gun law permits or encourages mass shootings. Period. And to say that this happens often is just plain ignornant or dishonest. More people are killed by handguns each year on the back streets of Chicago. More people are killed by drunk drivers in one year than have ever been killed in a mass shooting. So cut the hyperbole and over sensational rhetoric that isn't based in a shred of reality.
Do you think abortion clinics should be outlawed? If so, why not the means that kills thousands of innocent people each year? Do those who vote pro choice share in the guilt of innocent bloodshed? Then so do those who vote to sustain or loosen present gun laws.
Yes, I believe abortion clinics should be outlawed. Yes, those who vote pro-choice share in innocent bloodshed because they encourage the killings. But that is not the same as pro-gun. People who are pro-gun as a general rule do not promote or encourage the killing of another human being.
-
Abortion laws do not encourage abortions??? Abortionists do not kill people, abortion tools do??? Gun laws do not give ample opportunity to murderers? Guns don't kill people?? Bullets do?? And so on..............????
-
@Dave_L said:
Abortion laws do not encourage abortions??? Abortionists do not kill people, abortion tools do??? Gun laws do not give ample opportunity to murderers? Guns don't kill people?? Bullets do?? And so on..............????What in the world are you talking about and how in the world does it relate to what I said to you?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Abortion laws do not encourage abortions??? Abortionists do not kill people, abortion tools do??? Gun laws do not give ample opportunity to murderers? Guns don't kill people?? Bullets do?? And so on..............????What in the world are you talking about and how in the world does it relate to what I said to you?
I'm showing how abortion and gun laws promote killing of the innocent.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Abortion laws do not encourage abortions??? Abortionists do not kill people, abortion tools do??? Gun laws do not give ample opportunity to murderers? Guns don't kill people?? Bullets do?? And so on..............????What in the world are you talking about and how in the world does it relate to what I said to you?
I'm showing how abortion and gun laws promote killing of the innocent.
No you aren't, you are just saying they do. Abortion laws obviously promote the killing of the innocent, that is what Abortion is, but you are comparing apples to oranges.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Abortion laws do not encourage abortions??? Abortionists do not kill people, abortion tools do??? Gun laws do not give ample opportunity to murderers? Guns don't kill people?? Bullets do?? And so on..............????What in the world are you talking about and how in the world does it relate to what I said to you?
I'm showing how abortion and gun laws promote killing of the innocent.
No you aren't, you are just saying they do. Abortion laws obviously promote the killing of the innocent, that is what Abortion is, but you are comparing apples to oranges.
Laws that permit abortion promote abortion. Laws that permit buying weapons designed for mass casualties promot mass casualties.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Abortion laws do not encourage abortions??? Abortionists do not kill people, abortion tools do??? Gun laws do not give ample opportunity to murderers? Guns don't kill people?? Bullets do?? And so on..............????What in the world are you talking about and how in the world does it relate to what I said to you?
I'm showing how abortion and gun laws promote killing of the innocent.
No you aren't, you are just saying they do. Abortion laws obviously promote the killing of the innocent, that is what Abortion is, but you are comparing apples to oranges.
Laws that permit abortion promote abortion. Laws that permit buying weapons designed for mass casualties promot mass casualties.
They also can prevent mass casualties. But here is the thing, a gun is an object. It doesn't kill anyone. Besides, as I have shown MANY TIMES this could have been prevented without any gun control. People were just asleep at the wheel.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Abortion laws do not encourage abortions??? Abortionists do not kill people, abortion tools do??? Gun laws do not give ample opportunity to murderers? Guns don't kill people?? Bullets do?? And so on..............????What in the world are you talking about and how in the world does it relate to what I said to you?
I'm showing how abortion and gun laws promote killing of the innocent.
No you aren't, you are just saying they do. Abortion laws obviously promote the killing of the innocent, that is what Abortion is, but you are comparing apples to oranges.
Laws that permit abortion promote abortion. Laws that permit buying weapons designed for mass casualties promot mass casualties.
They also can prevent mass casualties. But here is the thing, a gun is an object. It doesn't kill anyone. Besides, as I have shown MANY TIMES this could have been prevented without any gun control. People were just asleep at the wheel.
It's the difference between selling firecrackers and bombs. You want every crackpot to have bombs, But others want them to have only firecrackers.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Abortion laws do not encourage abortions??? Abortionists do not kill people, abortion tools do??? Gun laws do not give ample opportunity to murderers? Guns don't kill people?? Bullets do?? And so on..............????What in the world are you talking about and how in the world does it relate to what I said to you?
I'm showing how abortion and gun laws promote killing of the innocent.
No you aren't, you are just saying they do. Abortion laws obviously promote the killing of the innocent, that is what Abortion is, but you are comparing apples to oranges.
Laws that permit abortion promote abortion. Laws that permit buying weapons designed for mass casualties promot mass casualties.
They also can prevent mass casualties. But here is the thing, a gun is an object. It doesn't kill anyone. Besides, as I have shown MANY TIMES this could have been prevented without any gun control. People were just asleep at the wheel.
It's the difference between selling firecrackers and bombs. You want every crackpot to have bombs, But others want them to have only firecrackers.
Not the same thing at all.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Abortion laws do not encourage abortions??? Abortionists do not kill people, abortion tools do??? Gun laws do not give ample opportunity to murderers? Guns don't kill people?? Bullets do?? And so on..............????What in the world are you talking about and how in the world does it relate to what I said to you?
I'm showing how abortion and gun laws promote killing of the innocent.
No you aren't, you are just saying they do. Abortion laws obviously promote the killing of the innocent, that is what Abortion is, but you are comparing apples to oranges.
Laws that permit abortion promote abortion. Laws that permit buying weapons designed for mass casualties promot mass casualties.
They also can prevent mass casualties. But here is the thing, a gun is an object. It doesn't kill anyone. Besides, as I have shown MANY TIMES this could have been prevented without any gun control. People were just asleep at the wheel.
It's the difference between selling firecrackers and bombs. You want every crackpot to have bombs, But others want them to have only firecrackers.
Not the same thing at all.
It is exactly the same in proportion.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Abortion laws do not encourage abortions??? Abortionists do not kill people, abortion tools do??? Gun laws do not give ample opportunity to murderers? Guns don't kill people?? Bullets do?? And so on..............????What in the world are you talking about and how in the world does it relate to what I said to you?
I'm showing how abortion and gun laws promote killing of the innocent.
No you aren't, you are just saying they do. Abortion laws obviously promote the killing of the innocent, that is what Abortion is, but you are comparing apples to oranges.
Laws that permit abortion promote abortion. Laws that permit buying weapons designed for mass casualties promot mass casualties.
They also can prevent mass casualties. But here is the thing, a gun is an object. It doesn't kill anyone. Besides, as I have shown MANY TIMES this could have been prevented without any gun control. People were just asleep at the wheel.
It's the difference between selling firecrackers and bombs. You want every crackpot to have bombs, But others want them to have only firecrackers.
Not the same thing at all.
It is exactly the same in proportion.
If you really think those are the same thing we have nothing more to discuss.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Abortion laws do not encourage abortions??? Abortionists do not kill people, abortion tools do??? Gun laws do not give ample opportunity to murderers? Guns don't kill people?? Bullets do?? And so on..............????What in the world are you talking about and how in the world does it relate to what I said to you?
I'm showing how abortion and gun laws promote killing of the innocent.
No you aren't, you are just saying they do. Abortion laws obviously promote the killing of the innocent, that is what Abortion is, but you are comparing apples to oranges.
Laws that permit abortion promote abortion. Laws that permit buying weapons designed for mass casualties promot mass casualties.
They also can prevent mass casualties. But here is the thing, a gun is an object. It doesn't kill anyone. Besides, as I have shown MANY TIMES this could have been prevented without any gun control. People were just asleep at the wheel.
It's the difference between selling firecrackers and bombs. You want every crackpot to have bombs, But others want them to have only firecrackers.
Not the same thing at all.
It is exactly the same in proportion.
If you really think those are the same thing we have nothing more to discuss.
If a firecracker = a pistol in firepower. And a bomb = a mass casualty rifle, in that each uses comparable amounts of powder, how can they not be visual standards of comparison?
-
Shame on the NRA! They are behind the lawsuit. The reason, there are so many other places to purchase a gun. This is harassment.
David, give him one of your guns and leave Dick's alone. Dick has a heart. CM
-
I wish "Christians" were 10% as interested in doing away with abortion. Then we could really save some lives.
-
Guns, abortions, bullets, and the Constitution-- making the connections. This would make a good OP if one were interested. How do you plan to connect these things? Can they be connected? Is it fair to connect these things? Why would any Christian encourage the buying, carrying, and associating themselves with the NRA, to begin with? CM
-
What does your anti-NRA obsession, or the NRA at all, have to do with the OP?
Yes, I think there is a connection. Bill is inclined to isolate a topic from its environment as if it makes sense when context-free. Yet that may not be wise or necessary. It's really bad hermeneutics. I don't think that gun control will make much of a dent on the problem we have of innocent people being killed. Stopping abortion would. That is relevant.
-
The same as anti-abortionist. The Lawsuit interfering with Dick's rights to restrict sales.
Is not it's the law in the USA that entitles a person to an abortion as one has the right to buy a gun? Restrict the number of guns and Assault Rifles and you save some. Restrict abortions, you save none. Truthfully, to outlaw abortions, may cause many deaths from botched and illegal ones. American women will have abortions with or without the law. Tell me, are abortions legal in the USA like the 2nd Amendment, supported by the NRA? What can I say, let Dick have its way? CM -
@C_M_ said:
The same as anti-abortionist. The Lawsuit interfering with Dick's rights to restrict sales.
Is not it's the law in the USA that entitles a person to an abortion as one has the right to buy a gun? Restrict the number of guns and Assault Rifles and you save some. Restrict abortions, you save none. Truthfully, to outlaw abortions, may cause many deaths from botched and illegal ones. American women will have abortions with or without the law. Tell me, are abortions legal in the USA like the 2nd Amendment, supported by the NRA? What can I say, let Dick have its way? CMThis whole statement is just ignorant and doesn't even really deserve a response.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
The same as anti-abortionist. The Lawsuit interfering with Dick's rights to restrict sales.
Is not it's the law in the USA that entitles a person to an abortion as one has the right to buy a gun? Restrict the number of guns and Assault Rifles and you save some. Restrict abortions, you save none. Truthfully, to outlaw abortions, may cause many deaths from botched and illegal ones. American women will have abortions with or without the law. Tell me, are abortions legal in the USA like the 2nd Amendment, supported by the NRA? What can I say, let Dick have its way? CMThis whole statement is just ignorant and doesn't even really deserve a response.
You didn't answer my three questions above but you did respond. Generally, people usually, "Leave a Comment" box blank that felt the way you did. At any rate, thanks for the unanswered, answer. See you around David. CM
-
Warren Burger "2nd Amendment Fraud" - 1991 PBS News Hour ...
Video for earl warren on the second amendment▶ 0:58
NO SUCH RIGHTS... CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Warren Burger "2nd Amendment Fraud" - 1991 PBS News Hour ...
Video for earl warren on the second amendment▶ 0:58NO SUCH RIGHTS... CM
You go on the word of one man? Good grief I'm glad the country doesn't work that way.
