[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Anybody who can read our founders and imagine that any one of them would have supported the barbaric act of killing one’s own unborn child as a legal right needs to be looked after forthwith lest they unintentionally harm themselves or others.[/quote]
There were quite a few that supported the mildly barbaric act of enslaving a race of people while slaughtering the Indians, no?
Oh I forgot. They were all perfect angels. Flawless men.[/quote]
This http://gregnmary.gotdns.com:8080/index.php/topic,222.0.html may help you, but I doubt it. (2nd post, feel free to download it for later)
You are a terrible debater man, some of which will remain beyond your control while you continue to labor under the disadvantage of mortally weak material. I will await your ad hominem argument.
My point was that the founding fathers knew about abortion. It wasn’t a foreign concept. Perhaps some supported it. Perhaps some were against it. It doesn’t matter.
Aka at least as far as the founding fathers were concerned abortion was not a matter for the federal government. They don’t need to explicitly say such a thing.
And as far as they were concerned firearm ownership was a right. Abortion was not.[/quote]
Abortion wasn’t a foreign concept? They knew about it?
No, my friend, I really don’t think they did.
And they may have other things that were more pressing… you know, like building a government.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< And they may have other things that were more pressing… you know, like building a government. [/quote]
Nothing was more pressing to even the very least formally religious among them than the moral foundation for the government they were building. It is absolutely your right to really hate that, but you deny it to even your own detriment.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Anybody who can read our founders and imagine that any one of them would have supported the barbaric act of killing one’s own unborn child as a legal right needs to be looked after forthwith lest they unintentionally harm themselves or others.[/quote]
Here’s a hypothetical scenario that has and will continue to occur. If a father rapes his 10 year old daughter and chances are that both her and her unborn child would die if she’s carries the baby, is abortion still wrong?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< And they may have other things that were more pressing… you know, like building a government. [/quote]
Nothing was more pressing to even the very least formally religious among them than the moral foundation for the government they were building. It is absolutely your right to really hate that, but you deny it to even your own detriment.[/quote]
Once again, doesn’t have to do with abortion. They couldn’t get the fuckin thing ratified without having slavery included in it, there’s nothing that makes me think that they would be of one mind on such an issue as abortion.
And again, this conversation is wholly irrelevant to talking about fucking guns, which is what the conversation WAS about until you sidetracked it so badly with your bullshit.
Put the hat on, FI, for thinking abortion hasn’t been around for thousands of years.[/quote]
Oh jesus christ, yes, there’s been some form of abortion for years, but it’s only been a major political issue that anyone gives a fuck about in this backward ass country for the last 50 years because of the magical space god’s concerns.
The issue wasn’t worth addressing back then and it wouldn’t be now if anyone had a shred of logic or sense and realized that its not the government’s business to intervene with the basic right to choose.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
…there’s been some form of abortion for years, but it’s only been a major political issue that anyone gives a fuck about…[/quote]
But yet you have identified it as a “right.” How do you explain this conundrum?[/quote]
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< And again, this conversation is wholly irrelevant to talking about fucking guns, which is what the conversation WAS about until you sidetracked it so badly >>>[/quote]
Fair enough, I apologize. I’ll save it for another time.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The conundrum that you just created for yourself by saying “but it’s only been a major political issue that anyone gives a fuck about in this backward ass country for the last 50 years…”
If it’s only been a political issue that anyone gives a fuck about for the last 50 years then how did/can it attain the status of a “right?” This is why I told you earlier you simply don’t understand the meaning of “rights.”[/quote]
There need not be a timeline on what makes a right. The right to bear arms would not be talked about if there was no one who wished to take them away- it would just be accepted and would not have to be talked about.
Abortion was not talked about until it came under attack- when it did, the courts reasserted that it there is, in fact, a legal right to choose.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Eh!!!.. What fuckin’ ban???..”
[/quote]
Very good Muf and that really always has been at the heart of the matter huh? People who just don’t want an armed populous (read most democrats) I understand, but it 's the folks who actually believe I’ll be safer without my guns that mystify me.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< And again, this conversation is wholly irrelevant to talking about fucking guns, which is what the conversation WAS about until you sidetracked it so badly >>>[/quote]
Fair enough, I apologize. I’ll save it for another time.[/quote]
Thing is…it’s not irrelevant. He himself brought it up and actually claimed the “right” to keep and bear arms is a right secondary to the insane, stupendous notion of the “right” not to hear creationism taught in the schools. He himself brought up the insane, stupendously moronic notion that the “right” to abortion, which he admits is a relatively recent one, supersedes the basic right to self defense, a right that goes back to the dawn of time.
The thing about FI is, he really doesn’t grasp the concept of what’s actually going on here. He thinks it’s about “fucking guns.” It’s not. It’s really not about the “fucking guns.” It’s about the fucking freedom.[/quote]
You are the ones who have gotten off on this tangent. I simply said that for me, guaranteeing the Second Amendment would be safe by packing the court with GOP judges would not be worth the prospective agenda that would invariably be pushed by the judges. I stand by that.
And by the way- the right to self defense is not explicitly tied to gun ownership. They are two seperate things, seperate laws.
And what’s the dawn of time for you? That’s like 1934 by your math right?
Abortion was not talked about until it came under attack- when it did, the courts reasserted that it there is, in fact, a legal right to choose.[/quote]
Since you revere the courts and honor them in this thread to the extent that this “right” to abortion is more important than the right to keep and bear arms…tell me about the court and what it declares in Dred Scott v. Sandford.
[/quote]
I never said that the right to bear arms was less important than abortion you dimwit. It was hyperbole (go look that word up) meant to prove a point. You are taking me far too literal. Although I guess that’s like a running problem for you, isn’t it?
