Texas Abortion ban comes into effect.

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,270
299
near Seattle, Wa
Sorry as usual about the Koch-$pon$ored TeamR cheerleading.
apology accepted, i guess

is this a great country, or what?

dogballs 7.jpg

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,351
5,527
De Nile
Are republicans ready to trade in their guns to punish those dirty little whores seeking abortions? Me thinks a state like California should pass a SB8 anti-gun measure pronto.

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,605
2,109
Back to the desert
Are republicans ready to trade in their guns to punish those dirty little whores seeking abortions? Me thinks a state like California should pass a SB8 anti-gun measure pronto.
I'm not and I think that's why gun rights advocates filed a brief for the paintiffs.  I've long said here that how one right gets treated is how all rights will follow.  What you're missing is that the TX R's didn't just make this up out of thin air, they are stealing the D's anti-gun playbook.  This is a lot of what you guys have proposed over the years and tried to get enacted and failed.  I.e. to make exercising the RKBA so onerous and difficult - while technically allowing it to remain "legal" - that it effectively shuts down the ability to get a gun/abortion.  The TX cunts just found a novel way to make it stick, where the D's continually got slapped down for trying the same shit.

I had a post not long ago, but well before SB8, that essentially said to take whatever state's proposed bill we were discussing at the time and insert the word "abortion" everywhere it said "firearm" and see how fine you were with it.  Of course you scoffed at the time and said nothing like that could happen because RvW.  But now you're seeing that I was right all along.  I hate to say I told you so...... but I told you so.  

As I have said here many times and have been consistent on it - I am a staunch pro-choice'er.  But there is a part of me that that revels in the schadenfreude joy of saying "See, I fucking warned you".  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,351
5,527
De Nile
I'm not and I think that's why gun rights advocates filed a brief for the paintiffs.  I've long said here that how one right gets treated is how all rights will follow.  What you're missing is that the TX R's didn't just make this up out of thin air, they are stealing the D's anti-gun playbook.  This is a lot of what you guys have proposed over the years and tried to get enacted and failed.  I.e. to make exercising the RKBA so onerous and difficult - while technically allowing it to remain "legal" - that it effectively shuts down the ability to get a gun/abortion.  The TX cunts just found a novel way to make it stick, where the D's continually got slapped down for trying the same shit.

I had a post not long ago, but well before SB8, that essentially said to take whatever state's proposed bill we were discussing at the time and insert the word "abortion" everywhere it said "firearm" and see how fine you were with it.  Of course you scoffed at the time and said nothing like that could happen because RvW.  But now you're seeing that I was right all along.  I hate to say I told you so...... but I told you so.  

As I have said here many times and have been consistent on it - I am a staunch pro-choice'er.  But there is a part of me that that revels in the schadenfreude joy of saying "See, I fucking warned you".  
I see your faux equivalence and laugh.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,118
1,892
Punta Gorda FL

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,118
1,892
Punta Gorda FL
Kavanaugh seems to understand the (bug/feature) built into the TX law

(so does the wise Latina)
 

What if a state passed a law that says "everyone who sells an AR-15 is liable for a million dollars to any citizen," Kavanaugh asked the Texas official. "Would that kind of law be exempt from pre-enforcement review in federal court?"

Stone conceded that his theory would shield that gun control law too. "My answers on whether or not federal court review is available does not turn on the nature of the right," he told Kavanaugh.

So "Second Amendment rights, free exercise of religion rights, free speech rights," Kavanaugh emphasized, could all "be targeted by other states" using the Texas abortion law as a model. "And you also said that the amount of the penalty doesn't matter, a million dollars per sale," Kavanaugh added. "A state passes a law [that says] anyone who declines to provide a good or service for use in a same-sex marriage, a million dollars if sued by anyone in the state, that's exempt from pre-enforcement review?"

"Is that a yes?" Kavanaugh pressed the Texas official.

"Yes, your honor," Stone replied.

Later, Justice Sonia Sotomayor picked up on Kavanaugh's line of questioning. "A state dissatisfied with [District of Columbia v.] Heller says anyone who possesses a firearm anywhere is subject to litigation by any private citizen anywhere in the country and gets a million-dollar bounty," Sotomayor said to Stone. "So this is not limited to abortion." This is about any right "that a state is dissatisfied with."

"Your point," Sotomayor told Stone, "is that no matter how much a state intends to chill the exercise of a constitutional right…that does not give anyone a right to a federal forum when the state has deputized every citizen to act on its behalf."

Kavanaugh and Sotomayor are correct. If allowed to stand, the structure of S.B. 8 will be copied by every state legislature that wants to restrict an unpopular right that the Supreme Court has recognized. That outcome should worry Americans of all political stripes.
Except, of course, those Americans who are willing to sacrifice any/all other rights to diminish one hated one.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,351
5,527
De Nile

Fah Kiew Tu

Curmudgeon, First Rank
10,102
3,262
Tasmania, Australia
So far, the only ones willing to go there are the abortion foes. Basically, the South. So, I ask again, are you willing to give up all your Connie rights so that the dirty brown slut can’t get an abortion?
From my POV, you've got that exactly the wrong way around.

That law, if it stands, will be copied and it will wipe out a raft of other rights.

It's in everyone's interests to have it thrown out, permanently.

The problem you face is, you'd actually like to use that sort of law but just against gun owners. The Texas Govt has shown you graphically just what a bad idea it is allowing any such precedent to be established.

So it's on you to decide if you're prepared to allow it to stand just so you can use its precedent as a basis of eliminating stuff you don't want.

Or you're going to actually have some principles and ensure nobody can do this regardless. It comes back to the old question - do the ends justify the means? Because the moment you say yes, you open the same arguments to your opponents.

Pro-choice person here if it matters. I just think that laws like this are far too clever by half and they WILL be used to attack things you hold precious. Better to remove the possibility ASAP.

FKT

 

Ishmael

52,557
12,345
Fuctifino
From my POV, you've got that exactly the wrong way around.

That law, if it stands, will be copied and it will wipe out a raft of other rights.

It's in everyone's interests to have it thrown out, permanently.

The problem you face is, you'd actually like to use that sort of law but just against gun owners. The Texas Govt has shown you graphically just what a bad idea it is allowing any such precedent to be established.

So it's on you to decide if you're prepared to allow it to stand just so you can use its precedent as a basis of eliminating stuff you don't want.

Or you're going to actually have some principles and ensure nobody can do this regardless. It comes back to the old question - do the ends justify the means? Because the moment you say yes, you open the same arguments to your opponents.

Pro-choice person here if it matters. I just think that laws like this are far too clever by half and they WILL be used to attack things you hold precious. Better to remove the possibility ASAP.

FKT
I think the discussion is revolving around what happens if the SC lets this hideous law stand. It will engender all sorts of heinous repression, so I doubt the Supremes want to go there. They will have to can it, and quickly.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,351
5,527
De Nile
From my POV, you've got that exactly the wrong way around.

That law, if it stands, will be copied and it will wipe out a raft of other rights.

It's in everyone's interests to have it thrown out, permanently.

The problem you face is, you'd actually like to use that sort of law but just against gun owners. The Texas Govt has shown you graphically just what a bad idea it is allowing any such precedent to be established.

So it's on you to decide if you're prepared to allow it to stand just so you can use its precedent as a basis of eliminating stuff you don't want.

Or you're going to actually have some principles and ensure nobody can do this regardless. It comes back to the old question - do the ends justify the means? Because the moment you say yes, you open the same arguments to your opponents.

Pro-choice person here if it matters. I just think that laws like this are far too clever by half and they WILL be used to attack things you hold precious. Better to remove the possibility ASAP.

FKT
uhh, no, you have misinterpreted my stretching a point to make one. I hope the Supremes toss that thing out like the garbage it is. 

What I'm asking is, "are the abortion opponents, (who are, from what we can tell, staunchly pro-gun,) ready to give up their guns so that they can stop abortions?

No one seems to want to answer that question. 

 

Fah Kiew Tu

Curmudgeon, First Rank
10,102
3,262
Tasmania, Australia
I think the discussion is revolving around what happens if the SC lets this hideous law stand. It will engender all sorts of heinous repression, so I doubt the Supremes want to go there. They will have to can it, and quickly.
I sincerely hope that they do can it ASAP.

The fact that it takes the same tool off of the anti-gunners may well cause them to wail and gnash their teeth, but this thing is DANGEROUS.

I've always maintained that what one government can do for you, another one can use to do something to you, so better to not give them the tool.

The pro-2nd people have been pointing out how dangerous laws like this can be and all the anti-gun people pooh-poohed it and like Razr said 'false equivalence'.

Well 2 Supreme Court justices can see the equivalence, as could Blind Freddy. Be careful what you ask for because you might get it.

This thing is so egregious and such an abuse of power that Texas may have inadvertently done everyone a favour.

Assuming it gets tossed out that is.

FKT

 

Fah Kiew Tu

Curmudgeon, First Rank
10,102
3,262
Tasmania, Australia
uhh, no, you have misinterpreted my stretching a point to make one. I hope the Supremes toss that thing out like the garbage it is. 

What I'm asking is, "are the abortion opponents, (who are, from what we can tell, staunchly pro-gun,) ready to give up their guns so that they can stop abortions?

No one seems to want to answer that question. 
Yep, sorry, that's a legitimate and interesting argument & point.

I too would wonder what their answer would be. I'd LOVE to have them forced to answer it.

FKT

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,351
5,527
De Nile
I sincerely hope that they do can it ASAP.

The fact that it takes the same tool off of the anti-gunners may well cause them to wail and gnash their teeth, but this thing is DANGEROUS.

I've always maintained that what one government can do for you, another one can use to do something to you, so better to not give them the tool.

The pro-2nd people have been pointing out how dangerous laws like this can be and all the anti-gun people pooh-poohed it and like Razr said 'false equivalence'.

Well 2 Supreme Court justices can see the equivalence, as could Blind Freddy. Be careful what you ask for because you might get it.

This thing is so egregious and such an abuse of power that Texas may have inadvertently done everyone a favour.

Assuming it gets tossed out that is.

FKT
The false eqivalence I've pointed out to Flyboy is that no gun grabber, not even the Brady Bunch, has ever proposed a law such as this, and it's not for lack of creativity. They really DON'T want a theocracy to run the show.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,118
1,892
Punta Gorda FL
So far, the only ones willing to go there are the abortion foes. Basically, the South. So, I ask again, are you willing to give up all your Connie rights so that the dirty brown slut can’t get an abortion?
I didn't see where you asked me that for the first time, but OK.

Ask someone who opposes abortion would be my answer.

No would be a shorter answer.

You seem eager to throw abortion under the bus in the holy crusade to ban battlefield .22's and I find that regrettable. Don't give up on abortion rights just yet, even if it might mean some gungrabbing.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,118
1,892
Punta Gorda FL
The false eqivalence I've pointed out to Flyboy is that no gun grabber, not even the Brady Bunch, has ever proposed a law such as this, and it's not for lack of creativity.
Meanwhile, back in reality, we have the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act because of a long history of grabbers trying to sue a right out of existence. Abortion foes finally got in on the act.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,118
1,892
Punta Gorda FL
Meanwhile, back in reality, we have the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act because of a long history of grabbers trying to sue a right out of existence. Abortion foes finally got in on the act.
yellow flag. False equivalence.
Attaching crippling liability to a protected right is equivalent to attaching crippling liability to a protected right to me. I understand that no goal can override gungrabbiness, so nothing can be equivalent to you, but that's not how I feel about our rights.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,351
5,527
De Nile
Attaching crippling liability to a protected right is equivalent to attaching crippling liability to a protected right to me. I understand that no goal can override gungrabbiness, so nothing can be equivalent to you, but that's not how I feel about our rights.
I'm sorry that you cannot understand the difference between people with standing being allowed to sue, and people with no standing being encourage to sue.

 




Top