Negative. The entire premise of this article runs contrary to the Second Amendment. And there is no correlating law protecting any purported right to kill babies.
The text of the constitution does not explicitly create a right of private ownership —as distinguished from a state militia right— to bear arms. It took a 5-4 decision to overrule 200 years of precedent. Roe has the same status as Heller.
Hmm. I would be referring to the part of the Second Amendment that says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I'm assuming some are attempting to interpret "a well regulated Militia" to mean the same as "the people", but that would clearly be a fast and loose use of syntax to artificially create grounds to do the exact thing the Second Amendment defends against, namely attempt to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
I agree I think the idea of creating bounty hunters is awful. Maybe Republicans feel the need to fight fire with fire as Democrats have clearly weaponized "red flag" laws, "astroturf" relentlessly in conservative-leaning online discussion groups, and constantly use legislative "ethics" tactics to go after conservative lawmakers using absurdly false claims. Mike Pompeo's expensive whiskey scenario and Ben Carson's utterly B.S. ethics complaint come to mind. But that's definitely a slippery slope, and typically the result is political viciousness that ruins people's lives over false allegations. The next level up becomes what they tried to pull off on Congressman Gaetz. Against a normal person that level of collaborative onslaught is insurmountable. Republicans are still the party of Abe Lincoln. So far it doesn't seem they've forgotten this.
I definitely think there's a better way of going after abortion centers in Texas. I don't think this is an appropriate form of "outreach" for Texas to be considering
I’ve been using your “shoe on the other foot” challenge since I first heard about it on your podcast. It’s effective!
Negative. The entire premise of this article runs contrary to the Second Amendment. And there is no correlating law protecting any purported right to kill babies.
The text of the constitution does not explicitly create a right of private ownership —as distinguished from a state militia right— to bear arms. It took a 5-4 decision to overrule 200 years of precedent. Roe has the same status as Heller.
Hmm. I would be referring to the part of the Second Amendment that says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I'm assuming some are attempting to interpret "a well regulated Militia" to mean the same as "the people", but that would clearly be a fast and loose use of syntax to artificially create grounds to do the exact thing the Second Amendment defends against, namely attempt to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
4 justices disagreed. It required interpretation, just as Roe did. In any event my major complaint is with the tactic of creating bounty hunters.
I agree I think the idea of creating bounty hunters is awful. Maybe Republicans feel the need to fight fire with fire as Democrats have clearly weaponized "red flag" laws, "astroturf" relentlessly in conservative-leaning online discussion groups, and constantly use legislative "ethics" tactics to go after conservative lawmakers using absurdly false claims. Mike Pompeo's expensive whiskey scenario and Ben Carson's utterly B.S. ethics complaint come to mind. But that's definitely a slippery slope, and typically the result is political viciousness that ruins people's lives over false allegations. The next level up becomes what they tried to pull off on Congressman Gaetz. Against a normal person that level of collaborative onslaught is insurmountable. Republicans are still the party of Abe Lincoln. So far it doesn't seem they've forgotten this.
I definitely think there's a better way of going after abortion centers in Texas. I don't think this is an appropriate form of "outreach" for Texas to be considering