Typically, courts being asked to implicate a fundamental right, like not to have something injected into your body against your will, require the state to prove that its plan is the least restrictive alternative. You don’t go from zero to 60 when it comes to rights; you first go to 10.
In other words, the state has to show not only a compelling interest, and I mean really compelling, but that its plan is the only possible way to achieve the necessary results. But libs do not even try to do that. They attempt to establish a basic principle, but never actually apply it. They just assume it applies because it could, possibly.
This is very common when liberals challenge fundamental rights. For instance, when they talk about your right to keep and bear arms, they will point to the rare situations where someone might not be allowed to keep and bear arms, and then assume that this applies in every situation. “We can keep felons from having guns, so we can regulate guns however we want and take your AR15!”
The giveaway to look for is when their focus is entirely on the exceptions to the right, rather than the basic principle embodied by the right itself. They never wanna talk about that.
With guns, it’s the few times guns can be regulated. With free speech, it’s always that idiotic fire in a crowded theater thing from a long-superseded case where the SCOTUS allowed the government to jail you for protesting the government. No wonder the libs love it.
The default is the right. It’s only in the rarest [of] circumstances that the right can be overcome.
— Kurt Schlichter in Liberals Hate That You Have Rights
“Anti-Gunners Want to Limit Everyone’s Gun Rights, Not Just Criminals’” is not really true they do not want to limit criminal access to guns. It has already been ruled that ‘red flag’ laws can not be used against criminal gang members. It would violate their rights per a Democrat commission. “Their rights” but not the law-abiding citizen?
Per the Gun Violence Archive definition of mass shootings, criminal gangs are responsible for over 95% of all mass shootings and 80% of all violent crimes.
The focus is the guns, they want to get rid of the guns. So if they find a criminal with a gun, take away the gun, give them a slap on the wrist, melt the gun. Buy back the guns. Red flag the guns. There are too many guns, just get rid of the guns. The gun is the virus, infecting those nice decent folks. If you have a bunch of guns, you are more sick than the gang sharing one. So then they think… Where are the highest concentration of guns found? Gun shops! Mr Biden, get on TV and tell the nation that our gun problem is found at gun shops! So many guns, seeping out and infecting everything around them!
Yet the math doesn’t work, quantity of guns doesn’t mean anything if they are just sitting in a safe. 1 law abiding gun owner + 50 guns = 0 murders. 5 gang members + 1 knife + 1 gun = multiple murders.
Its easier to take from the law abiding.
By their reasoning I am a criminal because I have guns even though I haven’t shot anyone.
To them, a law-abiding gun owner is just a gun criminal that hasn’t acted yet. They think that one day, they’ll crack and shoot the guy who honked at them, shoot their students, kill their spouse, or go on a rampage at work. I attribute it to them projecting their lack of impulse and self control.
Thats it
Thats it they have no self control so they think nobody else possibly can.
Since History confirms Gun Control in any shape or form is an agenda rooted in racism and genocide what else do you expect to come from Gun Control Zealots? In the demonic minds of Gun Control Zealots any person with a gun is as good as any other person with a gun. Such “reasoning” is expected and quite normal coming from those with an agenda that is rooted in racism and genocide.
That long train of democRat Party “reasoning” stems from such poetry as, “One N-word is as good as another N-word.” And don’t forget, “The only good N-word is a dead N-word.” Today it’s those who own guns are the N-word for the democRat Party. The numerous threats the democRat Party has made over the years to confiscate firearms and do harm to Gun Owners has exposed who Gun Control Zealots are and what they are all about.
Sad to say but the Gun Control lunacy going on is partially the fault of many of the so called Defenders of the Second Amendment. They give Gun Control standing by their repeated failures to define Gun Control as an agenda rooted in racism and genocide. And the results are distracted lost in space, all over the map gun owners concerned about such asinine things as which way john roberts will vote, etc.
If any court in America was deciding a case between a courtroom filled with Black Americans on one side and a noose and its attorneys on the other side who gives a f what john roberts says because such a case would be over before it begins. The History of democRat Party racism in America defined what a noose represents and no court in America would give a “noose” standing.
And on the other hand…When it comes to Gun Control which is really slave shacks, nooses, burning crosses, concentration camps, gas chambers and swastikas all rolled up together you get the dictionary definition for Hypocrisy. That blatant hypocrisy permits pompous pasty mouth scumbags to run around looking at Gun Owners in the manner the KKK looked at Black Americans picking cotton or nazis looked at Jews running for their lives.
You want to do something about Gun Control then you cut the courtroom chase and yank Gun Control out of America by its racist and genocidal roots.
” Today it’s those who own guns are the N-word for the democRat Party.”
It’s worse than that.
Notice how they are demonizing conservatives as being responsible for anything bad?
Literally?
It’s the same playbook as the 1930s ‘German Experience’, when they demonized the Jews as being responsible for everything bad.
Conservatives, are the new Jews… 🙁
‘Conservatives are the new Jews’. Wow.
And you wonder why you and your lot aren’t taken seriously.
My guns are not violent. Although quite capable none of them have ever shot anyone, even while only co-habitating with other guns daily. They should only concern themselves with violent guns.
Let us be somewhat fair here. If all pro 2nd types respected all rights, they would be true Libertarians. As I remember, during the 50s and 60s, it was the conservatives that controlled the “establishment” and “you just better toe then line, boy or we will make it really rough on you”.
Sadly, it has done a complete 180(you might think), but those types are still out there. They might preach the gospel of 2, but they are about total control. These want to be massas are for both sides. They are ready to allow the other side do their dirty work and then swoop in to “save the day”. Molan Labe!
People forget, that and some American history isnt taught or talked about anymore.
While left and right disagree on topics like gun control and abortion, both share the conviction that they are entitled to use the power of the state to impose their particular agenda on everyone. That makes both, equally, the enemies of freedom.
Government IS the enemy of freedom.
You know the old joke: “Russian Tanks rolling up the Jersey Turnpike, film at eleven”?… You ever get the feeling that it’s about to happen only it won’t be Russians it will be our own but with the same goal AND there will not only be no film at eleven, there won’t be any warning at all… I have never seen a group of power crazed politicians move so quickly to put so many restrictions in place in such a short period of time (Hell it took Hugo Chavez a couple of years to really get rolling)… And the level of “spying” they are trying to encourage is insane (Fidel would be proud), now they want airports to monitor the number of drinks someone has… WTF… On the other hand, they must be pretty smart, you would have to be to be able to vaccinate 350 million Americans out of a population of 328.5 million (per Braindead)… These assholes could give how to lessons to ALL the wanna-be Dictators and Despots on the planet…
He’s counting the 22M illegals running around the country.
“only it won’t be Russians it will be our own”
But we’re bearing the fruit that the commies planted here long ago.
” You know the old joke: “Russian Tanks rolling up the Jersey Turnpike, film at eleven”?… ”
Saw an article on Fox the other night about the gubmint practicing take-offs and landings with A-10s on a Michigan highway. So, not just our own tanks coming up the road… looks like they’ll have close air support with them.
Wouldn’t expect anything less…
Should read-“instead of criminals”!
Not limit but eliminate.
As has been proven throughout history rights are only honored when forced to be.
“we have a not-very-deadly virus”🙄
“Is this a vaccine?”
Government: “NO. It’s a non-verified application, but we’re calling it a vaccine anyway because openly calling it ‘experimental mRNA’ would not get the level of compliance we want from the masses.”
”If I get vaccinated can I stop wearing a mask?”
Government: “NO”
”If I get vaccinated will the restaurants, bars, schools, fitness clubs, hair salons, etc. re-open, and will people be able to get back to work like normal?
Government: “NO”
”If I get vaccinated will I be resistant to COVID?”
Government: “Maybe. We don’t know exactly, but probably not.”
”If I get vaccinated, at least I won’t be contagious to others, right?”
Government: “NO. The vaccine doesn’t stop transmission.”
”If I get vaccinated, how long will the vaccine last?”
Government: “No one knows. All COVID ‘vaccines’ are still in the experimental stage.”
“If I get vaccinated, can I stop social distancing?”
Government: “NO”
“If my parents, grandparents and myself all get vaccinated can we hug each other again?”
Government: “NO”
“So what’s the benefit of getting vaccinated?”
Government: “Hoping that the virus won’t kill you.”
”Are you sure the vaccine won’t injure or kill me?”
Government: “NO”
”If statistically the virus won’t kill me (99.7% survival rate), why should I get vaccinated?”
Government: “To protect others.”
”So if I get vaccinated, I can protect others I come in contact with?”
Government: “NO”
“If I experience a severe adverse reaction, long-term effects, or die from the vaccine will I (or my family) be compensated from the vaccine manufacturer or the Government?”
Government: “NO – the government and vaccine manufacturers have zero legal liability regarding this experimental drug.”
****
So to summarize, the Covid19 “vaccine”…
Does not provide immunity
Does not eliminate the virus
Does not prevent death
Does not guarantee you won’t get it
Does not stop you from passing it on to others
Got it.
Just get the shot man. There’s nothing that could possibly go wrong with shooting up mystery experimental genetic material.
“zero legal liability”
Not a legal expert, but it seems like the government would be liable in the case of a mandated vaccine, like they’re doing at the VA.
Yep, you nailed it! Sue the .gov in a .gov court. You’re sure to win./sarc off
“So to summarize, the Covid19 “vaccine”…”
Came from CHINA.
Remind everyone of that, especially the Leftists…
….more specifically, a Chinese ‘biboweapons’ lab.
Fux a “biboweapons”?
While they work to decriminalize drugs and pedos they push to criminalize speech and simply having the wrong opinion. Almost like they really just want their people to be the ones with the guns.
Kurt Schlichter’s book series on the splitting of the USA is a pretty good read. If you haven’t read the Kelly Turnbull series, check them out.
I’ve enjoyed them all, but ‘Indian Country’ is arguably his best work in the series.
We really should stop using euphemisms like ‘liberal’, ‘anti-gun/2nd Amendment’ and ‘Democrat’, etc., and just call them what they are; Communists. Then we wouldn’t have to explain that they’re opposed to this or that individual right because everyone knows communists are opposed to all human rights.
We know from history that commies are opposed to people bettering themselves which explains why they despised the Trump era record minority wage and job growth. They managed to wipe that out rather quickly didn’t they? They can’t afford for people to realize there’s a better way.
It’s quite common for totalitarian regimes to collapse shortly after the population is raised out of poverty and into a sort of middle class standard of living. People get a taste of economic freedom and they want other freedoms to follow. The regimes then often choose suicide over reform and diminished power by clamping down on opposition. In the end their heads are paraded around the public square while people line up to urinate on their headless corpses. Very ugly business.
The sign carried by the woman in the title photo says it all: “My child deserves more rights than your guns”. Well, yes, obviously; your child is a living being and my guns are mechanical objects. We don’t confer rights to inanimate devices, and my guns have no more rights than my can opener. What she meant to say, but didn’t, because it wouldn’t read well, is “My child deserves more rights than YOU.”
“Rights are unreasonable by design because you can’t “reason” them away – and, of course, it was God who designed them. We were endowed with them by our Creator. Libs hate hate hate that too – they want to be the ones who grant rights, because this leads to them being able to ungrant them at will.”
eWhat gets me is that so many religionists are leftist socialists also who can’t, or won’t, ‘believe that under Communist Rule religions are one of the first to ‘go’, right after guns. The nitwit Amish around here seriously believe if they just stay out of society as much as possible, they are not affected by it.
“Amish around here seriously believe if they just stay out of society as much as possible, they are not affected by it.”
It is part of human nature, part of how we survive as a species, to believe bad things won’t happen to us, specifically. Bad things always happen to the other guy.
The government has never granted me a damn thing and they sure aren’t going to take anything away without a fight.
Of course not.
A criminal, found guilty by a court of law due to evidence, has to serve a prison sentence and not many rights to speak of. If he served his time and he’s trustworthy enough to be released he should have his rights back and not be a criminal anymore. So you cannot target criminals.
And after we’ve established that you can only target everyone, you find out that criminals by definition do not follow the law. Bummer. A law can by definition only affect the law abiding.
Should somebody tell them that a law is by definition something immaterial, something inherent you have/can do and the government cannot outlaw or punish that very thing?
Not going to jail for speaking up against the government is a right (although Snowden and Assange would beg to differ), getting “free” stuff from others is a commodity at best. Others would say it’s extortion from the mean majority mob. And taking others rightfully owned guns, both property and means of legal self defense, away is just an atrocity against everything that is a right.
Comments are closed.