hornadylnl
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 375
I hear a lot of people who claim to be independants but it seems the majority of "independants" vote Democrat almost 100% of the time.
If you can stab that baby's skull as it is being delivered
But how are Democrats any better than Republicans here? After all, it was the 60 year Democratic Congressional majority which brought us all manner of search, seizure, and property forfeiture laws under the guise of the War on Drugs™. The same laws which allow for no-knock raids using warrants with weak "probable cause" based on shady informants, and which allow your property to be confiscated and sold before being convicted. That's hardly what I'd call being safe from illegal search and seizure. Or, umm, it's technically "legal," since there's a law, but, still.Wheeler44 said:2A rights are important to me, but the right to be be secure in my home free from illegal search and seizure is equally important.
Card carrying liberal here. Just check out my .sig!In the locked threads about the Scooter Libby commutation, I couldn't believe how many way left leaning posters that were posting there. I can't for the life of me figure out how a pro 2nd amendment guy could vote for a Democrat. I don't care if a democratic candidate for US senator or representative is staunchly pro gun, a vote for them is a vote for Reid and Pelosi to majority leader. They will in turn vote to take away our 2A.
Here is my next question of left leaning members of THR? Are you members of a labor union? I can't figure out what else would draw you to the Democrat party.
Disclaimer: I'm a staunch conservative and I consider many of today's republicans to be just as bad as any Democrat. Unfortunately, I'm only left with the choice of voting Republican in elections. I will not waste a vote on a 3rd party candidate that stands no chance of ever being elected to anything. If you are only left with the choice of having your hand or head cut off, which do you choose?
Do any of you think that habeus corpus should apply to non citizens captured on the battlefield?
If you can stab that baby's skull as it is being delivered.
Sensationalism alert! That's not legal now and never has been, anywhere.
I don't want to derail the thread too much but is there really a difference if the procedure takes place inside the body instead? Late term abortion leads to a dead fetus either way. The "humanity" argument also fails. As I've heard it best "the alternative procedure involves dilating the cervix and dismembering the fetus in-utero. I'd argue that sounds a lot more barbaric than immediately evacuating the brain stem, which D&X does and precludes any potential suffering that may be occurring." I'm not a doctor so I hit one up for an opinion about this a while back and got an educated opinion without the sensationalism. I don't know if you'll find it interesting or not but I thought I'd share.It is called Intact Dilation and Extraction, and was (unfortunately) legal until 18 April of this year. Many States had banned it before then, but it was certainly legal and used. The procedure is barbaric so please don't pretend it never happened or that people are not currently working to overturn the ban.
I see no positive effect from this.regarding D&X being allowed for emergencies said:When a women nearing term is in danger of losing her life there is no flashing neon sign poking out of her vagina that alerts her medical team to this fact. The team has to make a decision based on their medical knowledge and experience - but whatever decision they reach ("life threatening" vs. "not life threatening") could easily be second-guessed after the fact. If I'm an OB/GYN and I know that any D&X procedure will later be scrutinized by someone (worst of all an anti-abortion lawyer), I am never going to opt to perform the procedure, even if I feel it to be the most appropriate and, in my professional opinion, the woman's life is in danger. It simply isn't worth the risk of jail time and loss of my medical career. I'm going to opt for D&E instead, even if it brings more risk to the woman.
End result of this bill: tie doctors' hands and increase risk to the woman.
As for the "split of opinion by experts in the field" - welcome to medicine. There isn't a single procedure with a controversially "better" or "worse" alternative procedure, depending on who you ask. I'd turn to a well-respected cumulative opinion instead. Luckily, such an opinion exists: The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology's position is that D&X is the safest and most appropriate procedure in some cases.
I don't know, its kind of gun related. If the pro-gun party wants to know why us gun owners don't always vote for them I think its important to examine the other issues and common threads among them. What issues are important to gun owners seems to be important to examine if you want to get us all together under 1 tent.Off we go again, into non-gun topics. It's silly.
Quote:
But how are Democrats any better than Republicans here? After all, it was the 60 year Democratic Congressional majority which brought us all manner of search, seizure, and property forfeiture laws under the guise of the War on Drugs™. The same laws which allow for no-knock raids using warrants with weak "probable cause" based on shady informants, and which allow your property to be confiscated and sold before being convicted. That's hardly what I'd call being safe from illegal search and seizure. Or, umm, it's technically "legal," since there's a law, but, still.Originally Posted by Wheeler44
2A rights are important to me, but the right to be be secure in my home free from illegal search and seizure is equally important.
Do any of you think that habeus corpus should apply to non citizens captured on the battlefield?
It'd only take 1%.We pro-RKBA types like to say that, but it's mostly talk. How many of us are really going to make our heroic last stand holding off the forces of tyranny with our battle rifles? Do we really plan on being Wacoed or Ruby Ridged for our principles?
Almost none of the prisoners in Gitmo have been charged with anything. Some have been released (eventually!) because they were so obviously innocent. "Let 'em rot"? The whole point of due process is that you don't know who's guilty until you prove it. AFTER you prove it, go ahead and feed them to the cockroaches or whatever--but follow due process until then.Suicide bombers are not people, we can't hang them so f-em, let them rot in Gitmo.
Find me a previous administration that didn't authorize extrajudicial surveillance, and I'll show you one who was slick enough to just not get caught. Wasn't there a minor dust-up about Clinton using warrantless searches back in '93 or '94? and what about the whole ECHELON thing? It was revealed to be pretty much monitoring everything, but at the time, papers like the NYT (who shriek about spying now) defended it as necessary against terrorists. Or what about J. Edgar Hoover, who was illegally spying on almost everyone under how many Presidents?Wheeler44 said:The current administration has authorized warrantless searches of citizens homes and businesses. Consider that. Warrantless searches means that you don't even know that your home or place of business has been searched unless you're really good @ espionage techniques. Warrantless wiretaps mean that you have no way of knowing when and if you are being eavesdropped on.
Many on this board exclaim that they would defend their home during a no knock warrant search. Guess what. They "law enforcement" can do that without a warrant now, eliminating the oversight of the judge.
And if we elect, say, another Clinton, and she takes away your Second Amendment rights, do you really think she's going to care one iota about your freedom of speech or freedom from search and seizure as she sends the ATF around to collect any newly illegal firearms not turned in during an amnesty period? Do you think she'll bother to get a warrant before monitoring sites like THR to find non-compliant gun owners?Wheeler44 said:Second ammendment rights are nothing without all of the other rights.
Free speech? search and seizure? sit in a cell 'til you incriminate yourself or go crazy or suicide? What good are your guns gonna do then since you didn't use 'em when the other rights, YES I SAID RIGHTS, have been and are being stripped from you as I type?
Almost none of the prisoners in Gitmo have been charged with anything. Some have been released (eventually!) because they were so obviously innocent. "Let 'em rot"? The whole point of due process is that you don't know who's guilty until you prove it. AFTER you prove it, go ahead and feed them to the cockroaches or whatever--but follow due process until then.
You could very well be right. I'd be surprised and disappointed if at least a majority weren't honest-to-goodness enemy combatants. But it's Alice in Wonderland stuff to do things in that order--first the punishment, then the trial, and last of all the crime. (And if he doesn't commit the crime, so much the better! It would mean he learned his lesson...)I would bet that the VAST majority (if not all) of these people are foreign radicals engaging in activities against Americans.