The Constitution does not mention abortion at all.


The Tenth Amendment mandates that all powers not enumerated and delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Congress has an expansive power to regulate interstate commerce. But the court has held that the Commerce Clause covers only those activities that are economic in nature and have a substantial effect on interstate markets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last time I checked the right to keep and bear arms was a right not a privilege. But as the long as the dems keep wasting their time on these foolish pursuits the less real damage they will do.

I’m a Textualist and the 2nd Amendment says nothing about “ammunition.” You infer that “arms” includes ammunition, but that’s not what the text says. The Framers could have included that language, but they chose not to.

And you might rightly say - “What’s the point of stating ‘arms’ if you don’t infer the right to ammunition?”

Well, look to the “well regulated militia” portion of the 2nd Amendment. The ammunition of the militia is often kept separate from the arms maintained by the individual. You retrieve ammo from the depot at the direction of a commanding officer. Sounds like a “well regulated militia” to me.

In short, you can’t be a Textualist and read a right to ammo in the 2nd Amendment. It doesn’t exist.

Where’s the text on abortion?

Where is the text that refers to abortion in the constitution?

Right to abortion is in the constitution, show us, Texty McTextyface.

You should have been worried when they took it away.
But the door is now open.

Waiting for Textualist to explain where the Constitution addresses abortion. He or she is happy to explain about ammo and guns.

Why? That right was taken. The precedent is set. Should have spoken up when you had the chance?

Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.

Yes, we know you don’t think women are people and as such aren’t covered by the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase.

As opposed to you, who doesn’t think unborn children are people? Holy unintentional irony! By simple mathematical analysis, pro-lifer’s care twice as much about people as you do. Women compromise 50% of the population. They care about 100% of the unborn, not just women.

If someone isn’t born, they literally don’t exist. most of us with brain cells don’t concerns ourselves with nonexistent people.

Oh well that explains the total absence of baby showers. That’s why no one gets nursery rooms ready in their homes or takes babymoons. Because that baby l literally doesn’t exist yet.

My baby shower was for me, the expectant mother. For things I would need for my baby that wasn’t yet born. The invitation had my name on it, not my unborn child. My babymoon was a vacation for me, not a child that didn’t yet exist. People put babies that actually exist, in the world, down in the nursery. If nothing is born, there is nothing to put down.
But it doesn’t matter, I don’t need you to understand this. The majority of the American people understand this.

No..what the majority of people understand is that that unborn baby - the very reason for “your” baby shower, “your” baby moon and “your” getting a nursery ready - that unborn baby IS a person, who is going to be here very soon, and will need to be accommodated. Otherwise, why prepare anything at all? Just wait until delivery before giving any thought to diapers, bottles, formula, clothes, crib, blankets, and all the other minutiae required to care for a newborn. I mean, if it’s just a mass of tissue why bother to make a fuss over it until it’s actually born? Then we can start doing stuff to accommodate it after it gets here, right?


Except no one does that.

This the last I’ll post on this. Being prepared for a future person, doesn’t mean that person is here. Because … they aren’t here. And the majority of Americans understand this, that is why 70% of the country supports choice.
But please take this to one of the abortion threads, those posters will have fun curb stomping you all day long. Don’t hide over here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like we have to pretend that some anonymous yo-yo thinks the founders didn’t want Americans to have ammo to use in their guns.

24 cartridges, 20 balls, quarter pound of powder.

Context matters.

That’s what a member of the unorganized militia (defined in Federalist Papers #61 as “the whole of the people”) were expected to have on their person, when called to assemble. The minimum kit of a volunteer Citizen Soldier to bring with them when showing up. It obviously does not mean that’s all they were “allowed” to possess.

Federalist Paper 61 is not law and thus does not provide any legal definition for anything. The Militia Act on the other hand IS law and does provide a legal definition - and that definition is NOT "the whole of the people" and in fact it has specific qualifications and responsibilities.

Under US Code there is also the unorganized militia:

CHAPTER 12—THE MILITIA
Sec.
246.Militia: composition and classes.
247.Militia duty: exemptions.

Editorial Notes
Amendments
2016—Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, §1241(a)(1), (o)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497, 2512, renumbered chapter 13 of this title "THE MILITIA" as chapter 12, redesignated item 311 "Militia: composition and classes" as item 246, and redesignated item 312 "Militia duty: exemptions" as item 247.
§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, §311; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered §246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, §1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)
Historical and Revision Notes
1956 Act
Revised section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)
311(a)
311(b)
32:1 (less last 19 words).
32:1 (last 19 words).
June 3, 1916, ch. 134, §57, 39 Stat. 197; June 28, 1947, ch. 162, §7 (as applicable to §57 of the Act of June 3, 1916, ch. 134), 61 Stat. 192.
In subsection (a), the words "who have made a declaration of intention" are substituted for the words "who have or shall have declared their intention". The words "at least 17 years of age and * * * under 45 years of age" are substituted for the words "who shall be more than seventeen years of age and * * * not more than forty-five years of age". The words "except as provided in section 313 of title 32" are substituted for the words "except as hereinafter provided", to make explicit the exception as to maximum age.
In subsection (b), the words "The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia" are substituted for the words "the National Guard, the Naval Militia", since the National Guard and the Naval Militia constitute the organized militia.
1958 Act
Revised section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)
311(a) 32 App.:1. July 30, 1956, ch. 789, §1, 70 Stat. 729.
The words "appointed as . . . under section 4 of this title" are omitted as surplusage.

Editorial Notes
Amendments
2016—Pub. L. 114–328 renumbered section 311 of this title as this section.
1993—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–160 substituted "members" for "commissioned officers".
1958—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85–861 included female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
§247. Militia duty: exemptions
(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 15, §312; Pub. L. 100–456, div. A, title XII, §1234(a)(3), Sept. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 2059; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, §1057(a)(7), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3441; renumbered §247, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, §1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)
Historical and Revision Notes
Revised section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)
312(a)
312(b)
32:3 (less last 67 words).
32:3 (last 67 words).
June 3, 1916, ch. 134, §59, 39 Stat. 197.
In subsection (a), the words "Members of the armed forces" are substituted for the words "persons in the military or naval service". The words "except members who are not on active duty" are inserted to reflect an opinion of the Judge Advocate General of the Army (JAGA 1952/4374, 9 July 1952). The word "artificers" is omitted as covered by the word "workmen". The words "naval shipyards" are substituted for the words "navy yards" to reflect modern terminology. The words "on navigable waters" are inserted to preserve the original coverage of the word "pilots". The words "actually" and "without regard to age" are omitted as surplusage.

Editorial Notes
Amendments
2016—Pub. L. 114–328 renumbered section 312 of this title as this section.
2006—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 109–163 substituted "States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands" for "States and Territories, and Puerto Rico".
1988—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 100–456 substituted "and Puerto Rico" for "Puerto Rico, and the Canal Zone".

The public who ratified the Second Amendment understood that every type of firearm and ammunition was protected.

Around the time the Second Amendment was ratified, there was not a law that set a maximum amount of arms or ammunition that an individual could possess.


The specific weapons requirements of the Uniform Militia Act legislation enacted by Congress in 1792 set these minimum requirements, but established no maximum.

This legislation established nationwide minimums, not maximums, for militia weaponry.

Everybody please continue to buy guns and stockpile ammo. You can see the gun grabbers are morphing into ammograbbers.

George Washington didn’t hang his troops who tried to desert for these kinds of pu$$ies. Don’t listen to them because they not only are wrong, but they want to take your guns and make you live in a dystopian society where you have to bow to people like Hunter Biden.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like we have to pretend that some anonymous yo-yo thinks the founders didn’t want Americans to have ammo to use in their guns.

24 cartridges, 20 balls, quarter pound of powder.

Context matters.

That’s what a member of the unorganized militia (defined in Federalist Papers #61 as “the whole of the people”) were expected to have on their person, when called to assemble. The minimum kit of a volunteer Citizen Soldier to bring with them when showing up. It obviously does not mean that’s all they were “allowed” to possess.

Are you spewing ChatGPT hallucinations? Federalist #61 isn't about guns or militias or ammunitions. It has no mention of those whatsoever. It's about how elections should be governed.

NP
As if you would know? You don’t even believe in elections anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like we have to pretend that some anonymous yo-yo thinks the founders didn’t want Americans to have ammo to use in their guns.

24 cartridges, 20 balls, quarter pound of powder.

Context matters.

That’s what a member of the unorganized militia (defined in Federalist Papers #61 as “the whole of the people”) were expected to have on their person, when called to assemble. The minimum kit of a volunteer Citizen Soldier to bring with them when showing up. It obviously does not mean that’s all they were “allowed” to possess.

However they clearly believed that was enough for someone to possess. And, it was for militia use. Militia as defined during the Founding Fathers time was not individuals or some random band of ridgerunners. They were answerable to the government chain of command.

The “militia” was every able bodied person not currently serving in the military. Farmers, lawyers, tradespeople, doctors, everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like we have to pretend that some anonymous yo-yo thinks the founders didn’t want Americans to have ammo to use in their guns.

24 cartridges, 20 balls, quarter pound of powder.

Context matters.

That’s what a member of the unorganized militia (defined in Federalist Papers #61 as “the whole of the people”) were expected to have on their person, when called to assemble. The minimum kit of a volunteer Citizen Soldier to bring with them when showing up. It obviously does not mean that’s all they were “allowed” to possess.

Are you spewing ChatGPT hallucinations? Federalist #61 isn't about guns or militias or ammunitions. It has no mention of those whatsoever. It's about how elections should be governed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like we have to pretend that some anonymous yo-yo thinks the founders didn’t want Americans to have ammo to use in their guns.

24 cartridges, 20 balls, quarter pound of powder.

Context matters.

That’s what a member of the unorganized militia (defined in Federalist Papers #61 as “the whole of the people”) were expected to have on their person, when called to assemble. The minimum kit of a volunteer Citizen Soldier to bring with them when showing up. It obviously does not mean that’s all they were “allowed” to possess.

Federalist Paper 61 is not law and thus does not provide any legal definition for anything. The Militia Act on the other hand IS law and does provide a legal definition - and that definition is NOT "the whole of the people" and in fact it has specific qualifications and responsibilities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like we have to pretend that some anonymous yo-yo thinks the founders didn’t want Americans to have ammo to use in their guns.

24 cartridges, 20 balls, quarter pound of powder.

Context matters.

That’s what a member of the unorganized militia (defined in Federalist Papers #61 as “the whole of the people”) were expected to have on their person, when called to assemble. The minimum kit of a volunteer Citizen Soldier to bring with them when showing up. It obviously does not mean that’s all they were “allowed” to possess.

However they clearly believed that was enough for someone to possess. And, it was for militia use. Militia as defined during the Founding Fathers time was not individuals or some random band of ridgerunners. They were answerable to the government chain of command.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like we have to pretend that some anonymous yo-yo thinks the founders didn’t want Americans to have ammo to use in their guns.

24 cartridges, 20 balls, quarter pound of powder.

It said at least. So more is fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like we have to pretend that some anonymous yo-yo thinks the founders didn’t want Americans to have ammo to use in their guns.

Sorry but I will take what the Founding Fathers ACTUALLY WROTE AND SAID over whatever imagined nonsense that they NEVER wrote or said, despite whatever some random yo-yo ammosexual on DCUM wants to try and claim. You and your half-assed opinions will never rank higher than the Founding Fathers actual words. Never.

I will also take ACTUAL DOCUMENTED HISTORY over whatever some internet rando wants to claim as well - for example the gun nutters completely FALSE claims that the Founding Fathers intended for Americans to take up arms against their own government or imagined "tyranny." Sorry but history says otherwise. For example, the Whiskey Rebellion, which put 2A to the test shortly after it was ratified. A bunch of yahoos decided the whiskey tax was tyranny and wanted to take up arms against the government over it. The Founding Fathers voted and authorized the government to put that rebellion down and George Washington sent troops and squashed it.

So you can take your imagined gobbledygook that the Founding Fathers NEVER PROMISED YOU and write it on a little piece of paper, fold it up tightly and flush it down the toilet where it belongs with the rest of the shit that needs to be disposed of.

The Founding Fathers never wrote a single word about the right to abortion.

You can take your imagined namby pamby gobbeldygook about abortion and flush it with the shit as well.

History shows that during the Founding Fathers' time, abortion was uncontroversial and legal up until the point of "quickening" - when the mother could feel the baby's motion. https://magazine.jhsph.edu/2022/brief-history-abortion-us

Anyone trying to imagine the Founding Fathers held to current right wing beliefs about abortion would be WRONG.

Anonymous wrote:Q. Did the public which ratified the Second Amendment understand that every type of firearm, ammunition or explosive available was protected by the guarantee against infringement; and did the Founders intend for the People to have equal or inferior firearms technology to the military forces? Reasoning has been used to say that civilians and militiamen did not possess certain types of weapons available during the Revolutionary period.

A. Historical documents prove this is untrue.
Civilians and militiamen possessed artillery, rifles (superior firearms technology to the military forces), military firearms, blunderbusses (short barreled shotguns), pocket pistols, pistols, carbines (short barreled muskets/rifles), explosives and literally every firearm know to exist at the time.

The Founders did not permit themselves to be taxed in the exercise of any other rights, and they would have considered imposition of a tax burden upon the right to keep and bear arms to be an infringement of that right.

Being required to give one's name to an official, obtain permission, or pay a tax to publish one's sentiments, practice one's religion or to own a firearms of any sort, would have been considered infringements by the Founders.

Since the Second Amendment is a prohibition placed on all branches of government, and according to Article 5 of the Constitution carries the same legal weight and authority as the Articles themselves, use of commerce or taxation powers in regard to the right of the people to keep and bear their private arms is clearly improper and illegal.

Americans developed a system in which the Constitution is Supreme, and the concerted effort by legislatures and courts to nullify an explicit restriction upon their powers cannot be justified. (See Nunn v. State
(1846) declaring that any law, Federal or State, which would contravene the right of the people to keep and bear arms of every description would be repugnant to the Constitution and void). Historical records prove beyond any doubt that the Founders and Framers intended the people to have access
to even military type weapons. (See Appendix L; also Appendix M)
Many courts have said that military weapons are protected by the Second Amendment. (See, Fife V. State, 31 Ark. 455, 460-61 (1876); Andrews
v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk) (1871); Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hum) 154
(1840); State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. (2 Pike) 18 (1842); Wilson v. State, 33
Ark. 557, 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, 54-55 (1878)).



https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-6515/68557/20181031105639405_00000014.pdf

Blah blah blah with all your facts and citation and stuff. I just don’t like all the people who own guns and I want them all banned and I don’t care what the constitution says about it. I want it MY way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like we have to pretend that some anonymous yo-yo thinks the founders didn’t want Americans to have ammo to use in their guns.

24 cartridges, 20 balls, quarter pound of powder.

Context matters.

That’s what a member of the unorganized militia (defined in Federalist Papers #61 as “the whole of the people”) were expected to have on their person, when called to assemble. The minimum kit of a volunteer Citizen Soldier to bring with them when showing up. It obviously does not mean that’s all they were “allowed” to possess.

Q. Did the public which ratified the Second Amendment understand that every type of firearm, ammunition or explosive available was protected by the guarantee against infringement; and did the Founders intend for the People to have equal or inferior firearms technology to the military forces? Reasoning has been used to say that civilians and militiamen did not possess certain types of weapons available during the Revolutionary period.

A. Historical documents prove this is untrue.
Civilians and militiamen possessed artillery, rifles (superior firearms technology to the military forces), military firearms, blunderbusses (short barreled shotguns), pocket pistols, pistols, carbines (short barreled muskets/rifles), explosives and literally every firearm know to exist at the time.

The Founders did not permit themselves to be taxed in the exercise of any other rights, and they would have considered imposition of a tax burden upon the right to keep and bear arms to be an infringement of that right.

Being required to give one's name to an official, obtain permission, or pay a tax to publish one's sentiments, practice one's religion or to own a firearms of any sort, would have been considered infringements by the Founders.

Since the Second Amendment is a prohibition placed on all branches of government, and according to Article 5 of the Constitution carries the same legal weight and authority as the Articles themselves, use of commerce or taxation powers in regard to the right of the people to keep and bear their private arms is clearly improper and illegal.

Americans developed a system in which the Constitution is Supreme, and the concerted effort by legislatures and courts to nullify an explicit restriction upon their powers cannot be justified. (See Nunn v. State
(1846) declaring that any law, Federal or State, which would contravene the right of the people to keep and bear arms of every description would be repugnant to the Constitution and void). Historical records prove beyond any doubt that the Founders and Framers intended the people to have access
to even military type weapons. (See Appendix L; also Appendix M)
Many courts have said that military weapons are protected by the Second Amendment. (See, Fife V. State, 31 Ark. 455, 460-61 (1876); Andrews
v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk) (1871); Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hum) 154
(1840); State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. (2 Pike) 18 (1842); Wilson v. State, 33
Ark. 557, 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, 54-55 (1878)).



https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-6515/68557/20181031105639405_00000014.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last time I checked the right to keep and bear arms was a right not a privilege. But as the long as the dems keep wasting their time on these foolish pursuits the less real damage they will do.

I’m a Textualist and the 2nd Amendment says nothing about “ammunition.” You infer that “arms” includes ammunition, but that’s not what the text says. The Framers could have included that language, but they chose not to.

And you might rightly say - “What’s the point of stating ‘arms’ if you don’t infer the right to ammunition?”

Well, look to the “well regulated militia” portion of the 2nd Amendment. The ammunition of the militia is often kept separate from the arms maintained by the individual. You retrieve ammo from the depot at the direction of a commanding officer. Sounds like a “well regulated militia” to me.

In short, you can’t be a Textualist and read a right to ammo in the 2nd Amendment. It doesn’t exist.

Where’s the text on abortion?

Where is the text that refers to abortion in the constitution?

Right to abortion is in the constitution, show us, Texty McTextyface.

You should have been worried when they took it away.
But the door is now open.

Waiting for Textualist to explain where the Constitution addresses abortion. He or she is happy to explain about ammo and guns.

Why? That right was taken. The precedent is set. Should have spoken up when you had the chance?

Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.

Yes, we know you don’t think women are people and as such aren’t covered by the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase.

As opposed to you, who doesn’t think unborn children are people? Holy unintentional irony! By simple mathematical analysis, pro-lifer’s care twice as much about people as you do. Women compromise 50% of the population. They care about 100% of the unborn, not just women.

If someone isn’t born, they literally don’t exist. most of us with brain cells don’t concerns ourselves with nonexistent people.

Oh well that explains the total absence of baby showers. That’s why no one gets nursery rooms ready in their homes or takes babymoons. Because that baby l literally doesn’t exist yet.

My baby shower was for me, the expectant mother. For things I would need for my baby that wasn’t yet born. The invitation had my name on it, not my unborn child. My babymoon was a vacation for me, not a child that didn’t yet exist. People put babies that actually exist, in the world, down in the nursery. If nothing is born, there is nothing to put down.
But it doesn’t matter, I don’t need you to understand this. The majority of the American people understand this.

No..what the majority of people understand is that that unborn baby - the very reason for “your” baby shower, “your” baby moon and “your” getting a nursery ready - that unborn baby IS a person, who is going to be here very soon, and will need to be accommodated. Otherwise, why prepare anything at all? Just wait until delivery before giving any thought to diapers, bottles, formula, clothes, crib, blankets, and all the other minutiae required to care for a newborn. I mean, if it’s just a mass of tissue why bother to make a fuss over it until it’s actually born? Then we can start doing stuff to accommodate it after it gets here, right?


Except no one does that.