I Hope Every U.S. Citizen in South Dakota is Ready to Give Up their GUNS

That's right. GUNS. It seems strange to tie guns to abortion, but if Roe v. Wade is overturned, then it means a state has a right to override the 4th and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

What the right-wing nuts seem to forget is that Roe v. Wade was decided on the 14th amendment protection of the other rights provided in the U.S. Constitution. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, then it means that a state CAN enforce laws that go against the rights of citizens guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and its amendments.

And one of those is the second amendment: The Right To Bear Arms. And this right has less grounds than the 4th amendment, as it has been decided that the right to bear arms is not an absolute right, but one designed to enable the country to maintain a militia. The right to bear arms has been limited in the past to those capable of doing so and what kinds of weapons can "bared" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Second_Amendment ).

And if you REALLY ARE A PRO-LIFEer, then you'll admit, that restricting guns is a good thing since, according to the CDC, over 30 THOUSAND DEATHS PER YEAR are attributed to FIREARMS.

So, Pro-lifers, now that you've illegalized abortion, it's time to illegalize guns. I wonder how the Supreme Court will distinguish between these two cases?

:shrug:

it would take starvation for some people to wake up in this country.

I mean, remember how they all went ape shit when Clinton signed the bill that banned assault weapons? Banning guns outright altogether, especially in a state with tons of hunting areas, would really wake people up.

n/t

When "pro-lifers" start protesting against the war in Iraq.

On the same grounds SD is outlawing abortion... we'll see what the Supreme Court decides.

and follow the law. (go here: http://nraila.org/GunLaws/# and click on NY )

I'm talking about an outright BAN ON GUNS, just like SD is talking about an outright BAN ON ABORTION. Abortion and guns *can* be limited as they have by states, but they can not be completely banned.

I say, tie the two issues together.... two powerful lobbyists now being pitted against each other, bot typically supporting the republican party... let's see what happens.

You have to be realistic. Americans care more about gun rights than abortion rights.

That's why they outlawed abortion and think they can get away with it.

The whole point of the post is to tie the two issues together (because they ARE TIED together) and let the republicans EAT EACH OTHER on it.

It's pretty simple.

If it would be a blue state that bans guns? Fantazise all you want, but there is no way in hell South Dakota will ban guns. Maybe Rhode Island or some state like that.

that can be challenged in the courts by anybody or group with money to bankroll it.

SO, when you consider "group with money to bankroll" I hope or doubt you'll see the challenge as a Democratic issue. There is no money for this kind of mischeif here. Although, I would kick in 10 bucks if someone serious is seriously going to challenge on these grounds. I love it when the repukes screw themselves. (And they do take much favor in it, too.)

So you think a republican will bankroll a ban on guns?

I don't mean to be flippant, but as a woman I would guess that the case was the opposite. :shrug:

believe it or not

But not as many female body owners.

I really don't have an issue with guns, but it seems like there is more money involved there so maybe we hear more about gun issues than women's health issues. :shrug:

Your statement that "Americans care more about gun rights than abortion rights" was just a little startling to me, because to me, the issue isn't about having the right to an abortion as much as it is about a third party legislating the health decisions made between my doctor and myself. Where does that line get drawn?

Other than in DU, where is the outcry over what happened in SD?

THAT has worked well...not...

due to the fact that a South Dakotan is free to go to Denver or Minneapolis for their healthcare needs. For other RW lunatics this is seen as a "compromise" on the way to addressing Roe v. Wade.

Gun rights supporters hear these two phrases frequently from the anti-gun lobbies; "reasonable restriction" and "compromise".

The two issues may not be related, but the fact that they are connected to an individual’s freedom cannot be denied.

Methinks the worry will be minimal only because most of the pro-gestation crowd, RWers no doubt, would never touch gun possession. So, does this mean the door is open to those further to the left who support gun control? Not really, because it's part of the lying consoviet propaganda anyway that liberals are out to steal your guns.

So, conceptually, you're 1000% on the money but, realistically, gun owners probably won't lose sleep over the overturning of Roe.

NOW, if the neocons remove their masks to reveal the fascists they truly are, that's another story.

I would just like to see the "celebrity death-match" of pro-lifers vs NRA, both conservative oriented organizations.

I think the NRA is a bit more powerful than the pro-lifers and would have this whole anti-choice thing stopped in a heartbeat if they felt the same logic could be used to take their guns away.

Help me out here? I'm sure it's not a good thing - but I honestly don't know what that is.

"realistically, gun owners probably won't lose sleep over the overturning of Roe."

For the most part that's probably true - but I'm not one of those (and there are a shitload here on DU that feel the same way) - so writing them off isn't going to help anyone. You've got to approach it as a freedom issue if you want gun owners to even start to pay attention.

I dare them!