SCOTUS hands down a 5 to 3 decision today against Texas laws making abortion doctors have to have admitting privileges at a local surgical hospital in order to perform abortions (I 'm sure we can all agree that an abortion is an invasive surgery). The pro-abortion crowd screams that these laws are restricting women's right to an abortion. No....they just ensure that the doctor (abortionist) performing the killing of the fetus is qualified, and if something were to go wrong, you could get to the hospital immediately. The main point here is the state was applying regulations to a right that the Warren Court discovered in The Constitution in 1973. Keep that in mind.
Now let's talk the Second Amendment. #2 in the original Bill of Rights from 1791. Pretty clearly states the right of an individual to keep and bear arms WITHOUT infringements. The same applies to many state constitutions as well (especially the PSRK). However, ever since the NFA of 1934, there have been a steady barrage of "infringements" enacted by the federal government and the states. Somehow, SCOTUS can't seem to have the temerity to take up these cases, and when they do, they have major difficulty following the law. It takes much preponderance and debate and discussion to come up with a decision that even if it's somewhat favorable to the 2nd Amendment, it still turns out to be a watered down, gray area that sometimes leaves us with new questions.
So to sum up, thinking like a libtard means:
Roe vs Wade....SCOTUS "finds" a new right in The Constitution, so this case becomes SETTLED LAW WITH NO CHANGES FOREVER! Even bringing a challenge, whether legislatively or legally, should be met with protest and violence in the name of the right to kill babies.
The Second Amendment from the original Bill of Rights from 1791.....Well, we have to carefully consider what the framers truly meant. True, the 27 words are seemingly simple to understand, but you need to get the nuances of what the authors might have meant. The Federalist Papers just muck it up even more. They could never have envisioned the deadly modern weapons of today, after all, they only had flint-lock muskets and swords. We have to get inside the minds of these 200+ year old, slave-owning, dead, white guys, and try to surmise what they would think if they were alive today? We also must consider public safety and good, whether certain weapons should be in the hands of "common people", where, and when. Don't get us started on certain ammunition. In this case, The Constitution should be set aside or ignored if we can save just one life. What, you think you should own a bazooka, tank, fighter jet, or a nuke?
Since the libtards and establishment RINOs are running all three branches of federal government, and many of the states, with a complicit sycophantic media, there is but one altenative:
Just remember; one of the stalwarts of federal gun control and defenders of abortion, the now consumed by worms Ted (hic!) Kennedy (D) Massachusetts, has killed more people with his Oldsmobile, than I have ever killed with a firearm.