Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

SCOTUS decision handed down

2

Replies

  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,465 Senior Member
    I'm solidly with pretty much everything Zorba's said on this one.

    It's almost seems like you're allowed to have the sum total of one gallon's worth of freedom, and that if one side of the aisle is going to grant you a quart's worth, they're going to take that quart back somewhere else.   No way we'll ever get to five quarts.

    The Second Amendment is the ultimate statement of Pro Choice, because it ultimately maintains your ability to make your own - - which is why that topic is at the top of my voting motivations.

    Roe v. Wade, like the 2nd, was a major statement against governmental interference in our individual lives.  This current 2A ruling removes the some of the state-level ability to interfere in our lives, and the R.v.W. ruling allows the individuals states greater ability to put that interference right back.

    You don't like guns, don't own one.  You don't like abortion, don't have one.  The contents of your neighbor's gun safe or their uterus shouldn't be your business.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 25,092 Senior Member
    There's laws, then there's ethics. They seldom intersect.

    Both sides want to impinge on our freedoms - therefore a pox on both their houses.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 14,371 Senior Member
    With regards to Roe v. Wade

    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,465 Senior Member
    Now that IS funny. :D
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,465 Senior Member
    As to the 2A ruling, I got about 25 pages into the Majority Opinion last night, and it does look like they're laying some groundwork with the language to support future cases.  It calls B.S. on the entire "The Second Amendment only applies to muzzle loaders because that was all the Founders knew" argument, and brings up the "defensive tools in common usage" counter-argument.

    Potentially, this is the funeral pyre on which we burn the AWB's and mag restrictions, and it's a pretty short walk along that same path to throw a torch onto California's handgun roster insanity.

    Yeah, all this stuff takes time, but I think the current crew may have the gumption to keep moving forward. 
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • FreezerFreezer Senior Member Posts: 2,423 Senior Member
    My question is and has always been, "Where are the father's rights?" It takes two to tango and two to make love. IMHO it's a matter of personal responsibility. Don't want to get pregnant? Be responsible enough to do something to prevent it, like self-control  or birth control. Up till now, the government has funded the murder of children. Why should John Q Citizen have to pay for someone's irresponsibility and refuse the man involved the right to even speak about the life of his child.

    I lived in Kaliforniastan.I can't wait to see what this does to their "May Issue" laws where local law enforcement dictates (denies) CCPs. The liberals will have no need for laxatives with these last two decisions.
    I like Elmer Keith; I married his daughter :wink:
  • JaphyJaphy Posts: 317 Member
    Bigslug said:
    As to the 2A ruling, I got about 25 pages into the Majority Opinion last night, and it does look like they're laying some groundwork with the language to support future cases.  It calls B.S. on the entire "The Second Amendment only applies to muzzle loaders because that was all the Founders knew" argument, and brings up the "defensive tools in common usage" counter-argument.

    Potentially, this is the funeral pyre on which we burn the AWB's and mag restrictions, and it's a pretty short walk along that same path to throw a torch onto California's handgun roster insanity.

    Yeah, all this stuff takes time, but I think the current crew may have the gumption to keep moving forward. 
    agree with you the muzzle loader argument, the constitution says arms but right now one cannot openly carry large knives openly even around here.

    any details on the red flag law just signed? Ive read only brief outlines but no real content so far.  what due process is insured? and what are the consequences for filing a false report?

    that brings up other questions just how does the government know if someone owns a gun?  I thought any record of purchase or background check was explicitly not to be maintained by any government agency.  one may get a background check but then not purchase or one may get a CCW without owning a gun.
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 8,051 Senior Member

    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • JunkCollectorJunkCollector Posts: 1,152 Senior Member
    Too bad RBG wasn't here for it.
  • FreezerFreezer Senior Member Posts: 2,423 Senior Member
    .
    Please tell me she didn't say that! I only pray she didn't say that. I know she'snot that smart, but she couldn't be that stupid.
    I like Elmer Keith; I married his daughter :wink:
  • JaphyJaphy Posts: 317 Member
    Excerpt from WSJ

    A 6-3 victory at the Supreme Court vindicating a constitutional right is usually cause for congratulations, but not these days at Kirkland & Ellis, the giant white-shoe law firm. The firm has rewarded partner Paul Clement for his triumph Thursday in the big New York gun-rights case (see nearby) by telling him to drop his gun clients or leave the firm.

    Clement showed some ethics and spine and resigned but other attorneys in future cases will likely fold.  Due process is guaranteed but legal representation is not.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,465 Senior Member
    edited June 26 #43
    Freezer said:
    My question is and has always been, "Where are the father's rights?" It takes two to tango and two to make love. IMHO it's a matter of personal responsibility. Don't want to get pregnant? Be responsible enough to do something to prevent it, like self-control  or birth control. Up till now, the government has funded the murder of children. Why should John Q Citizen have to pay for someone's irresponsibility and refuse the man involved the right to even speak about the life of his child.
    Maybe I have an overdeveloped sense of objective detachment that leads to my views on this topic, but here goes. . .

    From my perspective as a sportsman, the human "herd" contains about 7.5 billion members who, at least on certain fringes, are forced to compete rather forcefully for the resources needed to live.  The biological impulse to have sex is as equally forceful as that to put food in our bellies.  Rationality has little to do with it for either gender, and like it or not, that act is going to happen without protection even in circumstances of full consent; the pregnancies that result are going to trigger more of the "put food in our bellies" impulse, and more of that often violent competition for resources.  Survival at all costs will take precedence over trying to survive well, and that is never pretty.

    I really see it then as a "game management" problem.  If you think you're able to give a good life to a kid, by all means take a crack at it.  If you know you can't, and know that trying to keep a child in addition to yourself alive - - well, I wish nothing but the worst medieval tortures on those who would force anyone onto that path - or that would impede someone's ability to get off of it.

    As to the public funding of abortions, I still see it as a "game management"  problem.  An abortion is far cheaper than long-term foster care for an unwanted child; far cheaper than paying for the court services of that child when he turns criminal because the poor circumstances of his birth force him down that path; and far cheaper to me personally if I have to use my CCW to defend myself against him while he's robbing my 7-11.

    Many view it as a moral choice, but like so much in this supposedly "free" country of ours, aren't we supposed to keep our morals to ourselves and let others sort out theirs for themselves?  For me these two decisions represent a greatly hypocritical stance - do we have the freedom to steer the course of our own lives or don't we?   Meddling in deeply personal affairs from the right is equally bad as meddling deeply in personal affairs from the left, and few things are as personal as pregnancy. 

    Like Zorba, I fear the SCOTUS merely ping-ponged the political pendulum back to the left with the R.v.W. decision, and the "Red Wave" that was going to solve all our Second Amendment woes will not be the tsunami we had hoped for.  This is going to overshadow almost all of Biden's bumbles and $6.00 gasoline.  We just lost a HUGE chunk of the female vote with this.

    It's about preserving individual freedoms kids - it's not that hard.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 8,051 Senior Member
    edited June 26 #44
    Well, if you think that people are at exactly the same intelligence and reasoning standard as rabbits with as many resources then you might have a point. I dont think myself and kids are raised for slaughter. If I had been a ignorant animal with no control, I would have caught things I didnt want. Humans have the ability to step back and evaluate. In the immortal words of the prophet Geddy Lee, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".

    Its a responsibility problem. You want freedom, you got it. Your actions have consequences and you get to live with them. Your rights stop where another's begin. So, I see it in the same vein as I am 100% in favor of legalizing all drugs, all of them. Meth, fentinal, any opioid you can name. I would require a person who wants to use to buy a 300.00 users card so that when they die on the sidewalk, the corpse can be tossed into the hopper of the next passing garbage truck and the garbage company can get paid. If you can work because you are uninsurable, tough luck. I would be willing to pay for one (1) trip to the ER.

    As to the case point. When the cells combine, a new set of DNA is formed. Science. At about 6 weeks there is a visible heartbeat, pain receptors and thought process. Science. It takes 2 to tango. There is exactly zero mention of the male unit having any say what if he wants the kid and will support it. If the child is kept, you bet your butt that he will be billed for it with a good chance that he will not be allowed to be part of it. Not exactly free now is it?   To say it is only a part of another organism is being a science denier. The court ruling DID NOT take away the ability of ANYONE to get the procedure to remove that separate DNA with thoughts and feelings. What it did do is push the decision to the states and they can vote on it. Democracy remember? The vast majority of people, pro life, neutral  and other, do NOT believe that there is an unrestricted right to the procedure. Most thinking people believe that there is a point where its a kid.


    We are a nation of laws, not notions or wants. SCOTUS ruled that the NY gun law was denying citizens rights  that were in law with hundreds of years of understanding. The gun rights groups warned the antis that they would lose and the antis figured that their wants were important. Their statute does NOT supersede the constitution.
    RvW wasnt even a statute. There is no legal authority for a court to write law. Ginsburg said repeatedly that if it was challenged it would fail because it was a bad decision and she was hardly a conservative. SCOTUS found that it was a bad ruling (like everyone knew) The lefties where pushing to force their opinion by passing a law (that failed miserably) to make it legal up to and including the pop out phase. No one thinks that is a good idea save a tiny minority of eugenicists in the Dem party. What is going to happen is each state will debate the ethics of the situation. Most will come up with something like TX has and VA is putting in. There is a time when the DNA has rights and the person who took the decision will live with the decisions they made. Freedom does not mean you are free from responsibility. The really cool thing about the US is we are free to travel between states. You dont like your state because of laws or taxes, you can move to one that reflects you views.

    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,465 Senior Member
    Well, if you think that people are at exactly the same intelligence and reasoning standard as rabbits with as many resources then you might have a point. 

    The ones who are breeding irresponsibly often pretty much ARE on about that "rabbit" level, and the "holier than thou" pro-lifers are forcing the world to deal with their fallout.  A wise friend of mine once said "It's a choice, until it's a child, and then it's a burden."

    Maybe I AM a godless eugenics proponent (and commuter who just wants the freeway moving faster), but considering the population and social problems that are right in front of us every day, I am totally in favor of giving anyone who thinks having a kid is a bad idea any possible way out of their predicament - ESPECIALLY if it was the the result of their bad choices.  We don't need the problem perpetuated.

    The really cool thing about the US is we are free to travel between states. You dont like your state because of laws or taxes, you can move to one that reflects you views.

    All a great notion until meddling from both extremes becomes almost equally distasteful.  On this particular issue, I find it almost easier to agree with the liberal mindset - - -someone else's improperly used firearm may someday be my problem to deal with, but someone else's abortion never will.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 14,371 Senior Member
    It is a short walk from doing "game management" in the womb to doing "game management" in a concentration camp
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 25,092 Senior Member
    Thank you BigSlug!

    As far as I'm concerned, Abortion and gun rights fall under similar considerations. You're either for personal freedom or you are not. Yet we have the Right supporting one, opposing the other; and the Left is the exact opposite. Which demonstrates to me at least that ONCE AGAIN, both sides are only interested in promulgating their particular brand of slavery and their particular religion. "Vote for us, we'll keep *THOSE PEOPLE* under control."

    Neither side has a clue what true freedom really is - and 99.9999% of the people don't want it - and they sure as Hell don't want it for "those people". They only want fair masters.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,465 Senior Member
    I'd say "They only want masters that are convenient to their aims" but yes, that about says it.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 12,127 Senior Member
    Remember, this is one of the “rules”- debating abortion is a touchy subject, and no one will change someone else’s mind about this subject. Let’s all have respect for each other and keep it civil. 

    Not saying anyone has crossed or is close to a line.  Normally I’d lock this before people start getting angry. But with the news, it is kid of a given it will be discussed. 

    Let’s just all keep a level head. 
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • BamaakIIBamaakII Posts: 471 Member
    Japhy said:
    Bigslug said:
    As to the 2A ruling, I got about 25 pages into the Majority Opinion last night, and it does look like they're laying some groundwork with the language to support future cases.  It calls B.S. on the entire "The Second Amendment only applies to muzzle loaders because that was all the Founders knew" argument, and brings up the "defensive tools in common usage" counter-argument.

    Potentially, this is the funeral pyre on which we burn the AWB's and mag restrictions, and it's a pretty short walk along that same path to throw a torch onto California's handgun roster insanity.

    Yeah, all this stuff takes time, but I think the current crew may have the gumption to keep moving forward. 
    agree with you the muzzle loader argument, the constitution says arms but right now one cannot openly carry large knives openly even around here.

    any details on the red flag law just signed? Ive read only brief outlines but no real content so far.  what due process is insured? and what are the consequences for filing a false report?

    that brings up other questions just how does the government know if someone owns a gun?  I thought any record of purchase or background check was explicitly not to be maintained by any government agency.  one may get a background check but then not purchase or one may get a CCW without owning a gun.
    Read the GOA report about the database ATF is maintaining on registered owners.  Scanned 4473s from every gun store that has ever closed.  They claim its legal cause you can't search by name, until you set a flag in the DB that allows you to.  
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 8,051 Senior Member
    zorba said:
    Thank you BigSlug!

    As far as I'm concerned, Abortion and gun rights fall under similar considerations. You're either for personal freedom or you are not. Yet we have the Right supporting one, opposing the other; and the Left is the exact opposite. Which demonstrates to me at least that ONCE AGAIN, both sides are only interested in promulgating their particular brand of slavery and their particular religion. "Vote for us, we'll keep *THOSE PEOPLE* under control."

    Neither side has a clue what true freedom really is - and 99.9999% of the people don't want it - and they sure as Hell don't want it for "those people". They only want fair masters.

     Representative republic in action. Maybe in a generation human life will be valued again.As to the constant barrage of "Its not freedom unless I get my way" nowhere has ever worked that way, and nowhere can ever work that way for long. That is the definition of anarchy.

    FYI In FL, your state, the rule is going to be 15 weeks to legally do the deed if you are a irresponsible person with exceptions after that. That is hardly a ban or slavery or has any relation to any mainstream religion. That was voted on by the elected representatives of your state. So why the hair pulling? The people get to decide and they did, just like that.

    In PA there was no authority for the Governor to declare a state of emergency until after the 1972 Agnes flood. The legislature came up with a law (statute) that granted the power to the Governor with a line that said that with a simple majority in the state legislature the order could be ended. Our Dem gov took over the state for more than a year, picking and choosing what businesses could be open and when. The legicritters voted to end the order and the Governor vetoed it. It went to the PA Supreme court (a lefty group) and the order was upheld because the Gov has the right to veto in the constitution. The reason given was that the constitution overrules the statute. As much as I disliked the lockdown, the court was absolutely correct. PA then amended the PA constitution and the Governor now can still call an emergency, but the legislature can halt it, and if they dont, they must vote it up or down in 21 days or it goes away, and cannot be reinstated for the same thing. We amended our constitution with a 71 and 72 % majority of the people in two elections in two different sessions of the legislature as per our law.

    So why is this a corollary? There was a standing idea for almost exactly as long as RvW, that the legislature had a say. Just because it was on the books for 50 years, did not make it a right, or enforceable, or legal. The difference between this decision and the latest on RvW is that the peoples representatives voted for and passed a law in 1973 which still didnt make it binding. It wasnt decided by judicial fiat. The right case went to the court and it was decided.


    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 8,051 Senior Member
    Bigslug said:
    The ones who are breeding irresponsibly often pretty much ARE on about that "rabbit" level, and the "holier than thou" pro-lifers are forcing the world to deal with their fallout.  A wise friend of mine once said "It's a choice, until it's a child, and then it's a burden."

    Maybe I AM a godless eugenics proponent (and commuter who just wants the freeway moving faster), but considering the population and social problems that are right in front of us every day, I am totally in favor of giving anyone who thinks having a kid is a bad idea any possible way out of their predicament - ESPECIALLY if it was the the result of their bad choices.  We don't need the problem perpetuated.

    All a great notion until meddling from both extremes becomes almost equally distasteful.  On this particular issue, I find it almost easier to agree with the liberal mindset - - -someone else's improperly used firearm may someday be my problem to deal with, but someone else's abortion never will.
    There is no nationwide ban.

    It is your problem and the chickens are coming home to roost. The mindset of devaluing human life and having zero responsibility is what is going to cause the firearm to be a problem. Its a choice, until its a child, and then its a burden that is your responsibility. Those that are on that rabbit level learned that they could be that irresponsible from whom? Perhaps a nanny state the pays them to exist generationally?

    And again there is no nationwide ban. Repeat, there is no nationwide ban. Read that again, there is no nationwide ban.

    So far, Fl has voted in a 15 week window, 4 months and a week to figure our what to do with the fallout of irresponsible behavior, with exceptions after. There is no nationwide ban.

    VA is putting together something similar. There is no nationwide ban.

    OK has stopped all. 5 states have trigger laws that banned all except life of mom, rape and incest or a combo of. NY, CA, OR, WA and more are still brain suckers. There is no nationwide ban

    Saying that that there is a ban is nothing but scare tactic. Looks like that pesky constitution is working.

    As an aside. I am more against the federal govt dreaming up feelings and being able to call them rights or laws without going through the proper steps or taking away clearly written rights without going through the proper actions than whatever acts they perpetrate when doing so. I dont think that unelected people in black robes get to take away or grant that which was never theirs to grant. There is no ban because that is outside of the federal govts powers the same way there is no right on the federal level. I side with Ruth Bader Ginsburg on this one. The whole concept was doomed from the start. It took 50 years to get the right case in front of the court, but this was inevitable.

    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Posts: 3,490 Senior Member
    The Bill of rights enumerates natural rights conferred by God to humans.  We have a natural right to self defense with any means available to us and using the best tools of our time.

    There has NEVER been a human right to kill another human without reason and the second there is another life with a different DNA, THAT YOU CREATED, you are just an incubator and life support system to another human being that is NOT part of your body, just living in it.  AND YOU PUT IT THERE…

    That being said, I also understand the dilemma of deciding when “life” begins and obviously a clump of cells is not a viable human, but late term abortions are murder of a living thing.  It’s a hell of a complex subject and I’m glad I’m not the one that has to decided it.  

    But letting the states deal with it is good.  The whole point of having states is that like minded people would have the ability of electing a like minded representative government that would work for the good of the collective.  

    But then liberals and progressives started migrating and bringing their nonsense in the luggage wherever they go, and then we let Washington become the center of power for the whole country which is totally wrong.  I’m glad state governors are taking their power back…
    I’m baaaaaaaaack… 😬
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 25,092 Senior Member
    That being said, I also understand the dilemma of deciding when “life” begins and obviously a clump of cells is not a viable human, but late term abortions are murder of a living thing.  It’s a hell of a complex subject and I’m glad I’m not the one that has to decided it. 
    Agreed, and that *is* the problem. The end game for a "certain demographic" is to push anti-abortion laws up to the point of conception, or even before. No contraception, no "day after pill", no nothing. There are already, and have been, numerous politicians on board with this.

    Its the old slippery slope problem all over again, just like it is with "gun control".
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,730 Senior Member
    While I agree with Bigslug that making someone have a child does not set that child up for good things. You just can't deny that in the end..... there is a corpse.
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,465 Senior Member
    Do not deny, and do not have a problem with.  It's cold math, but:

    Destroyed opportunities for mom, few opportunities for kid - two lives down the tubes for the price of one, and that's BEFORE you consider the crime committed by fatherless adolescents.

    A population of 7.5 BILLION and climbing.  Aside from the immediate problems of the above, what do you imagine raising it to 9 BILLION is going to do for the quality of YOUR life?  Price of eggs?  Price of gas? Your morning commute?  The rural lifestyle of farming/hunting/shooting we either have, want, or dabble in?  War and famine?  That sounds like fun.  Bad enough to think that it's happening by itself, then consider it's getting sped along by one group forcing their morals on another.

    Simple truth - people are not going to boink responsibly.   At some point they're going to realize their error, but forcing them deeper into the consequences when they do does not help them, and it does not help the rest of us.  

    As I said before, it's effectively a game-management problem, and if a part of the herd is willing to effectively self-cull, we're bloody idiots if we're going to stand in the way.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • GrapeApeGrapeApe Posts: 184 Member
    First off, SCOTUS didn't outlaw ANYTHING. All they did was kick it down to the state level and let THEM decide how they want to handle it in their state.

    Isn't that how the Constitution says it's supposed to work? If not specifically given to the feds, then it's the states' responsibility

    Secondly, I see a new travel industry opening up for folks in states that have stopped abortions to states that still allow it.


    "For longer range, use a bigger case. For bigger game, use a bigger bullet." - Dan Johnson
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 12,127 Senior Member
    I agree with what GA said.  If your state wants to continue, then continue.  

    What I find particularly ghoulish is companies like Starbucks sending their minimum wage employees to different states to get an abortion because that is cheaper than paying a maternity leave.  


    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 25,092 Senior Member
    edited June 29 #59
    Bigslug said:
    ...then consider it's getting sped along by one group forcing their morals on another.

    That's the entirety of ALL of our problems right now. One group forcing their so-called "morals" on another. Each group has their own "morals", most of which are invalid in face of the ETHIC of "MYOFB". I have less than zero use for moralists of all types. If it doesn't bloody my nose, I really don't care. Problem is, these "moral people" are bloodying my nose from both the Left and the Right. There is NOTHING worse than a "true believer" of any stripe. NOTHING.
    Perhaps a bit overly simplistic, but that's how I feel. This goes for Abortion, LGBTQ+EIEIO, Gun Rights, Masking and Vax mandates, etc. Don't bloody my nose with your **** and we'll get along just fine as I won't bloody yours - or at least make my best attempt not to. If you want to bloody your own nose, that's YOUR business, not mine and certainly NOT the State's.


    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
    )O(
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,465 Senior Member
    Indeed.  "Hey! You! Get offa my cloud!"
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Posts: 3,490 Senior Member
    I agree with what GA said.  If your state wants to continue, then continue.  

    What I find particularly ghoulish is companies like Starbucks sending their minimum wage employees to different states to get an abortion because that is cheaper than paying a maternity leave.  


    What I find fascinating is that progressives and liberals are constantly screaming about the profit driven evil corporations, but they are so stupid as to believe that Starbucks is doing this based on some sort of moral, pro-woman stance as opposed to a formula that says pregnancy cuts into profits.  Cheaper to kill the baby…

    Stupid has no bounds…
    I’m baaaaaaaaack… 😬
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement