A gun rights group sued New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) and other state officials on Saturday over an emergency order banning firearms from being carried in public in Albuquerque.

The National Association for Gun Rights, alongside Albuquerque resident Foster Haines, filed suit just one day after Grisham announced the public health order temporarily suspending concealed and open carry laws in the city.

The group argued that the order violates their Second Amendment rights, pointing to the Supreme Court’s decision last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 3 years ago* (14 children)

Does not being allowed to regulate things you know nothing about also extend to uteruses, the environment, etc?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    Stop going off topic. You aren't disagreeing with him and presenting a valid argument. You're just trying to change the subject matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (3 children)

    I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the right wing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    I'm liberal, and I'm saying banning firearms in public is more of a "feel good" measure than it is actually useful. Unless you give pat downs as people leave their house then tons of people will violate this ordinance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    Of course it does. You should have the right to have an abortion. You should have the right to refuse vaccination (although private businesses should have the right to refuse to allow you entry or employment if you aren't). You should have the right to own the firearms that work best for you.

    You should have the rights to make choices about yourself and your own body that do not cause direct, immediate harm to other people.

    If you're going to argue that guns should be illegal because you can kill a person (illegally) with one, then it's just as reasonable to argue that abortion should be illegal because you're killing a person.

    The only problem here is that both Republicans and Democrats are inconsistent, but in opposite ways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

    Your second paragraph pretty well contradicts your first paragraph as far as vaccinations go.

    And your third doesn't follow any kind of logical reasoning since one of the ideas behind legal abortion is bodily autonomy.

    Your fourth paragraph is making conclusions based on the first three, but since they're full of holes, there's nothing to actually support your assertion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Your second paragraph pretty well contradicts your first paragraph as far as vaccinations go

    Failing to be vaccinated does not cause direct, immediate harm to other people. It's a potential harm that isn't necessarily realized in any given instance.

    And your third doesn’t follow any kind of logical reasoning since one of the ideas behind legal abortion is bodily autonomy.

    Conservatives argue that a blastocyst is a human, since life starts at conception. Therefore, the conservative argument is that any abortion (aside from spontaneous abortions, AKA miscarriages) is intentionally causing the death of a human. Don't pretend like you didn't know this, since that's been their entire claim while working the legal angles to overturn Planned Parenthood v Casey (which is what actually overturned Roe v. Wade, not the latest Dobbs decision).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Conservatives argue that windmills cause cancer, who gives a fuck what they think

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments