Are these 'infringements'?

Never say never. The extreme of "never infringed" isn't necessary to prevent the kind of extremes at the other end you refer to and since "never infringed" simply isn't possible in reality, saying that is the rule is potentially more harmful.

Clearly infringements on bodily autonomy should be few and far between but there are circumstances where it could be necessary. Minors would be an obvious example, as are adults with significant mental deficiencies. There could also be (and has been) individuals with serious infectious diseases who refuse treatment and measures to prevent them infecting anyone else or prisoners wanting to take drugs (or even alcohol). And as the OP inadvertently pointed out, that is somewhat similar to how the US handles gun control, even with the theoretical principle of "never infringed" (though not as comparable as they'd like to think).

With abortion, as was clearly the focus of the OP, I lean the same way you do, and feel that any restrictions or infringements should be very limited but they're certainly not impossible. It could be argued that the requirement that the procedure needs to be performed (or at least overseen) by a qualified medical professional is an infringement but there could certainly be extreme examples where someone may want an abortion that isn't best for them or not want an abortion that is. And when you add in elements like minors, mental deficiency or a simply inability to make a decision (such as being in a coma), no simplistic principle is going to work. We have to recognise that we need something more detailed and nuanced to deal with reality.

 

Public safety does have limits and it's a subjective cost/benefit ratio decision. We could eliminate roadway deaths by putting 20mph governors on vehicles or we could increase efficiency by eliminating speed limits.
All rights have limits, when they infringe on other's rights or imperil the public's health and safety. The public has rights over individual rights in those cases and deadly weapons are a menace to society. The evidence is clear and the right is in denial. They need to pull up their big boy pants and face the issue.

 

yet anti gun activists only pretend they care about public safety: their proposed laws are clearly designed to harass people they detest and those are not criminals but rather gun owners. Owning a gun does not infringe on anyone's rights nor does it imperil the public. everything one can do that actually does infringe on the legitimate rights of others is already illegal or subject to severe civil penalties

 

Do you really believe that, or are you just saying it to harass people you detest?

It would be ridiculous to put in all the efforts and political capital in to any kind of policy if you don't really believe there would be any actual benefit to it. It'd only lead to even greater pushback and discourage gun-owners from voting for them. You can certainly believe they're wrong (there are plenty of proposed gun controls I don't think are reasonable or practical in the US) but to assume everyone who supports any kind of gun control doesn't honestly believe their proposals would be better for society is disingenuous.

 

I can prove it. example: in 1986 the GOP had control of the senate and enough votes in congress to pass a pro gun bill called the McClure Volker Firearms Owners Protection Act. the bill was going to pass in may of 1986 and Reagan already promised to sign it. Using parliamentary shenanigans, acting speaker Rangel in concert with POS Bill Hughes of New Jersey, added a poison pill at midnight (the voice vote apparently didn't pass but Rangel ruled it did and refused a roll call tally) that was worded in such a way that allowed the ATF to ban the future sale of machine guns to private citizens even though there had been over 50 years of no cases of legally owned machine guns in private hands being used for murders in the USA. the entire purpose of this ban was a spiteful reaction by democrats to a new law that prevented anti gun states from arresting people who traveled through anti gun states with firearms properly stored in their cars or in their checked luggage.

 

None of that proves the true motives for raising that amendment and even if you were right, it wouldn't mean all proponents of gun control today (or all Democrats, depending of which label you're currently attacking) have such petty motivations.

The simple fact is that such basic political generalisations are rarely valid. It's no better than someone saying pro-gun people don't care about dead children.

 

It sounds like you think this would be an infringement if there was a right to abortion access. If that's what you're saying, then we agree. Im only curious why it isnt an infringement on the right to bear arms as well.

 

Sad that you are NOT in the least bit CURIOUS to know about what happened when abortions were ILLEGAL?

 

All that proves is that it is a poorly constructed poll

 

You keep pushing the false equivalency

 

Mate disliking guns has nothing to do with how you vote. I dislike them because I have had to patch up the outcomes. And I have looked at the research. Plus I am from a society that does not have a “second amendment” and feel no reason to have one, a view shared by a lot of people around the globe

 

and we don't care about what your country does. we are not complaining about the stupidity of Australia on Australian boards.

 

yeah, some women died in botched abortions but I suspect people were a bit more careful about not getting pregnant.

 

actually it proves my point perfectly. Crime control had nothing to do with that ban. it was a spiteful tantrum by despicable scumbags

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAA!

There was LITERALLY a massive BOOM in pregnancies and children prior to the Contraceptive PILL and then RvW that provided people the ability to STOP pregnancies.

That is WHY it is called the BOOMER generation.

Beyond PRICELESS!

 

that has nothing to do with your original question. Your anti gun posts suggest that banning something will cut down on people getting that something. Be it guns or abortions. So you admit that prior to RvW there were less "stoppages of pregnancies"

 

No they do NOT suggest anything of the sort.

You CANNOT buy a PREGNANCY off the shelf like you can BUY a gun.

You cannot OWN an ABORTION like you can OWN a gun.

Those are the bovine excrement FALSE equivalences behind the OP's disingenuous conflation of abortion and guns.

Banning guns would not GIVE people anything that they do not already have NOW. Banning guns would REDUCE the number of people LOSING their LIVES instead. That is NOT giving them anything.

And NO, the above is just to EXPLAIN why the content is NONSENSE and NOT something I am ADVOCATING. I have NEVER advocated for the banning of guns because I support the RIGHT of SANE REASONABLE people to own guns.

 

Wrong.

HIPAA is only about medical information between patients, doctors and insurance companies.

States have the right to ban any medical procedure or medicine they like, as long as it does not go against existing Federal law.

 

HIPAA laws should protect us from Religious nuts in government too

 

It doesn't prove your assertion that all supporters of gun control and/or all Democrats only take that position because they hate gun owners.

It is technically possible they thought the amendment you mentioned made it a better law, or (probably more likely) it was party politics in trying to add something the Republicans wouldn't like. And again, even if hate was the motive for those legislators in 1986, that still wouldn't be a justification for tarring a vast range of people before and since with the same brush.

So I ask again, seriously now, do you really believe it or did you just say it to harass people you detest (if only subconsciously)? It's nothing to be embarrassed about, that kind of thing is unfortunately human nature that we can all fall afoul of. The ability to recognise and admit it is a much rarer trait though.

 

Should....but don't.

 

I think it used too, but the war on drugs changed a lot

 

wtf is this about? I support the right of sane people to have legal abortions in most cases. Banning guns would cost far more lives

 

I have been dealing with gun banners for near 50 years. and yes, while some of the rank and file-the low wattage followers, actually think laws that only restrict the rights of lawful people, might decrease crime, the leaders of the anti gun movement have no such illusions.

BTW HTH did adding a poison pill that merely banned weapons that had no history of misuse for over 50 years, make the bill better? the entire purpose was spiteful

 

Is making automatic rifles extremely expensive and the process hard an infringement?
Is not making any and all arms easy to obtain or making some even illegal to own, an infringement.

Face it. There's plenty of infringements on arms ownership that are in place for several types of arms.
And most are just fine with it.

Not sure how this is related to a woman's choice to her healthcare. If she has the means to healthcare and reproductive health, why do Males want to take away her choices?