Comments by "Ricardo Cabeza" (@ricardocabeza6006) on "Shooter Legally Bought Guns After Police Took His Knives" video.

  1. Yes, that’s why it was illegal for him to kill them....
    3
  2. They had a right to life too. That’s why it was illegal to kill them...
    2
  3. Women never had that right... On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her.pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that.Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200 (1927) (sterilization). We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. -Page 154, Section VIII, Opinion of the Court, Roe v. Wade (1973)
    2
  4. Bad time to mention that scotus doesn’t write laws?...
    2
  5.  @judedashiell5390  Has never needed to write laws?... No, you’re not understanding how the government works. This is not based in necessity. They DO NOT write laws, therefore they have not.
    2
  6. Wasn’t there just a mass shooting in Europe?
    1
  7. Ok Jim Jefferies.
    1
  8. David nor the mainstream media would be talking about it.
    1
  9. Oh there’s plenty wrong. But it’s not an inanimate objects fault.
    1
  10. So you think the guy that committed murder cares about following the law?
    1
  11. The knives were taken as evidence for criminal charges he faced. The knives where given back after the charges were dropped. But that’s a lovely tribal imagination you have.
    1
  12. If you engage in a private sale of a firearm, a background check is not legally required. However, if you are found to have sold that firearm to someone that cannot legally own it, and it is used in the commission of a crime, you can be held criminally liable. Please educated yourself on the current laws that already exist, before you try to create more. Your idea here is so good, it already exists.
    1
  13.  @Anna-vl8qc  Then do it. Amend the constitution.
    1
  14. What right was taken away by the overturning of Roe?...
    1
  15. His knives were taken due to criminal charges, they were given back when charges were dropped. David purposefully ignores this fact and blatantly spreads a misinformative narrative for the sake of tribalism.
    1
  16. Yes. That’s correct. Because gun control doesn’t work.
    1
  17. Why do you falsely parrot that AR15s are a military grade rifle, when they are not? Why do you have to lie to make your argument work?
    1
  18.  @jamiealick8821  Are you talking about a first generation Armalite-15?... Which was only manufactured from 1959 to 1964? The gen one had a selective fire switch, modern “ARs” do not. As a firearm with a selective fire switch would require a Federal Firearm License to own. Which is not easy to acquire. Once again, what you call an “AR15” regardless of it being manufactured by Armalite or not, is not a military grade rifle. The Daniel Defense DDM4 used in Texas, is not a military grade rifle. Their internal mechanical function is completely different. Once again, why do you have to falsely parrot nonsense to make your narrative work?
    1
  19. You know, in Australia you still have a monarch.
    1
  20. Why exaggerate and lie by calling it a machine gun?
    1
  21.  @louismailhiot9501  Shoots faster?... You do realize this was not an automatic gun, right? It’s semi-automatic. And like all semi-automatics, it shoots as fast as you can move your finger. One trigger pull gives you one bullet. Anymore, would not be legal without a Federal Firearm License, which is not easy to acquire.
    1
  22.  @kerrynofford4727  You do realize Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel in 1804... right? That wasn’t hunting.
    1
  23. So you want a one party state?... Because historically that’s gone so well throughout human history.
    1
  24. Can we revoke other rights due to someone’s mental status?
    1
  25.  @obamnaprump4262  Should we take away everyone’s car, because some people drink and drive?
    1
  26.  @obamnaprump4262  It doesn’t matter what those functions are. And I’m not even talking about drunk driving deaths. I’m simple talking about a basic DUI... I am talking about some people illegally using an inanimate object, therefore we ban the inanimate object. It doesn’t sound like you really agree with this concept.
    1
  27.  @obamnaprump4262  Ok then... People have used poison to kill other people, yet do we ban theses substances? Or are they available at your local hardware store? The whole purpose of these products are to harm or kill. Bow and arrows are solely designed to harm or kill. Yet, is the left calling for ban of them due to a few people’s illegal actions?
    1
  28. Yeah. And I doubt he would have been willing to illegally obtain a firearm before illegally murdering people. Clearly he cares about following the law...
    1
  29. They shouldn’t need them. They put up a sign on the door saying the school is a gun free zone. Isn’t that enough?
    1
  30. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed. -Second Amendment, US Constitution Arms - noun, weapons and ammunition; armaments. Gun - noun, a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise. (Definitions provided by google/oxford languages)
    1
  31.  @kevinathans4191  Guns are arms dumb dumb. And yes, you constitutionally do have the right to nuclear arms, and the government infringes on this right. And during constitutional times, warships were capable of completely destroying a city. And these could be legally privately owned and operated. They were called privateers.
    1
  32. Out of 195 countries, why is the United States the only one to have been free of any monarch or totalitarian ruler for the past 246 years?
    1
  33.  @supastratt  So which law have they recently called unconstitutional?
    1
  34. So maybe we should ban killing people with a gun? Have we tried that yet?
    1
  35. With money...
    1
  36. Bad time to point out Illinois is not a red state?...
    1
  37. How do you only wound someone?... Please tell me how this is possible. Because real life is not like a Hollywood movie.
    1
  38. But a 16 year old can make life altering decisions about their hormone balance?
    1