Stanek Sunday funnies 5-5-13
The following were my top five favorite political cartoons this week. Pick your favorite in the poll at the bottom of the post.
by Bob Gorrell at Townhall.com…
by Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com…
This one infuriates me… As if abortion proponents had anything to do with bringing Gosnell down? As if it wasn’t exactly the other way around? Yet, that is the spin by liberal Signe Wilkinson at GoComics.com…
by John Deering at GoComics.com…
by Steve Kelley at Townhall.com…
[polldaddy poll=7082853]
May.05, 2013 10:00 am |
Cartoons |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I wish we’d let kids be kids…between the plan b ruling, gun manufacturers building and marketing models to kids, victoria’s secret, and the proliferation of graphics ads (including abortion ones, which this site generally supports) – it is disappointing that we seem to be rushing kids to adulthood in every way possible.
On the third one…and I’ve stated this once, but I’m going to expound a little to see other people’s thoughts. I feel that the pro-life crowd really played their hand wrong on this whole Gosnell trial. After the big rush to say the media ignored it, instead of working to shift the focus to the trial, it seemed like a lot of the right/pro-life crowd enjoyed beating the media over the head with it – so what we ended up with was a lot of coverage about the lack of coverage. Heck, cartoon number 4, weeks and weeks after the whole grand awakening by the media, continues to make this point.
In the mean time, I’ve read numerous articles in large newspapers essentially saying that the reason this happened was because people keep fighting over abortion instead of accepting at least some common ground, and making sure that it is funded and regulated and protected so that this types of situations (which are generally described as preying on poor women – the WOMEN are the victims in many articles I’ve seen) don’t happen again. Personally, I’ve seen conservatives attacking the media more than attacking abortion through this all. There are pockets of exception – but from a national media standpoint, cartoon number 3 is massively accurate:
– Pro-lifers say “this was horrible, it should never happen again – we should ban abortion”
– Pro-choicers say “this was horrible, it should never happen again – abortion needs to be protected, funded, regulated, and brought out of the shadows so that we don’t get this ‘fringe’ activity.
It was because of it being legal and protected that this happened. Pro-choicers did NOTHING to help bring this man down. I didn’t see individual pro-aborts talking about this, let alone the media. In fact many protected him through their blatant silence. It was only prolifers shouting at the top of their lungs that got some people’s attention.
I find it funny how they’re still saying “safe, legal, rare” and claiming this was an isolated incident that prolifers are only taking advantage of for their own agendas. Wait, wasn’t that what you Pro-choicer’s did? you claimed that a few back-alley abortions warranted legalizing the practice.
Abortion numbers have of course increased exponentially since then, WAY more than there ever were when it was illegal. Many of those “back-alley abortionist” were only enabled by the legalization, they expanded their business and continued doing a shoddy job.
Gosnell isn’t the only abortionist to have unclean equipment, little to no inspections, untrained staff, and all those other hazards. Where is the outcry against them pro-choicers? don’t you want it to be safe? then go investigate for yourself, if you truly want it to be safe, weed them out.
Oh wait a second. When you see that abortion is murder it’s only logical to see why these “doctors” often don’t care about their patients at all. If they have no respect for a child’s life, why would they care about anyone else? This is an inevitable outcome of abortion practice. Well, I guess the only answer is to make it all illegal and enforce it so this can’t happen again. But you don’t want that to happen, so you will keep ignoring them and believe that abortion is indeed “safe, legal and rare”.
@ Rogue: There was an abortion patient (she may believe it should be legal although the article didn’t say) who brought down an abortionist who had been molesting his patients for many years. Previous patients hadn’t reported but she did and he was sentenced to several years of imprisonment.
Hi Rogue,
Outstanding post.
Under Republican PC Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge, annual inspection of abortion clinics stopped. Did NARAL or NOW utter one word of outrage or demand the governor resume inspections?
According to one reporter on Huckabee, one of the few to attend the trial, Ridge was concerned that since the mills ran on a shoestring, most would be forced to close down and women would be denied access to abortion. Well gee Guv, would you be as inclined to suspend inspections of kennels and veterinary clinics because this would inconvenience pet owners or force some to be unable to get care for their pets?
You would think the fact the governor feared these ratholes would close would tell him something, like gee, maybe they should close. Maybe they are unsafe?
The PC folks can spare us their crocidile tears. They’ve gotten caught with their pants down on this one. They forget abortion has been legal 40 years and their promise to women concerning safety, protection, and the elimination of the criminal element has been a lie.
In the meantime Tom Ridge, take a look at the result of your policy.
Ex-RINO,
We should pass some common sense legislation to make abortion more safe and more rare. Legislation that reduces the number of babies that abortionists can kill. A daily cap of one abortion a day would restrict the ability of creeps like Gosnell who make their living by being sick enough to kill baby after baby without a conscience. What do you expect you get in an abortionist who spends the day going from mother to mother killing one baby after another. ? A nice guy?????? Also a lifetime cap of say 10 would be reasonable and it would keep these creeps from being able to run the chop shops. These types of common sense restrictions would make abortion much safer and rarer and that’s what everybody wants.
I would like someone here to articulate a compelling reason for why Plan B should require parental consent to purchase, but the countless other potentially harmful drugs that children have always been able to legally buy over-the-counter should not.
I had already seen number one and that’s the one I voted for because it shows the utter hypocrisy, inconsistency and stupidity of political correctness.
Joan, exactly what potentially harmful drugs are you talking about that 15 year olds can buy over the counter without parental consent? Because if there are any such drugs, they shouldn’t be able to get those on their own either.
Plan B has some really bad side effects and is known to have caused several deaths. And that’s with at least some kind of so-called medical supervision.
Being able to get Plan B over the counter only enables sex predators to cover their tracks when the get these girls pregnant by coercing and threatening them into buying Plan B over the counter and keeping them away from medical personnel who just might blow the whistle.
Finally, I go back to the cartoon. You can’t do any of those things but you can buy, without parental consent or knowledge, or even the knowledge of medical personnel, a drug that is not only birth control but often causes abortion? That just makes no sense, and it’s dangerous.
President Barack Obama condones statutory raping.
President Barack Obama condones covering up statutory raping.
Number four is the best of a bad bunch. The Townhall ones are from the usual suspects who will only be ‘preaching to the converted’ anyway. Number four demonstrates that the media has better things to do reporting stories that the populace are actually interested in.
Since no state has a legal age of consent under 16 years old, I do not understand how the FDA can approve OTC Plan B for 15 year olds. Does not compute.
I think you’ll find that although it may be against the law to have sex before 16, that doesn’t prevent pregnancy. Some choose to break the law, some may be the victim of rape or incest.
“Since no state has a legal age of consent under 16 years old, I do not understand how the FDA can approve OTC Plan B for 15 year olds. Does not compute.”
They’ve let you get free condoms and birth control from county health in my state for ages, I remember getting condoms when I was fourteen, some of the female friends I knew got birth control around the same age, and the age of consent is 18 in my state. It’s been going on for a while.
The reason the MSM doesn’t report on Gosnell is because to them Gosnell is a Champion of women’s rights and hero.
aren’t the choicers still trying to get gosnell free? isn’t he like, a runaway slave, or something?
The lie of cartoon number three is that choice providers and their cohorts in the media across the land knew of deplorable conditions in abortion mills for decades and yet did all within their power to keep a lid on it. So now we are to acclaim their newfound discovery that these mills are bad? Like the criminal who has been caught and is now “sorry” it seems the same for the abortion industry. And the way I understand it what put Gosnell on the radar screen in the first place were reports of his writing excessive prescriptions for pills and what they discovered abortion-wise was the result of that investigation. Had he not been investigated for the pill prescriptions the abortion industry would still be covering for him.
My question is when will there be hearings on why the parties responsible for oversight dropped the ball. Regardless of the intent of a superior (Governor or otherwise) there are nevertheless directives and procedures that must be adhered to. Are we to excuse police officers who habitually ignore reports of domestic abuse just because the lieutenant doesn’t think it a good use of police resources, only to have these women end up seriously injured or dead because the problem was not addressed properly in the first place? Those in positions of authority need to be held accountable for the inaction that led to this atrocity.
Like the criminal who has been caught and is now “sorry” it seems the same for the abortion industry.
I wish that were the case, but it’s more like a criminal who is caught and screams out, “It was your fault!” The abortion industry cannot and will not be accountable for Gosnell or they would have to acknowledge that sometimes abortion/death of the child isn’t the answer.
Reality, you sound a lot like the geniuses who sent condoms to child rapists in Africa. Don’t deal with the problem, put a candy wrapper on it instead.
Jerry,
Who are the ones you would prosecute if you were the lead prosecuter? Would you go after Planned Parenthood for the referrals to this monster?
I second the question: Joan, what “dangerous” drugs are teens buying over the counter without a prescription? Asprin? Listerine? Maalox? Please tell us. It can’t be a lot of cold medicines because we have to ask the clerk to get them out of the case (no matter how old we are), then we show our ID to ensure that we’re not using cold medicine to cook meth for old chem teachers starring on HBO, lol.
But seriously, Joan, what specific drugs are teens buying that are dangerous?
Tylenol is actually pretty dangerous. Can cause liver damage, failure, or death. It causes something like 500 deaths a year from liver damage and 50,000 emergency room visits. Aspirin can cause damage too, like ulcers.
What? The right wingers are back in favor of regulations and such? I thought, for instance, that we couldn’t pass universal background gun laws because “the bad people would simply find a way to get them anyways”. But now, we’re all in favor of banning things?
Regardless – Jack is right – pain killers in general (at least based on the stats I’ve seen).
True Ex-RINO, it kinda makes all the debate about the size of ammunition clips seem inconsequential when common sense legislation like limiting abortionists to one killing a day would be 100’s of time more effective at stopping killing.
EGV,
LOL. When criminals want to use a gun, they make sure its “clean”, i.e., it can’t be traced. No serial numbers, no records. You buy it from some guy on a street corner or you steal it from someone who registered their gun and had their background checked. Or if you want someone killed you can hire a “professional” who will be very careful not to get caught, that’s why he/she is a “professional”, and I’m sure does not subject themselves to any background checks. Heck, they may not always use a gun. I mean, there are any number of ways to kill people and make it look like an accident.
Its like your car EGV. You are law abiding, you are licensed, your car is registered. You are sober and careful when you drive it. However some criminal can steal it and use it in the commission of a crime. Its likely a thief would much prefer your stolen car so as not to have it traced to him/her. They may even attempt to kill you in the process of carjacking your vehicle. I’m sure in such a situation, you would want to have a gun, or hope there is a police officer very nearby who has one.
Hi Truthseeker:
I would start by interviewing any and all individuals and agencies who had oversight responsibilities re the Gosnell clinic. If they were given explicit instructions by their superiors to ignore their findings then logic dictates we would go there next. Prosecutions should follow. The bottom line is that the state failed miserably and it must not happen again.
Hi Jerry,
I understand that Republican PC Gov. Tom Ridge cancelled all clinic inspections, fearing it would force many of them to close and deny women access to abortion.
Eh Guv, didn’t that tell you something, like maybe these ratholes need to be closed? What other inspections have you ordered an end to because they may cause inconvenience? Kennels? Pet salons?
Ridge should have been taken on a walking tour through Gosnell’s house of horrors. He should have to sit through that entire trial and hear every gory detail. He should have to speak to these injured women and the surviving families of the dead women.
And when that idiot lawyer of Gosnell whines about Gosnell being the ”victim” of elitism and racism, it should be pointed out that most of Gosnell’s victims were minority and/or poor. What is more elitist and racist than to suggest these women deserved no better?
Hi Mary,
I really wish I had voted “present” in Ridge’s elections. That snake of a lawyer (pulling the race card) was a regular panelist on a local Philadelphia McLaughlin Group type of show where he usually took the sensible conservative side.
Two examples of why politicians and lawyers are among the least-liked professions.
Your plan is flawed truthsneeker. It would mean more staff would need to be employed to meet the same demand. Therefore more government funding would be needed to pay for the extra people required to facilitate meeting that demand.
Yikes Mary – your 10:38 post is a little scary..like you researched gun loopholes to exploit or something.
Your post is cute, but didn’t really answer the question at hand. Doesn’t matter though…we’ve been down these trails before.
EGV,
Ya gotta admit we “right wingers” have a point, ”the bad people would simply find a way to get them anyways”.
Mary – my point is, conservatives believe that in some cases, but not others. There’s been many state pushes to require ID’s for voters. There’s been a push to restrict food purchases.
Furthermore, should we simply get rid of all drug rules because it seems like if people want it bad enough, they’ll get drugs somehow?
The logic just doesn’t make sense.
Ex-RINO,
Your equivocations are without bound.
You strain out the dung goddesses’ flies and swallow her donkey whole!
Your ‘jot and tittle’ myopia is epic.
How many more nights are willing to sleep with the frogs before you acknowledge the TRUTH and walk in HIS light?
Will you never tire of being the anti-christ’s mouth piece?
You are like some submissive sex slave led about on a dominimatrixes’ leash.
You are yoked to the great mother of all lies.
You fawningly adore the deceiver and all her deceptions.
You are a deceiver of the brethren.
Can you even give your own children a straight answer to the simplest question, or do you meander off on an endless odyssey of mindless minutia of irrelevant nothingness until they become so frustrated in their understanding that they settle for the meaningless drivel you offer up as knowledge?
I would love to tie around your neck the decaying corpse of one of the babies Kermit Gosnell murdered so that you would be unavoidably confronted and reminded of rotting fruit of your lying counsel.
That’s another one I forgot to add to the blog drinking game, how many times liberal Christians (well Ex-GOP at least) get accused of actually worshiping Satan or the anti-Christ or whatever. My liver is never going to forgive me.
EGV,
What would be the problem with requiring IDs for voters? I’ve always found it patronizing and racist to suggest that “minorities” are less likely to have IDs. I recall that to get on a ferry, my very elderly mother who was in her early 90’s and in assisted living and two other physically challenged women, one of them in a wheelchair, were asked for IDs, which they produced. I always found it odd these women had no trouble obtaining IDs, but perfectly able bodied people can’t, especially when they are offered for free.
We have gun laws. We have drug laws.
My goodness Ken.
Hi Jack,
Good heavens man take care of that liver!
“Furthermore, should we simply get rid of all drug rules because it seems like if people want it bad enough, they’ll get drugs somehow?” – I get the feeling kentheburper might be able to answer that question Ex-GOP, although maybe not in a way that can be comprehended.
Mary -
Because they are less likely to have an ID. And so are the elderly.
Regardless, there are laws about voting fraud as well, yet you clearly support more regulations in that area.
EGV,
Why are they less likely? Can we say patronizing and racist? Do you assume minorities don’t have jobs, drive cars, have bank accounts, write checks or use credit cards, use airports, make purchases, or send packages via UPS? I have to show my ID for even that. My very elderly mother has had an ID for years, as do any number of my elderly relatives and acquaintances. I see elderly and physically and mentally challenged people use airports, they certainly need IDs for that.
Also IDs can be obtained free of charge. Don’t you support all efforts to end voting fraud? I do.
Mary – because they aren’t. Statistically, they aren’t. I don’t know what to tell you. I know you like to go back to the 1940’s for most of your arguments, but I”m going by the stats, which say that minorities and the elderly are less likely to have valid ID’s.
Stats Mary…embrace them.
EGV,
Where do I go back to the 40s? I’m just asking if you make certain assumptions concerning American minorities?
Well fine, let’s embrace the “stats”. Minorities as a rule are less likely to hold down jobs, drive, have bank accounts, use airports, etc. Maybe what the stats indicate is that minorities should stop favoring the Democrat Party. It sure isn’t getting them very far in life.
They don’t really believe in one person, one vote. They like the American Idol way of voting better, which has a “limit” of 50 each. They also know the opposition is less likely to join in their cheating. Scruples, don’tcha know.
Yeah, pretty sure there’s been plenty of voter fraud on the right. It is politics, after all.
Mary – I make no assumptions – I use stats.
Hans – the Bush administration made a huge push to crack down on voting fraud across the country, and it came up empty (I think there were 55 of so cases found).
Plain and simple, the GOP wants these laws because they believe it will suppress voter turnout. They’ve even admitted it. It’s an expensive solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. I don’t know how conservatives support voter ID bills – terrible waste of money.
EGV,
OK, so the stats seem to be saying that voting Democrat isn’t getting minorities very far in life.
Suppress the vote? Oh please. People can obtain IDs free of charge at the cost of a bus ride. I’m curious as to how people get through life without IDs. Also, does requiring an ID suppress my ability to use the airport?
Hi Jack, 10:20PM
All the more reason for voter ID.
Mary,
Just a point: ids in my state aren’t free. I’ve never heard of govt id being free before this, and now I’m curious as to how many states have that.
I generally support your comments. If you want to vote, get a dang id. It isn’t that hard, and if you can’t be bothered to do that then you sure as heck can’t be bothered to do the research on the issues and candidates.
I also tend to agree that stricter regulations on guns could be a very sketchy thing. How about requiring that all citizens of an appropriate age (say 18) take a gun course including safety and either own a gun, opt out with a conscience clause, or pay a fine? Requiring that the head of household have a gun seems to be working well in Kennesaw, GA. “After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts
Totally not cool with requiring people to own guns if they don’t want to or should not.
To be clear I’m not pro-getting rid of guns or anything like that. I don’t like ridiculous arguments though. Free Republic is, as usual, exaggerating things to fit their preconceived notions. From what I can see the ordinance was largely symbolic. That town’s violence rate is about on par with other rural Georgia towns. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/20/nation/la-na-more-guns-20121221
I can’t find any stats on suicide in that town, but it’s been shown over and over again is that having a gun in the house raises the risk of a successful suicide by a lot. I don’t know why people think deaths by suicide are so much less important than the (comparatively much less common) deaths by murder, but people should probably keep that in mind when advocating literally everyone have a gun at hand. Actually when I was in rehab they told those of us that were diagnosed with depressive disorders that the best way we could ensure that we would be at less risk for offing ourselves is to make sure that we didn’t have access to firearms in our homes. It literally is that dangerous, if you have problems with depression or bipolar disorder, to have a gun around. One bad day where you can’t talk yourself out of your suicidal ideation, boom you’re dead (which makes me a complete idiot because I still have my guns, but meh). So, seriously, people got to stop with this gun fetishizing. It’s fine to own a gun. It’s not fine to glorify them in this weird way that the right is doing. They are, in fact, dangerous weapons and should be treated as such.
Jack,
Food for thought, thanks. :)
I don’t really have a strong stance on gun control. I am bringing up Kennesaw as a “whaddaya think” more than a “let’s do this.” Free Republic, from the sounds of it, took that town out of context but didn’t actually *exaggerate* anything. So something is working in GA and that’s good, but if you read the article, it doesn’t make any untrue or outlandish statements about the facts-it just attributes all the decrease in crime to the gun law, which may or may not be fair.
I tend to look on the gun control debate from the outside: I don’t own a gun, but I’m not against them. I can see both the argument that guns are dangerous and also the argument that heavily regulating guns can also be rather dangerous. I think (well, I thought) Kennesaw provided an interesting glimpse into the subject of gun control, as does Australia, but I tend not to make a lot of noise over the subject, generally speaking. I will choose to assume that your comment on “gun fetishizing” is directed at those who seem to support complete deregulation of firearms, and not at my comment.
Hi Mary Rose,
Thank you. I have heard that in some states IDs are free to those who qualify, but I don’t know what states they are. I just googled and it has some info on this. Also, its a minimum 2 years(congressional) and maximum of 6(senatorial) between elections, with the presidential being 4 years. People who want to vote can’t possibly get IDs? Also, how does anyone get through life without one? I can’t even take money out of my own bank account without 2 pieces of picture ID.
I was surprised when UPS asked for my ID when I dropped off a package for delivery.
Hi Jack,
Thank you for your interesting comments.
Yes guns are dangerous and must be treated with the respect they deserve, but so must the electricity in your house, the car you drive, the knives in your kitchen drawer, the container of gasoline in your garage, and your cigarette lighter. Just about anything in everyday life is potentially dangerous. My friend’s husband died in a totally bizarre freak, and I mean freak, accident where he fatally wounded himself with a butcher knife while preparing dinner. It was ruled an accident by police, if anything the poor man tried to save himself. We heard about that poor man in Florida who died in a sinkhole that swallowed up his bedroom. Even your own bedroom can become a deathtrap.
Concerning suicide, when people are determined to kill themselves, nothing on God’s green planet will stop them. I’ve seen people eat Draino crystals, hang themselves, overdose, monoxide themselves, and if at first they didn’t succeed, they got it “right” the second time.
Simply eliminating certain weapons only makes the person a little more imaginative, but all too often no less determined. The fact you still keep a gun certainly doesn’t make you an idiot, if you were determined to kill yourself you would. Getting rid of your gun would not stop you.
I have no doubt your children are your greatest motivation to cope. Remember the people on this blog love and are concerned about you as well.
“I will choose to assume that your comment on “gun fetishizing” is directed at those who seem to support complete deregulation of firearms, and not at my comment.”
That wasn’t directed at you, MaryRose. It’s to the people who are pro absolutely no regulation, that treat guns like accessories or toys, and act like everyone should own at least fifteen.
” Yes guns are dangerous and must be treated with the respect they deserve, but so must the electricity in your house, the car you drive, the knives in your kitchen drawer, the container of gasoline in your garage, and your cigarette lighter. Just about anything in everyday life is potentially dangerous. My friend’s husband died in a totally bizarre freak, and I mean freak, accident where he fatally wounded himself with a butcher knife while preparing dinner. It was ruled an accident by police, if anything the poor man tried to save himself. We heard about that poor man in Florida who died in a sinkhole that swallowed up his bedroom. Even your own bedroom can become a deathtrap.”
Yes, and guns are more commonly associated with suicides and accidents far more than their intended purpose (which is, don’t forget, killing another living being). This isn’t true for anything else you are mentioned. Anything can be dangerous, even a pillow can accidentally smother a newborn, but some things are much, much more dangerous than others. I personally think that guns should be regulated like cars. You need to be sixteen before using one (though I think it’s fine if parents teach their children gun safety and there could be stipulations for training younger children at a shooting range, the more safety the better), you need to prove that you are sufficiently trained at using one and obtain a license before you are allowed to use one, and every few years I think that it would be good to have another safety test.
” Concerning suicide, when people are determined to kill themselves, nothing on God’s green planet will stop them. I’ve seen people eat Draino crystals, hang themselves, overdose, monoxide themselves, and if at first they didn’t succeed, they got it “right” the second time.
Simply eliminating certain weapons only makes the person a little more imaginative, but all too often no less determined. The fact you still keep a gun certainly doesn’t make you an idiot, if you were determined to kill yourself you would. Getting rid of your gun would not stop you.
I have no doubt your children are your greatest motivation to cope. Remember the people on this blog love and are concerned about you as well.”
Yes, some people are determined to kill themselves. Far more people , and this is backed up by statistics, are not so much determined as they are overwhelmed by intrusive suicidal thoughts, and many people like that don’t plan like people who are determined to kill themselves do. They simply can’t cope one day, and statistically if they have a gun in the house they are far more likely to have a successful suicide attempt. I don’t have the statistics at hand right now, but I believe that households with guns in them are five times more likely to have a successful suicide attempt than those without. Many people who commit suicide don’t attempt again, and those who are still suicidal after a survived attempt generally have the opportunity to seek help (and sometimes are court ordered to do so). If you try to off yourself with a gun, you never get that second chance. Which is depressing. Which is why a lot of mental health professionals, at least the ones I know, say that if you struggle with suicidal tendencies you shouldn’t keep firearms in your home. And thanks I’m fine now for the most part but I appreciate the support.
Hi Jack,
Depending on the stats you look at, guns and cars kill about the same number of people, give or take. I agree that both must be treated with respect and properly regulated. I don’t agree with what I see as a gov’t vendetta, especially by politicians who have their own armed guards and concealed carry permits. I can recall being appalled by the leniency drunk drivers were treated with when I first started working ER. You mean, this guy is dead and the guy in the next room that hit him is getting little more than a slap on the wrist? It was years before anyone took this seriously. Yes, lethal weapons of any kind must be treated with respect and there has to be some regulation.
I’m afraid that for the most part I’ve seen people fail suicide attempts with guns, and they do botch the attempt royally, often blinding, disfiguring, or braindamaging themselves.
Anyway Jack, thank you for your perspective and feedback. I can certainly agree that there are times when caution and good sense must come into play where guns are concerned, i.e. suicidal ideation and mental health issues. The more time and thought the person must put into a suicide could well be the extra few minutes that stopped them.
I find these arguments to be silly – people comparing the dangers of guns to highly regulated products, and then arguing against regulation.
Plain and simple Mary, guns make it easier to kill people, kill lots of people, and to kill oneself. I’m sure you’ll kick into some story of the good ole days – but I’d ask you to take a look instead of gun violence rates around the world, and look at other similar countries.
Mary (and your three likes) -
You’d be surprised at the number of elderly people who don’t have an ID, and those who don’t have a valid birth certificate to get an ID. In Wisconsin, before a judge put the law on hold, there were old people who were basically given a “good luck” – they didn’t have a valid ID, didn’t have valid birth certificates (one lady, the name was spelled wrong), so they couldn’t get an ID.
Again, you are grasping for an expensive solution to cure a problem that doesn’t exist.
Furthermore, what is the sort of voter fraud that you think is most likely to happen. Mass screwing with the numbers, or individuals driving around and voting multiple times (when large elections are decided by tens of thousands of votes). And your solution to stop them is training old people to check ID’s?
Seriously?
I don’t really see ID requirements for voting as a solution to anything, particularly, but as a common sense law. Wanna vote? Get ID. Seems like a sensible solution. There are a variety of kinds of acceptable ID and if you need one to open a bank account, you should need one to make your opinion count about how your nation is run. I don’t see it as filling a need. I see it as, “why isn’t this already a thing?”
I think it common sense that we should have a quiz before a person votes.
Others in the past have thought that there should be a tax.
For a while, people thought somebody’s gender or race should disqualify others.
Given the history of voting issues in this country, anytime people want to make it more difficult for others, we should be wary.
Plus, if we’re not solving a real issue, should we make it a longer, more frustrating process? Would you be willing to have your taxes raised (it costs a few million for a state) and wait in line for an increased time to have voter ID laws?
Ex-GOP,
Proving you are actually a US citizen named “Joe Smith” is not the same as proving that you fit into the category of the elite chosen to vote. Sorry, no bite.
Regarding the taxes, I would support that tax increase way more than some of the others which have been forced on me.
In all those situations, one of the goals is/was to limit who could vote and better slant the chances of an election.
If voter ID bills are no big deal, why do you feel that the Pennsylvania house majority leader said that if Voter ID was the law in Pennsylvania, it would win the state for Romney?
I don’t feel any particular way about it. He obviously felt like either (a) people were fraudulously voting for Obama or (b) people who couldn’t get ID for whatever reason were voting for Obama. I have no intention to limit the access to voting for anyone who is legally wishing to participate in the election, and it’s not like I’m making a bunch of political noise about it, so I don’t see your hangup with my opinions.
The hangup with your opinion is that the result of voter ID bills have been exactly the opposite of your intention. On the surface, sure, it sounds fine – but there’s a lot of people who are legally able to vote that don’t have the proper ID’s. Look up the nuns in Indiana who couldn’t vote because they didn’t have ID’s…look at the cases in Wisconsin.
Education is the key – in Minnesota, early polls had support very high – and as people learned about the high costs, the massively low amount of fraud, and the problems, they ended up rejecting the measure (good for them!)