Stanek wkend question: Should both pro-life and pro-choice be pro-gun?
A writer at Policymic.com has a provocative thought:
Many abortion supporters in feminist organizations and in liberal celebrity circles strongly defend a woman’s right to choose and to control decisions about what happens to their bodies, however, when it comes to a woman’s right to protect their bodies from potential harm, shamefully these same people are silent….
Now one would think that forcing a woman to choose protection over her own body at the expense of being labeled a criminal would create outrage among the liberal feminist crowd. However, the silence on their end has been deafening
The National Organization of Women states on its website, “NOW affirms that reproductive rights are issues of life and death for women, not mere matters of choice.” Somehow the same outrage and passion just isn’t there for a woman’s right to protect herself.
At a 2012 event for the Center of Reproductive Rights… comedian Tina Fey spoke with outrage about recent comments… Todd Akin and… Richard Mourdock made about rape and abortion.
“If I have to listen to one more gray-faced man with a $2 hair cut explain to me what rape is, I’m gonna lose my mind.”
But when it comes to women making the choice to protect their bodies, she hasn’t lost her mind on this issue, but her voice.
In America, an estimated 207,754 rapes occurred last year. These staggering statistics show the dangers of violence and sexual violence that many women in America face. Ironically, Ms. Fey and the NOWs of the world sit by in silence while women are subject by law to make such a terrible choice.
What do you think? Should both pro-life and pro-choice feminists strongly uphold the Second Amendment and oppose efforts to weaken in? And should we all support the right to carry concealed weapons?
Whenever I’ve suggested that fertile teen girls and young women who wouldn’t be prepared to carry to term a pregnancy from rape should at least consider being on contraceptives — especially if they live in high-crime areas — a poster (not on this blog) has always countered with the proposal that such girls and women carry guns and be prepared to use them.
I myself support the 2nd Amendment and believe individuals have the right to bear arms. However, there are many individuals who for various reasons — nervousness and anxiety, easy distractibility, and others — should not carry guns. I’ve pointed this out to that poster and she inevitably replies that the person should work on this “personality defect” until we are all able to confidently walk through life armed.
0 likes
Being pro-abortion or pro-life doesn’t make a difference. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t care what else you believe/don’t believe.
Unless the pro-abortion person suddenly has an attack of conscious and decides that guns kill people and they’re suddenly against the killing of a human being, but even then, it would be their preference to choose to own/carry a gun because why would they want to impose their ideals onto another person? /sarc
6 likes
NOWs new bumper sticker:
We Allow no Protections for the Innocents Without Apology
6 likes
Liberals would love the second amendment if children could be aborted by shooting them.
14 likes
I know not everyone that is pro-life or conservative is a Christian. However, I am and my opinion is formed from those beliefs. As a fleshly, worldly person, I do not understand how a group that is so pro-woman (like NOW or other feminist groups) can be so pro-choice (pro-abortion) yet be so anti-choice on all other issues (except gay marriage, of course.) It makes no sense. Why does NOW and the Democrat (liberal) party so vehemently support abortion and gay rights but so vehemently oppose choice in other areas, such as what size soda you can drink or whether you can own a gun(s). It appears that we are losing all our rights in quick fashion, but we can still abort and be gay, those are okay. In fact, there is a YouTube video were this conservative guy interviewed a bunch of Democrats (at the last convention) about whether or not they were pro-choice or anti-choice (not just on abortion but on any subject.) They were all like, “Yeah, we are definitely pro-choice. A person should be able to make their own decisions!” But then when he started asking about specifics they were all saying, “No, people can’t do that. The government has to make laws to protect us from ourselves!” And what is so ironic is that they cannot see their own hypocrisy. Okay. so I am rambling. On to my point. It is so obvious to me, spiritually as a Christian, that satan is mired knee-deep in our culture, in the abortion debate, in the gun debate, and in the gay-marriage debate. Satan has blinded people, he has blinded our culture in these areas. None of this makes sense until one realizes that our culture in being manipulated by evil. Even much of The Church is apostate and allowing their beliefs to be swayed. Although, I don’t even think that a large potion of Christians even know what they believe. Therefore they bend their morals to whatever the world says is okay. Of course, The Bible tells us all this will be so at the end of the age. Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus. Fine print: this is MY opinion, based on my faith and does not imply that everyone has to believe as I do. I pray that you would, but you have your own free will, the right to be wrong! :)
10 likes
The life issue and the gun issue are two completely unrelated issues. Efforts to conflate the two are a distraction. That said I would think that women especially would be in favor of gun ownership rights for defense of self and family.
4 likes
John Lewandowski says:
February 16, 2013 at 11:11 am
The life issue and the gun issue are two completely unrelated issues. Efforts to conflate the two are a distraction. That said I would think that women especially would be in favor of gun ownership rights for defense of self and family.
(Denise) The Second Amendment Sisters is an organization formed around this idea.
1 likes
I don’t think the two viewpoints have much in common quite frankly.
In general, I’ve more closely associated the pro-choice mindset with the pro-gun lobby – essentially that the number of deaths don’t matter as long as freedoms are protected – or worded differently, I think both groups think that their rights are locked into the constitution, and if we have higher death rates of others because of those rights, so be it.
2 likes
If pro-lifers want the fewest deaths possible, and are willing to legislate to reduce the number of abortions, then they should certainly be willing to legislate gun ownership in a way that reduces deaths that are a result of gun violence. How hard is this to grasp?
5 likes
Ella Rae, law-abiding citizens don’t kill others with guns. Criminals do. So if you legislate gun ownership, please explain to me how you intend to get criminals to follow laws. How hard is this to grasp?
10 likes
Gun control has nothing to do with abortion. Our founding fathers protected our GOD GIVEN right to protect ourselves with guns because they knew that an armed populace prevents tyranny. And for that matter, prevents genocide (thinking Hitler..stalin…they disarmed those they wished to exterminate).
this is a red herring in the discussion about abortion. I am pro-life but I will just say no government will EVER tell me how I may or may not protect my family. Period.
10 likes
Gun ownership on demand and without apology. Plus, I want the government to buy me my gun, and bullets.
12 likes
Sydney – two things:
1) Access – how do we assure that the people who own guns lock them up and have them stored away in a manner as to prevent accidents. We have way too many accidents, or people stealing other people’s guns and using them. Also, I’m assuming you support things like universal background checks so all gun sales must go through some checks?
2) Type – I’m guessing that even you believe rocket launchers shouldn’t be in private citizens hands. And I believe that handguns and hunting rifles should be allowed for most citizens. Where is the line in between? Where do we say some weapons are okay, and others aren’t.
4 likes
“Gun ownership on demand and without apology. Plus, I want the government to buy me my gun, and bullets.”
And provide you with bullet proof boots and/or pay your medical expenses should you sitll manage to shoot yourself in the foot.
8 likes
To Denise’s initial post:
We know that you trust contraception, even for teen-agers. You have made that clear.
Moral issues aside: Many of us are convinced that contraceptives are toxic and carcinogenic (especially for teenagers), and that contraceptives are not effective at preventing pregnancies (especially for teenagers).
The problem of abortion is a problem of too much reliance on contraception.
Now consider the problem of rape:
1) Suppose a culture where girls are encouraged to carry guns and trained to protect themselves. How would a tempted rapist behave in this culture?
2) Suppose a culture where girls are encouraged to use contraception, even if they are virginal and not sexually active. HOw would a tempted rapist behave in this culture?
I suggest that a culture of self-defense would discourage a rapist, while a culture of contraception would encourage a rapist.
We already know how rapists and sexual abusers are encouraged to hide their crimes by the culture of abortion.
4 likes
1. Access- “how do we assure that the people who own cars lock them up and have them stored away in a manner as to prevent accidents. We have way too many accidents, or people stealing other people’s cars and using them. Also, I’m assuming you support things like universal background checks so all car sales must go through some checks?
2.Type-I’m guessing that even you believe high performance sports cars shouldn’t be in private citizens hands. And I believe that Priuses and Volts should be allowed for most citizens. Where is the line in between? Where do we say some automobiles are okay, and others aren’t.
7 likes
I don’t see this young lady becoming a ‘soft target’ for a rapist nor do I see her becoming the victim of an abortionist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXYdzPiF4xc
2 likes
12-Year-Old Oklahoma Girl Shoots Home Intruder
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/23/12-year-old-girl-shoots-home-intruder/
Woman Shoots at 2 Intruders; 1 Dead: Police
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Homeowner-Shoots-Intruders-Police-174633151.html
2 likes
Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder
http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605
2 likes
I suppose it might more gratifying if those women beat the criminals to death with a rolling pin.
But then we wouldn’t have a bunch of whiners debating on who should or should not possess a rolling pin and how large they can be.
3 likes
Ken
First of all, I’m going to assume you own a car.
Now, if you own a car, you know a few things about that car. When you bought it, you created a paper trail, and if you sell it, certain documents must be filed. You pay for it every year and if you have it stolen, I’m guessing you’d report that car to the police very quickly.
Still talking about your car, you know that you had to take a test to drive it – and that you weren’t able to drive that car until you hit a certain age limit.
There’s tons of regulations regarding that car – you have to have things in working order, if you are misusing the car at anytime you can be fined or have it taken away.
But the number one reason that comparing a car to a gun is a stupid thing to do….
Cars are a very useful tool for something – when used properly, cars will get you to your job, church, a friend’s house. Cars are designed with a societal purpose and that purpose is to transport you places. Now, people do misuse cars and people do die from car accidents – but a car, when used properly, simply takes you from point a to point b.
When a gun is used properly, it is meant to kill somebody. Guns are designed to kill. There’s no way around it, and people don’t buy guns that wouldn’t allow you to kill somebody.
If you’d like me to put adjusted rates of death for each I can – the relative rate of deaths per gun owners and the relative rates of death per licensed drivers. Would you like to see that to determine if you’d like to continue thinking guns and cars are a good comparison?
6 likes
I don’t think that more guns will lower the amount of rapes/assaults where the victim (male or female, people always forget that males are at risk of sexual assault too) is known to the perpetrator (which is the majority of rapes). Most people won’t shoot someone they know or in a lot of cases care about. It might, and that’s a big might, reduce the rape/assaults by strangers. It would depend on the level of training and the personalities of the people involved. I think that reasonable gun control would require sufficient training, the stuff I see at the shooting range sometimes makes me cringe. People are STUPID about guns, and if they are going to own them they need to know how to clean, store and use them properly. Accidents and suicides are more common than gun murders, too, and that could possibly be reduced by better access to mental healthcare and proper training.
I don’t really think the abortion issue and the gun control issue has much to do with each other.
6 likes
Ken
Yes – occasionally a person with a gun shoots an intruder.
If you come up with about 600 of those stories, you’ll eclipse the number of kids killed in accidental shootings – we have about 500 or so a year.
And those are just accidental shootings – we’d then need to move on to purposeful shootings of kids.
And then if you find enough stories, we’ll move on to adults.
My guess is though, you have a few token stories like the one you posted, but you really don’t give much of a hoot about the thousands that could have been spared.
4 likes
I’m a big fan of the Second Amendment for a lot of reasons, one of which is germane here: it saves lives.
http://pinterest.com/pin/266134659201846505/
http://pinterest.com/pin/266134659201982003/
http://pinterest.com/pin/266134659201846003/
And one more, just for finality’s sake.
http://pinterest.com/pin/275282595945130397/
Guns keep the strong from preying on the weak, be the strong criminals or governments. And yes, the US can be a tyrannical genocidal government. It was the United States Government that perpetrated the Trail of Tears. Don’t give me that “it can’t happen here” crap.
5 likes
Hi Ken, 2:58PM
Absolutely brilliant suggestion.
Think of how often motorized vehicles are used in robberies, kidnappings, drug running, and to transport and dispose of murder victims. Yes we have laws regulating motorized vehicles, but they’re obviously ineffective. Absolutely citizens must be restricted as to what kind of vehicles they should own. I keep our three vehicles locked up at all times, never know when they will take off on their own and kill someone, especially my SUV. We always hear about all the SUVs being involved in accidents. Strangely they never seem to have drivers. BTW, I heard one of these driverless SUVs even hit a house and knocked some poor schmuck off the toilet. Is nothing sacred?
2 likes
Alice -
If guns save lives, why do you think we have such higher murder rates and gun violence rates than any other comparable country on this planet? Do you feel that Americans are uniquely savage creatures – uniquely immoral compared to let’s say, the French, Australians, Swiss, British or Japanese?
You sound a tiny bit like the diehard pro-choicers that argue abortions save people overall – I just don’t see the numbers to back up what you claim.
2 likes
EGV 3:20PM
I understand that in Chicago, police don’t even bother responding to stolen car complaints. Ever hear of chop shops? Also there are carjackings where people get killed. Thieves get their hands on cars all the time and I doubt they concern themselves with paperwork. Also, paperwork can be falsified, as those who traffic in stolen cars will tell you.
Personally I think Ken’s suggestiona for keeping these lethal weapons under control are brilliant, don’t you?
1 likes
Mary –
I think the info you have on Chicago police not responding is incorrect.
Woud you like to do some statistical comparisons on gun ownership death rates and cars? I’d be more than happy to. I know numbers aren’t your strong point (the 93,000 deaths for instance) – but I’d be more than happy to.
I think cars are pretty well regulated – and I’m sure that government will continue to regulate where needed, and auto manufacturers will continue to build in safety in an effort to save lives. Again, if you’d like to look at the number of people that drive and the odds of dying vs gun ownership rates, I’d be more than happy to have that debate.
1 likes
Actually, Ex-GOP, we don’t.
http://pinterest.com/pin/266134659201957667/
The numbers for the maps are sourced right there on it, if you want to take issue with them. This isn’t enough data on its own to say more guns equals less murder, I’ll grant you. It is enough on its own to destroy your allegation that less guns equals less murder.
3 likes
EGV and Ken
Just did a little googling. According to the National Hwy Safety Assoc., nearly 2,000 children die each year in car accidents. Four times the number who are shot. I think we better follow Ken’s suggestions.
3 likes
So you guys think that guns should be regulated like cars are? Requiring license, registration, and extensive training before you are able to drive one?
7 likes
Alice -
So you are taking comfort in the fact that Africa and South America have more homicides than us.
Countries I named – rates per 100K
US – 4.8
Japan – .4
French – 1.1
Australia – 1.0
United Kingdom 1.2
Switzerland – .7
So do you think we’re simply 4 times as violent and immoral as the Australians or British? Ten times more than the Japanese?
2 likes
” So do you think we’re simply 4 times as violent and immoral as the Australians or British? Ten times more than the Japanese? ”
Well, guns aren’t the only thing that’s different between those countries and the US. From what I know about Australia and the UK, they have better social welfare, they have better overall healthcare including mental, they have much less recidivism for convicts, they have better society reentry for convicts, etc, etc, etc. I don’t think you can point to those numbers and say “this is proof that guns cause more violence” without looking at the big picture.
6 likes
@ JackBorsch: I don’t think the legality or illegality of abortion relates to much of anything else. Some people like to drag in the death penalty (which Jill Stanek supports) but the question of how to treat a convicted murderer and the question of whether or not it should be legal to abort an embryo or fetus have very little in common. Jill Stanek and some others believe abortion relates to euthanasia because both about about the “innocent” but I still see little connection between those who are extremely ill, often in terrible pain, often dying and the (usually) healthy embryo or fetus.
Heck, people can drag in the treatment of animals, social welfare programs, questions about gays, etc. as being “life” related.
Abortion is a special issue and doesn’t really relate to much else.
2 likes
Mary -
Those were only shootings via accidents.
Do you want to know the total number of kids who die by firearms in the US each year?
3 likes
X-GOP, gun control has nothing to do with abortion. THats my stance. I am not going to debate gun control with you. The Constitution is clear….my right to arm myself SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Couldn’t be any more clear.
i do not have to explain to YOU or to any politician why I want guns (all kinds) nor did my founding fathers say I have to demonstrate NEED in order to exercise my protected rights.
the fact is I have that right, it existed before you ever did and I will exercise it whether you think I NEED it or not.
6 likes
Double check Australia on that map I posted. Just for kicks and giggles, observe us and the Scandiwegians moving right together. I’m not playing this game with you, Ex. Especially when you haven’t sourced your numbers.
It doesn’t matter whether Americans are more “uniquely immoral,” to use your words, or not. The bottom line is that people can and do use guns to protect themselves well over ten times more often than to harm others. Removing those guns removes that protection. Whether that’s because the US is more dangerous than other nations or for some other reason does not matter. The result would still be a bunch more dead innocent people whether it’s because the US is more barbarous or not.
I’m not willing to sacrifice enough people for a few statistics to test your theory. You being willing to do so makes you, at best, a wild-eyed idealist. It certainly doesn’t make you a protector of innocents.
5 likes
EGV 3:42PM
Apparently googling isn’t your strong point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lwjg27QgVLE
Oh please EGV, the 93,000 thing is getting old. Lucky for you I’m not as childish as you are or I might ask if a certain individual has attempted to contact you again.
0 likes
EGV,
According to this source its 1500. Aout in the same ballpark as children dying in car accidents. I stil think we need to follow Ken’s brilliant suggestions.
http://www.nationwidechildrens.org/cirp-gun-safety
0 likes
Del says:
February 16, 2013 at 2:55 pm
To Denise’s initial post: We know that you trust contraception, even for teen-agers. You have made that clear. Moral issues aside: Many of us are convinced that contraceptives are toxic and carcinogenic (especially for teenagers), and that contraceptives are not effective at preventing pregnancies (especially for teenagers). The problem of abortion is a problem of too much reliance on contraception.
(Denise) I’ve often suggested reviving chaperoned dating as a way to lower partnered sexual activity since such activity leads not only to problem pregnancies but to STDs. It is also true that “making out” short circuits the process of really getting to know another person as a person which is necessary for marriage and important in general. Do you support reviving chaperoned dating?
Adolescents and young adults of opposite sexes should not be alone together. That is how Eleanor Cooney first got pregnant and she has made it clear that the pregnancy was doomed. However, if she and that teen boy hadn’t been alone, it’s unlikely the sex act would have taken place.
1 likes
Ex-RINO,
Guns are tools.
Their primary purpose is to kill people, but they can be used to kill animals.
Some people use them shoot at inanimate objects for amusement or for competition.
[Homer Simpson had his NRA memebership revoked for using his handgun as a remote control for his television.]
I suppose you could use reolver as hammer to drive in a tack to hang a wanted poster.
People can and do mis-use all kinds of tools, like cars and cell phones.
I bet cars kill more people than firearms, even if you include the people who are killed as a result of combat/wars.
You are just fixated on firerams cause you are thinking with your lady parts instead using logic.
Then there is the troublesome aspect of the second ammendment which explicicity recognizes, not ‘grants’, [the right of self defense is a GOD given right.] the right of people to possess firearms and just as explicitly forbids the federal government from ‘infringing’ on that right.
Now I realize some folks believe the constitution is an antiquated document that has lost it’s relevance. Things like requiring the president to be a ‘a natural born citizen’ don’t matter to them anymore.
But few if any of these folks would ever compare to the depth of education and experience of the authors of the constitution.
As wise as these men were they left a few things out and the citizens of the respective thirteen colonies they represented refused to ratify the proposed constitution without the promise of the first 10 ammendments we have come to know collectively as the ‘bill of rights’.
The authors were prescient enough to anticipate that changesto the docuement would need to be made and they included an orderly process to accomplish it.
[They did not envision an activist federal judiciary creating new law.]
So if you and your like minded folk want to modify or do away with the second ammendment, then respect the constitution and go thru the process of ammending it. Its been done 17 times since the ‘bill of rights’.
You don’t like that idea. Do you.
The framers anticipated people like you who, moved by the emotions of the moment, used their lady parts to make important decisions, instead of logic and reason.
Pardon us if we are not willing to surrender freely what others have purchased with their wealth, their blood and their lives.
2 likes
If you come up with about 600 of those stories, you’ll eclipse the number of kids killed in accidental shootings – we have about 500 or so a year.
Do a little googling about toddlers, accidental deaths and toilets.
Federally limiting the number of gallons per flush has had no effect on the death toll.
4 likes
Ex-RINO,
If a thug is attempting to break into your house, drop a toilet on his head or tape a cell phone to his head in the auto re-dial mode and wait for him to die of brain cancer or just live in your car and run him/her down when she/he attempts to break and enter.
For your sake and the sake of your wife and children I hope you have an 11 year old girl who lives next door that has a firearm and knows how to exercise proper gun control.
Maybe, at the very least, she will be able to stop him/her from successfully fleeing the scene of the crime.
2 likes
No, we should not. It’s fine to support the second ammendment, but, again, what does that have to do with saving baby’s lives? Nothing. NADA. Zip. IMO prolifers need to focus on the preservation of all human life rather than using the pro life cause as a conduit for conservative political ideology.
4 likes
This is such a weird topic, and yet the comments ARE ‘so-[typically-American( being pro-guns)’ that it is hard NOT to say something. It seems that few people here actually saw and LISTENED to the video on contraception immediately prior to this thread. It talked about phermones and how the PILL blocks phermone production. This has TWO EFFECTS on the MALE populace: !) it INCREASES the incidence of RAPE [INCREASE GUNS =\= ANY SAFER] and 2) INCREASES HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIORS. Rather than reduce the incidences of rape and drastically reduce criminality/abortion etc, etc by improving diet (zinc), just-close your-eyes and pray – SO STUPID!!! [Feel like banging my head against a concrete wall.]
1 likes
Sydney -
Wow – just flip a couple of words:
i do not have to explain to YOU or to any politician why I want an abortion (all kinds) nor did my founding fathers say I have to demonstrate NEED in order to exercise my protected rights.
I mean, just give you a sign and watch you go!
2 likes
Ken/Mary
It’s cute – I think you truly believe that if you continue to say guns aren’t a problem, they simply won’t be.
I posted the stats by country – feel free to explain them.
2 likes
Mary
And do you not see an issue that the rate of death for kids is close to each other – and the comparison is one activity in which kids participate in almost every day of their life (riding cars) vs one in which they have no business being around a gun.
Very sad that you simply dismiss it.
1 likes
Only thing is X the founding fathers never enshrined the right to dismember your children in the Constitution. I looked. It isn’t there.
6 likes
EGV,
There’s a gun in every home in Switzerland. How do you explain such a low murder rate?
No I don’t dismiss anything. The fact is you keep lethal weapons at your home and use them daily. They seem to pose equal or more danger to children than guns. BTW, I recall getting into my parents lethal weapon as a pre schooler and releasing the emergency brake, Down the driveway my little friend and I went. Thankfully we didn’t hit anyone or get broadsided.
Also EGV, your home is full of potential dangers to children. Poisons, medications, knives, hammers, baseball bats, lighters, carbon monoxide, fire hazards, electricity, stairsteps,concrete,etc. The family toilet has been implicated in the injury of adults and the death of toddlers, as has the lowly mop bucket. It seems the best any of us can do is take every precaution and be as careful as possible. BTW, the husband of a dear friend, they were avid liberals and gun opponents, died from a freak knife accident while preparing dinner. It was of course investigated by police, who ruled out foul play and suicide. Just a horrific freak accident.
We are continually surrounded by that which can kill us. BTW, don’t ever watch that program “1,000 ways to die”. I haven’t even scratched the surface of the daily hazards we face.
4 likes
…one activity in which kids participate in almost every day of their life (riding cars) vs one in which they have no business being around a gun.
I grew up around firearms. My dad has always had a nice collection, and he taught all of his children how to hold, maintain, safely carry, store, clean, and fire weapons. He has a picture of me at 5 years old holding up his (unloaded) Mossberg shotgun. They were handy when possums threatened our chickens, or feral dogs or coyotes came to eat our rabbits. As with a vehicle, we understood they had a purpose. As with a vehicle, we understood they were dangerous. As with a vehicle, we understood they could be a source of fun and enjoyment, as well.
8 likes
“I grew up around firearms. My dad has always had a nice collection, and he taught all of his children how to hold, maintain, safely carry, store, clean, and fire weapons. He has a picture of me at 5 years old holding up his (unloaded) Mossberg shotgun. They were handy when possums threatened our chickens, or feral dogs or coyotes came to eat our rabbits. As with a vehicle, we understood they had a purpose. As with a vehicle, we understood they were dangerous. As with a vehicle, we understood they could be a source of fun and enjoyment, as well. ”
I grew up in kinda the rural south, so every single person I knew, including me, learned how to shoot at a young age and learned pretty good gun safety at any early age. I started learning to shoot when I was eight or nine, I think. I didn’t think anything of it until I got older and lived in the cities, and saw how terrible people there were about gun safety and all that. I don’t agree with how a lot of country people store their guns around kids, though.
3 likes
Xalisae, I also learned to shoot at a young age and grew up around guns. My dad was a hunter and so guns were a big part of our lives. He died when I was little (fell out of a tree. Better ban trees!) and my one brother joined the military so yeah…guns were still in our house. I never shot and killed my family, never shot up my school (and I was bullied in middle school) and never shot and killed anyone. And I’ve always been dramatic (if you can’t tell from what I post on here) and emotional. Yet I never flew off the deep-end and killed anyone even with all those evil guns within arms reach of me. Funny how that is.
5 likes
Dead rapists don’t do business with abortionists.
2 likes
Sydney
Your rant goes beyond the constitution – when you say things like…”no government will EVER tell me how I may or may not protect my family. Period. ”
You strip out words like ‘well-regulated’ and make the document say whatever you want it to say – much like pro-choicers do.
I’m just saying, the angry “it’s my right” rant is very similar. What about the rights of the thousands of people who would simply like to live?
2 likes
Mary –
Switzerland has shown that you can have lots of guns and lower gun rates. Do you agree Mary that this is desirable? Would you like me to list out the various regulations and oversight they have so you can see?
It seems to me, if you are embracing Switzerland and their laws, that you and I might be on the same page – which is good to see. Switzerland achieves there rates because they go about it in a different way than the US. If you see their murder rates as a better thing than ours, and are willing to embrace the steps, that would be huge.
So are you saying that what Switzerland has is a good thing, and we should move in their direction? If so, I’ll post the regulations. If not, then you’re continuing to dismiss my questions about these other countries and how they have much lower rates than we do.
2 likes
EX_GOP, exactly, what about the rights of thousands who want to live? How is disarming non-murderous citizens going to keep murderous citizens from using guns to kill? How well is it working in Chicago.
The CONSTITUTION guarantees me the right to keep and bear arms WITHOUT INFRINGEMENT. I’m so sorry that is too vague for you to comprehend. The Constitution does NOT guarantee me the right to scrape my innocent child out of my womb.
Guns DEFEND lives. Abortion takes lives. That mall shooter in Colorado a few weeks back was stopped by an armed citizen. Lives were SAVED because of a gun. A mom had her newborn son in her house while armed thugs tried to break in. She called 911 but cops didn’t come in time. She shot the intruders who intended to arm her. She saved her life and the life of her newborn son.
Dismembering an unborn child who is no threat to anybody is not the same as defending your family with a gun against thug criminals who intend you harm. I know that is a difficult concept for some to grasp but you should try.
I’m angry because rights guaranteed to me should be protected. Abortion was never a guaranteed right. So you may say I’m angry like pro-aborts. So what? Thats where the similarities end. The Constitution is quite clear about the right to bear arms. Never read any amendment guaranteeing me the right to suction out or poison the child growing in my womb.
It is because I love life and I want to preserve the life of innocent people that I will carry. I don’t need to get your permission or any politician’s permission. The Constitution is my permission.
4 likes
EGV,
Sure I’m all for guns and lower murder rates. I’m for lower murder rates period. Since people who want to kill will always find a way, banning guns won’t stop it. I’m not necessarily embracing Switzerland, you’re the one who mentioned them. Only pointing out that gun ownership in itself doesn’t turn people into killers, anymore than you owning a lethal weapon, AKA a car, doesn’t turn you into a crazed maniacal driver.
I think our mental health care system stinks. Deinstitutionalization has been a disaster. I question the safety of psychiaatric drugs that are handed out like candy. A “justice” system that turns dangerous people loose.
2 likes
what ken said
1 likes
Sydney –
Just saying, you sound like an angry pro-choicer.
And thanks for the stories in paragraph two. I could literally post hundreds of kids who have died, that shouldn’t have, because of guns. On Tuesday, a 9 year old was killed in the Twin Cities when somebody shot at a car. Just a ‘random thing’.
A couple of months ago, a seven year old was killed in a gun store parking lot – father’s gun went off and killed his own kid.
But remember, in December a crazy guy walked into a school wanting to inflict pain. Elementary kids were all around. But because China makes it so much tougher for crazy and dangerous people to get guns, nobody died that day. Well, in China. It was the same day as Sandy Hook. You know how that turned out.
3 likes
Mary –
That’s completely hogwash. You think if every gun suddenly vanished on this earth that we’d have the same murder rates? You simply think that if a person’s will is to kill dozens of people at a school, that they’ll figure out a way?
You seem to be arguing that Americans are simply evil, brutal people. Your argument says that there’s simply less people wanting to kill in all those other countries I listed – because according to you, they would have found another way. Look at the numbers Mary (again, if you need help with sources or making sense of figures, I can help you out) – your statement doesn’t make sense.
Switzerland achieves lower rates of gun violence while maintaining a high level of guns through a lot of training and regulation.
My guess is that you’d reject their system as too cumbersome.
2 likes
Good to see Ken hasn’t abandoned his “birther” position. Must suck to live in a country where so many think your issues don’t matter.
4 likes
EGV,
So tell me, after every gun on this planet vanishes, how much does the murder rate go down? Also, has China ever instituted meat cleaver, hammer, and knife control? Being wackos over there have pummeled and hacked up schoolchildren en masse, it might not be a bad idea. Did I tell you about the two police officers killed when a mentally unstable driver suddenly rammed their vehicle with his as they sat at a stop sign? Gee, EGV, you’d almost get the impression that when people are determined to kill, they will. Does having a knife or car make it easier? Apparently yes. Would the world be much safer without cars and knives? I would say yes.
Throughout the history of the human race EGV, people were slaughtering each other by the hundreds of thousands before guns even existed. (I’m sure any number of disembodied entities could call you and confirm this). People only came up with more ingenius ways to kill each other and dispensed with the less sophisticated, like bows and arrows, spears, fire, poisoning crops and wells, slingshots, swords, and catapaulting diseased corpses into populated areas as a form of biologcal warfare.
As we can see EGV, guns or not, the human race never has, and I’m sure never will, have a problem finding a way to kill their fellow man. Hitler’s gas chambers being just one example.
1 likes
Can’t say exactly how much it would go down Mary – it’s clear that there are murders of other weapons, and those would continue. For instance, Japan still does have a murder rate, though it is much, much, much lower than ours.
It clearly would go down though – and the mass killings would be almost non-existant (people did, and would still use things like bombs – but mass killings would be MUCH harder to do).
Again though, I never claimed te murder rate would go to zero. It is simply clear that it would go down.
By the way – do you think private citizens should be able to buy rocket launchers or tanks?
2 likes
EGV,
Given the history that I mentioned, what you say is speculation at best, but I think it is closer to wishful thinking. The gas chambers were built because guns weren’t as quick and efficient when it came to mass extermination. Tyrants like Stalin and Mao used mass starvation and forced labor camps to exterminate millions. Sieges were another way of “starving out” your opponents. Entire populations would be decimated.
Guns or no guns, warfare and killing will go on. The only limiting factor when it comes to ways to kill people is the human imagination.
No I don’t believe private citizens should buy rocket launchers or tanks, or atom bombs either for that matter.
1 likes
@DennisNoe
..too young to carry to term..but should be able to conceal carry….I don’t think I would trust a 13 year old to carry a gun and be able to shoot at will on the sidewalk…both situations come down to lack of good judgement & immaturity of a 13 year old. There are reasons 13 year olds don’t drive cars in the city.
Government GUN CONTROL as proposed by Congress is being rebuffed by many States as it should be. People have a right to keep guns and adolescents should receive training in shooting & gun safety. How much you want to explain about contraception or how to shoot a gun, should be graduated & depends on the age of your child when not yet adolescent.
I know lots of people who are very much in favor of abortion (on demand) and are pro-gun (against gun registration, numbering each bullet, turning guns in so on..).
I am against dog houses for people like the 250 sq.ft. apartments they have built in San Francisco to buttress Agenda 21.
0 likes
Hal says: February 17, 2013 at 3:12 pm “Good to see Ken hasn’t abandoned his “birther” position. Must suck to live in a country where so many think your issues don’t matter.”
Moderators,
Is this really HAL?
HAL has never ever used the word ‘suck’ in his brief and ingenius commentary.
I do not believe this is our adorable HAL. I believe someone is masquerading as HAL.
Either that or HAL has developed schizphrenia or MPD.
2 likes