The NRA Is Facing A String Of Defeats In The States

[BotanyBoy]

What's needed is a bill that includes both gun control and limits to abortions.

No...whats needed is for nosey control freaks to fuck off and mind their own god damn bidnizz.

It's an evolving argument. Or rather, a REvolving argument because next it will attempt to avoid moving forward and instead circle back to earlier points that have already been defeated.

Eh....it's entertaining

I just wonder how it feels about people owning fully automatic belt fed machine guns.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Here's some "machine-gun" action for Mr. Nye, our very own "Science Guy."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM

 

[Emerson40]

I'm sorry, it's their body. Are they incapable of saying "No." And if its force, isn't that rape?

Assigning blame to one party or the other does little to solve the problem. And stigmatizing the parties involved, including the child, is no longer possible in today's social environment. But pointing out that it's the path to financial devastation for all parties involved might work.

Typical. It’s their body, business, and responsibility, until the woman decides she wants an abortion. Then the pro-life chest-thumpers feel the woman has no right or responsibilities, and make her womb their business.

Just until the wee sprog is born, then the care, concern, and conservation of the precious life vanishes. *POOF*

It’s not about the ‘precious life’. It’s about control over women’s rights and her body.

Silly hypocrites.

 

[beew]

The ethics of abortion are very complex and there will never be an either- or answer.

I have no idea why people on both sides don't focus on prevention instead.

 

[HisArpy]

The ethics of abortion are very complex and there will never be an either- or answer.

I have no idea why people on both sides don't focus on prevention instead.

Because no one really cars about the end result. The argument on both issues is about control of others and destruction of Rights.

 

[beew]

Because no one really cars about the end result. The argument on both issues is about control of others and destruction of Rights.

Good point.

It reminds me also about something that BotanyBoy said, when I expressed my puzzlement as to why so many American men are focused on the topic.
He said that it also touches upon politics that are important to them: State Govt. regulations or something like that.

 

[WoundedKnee]

The ethics of abortion are very complex and there will never be an either- or answer.

I have no idea why people on both sides don't focus on prevention instead.

To the hard-core Progressive abortionists, prevention is not the answer. They want the issue because it is divisive. They need the issue because it creates emotion and emotion almost always trumps reason in a "Democratic" society. It creates good guys and bad guys. An emotion-based movement dedicated to the control of pretty much everything, needs bad guys to keep the movement united. It has become one of the sacraments of the emerging secular religion of the Nanny State.

 

[WoundedKnee]

PS - As I have been pointing out, please note that the arguments against guns in general and the NRA specifically is the appeal to emotion. Just as they submit, Planned Parenthood is good because of the totality of what it does, the NRA is evil because it prevents common-sense Chicago-style gun laws and the totality is ignored. They say their opponents treat PP unfairly only because of abortion when in fact what most oppose is any tax money going to PP (heading off the counter, it's about the fungibility of money). How apoplectic would these same people be if tax dollars were flowing into the NRA?

 

[HisArpy]

Good point.

It reminds me also about something that BotanyBoy said, when I expressed my puzzlement as to why so many American men are focused on the topic.
He said that it also touches upon politics that are important to them: State Govt. regulations or something like that.

You got it. I wish others would see the core of the arguments as well.

The reason we have a bicameral government is to keep this sort of thing from happening over all of our Rights. It's harder for the Gov to move against the people when the Gov is limited by it's own membership viewpoints and ideologies. By dividing the ideologies into pieces consensus can only be achieved after robust debate. Sometimes robust debate becomes extremely loud and raucous when the issues are dear.

As a man, I have limited input as to whether any woman CAN have an abortion. It should be limited to safety of the procedures and the welfare of the general citizenry. As an outsider to the medical procedure I should have NO VOICE as to when/where/how/who. Those who oppose guns should be similarly limited when it comes to guns and who can have one when/where/how/who.

When: Anytime.
Where: Anywhere lawful.
How: By any reasonably safe method.
Who: Anyone not specifically constrained by the courts or law.

 

[WoundedKnee]

I note you left off why.
Is that it because once you get past medical necessity, then you have to deal with the moral argument of convenience?
Why do you want an abortion? Because I didn't protect myself and that's what freedom is all about, not being burdened with the poor choices you make.

 

[HisArpy]

I note you left off why.
Is that it because once you get past medical necessity, then you have to deal with the moral argument of convenience?
Why do you want an abortion? Because I didn't protect myself and that's what freedom is all about, not being burdened with the poor choices you make.

I left out "why" because that is a personal decision. Gov should have no ability to question WHY you want to exercise a Right.

WHY do you choose to ask for redress from your government?
WHY do you choose to worship the way you do?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Good point.

It reminds me also about something that BotanyBoy said, when I expressed my puzzlement as to why so many American men are focused on the topic.
He said that it also touches upon politics that are important to them: State Govt. regulations or something like that.

That, but at an even more base level it's mostly about the money.

If the government quit funding PP, 90% of the bitching would stop.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Why do you want an abortion?

Why is that any of your or the governments fuckin' bidnizz??

 

[HisArpy]

That, but at an even more base level it's mostly about the money.

If the government quit funding PP, 90% of the bitching would stop.

It would stop because without the Gov providing support, the detractors would quietly pass laws to eliminate the Right.

Gov props open the door so the Right is not lost in a smokey backroom somewhere.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It would stop because without the Gov providing support, the detractors would quietly pass laws to eliminate the Right.

Gov props open the door so the Right is not lost in a smokey backroom somewhere.

How would defunding PP allow anyone to pass laws that violate the right to privacy??

 

[HisArpy]

How would defunding PP allow anyone to pass laws that violate the right to privacy??

Envision a world where a Right has no ongoing public debate but where half the population thinks the Right should be abolished "for the good of everyone".

Some of those who believe that way get into positions of power and gather in smoke filled backrooms to "do a deal". The deal can be on any issue but to make the "deal" those who oppose the Right put it on the table - you want my vote, I want yours on this subject. No vote, no "deal" for you.

Ok, says everyone and the "deal" is struck. The bill is passed, the President signs and the media never mentions it because no one is bitching about it to their neighbors. And a Right disappears forever.

No one thought about guns back in colonial days. We didn't talk about guns, didn't have gun advocacy groups, and didn't oppose governmental regulations about arms. And the King ordered his troops to seize our guns and no one knew until AFTER they came to take them away that we'd lost our freedom.

It took a war to get that freedom back. I would hate to see that happen again for any Right.

When it comes to PP, funding the non-abortion side assists the GenPop with medical aid in places where it's hard to come by, and Gov funding ensures that those who oppose the abortion side of that industry cannot just do away with it without the public noticing. The funding props open the door and lets everyone see any changes that are being made so everyone can provide their input. That way any legislation that affects everyone isn't being controlled by a few men in a smoke filled back room over whiskey and cigars.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No one thought about guns back in colonial days. We didn't talk about guns, didn't have gun advocacy groups, and didn't oppose governmental regulations about arms. And the King ordered his troops to seize our guns and no one knew until AFTER they came to take them away that we'd lost our freedom.

It took a war to get that freedom back. I would hate to see that happen again for any Right.

I would too but we're long past that trap for either right being discussed. We've beaten both subjects to fuckin' death, we have laws, they've been ruled on by the SCOTUS and the odds of them changing (especially any time soon) are pretty fuckin' slim.

Not discussing it won't make 2A, 4A nor the 14th go away nor will it overturn Heller,Roe or any of the other 2/4/14th rulings the SCOTUS has handed down.

When it comes to PP, funding the non-abortion side assists the GenPop with medical aid in places where it's hard to come by, and Gov funding ensures that those who oppose the abortion side of that industry cannot just do away with it without the public noticing.

Last I checked it was the US Constitution that did that....

The funding props open the door and lets everyone see any changes that are being made so everyone can provide their input. That way any legislation that affects everyone isn't being controlled by a few men in a smoke filled back room over whiskey and cigars.

Ok....so how would defunding PP allow anyone to pass laws that violate the Constitution on numerous levels AND more than one SCOTUS rulings ??

 

[RobDownSouth]

How long would that mass of tissue live outside the womb if left to feed itself?
Your point cannot possibly be valid.

"cannot possibly be valid"?

A fetus is dependent upon another human being for nutrients and oxygen. You raise the false equivalency that because a newborn infant is also dependent upon another for nutrients and oxygen, a fetus should be considered the functional equivalent of a newborn.

This shows your inability to distinguish between the concepts of "physical independence" and "social independence".

Let's review:

• Social independence is where a child depends on society to feed, clothe and nuture him/her.
• Physical independence, on the other hand, is when something depends on the physical body of another for its continued existence.

You seem unable or unwilling to grasp this distinction.

 

[WoundedKnee]

I left out "why" because that is a personal decision. Gov should have no ability to question WHY you want to exercise a Right.

WHY do you choose to ask for redress from your government?
WHY do you choose to worship the way you do?

I've seen you fight over the term right. Explain to me how abortion is a right.
Rights apply to all individuals and your rights cost nothing to any other individual.
Abortion is a medical procedure subject to law. Right now, the law tends to be too dismissive of the basic right to life.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I've seen you fight over the term right. Explain to me how abortion is a right.
Rights apply to all individuals and your rights cost nothing to any other individual.
Abortion is a medical procedure subject to law. Right now, the law tends to be too dismissive of the basic right to life.

Key word being individuals.

A fetus is not an individual.

 

[eyerphobia]

Gaggles of elders all over the world today not viable on their own at all, hooked-up to oxygen tanks and totally dependent on others to provide their nourishment.

 

[WoundedKnee]

Key word being individuals.

A fetus is not an individual.

Oh yeah. And what's the time frame on a thing like that?

 

[WoundedKnee]

Gaggles of elders all over the world today not viable on their own at all, hooked-up to oxygen tanks and totally dependent on others to provide their nourishment.

Abort them. They have no quality of life and no one wants to adopt them.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Oh yeah. And what's the time frame on a thing like that?

"a thing like that?" what....OHHHH you mean facts?

Irrelevant there is no time frame on that fact, there isn't a fetus out there that is an individual. Not a single fucking one, never has been, never will be and no amount of wishing or appealing to emotion otherwise will EVER change that.

 

[WoundedKnee]

When does a fetus become human. Answer me God.
Is there half a chance that it will be a puppy or a kitten?
Calling it a fetus is just done to remove the stigma on abortions of convenience.
As I pointed out way above, this is the right not to be punished for a bad decision, a pass on responsibility and the political creation of an unassailable victim class.