Gun Control, but not Abortion Control?

[pornstarwannabe]

If a woman has the right to an abortion (especially when the abortion will save her life), why doesn't a woman have the right to own a gun of her choosing that may save her life?

Talk in Congress of limiting rounds to 10 in handguns... the BG (bad guy) won't follow that rule if it becomes law. A woman may need a 17-round magazine to fend off multiple intruders.

Except for LEO (Law Enforcement Officers), gun owners may panic somewhat since they won't have the intense training taken by LEOs. Some fired shots will miss. Gun owners may not have time to change magazines in a panic situation.

Not advocating abortion control in this thread. But if a woman has the right to protect her body (and she does have that right), then she has a right to own a gun to protect that same body.

Maybe that gun is an AR-15, or a .380 AUTO. Her body, her choice.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

If a woman has the right to an abortion (especially when the abortion will save her life), why doesn't a woman have the right to own a gun of her choosing that may save her life?

Talk in Congress of limiting rounds to 10 in handguns... the BG (bad guy) won't follow that rule if it becomes law. A woman may need a 17-round magazine to fend off multiple intruders.

Except for LEO (Law Enforcement Officers), gun owners may panic somewhat since they won't have the intense training taken by LEOs. Some fired shots will miss. Gun owners may not have time to change magazines in a panic situation.

Not advocating abortion control in this thread. But if a woman has the right to protect her body (and she does have that right), then she has a right to own a gun to protect that same body.

Maybe that gun is an AR-15, or a .380 AUTO. Her body, her choice.

Who have you spoken with or heard that wants to take away anyone's right to a gun?

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Who have you spoken with or heard that wants to take away anyone's right to a gun?

Last time I checked, AR-15 style rifles are considered guns. There is a lot of talk of banning AR-15 style guns. Ergo, therefore, and heretofore, banning AR-15 style guns is tantamount to taking away my right to own said gun.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Last time I checked, AR-15 style rifles are considered guns. There is a lot of talk of banning AR-15 style guns. Ergo, therefore, and heretofore, banning AR-15 style guns is tantamount to taking away my right to own said gun.

You really had to check if AR-15's were guns?

But AR-15's are not the only type of guns, so it's not tantamount to anything.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

You really had to check if AR-15's were guns?

But AR-15's are not the only type of guns, so it's not tantamount to anything.

Yes. I had to check the official definition. I work with facts.

If the government wants to limit what gun I can buy, then they are taking away my right to own that type of gun.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Yes. I had to check the official definition. I work with facts.

If the government wants to limit what gun I can buy, then they are taking away my right to own that type of gun.

Correct, but they are not taking away your right to own a gun.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

Correct, but they are not taking away your right to own a gun.

I stated:
"If the government wants to limit what gun I can buy, then they are taking away my right to own that type of gun."

And you responded with:
"Correct, but they are not taking away your right to own a gun."

Gun rights to me are as important to gay marriage right to others. Okay, I think I can resolve this with an example.


Now, if I had stated:
"If the government wants to limit what person I can marry, then they are taking away my right to marry that type of person"

Would then have responded with:
"Correct, but they are not taking away your right to marry." ??????

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I stated:
"If the government wants to limit what gun I can buy, then they are taking away my right to own that type of gun."

And you responded with:
"Correct, but they are not taking away your right to own a gun."

Gun rights to me are as important to gay marriage right to others. Okay, I think I can resolve this with an example.


Now, if I had stated:
"If the government wants to limit what person I can marry, then they are taking away my right to marry that type of person"

Would then have responded with:
"Correct, but they are not taking away your right to marry." ??????

So now you're looking to marry a gun, and allow women to have abortions after 8 months of pregnancy?

The government does limit what types of people citizens can marry.

 

[fgarvb1]

My wife has shot the ground more than anything else with a pistol.

She has a Mini-14 and is a very fine shot with it.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

So now you're looking to marry a gun, and allow women to have abortions after 8 months of pregnancy?

The government does limit what types of people citizens can marry.

Nope. I am using your logic, extrapolating it to other arguments.

I could be wrong, but it sounds like (using your argument RE: guns) the government can limit who a person can marry (i.e. ban gay marriage) because people still have the right to marry those that the government allows them to marry.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Nope. I am using your logic, extrapolating it to other arguments.

I could be wrong, but it sounds like (using your argument RE: guns) the government can limit who a person can marry (i.e. ban gay marriage) because people still have the right to marry those that the government allows them to marry.

You're not using any logic.

There are controls on abortion, but you don't want controls on guns.
There are controls on who on how many people you can marry, but you don't want controls on guns.

Let me know where your logic starts.

 

[pornstarwannabe]

You're not using any logic.

There are controls on abortion, but you don't want controls on guns.
There are controls on who on how many people you can marry, but you don't want controls on guns.

Let me know where your logic starts.

Sorry, but I am off abortion I moved on to the gay marriage equivalence.

You posted in the past that the government should not ban gay marriage. But your your argument RE: guns indicate that they can, and we should all be okay with it. reread this thread to see how you got caught in a double standard.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Sorry, but I am off abortion I moved on to the gay marriage equivalence.

You posted in the past that the government should not ban gay marriage. But your your argument RE: guns indicate that they can, and we should all be okay with it. reread this thread to see how you got caught in a double standard.

You were dead wrong on the abortion analogy.

How am I caught in a double standard? I am all for the government limiting who a person can marry & how many people they can be married to at one time.

Are you arguing that guns should be like marriage and you should only be allowed to have 1 gun the same way you're allowed to have 1 husband or wife?

 

[RobDownSouth]

You're not using any logic.

There are controls on abortion, but you don't want controls on guns.
There are controls on who on how many people you can marry, but you don't want controls on guns.

Let me know where your logic starts.

He's not interested in logic, he's interested in diverting attention away from meaningful discussion of putting reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.

A great many of his fellow overcompensators have adopted the same tactics.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

He's not interested in logic, he's interested in diverting attention away from meaningful discussion of putting reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.

A great many of his fellow overcompensators have adopted the same tactics.

And in doing so has caught himself in a double standard.

 

[RobDownSouth]

And in doing so has caught himself in a double standard.

I've noticed a distinct rise in double standards on this board lately.

Actually thought about starting a thread regarding this.

I've become aware of a very large number of the bootstrappy right wingers here get a government check each month. Ishmael, Amicus, Vetty, JulyBaby04, Moochie....the list goes on and on.

 

[MichaelinChina]

It's really a sad state of affairs when people in a so-called civilised country feel the NEED to own a gun as their RIGHT. And not just any gun but a damn high-powered automatic!

And sure,someone will say the bad guys have them. But unless you see them first and get your gun out (is it in your holster?) - you're gonna get shot anyway.

Shooting back will not guarantee your safety. Just make you feel better that you could do something. Oh and never mind the 'collateral damage' that gets in the way of your shootout.

It's not the late 18th century anymore, when the constitution was written.
Rewrite needed!

 

[Adre]

Sorry, but I am off abortion I moved on to the gay marriage equivalence.

You posted in the past that the government should not ban gay marriage. But your your argument RE: guns indicate that they can, and we should all be okay with it. reread this thread to see how you got caught in a double standard.

Regulating guns and their ownership, whose only useful purpose is to injure or kill other beings, is a little different from regulating marriage, which is a voluntary social contract. BTW, I am not against the ownership of most pistols and rifles. And I don't give a rat's ass who or how many you marry. Although anyone wanting more than one husband or wife could be crazy

 

[Bert Notorius]

He's not interested in logic, he's interested in diverting attention away from meaningful discussion of putting reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.

A great many of his fellow overcompensators have adopted the same tactics.

you mean like passing a law to prohibit crazy people or felons from having guns? that seems reasonable, oh, we already have those you say? and they don't work? huh.

 

[julybaby04]

I've noticed a distinct rise in double standards on this board lately.

Actually thought about starting a thread regarding this.

I've become aware of a very large number of the bootstrappy right wingers here get a government check each month. Ishmael, Amicus, Vetty, JulyBaby04, Moochie....the list goes on and on.

You think you know much more than you actually do.....at least having to do with my personal life.

Perhaps you might be better served by staying with things you know are true (or at least things you can prove...)

 

[blobfish]

It's really a sad state of affairs when people in a so-called civilised country feel the NEED to own a gun as their RIGHT. And not just any gun but a damn high-powered automatic!

And sure,someone will say the bad guys have them. But unless you see them first and get your gun out (is it in your holster?) - you're gonna get shot anyway.

Shooting back will not guarantee your safety. Just make you feel better that you could do something. Oh and never mind the 'collateral damage' that gets in the way of your shootout.

It's not the late 18th century anymore, when the constitution was written.
Rewrite needed!

Those gun nuts are just like those crazy people that want to have more than child. We need a Constitutional rewrite up in this hizzy!

 

[RoryN]

I will gladly give up any personal rights to gun ownership just to see the right-fringe gun advocates suffer at the hands of our government. If they can't shut up and function like respectable, intelligent human beings, then this is the price they should pay. It's the only way they'll learn.

Think I'm the only one who feels this way? Watch this whole thing play out.

 

[Fushi]

I never understood the whole "We have those laws and they don't work!" argument. Seems to me that if we already have them in place, perhaps we should talk about making them work, or finding ways to make them practical.

 

[about_average]

It's really a sad state of affairs when people in a so-called civilised country feel the NEED to own a gun as their RIGHT. And not just any gun but a damn high-powered automatic!

It has nothing to do with what anyone "feels". Need has nothing to do with it. The right to own guns it's codified in the US Bill of Rights.
Some people might not like that it is, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is.

And sure,someone will say the bad guys have them. But unless you see them first and get your gun out (is it in your holster?) - you're gonna get shot anyway.

You know this how?

Shooting back will not guarantee your safety. Just make you feel better that you could do something. Oh and never mind the 'collateral damage' that gets in the way of your shootout.

Tell that to the woman who just shot the man who was going after her and her children while she was hiding in her attic waiting for law enforcement to arrive and protect her from him.
Nothing is guaranteed in life, other than death. Health department rules don't guarantee you won't get food poisoning in a restaurant. By your logic we should do away with restaurant inspections because some people still get food poisoning and die.

 

[phrodeau]

It has nothing to do with what anyone "feels". Need has nothing to do with it. The right to own guns it's codified in the US Bill of Rights.
Some people might not like that it is, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is.

You know this how?

Tell that to the woman who just shot the man who was going after her and her children while she was hiding in her attic waiting for law enforcement to arrive and protect her from him.
Nothing is guaranteed in life, other than death. Health department rules don't guarantee you won't get food poisoning in a restaurant. By your logic we should do away with restaurant inspections because some people still get food poisoning and die.

Right, and didn't that woman have a Bushmaster AR-15 with a 100-clip magazine?