Gun Enthusiasts Mobilize

[BJean 16]

Ah but if there WERE a medical condition that would endanger her life, it wouldn't really matter to you would it? You're completely for making abortions illegal, aren't you? I mean it's obvious that a fetus has more value to you than an adult woman. I get that. But I just don't get it.

Anyway rest assured, you don't have to bother trying to convince me, I will NEVER get it. I told myself I would not go here again. But I got sucked back in. It's a sad, sad argument. The saddest part is that we are actually having to have this discussion again in my lifetime, thanks to the Republican party and George W. Bush. His mamma sure didn't bring him up right, did she? She believe a woman has a right to choose. At least that's what she said many moons ago. I haven't had a recent update (since her boy has been in office.) I can't imagine her being vocal about it as long as he's president.

[BJean 16]

A fetus isn't a self yet. Sorry, that's a fact. I suppose if the medical profession came up with the ability to grow a fertilized egg into a living breathing human being, you'd want those women with an unwanted pregnancy to submit to withdrawal of the fertilized egg and grow them to term and then have them be wards of the state?

I do not believe that the government should be involved in people's right to take drugs. It hasn't worked thus far, has it?

[BJean 16]

This is really fun and uplifting, but I have to run. Thanks for keeping things civil. I certainly respect that.

[gadgetlady 4]

Ah but if there WERE a medical condition that would endanger her life, it wouldn't really matter to you would it? You're completely for making abortions illegal, aren't you? I mean it's obvious that a fetus has more value to you than an adult woman. I get that. But I just don't get it.

Actually, I completely support, as most pro-lifers do, an exception in the case of the physical health of the mother (i.e. if the mother will suffer grave physical harm or death if she carries the baby to term). In that case, you are sacrificing one life to save the life of another. I don't know of any pro-lfie laws that have ever been proposed that don't include such an exception.

BJean, as much as you want to demonize me as this heartless, uncompassionate, violence-loving, hateful person, it just simply is not true. I don't think a fetus has more value than an adult woman. It think all people have equal value, regardless of age, gender, race, or place where they live (even if that place is the uterus). I don't believe in bombing abortion clinics, shooting abortionists, or yelling at abortion-minded women they're going to hell. I believe in helping people as much as possible with the multiple resources available to them to keep them from acting with violent intention to their own offspring.

[gadgetlady 4]

I suppose if the medical profession came up with the ability to grow a fertilized egg into a living breathing human being, you'd want those women with an unwanted pregnancy to submit to withdrawal of the fertilized egg and grow them to term and then have them be wards of the state?

If that could indeed happen, I'm sure women would not like it. You see, that's because they don't just want to be "not pregnant." They want to not have a baby, and not even know that someone else might have their baby. They want a dead baby.

[gadgetlady 4]

I suppose if the medical profession came up with the ability to grow a fertilized egg into a living breathing human being, you'd want those women with an unwanted pregnancy to submit to withdrawal of the fertilized egg and grow them to term and then have them be wards of the state?

If that could indeed happen, I'm sure women would not like it. You see, that's because they don't just want to be "not pregnant." They want to not have a baby, and not even know that someone else might have their baby. They want a dead baby.

I have to run too. I'll be gone for a few days

[anonemouse 1]

Great, I could agree with this IF and WHEN it is demonstrated that laws are followed by those who misuse firearms.

So wait, we shouldn't have laws because those people that would do wrong would ignore them anyway? Makes a ton of sense, Jack, a real ton. Using your logic, there would be no laws about anything at all, because everyone would be doing whatever they wanted in the first place.

re: "but there are too many accidental shootings and there are too many cases of nut-balls committing heinous crimes with guns"

Agree. (understatement) Now, how do we get the nut balls to follow the laws against committing those heinous crimes?

The same way we get anyone to follow laws. We punish them and make examples of them, so that anyone else thinking of doing the same thing will think twice.

[green 6]

Many women do not believe that a division of fertilized cells is a baby, but only that it has the potential to become a foetus and from a foetus a real live baby but only provided that this initial division is left uninterfered with. The women who opt for abortions have simply no interest in committing the resources of their bodies, a considerable commitment let it be noted, in order to satisfy someone else's system of beliefs. We do not feel that editing out a division of cellular material is on the same level as infanticide and we do not feel that we should be punished - by virtue of being held hostage to our bodies - for being born women.

Those individuals who are left feeling uncomfortable with the concept of abortion do have the option of not travelling down this road.

As you must be aware, the question of exactly when life begins and when that burgeoning life might trump the needs and desires of the individual who was already here varies depending upon one's definition as to when that cellular activity must be saved.

Laurend (in earlier posts) has already provided much interesting information - as viewed through the lens of the various scientific disciplines - on this point.

As for myself, I find the arguments that abortion should remain legal on the grounds that women will be victimized by rape and incest to be absolutely specious. The plain and simple truth is that women both wish and need to have control over their own bodies if they are to have the same physical freedoms as men.

Otherwise we may as well embrace the Christian veil or the niqab - it really doesn't matter which. The double standard will demand that women who are not prepared to have children abstain from all sexual activity while men are free to f88k their brains out. And a woman who makes a mistake in this harsh and judgemental society will quickly discover that - unlike a man - her body doesn't belong to herself.

[anonemouse 1]

re: "your interesting argument of eliminating all laws and assigning that to me!!"

I hope your academic papers are of a standard than precludes leaping to the red-herring and straw-dog exercises you present here.

My intention is to call into consideration, that no one seems to be concerned of the plausible likelihood those criminals or mentally ill, aren't follow the old laws have little to indicate they will follow new laws.

I am asking for some minimal theory suggesting such would be the case,

I do not see any suggestion nor hint 'all laws' be abolished.

The problem remains, regardless of the law, these very same criminals and unbalanced individuals are doing what they want. My contention is that ANY new law is not going to change that. Or do you have evidence to the contrary?

You seem to be missing the fact that I quoted you exactly. It's hard to misunderstand what you said.

re: "What we need are better laws that actually protect people from improper and inappropriate use of firearms."

Great, I could agree with this IF and WHEN it is demonstrated that laws are followed by those who misuse firearms.

In other words, why have laws when people who are likely to break them are not going to follow them? You did not say "some laws". You did not say "new laws". You did not say "existing laws". You said "laws". Period.

And by the way, I never said that I thought you said "all laws should be abolished". But your statement in the above quote does bring an interesting argument to the table: Why have any laws? The people that are likely to act in a way that is "illegal" aren't likely to go and check to see if what they are wanting to do is against the law. So why inconvenience "law-abiding" people with burdensome laws when it is other folks that are likely to act in an inappropriate manner, in the first place?

[BJean 16]

Sounds like perhaps Jack agrees with me that addictive drugs should be legalized. Afterall, it is obvious that the laws we have that prohibit the sale and use of them aren't working either.

We have laws so that citizens will have a set of rules to abide by that will keep people from infringing on others' rights. If we didn't have laws and consequences for breaking them, people without scruples would have no reason to care if they interfere with other people's lives in this society.

If our laws aren't working, we need to take a good look at them and figure out why they aren't accomplishing the goals for which they were written. Just because laws aren't working doesn't necessarily mean that NO LAWS for a particular activity that harms other people, is the answer.

Even with the question of (currently) illegal drugs, some rules would need to apply if society chose to legalize their use. Just like guns. Some rules need to apply for the protection of society. Maybe not the rules we have on the books now, but we must figure out what guidelines and rules WILL deter mass murderers and other people who commit crimes with guns. Guns are quite lethal, that's why they're able to be used quickly and efficiently to harm others, before the perpetrator can be stopped. That is what makes guns such a huge problem. With that huge problem comes a responsibility for the government to do all that is possible (short of banning them altogther) to deter the use of guns in crimes. If no laws work, then we may collectively come to the decision that for the benefit of society, all guns must be banned. Although frankly, I have little hope for that solving the problem and I dislike government removing yet another one of our freedoms.

BTW Jack, I tried to edit my post to not read from "...assassinations committed by guns..." to read, "...assassinations committed WITH guns." However the program wouldn't let me undo my initial posting. I quite understand the distinction and I also understand that gun lovers tend to use the stupid argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." DUH! People don't kill people with bullets unless a gun is employed. Guns are instruments of death; intentional death or accidental death at the hands of the people who employ their use.

Drugs can be instruments of death as well. Let's face it, unless a person is involved, drugs are generally harmless. Like a gun. But the harm from illegal drugs is so bad, we've tried to protect society from them. Drugs don't kill people, people kill people. Why don't you hear that argument for legalizing drugs?

[Carlene 12]

The saddest part is that we are actually having to have this discussion again in my lifetime, thanks to the Republican party and George W. Bush. His mamma sure didn't bring him up right, did she? She believe a woman has a right to choose. At least that's what she said many moons ago. I haven't had a recent update (since her boy has been in office.) I can't imagine her being vocal about it as long as he's president.

Sorry....couldn't resist.

[anonemouse 1]

My whole point is that if laws were being followed, which they were in the Virginia Tech case, and something really bad still happens, maybe we do need new, more restrictive laws. You can't really say that Virginia has "poor legislation" when it comes to gun laws (not saying anyone was, just making a statement). Virginia has no legislation when it comes to gun laws. In that case, I argue that we do need more legislation.

[anonemouse 1]

No legislation managed to accomplish having the assailant in the system despite his history. Given many contacts over years, even with 2 girls that couldda/shouldda/wouldda filed stalker complaint, they didn't, along with, what's the latest count? Mental health, school councilors, teachers, administration, police, etc.

That's the point. There should have been a way to refuse to sell him a gun. Legally, there wasn't. To me, if Cho could legally buy a gun, that means Virginia's criteria for legally buying a gun is way the heck too loose. People KNEW he was crazy. He's even been institutionalized. There should have been a way to stop him from legally buying a gun. I'm sorry, but not everyone in this country deserves the right to be able to buy a gun. You seem to think that all involvement from the government is bad. I don't. In fact, I think that when your right to own a gun could get me killed, I think the government has every right to interfere.

[anonemouse 1]

e: "There should have been a way to refuse to sell him a gun. Legally, there wasn't. "

do you have any kind of proposal that would solve this enigma?

Yeah, I do. Make more restrictive laws.

re: 'I think the government has every right to interfere."

I'm all for government interference if they were getting the bad guys away from the guns first BEFORE they come for the good guys....to date, there's been precious little evidence those efforts have been effective on those who aren't interested in obeying the laws....

The same could be said for any law. Why have laws against drugs? People that are going to use them are going to use them, regardless of the drug being illegal. Why have laws against drinking and driving? People that are going to drive drunk would do it, regardless of the legality of it.

To me, it's simple. If the current laws can't prevent things like this from happening, then the current laws need to change.

[BJean 16]

One distinction that I didn't mention when I spoke to the legalization of certain drugs: although drugs can kill, they usually only kill the user.