Gun bans and abortion bans - a remarkable Puritanical similarity

[banned from Kos]

(Disclosure: I am pro-choice on both)

These are both very difficult topics that each split the country beyond class lines. And they each have tremendous political impact.

But look at what each have in common:

1- A need to control others
2- A crusade to "save the innocent"
3- The need for an intrusive government to implement new law
4- A sense of moral high ground

Puritanical? Sure they are. Both purport to establish a New World that is beyond attainment. Abortions will never go away. Gun violence will never end.

Prohibition does not work.

[montanto]

1. Well said!!

[bowens43]

63. You're kidding right?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

68. 100%

[pipoman]

2. yep..

[bowens43]

64. nope

[graham4anything]

3. the two don't equate at all. A woman's right is 1st amend. A gun takes that away

has nothing to do with government intrusion

a governments main function is to keep the people safe
guns take away that function

a woman's choice is equal to freedom of speech

a gun kills ones freedom of speech

so sorry, the two have nothing to do with each other

[jody]

5. Please cite the words from the 1st supporting "A woman's right is 1st amend." Thanks

ON EDIT ADD: You say "a governments main function is to keep the people safe" BUT SCOTUS says government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody. Self-defense is a personal responsibility.

[graham4anything]

7. so one should have shoulder to air missles?

nowhere does it state guns should be in the streets.

[former-republican]

9. Hell' why not go with the nuclear bomb theory

You got it wrong in the thread .

Deal with it.

[graham4anything]

23. a gun violates everyones first amendment rights ask Dr. Tiller

they have no choice whatsoever when they kill all the kind meek doctors, and in a church no less

ask Dr. Tiller a gun violated his first amendment rights

therefore every person who might have gone in Kansas, no longer could

thanks to a gun.

the two issues have nothing to do with each other, the OP is 100% incorrect.

as are everyone who owns a gun.

[pipoman]

45. No, actually, only government can violate one's first amendment rights..

and even if one could violate another's constitutional rights, an inanimate object certainly couldn't..

[graham4anything]

48. ask Dr. Tiller who would love to respond to your question ...also ask the following ...

CHARLOTTE BACON, 6
DANIEL BARDEN, 7
RACHEL DAVINO, 29
OLIVIA ENGEL, 6
JOSEPHINE GAY, 7
ANA G. MARQUEZ-GREENE, 6
DYLAN HOCKLEY, 6
DAWN HOCHSPRUNG, 47
MADELEINE F. HSU, 6
CATHERINE V. HUBBARD, 6
CHASE KOWALSKI, 7
JESSE LEWIS, 6
JAMES MATTIOLI, 6
GRACE MCDONNELL, 7
ANNE MARIE MURPHY, 52
EMILIE PARKER, 6
JACK PINTO, 6
NOAH POZNER, 6
CAROLINE PREVIDI, 6
JESSICA REKOS, 6
AVIELLE RICHMAN, 6
LAUREN ROUSSEAU, 30
MARY SHERLACH, 56
VICTORIA SOTO, 27
BENJAMIN WHEELER, 6
ALLISON N. WYATT, 6R, 6
ALLISON N. WYATT, 6

[pipoman]

59. Oh the hyperbole is thick, my my..

All were killed by people. All of them..

Oh, and did I mention how sickening it is when people pretend they speak for those whom they don't know, and in fact can't speak for themselves? There's a name for that...hmm..

[graham4anything]

65. they can't speak for themselves as a gun took their 1st amendment away enmasse

so guns are a 1st amendment issue
and a gun took away the women listed above's right to choice.

They did not get a choice because a gun violated their rights.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

71. You are speaking for the "children"?

What about all the "babies" that were killed through abortion?

You don't seem to have focused upon the point made in the OP but are merely insisting that you can be a spokesman for the "children".

[graham4anything]

73. the OP is 100% incorrect.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

81. Obviously not. And your fiction that firearms are "WMDs" is obviously a fiction.

[pipoman]

90. ROFL

Wow.

[freshwest]

52. I thought you were off base there, but see you are looking at the intent and effects. Good.

[jody]

10. Please cite the words from the 1st supporting "A woman's right is 1st amend." nt

[graham4anything]

13. Thomas Jefferson said all men are created equal. What about Blacks and Women?

to quote Buckwheat on the Little Rascals-
"ask me again and I'll tell you the same"

[former-republican]

19. .

[jody]

21. Never take more than three words to say "I don't know" and that was your correct answer to my

question "Please cite the words from the 1st supporting 'A woman's right is 1st amend.'"

Have a blissful evening.

[graham4anything]

25. I stand by what I said. Ask a person in Kansas about Dr. Tiller, a wonderful patriot who was

shot dead in a political rightwing extremist assasssination, and in a church

another coward who used a gun to extort a political goal

[pipoman]

26. Roe v. Wade is a 14th Amendment issue..

really has nothing to do with the first..

[graham4anything]

29. wrongo. Dr. Tiller's being silenced has everything to do with the 1st amendment

also the declaration
and the right to peaceful assembly

a person is free to go where they choose

the clinic closing in Kansas due to no doctor being available, due to the political assasssination that occured (and the acts of bullying) meant a person no longer was free to go where they wanted to assemble peacefully

life liberty and pursuit of happiness
all of those were taken from Dr. Tiller by a gun

sorry but checkmate, mate.
gun people have lost.

[pipoman]

51. LOL

You said, "A woman's right is 1st amend.". This absolutely, couldn't be more wrong. "wrongo" indeed..LOL

ife liberty and pursuit of happiness
all of those were taken from Dr. Tiller by a gun

You really don't see how ridiculous that sounds, and in fact is? Really?

Truth is stranger than fiction around here sometimes..

[ProgressiveProfessor]

87. The zealots never cease to amuse

Then again, his posting history makes it expected

[pipoman]

89. Whew..holy cow..

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. SCOTUS disagrees with you

The right to an abortion is based on the right of privacy found in the penumbra of the constitution.

I think I spelled that right

[Fumesucker]

4. We already have the intrusive government

Intrusive to the point they fly helicopters around with sophisticated sensors making sure your house isn't too warm.

Might as well give them something productive to do because they sure as hell aren't going away.

[Recursion]

56. Yup

I'm skeptical about giving them one more thing to look for.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. did you think this up all on your own, or is it the faxed talking point du jour?

Regarding each of your points:

1. Gun bans, proposed gun bans, and gun legislation do not come from a need to control others. You'll need to present some evidence for your claim.
2. Children (the living, non-zygote ones) are innocent. What's in dispute here?
3. What you're calling "intrusive government" is what we call "government". There's a reason to have government around, at least if you're a liberal.
4. There's no sense of moral high ground. There IS a moral high ground, and it's occupied, in this instance, by those who are sick of seeing people slaughtered on an everyday basis because people like you caterwaul about your darned gun rights. I've heard a lot more from gunlovers in the last month than I have from the parents of Newtown victims. You're goddamned right there's a moral high ground, and you're welcome to step on up whenever you're ready.

[banned from Kos]

18. A gun ban (not comprehensive background checks)

IS telling another what they cannot possess. Control.

2. They are innocent. No dispute. So are zygotes.

3. I am ACLU. I know about intrusive government. No-knock warrants, illegal surveillance, etc. Leave me alone please.

4. You are staking the moral high ground against another when you assume they will murder while owning a gun. 99% don't.

[graham4anything]

50. Guns are weapons of mass destruction. Anything is acceptable imho to rid the streets of WMDs

just ask the following people who were mass destroyed by the weapon a gun is
CHARLOTTE BACON, 6
DANIEL BARDEN, 7
RACHEL DAVINO, 29
OLIVIA ENGEL, 6
JOSEPHINE GAY, 7
ANA G. MARQUEZ-GREENE, 6
DYLAN HOCKLEY, 6
DAWN HOCHSPRUNG, 47
MADELEINE F. HSU, 6
CATHERINE V. HUBBARD, 6
CHASE KOWALSKI, 7
JESSE LEWIS, 6
JAMES MATTIOLI, 6
GRACE MCDONNELL, 7
ANNE MARIE MURPHY, 52
EMILIE PARKER, 6
JACK PINTO, 6
NOAH POZNER, 6
CAROLINE PREVIDI, 6
JESSICA REKOS, 6
AVIELLE RICHMAN, 6
LAUREN ROUSSEAU, 30
MARY SHERLACH, 56
VICTORIA SOTO, 27
BENJAMIN WHEELER, 6
ALLISON N. WYATT, 6R, 6
ALLISON N. WYATT, 6

[AnotherMcIntosh]

74. "WMDs"? Are you one of those, after the 9/11 attack by Saudis, thought that there were WMDs in Iraq

By the way, everyone now knows that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

That was just made up as an excuse for the powers-that-be to do what they wanted.

[graham4anything]

76. What does Iraq have to do with WMDs? Guns ARE WMDs.

and we don't want Paul Blart Zimmermans killing innocent kids nor mass killers killing innocents

the gun people have brought this on themselves

[AnotherMcIntosh]

79. See. Even you get it. Just because someone says that there are "WMDs" to further their

agenda does it make it so.

[graham4anything]

80. guns are WMDs and should be treated as such. Anything goes as Cole Porter wrote

[AnotherMcIntosh]

94. If honesty matters, it is wrong to say "anything goes." Firearms are not "WMDs."

[graham4anything]

109. yes they are, no matter how much you deny it. WMD=weapons, destruction, en masse=akaGuns

[DisgustipatedinCA]

53. words matter

You said both groups had a NEED to control others. Nothing you've typed does anything to prove your assertion.

Zygotes are innocent, but they're not people. Anti-abortion nuts kill people (not zygotes). They're not about protecting the innocent.

Congratulations on your ACLU membership--hopefully they laminated the card for you. Meantime, please explain what no-knock warrants and illegal surveillance have to do with laws passed by Congress. Presumably a gun ban would go through congress, would it not? So is there a point here? Oh, and I'll leave you alone the moment you stop posting an opinion I vehemently disagree with on a public forum.

The moral high ground comes from a public health perspective. We could ensure that gun deaths drop by very significant percentages, but people like you and groups like the National Rifle Association have made that so difficult as to not be doable at present. Again, fuck yes there's a moral high ground. Come on up; you're welcome here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. Actually, they got it from *me*; see these posts from April & May, 2012:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117235299

"Two peas in a pod: Abortion restrictionists and gun control advocates"

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/117236520

"The Brady Campaign is again trying to make money off the dead."

Just as the American Life League, the Army of God, and Live Action claim to be acting on behalf of every zygote, fertilized egg, and stray sperm in the known universe, the various Brady Campaigns and their employees have never been shy about claiming to speak for all victims of gun violence...

I despise equally a)self-righteous gun Prohibitionists, )b the National Rifle Association, and c)fetus fetishists.

[PeaceNikki]

8. they don't equate because one involves PRIVATE MEDICAL DECISIONS.

PRIVATE.

see Roe v Wade

[davidn3600]

12. Both are constitutionally protected rights... so the Supreme Court seems them the same way.

Neither guns nor abortion are ever going away.

Both sides just need to learn to live with it.

[jmg257]

36. Hmm...maybe better said "...learn to die with it"? nt

[BlueMTexpat]

11. False equivalence indeed! eom

[onehandle]

14. Gun Control = Hitler. Nice Drudge-ery. nt

[Veridicus]

15. Ban them all

We will see the say that all guns are banned First, we will outlaw these assault rifles and then take the rest in steps. There is no logical reason for ANYONE to own guns in modern America. None at all, no one needs to hunt anymore with a grocery store within walking distance of anyone. We have a military now, so that excuse it out. We also have multiple levels of law enforcement, so everyone has access to a cop when needed. Finally, we have turned the corner and have solid democratic control with a constant progressive shift, republicans are becoming obsolete. People buy guns to be able to kill other people. Just look at this gun nut, do you really want right wing nuts like this having guns?

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. "everyone has access to a cop when needed"

You're being sarcastic, right? Right?

Oh, dear gods, please tell me you're being sarcastic...

[Veridicus]

27. About what?

You want people like him with access to ANY gun? There is no need for people to own guns, they only buy them to shoot other people and claim "self defense". They fantasize about murder. This guy said he is going to kill people because he doesn't like a law.

[Lizzie Poppet]

42. Oh, sorry...nothing to do with him.

I was referring to the bit I quoted in my subject title. About access to law enforcement protection. Apologies for not making that clear...

[Veridicus]

49. I see it now

That is humorous if you were around for my first post that I missed that! It's a fact that if we outlaw guns crime rates will go down, all of those calls that police have to waste time on for gunshots or sounds of gunshots would be free for other reasons.

[Lizzie Poppet]

54. That's an interesting theory.

There are certainly too many yahoos who fire their guns for "celebratory" reasons or just screwing around, and I'm sure a good portion of those shots (depending on where you are) generate wasted time for law enforcement. There are, however, a lot of areas in which the sound of gunfire is so common, no one bothers calling the cops when they hear shots...and I suspect a lot of that activity is by people who will ignore any gun ban (that is, habitual criminals, for most of whom gun possession is already illegal, since they're convicted felons).

[beevul]

103. "no one needs to hunt anymore with a grocery store within walking distance of anyone."

Someone clearly has never left the city in their life.

[slackmaster]

16. I too am pro-choice on both issues

[dsc]

17. Tell that to all the countries that have vastly less gun violence than we do

Australia, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Japan, Portugal, Ireland, Iceland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Canada, United Kingdom, and a host of others.

[rightsideout]

38. Agree there

A FaceBook friend from Germany can't understand why we have so many gun deaths here.

I told him it's "complicated". His response back was "Change it!!" I guess those countries "just do it."

[dsc]

39. It isn't complicated

We have decided to let our population have virtually unfettered access to weapons that most countries restrict to their militaries. We then act shocked when our streets run with blood.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

75. You, of course, left out Switzerland.

[dsc]

93. funny you mention Switerland

and I was so hoping someone one would. Switzerland has the highest firearm homicide rate in Western Europe, twice Finlands, nearly 2.5 times France, and over 10 times Norway's. Yes we are about 7 times theirs but they are the worst, dead last, in Western Europe. I wonder why that is.

[ellisonz]

20. Rubbish.

[Fumesucker]

24. It's really too bad for gun enthusiasts that they have not more strongly stood up for other rights

I really can't think of a repressive government idea that gunners haven't been enthusiastic about, aside of course from any challenge to the right to own an arsenal.

Drug war? Love to punch those dirty hippies..

Patriot act? Them Mooslims are dangerous, they need to be watched.

Military Commissions Act? Dangerous Mooslims again.

Next up is going for the mentally ill, Wayne LaPierre teed off that effort a few days back.

A lot of you should have realized quite some time ago that you might want to join forces with others who would like their freedoms too.

[banned from Kos]

32. Did you miss my "I am a radical liberal" thread?

I say legalize:

All drugs
prostitution
abortion
any marriage
all immigration
euthanasia
gambling anywhere

[Fumesucker]

40. The NRA supports none of those things, mostly supports Republicans

Like it or not, fair or not, the NRA is the face of the gun owners of America now.

If they had perhaps given a damn about anyone else's rights then maybe their crocodile tears would elicit more sympathy.

Many times I've heard the ACLU attacked viciously by gun enthusiasts.

[banned from Kos]

58. What? I don't give a fuck about the NRA.

This is a total Non sequitor on your part.

I thought more of you before.

[Fumesucker]

70. Not trying to be insulting, just telling you what I see

There are threads I don't go in because I know I'll end up a punching bag for someone no matter what I say, DU has a real tendency to pile on the scapegoat du jour.

I slipped a couple of times during this Newtown massacre thing and said stuff I later regretted and should have known better than to post but I was or am emotionally torn up about it.

Bear in mind I had a deer rifle pointed casually at me a couple of weeks after Thanksgiving, no idea if it was loaded or cocked, safety on or what, I just turned around and left as soon as that happened. Not a deliberate act, it was a hunter being careless with his weapon but it chilled me badly, there was a dead deer in the back of the truck with a hole blown in it.

[Warren Stupidity]

95. Meh. And I am richer than bill gates.

Your center right posts here are legion. You might be in the "bill weld republican" mold, but that is so 1990.

But I digress. Your op is massively insulting to women.

[The Straight Story]

34. Funny, some have - and been yelling for years about lack of choices/freedoms

Like when I say 'hey I am all for banning smoking in hospitals/etc, places people have to go but bars are for adults and is a choice' - and when I say I am for adults being ALLOWED to make choices I get called a libertarian.

I am pro-choice across the board because I believe in the principle and not just for a pet issue.

[Mimosa]

57. ^Same here, Straight Story ^

I'm not completely libertarian, but more 'for freedom'.

The causes behind crimes involving weapons are what we ought to investigate. There are solutions which don't require abridging the 2nd and 4th amendment rights for the law abiding 99% .

[Budgies Revenge]

83. Agree! nt

[jody]

37. Fumesucker you mix lots of things. I personally know thousands of pro-RKBA folks and all of them

support every enumerated right.

When it comes to unenumerated rights SCOTUS says is or is not covered by the 9th or the expansive 14th then there can be disagreement. Not surprising because SCOTUS itself is seldom unanimous.

[Fumesucker]

60. You say that like it's a bad thing...

You can't do just one thing, merely the act of observing something changes it however minutely.

I see everything as being interconnected to a greater or lesser extent, I look for those connections and try to tease them apart and see what makes them tick.

Gun enthusiasts as a whole are now represented in the public mind by the NRA, it's not my doing, I'm just reporting something I have observed. I've heard some really vile rants against everything the ACLU stands for from NRA members more than once and definitely haven't heard anything positive, I doubt I'm alone in this experience.

There's an old saying in business about it's six or however many times as hard to get a new customer as keep an old one, the NRA speaks for you in the public sphere at the moment and this is the perception that a lot of people have of the NRA, you're losing old customers and not getting very many new ones at the moment.

[jody]

66. I speak & vote for myself. I help Democratic candidates campaign and I've had many LTTE published

on issues.

You painted with a brush too broad when you said "I really can't think of a repressive government idea that gunners haven't been enthusiastic about".

I can introduce you to hundreds of professionals, a few dozen politicians, and many, many blue-gray collar workers who would correct your allegation.

[Fumesucker]

85. I live in a gun mecca, seriously

And I remember late 2001 very well, like it was yesterday.

Dubya had a 90% approval rating nationally and it was way higher than that here, Americans needed to watch what they said, watch what they did.

The gun owners were really standing up to big government then.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

78. "Gun enthusiasts as a whole are now represented in the public mind by the NRA, ..." 1) No.

2) Not all firearm-owning Democrats and firearm-owning Independents are "gun enthusiasts."

Just as some people own fire extinguishers in their homes, their ownership of fire extinguishers does not make them "fire-extinguisher enthusiasts."


Identifying firearm-owning Democrats and firearm-owning Independents as being "gun enthusiasts" and persons who are now "represented ... by the NRA" is a great way to lose votes in the upcoming 2014 election.

[NYC Liberal]

28. Except that having an abortion doesn't threaten everyone else's lives.

Abortion doesn't injure or kill 60 people in a crowded movie theater, or 50 on a school campus.

An abortion affects no one but the woman having it; owning a gun puts other people's lives at risk (and without their consent).

They are not even remotely equivalent.

[graham4anything]

30. Zimmerman Zimmerman Zimmerman

[MightyMopar]

33. The RBKA extremists are hanging on to any strawbranch they can

[derby378]

91. What about him? (n/t)

[graham4anything]

110. bill outlawing guns in the street, it should named in Mr.Trayvon Martin's memory

zimmerman shot an unarmed man just to watch him die
in the street
for no reason at all but to watch him die

[earthside]

31. Both are and can be regulated.

We all know about regulations on abortion that pass constitutional muster.

Regulating 'assault' weapons and magazine size has/will pass constitutional muster, too.

I don't know of any reasonable person who is seriously advocating for banning and confiscating all guns.

I do know of crazy right-wing nuts in the U.S. House and Senate who favor banning all abortions.

So what is your point? Really?

[jody]

44. Senator Feinstein said “If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an

outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”

By your classification is she a “crazy left-wing nut"?

[earthside]

77. She was referring only to 'assault weapons' ....

.... not all guns.

We have banned civilian ownership of all fully automatic weapons and that ban is constitutional.

So, Feinstein is talking about a reasonable, if not probable position.
And she said that in 1995. I'm not sure that is her position today.

[beevul]

105. "We have banned civilian ownership of all fully automatic weapons" - No, we haven't.

We really haven't.

I suggest you look deeper into it, because they can be owned legally, and are not "banned" for civilians.

[MotherPetrie]

35. Just bullfuckingshit. For you to equate the right of a woman to control her body,

including whether she gives birth if she gets pregnant, without interference from right-wing politicians doing the bidding of the religious right, with the right of anyone to have totally unrestricted, unregulated access to any type of weapon categorized as a gun, is disgusting.

A woman is a human being whose decision whether or not to give birth is utterly personal and private.

A gun is a thing whose purpose is to destroy something, often a human life, and the possession of which can have deadly consequences on anyone knowingly or knowingly in its vicinity.

For you to equate them is utterly cynical, utterly disgusting, and stinks beyond belief.

[banned from Kos]

43. I am NOT equating a woman with a gun!

I am equating a woman who makes a private decision with a citizen who decides to own a gun.

[LanternWaste]

82. conflating a medical procedure with a consumer decision is rather convenient

"I am equating a woman who makes a private decision..."

I'll certainly admit that conflating a medical procedure with a consumer decision is rather convenient for those with a dogmatic faith.

[MotherPetrie]

88. "I am equating a woman who makes a private decision with a citizen who decides to own a gun"

You are equating a woman's right to make medical decisions for her body with a "citizen's" (so a woman is not a CITIZEN?) decision to own a potentially deadly commercial commodity that is often used to kill innocent people.

And you think that is a reasonable argument.

I think it's the vilest thing I've ever read on DU.

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. The OP is reaching

And the false equivalency is...stunning.

[smirkymonkey]

69. +1000

[ThoughtCriminal]

41. Least persuasive talking point... Ever

at least on DU.

[etherealtruth]

46. There is no similarity

A woman's right to control her reproductive health (a basic human right of self determination) has nothing in common with owning goods.

This comparison is as bad as that NRA nut likening gun control to racial discrimination.

Asinine!

[jmg257]

47. Wow - so now banning guns is a rigid religious & moral issue?

You guys are really reaching now...more fear & paranoia at work I guess.

1) need to control others

Nope - gun bans != people bans...(for comparison, see Wayne Lapierre and his take on the mentally ill)
Gunners won't control their 'tools', so the rest of us have to

2) Crusade to save the innocent

Damn straight - protecting the innocent is MUCH more important then your little inconvenience.

3) Intrusive Government to implement the law.

The role of governemnt is exactly to implement laws to protect its people, or as you like to call it, save the innocent.
"... how great a proportion of natural freedom is necessary to be yielded by individuals, when they submit to government, I shall not now enquire. So much, however, must be given up, as will be sufficient to enable those, to whom the administration of the government is committed, to establish laws for the promoting the happiness of the community, and to carry those laws into effect.

4) A sense of moral high ground.

Nope - no intial sense of being morally superior (though from seeing gun nuts in action, one is building that's for sure!...
& intelligently superior too), just common sense, and a LOT less selfishness.

Prohibition works. Just need the will to see it through.

[gollygee]

55. Um, no

Banning guns is about not wanting you and your family to get killed why you're out in your day.

Banning abortion is about meddling in what's going on in someone else's uterus.

[bowens43]

62. Possibly the dumbest pro gun argument I have ever seen.

Seriously, why not trot out the old 'people die in cars' thing...

LOL!

BTW, we know that guns restrictions DO work . So not only is your argument silly, it's flat out wrong.

[Chorophyll]

72. Last time I checked, abortion was 100% legal in most countries with strict gun control,

such as the UK, Australia, and Japan (right off the top of my head.)

But go on with your bad self.

[HooptieWagon]

84. There are many similarities, to be sure.

I'll add to your list that both anti groups invent their own facts and language (since facts and language don't support their case), both groups claim a majority (which polls say they're not), and both groups employ bullying tactics to silence opposition, there is no interest in serious discussion.
If Dems lose in '14 or '16, I'm laying that loss entirely at the feet of the anti-gun zealots. Just like the "legitimate rape" GOPers, they just couldn't keep their mouths shut.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. Stunning...and this goes after all the false equivalence s we have seen

Kudos for one that is breath taking!!!

[banned from Kos]

92. read points 1-4 please.

and add one more - ZEALOTRY!

Yes, you and the anti-abortion crowd are zealots!

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. Wow, kudos.

You see, background checks are not gun confiscation. But given how effective the NRA was, right before Newton, and their latest idiocy.

[Odin2005]

98. I can see why you were banned from Kos.

[ellisonz]

111. +1

[billh58]

99. Yet another NRA false equivalence

Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2013, 11:51 PM - Edit history (3)

talking point. The need for abortion, and the need for guns have absolutely nothing in common.

If you are maintaining (as right-wing misogynists do) that women get abortions on a whim, or that abortions are just like plastic surgery, then you are definitely on the wrong political message board. FR is down the hall, and to your extreme right. Abortions are performed because there is a medical or psychological need, and is a difficult medical, and personal decision.

Owning guns, on the other hand, is definitely a "lifestyle choice," and guns have absolutely no other purpose than the one they are designed and manufactured for -- to kill living things. No one ever bought a gun to save the life of the mother, or because a 14 year old child was raped by an uncle and became pregnant. People buy guns because they can. Most responsible gun owners buy guns for specific reasons, and take full responsibility for them. The 2nd Amendment does not include the right to own as many guns as a person wants (not needs, but wants), to own any type of gun which is available, or the right to carry a gun anywhere or anytime one wishes (especially in the public arena).

The other part of this NRA bullshit talking point is that an "intrusive government" is coming to take away your guns. That's the Wayne LePew and Alex Jones rallying cry for the wannabe soldiers dressed up in phony camo, running around in the woods who would piss their pants if placed in real combat.

The reality is that the legitimate government representing the majority of the sane people in the USA is going to require the registration of most guns, and restrict the manufacture, sale, and importation of the most obscene of the "assault like" weapons. The legitimate government representing the majority of the sane people in the USA will do this because it is the correct thing to do. There are too many guns in the hands of too many people which are unaccountable to anyone. That will stop with the requirement to track registered guns and require background checks when they are sold, or their ownership is transferred.

And lastly, you are correct prohibition has a horrible track record. Conversely, regulation and sensible laws do work when applied to changing unhealthy social behavior. We have managed to greatly reduce the number of drunken driving deaths, cigarette use is on the decline, and the average life span is increasing due to food and drug regulation. Guns are a hazard to our collective health, and we will regulate them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. Now I know where you got this precious turd...

Thanks Lawrence...

Rush Limbaugh.

[samsingh]

101. but common sense, regulations, and rules do work

the prohibition argument is lane because that is not what is being proposed.

[thucythucy]

102. Didn't the Puritans have guns?

Didn't they use guns to hunt deer, turkey (and Indians?)

The Puritans had no problem with private gun ownership, therefore gun owners = Puritans.

Makes as much sense as this absurd OP, and is historically accurate, to boot.

[morningfog]

104. Stupid, stupid, stupid argument.

RW tripe.

[ismnotwasm]

106. Oh bullshit

Don't compare my body, my health, and my reproductive human rights in some red herring argument.

[jeff47]

107. So.....you like Rush Limbaugh's talking points?

Perhaps if you took a moment to think before giving your "megadittos", you'd realize just how incredibly stupid your post is.

[TheKentuckian]

108. They are pretty similar, authoritarians. Big Brother government.

I'd compare them more to the teetotalers/prohibitionists/drug warriors/book burners but it all comes from a very similar place and you are dead on with the justifications.

I also worry about the complete disregard for balance, checks, and concentration of power of all kinds.

I'm definitely bothered by a seeming growing school of thought that asserts government grants rights rather than ensures them.

The lack of any consistent principles is alarming. Folks calling for house to house searches, pitching mandatory sentences, expanding all the terror war shit on the American people, and what the fuck ever just like the all the other crowds.

Nothing radical really. All of this nonsense is pretty new, almost all of it from the 20th century and all of it failed as failed can be. I think they are the radicals.
Between all of these "crusaders" and fearmongers, our rights are further encroached upon by the day and you're right, it is always for the CHILDREN and SAFETY.

[Rex]

112. .

Another FAIL.

[GeorgeGist]

113. Seat belts too.

[ljm2002]

114. Different issues.

Unless you believe that the issue of owning a gun is akin to controlling your own body, which would imply that the gun is simply an appendage of said body, which I think few people would argue.

Under your argument, any law is an attempt to "control others". So point 1 does not count as something joining gun laws and abortion restrictions together.

As to point 2, the argument about gun restrictions is not a crusade to "save the innocent". In fact the argument generally revolves around how many gun deaths there are, including the innocent and the not-so-innocent (gangs, etc.). Now the Sandy Hook incident did dredge up a lot of feelings in all of us about saving the innocent from such rampages, that I will concede readily. In that way it has served as a spark for a new conversation about gun restrictions. But this conversation has been going on for many years now and it has most assuredly not been solely about saving children from being killed. So it is not at all like the rabid forced-birth argument which has the fetus as a demigod while the woman bearing said fetus is a mere expendable vessel.

Concerning point 3, like point 1 it is immaterial, since any law requires the need for a government to implement the law. Your inclusion of the word "intrusive" is mere editorializing, hanging the right-wing meme of "intrusive government" out there to cause a negative reaction in our lizard brains.

As to point 4, yes most laws regulating behavior are based on some sort of moral ideal or "high ground". So? This again is not unique to either gun laws or abortion laws.

Finally. There is no, repeat no, move on anyone's part for gun prohibition. Restrictions, yes. Outright prohibition, no. So that's one thing. Also: as to your statement that "Gun violence will never end". That may well be true, but we do know that the rate of gun violence is much, much, much lower in almost every single other country in the world, even some which are quite well armed. We might want to take a look at why that is the case. I think that we'll find gun laws that are much more restrictive than ours are. Hmmm, I wonder if there might be some connection there? Nah, couldn't be...