The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

Buttslinger:

Quote:

---

What part of the word ABORTION don't you understand?

---

To abort is to call off before it's too late: as in NASA called off the mission due to inclement weather. It seems the real issue lies not in the meaning of the word "abort" but a number of questions of the form "What claim does a fertilized egg have on the woman who harbors it?" Or "What claim does a blastosphere have on the woman who harbors it?" "What claim does a two month old embryo have on the woman who harbors it?" Etc. The fact that a sperm, an egg, a fertilized egg, a blastosphere, an embryo are living cells or living tissue does not mean each is "a life." Most intelligent people (except for the strident anti-choice crowed) contend that a living tissue is not "a life" deserving of rights until it attains a modicum of autonomy. To confuse "living" with "a life" is to bias the issue.

Bronco:

Quote:

---

There's also a famous and elaborate hypothetical involving life support machines that is an "even if" argument in favor of robust abortion rights. I am not going to look for it.

---

Perhaps you're thinking of this article first published by philosopher Judith Thomson in the journal Philosophy and Public Affairs in 1971 http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/P...02/thomson.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Anyhow, I think as a matter of policy there is nothing wrong with reasonable regulations requiring a woman to get an abortion within a certain period of time. If a woman can get an abortion before the fetus reaches any reasonable threshold of personhood status then it's unnecessary to argue that even in such circumstances a person's autonomy overrides the interests of someone dependent upon the use of their bodily functions for survival. But I don't think there should be any restrictions in the case of a genuine health threat to the mother, which is essentially a choice question, since the mother might otherwise die during childbirth.

---

Yup, pretty much my feelings too.
Do I want anyone aborting a, ready to go, real life cabbage patch kid...no. Unless I'm wrong, I don't think that's what we're talking about. YES...even that cabbage patch kid might have to go in very rare cases - such as the mother's life being in danger...but other than that, we're usually talking about the "2001:A Space Odyssey" type fetus.
...and in that case scrape away if you have to.
Look, it's usually the best thing for everyone...and I'm sure most people don't make the decision easily, but I've seen FAR too many cases where the decision was made to keep the child and it turned out a cluster fuck for everyone, including the village that had to raise the child.

If you really think there are folks that use abortions as birth control, then do you really want people that use them as such raising children???!!.where's the benefit to that for anyone?. Where's the benefit to 'babies raising babies'?
Are the people clamoring to save those unborn lives offering to adopt and raise those precious lives? I think not, for the most part.

Some of the biggest mistakes in life revolve around sex. It's an overpowering force of hormones and drive. People often risk HIV and other diseases under that mind set...and sometimes wind up dying because of it. Does anyone really want a woman to be legally bound to a decision made under that type of influence?!
I don't.

Anecdotal alert: My ex told me she had an abortion early in our dating days..and it still haunts her to this day. She still realizes it was the right decision at the time (and I totally agree), but she described the the incident and her feelings before and after and there is no way in hell that was an easy decision. I'm not saying it's like that for everyone, but still....

Plenty of women already feel they are murdering a human being when they have an abortion, but they know that it's the right decision to make and are willing to live with that godawful feeling for the rest of their lives.
They don't need for a law or for the screaming masses to , yet again, tell them it's MURDER!.
They have a burden...let's not make it heavier.
I'll never have to make that final decision.
I'm not gonna shove one down someone's else's throat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Yup, pretty much my feelings too.
Do I want anyone aborting a, ready to go, real life cabbage patch kid...no. Unless I'm wrong, I don't think that's what we're talking about. YES...even that cabbage patch kid might have to go in very rare cases - such as the mother's life being in danger...but other than that, we're usually talking about the "2001:A Space Odyssey" type fetus.
...and in that case scrape away if you have to.
Look, it's usually the best thing for everyone...and I'm sure most people don't make the decision easily, but I've seen FAR too many cases where the decision was made to keep the child and it turned out a cluster fuck for everyone, including the village that had to raise the child.

---

I actually had you in mind when I wrote this because I remember you discussing the issue and saying sarcastically something like there were some that believe a child is not a person until kindergarten (I can't remember the exact tongue in cheek remark but you were talking about the most extreme views of pro-lifers and pro-choicers). But if we can find some agreeable definition then the fetus has rights counterbalancing the rights of the mother.

I said in my first post that I actually believe a mother's right to control her body could trump the interest of the unborn even without an emergency and even after the fetus is a moral person (I wouldn't expect anyone to agree and it's a philosophical belief I'm not sure I would endorse in practice).

But as a policy matter I think it's a good idea to have restrictions because there is no need to wait until your are doing harm to a person. Why not require those who are getting abortions to get them before they might do harm to a conscious being? I am assuming there's a significant enough time window that the tough case can be avoided altogether and the mother can make an informed choice.

I think life is extremely valuable, but I think those who make arguments in favor of the sanctity of life end up treating the dividing line between life and death as the only one with significance. Let's say you have two people. One is young, happy, and healthy. He suffers horrible burns and will live the next fifty years disfigured and in agony. Now let's say there is another person who is unhappy, enfeebled, and has a short life expectancy. He dies. Which is a greater loss? I don't think reductions in quality of life are qualitatively different from loss of life. Only sometimes different in value. But this is only a utilitarian calculation. I think individual rights sometimes trump that. Could you force someone to give their kidney to save a life? If life is sacred and can't be balanced against other interests then how can someone refuse to provide something that doesn't kill them for the sake of saving a stranger's life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Bronco: Perhaps you're thinking of this article first published by philosopher Judith Thomson in the journal Philosophy and Public Affairs in 1971 http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/P...02/thomson.htm

---

That is it. Thanks! And I never actually read it…someone brought it up once in a discussion class. I should take a look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I actually had you in mind when I wrote this because I remember you discussing the issue and saying sarcastically something like there were some that believe a child is not a person until kindergarten (I can't remember the exact tongue in cheek remark but you were talking about the most extreme views of pro-lifers and pro-choicers). But if we can find some agreeable definition then the fetus has rights counterbalancing the rights of the mother.

---

Wow, someone not only reads, but actually remembers some of my gibberish. Totally cool. :)
Thank you Bronc.
I actually change my views based on new information...and I always try to admit when I (recognize) was wrong. I don't think my views on abortion have changed much...maybe some of the wording I've used...
been Pro choice (don't like the term , versus Pro-LIFE - like you can't appreciate a living being but recognize a life/death choice has to be made...but meh) my whole life...regardless of political or religious persuasion at the time.

Next time you're in NYC P.M. me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Wow, someone not only reads, but actually remembers some of my gibberish. Totally cool.

Next time you're in NYC P.M. me.

---

Will do. Whether I ever meet other posters on this site, I've given you all personhood status in my head:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

My friend's older brother was target shooting at his country home, and he shot himself in the leg with an old Army .45...With the safety on.It was a bad wound and he had to crawl all the way back to the house. The cop who came with the ambulance accidentally shot the gun in the house, again, with the safety on.

I am too lazy to look up the data, but I'd take a wild guess that the US has so many shootings is because the US has so many guns.

The Romans used to say the people will never interfere in politics as long as they have bread and circuses. Guns are an illusion of power.

---

This sounds highly unlikely if you refer to the the Colt 1911 and not the Colt 1873. With an Ordinance Department required thumb safety, grip safety and the required pulling of the trigger to fire said arm, these are either the most incompetent and uneducated folks to ever pickup a firearm or not a factual claim. Many of you are living up to your WCA claim.

Listen, I'm surprised 100% of the people here aren't Pro-Abortion. Just please don't go all Hippocratic on me, ninety percent of abortions happen because a kid would mess up Mom's plans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loud Love

This sounds highly unlikely if you refer to the the Colt 1911 and not the Colt 1873. With an Ordinance Department required thumb safety, grip safety and the required pulling of the trigger to fire said arm, these are either the most incompetent and uneducated folks to ever pickup a firearm or not a factual claim. Many of you are living up to your WCA claim.

---

What?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

The gun supporting people here have still not answered the question about why they WANT to own these weapons.

---

To try not to be a victim of criminals using guns against us. We do have a right to protect ourselves , families and properties. IMO, a very stupid question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LibertyHarkness

within 3-4 months it will all be forgetten about and gun sales/ammo etc will be back to normal service in the usa .... then when the next mass shooting happens it will boot off again and the cycle will repeat itself ..

Getting americans to stop owning guns would be like getting the english to stop drinking tea .. never going to happen ..

my view anyway :)

---

I love you Libby!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

What?

---

"What?" What?
I thought this was a gun threat too.

off topic;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Listen, I'm surprised 100% of the people here aren't Pro-Abortion. Just please don't go all Hippocratic on me, ninety percent of abortions happen because a kid would mess up Mom's plans.

---

Duh! It is almost always the case that the women's decision will take into account her individual plans, her current and likely future circumstances and how well prepared she is to take on the responsibilities of motherhood. While she is yet not a mother, she may or may not decide to become one. Who are you to tell her she's being immoral to consider exactly these factors?

You claim that you're pro-choice. Time to tell us the reasoning that lands you on that side of the fence.

Hi hippiefried!!! Long time, no see. Kisses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Hi hippiefried!!! Long time, no see. Kisses.

---

Love you too, Sweetheart.

So Loud Love, I see that so far you've gone all the back to 2013 in order to downthumb twenty odd items I wrote. And no rebuttals offered. Really? That's rather like shooting a girl in the back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

So Loud Love, I see that so far you've gone all the back to 2013 in order to downthumb twenty odd items I wrote. And no rebuttals offered. Really? That's rather like shooting a girl in the back.

---

Twenty odd items!! That's crazy…get your point across with one or two like he did to me. Dating back to January of 2013. I was a different person in 2013…back in 2013 I wasn't a member of the NRA, I didn't own twenty five firearms, ten pairs of camouflage pants, and I had never shot a moose from a helicopter (or a motorboat; ask me how I did that).

As for shooting you in the back, maybe he thought you walked across his lawn or were somewhere near his boundary lines. But someone who down votes twenty votes without responding to a single one of them is unlikely to be the type to overreact:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loud Love

I love you Libby!

---

What exactly about that post do you find affirming as an American? She compared her country's love of tea, a warm flavorful slightly caffeinated beverage with our love of deadly weapons. Just prior to that she predicted a cycle of mass shootings followed by periods of collective ignorance about the history of mass shootings and their causes. Perhaps a description, probably not intended an insult, but far from a compliment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loud Love

Many of you are living up to your WCA claim.

---

1)What is a WCA claim?
2) If you pull the trigger with the safety on and it fires, that means the gun is broken and that was the point.

It was a topic of interest so I started at the beginning. I started on the last the page and it turned out to be a bitch match about abortion at the time. I didn't get too far into the thread, so will have to pick it back up latter. I am simply not in agreement with many of you on this topic. Several posts so far that I disliked are simple in disagreement so no rebutal was given, not to mention older posts. It's not like we're going to change each other's minds on the topic and I do have better things to do than pointlessly bitching back and forth.

Banning a certain weapon does little to change a person's mentality, which is where the real problem lies. Just search for knife assaults in China and other countries, both communist and not, where the deranged always finds an alternative weapon.

I was refering to your borderline which was not called for and written in haste.

Then two safeties were broken is my claim. Just sounds unlikely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loud Love

It was a topic of interest so I started at the beginning. I started on the last the page and it turned out to be a bitch match about abortion at the time. I didn't get too far into the thread, so will have to pick it back up latter. I am simply not in agreement with many of you on this topic. Several posts so far that I disliked are simple in disagreement so no rebutal was given, not to mention older posts. It's not like we're going to change each other's minds on the topic and I do have better things to do than pointlessly bitching back and forth.

Banning a certain weapon does little to change a person's mentality, which is where the real problem lies. Just search for knife assaults in China and other countries, both communist and not, where the deranged always finds an alternative weapon.

---

Setting aside the abortion debate, I think a point worth making is that guns make killing easier, be it deliberate or accidental, and that more people can be killed in one incident by pulling a trigger than by knives. Moreover, the gun distances the killer from the victim and to that extent removes the emotional impact of the crime. I suspect that if US policemen did not carry guns, probably most of the victims of police shootings -regardless of the colour of their skin- would have been apprehended by other means. Character undoubtedly plays a part, as does spur of the moment rage in an otherwise calm person, but without the gun the death may not be predictable, and it is not just the ease with which guns are available in the USA, but their variety and also additional weapons -does an American really need to take a hand-grenade to Walmart, and pack a Kalashnikov in the back seat of his -or her- car? It is not as if the USA is convulsed in civil war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loud Love

It was a topic of interest so I started at the beginning. I started on the last the page and it turned out to be a bitch match about abortion at the time. I didn't get too far into the thread, so will have to pick it back up latter. I am simply not in agreement with many of you on this topic. Several posts so far that I disliked are simple in disagreement so no rebutal was given, not to mention older posts. It's not like we're going to change each other's minds on the topic and I do have better things to do than pointlessly bitching back and forth.

Banning a certain weapon does little to change a person's mentality, which is where the real problem lies. Just search for knife assaults in China and other countries, both communist and not, where the deranged always finds an alternative weapon.

---

Better things to do than respond, but not better than to read pages worth of posts that are several years old and then give a negative vote for twenty of them belonging to one person.

As has been written dozens of times in this thread (and you will probably eventually encounter in your excursion through it), when you have a weapon that is very efficient at killing, you are more likely to achieve your aim when you attempt killing. It is also much easier to kill someone without putting much thought into it, just by pulling the trigger because someone has enraged you. I understand that some people want a gun for self-defense in their homes, but the belief that every day presents a unique challenge to your ability to defend your family and this special and paranoid attachment to weapons, is tough to understand. Gun control measures are intended to prevent certain types of weapons from getting into the hands of felons and people with very serious mental illness. Why is that such a bad thing?

The very day 20 primary school children and six adults were murdered by a single gunman at the Sandy Hook School in Connecticut, a knife wielding lunatic stabbed 23 three primary school children at a school in Chenpeng Village in China. None of the latter died.

Don't really know we got on to abortion (but I must be more careful in putting down my thoughts as it excites some people). I suppose abortion makes a nice change to talking about all the bastards (who should have been aborted) with their love of weapons.

Do we think we will change people's minds? - well, maybe not yours but some people.

Intentional homicides
China - 10.02 per million
USA - 42.01 per million

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-...d-States/Crime

Facts are always useful

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loud Love

It was a topic of interest so I started at the beginning. I started on the last the page and it turned out to be a bitch match about abortion at the time. I didn't get too far into the thread, so will have to pick it back up latter. I am simply not in agreement with many of you on this topic. Several posts so far that I disliked are simple in disagreement so no rebutal was given, not to mention older posts. It's not like we're going to change each other's minds on the topic and I do have better things to do than pointlessly bitching back and forth.

Banning a certain weapon does little to change a person's mentality, which is where the real problem lies. Just search for knife assaults in China and other countries, both communist and not, where the deranged always finds an alternative weapon.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

You claim that you're pro-choice. Time to tell us the reasoning that lands you on that side of the fence.

---

Didn't mean to ignore you, one of my other groups of imaginary friends tanked to the new York football giants, bummed me out.
I brought up abortion to hopefully remind people that while guns kill people, abortions kill people too, although of course they're not really people yet, Lots of people who get killed intentionally by guns are killed justly. Of course it would be good if people didn't shoot people, it would be good if people didn't have abortions either. Speaking as an American rather than a Democrat or Republican, when you attack NRA members about their guns, they tend to clench them more tightly. When you attack people for being pro-choice, they scream that personal rights take precedent over a threatening blastosphere, that's pretty much in the neighborhood of the gun nuts that insist personal rights take precedent over blacks killing blacks in Chicago hoods.
Playing with guns is dangerous, but putting your dick in people's holes is dangerous too. A guy in a dress lecturing gun crazies goes nowhere. But it's good for laughs.

Quote:

---

I brought up abortion to hopefully remind people that while guns kill people, abortions kill people too, although of course they're not really people

---

Quote:

---

it would be good if people didn't have abortions either.

---

I don't think I would want to make such a blanket statement which effectively second guesses every woman who does choose to have an abortion and judges her decision as not good. I would rather amend your statement to something like: 'it would be good if women didn't sometimes have to have an abortion."

Quote:

---

When you attack people for being pro-choice, they scream that personal rights take precedent over a threatening blastosphere, that's pretty much in the neighborhood of the gun nuts that insist personal rights take precedent over blacks killing blacks in Chicago hoods.

---

Only if the pro-choice person insisted abortions should be legal regardless of the stage of development (which is similar to the pro-life person claiming all abortions are murder and end a life: they aren't and they don't). I wish you would stop putting me in that category. I want to see abortions appropriately regulated. I don't advocate a blanket ban of all gun. I just want to see more appropriate regulation.

Throughout this discussion you've given a lot of solace to the pro-life stance, but you have yet to answer my question and tell us why you are instead, as you say, pro-choice. How about a post where you give all the positive arguments for your claimed position?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Throughout this discussion you've given a lot of solace to the pro-life stance, but you have yet to answer my question and tell us why you are instead, as you say, pro-choice. How about a post where you give all the positive arguments for your claimed position?

---

Unlike you and Stavros I'm not here to write my college thesis, I'm here for amusement mainly. I hunt and peck at a snail's pace, and yes, I care more about Trish's bullheaded insistence that she's right about everything more than trying to solve all the world's problems. When you're young with the world in your young eyes, it's good to be idealist, and believe you can change the world, when you're old you realize it's mainly vanity. I'll take an hour and post my pro-life beliefs when you take 60 seconds and post your real photograph, Trish. Let's get real and face our fears.

I hardly think Stavros is here to write his college thesis, I know I'm not. You many be pecking with two fingers, the evidence of your output is that you're not working at snail's pace and you're probably not too hard pressed to type a few more lines. Suffice it to say you just rather not expose yourself. Neither do I.

I am sorry you believe I think I know everything. However many times you've called me on this I have always capitulated and clarified my views and attempted to indicate what sorts of evidence would force me to revise them. But it never seemed to take.

In any case: the rest of this thread is now devoted to The-FAST-Approaching-Gun-Ban. So carry on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

...the rest of this thread is now devoted to The-FAST-Approaching-Gun-Ban. So carry on.

---

I can google a fantastic gun editorial, copy, paste, misspell a few words, but that says a lot more about me than gun control. The medium is the message, the writer is the story. When most people write stuff here it says more about them than the topic. You can write all the gun laws you want, the USA is still not that far away from the wild wild west, nothings going to change that except time. Every society has it's own psychology, and a handgun reeks psychology. It is more than the sum of it's parts, it's the owner.

Quote:

---

I can google a fantastic gun editorial, copy, paste, misspell a few words, but that says a lot more about me than gun control. The medium is the message, the writer is the story. When most people write stuff here it says more about them than the topic.

---

Speak for yourself.

Quote:

---

You can write all the gun laws you want

---

Apparently not.

Quote:

---

the USA is still not that far away from the wild wild west,

---

This is just a myth many are encouraged to buy into; a myth perpetrated by the gun community to justify carry.

Quote:

---

nothings going to change that except time.

---

They were saying that about gay marriage just a few years ago. The NRA doesn't feel so complacent, given that it spends so much time, money and effort lobbying congress. The fact that this is a issue indicates a kind of instability.

Quote:

---

Every society has it's own psychology, and a handgun reeks psychology. It is more than the sum of it's parts, it's the owner.

---

Probably we agree on this one, if you mean something like: the bond the between the owner and his gun is greater than the justifications he gives for gun ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

I can google a fantastic gun editorial, copy, paste, misspell a few words, but that says a lot more about me than gun control. The medium is the message, the writer is the story. When most people write stuff here it says more about them than the topic.

---

I know this is a general statement and not meant for anyone in particular..but I haven't noticed any plagiarism or copying from anyone. You look at the core posters on this forum and they all have a writing style that becomes familiar and are expressing their thoughts (supported by facts from external sources or memory). I disagree with you…if you decide to take their posts to signify something about them rather than to listen to what they are saying, you are letting personal ego get in the way of the issues being discussed.

I'm probably letting my personal boredom get in the way of things discussed, how many naked tranny photos can I look at????
A transsexual forum is actually a pretty lonely road ....on the interstates of public opinion, gays are still fags and blacks are still niggers.
I guess it's great that you guys have such a good rapport, but I found out on previous sites that facebook friends are imaginary friends, and getting too closely involved leads nowhere. Nobody here is honest enough to even say who they really are.
I probably am just suffering a Redskins hangover, but most people in the USA don't see guns as the problem, they see transsexuals and Mexicans as the problem, and in the USA, majority rules. White people don't want to trade their problems for the problems of gays and Mexicans. People embrace their own weaknesses and problems, they love them. They love guns. Gee, if only they could learn to love sucking cock everything would be so wonderful............I may be a cynic, but you gotta be something, I guess.

Was Clark Kent fundamentally dishonest for not revealing his true identity? (This is on topic, 'cause Superman never needed a gun).

I was in a bad mood and a bit of an ass last night. My apologies but there is always misinformation popped off as truth when it may only be a half truth or blatantly incorrect, I mistakenly do it myself sometimes. I know huge amounts of data is hard to keep straight from memory but I would like to provide a couple of highly informative links to check out.

Well they aren't loading so I'll just give you the sources.

Factcheck.org/Gun Rhetoric vs Gun Facts.
There is a huge amount of info here from many different sources like The Brady Campaign, Harvard and many more. I don't think anyone can dispute what they present. While firearm deaths and injuries went down during the assault weapons ban from 94'-04', they continue to go down after the sunset with the highest ever record of gun ownership/sales.

This is a pdf I found from The Justice Department published in May 2013 so if you care to search for it, it should be easy to find.
"Firearm Violence, 1993-2011 by The Bureau of Justice Statistics.gov".
Just skim the charts. They support both sides of the arguement but the declines are real.

A total prohibition of firearms would only benifit the crimnals that are using them to harming people. Our Alcohol Prohibition is a good example. The mafia grew exponentially and proved that laws will be broken regardless of consequence. No matter what you make illegal, whether it be theft, drugs, murder or(dare I say) prostitution, if there is a demand there will be a market. While accidents are always tragic, there are usually a party showing carelessness in not securing them or handling them improperly.

Alot of us safely use and enjoy them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Was Clark Kent fundamentally dishonest for not revealing his true identity?

---

Are you hinting you're Superman, that's why you can't reveal your true identity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loud Love

I was in a bad mood and a bit of an ass last night.

---

I can relate