The incredible story from Florida about the live-birth abortion is being used by Bob to illustrate my faulty ideas about guns. Basically, if you haven't read about the gruesome story, an 18-year-old paid $1,200 for an abortion. The doctor was late; she had a live birth at 23 weeks. The clinic staff stuffed the gasping premature baby in a plastic bag with the placenta and disposed of it like so much medical waste. The latest news is that the doctor, who eventually showed up, lost his medical license for falsifying records and trying to cover up the incident.
Here's Bob's comment on a post about guns.
Mike,
Let's combine two meme's here.
You say that the misuse of firearms by some is a reason to reduce the availability, correct?
Would that apply to other activities/actions? If people misuse/abuse them, then actions should be taken to reduce the availability of activity?
How about abortion and this case from Buffalo News
http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html
Fla. doctor investigated in badly botched abortion
By CHRISTINE ARMARIO
Associated Press Writer
Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.
Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.
Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.
What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.
Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.
Had the abortion clinic not be so easily available, an infant would be still alive today possibly.
Now I am not arguing for the banning of abortion. Just trying to apply your logic to the problem.
Even those who support abortion rights are concerned about the allegations.
"It really disturbed me," said Joanne Sterner, president of the Broward County chapter of the National Organization for Women, after reviewing the administrative complaint against Renelique. "I know that there are clinics out there like this. And I hope that we can keep (women) from going to these types of clinics.
Isn't this the same with firearms...there are people out there who misuse firearms, responsible people would like to keep them from being used in illegal manners....but what can effectively be done to control free will?
At first I tried to beg off, calling this a ridiculous comparison. What prompted Bob's comment was, what I thought to be an extremely witty toungue-in-cheek post of mine comparing guns to cars. That's another comparison Bob likes to make.
My attempt to extricate myself from this mess of silly comparisons was met with this.
Please explain in simple terms and words why the comparison is invalid because obviously I, and many others, disagree.
Please explain why the comparison between the misuse - criminal deeds--in the abortion case and the misuse--criminal deeds-- of firearms isn't appropriate.
I think you are running from the issue.
I'll challenge you again. Take my argument apart point by point and show my how it is wrong.
Give you a break Mike? How about giving us a break from your repeated calls to disarm us?
From your repeated calls to impose restrictions and costs you aren't willing to bear on any other right...such as abortion.
Show me how I'm wrong instead of simply telling me it is what you "feel".
You are completely entitled to your opinion...but you are calling for changes in society, in my ability to enjoy a sport, in my ability to protect my family. Shouldn't that call for change require more song lyrics:
Feelings, nothing more than feelings,
(Now that was a light hearted attempt at humor )
Compared are the right of a woman to have an abortion and the right of any person to own a gun. Compared are the horror that happened in the clinic in Florida with the gun violence that takes place in America. I call those ridiculous and absurd comparisons; let's see if I can explain why.
Bob said, "You say that the misuse of firearms by some is a reason to reduce the availability, correct?" I answer, "correct."
Bob said, "Please explain in simple terms and words why the comparison is invalid because obviously I, and many others, disagree." I say, "here's how."
You cannot compare the right to bear arms to the right to have an abortion. They're both "rights," so to speak, but they're too different from one another. The 2nd Amendment was written in another time and place, and for totally different reasons than the ones that exist today. The authors were the same guys who owned slaves and denied women and others basic human rights. So, that argument means nothing to me; that's just my opinion. Furthermore the need to carry a gun to protect yourself and your family, I believe in most cases is totally exaggerated and the result of fear, insecurity and grandiosity; again that's just my opinion. Access to abortion, on the other hand, is a basic human right for women. Wherever it's denied, an injustice occurs because we all, women and men, must have sovereignty over our own bodies. Religion should stay out of politics; politics should stay out of women's bodies.
The downside of these rights being upheld is that every once in a while you have an awful story like the one in Florida, but every day in practically every major city you have gun violence. The misuse of guns is an epidemic; it's not an occasional odd incident. If you gun owners have to be inconvenienced in order to limit the availability of weapons to the criminals, I say that's a good thing. I've never said there should be a total ban, even though I'm continually accused of having said it. I'm only talking about major restrictions sufficient to curtail the flow of guns into the underworld.
So, I don't believe in these types of comparisons. I don't think they work, not guns and abortion, not guns and cars, not even guns and knives. Each situation is unique and needs to be examined on its own without resorting to facile comparisons that don't make sense.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"The 2nd Amendment was written in another time and place, and for totally different reasons than the ones that exist today."
ReplyDeleteWrong, Mike.
"Furthermore the need to carry a gun to protect yourself and your family, I believe in most cases is totally exaggerated and the result of fear, insecurity and grandiosity; again that's just my opinion."
A very rude onion...especially for one who loves to deny the evidence of armed personal defense. Also that's EXACTLY the reason the founding fathers gave for civilian self-defense.
"Access to abortion, on the other hand, is a basic human right for women."
Wrong again. We may think that abortion should be legal....but in NO way is it a right. Certainly it's the furthest thing from a basic human right. Things like Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, and abortion protects none of those....and in fact kills a human being. So one could argue that the unborn's basic human rights are being directly violated by the abortion.
Also how are you so sure the misuse of abortion is so uncommon?
hell I keep hearing stories like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQIQBwYaf3s
Oddly enough they don't get much play outside of anti-abortion circles (that again I read but am not party of...my bizarre abortion stance has been spoken about enough here).
BTW, Mike, I posted a response to you here:
ReplyDeletehttp://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/smoking-guns/
But ignorant Mike has decided that I interrupt his Mono-culture of ignorance, and has banned me, despite me obeying his commenting policy, they he frequently violates.
Still you said:"The article you linked to said currently guns can be taken into restaurants as long as they’re not concealed. How does that work? Have you seen it personally? Do they wear holsters and act like cowboys? Or do they remove them from hidden places and hold them in their hands, perhaps placing them on the bar?"
First up, you're an idiot carrying a gun without a holster. End full-stop. I pocket-carry with a holster, that's how important they are.
Generally people conform to this law by tucking their shirt or jacket behind their holster, or just removing their jacket/outerwear.
You know better than "Do they hold the gun in their hand, or set it on the bar" Sorry, Mike, that's criminal assault or threat to do that. You're smarter than that.
As for "act like Cowboys" I've never heard of a restaurant patron roping or branding a steer in the dining room. Nor do we have showdowns at high noon.
Glad to see you take this issue seriously.
Oh Mike, more Grist for your Mill...and this one is from a fellow Liberal:
ReplyDeletehttp://progunprogressive.com/?p=1180
(if you don't read his blog, you really should)
So cops executed a no-knock warrant (somthing that REALLY scares the shit out of me, because if somebody kicks my door down, even if they shout "Police" I'm shooting them *namely because there have been several gangs who's MO is to pose as police.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/071508dnmetganginvasion.44681d4.html
And if I shoot REAL police I will #1 not be happy about that, and #2, will likely never KNOW I shot real police as I will be killed)
They didn't knock because they suspected the home owner was armed.
So we register our guns, that will encourage police to use no-knock warrants.
And of course Police get the address wrong more often than they ever should.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteYou cannot compare the right to bear arms to the right to have an abortion. They're both "rights," so to speak, but they're too different from one another
How about this comparison, one right is a specifically enumerated & protected right - firearms- in the Constitution and the other isn't but was found in the Penumbra of the the also not specifically protected right to privacy.
Furthermore the need to carry a gun to protect yourself and your family, I believe in most cases is totally exaggerated and the result of fear, insecurity and grandiosity;...Access to abortion, on the other hand, is a basic human right for women
What I see in this argument is that a woman doesn't need to protect herself from rape but should be able to stop a pregnancy that results from rape. Is that what you are saying Mike?
That women's fears of rape are totally exaggerated and the result of fear,insecurity and grandiosity,?
How about showing us that our concerns are out place Mike? Put some numbers to paper and convince that I don't have to worry about being assaulted, or my home invaded, or being caught in a robbery at some store.
I posted before that a corner store 0.6 miles from my house was robbed last year. I've posted before about the research I've done into the crime rates in various cities and that research YOU ARROGANT JERK, not fear was one of the factors that convinced me to get my CHL.
You carry home owners insurance, automotive insurance, medical insurance don't you Mike?
Are your precautions to protect yourself and your family from financial distress totally exaggerated and the result of fear, insecurity and grandiosity? But taking precautions to protect myself and my family physically is?
The 2nd Amendment was written in another time and place, and for totally different reasons than the ones that exist today.
Yes Mike and the 1st amendment was written in another time and place also. They couldn't have foreseen the high speed printing press- although they had seen increases in speed and ability already- they couldn't have foreseen TV and Radio and the Internet...but the protections of the 1st amendment still apply.
Read the writing of the founding fathers on the second amendment and come back to the belief they wouldn't want us armed today.
The authors were the same guys who owned slaves and denied women and others basic human rights.
This is one of the biggest pieces of garbage in your whole argument. If their opinion on the 2nd amendment means nothing, then their argument on EVERYTHING SHOULDN'T mean anything.
No protection against unreasonable search and seizure, no protections for free speech, no protection against cruel and unusual punishment --there goes one of your arguments against the death penalty Bub!
The downside of these rights being upheld is that every once in a while you have an awful story like the one in Florida, but every day in practically every major city you have gun violence. The misuse of guns is an epidemic; it's not an occasional odd incident
So you are saying that abortion, which in my opinion and many others, results in the MURDER OF A LIFE EVERY TIME it is done is a good thing...but a result of being able to keep and bear arms being less then 20,000 murders a year is a bad thing.
According to Wikipedia there were over 820,000 abortions in 2005.
Again, you are appearing to say that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy but not to protect herself from harm.
I'm only talking about major restrictions sufficient to curtail the flow of guns into the underworld.
Major restrictions like background checks prior to purchasing a firearm, licensing requirements in some states to even purchase a firearm, laws against people buying firearms for prohibited persons, restrictions on where a person can carry a firearm, licensing requirements for concealed carry, requirements for safe storage, requirements to prevent access to firearms by child.
Those major restrictions Mike?
The ones already on the books Mike?
Or the ones that you won't tell us about?
Weerd said, Wrong again. We may think that abortion should be legal....but in NO way is it a right.
ReplyDeleteWell, actually it is a 'right' as defined in Roe v Wade: the SCOTUS has declared it so. Now were we living in a theocracy, that would be a different story altogether. No doubt the Islamic police or the Taliban do not consider it a 'right.'
Weerd says, Also how are you so sure the misuse of abortion is so uncommon?
Perhaps data, empirical evidence, and things like that.
The CDC [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5713.pdf] latest data shows that only 1% of the legal abortions in the U.S. were performed after 21 weeks while 77% were performed at 10 weeks or less; 50% at 5 weeks.
We're not talking large numbers here, but the pro-lifers like to bloviate greatly about this 'great' problem here in America.
Which age group of women had the highest late-term abortion rate do you suppose? Fifteen and under. Imagine that.
Glad to see you back to non-trolling posts, Muddy!
ReplyDelete"Well, actually it is a 'right' as defined in Roe v Wade: the SCOTUS has declared it so."
Well actually they decided it was a right to privacy, and they felt termination of pregnancy factored into this. Rights of the fetus, nor it's status as a human being were not discussed.
"Now were we living in a theocracy, that would be a different story altogether. No doubt the Islamic police or the Taliban do not consider it a 'right.'"
Just reposted to show that you were the first person to introduce religion to this issue. My points have no grounds in religion, nor do I support law being derived from religious doctrine.
Thanks for linking that study. I was actually straying slightly into the realm where the data on procedures performed are more shrouded because of the right to privacy, and actual cases where an abortion was used to cover up a crime.
Still reports like the one you linked is the #1 reason why politically I'm pro-choice, despite my personal and moral opposition to the act. With abortion banned, the procedures won't stop, they'll simply go underground where they can't be observed for safety, and for observation of a greater problem.
I hope you're starting to see that people actually want to have reasoned and intelligent discussions on the issue with you, rather than just slinging punches across the aisle.
I haven't really given my personal opinion on the right to own a gun here yet.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that you have a right to own a gun. I do not hunt myself, but I understand the philosophy behind hunting from a traditional sporting stand point and from an ecological control stand point.
This alone would go to state that I support your right to have a gun in your home and with the right to have a gun comes the responsiblity to make sure it is cared for properly and the access is controlled.
You do not and should not have a right to stockpile and own military assault weapons.
Unless you can prove a real need and can rightfully claim that you have a legal reason, there is no valid reason to be allowed to carry a firearm on the street.
A hunter must "break his gun" if he is within the proximity of a dwelling.
Yes, you have a right to protect your family.
Yes a woman has the right to control her body and her health.
Of course the abortion scenario depicted in the article was a crime, pure and simple. It was a totally irresponsible immoral action.
But I think the use of an illegally possesed fire arm is on the same level. There are more fire arms possessed illegally and carried in public and there are more crimes committed and and accidents that occur through the irresponssible immoral use of fire arms than an incident like the one described in any rational observation of reality..
Myself...I do not get the moral connection to be made here.
as i stated in my post, and I want to make clear...
ReplyDeleteI do not consider abortion murder under normal circumstances.
I do consider an abortion performed in a late pregnancy, if the fetus is healthy, moraly wrong and a criminal act but even here, I must accept that there can be a lot of extenuating circumstances.
We want our aborted babies dead before we discard them! Yay for us!
ReplyDeleteInteresting the outrage, even from NOW, that a baby should be discarded while gasping for breath.
Is there really a difference between this case and killing the baby in the womb, or the late-term procedure of killing it on the way out of the womb by piercing the skull-- and THEN discarding the body as medical waste? The only difference in legal abortion, is that the baby doesn't get out of the womb alive and breathing.
As for the doctor losing his license for being late and trying to cover up the evidence of the clinic's failure to murder within the womb instead of outside the womb --I don't think it's fair to penalize him for being late, but for the cover-up --and being part of a clinic that violates BAIPA --"born alive infant protection act"
And I say, good riddance, one less abortionist. Shut down the whole blamed clinic!
There were far fewer illegal abortions pre-1973 than legal ones today--and more shotgun weddings (there, a good use for firearms.)
And yes, more adoptions.
As for the gun argument --it's relevant. Far fewer people die from guns than from abortion. I guess Stalin killed 50 million by various means --and Hitler his 11 million --but abortion has killed 50 million as a woman's right.
Something very wrong about this, and wrongs are not rights.
"You do not and should not have a right to stockpile and own military assault weapons."
ReplyDeleteNot exactly sure what you mean by that, Micro, but I did a 3-part post on it a while back:
http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/475124.html
Maybe it'll clear a few things up for you.
Just FYI "Military Assault Weapons" are essentially banned for civilian possession (The few that are still transfer-legal cost several thousands of dollars and require signed police and ATF permission for ownership of each piece)
Also remember, Micro, the right to own a gun has NOTHING to do with hunting.
The 2nd Amendment was written in another time and place, and for totally different reasons than the ones that exist today.
ReplyDeletethe same is true for the entire constitution, less a few of the more recent amendments perhaps. should we ignore it all?
You do not and should not have a right to stockpile and own military assault weapons.
ReplyDeletewhat exactly is the difference between these and the sorts of weapons you feel civilians should be allowed to own? please be specific enough that a law could be made on the basis of your distinction. think of me as an aspiring weapons manufacturer who wants to know just what manner of gun you would allow me to make for sale to my fellow citizens, and what kind you'd only let me sell to the army.
Unless you can prove a real need and can rightfully claim that you have a legal reason, there is no valid reason to be allowed to carry a firearm on the street.
what is a "real need"? what law would you make to define and codify "legal reason"?
and why do we need a "valid reason" to do something which, in the vast majority of instances, hurts noone and is never even noticed by those around us?
Microdot,
ReplyDeleteYou say
You do not and should not have a right to stockpile and own military assault weapons
but the weapons in use for hunting were identical to the army's and militia's weapons at the time the Constitution was written. Don't you think that the writers could have limited that right if it wasn't what they wanted?
Even the SCOTUS decision Miller in 1939 stated that weapons not suitable for militia use were not protected. So, hunting rifles might not be, but full auto assault weapons would be. Quite a paradox eh?
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Of course the court had it wrong about the utility of sawed off shotguns. The army used them as recently as WWI for clearing trenches.
Unless you can prove a real need and can rightfully claim that you have a legal reason, there is no valid reason to be allowed to carry a firearm on the street.
Next time you go out, watch for the cop on every intersection, in every store, in every bar.
What? you say there isn't? There is my valid reason to carry a firearm on the street. Because I am responsible for my safety, not the police, can you believe that was determined in multiple court decisions?
7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.
(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public." Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
Myself...I do not get the moral connection to be made here.
The moral connection is simply the right to decide. The right to decide to end the life of a fetus versus the right to decide to defend yourself.
While Mike says he's not for banning guns, but the restrictions that would keep guns out of the hands of the criminals would keep guns out of the hands of most people.
Texas has a "reasonable" law that requires firearms to be not 'readily accessible' to children under 17. The cheapest option that I could work out cost about $15. Add that to the cost of the purchase, the restrictions on "saturday night specials" making "cheap guns" unavailable....and you've priced guns out of those living at the poverty level.
But for those at poverty levels, abortions can be done for free or on a sliding scale. So the law denies people the right to protect themselves while allowing women the right to abort...how is that moral?
Microdot, Thanks for adding your voice to the raucous and interminable discussion about guns. I trust you knew what you were getting into before commenting.
ReplyDeleteNomen said, "the same is true for the entire constitution, less a few of the more recent amendments perhaps. should we ignore it all?"
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say ignore it all, but maybe that 2nd Amendment needs a little tweaking.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteWe've asked innumerable times what "tweaks" you would recommend.
How about getting off the fence and suggesting some of those "tweaks".
Tell me how some of the "tweaks" like the ones Washington D.C. used...very major restrictions....kept the average citizen safe. Tell me why in spite of those "tweaks" Washington D.C. was known as murder capital of the world for more then a few years.
Tell me how some of the "tweaks" like Chicago has will reduce the 508 MURDERS committed in city that prevents most of the citizens from owning and carrying a firearm.
Isn't it about time to put up or shut up on the "tweaks" ?
Isn't it about time you tell us how you want to restrict our rights?
I see that this is an argument that has gone on for a long time and that you all feel comfortable enough with each other and the arguments to throw a few punches and then go out for a drink after the brawl...
ReplyDeleteIt's all good.
watch out for the big babe, she's a party animal....
Microdot,
ReplyDeleteIf my words have caused difficult feelings for you, that is not my intent.
It is passion that motivates the words, not any desire to demean the people debating.
Please feel free to continue the debate and counter the points raised. It may be a long running debate, but a fresh perspective is always welcome.
No, weer'd, not at all...
ReplyDeleteI tried to express my feelings about this ongoing debate that you have been having.
I realize that we get very emotional in our attempts to present our point of view.
I thought I presented a reasonable position, but I see that there are many aspects to this argument which I have never considered.
I was serious about the sense of respect you seem to share in spite of the language and heck, if it were possible, I'd invite you guys over for a beer.
How bout the tweak of encouraging all the states to higher the age of gun ownership to 21 like the drinking age. While they are at it, they can also higher the recruitment age to 21 as well. I find it amazing that someone can go to war in Iraq for two tours, have the responsibility to take another human life, but still not allowed to drink or buy alcohol.
ReplyDeleteIl Principe,
ReplyDeleteIt is federal law already that you have to be 21 to purchase and possess a handgun, 18 to purchase a rifle or shotgun.
Not many crimes have been committed with rifles and shotguns.
Sorry but I disagree with that requirement. It's okay for teens to drive, a 2,000 pound weapon- but not to drink.
It's okay at 18 to vote on the direction of our country, but not to carry a handgun to protect yourself. That doesn't make sense.
Either a person is capable of mature decisions or they aren't.
Think about all the women, 18 to 21, does it make sense they can't carry a handgun to protect themselves. Those are the ones out the most, the ones working late nights. So on day 364 of a woman's 20th year, she is incapable of handling a handgun, but on the very next day she suddenly is capable?
That doesn't make sense.
I honestly don't know what changes need to be made, Bob. One thing I think interferes with our figuring that out is your (plural) insistence on the inviolate, almost religion-like nature of the 2nd Amendment and the reverence and awe with which you (plural) cite the Founders.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteThe problem isn't this
One thing I think interferes with our figuring that out is your (plural) insistence on the inviolate,
The problem is the liberty guaranteed by the amendment has been violated so often it is ridiculous.
Why can't you see that. Washington D.C., Chicago, basically ban handguns completely. How inviolate is the amendment when that happens?
One firearm a month laws, purchase permits, limits on magazine capacity -- How inviolate is that amendment?
Concealed carry laws that are "may issue" in some states-- meaning the law enforcement decides who gets to carry for their protection or not---how inviolate is that amendment when that happens?
Limits on the type of firearm that people can possess or even be manufactured--how inviolate is that amendment.
The problem is, Mike, you probably can't think of a law that hasn't already implemented.
The U.K. is a gun banner's paradise, but they still have gun crime---and their total crime rate has sky rocketed since the firearm ban.
Why can't you see that Mike
almost religion-like nature of the 2nd Amendment
If you've seen anything in my writing, it should be an almost religious-like nature for ALL OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS. Not just the 2nd amendment but the freedom guaranteed by all of them. We have lost so many of those liberties it is ridiculous. Patriot Act, is one of a million little paper cuts that have citizens answering to the government instead of the other way around.
Why can't you see that Mike?
Read some of the history of the Revolutionary War and the people involved, you might find yourself speaking in awe of them after that also. I could not imagine myself or anyone of our generation doing what they did. The gestalt they formed out of the various idea, theories and beliefs has defied expectations and probability.
America is worth a little reverence and awe, I hope as a Marine you can still see that. America is worth fighting for Mike, even if it means fighting against honorable men like you. I don't know why you can't see that your words are moving us toward less liberty, not more.
Many of us have encouraged you to research the issue more in depth, I again encourage you to do that. Weer'd talks of going from anti-gun to pro-gun based on his research. My researched convinced me of the need to have firearms for self-defense. I am sure that Nomen and Thomas each have their own background that would be enlightening as to why they believe as they do.
That is one thing that I've noticed over and over again in the debate over the 2nd amendment. Those that are on the pro-rights side have usually researched the issue in greater depth then those that are anti-rights. Email any of us and we would be happy to provide sources, information.
It doesn't have to be time consuming, but the result of studying the issue is usually a realization of how many of our freedoms have been chipped away, not just the 2nd, but all of the freedoms. I hope that you've seen that in our writings Mike, we defend mostly the 2nd because we can't spend unlimited time so we pick and choose....but we fight for all our freedoms.
Mike, I'll direct you to the Brady Campaign for a start. Look at their suggested laws, review how "reasonable" the suggestions are and how little impact the laws make. Compare their state ranks with crime rates.
Dream up ideas, email us, discuss them before posting. Given what I know of the pro-gun side here, I will speak for them and say they would be willing to discuss it.
I'll wager that just about any idea you can come up with is already a law.
Here is a great little questionnaire to jumpstart the process.
Federal Gun Control Questionnaire
Another great pro-gun blogger site.
Bob S. says:
ReplyDeleteIf my words have caused difficult feelings for you, that is not my intent.
It is passion that motivates the words, not any desire to demean the people debating.
Really, Bob? Does that go for me, too?
Bob says,
ReplyDeleteNext time you go out, watch for the cop on every intersection, in every store, in every bar.
What? you say there isn't? There is my valid reason to carry a firearm on the street. Because I am responsible for my safety, not the police
I grew up watching those black-and-white TV westerns, especially on Saturday mornings. Every man in town on the screen had a 6-shooter hanging from his belt. Luckily, the sheriff or the hero of the program, meted out justice perfectly for the naive boys watching on our Raytheons.
Life was so simple then. The black-and-white TV mirrored the black-and-white thinking. Evil was a known commodity. 'Justice' was clear,simple, and swift.
Ah, the good old days. Life was so simple then. Naturally we and our pals got the guns and holsters [and maybe boots, hat and spurs] for Christmas and modeled the TV characters and plots, right down to the lingo.
What fun we had in those golden days of our youth.
Then we grew up.
So we're acting childish...but of course you won't give any rational WHY we are.
ReplyDeleteAnti-gun strawman argument 101, thanks for today's lesson, Muddy.
I look forward to your intellectual response next.
BTW there is a guy who makes concealment holsters for Colt "Peacemaker" clones. I think they're kinda silly too.
But I guess I can't throw rocks, as there's a Colt 1911 clone under my coat right now.
Mud,
ReplyDeleteI can not speak for the motivation of your words. I can only judge them by the content of them and the way they are used.
Microdot seemed to be wary of jumping in a heated debate and IF I offended him I wanted to assure him that wasn't the intent.
You have no trouble being wary of jumping into the debate, but rarely debate the issues. When you add substantative discussion it is valued but all too often what I see is trolling. Personal attacks, Adhominen attacks, etc.....so if my words offend you, they were intended to.
Mud,
ReplyDeleteI grow up watching those shows also.
I also noted that:
Every man in town on the screen had a 6-shooter hanging from his belt.
What I also noted was that most of those men weren't criminals, but just average citizens and they were trusted to carry firearms.
I noted that when the Sheriff needed help, it was those folks with 6 guns hanging on their hips he turned to.
Perhaps if you had spent more time reading instead of watching TV, you wouldn't see life in such simple -- perhaps childish terms.
Life was so simple then. The black-and-white TV mirrored the black-and-white thinking. Evil was a known commodity. 'Justice' was clear,simple, and swift.
Justice, even in the shows, wasn't portrayed as so simple. How many "good guys" had a past as a bad guys? Many of the greatest lawman of the old west had criminal or shady backgrounds.
For example the James-Younger gang- heroes or outlaws? Depends on who you asked.
Also note that the people tolerated the gangs for only a while. It wasn't the police that ended the gang, but the average folks walking around with 6 shooters on their hips.
On September 7, 1876, at 2 p.m., they attempted to rob the bank. Three outlaws entered the bank, and the other five stood guard outside. The citizens realized a robbery was in progress and took up arms. Shooting from behind cover, they poured a deadly fire on the outlaws, killing Miller and Chadwell, and wounding the Youngers (particularly Bob, who suffered a shattered elbow). They also shot Bob Younger's horse. One of the outlaws shot a bystander dead. Inside the bank, cashier Joseph Lee Heywood refused to open the safe, and was murdered in cold blood for his resistance. The infamous failure of the raid is celebrated every year in Northfield as Defeat of Jesse James Days. - Wikipedia
So, perhaps there was a purpose and still is a purpose for an armed citizenry, eh?
Then we grew up. Then again, some people prove they haven't grown up or at least matured.
The right to bear arms --and doing so --is a bulwark protecting us from tyranny --against any despot who would control an army against his own people at their expense.
ReplyDeleteTyrannized people are usually without hope because they have no weapons.
Church folks who are peace churches --like JW's, Mennonites, Amish, Quakers --and other conscientious objectors glibly speak of our sovereign God protecting and delivering His people --while Christians in No. Korea, Iran, Pakistan and other nations are tormented for their faith routinely. They have no self-defense, and God is letting them be martyred.
In America, the peaceniks and the gun-less have the defense of our national military and police --and as a balance, the domestic gun-toters are one reason that our politicians don't rise to tyranny. Of course, we have years of Christian influence, too, the old Methodist and UB circuit riders, e.g., who preached that love and forgiveness AND peace were the earmarks of God's spirit in a life, a church, a community.
but there ARE bullies --and God expects us to stop them --and sometimes that has involved weapons.
i've got to confess, i don't se muddy's point either. he means to ridicule bob, that much is clear, but what bob said that he finds so ridiculous and childish is not. judging by what muddy quoted, one might conclude he thinks the very notion of defending oneself is somehow ridiculous; but that makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteNomen and Bob- as Mike said earlier, this topic will get no one no where no how. So, why even debate it? Even after 90 comments, no one's mind will be changed. So many words. So little importance.
ReplyDeleteThere are more pressing problems in this universe like whether this universe is a hologram or not.
D O D G E!!!
ReplyDeleteNobody is more blind than those who refuse to see!
Mud,
ReplyDeleteI agree that we aren't likely to change each others' mind; some of us have researched the issue and some of us have decided before reviewing the evidence.
Given the comments, the information presented; you can guess who is who but there are other people out there besides the people on the extremes.
Those are the people that haven't really decided because they haven't thought through the issue.
Why not present the facts, the information, statistics, even the emotional arguments that gun banners seem to depend on in place of evidence?
So little importance.
Hmm, so you think one of the liberties protected by the Constitution is of so little importance. Do you feel the same way about the 1st amendment?
Given the numerous restrictions on our 2nd amendment rights, would you put up with any similar restrictions on your right to assemble, your right to free speech?
How about a 1 column/post a month law....after all who needs to write more then that?
How about limiting your freedom of speech to the equipment available at the time of the Constitution's ratification? Quill pens, parchment, etc--no high speed copiers, no inkjet/laser jet printers?
See how "of little importance" those rights are when you have to live with the restrictions that pro-gunners have to.
Maybe you don't want to convince people of the righteousness of your arguments.
Maybe you can't convince people because as Weer'd says it is a dodge.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteMentioned it over on Weer'd's blog, but thanks for keeping your comments open, keeping them free of moderation, keeping the freedom for people who disagree with you to comment.
We may not agree, but I thank you for the opportunity to discuss it and your willingness to let us speak our piece at your place.
Thanks Sir.
Weer'd Beard said...
ReplyDeleteD O D G E!!!
I never owned a Dodge, but drove a Dodge taxi back in the mid-60's. It had a push button transmission control which was quite unique.
Unfortunately I drove a '74 Plymouth [Valiant] which quickly proved not to be.
What's your car experience, Weerd?
Bob says-
ReplyDeleteMaybe you don't want to convince people of the righteousness of your arguments.
Maybe you can't convince people because as Weer'd says it is a dodge.
Righteousness of argument [or of religion] has never been the point of my posts or comments. I don't give a shit whether someone else thinks I'm right or not. I'm just blowing steam and if someone gets too close they get burned.
You and Weerd might find this odd but I enjoyed Clint Eastwood's Stan Kowalski in Gran Torino. Did you see it?
Although Stan and I are world's apart in about everything on the surface [prejudice, guns, swearing, education level] he and I had a deeper connection: we don't take shit from anyone, most especially bulies.
So, I'm not making comments on Mike's blog to get the congeniality award; never got that one ever. I just slap down my opinion, throw some elbows, and move on.
Righteousness is for pussies, as Stan would say.
What an odd post by you, Mudrake! I don't think you are self-analyzing accurately at all! Because you are the bully. And your excremental language could give Kowalski a run for his money--and I've never heard Kowalski.
ReplyDeleteYou are very self-righteous in your blog topic views --but your comments in response to other people's comments are generally pointless, vindictive, thoughtless, counter-productive to the discussion, ad hominem attacks, and scornful of all who disagree. No civility for you.
And you could change that anytime and all would be forgiven on my part.
Whereas, in your opinion, it doesn't matter WHAT I say; if I don't approve homosexuality and gay marriage, I'm a sub-human who should shut up on every topic --what Sepp called a "gaycist" on the same level as racist--unfit to share the planet or an opinion. NOted, Sepp was speaking in defense of so-called "gaycists." He coined the term at www.uncommonsqualor.blogspot.com.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow, what a parallel. So what everyone else (but your yes men) would see as thoughtless trolldom against harmless ladies and other bloggers who want to discuss the ideas honestly while you're hiding and clinging desperately to anonymity (at least when you had it) is comparable to Clint Eastwood style machismo and heroics.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. Yeah, that's going to be a hard sell.
Mudrake, last I looked, I believe you've taken off your anti-Barb stuff at your blog, so I'll be glad to retract things here --if you let my 2 recent comments at your blog stand. But you'll probably blame me for bringing up homosexuality over there (and here) --but I only did it because Mike said religious conservatives were disturbing and hateful in his view --and I said I knew it was the gay issue for you--what is it for Mike?
ReplyDeletePlease don't be predictable!! and hyperventilate again on the gay issue.
There's a My Turn piece in the latest Newsweek by Richard Mouw, the head of Fuller Theological Seminary who wants to be able to disagree peaceably on this issue and not be demonized for it. Read:
Less Shouting More Talking
Well, Mudrake is still deleting. Only slight improvement in that he's not announcing it, or complaining that I posted, so no one but he and I will know that he did it. This is MUCH smarter, Mudrake. Progress of a sort.
ReplyDeleteMudrake said, "There are more pressing problems in this universe like whether this universe is a hologram or not." I couldn't agree more.
ReplyDeleteBarb said, "Mike said religious conservatives were disturbing and hateful in his view" I couldn't disagree more. Look at today's post about New Mexico.
So Mike, why do you keep blogging about the 2nd Amendment, if it's a meaningless issue?
ReplyDeleteI call bullshit on that one.
You're just feeding a troll who otherwise has a lot of good things to say.
Have you notice tho, that Muddy WILL give valid arguments on other issues, but sticks to misdirection and insults when it comes to the gun issue?
I haven't decided which of the two anti-gun types he is, but it's certainly one of them.
His rude nature suggests the nefarious kind, what do you think, Mike?
Mudrake can't separate views he loathes from the people -he has to loathe them too, and show it --especially to women, I've observed. He shows a little more deference to men--especially if they agree with him on something. Like Sepp of Uncommon Squalor.
ReplyDeleteTrouble is, MR and I rarely agree on anything so his contempt is complete --and obsessive --so that he isn't even interested in whatever common ground we might find. He isn't remotely interested in cordiality. We know who each other is --and I feel pretty sure he wouldn't crack a friendly smile in my direction if we should meet by chance --bet he would turn his back to avoid a face to face. A pity. Considering I run into him daily in blogosphere and we have such a common interest in topics and blogs.
By the Grace of God, I am able to enjoy people regardless of differences (including homosexuals who I am said to hate) --and even have a sense of humor re: MR's intolerance which reaches the level of ridiculous.
But I do understand one thing about the ol' muckraker --he is sincere in seeing his position as righteous (just like a terrorist) and mine (and the gun-defenders, pro-lifers, traditional marriage defenders, republicans) as evil. I am his "great Satan" and I suspect he wouldn't shed a tear to see me keel over. He closed his blog once, being mysterious as to why, and I expressed genuine regret and a compliment to his relevant, interesting, colorful blog--and he deleted the comment.
I must add to that --I didn't know that Mudrake started up his blog again (He used to be Liberal Democrat of Politics in Mudville) --he was completely free from my input for quite awhile. Then, apparently wanting the attention of me and my small circle of readers, he commented on my blog and I knew he was in business again. I recognized his style and blog personna and his commenters even with his new blog name and identity. I think hating me is a big part of his life!! I'm glad to think he doesn't probably own a gun.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what, Barb, if you don't have one, best you change that.
ReplyDeleteSee my comments in the other thread about punching holes through steel with a screw-driver.
repost after editing
ReplyDeleteYou're just feeding a troll who otherwise has a lot of good things to say.
The metaphor of the blog as a living room has its limits (eg people don't sit in their living rooms and announce to the neighborhood their views. Living rooms are private and blogs are not unless access is limited)
It's useful in this case though on etiquette regarding trolls. I appreciate that mike desires to promote discussion amongst differing view points and makes this almost explicit in just about every post asking "what do you think?", but if we are to think on the living room analogy, it's quite rude to your guests to invite them into discussion and then snicker and pat someone on the back when he insults these guests. I'm not saying mike did this in this blog topic, but it's definitely one of those troll treats that's been handed out.
Mike, on Mudrake's blog, you wrote regarding conservative talk radio:
ReplyDeleteThose conservatives do seem to be about hate. That's why the religious conservatives are so disconcerting, at least to me.
And so I said HERE, "Mike said religious conservatives were disturbing and hateful in his view" and wondered what your rationale was.
to which you wrote, I couldn't disagree more. Look at today's post about New Mexico.
which does show your appreciation for people being against the death penalty because of their need to forgive (as Christ taught) though I didn't see a lot of references to conservative Christian faith being their motivation --but forgiveness IS a Christian theme. God says we MUST forgive to be forgiven. NOt that others don't believe in forgiveness also.
I still wonder, however, what Jesus would expect society to do to a man who tortures and buries a little girl alive --considering He said, "Whoever harms one of these little ones, were better a millstone were hung about his neck and he were cast into the sea." There is personal revenge (bad --"vengeance is mine, saith the Lord," and then there is corporate community justice --as in eye for an eye --which can be prison instead of death. It is still punishment and taking offender off the streets.)
As for the issue of conservative talk radio, it is not the religious right evangelicals dominating there, (except on religious broadcasting) but Mormon Glenn Beck, and Catholics Hannity and O'Reilly. I think Rush respects the Religious Right and some of their stands, but I don't think he's a devout Christian but a pretty secular-living guy. Hence, he doesn't feel bad if he's vitriolic. NOr do O'Reilly and Ann Coulter. Michael Reagan says he accepted Christ under his father's spiritual counsel.
But in blogville, I've not run across anyone as unrelentingly vitriolic and joyless in the process, and self-righteous about it, as MR against religious conservatives.
WEER'D --YES, we are armed. Besides, I have Rob around who has 3 white belts in martial arts --which belts, he says, are the ones to keep your pants up when you first walk in the door of the training center.
Rob, I'd never think of Barb as suffering from "trolldom against harmless ladies." It seems to me she gives it as good as she gets it.
ReplyDeleteAnd so far, I welcome everyone.
Weer'd, I don't think I said the 2nd Amendment is "a meaningless issue." Those are your words that you're putting in my mouth. I think it's anything but meaningless. What I don't think is, that just because it's the 2nd Amendment and just because the Founders wrote it, it can't be looked at, discussed and perhaps even amended with another Amendment.
Mike,
ReplyDeletebecause it's the 2nd Amendment and just because the Founders wrote it, it can't be looked at, discussed and perhaps even amended with another Amendment.
How about we look at all of them and decide what to amend?
Let's take a vote on the board and determine what rights of YOURS we want to amend.
Perhaps freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Let's make it easier for the police to stop you and strip search you anytime, any place.
How about your freedom of speech, want to get governmental approval prior to writing each blog post?
Apply the same reasoning to every other amendment and I'll support you.
And before you tell me it isn't the same, how about arson....causes great harm, let's stop and search everyone to see if they are illegally carrying lighters and acceleratants.
Maddof scammed 50 million dollars using his freedom of speech, how many lives did he ruin?
If the 2nd amendment is up for grabs, all of them should be.
Mike, I do give as GOOD as I get --but not as bad as I get. I don't censure people off my blog except for spam or extreme language and phony posts appropriating other people's blog names --and I don't post personal identities and addresses and photos of others and their houses --nor publish their pictures on crosses, etc. --nor ridicule their bodies (OK, I called Microdot an ol' wiry (did I say skinny?) geezer --when I would really think he's a cool character if he wasn't so mean to me, feeding my troll) --but the difference between me and MR (whom I should stop mentioning with recitals of his blog sins, I know) is that he really despises me and people who hold my views --and I don't despise him or the people he claims I despise. HE WILL NOT DENY that hatred. I've encouraged him to do so --to "say it isn't so." He won't say he doesn't hate me; he'll just recite why I'm hateful and should be hated.
ReplyDeleteI could run from him and drag my tail between my legs, yipping like a kicked dog, avoiding his blog which tells me to stay away -- or I can have a sense of humor about him --which I prefer. And I do yield to temptation to tease him -and at his blog-but I am good-natured in the process. He writes about my people unfairly and dishonestly --and says a lot of interesting things that are SOOOO arguable --and I hate to see him go unchallenged. But he doesn't want anyone on his blog to see the other side (the truth, IMO) about anything he says.
I think the hatred between groups who disagree is what escalates to gun violence. But if we didn't have guns, there would still be the violence. Over on his blog, MR just said in a comment that all the right wingers should be rounded up and put in boxcars. I told you he has Nazi German roots! And he said his father hated protestants --I suspect he has that old German ethic against Jews, also. I think he really does feel sincerely self-righteous in his hatreds. And that's sad --and very unhelpful to world and national problems.
Yes, I post often, post scripture, post lengthily, believe what I believe, and disagree with gay marriage and abortion and orthodox Darwinian dogma --that does not mean I should be censored or locked up or worse.
I can feel friendly toward, find common ground with (grandchildren, e.g.) go to coffee or lunch with anyone --but maybe I should pack a pistol. Just kidding.
I would not meet a blogger alone in a private place. I'd bring my husband or my white belt martial arts son along.
MR accuses me of thinking I'm always right --don't we all who fill these blogs? Says I never admit I'm wrong. I don't live my life to be wrong --I try to be right. Again, don't we all? except haters. They ARE wrong! But disagreeing with a lifestyle --be it aborting, committing homosexual acts, doing drugs, going to church, bearing arms, supporting Biblical morals --
Such disagreement is no grounds for incivility and the outright hatred I have witnessed on blogs.