Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: cambeul41 on December 04, 2015, 08:19:47 AM
-
I don't know when I have seen anything exhibiting such an ugly attitude towards gun owners as this
http://qz.com/565765/a-proposed-bill-in-missouri-would-make-buying-a-gun-as-difficult-as-getting-an-abortion/
Among its requirements that mirror the state’s restrictions on obtaining an abortion:
•Buyers must review alternatives to purchasing a firearm (including peaceful and nonviolent conflict resolution) and medical risks associated with firearms (including photographs of fatal firearm injuries) with the dealer, orally and in writing.
•At least 72 hours before attempting to buy a gun, prospective gun owners must meet with a licensed physician to discuss the risks of gun ownership, and obtain a written notice from the doctor.
•The gun must be purchased from a licensed gun dealer located at least 120 miles (193 kilometers) from the purchaser’s legal residence. (That’s the average distance women must travel in Missouri to obtain an abortion).
•Buyers must watch a half-hour video about fatal firearm injuries.
•Buyers must meet with two local faith leaders who have officiated (within the past year) a funeral for a young (under 18) gun violence victim, and with two families who have been victims of gun violence.
•On a weekend between 10 pm and 6 am, when gun violence victims are present, buyers must tour an emergency trauma center at the nearest qualified urban hospital, and get written verification from a doctor.
-
Wow and I'm ashamed to say that most of my mom's side of the family is from Missouri.
Can't see this one even getting out of a committee let alone on the actual floor for even a hint of discussion.
-
Before you go getting all irked, this is a pro-choice political statement, not actually a gun bill.
At least get irked about the right things...
-
I suspect that Firethorn is correct, but I still don't appreciate her tactic.
-
Well, yeah, but after you finally get the gun, do you then get to kill an innocent human being with no legal consequence?
These folks logic train has never left the station.
-
Well, yeah, but after you finally get the gun, do you then get to kill an innocent human being with no legal consequence?
These folks logic train has never left the station.
Of course the fact that after you have purchased the gun, you can reconsider and return it OR sell it off OR just give it to the police to rectify your decision to have WRONGRights or WRONGFun.
After you've murdered your baby, there's no chance to change that decision.
-
Before you go getting all irked, this is a pro-choice political statement, not actually a gun bill.
At least get irked about the right things...
I could tell, without following it down.
-
The irony being, that abortion kills/prevents more Lefty voters from existing, who'd vote for that gun control.
-
•Buyers must watch a half-hour video about fatal firearm injuries.
I don't think this should be law, of course, but there's a lot of dumbasses that could benefit from that video
-
After you've murdered your baby, there's no chance to change that decision.
It's simple enough; if they're going in for an abortion, they don't consider it a baby(yet). Please remember that the vast majority that abort do so in the first trimester; virtually zero do it in the third. If it's happening in the third it's virtually always because something incredibly wrong has happened in the pregnancy.
That being said, it's an attempt to point out how horrible and unreasonable the 'measures' to ensure a woman going in for an abortion actually wants one are.
I'm going to say it simply, I see the salami tactics that pro-life people use to try to get rid of abortion as the same as the anti-gun crowd use. Slice Slice Slice.
-
It's simple enough; if they're going in for an abortion, they don't consider it a baby(yet).
And? That's a complete non-sequitur to my point. If someone kills their baby, while believing he is not a baby, that doesn't change the finality of the choice.
If the person has regrets about purchasing a gun, they have options to reverse that decision. If a person has regrets about an abortion, there's no un-murdering the baby.
That being said, it's an attempt to point out how horrible and unreasonable the 'measures' to ensure a woman going in for an abortion actually wants one are.
Yes, it is attempting that. . And I'm pointing out that there are significant differences between the nature of the two decisions.
-
Wow and I'm ashamed to say that most of my mom's side of the family is from Missouri.
Can't see this one even getting out of a committee let alone on the actual floor for even a hint of discussion.
Confused Missourian here. You're ashamed because Missouri has (relatively) awesome abortion laws? Or because Missouri's gun laws are relatively awesome?
-
Confused Missourian here. You're ashamed because Missouri has (relatively) awesome abortion laws? Or because Missouri's gun laws are relatively awesome?
That people in Missouri would elect someone that would try to compare gun ownership and purchases to the act of having an abortion.
-
Tempest in a teapot. This bill won't see the light of day in Missouri.
-
It's simple enough; if they're going in for an abortion, they don't consider it a baby(yet). Please remember that the vast majority that abort do so in the first trimester; virtually zero do it in the third. If it's happening in the third it's virtually always because something incredibly wrong has happened in the pregnancy.
That being said, it's an attempt to point out how horrible and unreasonable the 'measures' to ensure a woman going in for an abortion actually wants one are.
I'm going to say it simply, I see the salami tactic that pro-life people use to try to get rid of abortion as the same as the anti-gun crowd use. Slice Slice Slice.
Yep. Exactly. Hopefully you did not intend the pun. Now if one is gonna sell bit and pieces , it makes sense to wait till one can get the highest price....
-
And? That's a complete non-sequitur to my point. If someone kills their baby, while believing he is not a baby, that doesn't change the finality of the choice.
What if it's not yet a baby? Not everyone -- not even every Christian -- believes that human life begins at conception.
You are assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with your view is wrong. What if YOU'RE wrong?
-
What if it's not yet a baby? Not everyone -- not even every Christian -- believes that human life begins at conception.
You are assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with your view is wrong. What if YOU'RE wrong?
Ever taken a hunting class?
I might be wrong about the nature of an unborn baby. I doubt it, but it is possible.
Now are you willing to admit you might be wrong about the nature of an unborn baby?
Because I'll take you back to my opening question: there's a principle of safe hunting that you don't take a shot (try to kill) something unless you are 100% sure it is what you are aiming to kill.
This is so that you don't kill a human by mistake.
If I'm wrong, no one dies by not killing a "fetus" who is somehow not a human.
If you're wrong, we've murdered 50 million people in this country.
-
Ever taken a hunting class?
I might be wrong about the nature of an unborn baby. I doubt it, but it is possible.
Now are you willing to admit you might be wrong about the nature of an unborn baby?
Because I'll take you back to my opening question: there's a principle of safe hunting that you don't take a shot (try to kill) something unless you are 100% sure it is what you are aiming to kill.
This is so that you don't kill a human by mistake.
If I'm wrong, no one dies by not killing a "fetus" who is somehow not a human.
If you're wrong, we've murdered 50 million people in this country.
The whole biology of conception wasn't really universally accepted until the mid 19th century, up until then the thought was man planted his seed into the woman, much as a farmer sows seed into the soil. The thought was a female had a nutrient to allowed the man's seed to turn into a human. Even in the 1600's a Swiss chemist was certain that if you cooked male ejaculate and horse manure at a certain temperature that would develop into a human, but without a soul.
-
The whole biology of conception wasn't really universally accepted until the mid 19th century, up until then the thought was man planted his seed into the woman, much as a farmer sows seed into the soil. The thought was a female had a nutrient to allowed the man's seed to turn into a human. Even in the 1600's a Swiss chemist was certain that if you cooked male ejaculate and horse manure at a certain temperature that is would develop into a human, but without a soul.
I've tried it. Didn't work.
-
The whole biology of conception wasn't really universally accepted until the mid 19th century, up until then the thought was man planted his seed into the woman, much as a farmer sows seed into the soil. The thought was a female had a nutrient to allowed the man's seed to turn into a human. Even in the 1600's a Swiss chemist was certain that if you cooked male ejaculate and horse manure at a certain temperature that would develop into a human, but without a soul.
It's been tried and, actually, it works -- sorta.
You get a liberal. [tinfoil]
-
I must not have done it right. (but it sounds like that was a good thing)
-
The whole biology of conception wasn't really universally accepted until the mid 19th century, up until then the thought was man planted his seed into the woman, much as a farmer sows seed into the soil. The thought was a female had a nutrient to allowed the man's seed to turn into a human. Even in the 1600's a Swiss chemist was certain that if you cooked male ejaculate and horse manure at a certain temperature that would develop into a human, but without a soul.
Not to call you out, but because I've never heard this before - do you have a reference handy?
-
pretty sure he just used it as an excuse to keep jars of his own semen lying about
-
This is so that you don't kill a human by mistake.
If I'm wrong, no one dies by not killing a "fetus" who is somehow not a human.
If you're wrong, we've murdered 50 million people in this country.
You use 3 terms here. Human, fetus, and person. There are, however, some quirks.
A fetus is a human, no real question about it.
A fetus, however, isn't a person. At least 'not yet'. You look at historical societies, you can see ones that wouldn't ascribe a baby as being a person, they wouldn't even give it a name, until it survived it's 1-3rd birthday. Many, many, only bother upon birth.
Persons, whether they're human, alien, AI, or even uplift, are what deserve our protection.
I want abortion to be rare, yes, but in general I'd rather a woman carry a child to term because she wants to, not because she's forced to.
-
A fetus, however, isn't a person. At least 'not yet'. You look at historical societies, you can see ones that wouldn't ascribe a baby as being a person, they wouldn't even give it a name, until it survived it's 1-3rd birthday. Many, many, only bother upon birth.
Persons, whether they're human, alien, AI, or even uplift, are what deserve our protection.
And we've murdered millions on the basis of such quasi-religious dogma. The children of Taney live on.
-
That people in Missouri would elect someone that would try to compare gun ownership and purchases to the act of having an abortion.
You're aware she represents one small (and very wealthy) part of St. Louis County, and not the whole state, right? Would you be ashamed to have Texan relatives, because the mayor of Houston tried to have sermons subpoenaed? ???
-
You use 3 terms here. Human, fetus, and person. There are, however, some quirks.
A fetus is a human, no real question about it.
A fetus, however, isn't a person. At least 'not yet'. You look at historical societies, you can see ones that wouldn't ascribe a baby as being a person, they wouldn't even give it a name, until it survived it's 1-3rd birthday. Many, many, only bother upon birth.
Persons, whether they're human, alien, AI, or even uplift, are what deserve our protection.
I want abortion to be rare, yes, but in general I'd rather a woman carry a child to term because she wants to, not because she's forced to.
That is exactly why I used that term, because the people whose god is SCIENCE! suddenly get metaphysical and talk about a concept of "person" when discussing murdering babies.
Apparently you are so certain about this metaphysical concept, you are willing to take the chance you might be wrong at the cost of 50+ million lives.
-
Not to call you out, but because I've never heard this before - do you have a reference handy?
No problem, I had to look it up. I was off by a century, it was a 1500's Swiss Chemist named Paracelsus. So this is still in the time of alchemy. I was trying to go off a memory from 20 or so years ago.
Franz Hartmann 1896 "Life of Paracelsus" took a translation from one of Paracelsus books/notes.
If the sperma, enclosed in a hermetically sealed glass, is buried in horse manure for forty days, and properly magnetized, it begins to live and move. After such a time it bears the form and resemblance of a human being, but it will be transparent and without a body. If it is now artificially fed with the Arcanum sanguinis hominis until it is about forty weeks old, and if allowed to remain during that time in horse manure in a continually equal temperature, it will grow into a human child, with all its members developed like any other child, such as could be born by a woman; only it will be much smaller. We call such a being a homunculus, and it may be raised and educated like any other child, until it grows older and obtains reason and intellect, and is able to take care of itself.
-
pretty sure he just used it as an excuse to keep jars of his own semen lying about
Original Brony.
-
That is exactly why I used that term, because the people whose god is SCIENCE! suddenly get metaphysical and talk about a concept of "person" when discussing murdering babies.
Yup. You can be religious, and claim that embryos haven't yet received a soul; or you can be a secularist, and just claim they aren't people.
In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.
It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.
They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/60/393.html#sthash.BlGCueQ3.dpuf
-
That is exactly why I used that term, because the people whose god is SCIENCE! suddenly get metaphysical and talk about a concept of "person" when discussing murdering babies.
Apparently you are so certain about this metaphysical concept, you are willing to take the chance you might be wrong at the cost of 50+ million lives.
They aren't babies. Babies are what they are once they're born, before that they're a fetus. As for 'personhood', It's not a metaphysical concept. The defining line can be shifted a bit, but it involves a thinking being that acts upon it's experiences and such. A fetus isn't a person. Heck, even a newborn isn't really a person yet, but I'm willing to extend the protection to them in order to be sure we're protecting people.
I'm 'so certain' because I've already pushed the protection past the definition.
I suppose you don't consider the costs of denying abortion(and in some cases, meaningful sex ed that actually reduces teen pregnancy), do you? Increased taxes, increased crime, increased number of children in broken homes...
Look, I think there's too much abortion today, but I don't support getting rid of it. That way lies South America and their tendency to try women who have a miscarriage with having had an abortion, putting them in prison for murder.
-
You look at historical societies, you can see ones that wouldn't ascribe a baby as being a person, they wouldn't even give it a name, until it survived it's 1-3rd birthday. Many, many, only bother upon birth.
???
So if something was accepted as fact in antiquity it should be accepted today?
-
Embryos are referred to as babies. Anyone who speaks English knows this.
I suppose you don't consider the costs of denying abortion(and in some cases, meaningful sex ed that actually reduces teen pregnancy), do you? Increased taxes, increased crime, increased number of children in broken homes...Look, I think there's too much abortion today, but I don't support getting rid of it. That way lies South America and their tendency to try women who have a miscarriage with having had an abortion, putting them in prison for murder.
Those must be some of the stupidest false dichotomies across which I've ever come. They don't really rate a response, other than pointing out that, yes, of course it easy to reduce the crime rate by legalizing murder. Duh.
The cost of denying abortion... :rolleyes: