Missouri Lawmaker Proposes Making Guns As Difficult To Get As Abortions

a reply to: ~Lucidity

So she wants to compare abortion to buying a gun. Hmmm... I wonder if she supports free firearms and munitions too?

He got that bass ackwards didnt he ?

a reply to: Grimpachi

Do your own research...there is a landslide of information concerning why the right to own and carry firearms is not limited to the modern-day definition of a militia.

Seriously, there are literally millions of links that can get you the information you superficially seek--I say "superficially," because I think that you're just trying to test me, but I'd rather advise you to fish than give you a fish

you can say what you want but if Missouri were to pass a law like this i dare say that they would surpass all states in number of future gun owners if this chart on Abortions in their state is accurate.

just look at the drop in the numbers from the time the law was passed, over all from 2013 to 2014. and was down overall from 2008 to 2014.
Historical abortion statistics, Missouri

but you know there is already a waiting period, and those that don't want to wait, go through the stipulations or have intent to do illegal things will just go to alternative sources.

This is a crap argument.
You are comparing a medical procedure which is regulated to a right.
No one tells a woman that she can have or not have children, but our government regulates ALL medical procedures to ensure they are safe.

What I would ask the op is would these ridiculous (for both in my opinion) extra hoops to jump through have stopped the two latest mass killers from getting their guns? I don't think these extra hoops you put forth would have.

We live in a free society; sadly this is the cost to have the society we have.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Of course you disagree with a true freedom agenda. It proves exactly what Metallicus said. Both sides want to restrict our rights - just on different issues.

So tell me, dear gifted psychic--which "side" am I on?

On what basis do you make the claim that abortion isn't a right?

On the scientific basis that, even at the zygote stage, a newly create life form is its own individual human based on its DNA. I subscribe to the notion that ALL PEOPLE (meaning all humans) have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Therefore, that developing individual inside the mother's womb has the right to life.

I also subscribe to the belief that no individual has the right to harm another unless they are a threat to their own life. Therefore, if the baby is not a threat to the mother's physical life (not fiscal life), the abortion should not take place.

Also, having the belief that a developing human is its own individual human being, I also think that elective abortion for reasons other than rape or life-threatening issues to the mother should be considered pre-meditated murder, as it is planned and takes the life of an individual human being.

Now, I'm sure you're going to assault me with claims of not knowing when life truly begins, or fetal viability, or dependence on the mother's body, therefore it's a part of her body and not its own being, etc., etc. I've heard all of those (and probably any other that you come up with) that are used to try and argue against my points.

So, on that cumulative basis, abortion is not a right. Hell, it should be illegal in my opinion (with the noted exceptions), but that's not what you asked.

So tell me, what makes you think that something that is legal makes it a right, because those are two different things. It's legal for me to drive, but I don't have that right. It's legal for me to have a job, but it's not a right.

Right?

What gives you the right to tell a woman what she can't or can do with her body? Right?

Tell you what, if you can prove that a zygote can be self sustaining independently of the host then you have an argument. Otherwise it is not an individual.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: beansidhe


Woah there, abortion is a right! Our bodies, our right.
I would agree it's apples and oranges, but to for one minute to think that it's easier and more acceptable to buy a gun than to have an abortion is mediaeval.

If you say so.

But you do realize that the developing baby is it's own body and has its own DNA and is its own individual, regardless on if it needs the umbilical cord for sustenance and oxygen, right? Dependence on an mother's body for development does not negate the scientific reality that a fetus is it's own person, regardless of what the courts may have said when ignorant to this truth.

I've been pregnant 4 times, grown 4 babies in my body, delivered 4 babies from my body and fed each of those babies with my body. Who should have the final say on what I can and can't do with my body? What I think is right for the child I am carrying?
The scientific reality is that the foetus is part of my body until the child breathes its first breath and the umbilical cord can be cut. It really is that simple.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
So tell me, dear gifted psychic--which "side" am I on?

I have no idea if you're even ON a side. I wasn't talking about YOUR politics, I was talking about the politics of the right and left in this country.

I subscribe to the notion that ALL PEOPLE (meaning all humans) have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

OK, that's your opinion. You were talking about RIGHTS, as in LEGAL rights, as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. So, let me rephrase: On what LEGAL basis do you make the claim that abortion isn't a LEGAL right? Nowhere in the Constitution is there ANY wording that would protect the unborn.

I also subscribe to the belief
...
Also, having the belief

Yeah, not really interested in your personal beliefs and opinions. I'm asking for your basis of claiming that abortion is not a RIGHT.

So, on that cumulative basis, abortion is not a right.

Based on your opinion??? How about based on the Constitution? (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is not in the Constitution.

So tell me, what makes you think that something that is legal makes it a right,

I don't think that. Something being legal doesn't make it a right. But something protected in the 4th (privacy), 9th (civil liberties and government powers), and 14th (due process) Amendments IS a right.

originally posted by: Kukri
What gives you the right to tell a woman what she can't or can do with her body? Right?

Well, as being the co-creator of my two children, my wife is intelligent enough to understand that, just because pre-determined biology dictates that she bears the child doesn't mean that I have no say in whether or not it survives through birth (again, barring any medical conditions that would stop that from otherwise happening).

So like I said, I believe that science supports the reality that the baby is its own individual human with its own body--I'm not dictating anything to the woman about her body, I'm dictating my belief that the body inside of hers has the right to life, according to national dogma AND laws against killing another human being. You're approaching it from a different angle than I am, which I think is why you can't see my side of the argument.

Tell you what, if you can prove that a zygote can be self sustaining independently of the host then you have an argument. Otherwise it is not an individual.

Tell you what, prove to me that a 1-day old baby can be self sustaining independently of the mother (or big corporation's production of formula) then you have an argument. But the reality is that viability is a strawman's argument in regards to this issue, imo...at least as the science that I'm using is concerned.

Self-sustainability doesn't matter. A baby bird is a bird, even if it dies without its parents' help with eating and drinking. My argument is based on the science of DNA and what that says--and it says that even a zygote has its own unique human DNA. The physical act of being born is not was determines the species of a living thing, nor its individuality within that species.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
That's not what I'm arguing, here, and maybe I should have made that clear. The second amendment is a constitutional right...abortion, even if dictated by the SCOTUS to be a "right," is not a constitutional right.

Have you heard of the 9th amendment?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That means that it doesn't have to say, "You have the right to an abortion" for it to be a constitutional right.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

As a pro-lifer, I read that and agreed -just not with your interpretation.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
You are comparing a medical procedure which is regulated to a right.
No one tells a woman that she can have or not have children, but our government regulates ALL medical procedures to ensure they are safe.

This is a crap argument. Abortions are 14 times safer than childbirth. Comparative Safety of Abortion and Childbirth

We live in a free society; sadly this is the cost to have the society we have.

Exactly. Abortion is also a cost of a free society.

a reply to: misskat1

i like that, that's the first time i ever saw anyone use Carlin in a conservative way. i dig it.

Can you abort the government?

Only with guns.

See the difference?

a reply to: ghostrager

That's not MY interpretation. Pray tell, what is your interpretation of the 9th amendment?

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Carlin didn't say that. Just someone using his picture to promote their agenda.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Your whole idea to compare the two issues is crap.
I never said any abortion procedure was safe or unsafe only that our government regulates the safety of ALL medical procedures.

Why did you not answer my question about your imaginary hoops for gun purchases stopping the last two people from obtaining the guns they had?

You didn't answer because the answer is no. They still would have gotten the weapons and would still have killed people.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Your interpretation(or the one you support) is using the 9th to support the 4th and call abortion a right.

One can just as easily use the 9th to support the 5th and call for a right to life for unborn babies.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Why did you not answer my question about your imaginary hoops for gun purchases stopping the last two people from obtaining the guns they had?

You didn't answer because the answer is no. They still would have gotten the weapons and would still have killed people.

You asked your questions of the OP. I am not the OP.

And no, more gun laws would not have prevented this or most other mass shootings.