Coulter Tears Into Liberal Gun Hypocrisy: Why Can't We Publish List Of Women Who Get Abortions?

reply to post by GArnold

my point was and is your PHI isn't as private as you think it is, period. regardless which laws are enacted, you cannot and will not eliminate the human factor and in that, no such privacy exists.
look around you.

the point is, no one really gives a rats patutti about your or my PHI. it's a propaganda ploy to get as much from you with your consent as possible.
(always has been, always will be)

who's talking about bad ppl ??
we were discussing "privacy" vs "public" information.
and the fact is ... a phone book is public info ... gun ownership or permitting is not.

IT must be requested formally via FOIA and not every citizen will get it.
(go ahead, try it yourself)

just like your PHI that is shared amongst multiple providers.
they don't get access unless they ask and you approve. (supposedly)

as for printed medical info ... ... WebMD has "printed medical info" of everyone who has ever posted ... and what's worse, they have more than what was posted, i assure you.
are you really as dense as you sound ?

reply to post by Vidpci


Jeepers H. Crisco!!! What is wrong with this Coulter!!!!

What have women who have abortions got to do with the gun debate?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

B I N G O
and it started long before Poindexter, for real.

there is less and less imagined 'privacy' every day.
and yes, it was designed this way.

Originally posted by DoorKnobEddie
reply to post by Vidpci

 

Jeepers H. Crisco!!! What is wrong with this Coulter!!!!

What have women who have abortions got to do with the gun debate?

Well She speaks the Logic of the GOP, and why shouldn't she.
She fits the Stereotype of a Typical Conservative.

Older ,White ,Male.

Originally posted by DoorKnobEddie
reply to post by Vidpci

 

Jeepers H. Crisco!!! What is wrong with this Coulter!!!!

What have women who have abortions got to do with the gun debate?

Coulter is an extremely smart cookie, albeit a very irritating one at times.

Peel back an extra layer.

Guns are NOT......I repeat.....Gun ownership is NOT illegal!!!! Publishing info about gun owners is akin to publishing names of those that received abortion. There is the layer you are missing, my friend.

I'm going to add this: Abortion kills far more lives than guns do. It is all in the way you look at it.

I cringe, as do others, at the thought that someone chose to end the beginning of a life!. It DOES NOT set well with me and I think there should be laws in place to totally control this horrendous act. BUT, regardless of what I think and feel, abortion is legal......SO is gun ownership, regardless of what people think and feel about it. If you want to publish the names of legal gun owners, how is that any different than publishing the names of those that got legal abortions!

It is pandering to the emotional aspects of something that repulses another, although it may be legal.

They want you to feel shame about something that is legal.

Originally posted by bates
reply to post by kthxbai

 

She might be a bit mental but there is denying she looks good for 51.

I'd never heard of this woman before so I've drawn my opinions purely from this thread, her wiki page and google images.

Once you hear her open her mouth, any physical traits fade very, very quickly. She becomes a bit of a skeletal scarecrow hanging from a post in the middle of the desert with evil in her eyes and worms crawling from her mouth.

She also has a very pronounced adam's apple that is a bit disgusting

reply to post by queenofswords


gun ownership/permits are open records. Medical proceedures are not. It's quite simple.

I don't support printing either one, but that is the answer to the question about one being legal and the other not.

reply to post by queenofswords

Publishing info about gun owners is akin to publishing names of those that received abortion.

So if your daughter is a rape victim and had an abortion, you would be happy that her name is published?

Do you think women have abortions for fun!

How is the anger against the anti-gun types related to women who have abortions?

It is like saying the Pete robbed you and now you are going to deal the retribution to Jim.

Do you Coulterites have some weird Asbergers paranoia based condition? What is wrong with you people?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by kthxbai
You can scream that it's murder until the cows come home, but it isn't murder no matter how much you want it to be. .

You can scream that it's just fine until the cows come home, but it isn't, no matter how much you want it to be. One human being stopping the heart beat of another human being is HOMICIDE. Stop trying to weasle out of the guilt and reality of that just to ease your conscience.

Nothing on my conscience, I've never been involved with one. However, it is legal and it can be done regardless of whether you like it or not. It's not homicide. You can only kill someone if they already exist as a human being. A fetus is not defined as a living human being yet. It's a fetus whether you like it or not. That's the law, deal with it.

I feel she made a bad comparison. Two separate issues defined by different laws. Personally, I can care less who knows whether or not I own a gun. Criminals will probably be less inclined to mess with me knowing that I'm armed. As far as abortion, be responsible adults and use a .35 cent condom. Having sex is a decision and pregnancy is the result. Maybe if people were more responsible, abortion wouldn't even be a thought. Think before you act boys and girls!

Originally posted by kthxbai
reply to post by queenofswords

 

gun ownership/permits are open records. Medical proceedures are not. It's quite simple.

I don't support printing either one, but that is the answer to the question about one being legal and the other not.

OMG! That is the point. IMO, her point is not ABOUT medical records. Peel back the extra layer of the thought process. It is about the similarity of the very IDEA!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by jimmiec
The sad part is that at least 1 million couples are trying to adopt babies every year. Why kill them when they could be living a wonderful life with a loving family? Surely the money thrown at Planned Parenthood could be used to help pregnant women through a pregnancy instead of aborting the baby.

And there are millions upon millions of children already living who need to be adopted every year. Why focus on the unborn when there are children out there who already exist and are in desparate need of a family? Surely the money thrown at fertility treatments could be used to help find these children a home instead of trying to produce even more ...

Originally posted by queenofswords

Originally posted by kthxbai
reply to post by queenofswords

 

gun ownership/permits are open records. Medical proceedures are not. It's quite simple.

I don't support printing either one, but that is the answer to the question about one being legal and the other not.

OMG! That is the point. IMO, her point is not ABOUT medical records. Peel back the extra layer of the thought process. It is about the similarity of the very IDEA!!!!!!!!!!

If you want gun ownership/permits to be protected information, then you need to talk to your representative and get it taken care of instead of trying to take the protection away from something else. That's how problems are solved as opposed to being compounded.

Originally posted by GArnold

Originally posted by beezzer
When the paper created the list of gun owners, it did 2 things.

It highlighted who had guns.

AND, who didn't.

So not only were the gun owners exposed, but the folks that don't own guns were also exposed.

Now if a criminal breaks into a home where it was illustrated that they didn't have weapons, would the paper be libel?

The Paper posted a link to people who legally had gun permits. It did not publish the guns that are owned illegally or by criminals. It also did not post information about rifles or automatic weapons as that information was not included. Again.. these "gun lists" have been posted before in papers around the Country. It is a matter of Public Record. Medical procedures are private and for a very good reason.

People who claim the paper somehow gave criminals the benefit of being able to research and plan crimes based on the list are totally stupid. Obviously do not understand criminal justice at all. Most crimes for one thing are spur of the moment type activities. Secondly you are giving criminals a lot of credit for being somewhat smart and having the ability to plan crimes in advance. Just look at Criminal Justice data and you will see most crimes are committed by people who are not very smart. Most home invasion and burglaries are not planned whatsoever. Thirdly as I pointed out the list never takes into account stolen weapons.. weapons that are unregistered and rifles and automatic weapons. You would have to be a total idiot to plan a crime based on this list.

edit on 5-1-2013 by GArnold because: (no reason given)

Reformed crooks say the New York newspaper that published a map of names and addresses of gun owners did a great service – to their old cronies in the burglary trade.

The information published online by the Journal-News, a daily paper serving the New York suburbs of Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties, could be highly useful to thieves in two ways, former burglars told FoxNews.com. Crooks looking to avoid getting shot now know which targets are soft and those who need weapons know where they can steal them.

www.foxnews.com...

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by queenofswords

Originally posted by kthxbai
reply to post by queenofswords

 

gun ownership/permits are open records. Medical proceedures are not. It's quite simple.

I don't support printing either one, but that is the answer to the question about one being legal and the other not.

OMG! That is the point. IMO, her point is not ABOUT medical records. Peel back the extra layer of the thought process. It is about the similarity of the very IDEA!!!!!!!!!!

If you want gun ownership/permits to be protected information, then you need to talk to your representative and get it taken care of instead of trying to take the protection away from something else. That's how problems are solved as opposed to being compounded.

edit on 5-1-2013 by kthxbai because: spellingn error

Do you NOT understand the underlying IDEA? It is not about whether the act of publishing that information is legal or not. It is about the meaning of the SUBSTANCE of the act of doing so and what it represents.

Printing the Names of Gun Owners was Wrong.

But anyone using this to Further another Agenda of Printing names would also be wrong.

Yet idiots will Defend Coulter , not because she is right, but because she is a GOP Nitwit.

That is the Truly Pathetic thing Evolving in this Thread.

Originally posted by queenofswords

Do you NOT understand the underlying IDEA? It is not about whether the act of publishing that information is legal or not. It is about the meaning of the SUBSTANCE of the act of doing so and what it represents.

edit on 5-1-2013 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)

Do you NOT understand that there is a very big difference in owning a gun and having an abortion??? If not, then you have so psychological issues that may need to be addressed.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
Printing the Names of Gun Owners was Wrong.

But anyone using this to Further another Agenda of Printing names would also be wrong.

Yet idiots will Defend Coulter , not because she is right, but because she is a GOP Nitwit.

That is the Truly Pathetic thing Evolving in this Thread.

I very, very much agree with you.