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

reply to post by Honor93


I make these arguments from a state of ignorance some what. I'm not as informed as I would like to be on the issue and my opinion is colored by decades of media information which is likely false and my own personal experiences.

And yes, our gun crime was a problem and still is. We were receiving those guns from you guys though, so if states were doing better our problem would not have been as bad.

Again, I don't claim to have the answer, I only claim to have an idea of what i think is the path to the solution.

If you have states that are showing good examples and are succesfull at curbing the gun related violence all the while maintaining ownership without hassle for law abiding citizens, than by all means go that route.

It's the doing nothing about it that bothers me.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower

but if you have a history of violent behavior you should not be afforded the right to own a firearm.

this is already a standard so you are suggesting we continue doing what we ALREADY do ... how does that help at all ?

arrested on a domestic violence charge, no gun for you.
involuntarily committed, no gun for you.
prior felon (30+yrs ago) still, no gun for you. (regardless of time served)
so, what more are you suggesting, seriously ?

many of us agree there is an element that so far, no legislation can touch.
but since reinforcing/expanding protocols already proven as failures could be considered an act of insanity ... what's next ?

reply to post by sconner755


As far as I'm concerned the constitution of any nation should be a living breathing document that is updated to the current language used by the population. This prevents arbitrary changing of terms and definitions.

It did work for what it's purpose was back in the day, but today, things need to change. At least be clarified.

~Tenth

reply to post by Honor93


That major problem from what I can gather is the lack of enforcement of current regulation.

At least that's what my pro gun friends in the US have told me.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I was falsely accused of rape. Yeah, you may think everyone accused of rape is guilty, I know it's not true. And just being accused is enough for some people. There are people out there that think OJ is a murderer, even though he was proven innocent. There are people that still call casey anthony a baby killer, even though she was proven innocent. People see an accusation, and assume if you were proven innocent, then it is because you had money to play the system.

Maybe you aren't as much as a prick, but there are plenty of people that think the registry should include not only convicts, but people accused. Especially when it comes to pedophiles. People love drawing their lines, but only if it is a line they never have crossed. I never forced my penis on anyone, and never will. Revenge is a bitch, scorned lovers can make your life a living hell.

Originally posted by Vidpci
reply to post by kthxbai

 

I view abortion as a necessary evil up until the point that there is a heart beat. We have to remember who founded planned parenthood and the racist garbage that evil woman spewed. If you want to use abortion as birth control, do it before there is a heart beating.

I can agree with that. I can even go further. I'd like to see a law that after the second abortion, a woman is forced to get sterlized as it's clear she isn't fit to give birth. I doubt they'd ever make the law, but I would support it if they did. One can be seen as a mistake, two makes it a pattern.
I don't like people using abortion as birth control, but some do. I want it to remain legal and remain a choice because there are some situations that call for it such as rape or incest or just being young and stupid and not ruining the rest of their life or even the possibility of the child having sever health issues such as a deformity or mental retardation that would make their life very difficult if it was determined very, very early in the pregnancy. I don't support any abortion after the first trimester unless the woman's life is in danger and it's the only option.

reply to post by TKDRL


It was something quite similar to my situation my friend, so I understand 100%. It's shamefull, embarrasing, angering among many many other emotions.

And no, I don't advocate for people simply accused. The sex offender registry for example should only be for actual sex offenders, not people taking a piss in a public park or 21 year olds who had sex with a 18 year old and the parents got all upset.

That's a bunch of nonsense.

~Tenth

Originally posted by stupid girl
I'm 100% pro-gun rights, but a retaliatory argument based on publishing medical information is idiotic.

edit on 4-1-2013 by stupid girl because: (no reason given)

and that is the point.

I don't think anyone really wants to dive into medical records on someone. But why are medical records any more secretive than records of what I own?

In San Antonio this last summer there was a group of folks who would look for people with NRA stickers on their vehicles. They would follow them home, mark where they lived, and then return when the house was empty to steal the guns. They are worth quite a bit on the resell market (read: black market). I don't put NRA stickers on my car because of this.

Publishing a list that includes what I have purchased, to me, makes me a target for crime.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Sorry, I probably got more upset then I should have. Most people can not even fathom what I went through. It was horrible.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

NO, those men stated "we hold these truths to be self-evident"
get it ?? self being the operative word here.

i don't care if monkeys, dolphin, felines or snakes wrote it, i would still honor it as it is the best ever written.
[added other animals cause i'd prefer no one get offended]

and let's not go down the God road k ??
God isn't mentioned anywhere in there either.

i didn't mention protection against government ... i specifically said PREVENTS government from interfering where they have NO authority to do so.

the right/authority of government is granted by the people, not anything or anyone else, even the Constitution.

the Constitution restricts government authority and until you can understand that, you will never understand the rest.

and no, laws are the basis of manipulating a natural right (arms)
laws restrict rights, they do not grant them.
laws in conflict with the Constitution are not valid.
laws can be changed, truths that are self-evident, do not.

and when was this rifle registry abolished ?

because there was NO risk of people shooting up a place with the kinds of firearms Canadians own.

i could be wrong here but i think all of this happened while the registry was active ... maybe that's why it was eventually abolished ?
www.guncontrol.ca...

many of them were 'legal' gun owners, several were members at shooting clubs and some were criminals before they shot up whatever.

and, on that note, perhaps you can explain the 'moral' argument many Canadians present ...especially considering this is happening in your country ...

Canada enables export of banned assault weapons to Colombia

Just one day before last month's elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn,
- snip -
Canada quietly eased its ban on the export of assault-style weapons to Colombia after Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird recommended an order amending the Automatic Firearms Country Control List (AFCCL).

That opened the door for Canadian gun merchants to sell fully automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines — banned in Canada — to Colombia.

see, while they have arguing amongst one another, the real monsters are going about their daily 'business' as usual and this is why re-asserting our natural authority is of the utmost importance ... in both countries.

reply to post by Honor93

the Constitution restricts government authority and until you can understand that, you will never understand the rest.

Dude! I applaud you!!!!


That is all you needed to say, I only wished more Americans could understand that!!!

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
It makes complete and utter sense to have a registry for gun owners.

The Federal Government doesn't keep a registry, but some States do. The ATF does its background check, and is supposed to destroy its records after that. Gun dealers are supposed to keep the record of sale.

Online gun sales work like this. Purchase a gun, seller ships gun to store in your State. Same laws apply for sale.

And No. We don't need a "registry" for owners.

“That was the most asinine article I’ve ever seen,” said Walter T. Shaw, 65, a former burglar and jewel thief who the FBI blames for more than 3,000 break-ins that netted some $70 million in the 1960s and 1970s. “Having a list of who has a gun is like gold - why rob that house when you can hit the one next door, where there are no guns?

Ex-Burglars Say Newspaper’s Gun Map Would’ve Made the Job Easier, Safer


As one Marine said.......and I support.

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

No ma'am.



BTW, Coulter is a moron who should talk about the issue, without playing the game.

reply to post by Vidpci


Because it's abortion is a broad term and for the most part in no way could it legally be considered murder unless it were very late in the pregnancy.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

I make these arguments from a state of ignorance some what. I'm not as informed as I would like to be on the issue and my opinion is colored by decades of media information which is likely false and my own personal experiences

fair enough and thanks for the courtesy
try to keep in mind, i took the blinders off many moons ago.
there aren't many arguments left in this nonsensical round-about.

yes, guns are dangerous, so are humans.
yes, laws restrict us, contrary to popular belief so do guns.
yes, guns are here to stay so, do you hold your own or stare down the barrel of the one being held against you ??

ultimately, it is still a choice, regardless the paper laws to support or criminalize YOUR decision when the time arrives.

please do not misunderstand my position, i am all for NO guns ... however, that MUST begin at the top and we all know how well that idea will go over, right ?

ummm, your opinion comes from a place of ignorance, you say ??
with this comment, i'd have to agree ...

We were receiving those guns from you guys though

would that be before, during or after you guys manufactured your own ?
long list of Canadian gun manufacturers


sorry, had to get that off my chest ... you guys still make 2 of my favorites ... Sig Sauer and Taurus

discussion is good, isn't that why we're here ?
isn't that why you entered this topic or am i mistaken ?

need an example ?
Vermont - with "Safest State" awards to match.

need a few links ?
msm + webcam
VT Trooper Association
1994-2005 Safest/Deadliest States list
2010 Safest States to live
not so surprising, a few of those also have the most guns per capita

please, dig in and deny ignorance, that is why we're here isn't it ?

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Honor93

 

That major problem from what I can gather is the lack of enforcement of current regulation.

At least that's what my pro gun friends in the US have told me.

~Tenth

they offer a valid opinion.
although, it's not one of which i'd agree.
unfortunately, they mistakenly believe 'regulation' would impact the criminal element we all suffer.

regulation varies by State, hopefully that is more their concern.
standards could be helpful.

i've alread suggested numerous ideas, none of which will be employed and that's ok.
problem is, what is legal in FL doesn't apply in NY or CA or several other states and that, all by itself, is a problem for any legal gun owner ... and simultaneously, it also presents HUGE cracks for the criminals to 'slip' through while law-abiding citizens are arrested/jailed.
link

remember the shooter who attacked the firemen ?
he was a convicted criminal ... convicted of a prior murder.
how did he get the gun he used ?
from a legal buyer committing a straw purchase which is incidentally, a crime.

i just cannot see how any additional restrictions on legal gun owners is going to help anything at this point.

Originally posted by forgetmenot
reply to post by Vidpci

 

I have a simple for your abortion problem: If you're so against them, don't get one.

I have a simple for your gun problem: If you're so against them, don't get one.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Sorry, I probably got more upset then I should have. Most people can not even fathom what I went through. It was horrible.

First off topic then on topic

TKDLR, I agree. One of my family members was 18 and was dating a 16 yr old. They didnt have sex until she was 17, but it was still under age of consent. Her mom and my aunt got into a fight.. over a car.. and the girls mother pressed charges for stat rape. It stuck. But guess what. When he got out of jail as a registered ssex offender and she was 18, they got married. 16 yrs later and a few kids later.. he is STILL registered. It DOES happen. He certainly doesnt have the money to get anything expunged.. he cant get a job with that on his record and they'd probably be homeless if my other uncle didnt employ him recently. SOmetimes life just poops on you and I BELIEVE that each case should be taken by its facts.. that the law SHOULD consider mitigating circs when doing these things and offer a free form ( like divorce and contract law) pro se expungment process for cases like this and similar. Obviously a judge can tell the difference between an agg rape and a guy who slept with his GF and married her and has been married for 16 yrs to his "victim".... for gods sake.

Okay, on topic :
Me?
Im a gun owner. never killed a human. Killed animals.. look in my freezer. Also, my pump shotgun isnt the same as an AK.. someone needs to clue in some of these legislators of the difference.
I am against abortion.. for myself. I dont care who has one and not my place to tell you that you cant. Everyone else is responsible for what THEY do.. and I dont want to have to pay for it as if one makes choices as far as their own conduct and their own bodies, better make the choice to have a way to pay for the choices.. this is does not included medical abortions or rape abortions which are many times termed medical abortions. Religion should NOT enter into these discussions. Thats MY opinion.
If its the law, register guns. Im lawed out here in Illinois.. even my ammo is registered when I buy it. If they publish gun owners, the criminals will just draw a map of what homes to case and hit.
We MUST retool and do some serious changes within the mental health community... gun registries or not. It's deplorable. Top to bottom. Until that is fixed or at the very least retooled as much as we can... registries will be FLAWED hugely. It will cause serious problems. This should be approached methodically or not at all.
Im a libertarian who was a republican most of her almost 50 yrs and in college was a young republican. Yeah, I know ... so shut up. Then I woke up maybe a decade or so ago and think the republicans and democrats both pretty much suck.
Anne Coulter is a hubris filled skeletorish wackadoodle. She is sorta like the white and blonde.. and I think female.. .. Al Sharpton. Just tune her out.. your brain will thank you.

That is all.

Originally posted by stupid girl
reply to post by Philippines

 

Would you want the entire world to know you had the clap?
Or herpes?

Those are couple reasons I can think of, right off hand.

I respect my right to personal privacy, period.

If you want to give the government the power to dictate what privacies you are afforded, enjoy.

On topic, but not the point... On the issue of medical records, I don't see why they should be handled any differently than other records... If there still is a right to privacy, then this info should not be shared if the individual does not want that info shared.

We could also use the funny logic: Why don't you want to share your medical records? Do you have something you're hiding? Only "boogeymen" would be worried about someone looking through their medical records.

Originally posted by Vidpci

Originally posted by stupid girl
I'm 100% pro-gun rights, but an argument based on publishing medical information is idiotic.

Just as publishing those who choose to exercise their 2nd amendment right is idiotic.

Wow do we have some uneducated people here. There is a huge difference between information that is available in the public record and information that is private. Gun records are a matter of public record. Medical information is private for a very good reason. "" Public records are documents or pieces of information that are not considered confidential."" As usual Ann Coulter speaks out of her rear end with no real idea of anything. To see someone make the argument that medical records should be shared like this is sickening.
en.wikipedia.org...

Secondly. The Second Amendment never mentions individual gun ownership if you would even take a second to bother to read the actual words. It talks about militas and the the ability for them to have guns. The intent was so a militia could oppose an unjust Government. It was a critical aspect of what allowed the US to break away from the tyranny of the United Kingdom. It does say the right of People to own guns shall not be infringed. The intent was so people could own guns and join militias to fight what they considered to be tyranny. In case you have not noticed... The US is a little different than it was 225 years ago. The framers had no idea that Guns would be used to kill over 9,000 in this Country alone every single year. The Muskets that were available in 1770 took about 25 minutes to reload and fire again.. the framers had no idea you could have guns that would fire 30 rounds a second. That is roughly 25 people a day and one person a hour and that is just people who were murdered. That is not people who die in accidents.. or in shootings that are deemed as legal self defense. The Bill of Rights is what is known as a living document. The words of the Second Amendment have become twisted and used by people who never have actually bothered to know what it says or what it implies or why it was included in the first place.

www.archives.gov...

Originally posted by GArnold

Originally posted by Vidpci

Originally posted by stupid girl
I'm 100% pro-gun rights, but an argument based on publishing medical information is idiotic.

Just as publishing those who choose to exercise their 2nd amendment right is idiotic.

Secondly. The Second Amendment never mentions individual gun ownership if you would even take a second to bother to read the actual words. It talks about militas and the the ability for them to have guns. The intent was so a militia could oppose an unjust Government. It was a critical aspect of what allowed the US to break away from the tyranny of the United Kingdom. It does say the right of People to own guns shall not be infringed. The intent was so people could own guns and join militias to fight what they considered to be tyranny. In case you have not noticed... The US is a little different than it was 225 years ago. The framers had no idea that Guns would be used to kill over 9,000 in this Country alone every single year. The Muskets that were available in 1770 took about 25 minutes to reload and fire again.. the framers had no idea you could have guns that would fire 30 rounds a second. That is roughly 25 people a day and one person a hour and that is just people who were murdered. That is not people who die in accidents.. or in shootings that are deemed as legal self defense. The Bill of Rights is what is known as a living document. The words of the Second Amendment have become twisted and used by people who never have actually bothered to know what it says or what it implies or why it was included in the first place.

www.archives.gov...

Thanks for bringing this back up, along with the part about Ann Coulter, er, television. I still don't understand why television based threads are so popular... maybe because that's what everyone does? Oh well...

I'm glad you brought up the constitution and gun ownership.

In your opinion if at the time of the agreement / signing of the Bill of Rights: how do you think the document would have been changed/worded if they did own automatic and/or semi-automatic weapons at the time that could fire multiple times per second? Do you think they would have written the Bill of Rights differently if the militias used semi/auto weaponry because the enemy was using the same weapons with a fast rate of fire?

Just curious, and I understand the people didn't think about fast firing guns, because they did not exist at the time... just like many other regulations which exist today but were not around back then, such as a passport or drivers license, or even income tax!