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

reply to post by AthlonSavage


And that's really the only reason why the second amendment was put into place to begin with. Yes, it's nice to have a gun to hunt and to deter crime, but the real purpose is to protect the citizens from their Government. That is why it's vital that America is not disarmed.

reply to post by FlyersFan

They would NOT be dealing with less gun related crimes.Taking their guns away wouldn't lower crime at all. The criminals would still be getting their illegal guns

Simple solution then increase signiicantly the punishment severity for registered or unregistered guns owners involved in gun crimes.

Taking away the right for law abiding citizens to have guns would INCREASE crime .. not decrease it

See above. The law can giveft and takeawayft. Tougher law penalities will decrease crime rate.
.

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.

That works both ways, doesn't it? Don't like guns? Don't get one.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Abortion is murder. It is when a human being stops another human beings heart from beating. It is done on purpose. It is murder.

That is your opinion, the law states otherwise. The laws of our nation are what we live by, the laws of our nation say it's not murder, therefor, it is not murder.

Also, the bible doesn't call it murder either, are you changing the jots and tittles? The bible expressly forbids that as well.

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. Not by any authoritative definition, only by some people who want to define it themselves, incorrectly.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Yeah I don't understand how anybody could think she makes sense with this. Her argument is really idiotic.

Your medical files are your own personal, private property. Getting an abortion does not make you a potential danger to society in any form what so ever. Therefore it's nobody's damn business what you choose to do in that situation.

Guns however, create a circumstance where you can turn into a public threat. It's not likely in most cases, but it is certainly a possibility, therefore the requirement for registration and identity.

So yeah...Coulter is still a moron, she looses on this.

~Tenth

Her point is rhetorical to show that the perspective of the libs isnt one of total concern for children......that they just dont have any moral highground here. This weakness in their position has been pointed out long before the gun issues became part of it.

It has always seemed an oddity to millions how the left has trumpeted its concern for children....but then has also been a strong supporter of abortion. Over the years I have come to see it simply as a form of political compensation......the same way child molesters gravitate toward childrens activites.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by kthxbai
If you don't support abortion, don't have an abortion or agree to an abortion... .

If you don't support 2nd Amendment Constitutional Gun Rights .. then don't own a gun.

But I do support the 2nd Amendment and I do own guns. I also support the right to choose and I will do my part to ensure the law remains a law and women can make their own choices instead of having someone else make it for them. If it's someone I'm involved with, I will do all I can to convince them to make a different choice, but in the end, it's still their choice.

Why do you want to insist that you keep your choice to own a gun (which I support owning) yet want to take away someone else's choice of what to do with their own body (which I support them having the choice to do)?

Very hypocritical. You can't have it both ways.

YOU are saying you want your choices but they can't have theirs. The other opposing extremist side says one group can have a choice, another group can't. In order for it to remain "just", both groups have their choice. Gun owners can choose to own a gun, a woman can choose to have an abortion. If you are against guns, don't own one. If you are against abortions, don't have one. But do not take that choice from any other person. It's not your right, it's not your place and if you are doing it to either party, then you are a hypocrite.

The ONLY thing you can do in either case is regulate it. Laws can be passed regarding certain firearms that have a definite property above and beyond other firearms. Laws can be passed regarding certain abortions past a certain trimester or in certain consequences. Otherwise, they aren't "just laws", they are arbitrary laws and that is not the idea this country was built on.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by AthlonSavage

 

That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It may be wise, with your given stance, to investigate where that phrase originated. It actually deters from the arguments you try to make about the other topic being discussed with the thread. Of course you only want to focus on one part and nitpic the other

Originally posted by kthxbai

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

Exactly. Gun permits are public information, medical records are NOT, nor is it "murder".

That coulter woman is the most evil, moronic, useless piece of human flesh that ever existed. Disgusting to the core. It's just a darn shame her mother didn't carry through with aborting her

She's the "most evil...piece of human flesh that ever existed"? I think the fact that you think it's a shame she didn't get aborted makes you a very disgusting human being.

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?

THAT is a very good point!!!

The paper did work within it's right given freedom of the press, but, as we all know, exercising every right to an extreme isn't always a good idea even if it is within our rights.

They did create a potential for a very bad situation. That's one of the best arguments going against what they did that I've seen. When exercising our own rights trample on the rights of others who are citizens of our country as well with the same rights we have, then we have overstepped our rights and abused those of the other.

It was perfectly legal and within their rights to say "these people own guns" but, as a result, the people who didn't own guns had their rights trampled. They were advertised as "easy targets".

A billion stars to you little bunny!

Never mind.

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. Not by any authoritative definition, only by some people who want to define it themselves, incorrectly.

So I take it that you agree with every law on the books in the country? And you agree with every law that every other country has ever passed? Are you sure you want to go there?

The law is hardly infallible. Some of the worst acts imaginable have come with a stamp of legal approval.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Yeah I don't understand how anybody could think she makes sense with this. Her argument is really idiotic.

Your medical files are your own personal, private property. Getting an abortion does not make you a potential danger to society in any form what so ever. Therefore it's nobody's damn business what you choose to do in that situation.

Guns however, create a circumstance where you can turn into a public threat. It's not likely in most cases, but it is certainly a possibility, therefore the requirement for registration and identity.

So yeah...Coulter is still a moron, she looses on this.

~Tenth

Her point is rhetorical to show that the perspective of the libs isnt one of total concern for children......that they just dont have any moral highground here. This weakness in their position has been pointed out long before the gun issues became part of it.

It has always seemed an oddity to millions how the left has trumpeted its concern for children....but then has also been a strong supporter of abortion. Over the years I have come to see it simply as a form of political compensation......the same way child molesters gravitate toward childrens activites.

But she's extremely incorrect and she knows it. She's nothing but a political troll.

I would be considered a "liberal", yet I support gun ownership (not rocket launcher ownership, gun ownership) and I also support the right to choose. SHE is attacking a group of extremists from one party and saying it applies to everyone in the party. She is wrong, she is a liar and she is an idiot... as well as an extremist from the opposing party. (Coulter that is...and those who support her and her shrill attempts)

Originally posted by vor78

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. Not by any authoritative definition, only by some people who want to define it themselves, incorrectly.

So I take it that you agree with every law on the books in the country? And you agree with every law that every other country has ever passed? Are you sure you want to go there?

No, I don't agree with every law that has ever been passed, but I DO support every law that has been passed and respect it as the authority. The Constitution and laws are the foundation of our country. If you don't like a law, you work to get it changed, you don't start bar room brawls with people who follow that law nor do you attack their intelligence for following the law as written. If I disagree with a law, I don't go about intentionally breaking it because I feel like it, I work toward changing it through the proper channels.

1.2 million aborted (murdered) in 2008 in the United States alone.

Abortion is not a guaranteed inalienable right in the Constitution where as the right to bear arms is.

The law could say the sky is green it doesn't make it true. Abortion is not only murder, but genocide against the poor.

Originally posted by Cabalis

Originally posted by kthxbai

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

Exactly. Gun permits are public information, medical records are NOT, nor is it "murder".

That coulter woman is the most evil, moronic, useless piece of human flesh that ever existed. Disgusting to the core. It's just a darn shame her mother didn't carry through with aborting her

She's the "most evil...piece of human flesh that ever existed"? I think the fact that you think it's a shame she didn't get aborted makes you a very disgusting human being.

Fine, that's your opinion. My opinion is SHE is a very disgusting human being and YOU are a very disgusting human being for supporting her.
You know what opinions are like.... everybody has one

Originally posted by Vidpci
1.2 million aborted (murdered) in 2008 in the United States alone.

Abortion is not a guaranteed inalienable right in the Constitution where as the right to bear arms is.

The law could say the sky is green it doesn't make it true. Abortion is not only murder, but genocide against the poor.

Since they haven't been born yet, it's not murder and they have no inalienable rights yet. It's not murder, it's abortion, the prevention of life, not the ending of it.

Don't like it? Too bad.

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Yeah I don't understand how anybody could think she makes sense with this. Her argument is really idiotic.

Your medical files are your own personal, private property. Getting an abortion does not make you a potential danger to society in any form what so ever. Therefore it's nobody's damn business what you choose to do in that situation.

Guns however, create a circumstance where you can turn into a public threat. It's not likely in most cases, but it is certainly a possibility, therefore the requirement for registration and identity.

So yeah...Coulter is still a moron, she looses on this.

~Tenth

Her point is rhetorical to show that the perspective of the libs isnt one of total concern for children......that they just dont have any moral highground here. This weakness in their position has been pointed out long before the gun issues became part of it.

It has always seemed an oddity to millions how the left has trumpeted its concern for children....but then has also been a strong supporter of abortion. Over the years I have come to see it simply as a form of political compensation......the same way child molesters gravitate toward childrens activites.

But she's extremely incorrect and she knows it. She's nothing but a political troll.

I would be considered a "liberal", yet I support gun ownership (not rocket launcher ownership, gun ownership) and I also support the right to choose. SHE is attacking a group of extremists from one party and saying it applies to everyone in the party. She is wrong, she is a liar and she is an idiot... as well as an extremist from the opposing party. (Coulter that is...and those who support her and her shrill attempts)

Well to many...abortion is like rocket launcher ownership. And the anti gun nuts that call gun owners all maner of foul have someone like Ann comming to them.

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.

reply to post by kthxbai


The point is, the law can say whatever it wants. Its simply a reflection of the beliefs and attitudes popular with lawmakers and the public at the time. That doesn't necessarily make it true or morally acceptable in an absolute sense. One look at our own history proves that to be true.

Originally posted by kthxbai
It's not murder, it's abortion

It's not carpet bombing, it's love bombs.
It's not war, it's kinetic military action.
It's not offensive action, it's defensive spending!
War is peace.
Up is down.
Right is wrong.
The sky is green.
Government makes the grass grow and the sun rise.

Thanks liberal.