Coulter Tears Into Liberal Gun Hypocrisy: Why Can't We Publish List Of Women Who Get Abortions?, page 9

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 07:25 AM by SM2

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by tothetenthpower

the paper didn't even out gun owners, just permit holders.
what Coulter suggests isn't even comparable.
.

Actually, they did out gun owners. In the Peoples Republic of New York, you have to get a permit to purchase a firearm. a permit that will allow you have one and if you want to carry, you have to have yet another permit. If you live in NYC, well, then there are even more hoops to jump through

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 07:26 AM by jimmiec

When they published confidential information about gun owners and it was allowed, it opened the door for publishing any information that would normally be kept private to be made public. It is a slippery slope that is fraught with unintended consequences. I believe we will see more than we want to see made public in the future. We apparently now live in a society with a "if it feels good,do it" attitude with no thought about future consequences.

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 07:26 AM by Logarock

Originally posted by kthxbai

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.

To many the press here is using their rights the same way an irresponsible gun owner would abuse thier rights and that of others by using thier gun in public in a haphazard fashion.

The press here looks like a bunch or drunk gunslingers shooting up the town.

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 07:26 AM by Vidpci

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by tothetenthpower

the paper didn't even out gun owners, just permit holders.
what Coulter suggests isn't even comparable.
.

Actually, they did out gun owners. In the Peoples Republic of New York, you have to get a permit to purchase a firearm. a permit that will allow you have one and if you want to carry, you have to have yet another permit. If you live in NYC, well, then there are even more hoops to jump through

All of which are unconstitutional.

I'm not sure what these people don't understand about the term "shall not be infringed upon".

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

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 07:29 AM by kthxbai

Originally posted by Vidpci

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.

No, abortion is not defined as murder. Not by our laws, not by the bible, not by any other authoritative group. It is done only by those who want to prevent someone else of having the choice of what to do with their own body. It's not your right to tell someone else what medical proceedures they can have or not have. That decision is between them and their doctor or provider, you are not included in it. It doesn't matter if you like it or don't like it, you have no dog in that fight and you have no say.
Deal with it.

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 07:32 AM by Vidpci

reply to post by kthxbai

Abortion is genocide against the poor.

I suppose you think Hitler had the same right to do what he did? Would it be okay if he was a female and said it was her womanly right? What if a doctor said it was a medical procedure?

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

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 07:35 AM by kthxbai

Originally posted by Vidpci
reply to post by kthxbai

Abortion is genocide against the poor.

I suppose you think Hitler had the same right to do what he did? Would it be okay if he was a female and said it was her womanly right? What if a doctor said it was a medical procedure?
edit on 5-1-2013 by Vidpci because: (no reason given)

Since they aren't born yet, they are neither rich nor poor. One woman having an abortion in Pheonix does not give an abortion to another woman in New York. It's not genocide, it doesn't wipe out an entire population. You are taking extremist ideas and trying to apply them where they don't belong. You still have no say at all, in any way, shape or form, what a woman chooses to do with her body. You don't have to like it, but you have absolutely, positively no say in it, no power, no options, nothing. You are not in the equation.
Deal with it.

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 07:36 AM by Logarock

Originally posted by Vidpci

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by tothetenthpower

the paper didn't even out gun owners, just permit holders.
what Coulter suggests isn't even comparable.
.

Actually, they did out gun owners. In the Peoples Republic of New York, you have to get a permit to purchase a firearm. a permit that will allow you have one and if you want to carry, you have to have yet another permit. If you live in NYC, well, then there are even more hoops to jump through

All of which are unconstitutional.

I'm not sure what these people don't understand about the term "shall not be infringed upon".
edit on 5-1-2013 by Vidpci because: (no reason given)

Great point here. Thats is what the press is doing....infringing on someone else rights behind the cloke of freedom of the press. I see a lawsuit coming and some papers under new ownership.

The Idea behind freedom of the press was to give the people a tool against government misconduct and/or a voice of political opposition to same. The folks outed for guns should have protection under the 2nd seeing their gun ownership is an exercise of the same.

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 07:39 AM by Vidpci

reply to post by kthxbai

It is genocide as it's intention is to wipe out the lower class. Shall I bring the planned parenthood quotes into the thread? I'm curious, which do you think has more abortions per year? The poor people that can barely feed themselves, or the rich people that look down on them?

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 07:41 AM by Logarock

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by Vidpci
reply to post by kthxbai

Abortion is genocide against the poor.

I suppose you think Hitler had the same right to do what he did? Would it be okay if he was a female and said it was her womanly right? What if a doctor said it was a medical procedure?
edit on 5-1-2013 by Vidpci because: (no reason given)

Since they aren't born yet, they are neither rich nor poor. One woman having an abortion in Pheonix does not give an abortion to another woman in New York. It's not genocide, it doesn't wipe out an entire population. You are taking extremist ideas and trying to apply them where they don't belong.

Its just that many see abortion as an extreme final solution. The true nature of which is hidden behind the shield of a "womans right".

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 07:44 AM by kthxbai

Originally posted by Vidpci
reply to post by kthxbai

It is genocide as it's intention is to wipe out the lower class. Shall I bring the planned parenthood quotes into the thread? I'm curious, which do you think has more abortions per year? The poor people that can barely feed themselves, or the rich people that look down on them?

Again, only your opinion. Do you have stats to back it up?

I disagree. I see a LOT of "poor people" having more and more children. Doesn't your extremist views rant about them as well? Doesn't your extremist views complain that they are draining the welfare system? Your group rants and raves on one thread about them taking money out of our pockets by "breeding and breeding", then turns around and rants and raves on another thread they they're horrible for having an abortion... really makes no sense.
Financial status has nothing to do with it. Those who you consider "rich" have their abortions in a private office, not a free clinic. They don't have people picketing outside of their private office, nobody has any idea that's what they're doing in that private office.
It looks as though it is YOU who is discriminating against the "poor", not the opposing side.

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 07:44 AM by SM2

Originally posted by Vidpci

Originally posted by SM2

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by tothetenthpower

the paper didn't even out gun owners, just permit holders.
what Coulter suggests isn't even comparable.
.

Actually, they did out gun owners. In the Peoples Republic of New York, you have to get a permit to purchase a firearm. a permit that will allow you have one and if you want to carry, you have to have yet another permit. If you live in NYC, well, then there are even more hoops to jump through

All of which are unconstitutional.

I'm not sure what these people don't understand about the term "shall not be infringed upon".
edit on 5-1-2013 by Vidpci because: (no reason given)

I wager they understand the statement entirely, but it doesnt matter, because their irrational fear of an inanimate object is overriding logic.

I keep a .45acp with one of those evil "high capacity clips" which is actually a magazine that was provided by the manufacturer, loaded, one in the chamber, safety on, sitting right beside me for months. It has never went off, never gotten up and acted of it's own free will.

So in order for the more sensitive among us to feel safe, my rights have to be trampled? Screw that, they need to get over it.

How about, anyone that wants to exercise free speech will have to get a permit to do so. Free speech is potentially dangerous.You may not exercise free speech without a permit granted by the state, in order to obtain said permit you have to subject yourself to a background check (personal references needed in some states) finger printing and training from a licensed training facility. It will also cost you hundreds of dollars. If you are exercising that right without said permit ( permission from the government) then you go to jail.

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 07:46 AM by kthxbai

Originally posted by Logarock

Its just that many see abortion as an extreme final solution. The true nature of which is hidden behind the shield of a "womans right".

It's still their right. We don't have to make that choice if it is us in the situation, but we have no right to take the choice away from others.

As I've said several times, I support gun ownership and I also support a woman having the right to choose. If someone supports one but not the other, they can easily be called a hypocrite. Ann Coulter is a major hypocrite. Those who side with her and agree with her are also hypocrits.

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 08:48 AM by FlyersFan

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

There are already huge laws on the books for those convicted of breaking firearm laws or engaging in crimes involving firearms. It doesn't stop criminals. Only the threat of encountering a bullet to the head will stop the hard core criminals. And it's my natural (god given) right to self defense.

The anti-gun lobby needs to leave law abiding gun owners alone.
Their anti-gun quest is misguided. They are trying to punish
law abiding citizens and instead of criminals.

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 08:50 AM 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.

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 08:51 AM by syrinx high priest

can't there morons see saving children is a non- partisan issue ?

WTF

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 08:54 AM by FlyersFan

Originally posted by kthxbai
Since they aren't born yet, they are neither rich nor poor. One woman having an abortion in Pheonix does not give an abortion to another woman in New York. It's not genocide, it doesn't wipe out an entire population. You are taking extremist ideas

Abortion is black genocide
42% of Abortions are by 'poor' women - that's disproportionately high
Toss in abortions by lower income levels .. and you can see it is definately epidemic among the poor. And yes, the unborn child is part of the economic level of the parent and therefore .. the unborn children ARE POOR.

Deal with it.

YOU deal with it.

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 08:55 AM by Tiger5

reply to post by Vidpci

Considering the mass murder that happened a few weeks ago I would say that guns have become a mass issue. Did something equally taumatic hapen in the area of abortion in the last few weeks also????

Do not assume I am pro or anti abortion but I know a fallacious arguement when I read one!

Tiger5

edit on 5-1-2013 by Tiger5 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 08:58 AM 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.

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 09:02 AM by ~Lucidity

Exercising her Constitutional right to flap her jaw and be an idiot again.

I don't believe she even takes herself seriously, but this does rather nicely highlight the slippery slope about the loss of privacy and the the opportunists who will descend that slope.

edit on 1/5/2013 by ~Lucidity because: typoed