Missouri Lawmaker Proposes Making Guns As Difficult To Get As Abortions

At least 72 hours before attempting to buy a gun, they would be required to meet with a licensed physician to discuss the risks of gun ownership.

After the three day waiting period, they would need to locate a licensed firearm dealer located at least 120 miles from their home, which is the average distance that women currently must travel to get an abortion.

Before the sale, the buyer would also be required to complete several educational requirements.

Newman’s bill stipulates that they must tour an emergency trauma center treating victims of gun violence, meet with at least two families affected by gun violence, and talk to two local faith leaders who have performed funerals for children who have been killed by guns.

Then, before walking out of the store with their gun, they would need to watch a 30-minute video in the presence of the firearm dealer that details fatal gun injuries and review information about alternatives to purchasing a firearm. [Source]

Missouri is also home to some disturbingly high gun crime rates. St. Louis and Kansas City each rank in the top 10 U.S. cities with the highest rates of gun violence, and a recent report showed that toddlers shot more people in Missouri than in any other state. [Source]

This is a little over a year old, but you get the picture...



Then there's this...

“It is apples and oranges,” said Munzlinger, who earlier this week proposed repealing a state ban on carrying concealed firearms onto college campuses. “There is no correlation between them.” www.rawstory.com...

It may be apples and oranges, but is it unreasonable?

If It Was As Hard To Get A Gun As It Is To Get An Abortion

"Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun," the quote reads. "It makes more sense to do this with young men and guns than with women and health care, right? I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?” www.huffingtonpost.com...

So, yes, maybe apples and oranges, but they make hundreds of laws restricting abortion and more coming every day that affect all women on multiple levels and go beyond the bounds of such but we can't have any additional laws that affect gun ownership or lead to safer gun ownership?

The Case For Comparing Gun Rights And Abortion Rights

The New York Times' double standard on guns and abortion

Seems like a reasonable compromise to me with some interesting ideas. Not too over the top. Not infringing any more or any less on anyone's rights?

Note: The topic here is not abortion or guns. If you're having trouble determining what the topic is, PM me.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I am pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment so I support not restricting anyone's choices. It just goes to show that Democrats and Republicans are both scum and want to restrict our rights just on different issues.

ETA: There are already hundreds of laws that restrict gun purchases as well so really I am not sure what your point is other than to try to make someone choose one side or the other.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Abortion isn't a constitutional right that "shall not be infringed," so comparing this to the hoops through which one may need to jump in order to get an abortion is pointless and inappropriate.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Reasonable?? THAT sounds reasonable to you? Do they really put women who want an abortion through that much trauma?

a reply to: Metallicus

Re ETA: Didn't mean to do that.

Seems someone has figured a way to draw attention to the hypocrisy of our laws.

I find it disgusting and disturbing that they would connect owning fire arms to the legal slaughter of so many unborn children.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Abortion isn't a constitutional right that "shall not be infringed," so comparing this to the hoops through which one may need to jump in order to get an abortion is pointless and inappropriate.

Well regulated.

a reply to: Metallicus

Hmmm...I generally agree with you, but on abortion, we seem to differ.

But in any event, abortion is not a right--it may be something legal to do at this point in American society, but it's not a right by any means.

Purchasing and owning firearms, on the other hand, is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

In either event, one day you and I should meet up and go shooting at a gun range--what better way to meet another ATSer? I'm partial to Point Blank, but that's just because they recently opened one up in Florence and it's a stone's throw away from my house.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Sure, but that doesn't mean that a state can make the process so burdensome by design that it deters people from exercising their right.

Hell, what if you needed to meet with a physician and then drive 120 miles to register, then watch educational videos and then wait 30 minutes before you could vote.

Would you be singing the praises of such burdensome laws then? Hell, we can't even necessitate showing an ID to vote is some places without it being called racist or disenfranchisement. The same logic applies here--and the "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment discusses militias, not the right to gun ownership. But regardless, I don't even think that you understand what the term meant at the time it was written:

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Emphasis mine, taken from this source.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Hmmm...I generally agree with you, but on abortion, we seem to differ.

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.

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

Privacy is a Right
The Right of Autonomy

GREAT OP, Luce! Perfect illustration of the hypocrisy of the "party of freedom"! What a joke!

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Abortion isn't a constitutional right that "shall not be infringed," so comparing this to the hoops through which one may need to jump in order to get an abortion is pointless and inappropriate.

In Roe v. Wade,557 the Court established a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child. In doing so, the Court dramatically increased judicial oversight of legislation under the privacy line of cases, striking down aspects of abortion-related laws in practically all the States, the District of Columbia, and the territories. To reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review.558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559 Finally, the Court summarily announced that the "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" includes "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy"560 and that "[t]his right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."561 law.justia.com...

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.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

So then tell me about the "well-regulated militia".

Going by your chosen definition it should be in proper working order.

It is a right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. The second says nothing about the way you can obtain the firearms.

This OP reminded me of a meme I saw a few days ago...



I imagine if men had to jump through the same hoops to purchase an instrument of death....it would be well regulated, huh?

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?

originally posted by: misskat1
I find it disgusting and disturbing that they would connect owning fire arms to the legal slaughter of so many unborn children.

And understandably so seeing how no one with a gun killed another person ever.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

You seem to mistake a dictated right for a constitutional right.

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.

So, I disagree with the SCOTUS ruling based on scientific evidence and discoveries about DNA and other things since that ruling. It's not my fault that the laws haven't kept up with our knowledge about what it is to be an individual human being.

Any measure any of these states implement or mandate, will have Zero affect on the illegal gun and drug trade.

Problem is, most people already have guns and ammo and gear

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.