Sunday, February 10, 2013

Lessons From Gun Goofiness

Since the Sandy Hook massacre, there have been hordes of discussions revolving around how we prevent a recurrence of the tragedy.  This post will attempt to list and/or highlight some of what the debate has exposed.  I want to begin with this link to a blog by a guy named Larry Correia, who is likely one of the best sources for informed opinion on the subject.  His background with firearms, training with them, the laws surrounding them and the facts regarding the use and possession is pretty extensive, particularly from an experiential perspective.  The piece addresses the most common arguments of the knee -jerk gun-control advocates and is such that the time to read it should be taken before daring to dismiss him.

There will be no particular order in presenting the arguments, except that the pro-2nd Amendment proponents are the most sensible and fact-based.  By this I mean that nothing presented by the gun-control people have diminished the need for the 2nd, provide a legitimate argument for its repeal or show an understanding of what it is all about.  To that end, I had listed several quotes from founders and others that show the intention of the 2nd and of those, the following is especially illustrative of what is at the heart of the gun-control side:

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes."-- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book

Before proceeding, it is unfortunately necessary to head off the very likely complaint by gun-controllers that this does not imply anything "trifling" about a mass shooting of the scope of Sandy Hook.  Laws that seek to inconvenience the law-abiding in an effort to prevent abuses of a freedom or right is the point of the quote.  This is what the anti-gun folk seek to do and is the major flaw of their proposals.  Such proposals do not work as only the law-abiding abide laws.  While doing so, they are made to be victims to those who will never abide the law for whatever reason.  So, the above quote expresses the futility of gun laws due to that which provoked them...tragedies perpetrated by those who abuse the right to own guns...and compares them to the outlawing of fire or water for the dangers they present to careless or thoughtless individuals.

The gun-control people have demonstrated their desperation in their arguments.  They have misstated the intentions of the defenders of the 2nd Amendment through a host of ridiculous and unAmerican/unChristian accusations and judgements.  Among the worst are those who proclaim that 2nd Amendment defenders (henceforth to be known as "our side" or "the good guys") do not care about dead children.  To them (henceforth to be known as "them", "the bad guys" or "idiots"), there is no way to both protect a right recognized by the US Constitution and protect the lives of innocent children and/or citizens.  One person in particular, whose initials are "Geoffrey Kruse-Safford", insists this is the case despite citing numerous stories where armed civilians prevented high body counts where such was intended.  What's more, rather than display a blood lust Geoffrey is certain exists in the good guys, at least a couple of these stories included citizens who never fired their weapon for the sake of bystanders.  The perpetrator either surrendered or offed himself simply because he was confronted by someone willing to shoot back. 

Geoffrey believes that our side is willing to allow the murder of more children rather than sacrifice "reasonable" restrictions.  But this is dishonesty and not the least bit representative of our position.  Our position is that what is termed "reasonable" by them is not reasonable at all, nor proven so by any stat or study presented by them.  Indeed, the quality of the stat or study is of no concern to them if it can be used in any way to demonize our side.  What's important is to exploit tragedies in order to characterize our side in the worst possible light.  Geoffrey claims we used Sandy Hook to scream about rights being denied when the truth is that they are using the situation to scream that they should be. 

And of course, Geoffrey wouldn't be Geoffrey without some low class assumption that one's desire to own weapons is to compensate for the size of one's sexual organ.  That somehow the driving force of gun-ownership is to "feel like a man".  While no doubt there exist people like that, it too is no reason to deny those who desire weapons for legitimate reasons. 

Geoffrey and others have tried to dismiss the argument that the 2nd was created to defend the right to life, liberty and property, and that it was meant as a deterrent to the tyrannical intentions of a corrupted government.  It seems that since no apparent moves to that goal have thus far manifested in modern times, that the threat is no longer possible.  The shortsightedness of this position is alarming while typical and such mindless people are willing victims of despots.  There need not be the imminent threat of oppression for the argument to be legitimate still.  But as we have still fresh in our memory the attack of 9/11/01, only idiots would dare say, "It can't happen here."  The more like Geoffrey who live amongst us, the more likely it will someday.

Another aspect of that argument that the bad guys try to foist is that it would be impossible to resist the might of the US military should such a sorry state of affairs come to pass.  "Let's see you shoot down drones and attack helicopters with pistols and shotguns..." they say.  But there are two things wrong with this:  First, your idiotic gun-control laws have left us with only pistols and shotguns, and secondly, the Afghans have been rather successful fending off a far better equipped force for a long time. 

I could go on and on about the extremely poor level of thought that is behind the gun-control positions.  Like most leftist arguments, they are emotion based and not fact based.  Sure, they use facts, or that which they perceive as facts, but actual facts do not support their desires to limit the access of law-abiding people to the defensive weapon of their choice.  That's because their position is not focused on the actual problem.  The problem is not guns or their availability.  The problem is those who use them for evil purposes.  Guns are but one tool of such people to perpetrate their acts of evil.  One doesn't need a gun to commit mass murder.  Ask Mohamed Atta. Ask Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Ask Andrew Kehoe.  Those that intend to commit atrocities will find a way. 

A rational attempt to curb criminal activity, including mass murder, must not infringe upon the ability of the law-abiding to protect themselves as they see fit.  Nor should it infringe upon their ability to do anything that does not manifest in the abuse of their liberty and freedoms.  This is especially true if those attempts to curb criminal activity are impotent and unenforceable.  Thus far, as in the so-called "assault weapons" ban, this has been the case. 

I will finish with a brief description of how I feel gun laws should be handled. 

Deny criminals and the mentally deranged only.  Period. 

We have the means whereby convicted felons can be listed on the world wide web for all to see.  We could add those certified as deranged and dangerous.  It shouldn't be hard to do as one can already find who the sex offenders in one's area are.   But if a law-abiding citizen seeks to purchase a weapon, and his name does not show up in the database, there is no reason they should be denied ANY firearm, even automatic weapons.  What reason does anyone need for an fully automatic weapon?  None of your business if that person gives no reason to suspect he is incapable of possessing it responsibly.  If a person is responsible with one type weapon, why not another?   If he is a law-abiding person of good character, why should anyone be concerned?  If the idiots cannot handle possessing such a weapon without turning on their neighbors and spraying the area with bullets, they shouldn't seek to own one. 

The above is very basic, not accounting for any variables whatsoever.  This does not mean I am unwilling to consider alterations.  It is merely the starting point of rational gun law.  It does not assume the worst about the law-abiding, while denying the criminal and sociopath.  The other side assumes the worst of everybody and by doing so, leaves everyone vulnerable to those who are the worst.


 
 
 
 

100 comments:

Feodor said...

"Deny criminals and the mentally deranged only."

Well, that denies tea baggers, too, so I'm satisfied.

Marshall Art said...

I'm glad to hear you finally admit that homosexuals suffer from mental disorder. Yet, I'm not so sure that's the same as "deranged". And as they claim to so often be victims of assault, arming themselves would be a good idea.

Parklife said...

umm.. marsha.. you dont know what tea bagging is...

Marshall Art said...

Not surprised that you know, Benny-boy. But then, I don't need to know the details with which you are so familiar. It is enough that I know who engages in the practice.

Jim said...

If the idiots cannot handle possessing such a weapon without turning on their neighbors and spraying the area with bullets, they shouldn't seek to own one.

OK, well then I'm satisfied. They shouldn't seek to own one.

Marshall Art said...

It would be nice if you lefties would cut the crap and stop pretending you don't get the point, unless, of course, you're all just really stupid.

Your side seems to believe that no one is capable of responsible possession of particular types of firearms. If you believe that of yourselves, don't own them. But you don't have the skill or smarts to determine who among the rest of the population is also lacking until they prove so. We're supposed to be an "innocent until proven guilty" society, unless the lefties want to have their own way. That concept has always come with risks, but it is the only honest way to run a society.

Craig said...

C'mon Marshall,

It just makes sense. The answer is to increase restrictions so that law abiding non mentally ill gun owners can't own certain types of weapons that are actually involved in a fairly tiny number of violent criminal incidents.

Parklife said...

"Not surprised that you know"

?

Looking something up on the internet is hard for you, I get it. Ignorance never stopped you from making an ass of yourself.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

"Looking something up on the internet is hard for you, I get it." I've known this for years.

A couple years back, he got in to a hissy because he didn't know The Golden Rule was in the Bible!

So I read all his posts very carefully and consider his positions as thoughtful, carefully worked out arguments.

And I need a new laptop because I spewed my afternoon coffee all over it. I couldn't even type that sentence without laughing.

Marshall Art said...

Benny,

Looking up something on the internet is not difficult for me at all. I do it all the time. You just like to believe otherwise.

The question here is why I would want to look up something about which you are already quite familiar, most likely, I would wager, through personal experience. You looking for a date?

This ain't a porn site, troll-boy. If you want to read about deviant behaviors, go elsewhere.

One thing is true: your ignorance won't stop me from treating you like the ass you are. Really, boy. You've made an ass of yourself long ago and haven't stopped.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

Oh please. Link to my "hissy". What is with you lefties and your need to believe that I get emotional over internet blogging?

As to the rest of your last, get a joke book. You're no more clever than the insipid Parklife.

Marshall Art said...

The weapon chosen by the violent isn't the issue.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

322 fatal stabbings in a year, Art. That's a "homicide by knives" rate of roughly 5.3 per 100,000.

In the United States for 2011, using the statistics from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Statistical Tables, specifically the numbers of homicides by "knives and other cutting instruments", the rate was nearly identical, around 5.1 per one hundred thousand.

So . . . your point is, what, exactly?

Feodor said...

How many eyes have been put out by bb guns?

And this is Marshall's response to 13,000 deaths a year and how many parents and siblings and children in grief.

Show's his moral reach.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

And how many hundreds of thousands per year are murdered in the womb and libs love it!

Stinking hypocrites.

Parklife said...

"You looking for a date?"

Huh?

marsha.. I used the intertubes to look it up. You are just an idiot.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Wow, Glenn. Awesome segue there.

Name one.

Name a single liberal who "loves" that hundreds of thousands "die" in the womb.

I don't want a list. Just one. With a link.

It shouldn't be that hard to find. In fact, here's one, although the article is more about how she supports the availability of abortion as a health-care option for women, and uses the phraseology to distance herself from those whom she sees as trying to distance themselves from the ugliness of abortion.

So, there's one.

Name another.

Feodor said...

Glenn doesn't want to live in a nation of laws. He wants a dictator. Presumably he'd claim to be a patriot of liberty.

Lie number 3 for him.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feodor,

You are a liar.

I do indeed want a nation of law, the law of the Constitution. You know, that piece of paper liberals keep shredding - the piece of paper Obamanation has no use for.

But the laws have to not be violating rights. If a law says to murder Jews, I don't want that type of law. Laws that YOU want are by dictators.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

One, just one person?
Obamanation. He thinks having a baby is a punishment. He is the most pro-abortion president in history. He is 100% behind planned parenthood and giving them government money (which is against the Constitution, by the way).

Every liberal who is pro-abortion loves the murder of the unborn or they wouldn't be pro-abortionl.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I didn't ask for a speech, Glenn.

I want evidence.

I want a link.

I want a link wherein Pres. Obama is quoted as saying, "I love abortion."

That's not too much to ask, now, is it? You believe it with all your heart, or so it seems, that we pro-choice folks have Fetus Barbecue Days celebrating the scouring of yet more wombs. So, c'mon, man - man up! Provide some evidence!

Oh, and I'm not holding my breath. Any more than on whether Art will respond to me pointing out his article about murders by knife in Britain is meaningless.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Geoffrey,
SO, if Obama doesn't specifically state that he loves abortion, then that means he doesn't?

I go with actions. One doesn't have to say he hates guns to do everything possible to eliminate them. One doesn't have to say he hates rich people to do everything possible to punish them.

Obama was quoted - and I heard it via audio and saw it via video - that children are a punishment. He fight vehemently to support abortion and to force government financing of it. And yet you want a quote of him saying, "I love abortion"?!?!?

That is the problem with you liberals - obfuscation and truth dodging rather that facing reality.

Jim said...

Every liberal who is pro-abortion loves the murder of the unborn or they wouldn't be pro-abortion.

No liberal is pro-abortion. It's a straw man fallacy. Liberals are pro-choice. Your argument falls flat.

Obamanation

What grade are you in, Glenn?

He thinks having a baby is a punishment.

Another fallacy based on an out of context sound bite. Even Marshall and Mark have implied that being forced to give birth is punishment for not being able to curb ones animal sexual impulses.

He is the most pro-abortion president in history.

No he's not. He's not pro-abortion at all. That's a false argument. What he is is respectful of a woman's ability to make the choices she needs to make in order to live a life of her choosing.

I find something undeniably misogynistic about the impulse to deny a woman's dominion over her own body and limit her ability to shape her life and impose another's sense of morality on her.

which is against the Constitution, by the way

What part of the Constitution would that be?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim
Pro-choice has one meaning in the abortion debate, and it is pro-abortion. The choice demanded is the choice to abort. THAT means you want abortion available, that means you like abortion because if you didn’t like it you’d fight against it. It’s a lie to say otherwise.

That “sound bite” was NOT taken out of context. He said if his daughter got pregnant he wouldn’t want her punished with a child. Only and evil person would say that a child is a punishment. And I’ve NEVER read on any post where Marshall or Mark even intimated that it was punishment to have a child.

Obama is indeed the most pro-abortion president in history. No other president has fought so hard to keep abortion legal and to keep it funded by tax dollars.

It isn’t the woman’s body - it is a separate life inside of her. That’s something you liberal pro-aborts seem to forget or ignore. The woman’s choice was made when she had sex.

There is nowhere in the Constitution which allows tax dollars to be spent for abortion. Perhaps you’d like to find it in the same “emanations” of the “penumbra” that the SCOTUS found the “right” to abortion. Show me where the Constitution authorizes taxes to be spent for people to have any medical procedure, let alone abortion.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Glenn: " And yet you want a quote of him saying, "I love abortion"?!?!?"

Sure. You're the one making the claim. Back it up. Evidence. Statements, official or otherwise, that all of us can take a gander at, read at our leisure.

To quote Buzz Lightyear, you are a sad, strange little man.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Geoffrey,

His actions and statements are the evidence that he loves abortion.

DUH!

You are a sad little man - just as are all your ilk of pro-aborts. Always in denial.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

That he "loves" abortion.

Seriously, Glenn?

Wow. You are Art belong together.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Geoffrey,
Oh, so you say with all his actions promoting, supporting, financing abortion that he HATES it?

You are so deluded

Jim said...

Pro-choice has one meaning in the abortion debate, and it is pro-abortion.

Bulls**it!

THAT means you want abortion available, that means you like abortion because if you didn’t like it you’d fight against it.

I don't like onions, but I don't fight against them. I don't like Nissan Sentras but I don't fight against them. I don't like flu shots but I understand why for me it's the right choice to have one.

I don't "like" abortions. I do recognize that they are legal and that women have the legal right to choose to have one and they should continue to have that legal right.

Only and evil person would say that a child is a punishment

Are you THAT simple-minded?

And I’ve NEVER read on any post where Marshall or Mark even intimated that it was punishment to have a child.

Are you THAT simple-minded? They have both said that birthing a baby whether one wants to or not is the consequence of not being able to control their lust.

No other president has fought so hard to keep abortion legal and to keep it funded by tax dollars.

Obama has not fought to keep abortion funded by tax dollars. That would violate the Hyde Amendment.

The woman’s choice was made when she had sex.

That's the Sex Nazi doctrine.

Show me where the Constitution authorizes taxes to be spent for people to have any medical procedure, let alone abortion.

Show me where in the Constitution authorizes taxes to be spent on stop lights, car safety, or air traffic control.

So you must be arguing that the US Army cannot pay an Army doctor to perform an emergency appendectomy on a soldier, set a broken bone, or stitch up a wound, right?

Be that as it may, the Hyde Amendment, unfortunately, makes it unlawful to use tax dollars for abortion, and that's why the government doesn't do it.

The Piper's Wife said...

Jim
You are the one full of B.S.

Yeah, I know, and if slavery was allowed you wouldn’t like slavery but you’d fight for the choice of those who did.

There is no fence-straddling when it comes to murdering the unborn - you are either for it or against it. To hide behind the myth of “choice” is cowardice and denial.

Accepting the consequences of one’s choices is not the same as being punished. Consequences of actions MAY be accepting punishment if the actions were criminal, etc. Consequences of actions are just that - consequences. If you have sex, one of the consequences is pregnancy. Don’t be so stupid.

Obama has fought for the funding of Planned Parenthood. What do you think the world’s largest abortion provider does with the government money? Oh, I know, you think it is sex education or condoms, etc. Talk about B.S.

“Sex nazi” doctrine? So, is anyone telling anyone else to have or not to have sex? Is anyone trying to interfere with anyone’s sexual activities? You liberals pull that term out as a way of marginalizing the abortion discussion. It’s not about sex - it’s about accepting the consequences when you DO have sex. No one is even intimating anything about trying to control anyone’s sex lives.

People in the military are supported by money being provided for the military. All military expenses are covered - food, uniforms, housing, required medical services, etc. Don’t tell me you are really that stupid.

The Hyde Amendment doesn’t prevent government back-door funding of abortion by funding planned parenthood. There is no Constitutional authority for funding a private business, let alone one which murders thousands of children each year.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffie asks,

"So . . . your point is, what, exactly?"

My point in linking to the piece about the UK is that they took away the guns and the crime rate went up, and the use of knives went up as well. So, the criminal violence went nowhere by removing guns. Focusing on the tool used by the criminal element, especially at the expense of the law-abiding, is the wrong way to go. The criminal will find a way to perpetrate crime. Suicides will continue to happen, and accidental deaths will also continue.

Where you bozos see "gun" deaths, we see only deaths. Where you buffoons see "gun" violence, we see only violence. In your shallow minded demand that something must be done after the latest incident in the news, you naturally come up with shallow minded remedies which solve nothing but make you feel like you've accomplished something. Pathetic.

But now on to other hypocrisy...

Demand from Glenn names of those who "love" abortion and really, any abortion proponent will do. You all love sex without consequence or responsibility enough to demand that abortion be available to do away with the natural and intended by nature result of sex. Yes. You lefties indeed love abortion.

But while you wait for anyone to provide names of those who "love" abortion, perhaps you can provide some names of those people who stand behind the intent of the 2nd Amendment have expressed their "blood lust", or maybe one of them who have expressed their reason for wanting firearms is to compensate for some anatomical shortcoming.

Or maybe, you can find where I have expressed "paranoia" when I state the purpose of the 2nd.

What is most clear is your hackneyed tactic of demanding evidence for what the actions and words of lefties have expressed so clearly. How daring it is for the lefty, especially Geoff, to jump on a throwaway line to divert attention from the issue at hand. You can see numerous examples of this in any of the last three posts. Again, pathetic.

Jim said...

Simpleton said,

There is no fence-straddling when it comes to murdering the unborn - you are either for it or against it.

Abortion is not murder of the unborn. Period. I am neither for nor against it. I'm for women to have the choice they are LEGALLY entitled to make. I'm neither for nor against pierced ears. I AM straddling the fence on that one.

Obama has fought for the funding of Planned Parenthood. Correct, and most of the country agrees with that.

What do you think the world’s largest abortion provider does with the government money?

Last time you went to Planned Parenthood, did you ask them what they would charge YOU for an abortion? Because they charge for abortions. They also get money from sources besides the government. They are not allowed to use government money for abortions. It's against the law, and I defy you to prove that they are using government money on abortions. I wish they could, but they can't.

Oh, I know, you think it is sex education or condoms, etc.

Yes, and a lot of other things. Abortions make up only 3% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood.

It's all beside the point. I believe that Planned Parenthood should be able to use any funds they receive from any source for ANY legal medical service required by their patients. Including abortion.

So, is anyone telling anyone else to have or not to have sex?

On this blog? You bet. Absolutely.

You liberals pull that term out as a way of marginalizing the abortion discussion.

Bulls**t! I invented the term and I'm the only liberal who uses it. I invented it specifically for this blog and Mark's. And I use it to demonstrate how your position on FORCED BIRTH is based on who can and can't have sex when and with whom.

No one is even intimating anything about trying to control anyone’s sex lives.

You haven't been on this blog long, have you?

it’s about accepting the consequences when you DO have sex.

I know of nobody who doesn't accept the consequences of having sex. One of those consequences being pregnancy, sometimes a safe, LEGAL abortion is the appropriate consequence.

People in the military are supported by money being provided for the military.

Last time I checked the money provided for the military came from taxpayers, i.e., the government. Don't tell me you are really that stupid.

The Hyde Amendment doesn’t prevent government back-door funding of abortion by funding planned parenthood.

Actually, yes it does. Prove it doesn't.

There is no Constitutional authority for funding a private business,

So clearly farm subsidies, oil subsidies, corporate tax deductions, depreciation, investment credits, Small Business loans, oh and medical payments to private doctors for Medicare and Veterans services are unconstitutional then, right?

let alone one which murders thousands of children each year.

There is no such organization.

Anonymous said...

Come on Geoff, Jim, and Feo. Let's just admit that we LOVE abortions. We do! We love them. I don't know about you, but every time I drive by our Planned Parenthood I honk my horn, roll down the window and yell out, "You go girls." I've often thought about standing on the sidewalk with signs that say, "Bring 'em here, ladies." and "We'll murder your unborn babies." and "Baby killers on staff all day."

Marshall Art said...

Wow! Some actual honesty from the left! Hold on...I need to mark this on my calender....

Anon,

Any vote for an abortion supporting candidate because of that support, or because that support is seen as a plus and akin to standing on the sidewalk with the signs you mention. This is far more honest than Jim saying "I don't love abortion. I just support a woman's right to kill her unborn child." Yeah, sure. That might not be "love", but one doesn't need a doctorate to see that killing defenseless children who was invited into existence is a far cry from love.

So, you less-than-gentle"men" love the fact that a woman is legally allowed to kill their unborn child and love to support the continuation of that "right".

Jim dishonestly quibbles over the use of the word "murder" because this killing of unborn is legal and some definitions now state that murder is an "illegal" killing. Honest people may understand the difference between a murder and a killing with the presence of any law, but Jim is not among the honest. Evidence is his claim that I have ever pushed for controlling anyone's sex lives. This has been clarified hundreds of times and he continues to lie. I have only encouraged each of us to control our own sex lives and engage responsibly. Abortion is an abdication of responsibility. It is NOT a consequence of sexual intercourse. Abortion is the means by which the spineless dodge their responsibility.

Nothing can be more nazi-like than the taking of life of one class of people by another, as if that victimized class is not equal to the other and equally deserving of life.

Now, let's all stash the abortion talk for a post on abortion. This one is on the stupidity of gun-control advocates.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Just FYI,
"The Piper's Wife" comment was mine. I didn't realize my wife had signed on to her google account when she was using the computer! I hate when that happens.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,
Abortion is indeed the murder of the unborn. The unborn baby is a human being. To take the life of a human being without justification (criminal act, self defense, war, etc) is defined as murder.

If you are defending the right to murder, then you are pro-abortion. Stop the denial.

Just because most of the country agrees with funding planned parenthood (no proof of such a claim, by the way) that doesn’t make it moral or right. After all, most of Germany agreed with eradicating Jews.

Let’s see, I put money in your bank account and say, “Don’t use THIS money for abortion” and then I just know they use it for something else. THAT is stupid. There is no Constitutional right for them to receive any government money to begin with.

3% of PP services are abortion?!?! You listen to way too many left-wing propaganda sites and media. That is a bald-faced lie. PP was started by providing abortions, they stay in business by providing abortions. If abortion was illegal they’d cease to exist.

You lie, no one on any blog I know of has told people they are not to have sex. They just say be responsible when you do.

You invented “Sex nazi” like Algore invented the internet. I’ve heard that phrase for years.

“Forced birth”?!?! Who forced anyone to have sex. Is it “forcing” birth when you want to prevent murder? Typical liberal crap.

I’ve been on this blog longer than you have, and no one ever intimates the idea of controlling people’s sex lives.

There is no such thing as a safe abortion - least of all for the child who is murdered

HEY STUPID - Military funding IS constitutional. That was my point.

Subsidies are not the same as what PP gets. And I’d suggest most subsidies are also wrong and not what the founders expected tax money to be used for.

PP does indeed murder thousands of children each year. Sanitize it and call it abortion, but it is still murder.

Jim said...

Nothing can be more nazi-like than the taking of life of one class of people by another, as if that victimized class is not equal to the other and equally deserving of life.

Fetuses are not people. They are not even a "class of people".

children who was invited into existence

Wow! That's a new one. I guess the sex act is an "invitation" now?

I have only encouraged each of us to control our own sex lives and engage responsibly.

Correct me if I'm wrong but have you not written that preventing pregnancy through contraception is wrong? To prevent pregnancy, couples must control their animal urges during such times as the female is fertile, right? Having a vasectomy is a cop out for not being able to control one's animal lust by not having sex when one's wife could get pregnant?

Glenn, I know you post as The Piper's Wife. You've done it before.

The unborn baby is a human being.

This is a philosophical argument, not a legal one. Many people will disagree with it.

If you are defending the right to murder, then you are pro-abortion. Stop the denial.

I defend the right to bear arms. I am NOT pro-gun. Stop the absurd assertions.

I just know they use it for something else.

Prove it.

That is a bald-faced lie.

No, it is documented FACT.

You lie, no one on any blog I know of has told people they are not to have sex.

See above.

I’ve heard that phrase for years.

Perhaps, but not in this context. I borrowed it from Seinfeld's "Soup Nazi". "No soup [sex] for you!" BTW, Gore never, EVER claimed to have invented the Internet.

Is it “forcing” birth when you want to prevent murder?

It's not preventing murder. It's preventing someone from having a legal medical procedure. It's forcing them to give birth against their will. It's forced birth.

not what the founders expected tax money to be used for.

I'll bet they never expected tax money to be used for nuclear submarines, either.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

I don’t know of anyone on this blog or any other that contraception is wrong. That, in fact, is our point. If you’re going to have sex and don’t want the possibility of a kid, then protect yourself. What we complain about with contraception is that they want the government to pay for it. If you can’t afford it, then keep your pants on.

Whether the law accepts the fact - scientific and medical - that the unborn is a life, a human life, is irrelevant to the issue. After all, the law also said that slaves were only part human for voting, and just property for everything else. Law does not determine morality.

There is no “right” to abortion whereas there is a right to bear arms. It’s in the Constitution. The abortion “right’ was in the imagination of SCOTUS who found it in the “emanations” of the “penumbra” of a vacuous “right” to privacy.

You are still wrong about PP and in total denial, as well as being wrong with your claim that anyone on this site told people to not have sex.

“Legal medical procedure” - that’s what the Nazis called experimenting on Jews.

Nuclear submarines are part of the military arsenal. The founders would know from history that technology develops new military weaponry. They funded the military for the purpose of defending the nation.

You keep throwing out all those red herrings as you keep trying to justify your support for the murder of the unborn.

Jim said...

I don’t know of anyone on this blog or any other that contraception is wrong.

Then you haven't been paying attention. I have been specifically told on this blog or Mark's if not both, that if I don't want a pregnancy, I shouldn't have sex when pregnancy is possible. I must control my urges.

What we complain about with contraception is that they want the government to pay for it.

Why not? It's cheaper than paying for welfare babies and it prevents "murder of the unborn", right?

If you can’t afford it, then keep your pants on.

I'd rest my case, but I'm sure there's more coming.

Whether the law accepts the fact - scientific and medical - that the unborn is a life, a human life, is irrelevant to the issue.

No, it's basic to the issue.

After all, the law also said that slaves were only part human for voting, and just property for everything else.

Indeed. That was then. Proving that the founders were not inerrant and the Constitution was not written by Jesus. Fortunately, the Constitution is a living document, allowing for amendment.

There is no “right” to abortion whereas there is a right to bear arms.

Not relevant to the point. Try again.

You are still wrong about PP and in total denial.

Still waiting for you to prove it. Supposition is inadequate.

that’s what the Nazis called experimenting on Jews.

You have a citation for that? I don't believe it.

OK, screw the submarines. The founders said the government could raise money to provide for the general welfare. In my book, supporting PP fits right into that clause.

Marshall Art said...

Glenn,

As you can probably tell by now, Jim is incapable of debating honestly. Note how he clings to the law when obviously you are speaking of the morality of abortion. To him, the law allowing abortion allows him to regard abortion as a moral good. Indeed, so far as I am aware, the law makes no claim regarding the true nature of the fetus, that it is a human being just like you, me and possibly Jim, but science is absolutely clear on the issue, as is our own innate sense of this truth. I mean, what else could it be, even at its earliest stage, given all the facts surrounding its coming to be?

He will also maintain that PP does not use tax dollars for abortions with no more proof of that than you can provide to show it does. Maybe he can explain how the federal government enforces the prohibition against using tax dollars for abortion when donating our money to PP. We could, as Jim does, take the word of PP that it doesn't happen. But given their record of deceit, it doesn't seem prudent.

It is true that I encourage anyone who cannot guarantee a pregnancy won't occur to deny themselves sexual intercourse if they aren't prepared to care for the child that might result. This isn't anything like forcing people to abstain, or even forcing them to do anything. It just seems that responsible, mature and moral people would not pretend that pregnancy is something other than a living human being worth more consideration than "maybe it won't happen". To Jim, and people like him, the life of an unborn child has no value that compares with the selfish pleasure of a momentary orgasm. That selfish pleasure must be protected at all costs, even the cost of the lives of the unborn.

As to contraception being wrong, I don't know that I took that position. But I am pretty sure I've mentioned that the Christian faith has long held that view, with the Roman Catholic Church being among the few remaining that still do. The idea is that it is up to God whether or not a child is conceived when a couple engage in intercourse. This is contradicted by certain passages, such as those that caution against one refusing one's spouse except for times of prayer. If one is not to refuse, then one can easily speculate that within a marriage, sex for pleasure is permissible. And if it is, then to engage in it while protecting against pregnancy, either through contraception or rhythm method would not be improper.

But this is a far cry from methods that are actually abortion inducing methods, such as the Pill. And as we are all fallen creatures, it would seem far less problematic from a God-centered perspective to have a vasectomy to prevent a child one cannot afford or does not want, than to murder it in utero.

BTW, Jim. ALL children were invited when their biological parents engaged in the very act meant to bring about a new human being.

It is absolutely semantic crap to pretend that supporting abortion is not the same as supporting the deaths of all the children who perished via that procedure. It is clear complicity. Jim isn't honest enough to admit it any more than any other supporter of the "right" to abortion.

Marshall Art said...

One more thing: this is not a post about abortion. Get back to the point.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Marshall,

Jim is a typical liberal living in denial, obfuscating all issues as to legality vs morality. I'm through with wasting time with him.

Neil said...

Marshall,

1. Great post. The anti-gun arguments fail on so many levels.

2. If you will indulge me, I do have one comment to add about the pro-abortion people. I used to humor them and call them pro-choice, but after Obamacare, the seemingly endless list of how Obama has pushed abortion here and abroad and now the official platform of the Democrats it is impossible to refer to them as anything but pro-abortion.

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."

Read that carefully. They are saying that we don't have enough abortions, because some people who want them can't afford them. Therefore, to make society a better place, they will use the threat of force or imprisonment to take the money of taxpayers, including pro-lifers, to pay for more abortions.

That's more abortions, paid for by pro-lifers. If that isn't pro-abortion, then nothing is. They are taking away your choice of whether to fund abortions.

The pro-abort femmebot commenters here may try to deny it, but that is just another one of their lies. Real men stand up for the weak and defenseless. Liberal men love the world and their popularity more than they love God and doing the right thing.

I encourage people to copy the Dem's platform for future use. It will immediately end any discussion about whether they are pro-abortion or not.

Jim said...

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

Thanks, Neil. I copied it. It is RIGHT ON!

Unfortunately your logic is like a bouquet of dead flowers that smells bad.

it is impossible to refer to them as anything but pro-abortion.

It is not impossible. It is lying to call them pro-abortion.

They are saying that we don't have enough abortions

No, "they" are not. Straw man.

Therefore, to make society a better place, they will use the threat of force or imprisonment to take the money of taxpayers, including pro-lifers, to pay for more abortions.

You live in America, you pay your taxes or suffer the consequences. A lot of people don't like the wars in the Middle East, but they pay their taxes regardless.

Besides, it's a lot cheaper to pay for an abortion than it is to pay welfare, or medical care for an unwanted child born into poverty.

If that isn't pro-abortion, then nothing is.

Nothing is.

Real men stand up for the weak and defenseless.

By forcing vaginal probes into their bodies.

It will immediately end any discussion about whether they are pro-abortion or not.

No, it will demonstrate that most Democrats are not pro-forced birth.

Marshall Art said...

"I copied it. It is RIGHT ON!"

Yes, indeed, Jimmy-boy. It is right on the money proof you lefties are "pro"-abortion. You are absolutely behind the imagined "right" to the killing of the unborn. You are so incredibly, and shamefully, PROabortion, that you don't want the lack of money to stand in the way anyone's ability to have their own unborn killed for them. And you know what's cheaper than abortion? Not engaging in the very act designed for inviting a new human being into existence. THAT is the least expensive move anyone could make, since expense is a factor in your belief that anyone should be entitled to kill their own children.

OH GOLLY! Does that make me a "sex-nazi"? So be it. Far better than being truly nazi-like in believing you have any right to determine the worth of another human being, that you have any authority to dictate who is human enough for protection and who isn't.

I like this argument:

"A lot of people don't like the wars in the Middle East, but they pay their taxes regardless."

The pro-aborts (LOVEtoaborts) point to wars against Middle Eastern people that believe they have the authority to determine the worth and humanity of other people to use against our stance for the rights of the unborn. Seems to me our cause in both cases is the same: protecting one group of human beings against the nazi-like oppression of others. Pro-aborts...AlQueda...not much difference.

"No, it will demonstrate that most Democrats are not pro-forced birth."

No. It will demonstrate that Democrats are the party of abdication of responsibility. But we knew this already. Jim is absolutely an example as he chastises any suggestion that people be more mature and responsible regarding their sexual behavior as attempting to dictate or prohibit the private lives of others. This is such typical Jimcrap as to be worthy of its own category of lie.

Pregnancy is 100% preventable. Only those for whom intercourse is merely akin to jacking off, the Jims of the world, believe that abortion is an acceptable alternative to abstaining when pregnancy is impractical.

Neil said...

"Besides, it's a lot cheaper to pay for an abortion than it is to pay welfare, or medical care for an unwanted child born into poverty."

I can see why people ignore Jim, which is what I'll do from now on. But just for grins, let's point out the idiocy / moral bankruptcy of that statement. Using his logic, it would be cheaper to kill everyone on welfare than to pay for welfare, medical care, etc.

Now even a pro-abort moral freak like Jim may not have sunk to those depths yet, but the logic is the same. The unborn are human beings. That's a scientific fact backed up by any embryology textbook. They just happen to be smaller, less developed and more dependent than some other humans. But those aren't grounds to crush their skulls and rip off their limbs.

But loving, caring, pro-aborts like Jim want to do those potentially poor humans a favor by killing them. That's swell.

Jim said...

Far better than being truly nazi-like in believing you have any right to determine the worth of another human being

See, here's where you are hung up on this argument. I'm not poor, or a teen. I'm not pregnant; I'm not a woman. I'm not a physician. I have no reason to have or even consider an abortion. None of this applies to me.

Whether or not I have the right to determine the worth of another human being is immaterial. I'm in no position to even consider that determination.

I leave that determination to the people involved: a pregnant woman, her doctor and her family. You'll notice that none of the following is among those people: Marshall, Glenn, Neil, and Jim.

You folks live in a world of unicorns. You think you are going to stop all abortions. You think there exists a perfect world in which people only have married intercourse, where fertile people only complete the sex act when they wish to "invite" a pregnancy. Where each and every pregnancy is welcomed.

It doesn't matter how moral or immoral (based on YOUR standards) people are. People have sex. Even sex nazis aren't going to stop that. People get pregnant. Unfortunately many times this results in an unwanted pregnancy. Try as you might, you are not going to convince every one of them that they should carry that pregnancy to term. Only THEY have the right to determine what is the course THEIR lives will take. Not Neil, not Glenn, not Marshall, and not me.

If you force them to give birth, you will have unwanted children. Clearly, this doesn't concern you. Forced birthers don't care that much about human beings once they are born.

But don't despair. Think of all the artists, scientists, writers, philosophers who have contributed so much to society who were born only because their mother had the choice to voluntarily give birth to them after choosing to terminate an earlier, unwanted pregnancy.

Neil said...

Couldn't resist smashing a few softballs this morning.

"I'm not poor, or a teen. I'm not pregnant; I'm not a woman. I'm not a physician. I have no reason to have or even consider an abortion. None of this applies to me."

That same cowardly response would rationalize away inaction on infanticide, slavery and a host of other crimes. Jim and the other pro-aborts conveniently ignore the human being destroyed in abortion.

"Whether or not I have the right to determine the worth of another human being is immaterial. I'm in no position to even consider that determination."

That's the opposite of reality. He has taken the position that the lives of the unborn human beings aren't worth protecting, so the burden of proof is on him. Pretending to be noble and humble about the issue just adds to his guilt.

"I leave that determination to the people involved: a pregnant woman, her doctor and her family."

Again, that lame excuse would rationalize away infanticide and other murders.

"You folks live in a world of unicorns. You think you are going to stop all abortions."

Not at all. We know that laws can reduce abortions, and every life saved is important. But using Jim's "logic" we'd get rid of all laws. Pro-aborts don't seem to notice that even with laws against murder, rape, child abuse, etc. those crimes still happen. But we still have good reasons for laws protecting the innocent.


"You think there exists a perfect world in which people only have married intercourse, where fertile people only complete the sex act when they wish to "invite" a pregnancy. Where each and every pregnancy is welcomed."

Wrong again. We just know that some ideals are worth holding up.

"Only THEY have the right to determine what is the course THEIR lives will take."

Ugh. Pro-abort mistake #1 which they endlessly repeat: They ignore the lives of the unborn.

"If you force them to give birth, you will have unwanted children. "

Ah, the loving solution of Liberals: Kill people who others don't want. Note to society: Never let them run an orphanage!

"Clearly, this doesn't concern you. Forced birthers don't care that much about human beings once they are born."

You can protest immoral acts like abortion all day, every day without being obligated to adopt all the children. Using Liberal logic, you couldn't call the police about your neighbor's abuse of his wife and kids without being willing to marry her and raise the kids to adulthood. Sadly, these people vote.

Oh, and pro-lifers do plenty with their time and money to help the poor. We don't petition Caesar to take money from others by force to fund our "charity."

"But don't despair. Think of all the artists, scientists, writers, philosophers who have contributed so much to society who were born only because their mother had the choice to voluntarily give birth to them after choosing to terminate an earlier, unwanted pregnancy."

That is stupid on several levels. First, humans have intrinsic value. It is the sad view of Liberals where if you don't have skills they value then your life isn't worth living. Let's hope Jim isn't a school teacher!

And even using that logic, it ignores how many "successful" people have been aborted out of the 50,0000,000 plus since RvW.

One great thing about the Interwebs is that middle ground people can be exposed to the deadly, heartless fallaciousness of pro-abortion reasoning. The 90%+ radical pro-abortion extremist media hides so many of these truths, but it is fun to get to expose these frauds here.

Sorry Marshall, no more pro-life comments from me on this thread -- I promise!

Marshall Art said...

"Sorry Marshall, no more pro-life comments from me on this thread -- I promise!"

No worries, Neil. I agree with the statement you made previous to this and leftist nonsense should be countered ASAP. We would not be in today's social situation if the nonsense had not be countered loudly and regularly in the past. This tangent began when Glenn rightly pointed out the hypocrisy of leftist gun-grabbers claiming concern for the lives of children, while perpetuating violence against the unborn with willing and eager regularity.

Jim has shown that he indeed plays a role in determining the worth of other human beings (just like nazis, klansmen and jihadits) by his support for the legality of abortion; by his agreeing that access to abortion is some kind of "right" for which everyone must pay through tax dollars; by his ongoing support for the party that has made support for abortion a major plank of their platform and his approval of it. People like him are as good as holding the suction tube themselves.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Neil,

You made my day!

Jim said...

Couldn't resist smashing a few softballs this morning.

Pretty much whiffed every one of them.

other pro-aborts conveniently ignore the human being destroyed in abortion.

Why do forced birthers not mourn the destruction of "human beings" in pregnancies that are naturally terminated? Where are the death certificates? Where are the tiny coffins?

They ignore the lives of the unborn.

No more than I ignore the "lives" of the undead.

He has taken the position that the lives of the unborn human beings aren't worth protecting,

No, I'm taking the position that a pregnant woman can and should determine what happens to her body and her life.

Kill people who others don't want.

Fetuses are not people.

that lame excuse would rationalize away infanticide and other murders.

Only in your mind.

without being obligated to adopt all the children.

Who said anything about abortion?

Using Liberal logic, you couldn't call the police about your neighbor's abuse of his wife and kids without being willing to marry her and raise the kids to adulthood.

That's YOUR logic, not liberal logic.

It is the sad view of Liberals where if you don't have skills they value then your life isn't worth living.

Where do you come up with stupid s**t like that?

it ignores how many "successful" people have been aborted out of the 50,0000,000 plus since RvW.

Zero.

People like him are as good as holding the suction tube themselves.

You're a real piece of work, Marshall.

Marshall Art said...

"You're a real piece of work, Marshall."

This from a guy who thinks a human fetus is not a person. This from a guy who thinks there exists somewhere a "right" to terminate the life of one's own child that is more important than that child's right to life. This from a guy who equates the natural death of a human fetus or embryo with the willful destruction of one by abortion procedures. This from a guy who believes that people who encourage maturity, self-discipline and personal responsibility equals "forced birthers". This from a guy who thinks that those who care about the soon-to-be-born lives being snuffed by the spinelessly immoral somehow don't care about those who are born (whence comes this crap even Jim couldn't explain).

Jim, you're about as pathetic as they come, which is saying quite a lot considering the other lefties who visit here.

Jim said...

This from a guy who thinks a human fetus is not a person.

A fetus is NOT a person.

This from a guy who thinks there exists somewhere a "right" to terminate the life of one's own child

There is a right to terminate a pregnancy.

This from a guy who equates the natural death of a human fetus or embryo with the willful destruction of one by abortion procedures.

A dead fetus is a dead fetus, isn't it? If your daughter was murdered, would your loss be worse than if she died of a fatal congenital disease? Why do you mourn the spontaneous death of a fetus less than if that death is not spontaneous? If you do, are you not determining which life has less value than another?

This from a guy who believes that people who encourage maturity, self-discipline and personal responsibility equals "forced birthers".

I don't have any problem with you encouraging any of that. Encourage away! I applaud it. That said, insisting that those who fail must carry a pregnancy to term is advocating forced birth.

Marshall Art said...

Dear Jim,

Thank you so much for proving my point about you being pathetic. I've come to know that you and other lefty visitors can be counted on for such proof with pretty much every comment you post.

A human fetus is indeed a person every bit as much as any person who has progressed beyond that stage of development. It is a person still in the fetal stages of development. This is a biological fact, unless you have some info you're keeping to yourself.

A "right" to terminate a pregnancy? Oh yeah. I forgot. The pathetic takes their cues regarding what is moral from what is legal. So, up until slavery was abolished, it was moral and a right to enslave because it was legal to do so. Your understanding of what determines right and wrong is pathetically cheap, thin and expected coming from you.

"If your daughter was murdered, would your loss be worse than if she died of a fatal congenital disease?"

This goes beyond pathetic, so it's nice to see that Jim isn't satisfied with the status quo. Way to grow, Jimmy-boy. It would indeed be worse if my daughter was murdered for a variety of reasons, the most obvious being that it was totally unjust and, as in the case of abortion, the result of an act by someone who had no authority to determine whether or not my daughter should live or die.

However, that my daughter being murdered would be worse, it does not alter the level of loss felt by her death. The means of her death is irrelevant as it relates to my level of mourning. At the same time, as soon as pregnancy is apparent, what makes you think that there would be less mourning over a miscarriage? Are you suggesting that because a miscarriage within the first week should be mourned if it isn't even known? Are you suggesting that there is some inconsistency because a miscarriage within the first trimester might not generate the same level of mourning that the death of a two-year old might bring? Is that really an argument worthy of an adult?

No. It's too pathetic to insist that because one doesn't feel the same connection to an embryo as one would their born child that our concern that the unborn should not be murdered is baseless or inconsistent or without worth. I don't "mourn" the death of thousands being killed around the world every day. Is my desire that they not be dishonest or mere rhetoric?

The point isn't my connection to any single human being, born or unborn. The point is the immorality of engaging in the very act meant to invite into existence a new life and then putting to death the life that act procreated.

To fail in demonstrating restraint and self-discipline does not give one the "right" to rectify the consequences of one's immaturity by murdering the consequence. You pathetically find nine months of inconvenience worse than being put to death. That's not just pathetic. That's an asshole.

Jim said...

You pathetically find nine months of inconvenience worse than being put to death.

"Jane, you ignorant slut."

Anonymous said...

A human fetus is indeed a person ... This is a biological fact

This is an interesting statement. Can you link to some biological texts that confirm this assertion?

Neil said...

Hi Anonymous,

This link has a list of many mainstream embryology textbooks noting that a new human being is created at fertilization -- http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq . It is also common sense: What else would two human beings create?

Pro-life reasoning is simple and accurate: It is a scientific fact (and basic common sense) that a new human being is created at fertilization. It is simple moral reasoning that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is what happens during 99% of abortions.

The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.) but morally simple (you don't kill unwanted humans outside the womb for those reasons, so you shouldn't kill them inside the womb for those reasons). Their size, level of development, location and degree of dependency are not reasons to ignore their right to life.

A sample:

"Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

Anonymous said...

All well and good, Neil, and thanks for the link. I don't know of anyone who disputes that an embryo is living or that it is "human".

The assertion to which I referred is the use of the word "person" which I don't believe any of these texts clarifies.

Neil said...

per·son [pur-suhn] noun

1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.

2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

Some people try to say that the unborn are humans but not persons, so it is OK to crush and dismember the unwanted "human non-person."

But they fail on the primary definitions of the words.

And they fail because their new artificial philosophical criteria for death is completely fluid. "Ethicists" like Peter Singer as Princeton arbitrarily defines personhood at three months outside the womb. Even most pro-aborts would balk at that. Yet their very reasoning (that the unborn are small, less developed, more dependent, etc.) makes him the consistent one. Their "personhood" argument proves too much and justifies infanticide.

Everyone must draw a line somewhere. On one side is a legal, morally neutral or even morally positive procedure. On the other side is murder. We draw the line at fertilization, when the new human being is created.

Those who claim we favor "forced birth" justify partial-birth abortion at a minimum. Since part of the baby is still in the mother they rationalize that it is ok to stick a fork in the baby's head and suck her brains out. Such love and compassion.

Anonymous said...

Thanks again, Neil, but that is the dictionary definition. It doesn't demonstrate that a fetus being a person is a "biological fact." You said that it was biological fact that a fetus is a person.

Neil said...

"Thanks again, Neil, but that is the dictionary definition. It doesn't demonstrate that a fetus being a person is a "biological fact." You said that it was biological fact that a fetus is a person."

Uh, yeah, it is the dictionary definition. Not sure what definition you'd want.

And I don't think I made the original claim (I usually use the more precise "human being"), but I did demonstrate that person is a synonym. The fetus is a human fetus, i.e., a human being. Human beings are persons. They don't have to do things to prove they are persons. That is an artificial construct by pro-aborts.

Jim said...

Neil, you seem to think that all abortions occur in the third trimester, or you have a thing about describing crushed skulls, sucked out brains and dismembered limbs. This is a description of a relatively rare procedure. A legal one, but rare nonetheless. Does describing abortions in that way when they rarely occur add something to your outrage or is it supposed to make me cower in revulsion?

Their "personhood" argument proves too much and justifies infanticide.

No argument justifies nor attempts to justify infanticide. It simply doesn't apply in this issue. A fetus is not an infant.

Those who claim we favor "forced birth" justify partial-birth abortion at a minimum.

This is a non sequitur.

Since part of the baby is still in the mother they rationalize that it is ok to stick a fork in the baby's head and suck her brains out.

There you go with the late term abortion again. What's up with that?

Such love and compassion.

Is this procedure more heinous than a first trimester procedure?

Marshall Art said...

It is more heinous as it shows the lack of moral thinking that a child so close to that important to abortionist dividing line of birth is still OK to kill. It's more heinous in demonstrating that the size of the unborn is not really the issue and that this crap about "personhood" is really just crap.

Here's more crap:

"No argument justifies nor attempts to justify infanticide. It simply doesn't apply in this issue. A fetus is not an infant."

You continue to parse words in order to justify what is plain to honest and moral people: that the unborn are people regardless of what label you apply to the stage of development through which the victim might be passing.

Neil's use of descriptive phrases, such as "crushed skulls" serves to remind the abortion lovers what is going on---the brutal destruction of a human being. There is no concern for the victim in any abortion regardless of the stage at which it occurs.

Jim said...

You guys still think late term abortions are a form of birth control. They are not. They are medical procedures used very RARELY, most often in cases where the health of the mother is of grave concern.

the unborn are people

No, "the unborn" (still sounds like a zombie movie to me) are not people.

serves to remind the abortion lovers what is going on

Most pro-choice folks know precisely what is going on, and they know that the vast majority of abortions are not late term abortions.

They also do not love abortions. If they did, they would be having sex to create pregnancies that they could abort over and over again. The REAL lovers would wait until the ninth month to abort.

There is no concern for the victim in any abortion regardless of the stage at which it occurs.

Nor is their any concern on your "side" for the rights of the mother. Or concern for rape or incest, I imagine.

Neil said...

Marshall, as I've often said, Job has the patience of you. I really don't know how you tolerate people who aren't embarrassed to pretend they don't know the meaning of such simple words.

It is symptomatic of the Left to ignore or deceptively redefine words to advance their murderous agenda.

syn·o·nym [sin-uh-nim] noun
1. a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as happy, joyful, elated. A dictionary of synonyms and antonyms (or opposites), such as Thesaurus.com, is called a thesaurus.

peo·ple [pee-puhl] plural peo·ples for 4, verb, peo·pled, peo·pling.

1. persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general: to find it easy to talk to people; What will people think?
2. persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: Twenty people volunteered to help.
3. human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.

be·ing [bee-ing] noun
1. the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).

Neil said...

All abortions are wrong, even those for rape and incest. There is a great Facebook meme showing two humans in the womb. It asks which one was conceived by rape and should not have her life protected. (of course the pro-aborts would kill her for any reason).

Incest is usually a form of rape. Those abortions aren't 30-something siblings killing their offspring.

Are we talking about capital punishment for the rapist, or the innocent child? Oddly, the pro-aborts are usually against capital punishment for the rapist. They obviously hate women.

Can you kill the child of the rapist outside the womb? Of course not. So her size, development, etc. shouldn't make her fair game for destruction in the womb.

An abortion doesn’t undo the trauma, it compounds it.

Abortions hide the crimes of rape and incest. Planned Parenthood systematically hides rapists and sex traffickers and kills their innocent children. And they are supported 100% by the Left.

Neil said...

All abortions, except to save the life of the mother, are evil and wrong, for they take innocent life without proper justification.

They are the culmination of a host of sins: lust, greed, hate, anger, pride, etc.

They take the life of innocent human beings. That is the opposite of loving your neighbor.

They kill an image-bearer of God, which is one of the reasons Liberals like them so much. It is one of their favorite ways to say, "In your face, God!"

They try to usurp God’s sovereignty over life and death.

A human fetus is a human being. A human toddler is a human being. Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human teen ==> etc.

All are human beings at a particular stage of development. All have inherent worth as humans. All have a right to life. Abortion violates that right.

Neil said...

"One doesn't need a gun to commit mass murder. Ask Mohamed Atta. Ask Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. Ask Andrew Kehoe. Those that intend to commit atrocities will find a way. "

At the risk of getting back on topic, that is a key point. The profile on the Newtown shooter shows that the restrictions being proposed would have done nothing to help. The Left is just exploiting the tragedy to take guns from law-abiding citizens and leave them in the hands of criminals.

Anonymous said...

to take guns from law-abiding citizens and leave them in the hands of criminals.

Can you link to any actual law or proposal that would actually take guns away from law-abiding citizens?

Neil said...

If you are so poorly read that you don't realize they are proposing limits on gun types, rounds, etc., then I can't help you.

Oh, and here is more fun coming: Searches for guns -- http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/19/wa-gun-bill-includes-police-searches-without-warrants/

Anonymous said...

they are proposing limits on gun types, rounds, etc.

Yes, of course. Everyone knows this. Sorry to take you literally, but you said "take".

As to Hot Air, lots of bills have many versions written before they are finalized, and people make all kinds of crazy proposals, like making it a felony to propose a law.

Marshall Art said...

Neil,

Don't worry about little Parkie. He's like a herpes infecting my blog. He likes to believe he's clever and he likes to think he's made some point while never really demonstrating either. As you could plainly see, he couldn't grasp the simple connection between "people", "person" and the various stages of human development. Then, the poor turd will demand honesty, as if he has yet to provide any himself. This is a clinical idiot, possibly actually retarded, certainly least intelligent 12yr old one could find, who has yet to prove hatred or bigotry on my part, and then insists he's provided it many times, never offering one link to any such incident. Just ignore him. I'll get around to deleting his pathetic comments when I feel like it. As he provides nothing to any substantive conversation, it should be very easy to pretend he doesn't exist. I still hope for the day when he musters the courage to actually present substance, but such hoping is futile. He's incapable.

Marshall Art said...

As most people know, automatic weapons have been prohibited. This law has been on the books for some time. The proposal to bring back the so-called "assault weapons" ban would take more weapons away from law-abiding citizens. There is a strange leftist notion that because only some guns are prohibited while others are not, it cannot be said that anyone has taken away guns. If I feel that I am best served by owning an automatic weapon, yet the law prohibits my possessing one, then that weapons has been taken from me as an option for ownership. Any of the types of guns ignorant politicians wish to place under the heading of "assault weapon" is also denied me or anyone who find any of these weapons ideal for their self-defense purposes.

It is not within the rights of anyone to determine what is most suitable for another for self-defense. If one wishes to own and AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and a pistol grip, it does not matter what others think of the purchase as regards the perceived need for that particular weapon.

One might wonder why anyone would need such a weapon, or why anyone would need an Uzi or Thompson Sub-machine Gun. One is free to wonder all one wants, but one is not free to determine the needs of another as far as what another chooses for self-defense.

Indeed, I don't even have to have a reason why I would choose a particular weapon over any other. My reason for owning whatever weapon I want is no one's business. The only aspect of it that is the business of others is the manner in which I possess it. If I do so responsibly, what is there to fear? If I have never given cause for concern, why would there be any concern simply because of the type of weapon I've chosen to satisfy my self-defense needs?

People want to talk about "reasonable" restrictions. There is no such thing as regards weapons owned by law-abiding citizens of good character, and that is how everyone must be perceived until an individual has proven himself unworthy of such perception.

Jim said...

District of Columbia v. Heller

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

I'm sure you have a point in linking to that Wiki piece, but it isn't apparent by merely providing said link. I already have Parkie throwing crap out there with no explanation for its relevance. I don't need you doing it as well. If you have something to say, say it and use your link for support.

Parklife said...

"no explanation"

lol.. and I still dont understand why you hate certain groups of people.

Parklife said...

"AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and a pistol grip"

:)
If you really wanted to be honest about gun control, then we should go back to what the "founding fathers" had in mind when they were thinking about guns. Therefore only muskets and dueling pistols should be allowed to be manufactured and sold.

Craig said...

Marshall,

Just a small correction. Currently in the US machine guns are in fact legal to own. There are more restrictions on them, but they are legal none the less.

I do agree with your point regarding choice. We in the US past the point of need long ago. We don't need a house that is more than 1000sf, we don't need more than about 50hp in order to get from point a to point b, we don't need organic chicken. We don't necessarily need an AR. But that's not the point. If someone decides that an AR is the proper choice for hunting, why should he/she be prohibited for exercising that choice. There are some roles (hunting, target shooting) that an AR excels in there are others (home defense) where it might not be the best choice. But who am I to prevent a law abiding mentally stable person from choosing an AR for home defense.

Good luck, you need it.

Jim said...

DC v. Heller (Scalia for the majority, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito):

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

I've seen this before. What I haven't seen is Scalia's support for this opinion. He seems to going completely on precedent, but upon what was that precedent founded originally? He is an originalist, but I am unaware of anything from the founders that would support

"It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

Says who other than the opinion of other justices? To insist we have an inalienable right to defend ourselves and then turn around and presume to dictate how we can do that doesn't make any sense. I know for you own sake you are content to lazily default to SCOTUS opinion as if it is God's Word written in stone, but I doubt that in this case it truly matches what the founders had in mind.

As to the last line, what is in common use is what is used by the military. If they are bearing automatic weapons, then we are to have that same weapon for ourselves. Also, what constitutes an "unusual weapon" is a rather subjective measure upon which agreement would be difficult.

Marshall Art said...

Troll-boy,

I'm not going to delete your last two comments. Instead, I'm going to let them stand as testament to the pathetic nature of your character, that you again put forth opinions without basis or evidence. The first, a routine shot against me, still lacks any evidence whatsoever. You are obliged to provide some. Good luck as none exists.

AS to the second, there is nothing in any written testimony by the founders that I've seen regarding the type of arms one is entitled to bear. Perhaps you have some link to something that states the founders thought only of the weapons of the time as if they had reached the limit of firearms technology. I would love to see your evidence for this. feodor, on who's ass you are but a bleeding sore, has tried to run this line before. He came up empty. Try your luck if you have the courage.

Indeed, it is absolutely buffoonish to suggest that the founders were even considering the types of weapons available rather than simply that any law-abiding individual had the right to carry something with which to defend himself. It is equally idiotic to suppose that the limitations of the musket and flintlock pistol were lost on them. They were men of vision and to think they did not find it a problem that re-loading could mean death is to demonstrate your own stupidity.

More importantly, innovations in firearms technology were ongoing since the first was invented. I now offer the following:
--------------------------------------

Puckle Gun - 1718
In 1718, James Puckle of London, England, demonstrated his new invention, the "Puckle Gun," a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock gun fitted with a multishot revolving cylinder. This weapon fired nine shots per minute at a time when the standard soldier's musket could be loaded and fired but three times per minute. Puckle demonstrated two versions of the basic design. One weapon, intended for use against Christian enemies, fired conventional round bullets, while the second variant, designed to be used against the Muslim Turks, fired square bullets, which were believed to cause more severe and painful wounds than spherical projectiles. The "Puckle Gun" failed to attract investors and never achieved mass production or sales to the British armed forces. One newspaper of the period observed following the business venture's failure that "those are only wounded who hold shares therein."

According to the Patent Office of the United Kingdom, "In the reign of Queen Anne, the law officers of the Crown established as a condition of patent that the inventor must in writing describe the invention and the manner in which it works." James Puckle's 1718 patent for a gun was one of the first to provide a description.

Despite the failure of this particular invention, it demonstrates that progress in firearms technology was ongoing and only a Parklife would presume to suggest that the founders could not think beyond their own time.

Parklife said...

"the founders could not think beyond their own time."

Well.. then.. they should have written it down. Did they run out of ink?

We cant know what they were thinking unless they actually tell us in some way.

Parklife said...

"I'm not going to delete your last two comments"

lol... omg...

MARSHA... NOBODY CARES!!!!

Jim said...

He seems to going completely on precedent, but upon what was that precedent founded originally?

He's going "completely" on precedent because he believes it is settled law and does not need to be re-argued. Scalia has shown no reticence to overturn precedent in the past, and in fact has suggested that courts should not be biased against overruling a "wrongly decided" prior decision such as Dred Scott or Roe.

So again, Scalia is not accepting precedent because it IS precedent, but because he believes it is correct.

Says who other than the opinion of other justices?

It may come as a surprise to you, but this is the way our system works. Article III Section 1 of the US Constitution says that "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court..." and Section 2 says that "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..."

In other words, "the opinion of other justices" is the law of the land ACCORDING TO the Constitution.
THAT "matches what the founders had in mind."

"what is in common use is what is used by the military."

That's simply absurd. M240, 50 cal machine guns, flame throwers, grenades, howitzers? These are "in common use?

If they are bearing automatic weapons, then we are to have that same weapon for ourselves.

Based on what?

Also, what constitutes an "unusual weapon" is a rather subjective measure upon which agreement would be difficult.

Not really. Actually, not at all.

Marshall Art said...

"We cant know what they were thinking unless they actually tell us in some way."

Two things here, little Benny-boy:

1. What they did write down tells us their concern in crafting the 2nd Amendment was of defense against our own gov't should it turn against us. If the types of weapons that might be employed in such an endeavor were in any way part of the point, there would have been something to suggest it. There isn't

2. If you're going to make stupid suggestions about what the founders were thinking, you need to provide some evidence to support it, or simply don't post. The latter is best since you're talking out your ass anyway. It's the same with your baseless accusations regarding hatred and/or bigotry on my part. You have no evidence and you've never offered any.

"NOBODY CARES!!!!"

I know you care. No need to so emphatically state the obvious. I simply don't see the relevance to this post in saying so. But a nobody like you should at least try to provide some substance once in a while.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

The point in bringing up precedent was to compel you to explain the source of the precedent. If the law is settled due to a precedent, on what is that precedent based? There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests limitations on the ability of the citizen to possess whatever weapon he feels is best suited to his understanding of self-defense. In other words, the point isn't what the law says, but what it should say based upon the intentions of the founders in crafting the 2nd. At that time, private citizens possessed their own canons and owned their own gunships or merchant ships outfitted with artillery.

If Scalia believes the "settled law" is correct, upon what is that belief based?

"In other words, "the opinion of other justices" is the law of the land ACCORDING TO the Constitution.
THAT "matches what the founders had in mind."


The opinions are to be based upon the Constitution. It is THAT which the founders had in mind.

You seem to have a poor understanding of what would constitute "common use". Soldiers do not commonly use all weapons at their disposal. If common use is the criteria, then the weapon each is issued is the weapon of common use.


If they are bearing automatic weapons, then we are to have that same weapon for ourselves.

Based on what?


Based on the logical conclusion that an amendment crafted to protect the right of the citizenry to defend itself against a tyrannical government would have to be in possession of weapons that would provide the ability to actually succeed in defending itself. The amendment is pointless as Parkie if there is no possibility of successful defense. Being restricted to basic arms, as well as being restricted by the very entity against which the citizenry has the right to defend itself, is illogical.

Jim said...

an amendment crafted to protect the right of the citizenry to defend itself against a tyrannical government

I think "crafted" is a stretch. If the purpose of the Second Amendment was to justify insurrection, why include anything about a well regulated militia? Although protection against tyranny was voiced when the Bill of Rights was being created, that was hardly the predominant position. The larger issue was providing national defense without a standing army.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Do you see no difference between "insurrection" and "defending against tyranny"? The 2nd was meant for the latter. It has no relation to the former. In addition, I don't know where you got your notion regarding the "larger issue". Did I not provide enough quotes from the founding that proves the point? The notion of an armed populace as deterrence against gov't tyranny was not originated by the founders, as it went back several centuries in English law. And as they were indeed freeing themselves from tyranny as they saw it, the 2nd acknowledged that right to bear arms for that purpose, as well as defense of one's self and property. An unarmed populace can more easily have their rights taken by an armed gov't. Rights are worthless without a means to defend them.

Parklife said...

In Florida a man was just shot by his DOG!!! Yet, marsha still doesnt think guns are a problem.

Marshall Art said...

I'm sure Parkie has an explanation for how this "dog shoots man" story supports the premise that guns are a problem. Of course, he'll have to demonstrate how a dog could intend to shoot anyone, how a dog could actually operate a firearm in the first place and maybe even explain how a dog would know what a gun was. Or, he could explain how an accidental discharge of a firearm shows that the firearm is the problem.

But Parkie will likely just say something else that's really stupid, because that's what he does.

Marshall Art said...

One other possibility: His reference to this story could simply be another lame attempt at humor.

Parklife said...

"But Parkie will likely just say something else that's really stupid"

You mean... you will be confused by logic.. once again.

Jim said...

I'm sure Parkie has an explanation for how this "dog shoots man" story supports the premise that guns are a problem. Of course, he'll have to demonstrate how a dog could intend to shoot anyone, how a dog could actually operate a firearm in the first place and maybe even explain how a dog would know what a gun was. Or, he could explain how an accidental discharge of a firearm shows that the firearm is the problem.

So I guess what you are saying is that dogs don't shoot people. Guns shoot people?

Marshall Art said...

And Parkie comes through! Another completely stupid comment. Somewhere, Parkie's comment was supposed to contain some element of logic. Predictably, he is unable to point it out for anyone else.

And Jim...really? That's the best you can do?

Jim said...

Considering what we have to work with here, I think it's the best anybody could do.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"Considering what we have to work with here, I think it's the best anybody could do."

What you've had to work with here is sound reasoning supported by facts, so I guess your comment is spot on. Stupid comments like "...dogs don't shoot people. Guns shoot people?" IS likely the best you can do.

Parklife said...

"Stupid comments like.."

lol... marshas fall back when he doesnt understand something.

Marshall Art said...

What's not to understand, Benny? Did the dog actually shoot the guy? No, unless you're an idiot who thinks that such a thing is possible. By that reasoning, then any object in hand (or at hand) when an accident occurs is a problem. Cars, for example are involved in many accidents. So, by your reasoning, we have a car problem, just as we supposedly have a gun problem because some guy got shot when his dog inadvertently bumped his weapon in a manner that led to a discharge.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for you to explain how this "dog shoots man" story supports the premise that guns are a problem. Note how I have again requested clarification for that stupid statement.

Parklife said...

Marsha.. your stupidity is noted. Seems it was a problem for the guy.. you know.. being that he was SHOT with a GUN!

Idiot.

btw.. cars are more regulated than guns.. if you want to go there.

ps.. we are so close to 100 comments!

Marshall Art said...

Parkie,

You're too stupid to recognize stupidity, especially your own. The gun was not the problem at all. The problem was his own choice of leaving the gun on the seat where the dog could inadvertently knock it to the floor. The gun had no choice in it's position, it's trip to the floor, or the discharge of it's bullet. The gun was not a problem.

BTW, I do want to go there. Cars are not more regulated than guns. See the next post, you idiot.