fortunately, wrt conservatives, or non-left citizens, there is no “they,” it’s important to stay that way.
this country would be EVEN worse if there were 2 POLITICALLY ORGANIZED BEASTS ..
altho “not pretty” the UNorganized majority is what stands between the young republic experiment versus authoritarian rule, regardless of what noisy media/propagandists noisily claim.
the last thing citizens should long for is: the o-so-efficient political one-voice.
the uniparty is already ‘way too strong.
Moses wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2024 9:35 pm
It is intriguing to me how that as it relates to abortion, a certain set of people advocates an approach of relying mostly on social engineering and changed hearts while allowing the violence to remain legal, whereas a different set of people advocates making the violence illegal in addition to changing hearts and minds.
By contrast, many in that first set seem to believe that the best approach to addressing gun violence is extensive legal prohibitions not only against the violence itself but also on so much as owning a tool that could be used to commit violence. And then many in the second set are loud in reminding us that gun violence is a matter of hearts and minds, not legal regulation (although they don't typically suggest that legal prohibitions against gun violence ought to be removed.)
To extend your analogy, those of us who are against abortion and think it should be illegal don't think that forceps, bags of saline, hypodermic needles, vaccuum aspirators, OB/GYN clinics, and so on should be restricted or made illegal.
Whereas those who claim to be "opposed gun violence" seem to think that barrels of steel, a half-machined block of metal, a keyring attached to a piece of string, a spring, 3-D printers, a box of filament, and sporting-goods stores need to be restricted or made illegal.
A reasonable interpretation is that acquiring the tools necessary to kill someone (a knife, a sharp implement, a club, a sledgehammer, a gun, etc.) is easy but the act of using it to kill someone is quite wrong. Likewise, it's not hard to make an abortion happen, but doing so is also quite wrong. I would like to see far fewer deaths from people shooting guns at each other and also far fewer deaths from abortions.
Your analogy fails when it comes to medical abortions.
The pro-life movement explicitly wants to prohibit the sale and possession of Mifepristone and Misoprostol. Which is an exact parallel to an assault weapons ban that prohibits the sale and possession of assault weapons (however they are defined).
A more accurate parallel to the existing state of gun laws would be to say that you are free to buy, sell, and own as much Mifepristone and Misoprostol as you want. Without the government intervening or tracking who has it. Everyone can have a supply in their medicine cabinet. But you just aren't allowed to use it for its intended purpose. In other words, Mifepristone and Misoprostol don't cause abortions. People cause abortions.
I guess I wasn't aware that 99% of the use of Mifepristone and Misoprostol was for recreational use rather than to end the life of the unborn.
I would certainly hope that if gun manufacturers were to start promoting the use of AR-15s to slaughter innocent people, and if even 1% of the AR-15s sold were intentionally used for that purpose, that they would be shut down fast.
To extend your analogy, those of us who are against abortion and think it should be illegal don't think that forceps, bags of saline, hypodermic needles, vaccuum aspirators, OB/GYN clinics, and so on should be restricted or made illegal.
Whereas those who claim to be "opposed gun violence" seem to think that barrels of steel, a half-machined block of metal, a keyring attached to a piece of string, a spring, 3-D printers, a box of filament, and sporting-goods stores need to be restricted or made illegal.
A reasonable interpretation is that acquiring the tools necessary to kill someone (a knife, a sharp implement, a club, a sledgehammer, a gun, etc.) is easy but the act of using it to kill someone is quite wrong. Likewise, it's not hard to make an abortion happen, but doing so is also quite wrong. I would like to see far fewer deaths from people shooting guns at each other and also far fewer deaths from abortions.
Your analogy fails when it comes to medical abortions.
The pro-life movement explicitly wants to prohibit the sale and possession of Mifepristone and Misoprostol. Which is an exact parallel to an assault weapons ban that prohibits the sale and possession of assault weapons (however they are defined).
A more accurate parallel to the existing state of gun laws would be to say that you are free to buy, sell, and own as much Mifepristone and Misoprostol as you want. Without the government intervening or tracking who has it. Everyone can have a supply in their medicine cabinet. But you just aren't allowed to use it for its intended purpose. In other words, Mifepristone and Misoprostol don't cause abortions. People cause abortions.
I guess I wasn't aware that 99% of the use of Mifepristone and Misoprostol was for recreational use rather than to end the life of the unborn.
I would certainly hope that if gun manufacturers were to start promoting the use of AR-15s to slaughter innocent people, and if even 1% of the AR-15s sold were intentionally used for that purpose, that they would be shut down fast.
AR-15s are specifically designed to kill people. That is their intended purpose. Sure there are people who use them hunting. But if you need a 30 round magazine to kill a deer you are doing something extremely wrong. A traditional bolt-action rifle makes a better hunting tool and doesn't make you look like an idiotic Rambo wannabe. And some are being stockpiled for ideological reasons in anticipation of some future political insurrection, which again, would involve killing people.
In any event, the vast majority of guns sold in this country are just sitting in closets or gun safes and not used recreationally. Not unlike the medicines one keeps in a medicine cabinet.
Look, I didn't make the analogy between guns and abortion. Josh did. I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't hold up like he thinks it does. An ideologically consistent approach would be to let people acquire whatever whatever items or tools that they want in both instances. And only regulate their use not their manufacture, distribution, and possession.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Moses wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 2:14 pm I guess I wasn't aware that 99% of the use of Mifepristone and Misoprostol was for recreational use rather than to end the life of the unborn.
I would certainly hope that if gun manufacturers were to start promoting the use of AR-15s to slaughter innocent people, and if even 1% of the AR-15s sold were intentionally used for that purpose, that they would be shut down fast.
thanks for addressing some of the absurdities here.
the vast numbers of intentional abortions are part of it. i pray future history students read about this period in utter disbelief.
at least as much as my horror reading about Aztec human sacrifice. also, the 2nd Amendment, and protections for religious beliefs.
desperation breeds absurdities.
violence is violence, murder is murder. desperation is desperation.
Your analogy fails when it comes to medical abortions.
The pro-life movement explicitly wants to prohibit the sale and possession of Mifepristone and Misoprostol. Which is an exact parallel to an assault weapons ban that prohibits the sale and possession of assault weapons (however they are defined).
A more accurate parallel to the existing state of gun laws would be to say that you are free to buy, sell, and own as much Mifepristone and Misoprostol as you want. Without the government intervening or tracking who has it. Everyone can have a supply in their medicine cabinet. But you just aren't allowed to use it for its intended purpose. In other words, Mifepristone and Misoprostol don't cause abortions. People cause abortions.
I guess I wasn't aware that 99% of the use of Mifepristone and Misoprostol was for recreational use rather than to end the life of the unborn.
I would certainly hope that if gun manufacturers were to start promoting the use of AR-15s to slaughter innocent people, and if even 1% of the AR-15s sold were intentionally used for that purpose, that they would be shut down fast.
AR-15s are specifically designed to kill people. That is their intended purpose. Sure there are people who use them hunting. But if you need a 30 round magazine to kill a deer you are doing something extremely wrong. A traditional bolt-action rifle makes a better hunting tool and doesn't make you look like an idiotic Rambo wannabe. And some are being stockpiled for ideological reasons in anticipation of some future political insurrection, which again, would involve killing people.
In any event, the vast majority of guns sold in this country are just sitting in closets or gun safes and not used recreationally. Not unlike the medicines one keeps in a medicine cabinet.
Look, I didn't make the analogy between guns and abortion. Josh did. I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't hold up like he thinks it does. An ideologically consistent approach would be to let people acquire whatever whatever items or tools that they want in both instances. And only regulate their use not their manufacture, distribution, and possession.
I believe that the percentage of AR15 rounds fired each year that kills a person is significantly less than one ten-thousandth of a percent. I doubt there would be a lot of energy toward banning Mifepristone and Misoprostol if less than one ten-thousandth of doses taken caused an abortion.
Maybe you didn't make the analogy, but you told me that what I said failed and you went on to make a new "accurate" parallel that isn't at all accurate, and I'm explaining why it's not accurate.
If AR-15s are designed solely to kill people, then by far the vast majority of users are using them for purposes other than that for which they are designed.
As to whether a bolt-action rifle is a better hunting tool - it really depends on what you are hunting. For some types of hunting a semi-auto is better.
At any rate, as far as I'm concerned I don't think there is a need for AR-15s or for abortion drugs to be available for sale in the US.
A bolt action hunting rifle is, unfortunately, also a tool very capable of killing human beings with precision from a long range away. Better than an AR-15, actually, which is much more of a personal defensive weapon.
Every form of intentional abortion has close to 100% kill rate.
It might be in excess of 100%, if multiples, twins-triplets, are counted, and loss of mothers’ lives are included.
No weapon, no military compares. (Auschwitz? Not as efficient.) Pathogens?
i’m not aware of anything in history to compare.
Moses wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 2:14 pm
I guess I wasn't aware that 99% of the use of Mifepristone and Misoprostol was for recreational use rather than to end the life of the unborn.
I would certainly hope that if gun manufacturers were to start promoting the use of AR-15s to slaughter innocent people, and if even 1% of the AR-15s sold were intentionally used for that purpose, that they would be shut down fast.
AR-15s are specifically designed to kill people. That is their intended purpose. Sure there are people who use them hunting. But if you need a 30 round magazine to kill a deer you are doing something extremely wrong. A traditional bolt-action rifle makes a better hunting tool and doesn't make you look like an idiotic Rambo wannabe. And some are being stockpiled for ideological reasons in anticipation of some future political insurrection, which again, would involve killing people.
In any event, the vast majority of guns sold in this country are just sitting in closets or gun safes and not used recreationally. Not unlike the medicines one keeps in a medicine cabinet.
Look, I didn't make the analogy between guns and abortion. Josh did. I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't hold up like he thinks it does. An ideologically consistent approach would be to let people acquire whatever whatever items or tools that they want in both instances. And only regulate their use not their manufacture, distribution, and possession.
I believe that the percentage of AR15 rounds fired each year that kills a person is significantly less than one ten-thousandth of a percent. I doubt there would be a lot of energy toward banning Mifepristone and Misoprostol if less than one ten-thousandth of doses taken caused an abortion.
Maybe you didn't make the analogy, but you told me that what I said failed and you went on to make a new "accurate" parallel that isn't at all accurate, and I'm explaining why it's not accurate.
If AR-15s are designed solely to kill people, then by far the vast majority of users are using them for purposes other than that for which they are designed.
As to whether a bolt-action rifle is a better hunting tool - it really depends on what you are hunting. For some types of hunting a semi-auto is better.
At any rate, as far as I'm concerned I don't think there is a need for AR-15s or for abortion drugs to be available for sale in the US.
The analogy was that when it comes to guns, we don't regulate the guns themselves, we regulate what you can do with them.
But when it comes to Mifepristone the pro-life movement very much wants to regulate the buying and selling of these medications, the possession of them, the shipping of them across state borders, and so forth.
Is the parallel an exact one? No, of course not. Parallels never are. But it is telling that the same people who say we don't need gun regulations because "guns don't kill people, people kill people." are also quick to take the opposite approach when it comes to Mifepristone.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
