Re: Champ967's proposed Constitutional amendment
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnnylightnin
No. You introduced sanctuary cities into a conversation that had NOTHING to do with them. I'm pointing out that comparing the two does an extreme disservice to the seriousness of abortion. You, apparently, have no interest in defending your decision to pair the two.
I think I was defending gun rights and making the point that restricting guns is not equal to restricting abortion. Guns don't cause murder any more than saline solution caused abortions. Murder is already illegal...by any means performed. I don't see what would be so great about a deal where we give up constitutional rights to make something illegal that will not stop even though it is made illegal. Making them illegal will not make them stop happening anyway, and they will be less safe for the mother (but equally deadly for the baby).
Guns have nothing to do with abortion or sanctuary cities. A gun is a thing, a sanctuary city is a thing created by a law, and an abortion is an act. That was my point.
Re: Champ967's proposed Constitutional amendment
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DawgyNWindow
I think I was defending gun rights and making the point that restricting guns is not equal to restricting abortion...That was my point.
Gun deaths and abortion BOTH make any "sanctuary city" deaths statistically insignificant.
Re: Champ967's proposed Constitutional amendment
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DawgyNWindow
I think I was defending gun rights and making the point that restricting guns is not equal to restricting abortion. Guns don't cause murder any more than saline solution caused abortions. Murder is already illegal...by any means performed. I don't see what would be so great about a deal where we give up constitutional rights to make something illegal that will not stop even though it is made illegal. Making them illegal will not make them stop happening anyway, and they will be less safe for the mother (but equally deadly for the baby).
Guns have nothing to do with abortion or sanctuary cities. A gun is a thing, a sanctuary city is a thing created by a law, and an abortion is an act. That was my point.
Possessing a gun is an act. A fetus is a thing. Abortion is an act. A gun is a thing.
Why does it matter in this discussion what is a “thing” and what is an “act”.
Re: Champ967's proposed Constitutional amendment
Quote:
Originally Posted by
johnnylightnin
No. You introduced sanctuary cities into a conversation that had NOTHING to do with them. I'm pointing out that comparing the two does an extreme disservice to the seriousness of abortion. You, apparently, have no interest in defending your decision to pair the two.
That is correct when trying to compare abortion to the 2nd Amendment. Absolute asinine comparison, unrelated to each other.
A MUCH better scenario would be:
Would you agree to ban capital punishment if abortion were also banned? Or vice versa. At least those two actually compare the legalized taking of human life.
Re: Champ967's proposed Constitutional amendment
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2180
How many people die from a single shot 4-10 or Remington 870? It’s always semi-automatic weapons according to the news.
That’s kinda what I’m thinking. No reason to regulate anything like that. Also, I can bow hunt if they try to get into my hunting equipment.
Re: Champ967's proposed Constitutional amendment
I might negotiate for states rights (by vote) determining all of the above and more. And then I would never travel to those states, nor send or spend money in those, that view life and certain actions, benefits and privileges the way I do. In fact, prior to these "votes by state" all states must build complete walls around them with checkpoints to keep others out. :D
