For the GOP, it’s not about being “Pro-Life,” it’s about a Thirst for Control over Women

scott-walker-pat-mccroryLately, we’ve seen a number of sweeping anti-abortion bills passed by North Carolina, Wisconsin, Ohio, Louisiana and other states in the radical right’s all-out assault on Roe v. Wade. I’m ashamed to admit this, but my state Senator Fred Mills and members of my own family either lobbied for it or voted for it here in Louisiana.

Let’s be absolutely clear — they will not be satisfied until there is an absolute ban on abortion nationwide, without exception — taking us back over 40 years to the world of back alley illegal abortions. More than that, many want to go back to a time when a woman had zero control over her reproductive choices other than to say “Oh sorry, I have a headache.” Yes, that means restricting access to the very thing that has slowly chipped away at the abortion rate for years — birth control.

I don’t like abortion. I don’t think anyone does. I’m pretty sure that no woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy looks forward to taking a couple of days off from work to make a trip to the clinic and then recover from the procedure. It is a hard and gut-wrenching decision that isn’t taken lightly by most women, or their partners. And yet, it is sadly necessary on a regular basis.

Few cases are more obvious than the 11 year old girl in Chile who was raped by her mother’s boyfriend and is now pregnant. I’m pretty sure she didn’t “make a bad decision” and she probably didn’t “ask for it” but as the law of the land currently stands, she will be forced to carry her rapist’s child to term, or possibly die in the process. If you think her situation is outrageous and draconian, it’s the very same restrictive theocratic rule that people like Rick Perry, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker and other members of the radical right want our wives and daughters to live under.

This isn’t a sensationalized news story or something made up to fill a slow news day on the corporate news channels. The sickening reality is it’s exactly what we have to look forward to as the GOP takes an ax to Roe v. Wade across the nation in the name of being “pro-life” — even as they try to block access to healthcare for the poor, pack the prisons with non-violent criminals and sign death sentences at record levels.

Let’s face it — these people are not “pro-life,” they’re pro-control over women and their bodies. If they were indeed pro-life, they’d do everything in their power to make sure that unwanted pregnancies didn’t happen in the first place, and if a child was born into poverty, it would have access to healthcare and an education. But that isn’t the case at all. It never was.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Charles Vincent

    Like the democrats are thirsty four gun control.

    • jonjstrine42

      You mean, like around 90% of the country, as pertains to universal background checks? I know! How dare the Democratic Party push for something that is supported by 90% of the populace? What do they think they’re doing? Serving the public interest? Bah!

      • Charles Vincent

        In order for universal background checks to work they need gun registration. Gun registration is prohibited by federal law. That 90% number is bogus stop using it its been debunked.

      • Blake

        Oh yes there going to take away your guns and god forbid you would have to register your gun. Gee maybe after your gun is stolen you might think that the register was a good idea. As for background checks you gun lobbyist people are so against, what about it being legal gun owners does it hurt except to keep the easy access of guns out of the hands of those that shouldn’t have them. As for your statement of the democrats being thirsty four gun control it’s for not sour unless that’s the actual number that gets their way on gun issues even when the populaces want gun control.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Gee maybe after your gun is stolen you might think that the register was a good idea.”
        If your firearm is stolen the first thing you do is report it to the police and give them the serial number off the weapons that were stolen. This is just common sense and doesn’t require a registry which is illegal under federal law.

        “As for background checks you gun lobbyist people are so against, what about it being legal gun owners does it hurt except to keep the easy access of guns out of the hands of those that shouldn’t have them.”

        Point one we have had federally mandated background checks in the US since the Brady bill was passed in 1993.
        Point two criminals steal them they don’t buy them and if they did buy them it was from another criminal that either stole them or got them from someone that had.

        Point three in this day and age where criminals can use computers to steal anything about you it isn’t hard to believe that they could steal the information out of this registry you seem to want and use it to steal firearms from people.

      • Jessica Neubauer

        You sir have ZERO knowledge of gun laws. As it stands now in 22 states gun owners don’t have to report stolen guns. Gun dealers don’t have to report stolen guns and when ATF agents show up because a gun used in a crime is traced back to a LICENSED dealer, they can only then find out that the gun was stolen and the dealer cannot be charged when he “cannot locate inventory.” Of all the guns reported stolen in one year 85% “cannot be located in inventory.” Plus the NRA has successfully lobbied for laws which make it illegal to charge gun owners who fail to report stolen weapons. This means anyone can sell to a criminal and if the cops come back and ask, he just says “it was stolen.” Pennsylvania tried to pass a law requiring gunowners to report stolen guns; the NRA is funding anyone who wants to sue against it. Why? Your freedom? NO. Because if you sell a gun, you buy another one and that’s all the NRA cares about; selling more guns. Your ignorance is embarrassing and dangerous.

      • Charles Vincent

        Firstly you need to reread my post I never asserted that it was against the law or not to report a firearm stolen. I did how ever say that common sense dictates that the first thing should be to report the firearm stolen and I said that when the owner of the firearm reports it stolen he should provide the firearms serial number to the police from his own personal records. As to the rest of your post its in the same category as it is based on something I never claimed.

      • Jon Savage

        well chuck – u r the idiot here conflicting against well written posts— looking like a 5 yo that had his toys taken

      • Charles Vincent

        You apparently didn’t read any of my posts I never said it was against the law to not report a gun stolen. But here is what I said let me break it down for you.

        If your firearm is stolen the first thing you do is report it to the police and give them the serial number off the weapons that were stolen.

        This is just common sense and (doesn’t require a registry which is illegal under federal law.)
        What is against federal law is a gun registry, check your reading comprehension skills again pay close attention to what in the parenthesis.

      • Jon Savage

        trust us Chuck – We ALL read ur rantings – btw your elemetary school called they want either your ass back for basic schooling in english or their diploma back

      • Charles Vincent

        Ad hominem attacks mean you lose because you won’t admit being wrong so you resort to name calling like a child does when they don’t get their way. And I never trust anyone that tells me to trust them.

      • jonjstrine42

        You’re telling me that every major poll taken on the topic was wrong about the 90%? How do you “debunk” a poll, let alone ALL of them? So, please, tell me how all these polls have been “debunked”. I can’t wait to see this. (Let me guess, Fox, Rush, WND and Glenn Beck all told you they were false, so that was proof enough for you, right? I mean, it is various sources… right?)

      • Charles Vincent

        Well that’s easy first you look at the questions they used for the polls, second you look at who was polled, third you look at how many people were polled and in what geographic regions they were polled in to see if the sample was legitimately a representative sample. Even people who do polls professionally would tell you that and if you had ever taken a statistics class you would know this. But here’s some research from duke university on the topic(notice it’s not from sources you listed)
        “MYTH 1:”The majority of Americans favor strict new additional federal gun controls.”

        Polls can be slanted by carefully worded questions to achieve any desired outcome. It is a fact that most people do not know what laws currently exist; thus, it is meaningless to assert that people favor “stricter” laws when they do not know how “strict” the laws are in the first place. Asking about a waiting period for a police background check presumes, incorrectly, that police can and will actually conduct a check during the wait. Similarly, it is meaningless to infer anything from support of a 7- or 5-day waiting period when respondents live in a state with a 15-day wait or a 1-6 month permit scheme in place. Asked whether they favor making any particular law “stricter,” however, most people do not. Unbiased, scientific polls have consistently shown that most people:
        Oppose costly registration of firearms.
        Oppose giving police power to decide who should own guns.
        Do not believe that stricter gun laws would prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns.”

      • jonjstrine42

        The question isn’t “do you want stricter guns laws”. The question is “Do you favor universal background checks”. That’s two completely different questions. Please, show me how the questions were skewed. The polls put up their methodologies, so it should be easy. Please, show me this bias you speak of. Show me the actual slanted question. If you can’t then you’re only assuming the question was slanted because it’s what you want to believe.

      • Charles Vincent

        You need to read those poll questions again none of them mention universal background checks.
        Not one republican in congress voted for the UBC bill.
        “Apr 17, 2013 – Senate rejects background checks on gun purchases in 54-46 vote … language passed by the Judiciary Committee to establish universal background checks. That language failed to attract a single Republican vote during the ….”
        Obamas DOJ told him that a UBC wouldn’t work with outa national firearm registry, and that aforementioned registry is prohibited under federal law.

        The question isn’t “do you want stricter guns laws”. The question is “Do you favor universal background checks”
        Uhh that’s asinine every law proposed would have made gun laws stricter. Your myopic if you can’t see that.

      • Jon Savage

        really none mentioned universal background checks????

        • Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. “Do you support
        or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?” Support: 91
        percent. Oppose: 8 percent.

        or does ur elementary school meed its diploma back????

      • Charles Vincent

        “• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. “Do you support
        or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?” Support: 91
        percent. Oppose: 8 percent.”
        Exactly where does it say universal in that?
        It doesn’t it say do you support or oppose background checks…. Universal isn’t mentioned.

      • jonjstrine42

        Yeah Jon (and I’m glad to see you spell your name correctly), don’t you know that it has to be the exact phrase down to the letter? And we’re the ones that are myopic. At least Charles is good for a laugh.

      • Jon Savage

        well it is short for jonathan – & sad for chuckles – he is an embarrassment to humanity

      • jonjstrine42

        “Stricter gun laws” encompasses ALL proposed future gun restrictions. “Universal background checks”, which is what I was initially talking about, is just one part of it. Yes, there is a different. No, I am not myopic. Yes, you are trying to weasel your way out of admitting you are wrong.
        And just because the exact phrase “universal background check” isn’t used in the questioning (and if it were, then you’d be screaming about bias in the question for using that phrase, but that’s an argument for another day), doesn’t mean the questions weren’t about the topic. That’s what you call myopic, or more correctly, willfully ignorant.
        And the fact that not a single Republican voted for the UBC bill is not a shock. They aren’t there to do the will of the people, and 90% of the people wanted it. Where’s the surprise in that?

      • Charles Vincent

        “Stricter gun laws” encompasses ALL proposed future gun restrictions. “Universal background checks”

        Universal back ground checks would be stricter as they were intended to extend background checks to private sales, any way you slice it that is stricter than the background checks we have now.

        And just because the exact phrase “universal background check” isn’t used in the questioning (and if it were, then you’d be screaming about bias in the question for using that phrase, but that’s an argument for another day)
        Ok this is a false argument, the background checks we have now don’t include private sales. Universal background checks expand to cover private sales.
        Asking about background checks by its self is vague wording of the question, where as asking if you oppose/support universal background checks,which is what they were trying to pass isn’t and its a far more relevant question. That’s akin to asking people in a poll if they support banning the consumption of corn, when you really mean Tom corn. It’s misleading which is exactly what that duke study was talking about.

        Ok there are ~100 million gun owners in the US, the total population of the US is ~313 million. So roughly 1/3 of the population owns a firearm. So in order for your 90% figure to be right the all but ~31 million of those gun owners would have had to support that which is highly unlikely.

        And you’re still myopic and I answered your question you just don’t want to admit you’re wrong

      • jonjstrine42

        Now, I’m not even going to bother to quibble about the junk math you’re trying to pull, and instead I’m going to be polite and humor you.

        You said, “there are ~100 million gun owners in the US, the total population of the US is ~313 million. So roughly 1/3 of the population owns a firearm. So in order for your 90% figure to be right the all but ~31 million of those gun owners would have had to support that which is highly unlikely.”

        So, because you find it highly unlikely means it isn’t true? That’s your proof? That’s your answer to my question? Sir, I have 20/20 vision. Always have. And I have the facts on my side. Always have. Myopia, in all its forms, is not an issue for me. As for you…

      • Charles Vincent

        No it means you put stock in polls that use dubiously written questions and you have no concept of how large or small the pool the polled was nor do you know who they polled be it all anti gun or some other mix which was exactly what the duke study was saying. And even for the poll to be considered scientific the pool of people polled has to be a truly representative sample to be valid.
        Myopia isn’t tied solely to eyesight. Please pay close attention to the second two definitions.
        Myopia
        noun
        1.
        Ophthalmology . a condition of the eye in which parallel rays are focused in front of the retina, objects being seen distinctly only when near to the eye; nearsightedness (opposed to hyperopia ).
        2.
        lack of foresight or discernment; obtuseness.
        3.
        narrow-mindedness; intolerance.

      • Charles Vincent

        “According to a national survey by the Pew Research Center and the Washington Post, 20% say are very happy the legislation was blocked, while 19% say they are relieved.

        Got that? This poll found that 39% of respondents are glad things turned out the way they did. It doesn’t take a math genius to observe that, for the President’s claims to have been true, that number should only be 10%. But don’t count on the media to point that out.

        The Pew numbers coincide with other recent polls, including a USAToday poll showing that support for the passage of ANY new gun control law is between 45-49%, and a Gallup poll which showed that only 4% of the population thinks gun control is actually an important issue.”

      • karenp

        Wait a minute Charles. One of you first comments was:

        “Well that’s easy first you look at the questions they used for the polls, second you look at who was polled, third you look at how many people were polled and in what geographic regions they were polled in to see if the sample was legitimately a representative sample. Even people who do polls professionally would tell you that and if you had ever taken a statistics class you would know this.
        Polls can be slanted by carefully worded questions to achieve any desired outcome.”
        So doesn’t that apply to the polls you list above as well. You say polls are skewed, but yet you refer to polls to make a point. Which is it Charles? Can’t have it both ways.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well both polls were from the Washington post. I would also say that be nuking a poll is different since they look at the question asked and the underlying data as well as sample size etcetera what I listed where the findings of the people that debunked the 90% claim here is the question that the pullers were asking to get that 90% number.

        “Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?”
        This question implies that there are not background checks at gun shows which is untrue.

    • ricosmom

      Oh, for pete’s sake, if you can’t spell or proofread your post, you only make our point for us – namely that people opposed to gun control are illiterate idiots!

      • Charles Vincent

        If that’s your only beef is that I made a spelling error you should perhaps stop talking. If was illiterate I opulent have read the article in the first place, nor could I have read your feeble attempt at a personal attack, grow up your comment makes you look like a third grader having a tantrum

      • ARealHousewifeInOC

        you should’ve stopped at beef…

      • Charles Vincent

        You shouldn’t have posted. See what I did there?

      • Kelly

        Whereas your comment makes you sound like a repressed hillbilly with reality issues. The truth is, and I know it’s hard to grasp, that the government is not out to get your guns. They aren’t out to get YOU. However, they do want to implement common sense laws that will help people and keep them safe. So answer me this, Charles. If making it harder to get guns isn’t going to stop anything, or any rednecks from keeping their guns, what on earth makes you think banning abortion will have any repercussion other than making it dangerous for women to get one done? And before you complain about me being a liberal, a title I proudly wear, I’m also a US Army veteran. So I fought for the rights I, and every American, have. And I am very much for gun control.

      • Charles Vincent

        Why is it that you have to resort to personal attacks? They make you look stupid and childish. I never said anyone was out to get me please stop putting words in my mouth.

        “However, they do want to implement common sense laws that will help people and keep them safe.”

        The laws senator Feinstein and others tried to pass had zero efficacy.

        Lets start with the Universal background checks.
        Obamas own DOJ told him that the universal background checks would only work if there was a national gun registration. This is something that’s prohibited by federal law. The UBC has no efficacy.

        Magazine capacity also has no efficacy and given that the heller decision talked about firearms in common use my guess is that the ban on standard capacity 30rnd magazines would be ruled unconstitutional.

        And last but not least the AWB.
        First they are banning weapons based on aesthetics. Second these firearms are again in common use falling in line with the heller decision, and would most likely be ruled unconstitutional.
        I wasn’t commenting on abortion I was commenting on the authors assertion that the GOP was about control and I framed my assertion that the democrats are just as control hungry as the republicans.
        Your assumption that I am anti abortion is off the mark.

        My father, grand father and four of my uncles served in the armed forces. The problem I have with liberals is that some of their ideals aren’t consistent with liberty. If you want gun control your ideals are not inline with liberty especially when that gun control effects gun owners that have broken no laws.

      • Kelly

        I see that you didn’t answer my question about abortion, Charles, which was, after all, what this article was about. Rather, you went on about how infective gun control would be, without telling me how banning abortion would have any impact if banning guns won’t. So, here’s another question. The 2nd Amendment calls for a “well regulated militia.” Well regulated means with regulations. Meaning there are laws imposed. How then does having laws banning automatic weapons and limiting the rounds in magazines impinge on that right, when that right itself calls for regulation?

      • Thomas Rusnak

        Kelly, right on the money. Show me a “well regulated militia” in the united states and I will show you a bunch of fat rednecks who can’t regulate what they eat much less actually be a part of an organized group.

      • Charles Vincent

        I see you didn’t read my reply thoroughly. So here it is again I was not commenting on the legality/illegality/efficacy of abortion. I used gun control that democrats and liberals are pushing to illustrate my point that democrats want just as much political and social control over the citizens in this country as the republicans do, and it was in response to this quote from this article “Let’s face it — these people are not “pro-life,” they’re pro-control over women and their bodies. If they were indeed pro-life, they’d do everything in their power to make sure that unwanted pregnancies didn’t happen in the first place, and if a child was born into poverty, it would have access to healthcare and an education. But that isn’t the case at all. It never was.”

        Well Regulated

        The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word “regulate,” which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

        1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
        2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

        3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

        4) To put in good order.

        [obsolete sense]
        b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

        1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
        We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton’s words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

        The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
        — The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
        Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of ‘disciplining’ which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

        This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

        Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
        — Saturday, December 13, 1777.
        In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians’ tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

      • Charles Vincent

        Here is a post I made on an Allan Clifton article it should serve as a start to my views on abortion.

        Roe v. Wade is a 40 year old Supreme Court decision that said abortions are a woman’s Constitutionally protected right—end of story.
        Wrong you need to read the brief below is the pertinent passage.
        The Court additionally added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician’s right to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women’s rights in general.

        I don’t believe abortion is a good thing for this reason, it is treating a symptom not the problem. I believe that women use abortion as a form of birth control which seems repugnant to me.

        That being said I do not believe I have the right to make that choice for someone. The only way I would have some say would be if I were the father and envelope then it’s still minimal in my opinion. To me abortion is only a good option in a few cases. They are rape, incest, and if the mothers life is at risk, furthermore those decisions should be well informed and talked over with the physician.
        I also think that the Supreme Court needs to clearly define when life begins and address the rights of the fetus which I think would solve some of the current issues that are involved with abortion.

      • Blake

        Tell me exactly how UBC would affect you, as a legal gun owner, would affect YOU. The only way it would affect you is if you had to wait another couple of days for your background check to come back. You go to a gun dealer in my state and you have to wait for a handgun so what is the difference? If you need a gun that instance chances are your going to be doing something rash that would make you ineligible to own a gun after you did whatever rash decision you were to make. A UBC would make it harder for a criminal to get a gun. As it is now a felon can go to a gun show and purchase a gun from a citizen and there would be no check or balance to that felon having a gun until they are caught with it. By then it’s usually to late.

      • Charles Vincent

        We already have background checks and have had them since the Brady bill passed in 1993. You also missed the part were I stated that the DOJ told Obama that the only way UBCs would ever work would be to institute a national gun registry. A national gun registry is and has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.
        Even Obama and Biden have said that UBCs won’t stop criminals from obtaining firearms.
        “As it is now a felon can go to a gun show and purchase a gun from a citizen and there would be no check or balance to that felon having a gun until they are caught with it.”
        Every FFL dealer is required by law to do a background check on every purchase whether they are at a gun show or online or in their store. Criminals obtain guns through illegal means, I.E. theft or purchasing from another criminal who stole them, not from gun shows.

      • Maddox

        Not true. Whether background checks are required at gun shows depends on the state. Private sales do not require background checks. Estimates are that 40 percent of all gun sales are without any background check..

      • Charles Vincent

        “Not true. Whether background checks are required at gun shows depends on the state.”

        This is patently false. The Brady bill is federal law and all dealers are required by law to run back ground checks or they can have their FFL revoked and face criminal charges.

        “Estimates are that 40 percent of all gun sales are without any background check..”

        This figure is also patently false and has Ben debunked. Here is the pertinent portion of an article on it by the Washinton Post.
        ” This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases dating as far back as 1991, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 — meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment.
        Digging deeper, we found that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points.
        Moreover, when asked whether the respondent bought from a licensed firearms dealer, the possible answers included “probably was/think so” and “probably not,” leaving open the possibility the purchaser was mistaken. (The “probably not” answers were counted as “no.”)
        When all of the “yes” and “probably was” answers were added together, that left 35.7 percent of respondents indicating they did not receive the gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Rounding up gets you to 40 percent, although as we noted before, the survey sample is so small it could also be rounded down to 30 percent.
        Moreover, when gifts, inheritances and prizes are added in, then the number shrinks to 26.4 percent. (The survey showed that nearly 23.8 percent of the people surveyed obtained their gun either as a gift or inherited it, and about half of them believed a licensed firearms dealer was the source.)”

      • Blake

        Leave a message…you are correct on one thing ffl dealers and the key here is ffl dealers not private citizens are required to do background checks. Private citizens at the shows are not as proven on many TV documentary’s. TheColubine shootings is an example of these guns being bought at a gun show, which is where the girl who bought them from got them through a private citizen

      • Charles Vincent

        Columbine happened during the previous AWB and none of the firearms used were on the list of banned weapons.
        “”We think three of them were provided by the girlfriend of Klebold,” said Mark Paulter, a Jefferson County chief deputy district attorney. “She bought them because she was older. She was 18 at the time. She bought them in November or December.
        “We’re not sure she committed a crime under Colorado statute. If you provide a handgun to a person under 18, that’s a violation of the statute. If you provide a shotgun or a rifle, that’s not a violation.””

        Private sales are ~5% or less of total gun sales in the us and many of those sales are family to family.

      • wygit

        Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.

        Edmund Burke

      • Charles Vincent

        Gun owners have given more than a little. Starting with the ban on fully auto weapons we have slowly let people use the government to nibble away at our rights and its not just the 2A I am referring to.

        “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson

      • wygit

        Why would background checks only work if we institute a national gun registry?
        I thought the idea was fill out the form, do the background check, if approved, buy the gun, and 3 months later, (I think that’s the term anyway. maybe 3 weeks?) destroy the paperwork.
        I thought that was how the law was written, seeing as how federal law prohibits a gun registry database.
        And I thought the point with the 30-round mags was, acknowledging that there are umpty-millions out there already, but to attempt to keep that number from growing.
        And the reason to attempt to throttle the growth is that they’re so efficient for shooting large numbers of people in short periods of time.
        Of course, I think if they’re banned for civilians, they should be banned for cops, too. Along with the rest of the paramilitary equipment we’ve been equipping our “peace officers” with for the past 30 years.
        I mean, if law enforcement is backing the large-mag bans because “the only thing they’re good for is mass slaughter”, why the heck do the police need them?

        I agree with you completely on our ridiculous “scary looking gun” approach to gun control. I muzzle shroud, sling, or pistol grip does nothing to enhance the “deadliness” of a weapon.

      • Charles Vincent

        Re read the details of the universal background check they are different from the standard back ground checks we have been using since the passage of the Brady bill. Some places destroy it every 30 days I believe. The thirty round magazine ban is effectually similar to how the British tried to limit ball and powder to the colonies during the 1770s. Also there have been many shooters and videos of them demonstrating the negligible difference between changing at 30rnds/15rnds/10rnds etcetera in most cases even with untrained people the time to fire 100rnds was ~1second.

      • lindylou

        Let’s see, a contest between a federal law to register guns, vs a federal law to outlaw abortions. No choice there, bubba.

      • Charles Vincent

        Again I wasn’t commenting on abortion either way my point was democrats want just as much “control” politically and legally as republicans. Did you miss that part?

      • Jessica Neubauer

        That federal law you keep citing was written by the NRA and snuck into another bill. The NRA has also kept ATF without a permanent director for almost 20 years because any gun regulations would cut into their sales. They make a fortune off arming cartels and criminals. Why would they want anything to stop those profits?
        Also, you may want to look at the success Colorado has had with mandatory background checks and how many people who were banned from owning guns and how many people with outstanding warrants were caught.
        They’ve made a difference.
        As to a federal registry being illegal, that’s pure profiteering. Under the terms of a well regulated militia, the government would need to know how many people had guns in order to estimate how many soldiers they could field in case of attack. If I need ID to vote, you can deal with ID for a gun.

      • Charles Vincent

        “That federal law you keep citing was written by the NRA and snuck into another bill.”
        Politicians do this all the time it isn’t new. And it’s still a law and has not been overturned or repealed or ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS and is therefore still valid.

        “Also, you may want to look at the success Colorado has had with mandatory background checks and how many people who were banned from owning guns and how many people with outstanding warrants were caught.”
        The Brady bill made background checks mandatory motion wide this would include Colorado. Do you live in Colorado? I do and 55 of the 64 sheriffs here have filed a law suit against the state to over turn the laws your talking about, not to mention the senate president John Morse has been recalled as well as senator Angela Giron.

      • Charles Vincent

        Under the terms of a well regulated militia, the government would need to know how many people had guns in order to estimate how many soldiers they could field in case of attack.
        Well regulated in terms of the second amendment reveres to training and hierarchical structure of a state militia.

        “Well Regulated

        The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word “regulate,” which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

        1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
        2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

        3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

        4) To put in good order.

        [obsolete sense]
        b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

        1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
        We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton’s words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

        The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
        — The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
        Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of ‘disciplining’ which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

        This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

        Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.”
        People have to show I’d so that the polling people know that they are a lawful resident of the district or state in which they are placing their vote.

    • lindylou

      Seems like the Prattovision has taken hold of you already “four gun control” really? I’s day four guns is all you can handle with half a brain, nematode.

      • Charles Vincent

        Ad hominem attacks are childish at best which sort of gives me a little insight into your maturity level.

      • Betty Eyer

        It’s not an ad hominem attack. That would be to say that because you are you (for instance, because you shave most of your hair off, or wear a blue shirt), your argument about gun control is invalid. This statement is saying that because you are almost illiterate, you’re probably not very bright. I think there’s some value to that argument.

      • Charles Vincent

        Saying I am illiterate is a personal attack, that’s the exact definition of ad hominem, and here is the definition verbatim

        ad ho·mi·nem [ad hom-uh-nuhm -nem, ahd‐] Show IPA
        adjective
        1.
        appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
        2.
        attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

        Now that we’ve established what it means her entire post attacked my character not my argument and that my dear makes it an ad hominem attack. It makes your posts ad hominem attacks as well.

      • hiatt111

        Charles, you appear to be above average intelligence. Why are you wasting your effort on these childish snobs? Anything which remotely appears to be a show of morality or common sense, they aggressively oppose. I have long tried to figure that out. Why would a human being purposely choose the stupid side of every debate. I have came to conclusion that most libs lead such disgusting immoral lives in private and sometimes public, that they gravitate to a side that has more disgusting followers than they are. I suppose its similar to a girl who hangs out with obese friends in order to feel skinny. I know its sad but true.

      • Charles Vincent

        To me it’s about disseminating factual information so people can make a truly informed decision(s).

      • Azi

        Though his initial post is an attempt to derail with his own circumstantial ad hominem point, Charles Vincent is correctly calling lindylou’s response an ad hominem attack. Being illiterate would not prevent his argument from being valid even though it might keep him from communicating what he meant.

        He’s trolling or maybe he’s just an asshole, but it’s quite obvious that he made a homophone error. Trying to discredit his intelligence or literacy is both classist and ableist.

      • Charles Vincent

        I wasn’t trying to derail the post. I used gun control because its a democratic issue. I did so to juxtapose the authors assertion that republicans want control. Both parties want more control politically over the opposing party and society and the assertion that its only the republicans is asinine.

      • hiatt111

        Your command of the English language pales only in comparison to the apparent joy you derive from spewing out condescending remarks. You must be an extremely angry individual. I recommend some professional counseling. You can be helped.

      • Betty Eyer

        ableist??? I have to debate with people who are stupid or uneducated or else I’m an elitist? Really? And you get to make these rules for others? .

        I don’t think Charles is stupid. I think he’s willfully ignorant. He’s PROUD of being ignorant. And that’s a CHOICE.

      • Charles Vincent

        If I am so ignorant then why can’t you find facts that refute my argument? Or are personal attacks all you can muster?

    • Betty Eyer

      Folks. This is a troll. He’s taking the topic of rights for WOMEN and turning it into his favorite topic – the 2nd amendment. In other words, HIS rights. And by arguing with him, you are helping him. You know what you do to make trolls go away? You IGNORE them. There are plenty of chat rooms and news topics where he can go have his favorite argument there.

      • Charles Vincent

        Not a troll the original replies to my post didn’t take into account that I was using the fact that democrats are using gun control to control people just like the author said the republicans “are trying to control”women. My argument is against anyone that uses government to subvert our natural rights.

  • thejigalo

    It has more to do with increasing the population of the poor (the rich can travel to somewhere abortions are legal). Take a look at their agenda… cut education, ban abortions, and cut funding for birth control.. they are building a large, dumb population… they like to tax the poor while lowering the rate for “job creators”… increase the number of people looking for work, and the cost of labor drops. Couple that with poorly educated people, that can easily be manipulated through fear (big government, taking their guns).. these assholes stay in power, the wealth gap increases, and FOXNEWS gets higher ratings.

    • Reverend Jeremiah

      FINALLY someone who knows why the GOP are doing this.

    • Crysta

      Add to that, they are increasing prison populations to unheard of levels, not just American levels, but WORLDWIDE!!!

      This all is of a purpose, you see…
      A: The rich OWN the prisons (private ones at least, which they are trying to push more and more for)
      B: The privatized prisons, are being made with an implied CONTRACT, which stipulates that they will ALWAYS, be 80-90% full (the level where owners make the most profit) which then FORCES the “justice” system, to convict more and more people, for higher crimes, with unfair punishments (which, for now, are conveniently almost entirely either black, or hispanic. One guess which side gets it worse, for now)
      C: The rich owners, then turn around and SELL the labor of the prisoners (at a VERY illegally low rate, which undercuts what us “normals” can afford to take, and consequently STEALS JOBS from the economy) Take note: The Rich owners get the vast majority of the profits.
      D: This further depresses the economy, forcing more and more people out of work, and pushes them towards “illegal jobs” which in turn, creates more and more “criminals” to feed the prisons, which they just keep making more and more of!

      Basically, the rich private prison owners, are the new slave owners, and the “prisoners” are the new slave class. And don’t worry, they will come for you, and your jobs soon enough… Then you won’t have to worry about food, a place to live, or work… They will provide 4 blank walls, slop to eat, and a bustling “work environment” all for their benefit… And best of all, with prisoners, there is no union, no minimum wage, and no “benefits” to get in the way of them making a quick buck, at your expense…

    • lindylou

      It works best when they say that Jesus will take care of their problems.

    • Betty Eyer

      I agree. I don’t think it’s even about women per se. It’s about wage suppression and a slave like pool of unskilled labor. So we can compete with China, India and Vietnam for factory jobs.

      And if women are overwhelmed with children and can’t work, then men who support them will be willing to do anything to feed their families. It makes the men more vulnerable, also.

  • Thomas Rusnak

    I’m waiting for internment camps for pregnant women. How else are they going to force women to carry an embryo through the whole 9 month term?

  • Paul Vee

    Like many women have said, if only their vaginas were guns. Only then would the Republicans have zero interest in any kind of regulations…

  • denimeyer

    I’m not sure I believe that. I think many of them really believe abortion is murder of a child. What they don’t realize is that closing down clinics doesn’t make abortion go away. It just makes it illegal and dangerous. And, Women’s family planning clinics are the best way to prevent any kind of abortion–legal or illegal.

    • No, they do not believe it is murder of a child. They believe that women are less than human, walking incubators and sentient vending machines, and must be subjugated to the status of subservient sperm receptacles. They are not pro-lifers, they are forced birthers.

  • Georga

    Look up Agenda 21 and then “think” what might be going on. This may sound way out there, but the Agenda is not Political it is a mandate from the UN that our Presidents signed us up for. It began in 1961…..hum? a thought….when did “1984” get published? The Agenda wants a generation of children to raise as their own to indoctrinate them, like Hitler did, but on a much more grand scale. People…we need to wake up and smell the terror headed our way. Please educate yourself and realize this is not a Political issue. Everything that has been leaked of late is for us to wake up and realize there is a World Wide Agenda in control and not our government/politicians. It is much bigger and helps make the crazy world that gets crazier every day make sense.

  • mdr

    Only thing I would change is that some people do like abortion- the people who need them and want them and the people who just want to have access. Need to be careful about continuing dialogue of stigma around abortion.

  • Socialmedic

    It is all about power lust, greed and slavery, has been for more than 3 decades during which at least half the nation has been blind-sided. This has been, is and always will be what supply-sided economics is all about. “Trickle down,” HA!

  • twohorse

    Did anyone other than myself notice Charles steered the topic off subject? Read the GOP Book for Trolling. That is one of their tactics.

  • jjh

    What a rambling diatribe, here is a another reason for an abortion, two people attend a club get drunk, have unprotected sex and the woman is too lazy, hung over, or doesn’t remember having sex to go to her doctor, clinic or pharmacy for a morning after pill. She decides to get an abortion instead when she concludes she doesn’t want the responsibility of raising a child. My example is as extreme as yours and does not represent the norm either. But I wouldn’t expect a pro-death supporter (except for criminals) to understand.