A possible compromise on Guns and Abortion?

[BobPlumb]

This post has to be in the running for the most stupid, I have nothing better to do with my time than post stupid shit on a message board, post of the day.

But, I am sure one of you nutters will out do it.

Don't you have anything better to do with your time than to make a stupid shit post about someone posting stupid shit on a message board?

Don't you see the irony of your post?

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

No compromising on guns .............. they must all be taken away, even flint-lock muskets.

Abortion .................. I'm not going to touch that.
But if you are going to let the sheeple have the power to end a life, you might as well get equally stupid and let women scramble the brains of their helpless unborn child.

We need to get the sheeple in a position of helplessness .......... just like an unborn child, so we can abort them at will.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Nobody in the Country with half a brain wants "unlimited guns". It's a cliche perpetuated by the careless and the ignorant. As Colorado illustrated Americans prefer politicians who understand the 2nd Amendment and don't roll over with abusive regulations for a couple of votes. On the other hand it seems that the radical left wants nothing but unlimited and federally funded abortions.

Honestly, I believe that anyone should be able to own any firearm they can afford to own.

Notice that I said "Firearm". That doesn't include tanks, RPGs, Nukes, or any of the other stupid shit the gun grabbers always throw out there.

But it does include fully automatic firearms, .50 cal, etc.

I also believe that any only felons convicted of certain crimes of violence should lose their 2nd amendment rights. Notice I said felons. Not those who the left retro-actively caused to lose their 2nd amendment rights through the Violence against poor, defenseless, women who also say they want to be in combat roles in the military and can do anything a man does Act.

I also believe that if the Government gives back one "right" that was lost due to a conviction, that person gets back all their rights, including their 2nd amendment rights.

Nobody in their right mind believes that any American should be able to purchase any firearm that he can afford. The NRA would be the first to tell you that reasonable restrictions on the purchase of firearms are necessary and legitimate. People with felony convictions, persons charged with a crime, persons who are under a court restraining order, the underage, persons undergoing substance abuse programs, persons who have renounced their citizenship or publically called for the violent overthrow of the government, the insane and even some mental patients should be restricted from purchasiing firearms

I will tell you what..

I will agree that some weapons need to be banned as soon as you tell me which ones cause the people who own or even touch one to commit a crime with them.

As far as I know, it's the person that breaks the law, not the weapon.

The only restrictions I see as being "reasonable" is the restriction of my wallet on being able to afford one.

Now if a convicted criminal is forbidden to own a firearm and the police catch them with one.. then send them to jail. But don't punish me for what they did.

BTW, I don't care what the NRA says. I don't always agree with them just as I don't always agree with my wife, my son, my mother, my brother, my sisters, or even my preacher.

Those are MY opinions which are not subject to anyone else's approval.

People with felony convictions,

I would say only those with violent felony convictions. A person convicted of tax evasion or tas fraud isn't likely to be a murdering rampager.

persons charged with a crime

,

Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? Or doesn't that matter to you?

persons who are under a court restraining order

,

I can get a restraining order on my neighbor, who I only see once a month or so.. That's no reason to take away a Constitutionally enumerated Right.

the underage

,

My soon to be 21 year old son has been shooting with me since he was 6 when I got him a .22 semi-automatic pistol. I've been trusting him with a gun for 15 years and he has never abused that trust. But I know certain people in their 50's I wouldn't be around if I knew they had a gun on them.

persons undergoing substance abuse programs,

You really believe in punishing people who are seeking help, don't you? If you had your way on this, how many people would refuse to seek help because they didn't want some Government idiot taking their guns?

persons who have renounced their citizenship

Since when is that a crime?

or publically called for the violent overthrow of the government,

Hmmm ever hear of the 1st Amendment? That isn't breaking the law. BTW, does that include Lefties who called for the killing of President G. W. Bush??

the insane and even some mental patients should be restricted from purchasiing firearms

That has been used in the past and abused, just as some have been saying that returning Vets who seek help for issues they are having from the wars should have their guns taken from them.

Again.. Until they actually become a threat, it is a Constitutionally protected right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's face it, the U.S. population is split on these two issues more than anyother with the possible exception of Obama-care.

I was reading the USA Today's weekend edition's article on the recall of Colorado's State Senators and the response by the gun control peopel that they were going to double down on efforts to pass more and more restrictive gun laws..

So what it boils down to is this... Half the country wants unlimited abortions and no guns and the other half wants unlimited guns and no abortions.

So why not do this...

For every restriction on one, an equal restriction is written for the other.

3 day wait period for buying a gun? 3 day waiting period to have an abortion.

Have to get a permit to carry a gun? You have to pay the same amount to the State for a permit to have an abortion.

Have to get training to carry a gun? You have to view films on abortion first.

The main difference between the two is that every time an abortion is paid for, a life is ended.. You can't say that about guns.

You’re comparing two completely different issues, one having nothing to do with the other, where the regulatory policy for both is predicated on completely different Constitutional jurisprudence: what might be an appropriate, Constitutional restriction for one is not for the other.

Rather than a quid pro quo ‘compromise,’ why don’t we all work together to end the practice of abortion, with the shared understanding that laws restricting or banning abortion are not only un-Constitutional, but will do nothing to end the practice.

And it’s incorrect to state that “half the country wants unlimited abortions and no guns,” nothing could be further from the truth. One cannot attempt to take complex, difficult problems such as abortion and gun control and attempt to reduce them to simplistic black and white propositions.

Last, the issue concerning gun violence has little to do with guns or their availability. As with abortion, the issue of gun violence can’t be solved with un-Constitutional bans and restrictions. Just as we need to come together to address the problem of abortion, so too do we need to come together to solve the problem of gun violence, respecting the right of the individual to own a firearm in the context of his right to self-defense.

 

[Politico]

One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[billyerock1991]

Let's face it, the U.S. population is split on these two issues more than anyother with the possible exception of Obama-care.

I was reading the USA Today's weekend edition's article on the recall of Colorado's State Senators and the response by the gun control peopel that they were going to double down on efforts to pass more and more restrictive gun laws..

So what it boils down to is this... Half the country wants unlimited abortions and no guns and the other half wants unlimited guns and no abortions.

So why not do this...

For every restriction on one, an equal restriction is written for the other.

3 day wait period for buying a gun? 3 day waiting period to have an abortion.

Have to get a permit to carry a gun? You have to pay the same amount to the State for a permit to have an abortion.

Have to get training to carry a gun? You have to view films on abortion first.

The main difference between the two is that every time an abortion is paid for, a life is ended.. You can't say that about guns.

here's what happen here in Colorado nearly half of the people in Colorado vote by absentee ballot ... the republicans come in here and get a recall and stop the absentee ballots from being sent out ... they know if the did allow them to be sent out they would have lost their attempt to recall ... many voters didn't know they had stopped the absentee ballot ... a

as for abortions good luck on your three day wait

P.S.
You can bet in the 2014 election those republicans who took over those dems jobs, they will lose them ... you see those are dem strong hole areas ... they won't have a chance in hell getting reelected ... you see those republicans won't be able to stop the absentee ballots being sent out ... but we will be able to make you wait 3 days for you to get your gun ... while there is no waiting at the local abortion clinic ... they pop in, and they get them popped out ....