Gun violence

[ColinEssex]

Col, it seems that in the UK, abortion is legal up to 24 weeks and that two doctors must approve it and in Northern Ireland it's not legal. I believe if the US had similar restrictions, Roe vs Wade would be still in effect.

Yes, Northern Ireland is roman Catholic, and you know how picky they are. I think Scotland has a different law, not sure on that.
Col

 

[Isaac]

Anyway, this thread was supposed to be about gun violence, not promiscuity and the violence it has caused.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

And who knows, I might make up a religion tomorrow that states that I view it as completely acceptable to murder people up to age 20.

According to Doc and those who are still trying to torture metaphors to get around the reality that our laws are based on Christianity, you would have to let me do it or you would be taking away my religious right.

At the end of the day whether we like it or not and want to change it or not, our set of laws is largely based on the general set of principles from Christianity and God. Not that it covers all of it, but that it's a subset, taken from it.

I don't need to torture metaphors to predict that this battle is far from over. And there are already religions (or have been) that allowed such actions. Virgin sacrifices to the volcano god, for example. Don't have to invent new religions that condone killing. Although I have to admit the idea of sacrificing a pretty young girl to a hole in the ground is kind of wasteful. But then, those gods so often made irrational demands.

I dispute that our laws are based on Christianity. Judaism codified behavior laws long before Jesus was in the picture, and THOSE laws can be shown to have derived from even older laws and older societies. At best, Christianity is the most recent religious layer to act as a source of normative behavior using the old "golden rule" that predates even Judaism. Remember that your boy Jesus said that the commandments could be derived from that rule (except for the ones that directly mentioned God issues.) As to claiming the laws came from God, you forget to whom you speak when you direct that at me, because my answer is "from whom again?"

I have another viewpoint, though. No law that purports to control abortion should be legal unless it was passed by a legislative body that was 50% women AND that of those voting to support the bill, at least 50% had to be female. Otherwise the bill is a concealed Tyranny of the Majority.

 

[AccessBlaster]

This is getting good now

 

[Isaac]

No law that purports to control abortion should be legal unless it was passed by a legislative body that was 50% women AND that of those voting to support the bill, at least 50% had to be female

That doesn't make sense, because women are fully capable of voting and they're the ones choosing their representatives. That's the whole idea.

Otherwise going by your theory you would have to say that we can never pass laws that affected Hispanics without a Hispanic 50%, never affect laws that passed white people without white 50%, etc etc etc. It would never work because every law would be primarily relevant to a certain demographic and then you wouldn't have that demographic as your 50%.

I'd say that's an easy one to rebut.

Ask for the oft repeated argument that there will be back alley abortions, that argument is about as effective as saying we should allow people to commit murder with guns because it's quite a bit nicer to take a bullet in the head compared to the knives that they will inevitably use otherwise.

If abortion is wrong, it matters not that some people will choose to disobey the law and do something stupid to themselves like stabbing or otherwise mutilating themselves.

This country is saturated with great and well resourced pregnancy crisis centers which do a huge, literally enormous amount of totally free things to help women who have an unwanted difficult pregnancy and are not in a good position.

Our side has done an EXCELLENT job of expanding those over the years so nobody can say we are just heartless meanies who give them no other option. There are places you can go and get literally two years of every kind of support you can imagine, starting with a free place to live and unlimited resources to help you deal with the situation. Plus there is adoption.

I would support allowing abortion in the first 30 days.

 

[Isaac]

Doesn't the penumbral right usually fall into the case of either states' rights or individual rights?

By that concept, abortion is a penumberal individual right coming from religious freedom through Jewish belief and from the right to choose and privately consult with a doctor.

Actually the previous case is reasoning was far more hodgepodge than just that. Exactly as I have said earlier, it was the typical set of pro-abortion arguments none of which is sufficient by itself and all of which are sort of thrown up haphazardly to hope something sticks. Taken from the recent decision and well said to explain this situation:

Roe, however, was remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text. It held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned. See 410 U. S,., at 152-153. And that privacy right, Roe observed, had been found to spring from no fewer than five different constitutional provisions—the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id., at 152.

The Court’s discussion left open at least three ways in which some combination of these provisions could protect the abortion right. One possibility was that the right was “founded . . . in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people.” Id., at 153. Another was that the right was rooted in the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendment, or in some combination of those provisions, and that this right had been “incorporated” into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment just as many other Bill of Rights provisions had by then been incorporated.

...yikes!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Let me be clear. At the personal level, barring some sort of provable fatal fetal deformity, my wife and I would not have gone for an abortion. Due to my heritage, it would have been remotely possible for Tay-Sachs to become a factor. Other late-parent birth defects are well known besides the obvious heriditarys problem. At our age, though, the situation never came up.

My position is that I am not my brother's (well... sister's) keeper. It is related to my OTHER position - that of Thomas Jefferson, who believed that the government that governs least governs best. I would keep the decision ENTIRELY out of government hands because they screw up everything they touch including wet dreams.

That doesn't make sense, because women are fully capable of voting and they're the ones choosing their representatives. That's the whole idea.

As long as legislatures are full of "good ole' boys" I have to say "No" to your comment.

If abortion is wrong, it matters not that some people will choose to disobey the law and do something stupid to themselves like stabbing or otherwise mutilating themselves.

By that logic, if carrying a gun is wrong, it matters not that some people will carry one and have to use it to protect their own lives. You have GOT to watch out for your misguided absolutist ideas.

In a "melting pot society" there are very few moral absolutes because of the many cultures who contribute different elements to whom we have become. The Statue of Liberty has this saying: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore." It didn't say ANYTHING about "give me your White Anglo-Saxon Protestant folks who only think the way we do." Or did I misread it?

 

[Isaac]

As long as legislatures are full of "good ole' boys" I have to say "No" to your comment

But that makes no sense, they were voted in BY WOMEN, who apparently disagree with you .
I give up lol

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I wish you would.

 

[ColinEssex]

If the law allows a person to carry a concealed gun on the pavement (sidewalk), but not in shops, restaurants or schools etc. What procedure is in place to check someone hasn't a small gun when they enter these places? Maybe some sort of airport thing you walk through?
Col

 

[Isaac]

I wish you would.

What?! The Doc Man tire of a political discussion? Never! But you must be really tired, if you can keep posting your lengthy explanations to Col for the 5th time about the same thing!

I will await your rollout of the proposal to only pass legislation when 50% of the convened legislators match the subject of the legislation.
We will see how it goes over - but I think that would be disenfranchising the voters!

 

[moke123]

If the law allows a person to carry a concealed gun on the pavement (sidewalk), but not in shops, restaurants or schools etc. What procedure is in place to check someone hasn't a small gun when they enter these places? Maybe some sort of airport thing you walk through?
Col

Just like carrying an illegal weapon now, you wouldn't know until you get caught for some reason. Once you get caught you suffer the consequences.

 

[Isaac]

If the law allows a person to carry a concealed gun on the pavement (sidewalk), but not in shops, restaurants or schools etc. What procedure is in place to check someone hasn't a small gun when they enter these places? Maybe some sort of airport thing you walk through?
Col

Good point. Usually, there isn't any. It's done on the "honor system". ("Promise to follow the rules and we'll take you at your word").

And that explains the problem with gun control. The criminals who wish to do something bad with their guns will, obviously, continue carrying the gun anyway - they're criminals, they don't care about the rule sign on the door. The law-abiding citizens (the only ones who could benefit legitimately from carrying the gun), are the only ones who will be affected by the rule.

Thank you as I could not have made this point better myself

 

[ColinEssex]

Good point. Usually, there isn't any. It's done on the "honor system". ("Promise to follow the rules and we'll take you at your word").

And that explains the problem with gun control. The criminals who wish to do something bad with their guns will, obviously, continue carrying the gun anyway - they're criminals, they don't care about the rule sign on the door. The law-abiding citizens (the only ones who could benefit legitimately from carrying the gun), are the only ones who will be affected by the rule.

Thank you as I could not have made this point better myself

So if you wanted a meal for example and you have a small gun, do you give it in on arrival and collect it on the way out? That seems the only way to me. A bit like checking in a raincoat. I can't see the honour system working.
Col

 

[Isaac]

So if you wanted a meal for example and you have a small gun, do you give it in on arrival and collect it on the way out? That seems the only way to me. A bit like checking in a raincoat. I can't see the honour system working.
Col

That could work, but for the cost to small "mom-and-pop" businesses.

None of it works, new York had the "zero carry" law...yet, new York is infamous for continuing violence. If they can't do it with guns they stab and push people in front of the subway, as they have been taught since birth that they are victims and everyone hates them. Which is generally a prophecy that only gets self-fulfilled After the push.
Brutal cycle

 

[AccessBlaster]

@ColinEssex You are not allowed in certain establishments while carrying a firearm. Even if you have a carry permit. Some post office or airports do not allow it, part of the training or permit process makes it clear what and if you are allowed to enter the establishment.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Just so you know in CA where I live when I transport my firearm I MUST separate the ammunition from the firearm.

I usually put one in the trunk and the other in the backseat.

I do not have a carry permit, they are hard to come by in CA.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Just so you know in CA where I live when I transport my firearm I MUST separate the ammunition from the firearm.

I usually put one in the trunk and the other in the backseat.

I do not have a carry permit, they are hard to come by in CA.

While I know CA has a bunch of hard-core anti-gun folks, it MIGHT be that some of that will eventually lighten up. It will take someone filing a lawsuit, but CA has no shortage of THAT type of person.

 

[Isaac]

Despite what some may think of me I am really not a gun fanatic AT ALL. I only shoot mine once every 3 years at a tiny indoor range here in Tempe next to Ikea. It chaps me to spend $30 on it but how else will I even know it fires and I remember how.

What surprises me is how many people do NOT feel safer with a gun in the home. (For the purpose of this question let's assume there are no small children).

I mean ... I just read a Phoenix headline today about a homeowner who had to shoot and kill a nighttime intruder - 2 of them!
It surprises me that we all imagine the same possible event some day (middle of the night and you hear your patio glass breaking), and some of us would prefer a gun next to us and others not. Granted, most of the Phoenix crime I hear about is in another (predictable) part of town where I am not, but it reminds me that it can happen at any time to any one.

I'd hate for that moment to be the time all I have is memories of karate lessons at age 12. And, I stunk.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I don't mind separating the firearm from the ammunition during range visits, just like I don't mind the range rules.

I grew up in this environment so I really don't know anything else.