Originally Posted by clydepepper (Post 2230992)

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2230931)

I understand you are not going to change your mind and be a reasonable person.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2230931)

You are going to, no matter how fallacious it is, insist pro-life must be an absolutist universal philosophy with no exceptions ever under any circumstance, while not holding pro-choice to the same standards because that doesn’t fit your hyper partisan agenda.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2230931)

You will continue to pretend to be too stupid to know what the words actually mean in context. For an ideologue is never wrong, everyone else, common sense and the dictionary is.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2230931)

I would love a link to “ all these threads” where I castigate people who pretend pro-life has a different meaning than it actually has. You know there is no other thread where this has happened. I hold numerous objectionable views, I’m sure you can find something vaguely true to smear me with.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2230931)

The only statement I have made on abortion itself on Net54 is that the Texas bounty law is meant to punish the other side, just like gun control, and not actually solve a real problem. Not exactly a pro-life hardline view there. If pro-life is not about abortion, why must I give a take on abortion? You’ve been arguing vociferously that the phrase does not mean what me, the dictionary, and everyone else knows it means. I haven’t because the thread is about guns. You and BobC just had such nutball extremist takes I couldn’t resist pointing out the absurdity of the false pretenses of ignorance.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2230931)

I naturally lean toward favoring the right of the individual over a right of the state. I used to be very pro-choice as a result. Safe, legal and rare. After deeper research, I have moderated my views but still fall closer to the pro-choice camp. A late second trimester fetus like the one David showed is a human. A sperm cell, I think is not. The exact line is difficult to draw. The first trimester seems a reasonable practical boundary to me. I very much favor a life of the mother exemption in any trimester; if it is late enough the baby may be delivered safely than I think this difficult choice of which life to take and which to save belongs with the mother. This is pro-choice, or was considered such not that long ago. I am disgusted by some of the extremist left positions of today, and these are partly what has slowly receded my support lately. I think it is extremely sad that “women’s rights” has largely become a phrase to mean access to any abortion at any time for any reason, among the hardliners even after birth. Post birth abortion is beyond vile and disgusting.

I have always, while I generally support the Roe decision on policy grounds, known it to be unconstitutional under the 10th. It is not left to the federal State under the constitution.

I am against the death penalty on unrelated grounds. Killing should be lawful if a guilty person is posing a real and present danger to an innocent person. By the time they are at trial, they are no longer a real and present danger, there is no defense. The death penalty is constitutional, but I think we should elect not to exercise it.

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan (Post 2230988)

You have a lot of no's, do you have any suggestions?

Originally Posted by AustinMike (Post 2230979)

Wow, where to begin? If someone cuts me off in traffic, I have choices of how I want to respond. I can (a) ignore it, (b) flip the person off, (c) kill the person. I have the right to select my response from any of the 3 choices I listed and probably several other choices. If I freely choose (c), then, I will rightfully be punished. I will be punished because it is against the law to act on (c). Do you not see how the right to choose is not dependent upon the rule of law? There are laws that prevent felons from owning guns. Does that take the felons choice away? NO. They can still choose to get a gun. But if they make that choice they risk going to jail. Making a law does not take away a person's choices, there is no correlation between a "law" and a "choice."

Originally Posted by AustinMike (Post 2230979)

It appears your wish has been granted. It is currently illegal to slaughter a roomful of children. Actually, it has been for a long time. Unfortunately, some sick people choose to ignore the law.

So, let's get back to my original question. What choice(s)s do you think people should not have? And a follow-up question, how do you propose to take that choice away from people?

Originally Posted by AustinMike (Post 2230979)

Are you sure I'm pretending? :D As I've pointed out, "pro-life" really isn't. And the problem with "pro-choice" is that when Roe gets overturned, the choice will still be there. But it will be illegal and the person performing the abortion and the woman would be in legal jeopardy. Plus the fact that the woman would be risking her life if she picked the wrong person to do the abortion. But, the choice is still there.

Originally Posted by AustinMike (Post 2230995)

Oh, here we go. If I don't agree with you, I'm not a reasonable person. I get you now.

Originally Posted by AustinMike (Post 2230995)

Please provide a link to the post where I "insist pro-life must be an absolutist universal philosophy with no exceptions ever under any circumstance." I have said repeatedly that it makes no sense to me how someone who claims to be "pro-life" can be for the death penalty. And also, what is my "hyper partisan agenda?" I've said I would like to keep abortion legal. Is that my "hyper partisan agenda? If it is, do you use the same terminology for "pro-lifers?"

Originally Posted by AustinMike (Post 2230995)

Oh, now I'm an ideologue. That's very Aristocratic of you. Out of curiosity, how did you survive the early 2010s? The movie "Catfish" came out in 2010. People starting using the term "catfish" as something other than the dictionary definition: "any of an order (Siluriformes) of chiefly freshwater stout-bodied scaleless bony fishes having long tactile barbels." It wasn't until 2014 that the new definition was added to the dictionary. In the meantime, how did you react to anyone who used the term as "a person who sets up a false personal profile on a social networking site for fraudulent or deceptive purposes." Did you point out they weren't using the term as defined in the dictionary? Did you accuse them of being unreasonable if they didn't agree with you to stop using it in the fallacious manner? Did you call them an ideologue? Just curious.

Originally Posted by AustinMike (Post 2230995)

My first post in this thread was Post 115. You first posted on this subject in Post 97. But, yeah. You didn’t post until my “nutball extremist takes.” Sure, if it makes you feel better, disregard the truth and keep telling yourself you only posted because of me.

Originally Posted by AustinMike (Post 2230995)

Thanks for this response. We agree for the most part on the abortion issue. We disagree on the death penalty issue. I think, had he survived, the Uvalde killer would be a prime candidate for the death penalty.

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry (Post 2229016)

I own zero guns. I hesitate to comment further due to the "don't talk politics" rule.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 2230927)

At the time of this post, this thread has 4,473 views. My guess is a lot of people have read this thread, but they don't comment for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman (Post 2230994)

Is your profile picture/avatar Ken Holtzman?

Originally Posted by Jim65 (Post 2231049)

I'm a Conservative Republican who voted for Trump twice. I stay away from these discussions because they always turn ugly and in thd end, nobody ever has their mind changed. So, I don't see the point.

Originally Posted by clydepepper (Post 2231094)

Well, if you voted for him TWICE, we can assume there are a lot of points you don't see.


.

Originally Posted by jim65 (Post 2231099)

well, i honestly don't care what you think.

Originally Posted by clydepepper (Post 2231092)

Yes. It's pen and ink: The sole surviving piece of my art work.

Modeled after a Baseball Digest Cover:

Attachment 519443Attachment 519444

Originally Posted by clydepepper (Post 2231101)

exactly my point

Originally Posted by Jim65 (Post 2231110)

I simply stated why I stay out of these discussions and you saw that as an excuse to insult me. This is exactly why I stay away from political discussions, because of people like you.

Originally Posted by Jim65 (Post 2231110)

I simply stated why I stay out of these discussions and you saw that as an excuse to insult me. This is exactly why I stay away from political discussions, because of people like you.

Originally Posted by clydepepper (Post 2231121)

James- I sincerely apologize. I was a lifelong republican pre-trump and am just shocked by all that don't see him for what he always has been and always will be.


and I DO care what you think and what everyone thinks ,but, I do worry.



again, I do apologize.

.

Originally Posted by Jim65 (Post 2231126)

Apology accepted. No hard feelings.

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 2231163)

Native Americans did fine with Bow and Arrows until the Europeans invaded with gun powder--Guns and gun powder have killed a lot of people.

Originally Posted by Directly (Post 2231163)

Native Americans did fine with Bow and Arrows until the Europeans invaded with gun powder--Guns and gun powder have killed a lot of people.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2231218)

According to the FBI statistics, you are more likely to be killed with a blunt instrument than a rifle. You are over 4x more likely to be murdered with a knife than a rifle (any rifle, including grandpa’s old single shot, not just the scary looking ones). Who would like to ban or restrict hammers and knives, since it’s the tool that is at fault, alongside the rifles? Or is this logic only applied to the one tool that has political overtones, regardless of the fact it causes less deaths?

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2230924)

You cannot believe in an absolutist, hardline with no exceptions “right to choose” and any meaningful rule of law. Law is intended to constrict and punish certain choices people make, that is the purpose of every law. You clearly know this, as you even specify prison as a result of unlimited free choice.

Originally Posted by AustinMike (Post 2230979)

Making a law does not take away a person's choices, there is no correlation between a "law" and a "choice."

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2231032)

Okay. So everywhere in the world there is the right to have an abortion and always will be. It's just the law punishing people for their free 'choice'. What's the point of discussing abortion at all if you think there is a universalist right to it is already present?

Originally Posted by AustinMike (Post 2230979)

So, let's get back to my original question. What choice(s)s do you think people should not have? And a follow-up question, how do you propose to take that choice away from people?

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2231032)

What choices do I think people should not have? - Already answered. I think you are picking your words wrong again. I am not in favor of rolling back rights.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2230931)

You and BobC just had such nutball extremist takes I couldn’t resist pointing out the absurdity of the false pretenses of ignorance.

Originally Posted by AustinMike (Post 2230995)

My first post in this thread was Post 115. You first posted on this subject in Post 97. But, yeah. You didn’t post until my “nutball extremist takes.” Sure, if it makes you feel better, disregard the truth and keep telling yourself you only posted because of me.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2231038)

Read. The transcript is public and visible to all. What I said and you even quoted was "You and BobC just had such nutball extremist takes I couldn’t resist pointing out the absurdity of the false pretenses of ignorance." Post 97 is me replying to BobC. So... exactly in line with what I said...

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2230931)

I think it is extremely sad that “women’s rights” has largely become a phrase to mean access to any abortion at any time for any reason, among the hardliners even after birth. Post birth abortion is beyond vile and disgusting.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2231032)

You and BobC are the only ones evidently incapable of understanding that words have meanings, that are not picked on the whims of any single individual.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2231038)

You are not reasonable because you refuse to accept that language is not up to your sole arbitration and refuse to apply common sense, context or the dictionary.

Originally Posted by AustinMike (Post 2231233)

I had intended to make my last post the last one I made on abortion in this thread. However, I realized something about you and I decided to make one more last post to point that out.

You repeatedly railed about me and others not agreeing to the Merriam Webster definition of “pro-life.” Yet, there are countless examples of you not applying “common sense, context or the dictionary” to the meaning of words.

(A) You displayed your lack of understanding regarding the definitions of “choice,” “law,” and “right.” You seem to apply your own definitions.

(1) For example, you think that if a “law” is passed, it automatically removes a person’s right to a “choice.” That is absurd. For example, there are speed limits set by law. Let’s say the speed limit on the road I’m driving on is 60 mph. Do you really think that takes away my choice of going 75? No, it doesn’t. I also think it is humorous that you think I could tell the officer giving me a ticket, “But officer. I had no choice. A law was passed regarding the speed limit and that took away my choice. The fact that I was going 75 isn’t because that was my choice, because I had no choice. It was probably an act of nature or divine intervention, but it wasn’t my choice. So, since it wasn’t my choice, I don’t think I should get a ticket.”



(2) You conflate “choice” with “right.” Look up the definitions and you’ll see you’re not using the words properly.

Originally Posted by AustinMike (Post 2231233)

(B) You change the definition of “and” to “or.” Here’s a little logic for you. If you say “A” and “B”, that is only true if “A” if true plus it is only true if “B” is true. If you say “A” or “B”, then that is true if either “A” is true or “B” is true or “A” and “B” are true. You claimed you only posted after I and BobC posted. I pointed out that wasn’t true because I didn’t post until after you did. You said that since you posted after BobC posted, that makes it true. Hence, you want to redefine “and” to be “or.”

Originally Posted by AustinMike (Post 2231233)

(C) You ironically want to change the definition of abortion. Look up the definition of abortion and tell us all how you can have an abortion after birth.

Originally Posted by AustinMike (Post 2231233)

So, I have choices. I can decide that you’re a hypocrite. I can decide that you’re a “performance artist.” Or, I can decide that you’re not nearly as smart as you think you are. I lawfully have those choices because it’s my right. Can you guess which one I'm going to choose?

Originally Posted by clydepepper (Post 2230992)

Originally Posted by Deertick (Post 2231437)

Originally Posted by bobbystrawberry (Post 2231449)

thanks for this. I'm glad they mentioned social media and cable news. Many operators in both spaces are in the business of manufacturing and amplifying outrage and anger in order to maximize engagement.

Originally Posted by clydepepper (Post 2231313)

A Little Stonehenge Humor:

Attachment 519554Attachment 519555

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2231294)

If there is no correlation between law and choice and rights, then law serves no purpose at all. If law is not intended and created to restrict choice by punishing those who do that which the law criminalizes, it has no purpose. The state does not have complete physical control of every humans every action. One can choose to break a law, but that is why we have laws. Laws restrict choice by punishing those who violate it, to make most people conform and to lock up, kill, shame, or harm those who make the choice not allowed by the state.

A right is something specifically protected by the law.

A person who supports a right to choose something is against criminalizing one of the two choices. Pro-choice abortion activists do not think that choice is protected regardless of the law; they are pro-choice because they want that choice to be allowed without getting a murder charge. We all know this. Pro-choice people are not pro-choice because they think the law does not matter and they may make a choice to violate the law and take the punishment. Supporting choice means that one does not support criminalizing one of the sides. You know this, this is extremely disingenuous. You surely possess an ounce of common sense and can apply context. You cannot possibly be this dumb and be a functioning adult.





Yes. Good job, you finally made a correct point. It's utterly irrelevant, but you are correct.

We can do this forever in perpetuity. You just said "You repeatedly railed about me and others not agreeing to the Merriam Webster definition of “pro-life.”" In actuality, only you and Bob C pretended to be too stupid to know what they mean. That means it should be "you repeatedly railed about me and one other..." instead of "others". Ha! I got you! I win now! See how silly this is? You probably don't.





You appear to be referring to 'post birth abortion'. Post birth abortion, or after-birth abortion, is not my term whatsoever. I did not make this up, popularize it, write a single one of the many news articles about it, or author any of the passed or pending legislation related to it. I am not selecting the terms used by political factions in American culture. For the thousandth time, you already know this.





We agree I am not smart, I don't know much. I am simply aware of what some common terms mean as is everyone here except for you and BobC. You can choose to believe whatever you want about anything, nobody has said you cannot think whatever you think. If you want to pretend pro-life is a hardline absolutist universal philosophy but pro-choice is not held to the same rule, you may. It's absurd and stupid, and some will tell you that, but people believe many absurd things.

No matter how stupid I am, a point which I will happily concede, and how satisfied you are with your virtue signaling redefinition, everyone here still knows exactly what pro-life and pro-choice actually mean.

Originally Posted by Carter08 (Post 2232006)

Glad the point was conceded.

Originally Posted by steve B (Post 2231846)

It must be Chiffon!

Originally Posted by cannonballsun (Post 2232403)

I own no guns.
Statistically, you or a member of your family is more likely to be killed or injured by a gun if you own one than if you don't own one.
That's enough for me.

Originally Posted by cannonballsun (Post 2232457)

The chance anyone would have to defend themself with a gun (in a holdup or something like that) is very small. I can't think of anyone I know that had to do that.
I did have a coworker commit suicide with a gun. I did have another coworker who almost shot his son in the middle of the night. His son had forgot his keys and snuck into the house. It was a really close call.
I did have another coworker who was shot and killed by his wife. I don't know the details on that. The rumor was he was abusive to his wife, but I don't really know.
I had another coworker get loaded and stoned and go to his mother and father in laws house to pick up his daughter. They wouldn't give him his daughter (as he was drunk and stoned), and he started waving his gun around and put a few bullets in the walls or floor. Thankfully he didn't shoot anybody, but he spent over a year in jail. If his in-laws had a gun, he would probably be dead now.
By now you're thinking, what kind of place do I work at. There are a lot of people that work there, probably over 500. Anyway, guns are dangerous, beyond a doubt.

Originally Posted by cannonballsun (Post 2232457)

I did have another coworker who was shot and killed by his wife. I don't know the details on that. The rumor was he was abusive to his wife, but I don't really know.

Originally Posted by cannonballsun (Post 2232457)

Anyway, guns are dangerous, beyond a doubt.

Originally Posted by cannonballsun (Post 2232403)

I own no guns.
Statistically, you or a member of your family is more likely to be killed or injured by a gun if you own one than if you don't own one.
That's enough for me.

Originally Posted by cannonballsun (Post 2232457)

The chance anyone would have to defend themself with a gun (in a holdup or something like that) is very small. I can't think of anyone I know that had to do that.
I did have a coworker commit suicide with a gun. I did have another coworker who almost shot his son in the middle of the night. His son had forgot his keys and snuck into the house. It was a really close call.
I did have another coworker who was shot and killed by his wife. I don't know the details on that. The rumor was he was abusive to his wife, but I don't really know.
I had another coworker get loaded and stoned and go to his mother and father in laws house to pick up his daughter. They wouldn't give him his daughter (as he was drunk and stoned), and he started waving his gun around and put a few bullets in the walls or floor. Thankfully he didn't shoot anybody, but he spent over a year in jail. If his in-laws had a gun, he would probably be dead now.
By now you're thinking, what kind of place do I work at. There are a lot of people that work there, probably over 500. Anyway, guns are dangerous, beyond a doubt.

Originally Posted by clydepepper (Post 2232635)

Originally Posted by irv (Post 2232667)

How old are you? :confused:

Just because you don't find this topic, in the off topic section, important, interesting nor wish to engage in conversation about it doesn't mean that others don't.

Would you like it if someone did the same to one of your threads or posted random, off topic pics in one of your BST posts for example?

Originally Posted by irv (Post 2232667)

How old are you? :confused:

Just because you don't find this topic, in the off topic section, important, interesting nor wish to engage in conversation about it doesn't mean that others don't.

Would you like it if someone did the same to one of your threads or posted random, off topic pics in one of your BST posts for example?

Originally Posted by bnorth (Post 2232681)

Just my opinion but subjects like this have no real conversations going on. You have people posting their very biased opinions. No one is going to change that opinion so threads like this turn into name calling because we all believe we are correct and others are idiots on the subject.

Personally I enjoy reading them as humor and the silly/funny pictures add to that enjoyment. I am 53 if that matters.:D

Originally Posted by SAllen2556 (Post 2232700)

I don't know about this. I'm a gun owner and I'm actually starting to change my mind on parts of the debate. For example, would it be terrible to have to be 21 to buy a gun?

I think that when you have to write your opinion, as opposed to shouting it on tv, it's more likely to influence others' opinions - at least those who know how to read and are willing to read opposing views. I actually enjoy these threads once in a while.

Originally Posted by SAllen2556 (Post 2232700)

I think that when you have to write your opinion, as opposed to shouting it on tv, it's more likely to influence others' opinions - at least those who know how to read and are willing to read opposing views. I actually enjoy these threads once in a while.

Originally Posted by SAllen2556 (Post 2232700)

I don't know about this. I'm a gun owner and I'm actually starting to change my mind on parts of the debate. For example, would it be terrible to have to be 21 to buy a gun?

I think that when you have to write your opinion, as opposed to shouting it on tv, it's more likely to influence others' opinions - at least those who know how to read and are willing to read opposing views. I actually enjoy these threads once in a while.

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry (Post 2232721)

+3! I've found this thread mostly respectful and have learned a few things.

Originally Posted by Carter08 (Post 2232760)

I think the basic starting point is the right needs to understand the left doesn’t want to take away all of their guns.

Originally Posted by Mark17 (Post 2232768)

When high ranking lawmakers talk about repealing the 2nd Amendment, this is EXACTLY where they are going.

Originally Posted by jbhofmann (Post 2232772)

Repealing an amendment is possibly the hardest political action in America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2232780)

As a Californian, I see every legislative season that they absolutely are in fact trying to ban guns and/or take my property/turn me into an overnight felon. There is no subtlety in it at all and they are very direct about this. It is even a criminal act for me to stop for lunch on my way to the range now because I have a scary looking rifle. A surprising conservative stay order by the 2nd circuit is the only reason hundreds of thousands or millions of Californians are not yet overnight felons for their legally possessed magazines.

There's not really much of an across the aisles compromise here in this framework - one side is demanding the other cede constitutionally protected liberties in exchange for nothing. A compromise involves both sides getting something. I haven't heard of a proposal, for example, to raise the age of ownership to 21, abolish PPT's, force training before a purchase and a mandatory waiting period but to abolish the NFA restrictions after one has gone through all this. The 'give up X this time but get nothing' that has been the way this has gone since 1934 is not a compromise. An actual across-the-aisle compromise would be interesting to hear and consider, but I doubt will ever happen.

Originally Posted by bnorth (Post 2232787)

To the bold part. That is crazy. Here in rural South Dakota we went the other way recently. Now you can carry a concealed gun without a permit. Not sure I am a fan of that. It is nice that if you don't have a permit you now don't have to drive to/from the range/hunting without displaying your guns at all times. On the flip side it is damn scary anyone can carry a gun concealed.

Originally Posted by Mark17 (Post 2232710)

+1. A thoughtful, reasoned opinion can often sway me.

I'm an NRA member but think 21 sounds reasonable too. I also think it wouldn't keep guns out of the hands of teenagers. Cocaine is illegal everywhere and has been for decades. Yet it's quite readily available nationwide (so I hear.) Passing more laws does not mean the bad guys will obey them. Still, we need reasonable laws.

Originally Posted by bnorth (Post 2232807)

For me the bold part is the big thing most that want more gun laws just don't understand. Bad people do not obey laws and they are the problem.

About the only new law I would be for is making everyone take gun safety courses to be a gun owner. That is just to help keep the honest people from accidently shooting each other.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2232780)

As a Californian, I see every legislative season that they absolutely are in fact trying to ban guns and/or take my property/turn me into an overnight felon. There is no subtlety in it at all and they are very direct about this. It is even a criminal act for me to stop for lunch on my way to the range now because I have a scary looking rifle. A surprising conservative stay order by the 2nd circuit is the only reason hundreds of thousands or millions of Californians are not yet overnight felons for their legally possessed magazines.

There's not really much of an across the aisles compromise here in this framework - one side is demanding the other cede constitutionally protected liberties in exchange for nothing. A compromise involves both sides getting something. I haven't heard of a proposal, for example, to raise the age of ownership to 21, abolish PPT's, force training before a purchase and a mandatory waiting period but to abolish the NFA restrictions after one has gone through all this. The 'give up X this time but get nothing' that has been the way this has gone since 1934 is not a compromise. An actual across-the-aisle compromise would be interesting to hear and consider, but I doubt will ever happen.

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan (Post 2232868)

You keep bringing up the constitution, how essentially any law against guns is against the constitution. Can you please show me where in the constitution it says you can buy any type of gun, any type of ammo, at any age, with no restrictions?

Originally Posted by jingram058 (Post 2232971)

After continuing to periodically check in on this thread, the consensus would seem to be that nothing whatsoever can be done to stop or even decrease the number of mass shootings in this country because of the 2nd Amendment. These events are just something that cannot be eliminated.