Roe Vs. Wade, vs. Second Amendment

Cyrano · 08-30-2008, 10:14 AM

According to the Associated press, this is what the Democratic leadership is thinking:

"DENVER - The refrain in many of the Democratic leaders’ responses to Sen. John McCain’s choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate: Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade."

To which my response as a gun owner and believer in personal freedom and responsibility is, "Second Amendment, Second Amendment."

If the Democrats want to play the game of trying to define Sarah Palin by the fact she has a pro-life view of the women's right to abortion issue, as does John McCain, the Republicans should immediately retaliate by smacking the Obama/Biden ticket with the refrain of "Second Amendment, Second Amendment." Both those swine are notoriously and vocally anti-gun. If Obama has his way, the best we can hope for is the reinstatement of the Slick Willy Gun Ban. More likely the Democrats will try for something even worse, like banning all military-caliber firearms as Mexico did - which include most guns manufactured in the United States.

Think about it. What are the most common cartridges sold in America? .308 Winchester, aka 7.62 NATO; 9mm Parabellum; .223 Remington, aka 5.56 NATO; .45 ACP. All of these are in current use by the US military. If the anti-gunners wanted to get bold, they could add .303 British, .30-06, .30 Carbine, 7.62x39 ComBloc, 8mm Mauser and 7.62x54R to the list.

Just think about what you have in your collection. How many of your guns would be verboten under a military caliber ban? In my case, that would be everything except an antique double-barreled 12-gauge, a Winchester Model 94, a couple of .22s and a couple of pocket pistols.

That, in my opinion, is the sort of civil rights disaster we might be looking at if Obama is elected with the Democrats controlling both houses of Congress. So if the Democrats want to go after McCain and Palin on the Roe vs. Wade issue, by all means the Republicans should go after Obama and Biden on the DC vs. Heller issue. I think the Dumbocrats will backpedal really quickly on that tactic if the Republicans hit the "Obama wants to steal your guns and your rights" gong.

TXplt · 08-30-2008, 10:34 AM

The RKBA is very clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution (and the SCOTUS affirmed this). For some reason, obama and others believed they could ignore it, despite knowing better.

The right to an abortion isn't clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution, but requires a stretch from an activist court to get there. Although I personally believe the state has absolutely no right whatsoever to dictate what a woman may or may not do with her own body, it isn't directly in our Constitution. It was, however, a Constitutional interpretation.

In that public servants are required as their primary charge, above all else, to "support and defend" the Constitution of the United States, it is an untentable (and completely hypocritical) position to support freedom of "choice" yet come out in favor of gun control (which clearly infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms). One could also argue those who support infringement of the RKBA to be criminally culpable, as well as derelect in their duties.

LarryO1970 · 08-30-2008, 10:45 AM

... it ought to be interesting to see how the Democrats squirm IF they can be forced into a 2nd Amendment debate.

texnmidwest · 08-30-2008, 10:51 AM

Just a thought...why is it that the same folks who walk around toting PETA signs, complain about the environment instead of grabbing a trash bag and helping clean it up and are against the death penalty tend to also stand there and support abortion?

LarryO1970 · 08-30-2008, 11:00 AM

... what do they all have in common?

Coeloptera · 08-30-2008, 12:11 PM

NOW we're talking.

That's an excellent point and I would love to see the dems pinned down on that one. Might make them realize strong 2A opposition is a poor choice. If they're smart, they'll back off of it and maybe get more votes from it. We'll see...I should try writing a letter...

- Coeloptera

LarryO1970 · 08-30-2008, 01:00 PM

... they've already buried themselves in their own anti-gun rhetoric and anti-gun legislative voting... they have absolutely no course out of this other than to ... at all costs, avoid answering questions regarding their 2nd Amendment and gun freedoms beliefs.

Anything they attempt to portray as pro-gun will be viewed as "appeasement" and a serious flip-flop.

Again, their previous anti-gun voting will be their death on the subject.

Obama ranks right up there with the anti-gun fever as with Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Biden and pretty much every other Democrat, sans a very short list of pro-gun Democrats... but honestly, I can't really find any. Party line voting, anyone?

nathangdad · 08-30-2008, 01:10 PM

Check the polls. So many women want the "right" to an abortion even if they would not personally have one (over 80% in many locations per
several of polls) it would be political suicide for any party to really do something about Roe vs Wade.

Also, the morning after pills are becoming ever more safe and effective making traditional abortion at thing that will be less and less common as time passes.

So, let them try to beat (not just a dead horse) but a horse that no longer exists other than to some fringe elements with placards hanging around outside of abortion clinics.

DWFan · 09-01-2008, 10:57 PM

Anti-gun proponents? Gun control advocates?
Let's strip away the BS and call them what they are: Anti-Civil Rights Activists
They are no longer targetting just law abiding citizens any more; they are attacking the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Bill of Rights itself. They've been getting away with it for decades but thanks to the SCOTUS opinion, their actions are no longer open to interpretation as "for the public good" and supported by vague interpretations of the Bill of Rights, but a curtailing of rights proclaimed by our founding fathers and defined by the Supreme Court.

Rambo · 09-02-2008, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by texnmidwest

Just a thought...why is it that the same folks who walk around toting PETA signs, complain about the environment instead of grabbing a trash bag and helping clean it up and are against the death penalty tend to also stand there and support abortion?

Hypocrites on both sides eh? How about those evagelical Christian Conservatives who protest abortion as killing and wrong, then favor killing in the form of a death penalty and send their 18 year olds off to kill or be killed in war.
Killing is either right or wrong. As a true Christian one cannot make a distinction between abortion and war. It goes against the teachings of Christ.
Murder is murder. God and Christ make no distinction between the two.

Windwalker · 09-02-2008, 09:05 AM

Rambo, are you saying that if two armed men just kicked in the door of your home while you and your wife were inside that it would be wrong to kill them?

damage855 · 09-02-2008, 10:05 AM

There is a difference between "killing" and "murder" the last time I check no unborn child ever commited a crime. So how can someone justify the "abortion" just because the child was not wanted by the female who got pregnant. People talk about the mothers right to chose but what about the father? I knew a guy in high school got his girl friend pregnant she wanted an abortion he tried every thing to stop it he was ready and willing to take resposibility for his actions. What about his rights? What about the now dead childs rights?

Coeloptera · 09-02-2008, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by damage855

There is a difference between "killing" and "murder" the last time I check no unborn child ever commited a crime. So how can someone justify the "abortion" just because the child was not wanted by the female who got pregnant. People talk about the mothers right to chose but what about the father? I knew a guy in high school got his girl friend pregnant she wanted an abortion he tried every thing to stop it he was ready and willing to take resposibility for his actions. What about his rights? What about the now dead childs rights?

Collateral damage.

Happens in war. Not pretty, not nice, and something a good and faithful Christian really does need to consider. What about children we have killed with our bombs in a country that did not attack us?

I think it's at least a valid question to ask, not baiting anyone, but I think it is valid.

And unfortunately, nature is not fair. If the father had to carry the kid like a seahorse, he'd probably get more say. Look at it this way, globally, women often get the short end of the stick simply because humans are dimorphic enough that men tend to have more raw, physical strength.

And I have my own opinions on what constitutes a "baby" versus a blastocyst or embryo. But that's another debate entirely, obviously.

- Coeloptera

damage855 · 09-02-2008, 07:39 PM

Coelopter.

Good point about civilian casualties it does happen I beleive we try our best to avoid it but yes it does happen. Thats why we should not enter into war with out good reason. I am not going to start a debate over things and wars already past but perhaps if more of our countrys leaders had family in the military they would be a little less ready to go to war without a valid threat to our country. just a thought and my 2cents.

LarryO1970 · 09-02-2008, 07:43 PM

McCain's son is a Marine and Palin's son is in the Army.

McCain's son is in Iraq right now...

Palin's son heads off to Iraq in less than two weeks.

Obama/Biden, neither.

Rambo · 09-02-2008, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Windwalker

Rambo, are you saying that if two armed men just kicked in the door of your home while you and your wife were inside that it would be wrong to kill them?

As a true follower of the teachings of Christ, a Christian would not raise a hand and turn the other cheek. As for me, I believe in killing so I would defend my wife and then myself. Ergo, two dead perpetrators and me having to deal with my maker at a later date.
That being said, I cannot hold to the Christian faith because I would kill another human being if I need to.

Rambo · 09-02-2008, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by damage855

There is a difference between "killing" and "murder"

In the laws of man, maybe. But as a Christian, killing and murder are the same. The taking of a human life.In the Old Testament, only God can send his people off to war. In the New Testament, Jesus says the Old Testament were the ways of his father and not His ways. Killing is a mortal sin either way you look at it.
What I'm pointing out is the hypocracy of both the right and the left, both opposed to killing and in favor of killing. The Conservative Right takes a bigger hit because they tout their strong Christian beliefs and if you carefully examine Christianity, they fall way short.
I, for one, believe in abortion, the death penalty and in killing in war. You'll find no hypocracy here.

damage855 · 09-03-2008, 07:52 AM

Rambo the scripture you quoted about turning the othr cheek refers to taking an insult not letting your self be attacked.This is possibly the most misqouted piece of scripture. If you finish the verse it reads...
Lam 3:30
Let him offer his cheek to the one who hits him; 1 let him have his fill of insults

Luke 6:27 “But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, 91 do good to those who hate you, 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat 92 you. 6:29 To the person who strikes you on the cheek, 93 offer the other as well, 94 and from the person who takes away your coat, 95 do not withhold your tunic 96 either. 97 6:30 Give to everyone who asks you, 98 and do not ask for your possessions 99 back 100 from the person who takes them away. 6:31 Treat others 101 in the same way that you would want them to treat you. 102
Jesus in fact told his followers to buy swords.
Luke 22:36
Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it , and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

Now if Jesus did not want us to defend ourselves from harm why did he instruct people to buy swords? We could get into a deep religous debate but this is not the place for it. I am a christian and I have no problem in defending myself or anyone from harm from some other person. If I have to kill that man so be it God will judge him them and I will be judged one day myself I have noone else to answer to.

troy2000 · 09-03-2008, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

McCain's son is a Marine and Palin's son is in the Army.

McCain's son is in Iraq right now...

Palin's son heads off to Iraq in less than two weeks.

Obama/Biden, neither.

Obama has two young daughters, one ten years old and one seven years old. And you're right: strangely enough, neither one is in the Army or the Marines.

Biden's older son is Attorney General of the State of Delaware. He's also a Captain in the Delaware National Guard, and is scheduled to be deployed to Iraq next month.

What exactly was your point, Larry?

LarryO1970 · 09-03-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy2000

Obama has two young daughters, one ten years old and one seven years old. And you're right: strangely enough, neither one is in the Army or the Marines.

Biden's older son is Attorney General of the State of Delaware. He's also a Captain in the Delaware National Guard, and is scheduled to be deployed to Iraq next month.

What exactly was your point, Larry?

Refer to post #14 Troy2k ... that's what I was answering/supporting with this statement. I did not know Joe Bidens' kid was in the Delaware National Guard, thanks for the enlightenment.

08-30-2008, 10:34 AM	#2
TXplt Traveling Libertarian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 4,645 Images: 4 Blog Entries: 2	The RKBA is very clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution (and the SCOTUS affirmed this). For some reason, obama and others believed they could ignore it, despite knowing better. The right to an abortion isn't clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution, but requires a stretch from an activist court to get there. Although I personally believe the state has absolutely no right whatsoever to dictate what a woman may or may not do with her own body, it isn't directly in our Constitution. It was, however, a Constitutional interpretation. In that public servants are required as their primary charge, above all else, to "support and defend" the Constitution of the United States, it is an untentable (and completely hypocritical) position to support freedom of "choice" yet come out in favor of gun control (which clearly infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms). One could also argue those who support infringement of the RKBA to be criminally culpable, as well as derelect in their duties. __________________ Old fighter pilots never die.....They just wind up in Texas

08-30-2008, 10:45 AM	#3
LarryO1970 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Johnson Creek, WI Posts: 5,429 Blog Entries: 1	... it ought to be interesting to see how the Democrats squirm IF they can be forced into a 2nd Amendment debate. __________________ Give the GOV a harumph !

08-30-2008, 10:51 AM	#4
texnmidwest Some People's kids.... Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: South east Wisconsin Posts: 6,895	Just a thought...why is it that the same folks who walk around toting PETA signs, complain about the environment instead of grabbing a trash bag and helping clean it up and are against the death penalty tend to also stand there and support abortion? __________________ never pass up a bathroom, never waste a ** , and never trust a fart.

08-30-2008, 11:00 AM	#5
LarryO1970 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Johnson Creek, WI Posts: 5,429 Blog Entries: 1	... what do they all have in common? __________________ Give the GOV a harumph !

08-30-2008, 01:00 PM	#7
LarryO1970 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Johnson Creek, WI Posts: 5,429 Blog Entries: 1	... they've already buried themselves in their own anti-gun rhetoric and anti-gun legislative voting... they have absolutely no course out of this other than to ... at all costs, avoid answering questions regarding their 2nd Amendment and gun freedoms beliefs. Anything they attempt to portray as pro-gun will be viewed as "appeasement" and a serious flip-flop. Again, their previous anti-gun voting will be their death on the subject. Obama ranks right up there with the anti-gun fever as with Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Biden and pretty much every other Democrat, sans a very short list of pro-gun Democrats... but honestly, I can't really find any. Party line voting, anyone? __________________ Give the GOV a harumph ! Last edited by LarryO1970; 08-30-2008 at 01:02 PM.

08-30-2008, 10:14 AM	#1
Cyrano Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: New York Posts: 6,743	Roe Vs. Wade, vs. Second Amendment According to the Associated press, this is what the Democratic leadership is thinking: "DENVER - The refrain in many of the Democratic leaders’ responses to Sen. John McCain’s choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate: Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade." To which my response as a gun owner and believer in personal freedom and responsibility is, "Second Amendment, Second Amendment." If the Democrats want to play the game of trying to define Sarah Palin by the fact she has a pro-life view of the women's right to abortion issue, as does John McCain, the Republicans should immediately retaliate by smacking the Obama/Biden ticket with the refrain of "Second Amendment, Second Amendment." Both those swine are notoriously and vocally anti-gun. If Obama has his way, the *best* we can hope for is the reinstatement of the Slick Willy Gun Ban. More likely the Democrats will try for something even worse, like banning all military-caliber firearms as Mexico did - which include most guns manufactured in the United States. Think about it. What are the most common cartridges sold in America? .308 Winchester, aka 7.62 NATO; 9mm Parabellum; .223 Remington, aka 5.56 NATO; .45 ACP. All of these are in current use by the US military. If the anti-gunners wanted to get bold, they could add .303 British, .30-06, .30 Carbine, 7.62x39 ComBloc, 8mm Mauser and 7.62x54R to the list. Just think about what you have in your collection. How many of your guns would be verboten under a military caliber ban? In my case, that would be everything except an antique double-barreled 12-gauge, a Winchester Model 94, a couple of .22s and a couple of pocket pistols. That, in my opinion, is the sort of civil rights disaster we might be looking at if Obama is elected with the Democrats controlling both houses of Congress. So if the Democrats want to go after McCain and Palin on the Roe vs. Wade issue, by all means the Republicans should go after Obama and Biden on the DC vs. Heller issue. I think the Dumbocrats will backpedal really quickly on that tactic if the Republicans hit the "Obama wants to steal your guns and your rights" gong.

08-30-2008, 12:11 PM	#6
Coeloptera Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 3,561	NOW we're talking. That's an excellent point and I would love to see the dems pinned down on that one. Might make them realize strong 2A opposition is a poor choice. If they're smart, they'll back off of it and maybe get more votes from it. We'll see...I should try writing a letter... - Coeloptera

08-30-2008, 01:10 PM	#8
nathangdad Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,087	Roe vs Wade is the deadest of issues Check the polls. So many women want the "right" to an abortion even if they would not personally have one (over 80% in many locations per several of polls) it would be political suicide for any party to really do something about Roe vs Wade. Also, the morning after pills are becoming ever more safe and effective making traditional abortion at thing that will be less and less common as time passes. So, let them try to beat (not just a dead horse) but a horse that no longer exists other than to some fringe elements with placards hanging around outside of abortion clinics.

09-01-2008, 10:57 PM	#9
DWFan Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: N. Texas Posts: 1,523 Blog Entries: 2	Anti-gun proponents? Gun control advocates? Let's strip away the BS and call them what they are: Anti-Civil Rights Activists They are no longer targetting just law abiding citizens any more; they are attacking the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Bill of Rights itself. They've been getting away with it for decades but thanks to the SCOTUS opinion, their actions are no longer open to interpretation as "for the public good" and supported by vague interpretations of the Bill of Rights, but a curtailing of rights proclaimed by our founding fathers and defined by the Supreme Court. Last edited by DWFan; 09-01-2008 at 11:06 PM.

09-02-2008, 09:05 AM	#11
Windwalker Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 6,020	Rambo, are you saying that if two armed men just kicked in the door of your home while you and your wife were inside that it would be wrong to kill them? __________________ America: Love it and protect it or leave it In God I Trust

09-02-2008, 10:05 AM	#12
damage855 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 956 Blog Entries: 1	There is a difference between "killing" and "murder" the last time I check no unborn child ever commited a crime. So how can someone justify the "abortion" just because the child was not wanted by the female who got pregnant. People talk about the mothers right to chose but what about the father? I knew a guy in high school got his girl friend pregnant she wanted an abortion he tried every thing to stop it he was ready and willing to take resposibility for his actions. What about his rights? What about the now dead childs rights? __________________ If total goverment control will make us all safer, then why are prisons so dangerous?

09-02-2008, 07:39 PM	#14
damage855 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 956 Blog Entries: 1	Coelopter. Good point about civilian casualties it does happen I beleive we try our best to avoid it but yes it does happen. Thats why we should not enter into war with out good reason. I am not going to start a debate over things and wars already past but perhaps if more of our countrys leaders had family in the military they would be a little less ready to go to war without a valid threat to our country. just a thought and my 2cents. __________________ If total goverment control will make us all safer, then why are prisons so dangerous?

09-02-2008, 07:43 PM	#15
LarryO1970 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Johnson Creek, WI Posts: 5,429 Blog Entries: 1	McCain's son is a Marine and Palin's son is in the Army. McCain's son is in Iraq right now... Palin's son heads off to Iraq in less than two weeks. Obama/Biden, neither. __________________ Give the GOV a harumph !

09-03-2008, 07:52 AM	#18
damage855 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 956 Blog Entries: 1	Rambo the scripture you quoted about turning the othr cheek refers to taking an insult not letting your self be attacked.This is possibly the most misqouted piece of scripture. If you finish the verse it reads... Lam 3:30 Let him offer his cheek to the one who hits him; 1 let him have his fill of insults Luke 6:27 “But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, 91 do good to those who hate you, 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat 92 you. 6:29 To the person who strikes you on the cheek, 93 offer the other as well, 94 and from the person who takes away your coat, 95 do not withhold your tunic 96 either. 97 6:30 Give to everyone who asks you, 98 and do not ask for your possessions 99 back 100 from the person who takes them away. 6:31 Treat others 101 in the same way that you would want them to treat you. 102 Jesus in fact told his followers to buy swords. Luke 22:36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it , and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. Now if Jesus did not want us to defend ourselves from harm why did he instruct people to buy swords? We could get into a deep religous debate but this is not the place for it. I am a christian and I have no problem in defending myself or anyone from harm from some other person. If I have to kill that man so be it God will judge him them and I will be judged one day myself I have noone else to answer to. __________________ If total goverment control will make us all safer, then why are prisons so dangerous?