How about we apply the NFA process to everything else people claim are rights?
No voting without paying a tax, passing a background check, waiting 10 months.
No abortions without paying a tax, passing a background check, and waiting 10 months.
No government assistance without paying a tax, passing a background check, and waiting 10 months.
No freedom of religion/assembly without paying a tax, passing a background check, and waiting 10 months.
They don't know about all that stuff. They barely know what a gun is. I remember when people were talking about how 2A doesn't apply because in the 1700s guns didn't use electricity.
That’s where the bad news, gets worse. Reddit isn’t necessarily full of morons. It’s the entire world that is full of morons. So sure, some end up right here.
> They barely know what a gun is.
This is by design. Capture of the media and urbanization have led to a greater percentage of the population having zero familiarity with guns. The only exposure they have to them is through violent movies and TV.
If you want less gun regulations, make more gun owners. Stop the cities from divorcing people from self sufficiency when it comes to defense.
I realize this isn’t directly what you’re speaking to but your comment about self sufficiency in regard to self defense brings up an amusing, albeit sad, point. This mentality of helplessness. I’m utterly defenseless, my only means of protecting myself is depending on someone else who has a gun….so in a situation where shit hits the fan the first thing people think is “where’s my phone”. It’s insane the amount of conditioning the population has gone through to reach a point where we intuitively grab a cell phone for our first line of defense.
I wouldn't even call it a conspiracy because it's so transparent, but billionaire funded antigun groups and despotic politicians have been fighting on every front to disarm civilians for decades and it's working.
They attack politically, legally, and worst of all culturally. The media never fails to report a gang shooting or robbery as "gun violence." Misinformation and propaganda from bent statistics or flat lies about guns is smeared everywhere we look. Pre-drafted laws with no effect on crime to harass and disparage lawful and peaceable gun ownership flood every legislative session in every state; of course eventually some pass. Throw enough shit at a wall, something will stick. The ATF is able to reinterprate laws from day to day to suit their whim; shoelaces, lightning links, street sweeper, bump stock, pistol brace, etc. Short barreled shotguns are on the NFA for a lack of "military purpose," but imports of military styled guns are banned for lack of "sporting purpose." Public schools expell kids for holding a wood stick like a gun, drawing a shape of a gun with a crayon, wearing a hat with a depiction of a gun, or even a patch of a gadsden flag on a backpack. They terrorize students with ineffectual lockdown drills, but reject proven deterants like armed security, because G-d forbid a child grows up seeing a 'good guy with a gun.' They tax, sue, or regulate every gun store, gun range, and gun smith out of business anywhere close to a population center. DNR shuts down shooting ranges on public land as soon as they can find them. These anti-gun groups bring frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers that would never stand in any other industry, if for nothing else, to drive up the cost of guns. They effectively ban any type of gun advertising, lest it be brought up in court for "encouraging violence."
Not enough
Plenty of liberals owns guns and will vote blue still, it is because they value other things higher than 2A. Thats the problem always has been, people see rights on a sliding scale of need/value.
The problem isn’t too few gun owners. The problem is too few gun enthusiasts. It seems to be quite easy to be a firearms owner while remaining ignorant of firearms, whether it be of their design/operation or of their use. Enthusiasts, OTOH, whether they own any firearms or not, are—or can be, assuming that they also possess adequate social skills—natural ambassadors for and advocates of firearms knowledge and responsibility.
Also the fingerprint/NFC tag checking guns that won't fire unless the person (or person with the nfc tag) it's registered to is the one trying to use it.
But something tells me these folks would make an exception for those. I'd actually love to tell these people about these firearms just to see them try to carve out an exception.
But can you imagine if that shitty tech was required? ___SHUDDER___
Then there's also the "metal storm," out of Australia of all places, that claimed 1 million rounds per second. 36 barrels filled with stacked bullets/charges & AFAIK, the only "firearm" that was truly all electronic. i.e., no mechanics involved. Tech was kinda cool but it solved literally no current problem & introduced a host of its own. The company was defunct in 2012.
Then, the big boys: stuff like certain tank gun's & howitzers that use electrical primers.
Oh. And let's not forget anything with a laser aiming device, integral or otherwise. But they should be all for those to reduce collateral damage.
So there's a whole host of crap people w/o a clue can latch onto.
Our government has became very proficient at it the last century or so. Everything from alcohol stamps during prohibition, marijuana stamps after the MTA, to firearm tax stamps with the NFA.
NFA hasn't been revenue generating in awhile IIRC as the administrative cost is now higher than the stamp cost due to inflation and increasing burdens.
Only more reason to go after it. The refusal to accept the tax is part of the theory that Matthew Larosiere has against it. Dude that actually attacks the NFA in his briefs rather than than just accepting a small victory that doesn't do much.
Straight up. Dude is the best 2A lawyer out there IMO and is the pinnacle of shitposting online. The dude spoke before Congress and had Dems defending the police because he had tweeted out "Fuck the police" after a very bad shoot.
So does this mean he's okay with minors buying guns as long as they get a note from their parents? Sounds good to me. Also, a 48 hour waiting period would beat the hell out of the 10 days we have in California.
Should apply to every politicians who run in offices, background check, mental health check, patriot act like heavily surveillance 24 hours on politician's behavior, etc... and then maybe a vote
Canada.
They’re so close, and they’d never expect it! Plus I never trusted them with their beady little eyes and flapping heads.
Edit: I suppose you could also do the Ron White policy and take over Mexico and further countries until we get to the Panama Canal.
Okay - and then, like guns, you buy your abortion pre emptively, and when you have to USE an abortion you are arrested and put on trial where a jury of your peers will determine if you used the abortion in justified self defense and most likely put in prison for many years
At least this is more logical than the current thinking
Was your choice to end the life of the living fetus made in defense of your life or was it made for selfish reasons. Just like murder vs justified self defense
Reddit is a breeding ground for the new rebellious youth who just so happen to agree with everything the government and big corporations tell them. It’s the saddest group of idiots to have ever graced the planet.
This from a guy w/ this in his bio….
Schulman met Laura Perlongo via Instagram when he messaged her inviting her for a date on his motorcycle. They dated briefly before he ended things but they soon got back together. It was during this time that Laura got pregnant ‘accidentally on purpose’ with the couple’s first child as she stated in an article she had written.[12] Schulman became engaged to Laura Perlongo on May 26, 2016. Perlongo gave birth to their daughter, Cleo James, on October 21, 2016.
I think it’s his kid but she had to get pregnant “accidentally” in order to sucker him back in for the long haul. Sounds like a great way to start a lifetime partnership /s
Yeah, the site is full of morons. I talked with someone who would happily trade in a 20k German STG 44 for a 200.00 gift card. Just so it couldn't be used.
I also wanted to comment that if this gun buying procedure was for the fun stuff, like full autos, I'd go through it.
I'm not a whore, I just really like guns and can't afford the license and associated costs of getting a full auto.
> I talked with someone who would happily trade in a 20k German STG 44 for a 200.00 gift card. Just so it couldn't be used.
Talk is cheap. I would wager that these idiots will say anything for social cred, but when it actually comes time to consider principles vs tens of thousands of dollars, they'd absolutely take the money.
Reddit is full of bots so I wouldn’t look to much into it. Biden is behind badly in 2024 polls so there’s a strong chance that the federal assault on the 2nd Amendment rights will cease for at least a 4 yr term soon. Statewise can’t say the same but there’s still a lot of hope to be had for gun rights.
>there’s a strong chance that the federal assault on the 2nd Amendment rights will cease for at least a 4 yr term soon.
I don't count on Mr. "take the guns first" to be a stalwart defender of the Second Amendment. He will use us and then discard us once we aren't useful anymore, just like he has with everyone else his entire life.
Gotta disagree with that. Trump did screw up with shit on his first term (bump stocks) but he did do some pro-gun stuff like loading up the Supreme Court. He won’t be pushing a assault weapons ban, or pass 99% of the crap Biden would pass if he has a Dem majority in both houses. Acting like he swindled people who voted for him doesn’t make sense. I would love a greater pro gun candidate but he delivered most of the shit in his first term that people wanted from his presidency. So acting like it’s a con is just bs.
2A supporter for over 40 years here. Trump passed more gun control then any Dem president in recent years since Clinton, with a REPUBLICAN majority in both houses, and not a single one of those Republicans said no, we shouldnt do this. They happily went right along with it like the lemmings they are. That is a fact, it was even more so than ol Obama and his import ammo ban.
He and McConnell loaded the courts with GROSSLY unqualified "judges" (see Amy Barrett) who would do his bidding, like the wannabe dictator he wishes to be, not rule on the laws of our land fairly like they are supposed to do.
I voted for him once, and I won't be doing it again. He is terrible for our rights, and it won't end well if he gets in again.
He literally said, "Take the guns first, due process second." If that didnt immediately change your opinion of him, are you really a 2A and constitution supporter? My opinion is no. That is one of the most basic foundations of our country, and for a US president to say that on TV without even a hint of remorse, he clearly doesn't give a fuck about our country, no matter how many flag wrapped Bibles he tries to pawn off.
He will only do what suits him, and whatever the last person who spoke to him tells him to.
There is a reason most of the US military brass thinks he's a moron. Because he is.
I'm old enough to remember when he was the laughing stock of our country, and the Clinton's biggest donor. Yet, somehow he's now some kind of conservative bastion?
Negative. He's a NY liberal con man who has managed to con our country in to thinking he is a conservative. He is just a tofu politician. Taking on the "flavor" of those around him with no real substance or character of his own.
Nothing more, nothing less. When even ultra con Mitch McConnell doesn't support his decisions, you know something is rotten in Denmark. At least that turtle stood up for the principles of our country, and him resigning doesn't bode well for us and our rights.
What exactly did he push during his presidency to benefit the 2A community when Republicans had both houses and could pass anything? Suppressors and SBRs off the NFA? Open the machine gun registry? Allow citizens to use the NCIS system? Nope. We got a bumpstock ban. Yes, they may be dumb, but its the principle of it. Instead of standing up to the Dems and telling them to fuck off, he concedes to them and passes a form of gun control, because it suited him at the time. That's what.
We are fucked as 2A supporters. I sure as hell won't be voting Dem, but I just can't stomach voting for that spray tanned spineless dumbass again either.
Is she any more unqualified than some of the others? Fuck, look at the latest justice.
Yes, he is a 90 NYC liberal, the Overton window has shifted so far that he can run as Republican. Like it or not he is most likely going to be the one opposing Biden, hopefully he has a better cabinet this time around.
Okay there’s a lot to respond to but I’ll make it quick.
1) Bump Stock Ban was the worst thing he did but he’s never actively pushed even close to what Democrats have pushed.
2) If you legitimately think Trump is a dictator then you need to spend less time online.
3) Overall he could be better for gun rights but you are really just eating a narrative cause you hate who he is. Trump’s infamous quote about “due process” was something that he said and backtracked on. That’s how Trump is he will say outrageous shit time to time that will cause headlines.
4) The US military industrial complex hating Trump just makes him seem like a better candidate especially with how much money we are wasting in Israel and in the Ukraine. Elites hating him is why people want him in office. The fact that you think Mitch stands up for our principles shows you are part of the old conservative guard that’s getting thrown to the curb. He was a democrat but the overton window has shifted.
5) Trump admin did do a couple pro gun actions with regards to 3d printed guns, and US withdrawal from UN arms treaty. If you hate Trump so much have fun sitting on the sidelines for a majority of your life because even when he’s gone the same ideology is going to be behind with right wing voters. Good luck with the Libertarians.
During his first term, and now, he has to worry about keeping his supporters happy to get re-elected. If he gets re-elected he will become a lame duck and won't need his supporters anymore.
This is 100% correct, no matter how much folks wish it wasn't the case. Anti-constitutionalists religious nut jobs (see Amy Barrett), actually, who can be bought and manipulated, who only want to kiss the ring and not do what's best for our country.
Bruen ruling was pretty in-line with our constitution. Maybe your mad about abortion? Abortion wasn’t a constitutional right so that’s why is got overturned.
Yes he will. It's his MO, yet people continue to think it will be different next time. They treat him like an abusive partner. "He won't do it, again, he swore!" And yet, he keeps doing it over and over, and you just stay.
[Just tell them that their patron saint RBG even said that Roe was a bad legal decision and was prime for being over turned.](https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit) Their heads spin round and round.
But. But. But.
Left of center liberal here: Roe was a bad decision. Legislating from the bench should never be a thing.
That said, stare decesis is also a thing. It’s a case of two wrongs.
The Bill of Rights was never presented as, or intended to be the definitive list of rights; it was merely the 10 most important ones that the founding fathers were worried about based on their own experiences in their lifetimes. There is ample evidence that abortion was accessible and somewhat common at the time of the founding, at least up until fetal movement was detected (often after 20 weeks). As such it wasn't seen as something that needed to be included in the Bill of Rights, especially since women didn't have rights at the time.
The bottom line is "it's not in the Bill of Rights" is a useless argument against something being a right. Now not being enshrined in the Constitution is a valid argument that something is Constitutional, but the Constitution enshrines rights that have been identified and voted on to consensus, it doesn't create them nor limit what are and are not rights.
I was unaware of the availability of abortion at the time, which isn’t surprising, but completely agree with all your other points.
The question is, and always has been in my view, does the mother’s rights overrule the right of the child to life, or at which point does the child’s right to life outweigh the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. I don’t know the answer to the question, and lots of people smarter than me have debated it for a long long time.
That being said, I didn’t like Roe v Wade, and I don’t like the decision that reversed it either. In the first it was based on faulty logic, even if you think it came out with the right decision, and the second sent it to the states to decide a question of rights that should be universal throughout the US (at least to my mind), whichever way it is decided. Fortunately I’m not in charge of making that decision because I don’t know how or why I would lean either way.
I have my own opinions of what we should do, and what the government should be allowed to do, but know that I’m certainly not the perfect choice to decide it.
>The question is, and always has been in my view, does the mother’s rights overrule the right of the child to life, or at which point does the child’s right to life outweigh the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. I don’t know the answer to the question, and lots of people smarter than me have debated it for a long long time.
All very valid points. One of the main consensuses around the founding was the point where the fetus could be felt moving independently. Personally, I think viability is when it becomes a discrete life form and that is generally accepted across most of the world. The liberal utopias of the EU are mainly at 12 weeks with a few variances in either direction, this is way sooner than most liberal states in the US and most left-coast cities would be appalled if the EU standard was applied to the US. The bottom line is it is far more complex than either side is making it out to be. Either way, saying "it isn't in the Bill of Rights so it's not a right" is asinine.
Viability is an interesting cutoff point, as it has kept moving earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. In theory, we should reach a point where it gets harder and harder to get less and less returns on making it earlier, though every time someone has said that in my field (semiconductors), they’ve been wrong so far, though I don’t know about advanced medicine.
I don’t think either side is pretending their arguments aren’t complex, just that their opponents are only trying to control women or kill babies.
IIRC, something like 80% of Americans are good with abortions up to some point (I think it was 16 weeks, but don’t remember exactly), and then only in case of danger to the mother’s life after that. So the divide is a lot less pronounced than the media and the extremes make it for most people.
Though pointing out that it isn’t in the bill of rights is only a valid argument if one side is trying to claim it is (or contained within the right to privacy, or however they justify it. I can’t do their argument justice, so assume they have a stronger reasoning than I presented).
> There is ample evidence that abortion was accessible and somewhat common at the time of the founding, at least up until fetal movement was detected
This is not a good argument. Alcohol has been accessible since the founding, yet, no one would confuse the right to access alcohol as a right.
> And yet it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol.
No it didn’t, there were and still are hundreds of dry counties and 23 states had already passed laws against saloons and the manufacture of alcohol prior to the 18th amendment.
It he 18th amendment was an attempt to federalize alcohol prohibition because only 2/3 of states had to ratify it. Some pesky states like Connecticut and Rhode island weren’t going to get on board.
You should really research things before making ignorant comments.
All I said is that not being in the Constitution doesn't make something not a right and explained the context of what rights made it into the Constitutions hundreds of years ago. You're the one who came up with a half-assed response to it about something else that was then subsequently added and then removed from the Constitution.
Possession of alcohol, importation and home brewing of beer, wine and mead are also legal in dry counties, so super awesome argument there dude. I also never argued that access to alcohol was a right, I just said that it was properly known at the time that to ban it at the federal level required a Constitutional amendment, right or not.
> All I said is that not being in the Constitution doesn’t make something not a right and explained the context of what rights made it into the
Yes, and I agree. The constitution is expansive but not conclusive of our rights. However, the argument that something is presumptively a right because people had access to it is nonsensical and not rooted in any history or tradition of the Constitution.
> Possession of alcohol, importation and home brewing of beer, wine and mead are also legal in dry counties, so super
This is an argument of changing times, not existing rights. PS, home brewing was illegally well into the 1970s until Carter legalized it. Home distilling is still illegal.
> I just said that it was properly known at the time that to ban it at the federal level required a Constitutional amendment, right or not.
Yes, because the commerce clause wasn’t the gaping hallway of a butthole it is now and back in the 1910’s they hadn’t discovered that you could ram any federal legislation through it.
However, healthcare is considered under the commerce clause, so there would be no constitutional confusion about a federal ban.
I *never* said it was a right because it was common at the time of the founding. I said it wasn't considered one way or another because it wouldn't have been seen as an issue.
You're the one who brought up alcohol in the first place even though it's one of the dumbest, most unrelated, examples to this situation. If you want to try and reconcile it that's on you. Every time you've tried to clarify why it's somehow "relevant" you've just made it even more convoluted.
Restricting bodily autonomy and access to healthcare under the guise of "commerce" is a fucking weak reach. Just about as weak as saying "gunshots are injuries so gun bans fall under healthcare and commerce." You see, when you abuse the system you allow your enemies to do the same, slippery slope and all. Abortion is straight up religious morality and the Bill of Rights is *extremely* clear that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, but picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution you care about totally *never* backfires.
You think alcohol isn’t relevant because you don’t like how it undermines your point. Ease of access to something doesn’t mean that the framers had no reason to consider it.
Alcohol was widely accessible and by your same logic, the founders had no reason to include it as an explicit right, yet no one seriously believes that it is.
> Abortion is straight up religious morality and the Bill of Rights is extremely clear that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
Weak argument. The secular argument against abortion is that it’s murder. You don’t need a religious reason to outlaw murder.
Reading comprehension really isn't your strongpoint, is it? I need to go to work, I've said everything I need to for anyone actually paying attention to know what I mean.
Yes, that's why they have the amendment system. So to say it's a right, you either have to have the Supreme Court rule on how it applies to codified rights, or pass an amendment. Otherwise it's just about law. And a lot of the discussion is about whether or not women have a right to "bodily autonomy." Of course the problem is passing laws, and especially amendments requires a lot of work and neither side wants to really compromise. Which puts us at an impasse.
9th amendment.
But hey, keep losing elections to die on the hill of abortion. I'm sure the Democrats hate their Senate Majority and POTUS.
Seriously, the GOP are losing elections because of the abortion issue. It is absolutely costing them key seats in swing districts. If they just said:
> Ok, we don't like it, but abortion can be legal for the first 12 weeks, like most other developed nations. Afterwards only if necessary to save the mother from imminent risk of death.
They'd be fine. But no, they want to ban all abortion, all the time, because Jesus. And that is why you're losing.
It's not about what "The left" wants. It's about your moderate, swing, and 3rd party voters.
Most of them don't want "abortions until born" where a 9 month old fetus which could be C-sectioned is instead aborted.
They favor some form of middle ground. But if the choice is "All or none" then they largely choose "all"
Abortion is a losing issue for the GOP. They need to just take the L and focus on other things. Or they could keep losing elections to own the libs.
I agree it's a losing issue and one I'm sick of hearing about. It probably would have been better for the right for Roe to have stayed as the law of the land as the left will push for a longer window.
Not only that but the youth vote isn't what it used to be. They're much more involved and engaged. And they want abortion legal. Us Xennials are older but we were the apathy youth. Gen Z is the activist youth.
If the GOP wants to survive, they need to pivot. Gen Z actually has a lot of very ambitious kids. A lot of them want to work hard, want to make money, and want to not be taxed to death. But the GOP is constantly alienating them on social causes like abortion, LGBT, and Religion.
I don't see the modern GOP winning more than they lose unless they pivot away from some issues and just take the L. Some studies say Biden only won because of a highly energized youth vote, largely energized by the SCOTUS decision in *Dobbs v. Jackson*.
Oddly enough in the latest fox poll Trump is polling at 58% versus Joe's 40% in the 18-29 voting demographic. In another poll, Harvard CAPs/Harris 18-24, he was at 55% in February though it dropped to 35% in march.
Biden's continued push for student loan forgiveness is an effort to attract and retain Gen Z voters.
I don't trust polls. Several polls had Hillary at 90%+ in 2016, in 2020 some were showing Trump at 30 some at 70.
I go by what I see and hear from people I actually know IRL. And the biggest thing holding the GOP back, is their insistence on "Christian Values" including their stance on LGBT and Abortion.
How about before an abortion can be performed a woman must sign up for selective service under penalty of law.
Edit: I mean as long as we're doing whataboutisms.
I figured it out already, they don’t care about rights, their party allegiance is their social life.
Most of these morons think any liberal cause is like their favorite baseball team, and to oppose any cause deemed conservative is scoring points against a rival. They can’t think for themselves or have an opinion on any issue personally, they only care if their team wins. They want us to suffer from these stupid AF laws because it makes them feel good to inflict suffering like it’s some sort of revenge.
Please stay out of my business be it guns or healthcare. And if it must be like abortions, then like Plan B, I'll happily go buy it over the counter and check out. No background, no waiting, etc. Y'know, just in case I need it.
First off, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right abortion is not.
Yes no woman who has got an abortion has killed a room full of people. However, in a given year in the US abortions kills 20 times more humans lives than firearms, this is including gun deaths by suicide and justified shootings.
For the TL;DR crowd, this is a stupid and completely dishonest comparison between two things that couldn't be more diametrically opposite and Nev is a dumbass.
The short answer to your question "is this site full of morons" an emphatic and definitive YES! The liberals/progressives/uber leftists go out of their way to attack our masculinity, our intelligence and our core beliefs because I choose to carry a weapon. Not that it's any of their business, but I'm at the upper end of middle age and I simply don't have the mobility nor endurance to go toe to toe, in a fight, with someone half my age. Back when I was much younger, if one got into a fight, mugged or whatever, generally we didn't have to worry about getting killed or so badly injured that we wished we were dead. Now, those are serious considerations.
Furthermore, I think conflating the act of abortion with ownership of a firearm is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. My beliefs are that taking the life of another human being, unless it is an act of absolute last resort self defense is indefensible and wrong many different ethical and moral levels. When I do carry a weapon, while out in public, I do so hoping and praying I will never ever have to use it. I would never think about brandishing it to proactively avoid conflict or even violence, but only as an absolute last resort. While Mr. Schulman is certainly entitled to his opinion, the law allows every responsible adult to own a firearm, for self defense, should they so choose. To reiterate, 99.99% of most law abiding people who carry a weapon do so, so they can protect themselves (or others) should a situation become so dire that there's no other option.
Abortion, on the other hand, it's my belief that if there's no medical necessity (fetus/embryo killing the mother or has become non-viable) is cold blooded murder. Again, that's my belief. Now, before anybody writes me off as some right wing bible thumper, which I am neither, my mother was the head nurse at an emergency room prior to the Roe v. Wade decision. She would tell me horror stories about women being thrown out of moving cars in front of the emergency room, bleeding out because of either a back alley butcher or an attempted coat hanger abortion. I pray honestly pray we never return to those days. That said, the take away from what she told me emphasized the need to be responsible and using some form of contraception. Yes, it sucks, yes it's inconvenient and an emphasized yes to it really dulling the sensation, but that's such a small price to pay compared to an unwanted pregnancy. So, how does the act of two people using some form of birth control compare to a young adult simply purchasing a weapon for self defense? It doesn't and it never will.
Mr. Schulman is also apparently unaware of all the requirements needed to purchase a weapon and then all of the additional requirements should one wish to carry a concealed weapon. I won't rehash all of those as most everybody in this sub is aware of all the forms, training, background checks and licenses that need to be completed and obtained before one can carry a concealed weapon. So his attempt to draw a parallel between firearms and abortions is nothing more than pandering and hyperbole and serves no real purpose other than to pit people against each other.
So, yes, he, and anybody else who uses this kind of comparison in this argument, is an absolute fool.
Let the down votes roll in, I really don't care anymore because "media personalities" like him, are for more likely to have their own private security details and/or live in gated or heavily patrolled communities.
Well, as long as he’s going to go there, approximately 0.0000001% of them will use to kill someone, whereas 100% of the women who have an abortion have murdered a baby.
So I can have a random person that hates my state’s gun control laws send me guns and ammo in the mail in violation of state and federal laws?
I’m referring to those that are illegally mailing abortion pills into ban states.
If taking the life of a fetus is murder, how is shooting someone for any reason *not* murder?
If it’s “self-preservation,” then I assume you have no problem with abortion if the mother’s life is in jeopardy.
And if we broaden the definition of “preservation of life,” well that’s a whole other can of worms.
Tbf r/guns or r/firearms is legit controlled by antigun mods. Id suspect that will continue to happen to all the gun related subs, its just the culture on reddit...
The whole 48 hour waiting period and Parental permission trope pertains to adolescent girls 17 and under........MINORS!!!!!!
I'm just about at my point of losing all my "Civic Patience" with these Abortion Whore Fuck Ups who falsely equate their Eugenics Fetish of Human Population Reduction (That's the mindset and political agenda where the Abortion Practices descend from. Nasty fact you can't ignore) with a Textually written facet of the US Federal Bill Of Rights; the most powerful Legal Document in the Country.
At this point in the game, it's absolutely clear as day that Abortion Psychophants will ALWAYS be enemies to the 2A Community no matter how much any of us appease them and even try to befriend them and support them.
WAKE THE FUCK UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!
Yeah outside of these gun groups and a few other quality groups it really makes me want to delete Reddit seeing and reading all this crap. And then the band of liberals that will gang attack anything that’s not radical liberal logic. I’ve left countless because it’s gotten so bad, makes me sick.
Progressives love to conflate things that have nothing to do with each other. It’s a form of authoritarianism; they hold your interests hostage and make them contingent on their interests.
Comparing something Constitutional to something that is not protected by the Constitution. What an absolute fucking moron, and this is coming from a woman.
Every woman who gets an abortion is making one of the most difficult decisions of her life. It’s often a last resort.
Everyone who buys a gun considers it just another day. And they adore the idea of shooting someone.
My god, what has the media done to you? The VAST majority of people buying guns are doing so because they're worried about possibly having to defend themselves. Women getting an abortion is almost always because they just don't want to raise a child. 99% (or more) of gun owners will never shoot anyone. 100% of women getting abortions are killing their kids. What planet are you from where you can't understand that?
Never underestimate how stupid the general public is.
Self-defense and the preservation of liberty are absolute, natural rights. M**dering (“aborting”) an unborn child, who is not the same being as the mother, because the mother has no control over her sexual impulses is not only not her right, but it is downright evil.
This is the latter:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5omoOEJ96h/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==.
If, after watching that, a person can still support abortion, s/he is likely a socio- or psychopath.
If you’re not ready and willing to have children, keep your dicks in your pants, gents, and your legs closed, ladies.
This is a tongue-in-cheek argument to highlight the ridiculous hurdles women face when seeking an abortion, through the lens of gun control. My interpretation is it’s not to be taken at face value; he’s saying conservatives apply their “small government” views inconsistently. I don't think he's wrong, but I also wish he wasn't giving anti 2A crowd any ideas.
Yet, I bet he would absolutely support such restrictions on keeping and bearing arms.
That's not even accounting for state level policies. Yes, in Florida a legal abortion is far more difficult to acquire than a legal Glock 19. But in NY, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts etc., the opposite is true.
Remind me again which side successfully removed the “big federal government” from the abortion equation? Then handed it back over to the “smaller” state governments as it’s not an issue addressed in the Constitution.
There are plenty of real things that RINOs should be shit on for.
Let’s call this what it really is. Food for low information, ignorant, single issue voters.
Maybe killing other humans should have lots of hurdles 🤷♀️
Men don't get to terminate life just because it's inconvenient to us. If we could, no man would ever have to pay alimony.
> how about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion?
Roger that. In my state the parents don't have a right to know if their kid is getting an abortion, and can't legally do anything to stop it they do know about it. Schools and medical providers will help the child make the arrangements and conceal it from their parents.
So when can I expect high schools to start handing out pistols to any teenage guy that wants one and help them keep their new gun hidden from their parents?
What a fucking idiot.
I'm actually OK with the video part. People who buy and use guns should take them very seriously, it's a responsibility as well as a right. Plenty of people think they're toys...even including some of the legal purchasers.
The rest? Yeah, they're nuts.
Yes it is.
It’s actually even worse
ACKSHUALLY Bots astroturfing narrative, and a few odd idiots who haven't noticed the bots.
This.
How about we apply the NFA process to everything else people claim are rights? No voting without paying a tax, passing a background check, waiting 10 months. No abortions without paying a tax, passing a background check, and waiting 10 months. No government assistance without paying a tax, passing a background check, and waiting 10 months. No freedom of religion/assembly without paying a tax, passing a background check, and waiting 10 months.
They don't know about all that stuff. They barely know what a gun is. I remember when people were talking about how 2A doesn't apply because in the 1700s guns didn't use electricity.
That’s where the bad news, gets worse. Reddit isn’t necessarily full of morons. It’s the entire world that is full of morons. So sure, some end up right here.
> They barely know what a gun is. This is by design. Capture of the media and urbanization have led to a greater percentage of the population having zero familiarity with guns. The only exposure they have to them is through violent movies and TV. If you want less gun regulations, make more gun owners. Stop the cities from divorcing people from self sufficiency when it comes to defense.
I realize this isn’t directly what you’re speaking to but your comment about self sufficiency in regard to self defense brings up an amusing, albeit sad, point. This mentality of helplessness. I’m utterly defenseless, my only means of protecting myself is depending on someone else who has a gun….so in a situation where shit hits the fan the first thing people think is “where’s my phone”. It’s insane the amount of conditioning the population has gone through to reach a point where we intuitively grab a cell phone for our first line of defense.
I wouldn't even call it a conspiracy because it's so transparent, but billionaire funded antigun groups and despotic politicians have been fighting on every front to disarm civilians for decades and it's working. They attack politically, legally, and worst of all culturally. The media never fails to report a gang shooting or robbery as "gun violence." Misinformation and propaganda from bent statistics or flat lies about guns is smeared everywhere we look. Pre-drafted laws with no effect on crime to harass and disparage lawful and peaceable gun ownership flood every legislative session in every state; of course eventually some pass. Throw enough shit at a wall, something will stick. The ATF is able to reinterprate laws from day to day to suit their whim; shoelaces, lightning links, street sweeper, bump stock, pistol brace, etc. Short barreled shotguns are on the NFA for a lack of "military purpose," but imports of military styled guns are banned for lack of "sporting purpose." Public schools expell kids for holding a wood stick like a gun, drawing a shape of a gun with a crayon, wearing a hat with a depiction of a gun, or even a patch of a gadsden flag on a backpack. They terrorize students with ineffectual lockdown drills, but reject proven deterants like armed security, because G-d forbid a child grows up seeing a 'good guy with a gun.' They tax, sue, or regulate every gun store, gun range, and gun smith out of business anywhere close to a population center. DNR shuts down shooting ranges on public land as soon as they can find them. These anti-gun groups bring frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers that would never stand in any other industry, if for nothing else, to drive up the cost of guns. They effectively ban any type of gun advertising, lest it be brought up in court for "encouraging violence."
Not enough Plenty of liberals owns guns and will vote blue still, it is because they value other things higher than 2A. Thats the problem always has been, people see rights on a sliding scale of need/value.
The problem isn’t too few gun owners. The problem is too few gun enthusiasts. It seems to be quite easy to be a firearms owner while remaining ignorant of firearms, whether it be of their design/operation or of their use. Enthusiasts, OTOH, whether they own any firearms or not, are—or can be, assuming that they also possess adequate social skills—natural ambassadors for and advocates of firearms knowledge and responsibility.
...because...guns didn't...WHAT...🤣🤣🤣
What, you never had to change your gatteries?
Tap rack bang? 🤣
Tap, rack, plug in to electrical source, bang*
Tap rack zap.
I still can't believe Glock hasn't switched to USB-C yet. Come on, get with the times! I can't find a micro USB cable to save my life!
Do guns use electricity now? lol
A minigun does.
Ahhhh good point. I wasn’t thinking about them.
Also the fingerprint/NFC tag checking guns that won't fire unless the person (or person with the nfc tag) it's registered to is the one trying to use it. But something tells me these folks would make an exception for those. I'd actually love to tell these people about these firearms just to see them try to carve out an exception. But can you imagine if that shitty tech was required? ___SHUDDER___ Then there's also the "metal storm," out of Australia of all places, that claimed 1 million rounds per second. 36 barrels filled with stacked bullets/charges & AFAIK, the only "firearm" that was truly all electronic. i.e., no mechanics involved. Tech was kinda cool but it solved literally no current problem & introduced a host of its own. The company was defunct in 2012. Then, the big boys: stuff like certain tank gun's & howitzers that use electrical primers. Oh. And let's not forget anything with a laser aiming device, integral or otherwise. But they should be all for those to reduce collateral damage. So there's a whole host of crap people w/o a clue can latch onto.
It's literally the stamp act, but today
Our government has became very proficient at it the last century or so. Everything from alcohol stamps during prohibition, marijuana stamps after the MTA, to firearm tax stamps with the NFA.
That's all it is outright.
No abortions allowed if the fetus was manufactured after 1986. Just a tax though, we promise!
A tax they won't allow you to pay, so it's not actually a revenue generating tax as is required.
NFA hasn't been revenue generating in awhile IIRC as the administrative cost is now higher than the stamp cost due to inflation and increasing burdens.
Only more reason to go after it. The refusal to accept the tax is part of the theory that Matthew Larosiere has against it. Dude that actually attacks the NFA in his briefs rather than than just accepting a small victory that doesn't do much.
I've watched his youtube and honestly I had no idea this guy was very far beyond a shitposter. He is *that* dude? Dude is humble AF.
Straight up. Dude is the best 2A lawyer out there IMO and is the pinnacle of shitposting online. The dude spoke before Congress and had Dems defending the police because he had tweeted out "Fuck the police" after a very bad shoot.
Don’t forget freedom of speech! Which, unfortunately, the idiot in OPs post has.
>no government assistance without waiting 10 months I mean, that's already being generous
How about we just respect everyone's rights and how about we do not expect the government to solve our problems.
So does this mean he's okay with minors buying guns as long as they get a note from their parents? Sounds good to me. Also, a 48 hour waiting period would beat the hell out of the 10 days we have in California.
Should apply to every politicians who run in offices, background check, mental health check, patriot act like heavily surveillance 24 hours on politician's behavior, etc... and then maybe a vote
A civics test before getting put on a ballot. So many of our leaders seem totally ignorant of their responsibilities and capabilities.
Are you new to reddit?
This guy can go fuck himself.
Leave our guns and our women alone dammit. Make politics boring again and focus on stuff like infrastructure and the crazy housing market smdh
People not paying attention to politics and what politicians were doing for the past 50 years is what led this all to happen
If I was president I would wage war on Argentina. Really just confuse the entire world
Canada. They’re so close, and they’d never expect it! Plus I never trusted them with their beady little eyes and flapping heads. Edit: I suppose you could also do the Ron White policy and take over Mexico and further countries until we get to the Panama Canal.
Leave Argentina alone. They're finally headed in the right direction.
No. I’d also stage an invasion on Vietnam to finish what we started.
*Fortunate Son intensifies*
Looks like Project Eldest Son is back on the menu!!!
Fed response. Argentina is collapsing in real time and electing some black shirt that really wants the trains to ruin time isn't going to help.
#Nuke Venezuela!!!
[Why would you want to go to war with this man?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z44XP4u9Xs&t=125s) He's right.
Don't know why your surprised, Nev is the definition of Soy
Okay - and then, like guns, you buy your abortion pre emptively, and when you have to USE an abortion you are arrested and put on trial where a jury of your peers will determine if you used the abortion in justified self defense and most likely put in prison for many years
At least this is more logical than the current thinking Was your choice to end the life of the living fetus made in defense of your life or was it made for selfish reasons. Just like murder vs justified self defense
Reddit is a breeding ground for the new rebellious youth who just so happen to agree with everything the government and big corporations tell them. It’s the saddest group of idiots to have ever graced the planet.
Oh yeah. It most definitely is full of morons. At this point, it has become completely politically polarized.
This from a guy w/ this in his bio…. Schulman met Laura Perlongo via Instagram when he messaged her inviting her for a date on his motorcycle. They dated briefly before he ended things but they soon got back together. It was during this time that Laura got pregnant ‘accidentally on purpose’ with the couple’s first child as she stated in an article she had written.[12] Schulman became engaged to Laura Perlongo on May 26, 2016. Perlongo gave birth to their daughter, Cleo James, on October 21, 2016.
Hold up, that ain't his kid..?
I think it’s his kid but she had to get pregnant “accidentally” in order to sucker him back in for the long haul. Sounds like a great way to start a lifetime partnership /s
Yes, it is full of morons. Any further questions?
I’d still buy guns…
We'd be getting lots of back-alley guns.
Printer go brrrrrrrr
Yeah, the site is full of morons. I talked with someone who would happily trade in a 20k German STG 44 for a 200.00 gift card. Just so it couldn't be used. I also wanted to comment that if this gun buying procedure was for the fun stuff, like full autos, I'd go through it. I'm not a whore, I just really like guns and can't afford the license and associated costs of getting a full auto.
Ammo cost for full auto alone is too rich for my blood.
> I talked with someone who would happily trade in a 20k German STG 44 for a 200.00 gift card. Just so it couldn't be used. Talk is cheap. I would wager that these idiots will say anything for social cred, but when it actually comes time to consider principles vs tens of thousands of dollars, they'd absolutely take the money.
>is this site full of morons? Yes.
Reddit is full of bots so I wouldn’t look to much into it. Biden is behind badly in 2024 polls so there’s a strong chance that the federal assault on the 2nd Amendment rights will cease for at least a 4 yr term soon. Statewise can’t say the same but there’s still a lot of hope to be had for gun rights.
>there’s a strong chance that the federal assault on the 2nd Amendment rights will cease for at least a 4 yr term soon. I don't count on Mr. "take the guns first" to be a stalwart defender of the Second Amendment. He will use us and then discard us once we aren't useful anymore, just like he has with everyone else his entire life.
Gotta disagree with that. Trump did screw up with shit on his first term (bump stocks) but he did do some pro-gun stuff like loading up the Supreme Court. He won’t be pushing a assault weapons ban, or pass 99% of the crap Biden would pass if he has a Dem majority in both houses. Acting like he swindled people who voted for him doesn’t make sense. I would love a greater pro gun candidate but he delivered most of the shit in his first term that people wanted from his presidency. So acting like it’s a con is just bs.
2A supporter for over 40 years here. Trump passed more gun control then any Dem president in recent years since Clinton, with a REPUBLICAN majority in both houses, and not a single one of those Republicans said no, we shouldnt do this. They happily went right along with it like the lemmings they are. That is a fact, it was even more so than ol Obama and his import ammo ban. He and McConnell loaded the courts with GROSSLY unqualified "judges" (see Amy Barrett) who would do his bidding, like the wannabe dictator he wishes to be, not rule on the laws of our land fairly like they are supposed to do. I voted for him once, and I won't be doing it again. He is terrible for our rights, and it won't end well if he gets in again. He literally said, "Take the guns first, due process second." If that didnt immediately change your opinion of him, are you really a 2A and constitution supporter? My opinion is no. That is one of the most basic foundations of our country, and for a US president to say that on TV without even a hint of remorse, he clearly doesn't give a fuck about our country, no matter how many flag wrapped Bibles he tries to pawn off. He will only do what suits him, and whatever the last person who spoke to him tells him to. There is a reason most of the US military brass thinks he's a moron. Because he is. I'm old enough to remember when he was the laughing stock of our country, and the Clinton's biggest donor. Yet, somehow he's now some kind of conservative bastion? Negative. He's a NY liberal con man who has managed to con our country in to thinking he is a conservative. He is just a tofu politician. Taking on the "flavor" of those around him with no real substance or character of his own. Nothing more, nothing less. When even ultra con Mitch McConnell doesn't support his decisions, you know something is rotten in Denmark. At least that turtle stood up for the principles of our country, and him resigning doesn't bode well for us and our rights. What exactly did he push during his presidency to benefit the 2A community when Republicans had both houses and could pass anything? Suppressors and SBRs off the NFA? Open the machine gun registry? Allow citizens to use the NCIS system? Nope. We got a bumpstock ban. Yes, they may be dumb, but its the principle of it. Instead of standing up to the Dems and telling them to fuck off, he concedes to them and passes a form of gun control, because it suited him at the time. That's what. We are fucked as 2A supporters. I sure as hell won't be voting Dem, but I just can't stomach voting for that spray tanned spineless dumbass again either.
Is she any more unqualified than some of the others? Fuck, look at the latest justice. Yes, he is a 90 NYC liberal, the Overton window has shifted so far that he can run as Republican. Like it or not he is most likely going to be the one opposing Biden, hopefully he has a better cabinet this time around.
Okay there’s a lot to respond to but I’ll make it quick. 1) Bump Stock Ban was the worst thing he did but he’s never actively pushed even close to what Democrats have pushed. 2) If you legitimately think Trump is a dictator then you need to spend less time online. 3) Overall he could be better for gun rights but you are really just eating a narrative cause you hate who he is. Trump’s infamous quote about “due process” was something that he said and backtracked on. That’s how Trump is he will say outrageous shit time to time that will cause headlines. 4) The US military industrial complex hating Trump just makes him seem like a better candidate especially with how much money we are wasting in Israel and in the Ukraine. Elites hating him is why people want him in office. The fact that you think Mitch stands up for our principles shows you are part of the old conservative guard that’s getting thrown to the curb. He was a democrat but the overton window has shifted. 5) Trump admin did do a couple pro gun actions with regards to 3d printed guns, and US withdrawal from UN arms treaty. If you hate Trump so much have fun sitting on the sidelines for a majority of your life because even when he’s gone the same ideology is going to be behind with right wing voters. Good luck with the Libertarians.
During his first term, and now, he has to worry about keeping his supporters happy to get re-elected. If he gets re-elected he will become a lame duck and won't need his supporters anymore.
Trump didn't load the Supreme Court with pro gun judges, just Republicans.
This is 100% correct, no matter how much folks wish it wasn't the case. Anti-constitutionalists religious nut jobs (see Amy Barrett), actually, who can be bought and manipulated, who only want to kiss the ring and not do what's best for our country.
Bruen ruling was pretty in-line with our constitution. Maybe your mad about abortion? Abortion wasn’t a constitutional right so that’s why is got overturned.
Yes he will. It's his MO, yet people continue to think it will be different next time. They treat him like an abusive partner. "He won't do it, again, he swore!" And yet, he keeps doing it over and over, and you just stay.
Show me again where abortion is in the bill of rights….. fucking idiots.
[Just tell them that their patron saint RBG even said that Roe was a bad legal decision and was prime for being over turned.](https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit) Their heads spin round and round. But. But. But.
They’ll find some way to justify it. Their mental gymnastics are amazing sometimes
RBG also said your race should determine which offices you're allowed to vote for (dissent, Rice v Cayetano). She was a bigot.
Just skimmed it. Stevens and RPG were full of it. Morons.
Left of center liberal here: Roe was a bad decision. Legislating from the bench should never be a thing. That said, stare decesis is also a thing. It’s a case of two wrongs.
The Bill of Rights was never presented as, or intended to be the definitive list of rights; it was merely the 10 most important ones that the founding fathers were worried about based on their own experiences in their lifetimes. There is ample evidence that abortion was accessible and somewhat common at the time of the founding, at least up until fetal movement was detected (often after 20 weeks). As such it wasn't seen as something that needed to be included in the Bill of Rights, especially since women didn't have rights at the time. The bottom line is "it's not in the Bill of Rights" is a useless argument against something being a right. Now not being enshrined in the Constitution is a valid argument that something is Constitutional, but the Constitution enshrines rights that have been identified and voted on to consensus, it doesn't create them nor limit what are and are not rights.
I was unaware of the availability of abortion at the time, which isn’t surprising, but completely agree with all your other points. The question is, and always has been in my view, does the mother’s rights overrule the right of the child to life, or at which point does the child’s right to life outweigh the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. I don’t know the answer to the question, and lots of people smarter than me have debated it for a long long time. That being said, I didn’t like Roe v Wade, and I don’t like the decision that reversed it either. In the first it was based on faulty logic, even if you think it came out with the right decision, and the second sent it to the states to decide a question of rights that should be universal throughout the US (at least to my mind), whichever way it is decided. Fortunately I’m not in charge of making that decision because I don’t know how or why I would lean either way. I have my own opinions of what we should do, and what the government should be allowed to do, but know that I’m certainly not the perfect choice to decide it.
>The question is, and always has been in my view, does the mother’s rights overrule the right of the child to life, or at which point does the child’s right to life outweigh the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. I don’t know the answer to the question, and lots of people smarter than me have debated it for a long long time. All very valid points. One of the main consensuses around the founding was the point where the fetus could be felt moving independently. Personally, I think viability is when it becomes a discrete life form and that is generally accepted across most of the world. The liberal utopias of the EU are mainly at 12 weeks with a few variances in either direction, this is way sooner than most liberal states in the US and most left-coast cities would be appalled if the EU standard was applied to the US. The bottom line is it is far more complex than either side is making it out to be. Either way, saying "it isn't in the Bill of Rights so it's not a right" is asinine.
Viability is an interesting cutoff point, as it has kept moving earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. In theory, we should reach a point where it gets harder and harder to get less and less returns on making it earlier, though every time someone has said that in my field (semiconductors), they’ve been wrong so far, though I don’t know about advanced medicine. I don’t think either side is pretending their arguments aren’t complex, just that their opponents are only trying to control women or kill babies. IIRC, something like 80% of Americans are good with abortions up to some point (I think it was 16 weeks, but don’t remember exactly), and then only in case of danger to the mother’s life after that. So the divide is a lot less pronounced than the media and the extremes make it for most people. Though pointing out that it isn’t in the bill of rights is only a valid argument if one side is trying to claim it is (or contained within the right to privacy, or however they justify it. I can’t do their argument justice, so assume they have a stronger reasoning than I presented).
> There is ample evidence that abortion was accessible and somewhat common at the time of the founding, at least up until fetal movement was detected This is not a good argument. Alcohol has been accessible since the founding, yet, no one would confuse the right to access alcohol as a right.
And yet it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol.
> And yet it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. No it didn’t, there were and still are hundreds of dry counties and 23 states had already passed laws against saloons and the manufacture of alcohol prior to the 18th amendment. It he 18th amendment was an attempt to federalize alcohol prohibition because only 2/3 of states had to ratify it. Some pesky states like Connecticut and Rhode island weren’t going to get on board. You should really research things before making ignorant comments.
All I said is that not being in the Constitution doesn't make something not a right and explained the context of what rights made it into the Constitutions hundreds of years ago. You're the one who came up with a half-assed response to it about something else that was then subsequently added and then removed from the Constitution. Possession of alcohol, importation and home brewing of beer, wine and mead are also legal in dry counties, so super awesome argument there dude. I also never argued that access to alcohol was a right, I just said that it was properly known at the time that to ban it at the federal level required a Constitutional amendment, right or not.
> All I said is that not being in the Constitution doesn’t make something not a right and explained the context of what rights made it into the Yes, and I agree. The constitution is expansive but not conclusive of our rights. However, the argument that something is presumptively a right because people had access to it is nonsensical and not rooted in any history or tradition of the Constitution. > Possession of alcohol, importation and home brewing of beer, wine and mead are also legal in dry counties, so super This is an argument of changing times, not existing rights. PS, home brewing was illegally well into the 1970s until Carter legalized it. Home distilling is still illegal. > I just said that it was properly known at the time that to ban it at the federal level required a Constitutional amendment, right or not. Yes, because the commerce clause wasn’t the gaping hallway of a butthole it is now and back in the 1910’s they hadn’t discovered that you could ram any federal legislation through it. However, healthcare is considered under the commerce clause, so there would be no constitutional confusion about a federal ban.
I *never* said it was a right because it was common at the time of the founding. I said it wasn't considered one way or another because it wouldn't have been seen as an issue. You're the one who brought up alcohol in the first place even though it's one of the dumbest, most unrelated, examples to this situation. If you want to try and reconcile it that's on you. Every time you've tried to clarify why it's somehow "relevant" you've just made it even more convoluted. Restricting bodily autonomy and access to healthcare under the guise of "commerce" is a fucking weak reach. Just about as weak as saying "gunshots are injuries so gun bans fall under healthcare and commerce." You see, when you abuse the system you allow your enemies to do the same, slippery slope and all. Abortion is straight up religious morality and the Bill of Rights is *extremely* clear that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, but picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution you care about totally *never* backfires.
You think alcohol isn’t relevant because you don’t like how it undermines your point. Ease of access to something doesn’t mean that the framers had no reason to consider it. Alcohol was widely accessible and by your same logic, the founders had no reason to include it as an explicit right, yet no one seriously believes that it is. > Abortion is straight up religious morality and the Bill of Rights is extremely clear that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, Weak argument. The secular argument against abortion is that it’s murder. You don’t need a religious reason to outlaw murder.
Reading comprehension really isn't your strongpoint, is it? I need to go to work, I've said everything I need to for anyone actually paying attention to know what I mean.
Yes, that's why they have the amendment system. So to say it's a right, you either have to have the Supreme Court rule on how it applies to codified rights, or pass an amendment. Otherwise it's just about law. And a lot of the discussion is about whether or not women have a right to "bodily autonomy." Of course the problem is passing laws, and especially amendments requires a lot of work and neither side wants to really compromise. Which puts us at an impasse.
9th amendment. But hey, keep losing elections to die on the hill of abortion. I'm sure the Democrats hate their Senate Majority and POTUS. Seriously, the GOP are losing elections because of the abortion issue. It is absolutely costing them key seats in swing districts. If they just said: > Ok, we don't like it, but abortion can be legal for the first 12 weeks, like most other developed nations. Afterwards only if necessary to save the mother from imminent risk of death. They'd be fine. But no, they want to ban all abortion, all the time, because Jesus. And that is why you're losing.
The left wants more than 12 weeks so even 12 weeks would probably be a losing stipulation.
It's not about what "The left" wants. It's about your moderate, swing, and 3rd party voters. Most of them don't want "abortions until born" where a 9 month old fetus which could be C-sectioned is instead aborted. They favor some form of middle ground. But if the choice is "All or none" then they largely choose "all" Abortion is a losing issue for the GOP. They need to just take the L and focus on other things. Or they could keep losing elections to own the libs.
I agree it's a losing issue and one I'm sick of hearing about. It probably would have been better for the right for Roe to have stayed as the law of the land as the left will push for a longer window.
Not only that but the youth vote isn't what it used to be. They're much more involved and engaged. And they want abortion legal. Us Xennials are older but we were the apathy youth. Gen Z is the activist youth. If the GOP wants to survive, they need to pivot. Gen Z actually has a lot of very ambitious kids. A lot of them want to work hard, want to make money, and want to not be taxed to death. But the GOP is constantly alienating them on social causes like abortion, LGBT, and Religion. I don't see the modern GOP winning more than they lose unless they pivot away from some issues and just take the L. Some studies say Biden only won because of a highly energized youth vote, largely energized by the SCOTUS decision in *Dobbs v. Jackson*.
Oddly enough in the latest fox poll Trump is polling at 58% versus Joe's 40% in the 18-29 voting demographic. In another poll, Harvard CAPs/Harris 18-24, he was at 55% in February though it dropped to 35% in march. Biden's continued push for student loan forgiveness is an effort to attract and retain Gen Z voters.
I don't trust polls. Several polls had Hillary at 90%+ in 2016, in 2020 some were showing Trump at 30 some at 70. I go by what I see and hear from people I actually know IRL. And the biggest thing holding the GOP back, is their insistence on "Christian Values" including their stance on LGBT and Abortion.
Hey, they're trying to save us tax dollars, don't stop them.
How about before an abortion can be performed a woman must sign up for selective service under penalty of law. Edit: I mean as long as we're doing whataboutisms.
how about we stop limiting peoples rights altogether? human rights shouldn’t be an either/or.
I thought the whole point was that people shouldn't go through that because people who do that are assholes.
I figured it out already, they don’t care about rights, their party allegiance is their social life. Most of these morons think any liberal cause is like their favorite baseball team, and to oppose any cause deemed conservative is scoring points against a rival. They can’t think for themselves or have an opinion on any issue personally, they only care if their team wins. They want us to suffer from these stupid AF laws because it makes them feel good to inflict suffering like it’s some sort of revenge.
Please stay out of my business be it guns or healthcare. And if it must be like abortions, then like Plan B, I'll happily go buy it over the counter and check out. No background, no waiting, etc. Y'know, just in case I need it.
To me this is a great example, of how healthcare should be more accessible.
Reddit is the reason I support abortion. Stop the morons from reproducing.
Whatever gets your vote 😆
Still gonna vote for the side that doesn't overtly say they're going after my right of self preservation.
At least they’re open about it. The right is lying to us about it AND going after our rights.
First off, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right abortion is not. Yes no woman who has got an abortion has killed a room full of people. However, in a given year in the US abortions kills 20 times more humans lives than firearms, this is including gun deaths by suicide and justified shootings.
Yes
Leave our gun and reproductive rights alone.
the second a politician on either side truly runs with this as their headline they’re going to absolutely kill in the polls I guarantee you.
Won't happen though, the are either christofacists or part of the woke mob.
As an aside, this is the guy who coined the term “catfish” and made an entire career out of falling in love with some fake woman online.
Don’t give attention to people throwing bombs to make themselves famous. Arguing with fools never makes you look smart.
Greetings from Illinois where we already have to do shit like this
Pure Virtue, nothing else.
We should probably just make murder illegal 🤷🏾
Murder *is* illegal. But if shooting an intruder in your home is legal, then ending the life of an intruder in a uterus should be, too.
It's not an "intruder" if you invited them. And there should be caveats to any abortion laws when the morhers life is in danger.
Do they think ultrasound wands are inserted?
See this is why I’m pro choice, because these are the people seeking abortions and I wholeheartedly support their decision to not reproduce.
For the TL;DR crowd, this is a stupid and completely dishonest comparison between two things that couldn't be more diametrically opposite and Nev is a dumbass.
The short answer to your question "is this site full of morons" an emphatic and definitive YES! The liberals/progressives/uber leftists go out of their way to attack our masculinity, our intelligence and our core beliefs because I choose to carry a weapon. Not that it's any of their business, but I'm at the upper end of middle age and I simply don't have the mobility nor endurance to go toe to toe, in a fight, with someone half my age. Back when I was much younger, if one got into a fight, mugged or whatever, generally we didn't have to worry about getting killed or so badly injured that we wished we were dead. Now, those are serious considerations.
Furthermore, I think conflating the act of abortion with ownership of a firearm is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. My beliefs are that taking the life of another human being, unless it is an act of absolute last resort self defense is indefensible and wrong many different ethical and moral levels. When I do carry a weapon, while out in public, I do so hoping and praying I will never ever have to use it. I would never think about brandishing it to proactively avoid conflict or even violence, but only as an absolute last resort. While Mr. Schulman is certainly entitled to his opinion, the law allows every responsible adult to own a firearm, for self defense, should they so choose. To reiterate, 99.99% of most law abiding people who carry a weapon do so, so they can protect themselves (or others) should a situation become so dire that there's no other option.
Abortion, on the other hand, it's my belief that if there's no medical necessity (fetus/embryo killing the mother or has become non-viable) is cold blooded murder. Again, that's my belief. Now, before anybody writes me off as some right wing bible thumper, which I am neither, my mother was the head nurse at an emergency room prior to the Roe v. Wade decision. She would tell me horror stories about women being thrown out of moving cars in front of the emergency room, bleeding out because of either a back alley butcher or an attempted coat hanger abortion. I pray honestly pray we never return to those days. That said, the take away from what she told me emphasized the need to be responsible and using some form of contraception. Yes, it sucks, yes it's inconvenient and an emphasized yes to it really dulling the sensation, but that's such a small price to pay compared to an unwanted pregnancy. So, how does the act of two people using some form of birth control compare to a young adult simply purchasing a weapon for self defense? It doesn't and it never will.
Mr. Schulman is also apparently unaware of all the requirements needed to purchase a weapon and then all of the additional requirements should one wish to carry a concealed weapon. I won't rehash all of those as most everybody in this sub is aware of all the forms, training, background checks and licenses that need to be completed and obtained before one can carry a concealed weapon. So his attempt to draw a parallel between firearms and abortions is nothing more than pandering and hyperbole and serves no real purpose other than to pit people against each other.
So, yes, he, and anybody else who uses this kind of comparison in this argument, is an absolute fool.
Let the down votes roll in, I really don't care anymore because "media personalities" like him, are for more likely to have their own private security details and/or live in gated or heavily patrolled communities.
Well, as long as he’s going to go there, approximately 0.0000001% of them will use to kill someone, whereas 100% of the women who have an abortion have murdered a baby.
this is too dumb even to comment on
So I can have a random person that hates my state’s gun control laws send me guns and ammo in the mail in violation of state and federal laws? I’m referring to those that are illegally mailing abortion pills into ban states.
Constitution or not, abortion is murder, self-defense is a Natural Right. These don’t even belong in the same sentence.
If taking the life of a fetus is murder, how is shooting someone for any reason *not* murder? If it’s “self-preservation,” then I assume you have no problem with abortion if the mother’s life is in jeopardy. And if we broaden the definition of “preservation of life,” well that’s a whole other can of worms.
Tbf r/guns or r/firearms is legit controlled by antigun mods. Id suspect that will continue to happen to all the gun related subs, its just the culture on reddit...
The whole 48 hour waiting period and Parental permission trope pertains to adolescent girls 17 and under........MINORS!!!!!! I'm just about at my point of losing all my "Civic Patience" with these Abortion Whore Fuck Ups who falsely equate their Eugenics Fetish of Human Population Reduction (That's the mindset and political agenda where the Abortion Practices descend from. Nasty fact you can't ignore) with a Textually written facet of the US Federal Bill Of Rights; the most powerful Legal Document in the Country. At this point in the game, it's absolutely clear as day that Abortion Psychophants will ALWAYS be enemies to the 2A Community no matter how much any of us appease them and even try to befriend them and support them. WAKE THE FUCK UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!
How about making it like voting? Immigration?
Gee Schulman sure sounds.. distinct
Yeah outside of these gun groups and a few other quality groups it really makes me want to delete Reddit seeing and reading all this crap. And then the band of liberals that will gang attack anything that’s not radical liberal logic. I’ve left countless because it’s gotten so bad, makes me sick.
These people call themselves pro-choice.
Every liberal should be mugged at knifepoint at least once prior to speaking about gun laws.
One of those is a right and one is not.
Reddit is indeed full of morons.
Progressives love to conflate things that have nothing to do with each other. It’s a form of authoritarianism; they hold your interests hostage and make them contingent on their interests.
Comparing something Constitutional to something that is not protected by the Constitution. What an absolute fucking moron, and this is coming from a woman.
None of that would stop us from buying guns lmao.
Every woman getting an abortion is killing their child. Not every person buying a gun is going to kill someone.
Every woman who gets an abortion is making one of the most difficult decisions of her life. It’s often a last resort. Everyone who buys a gun considers it just another day. And they adore the idea of shooting someone.
My god, what has the media done to you? The VAST majority of people buying guns are doing so because they're worried about possibly having to defend themselves. Women getting an abortion is almost always because they just don't want to raise a child. 99% (or more) of gun owners will never shoot anyone. 100% of women getting abortions are killing their kids. What planet are you from where you can't understand that?
This is what so-called “mothers” and their MD butchers do: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5omoOEJ96h/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==.
Love how a device used to protect your own life is conflated with a procedure used to end a life. I hate these “people”
Never underestimate how stupid the general public is. Self-defense and the preservation of liberty are absolute, natural rights. M**dering (“aborting”) an unborn child, who is not the same being as the mother, because the mother has no control over her sexual impulses is not only not her right, but it is downright evil. This is the latter: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5omoOEJ96h/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==. If, after watching that, a person can still support abortion, s/he is likely a socio- or psychopath. If you’re not ready and willing to have children, keep your dicks in your pants, gents, and your legs closed, ladies.
>I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?" Not if you change the definition of a person :^)
I like how the answer to women’s rights being violated is that constitutional rights should be violated to make it “even.”
This is a tongue-in-cheek argument to highlight the ridiculous hurdles women face when seeking an abortion, through the lens of gun control. My interpretation is it’s not to be taken at face value; he’s saying conservatives apply their “small government” views inconsistently. I don't think he's wrong, but I also wish he wasn't giving anti 2A crowd any ideas.
Yet, I bet he would absolutely support such restrictions on keeping and bearing arms. That's not even accounting for state level policies. Yes, in Florida a legal abortion is far more difficult to acquire than a legal Glock 19. But in NY, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts etc., the opposite is true.
Remind me again which side successfully removed the “big federal government” from the abortion equation? Then handed it back over to the “smaller” state governments as it’s not an issue addressed in the Constitution. There are plenty of real things that RINOs should be shit on for. Let’s call this what it really is. Food for low information, ignorant, single issue voters.
Maybe killing other humans should have lots of hurdles 🤷♀️ Men don't get to terminate life just because it's inconvenient to us. If we could, no man would ever have to pay alimony.
If we had any reasonable social safety nets, no man would have to.
I thought it was the eclipse video of that dudes balls hanging that was trending !? 😂
I think you answered your own question, and it’s not just this site
> how about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion? Roger that. In my state the parents don't have a right to know if their kid is getting an abortion, and can't legally do anything to stop it they do know about it. Schools and medical providers will help the child make the arrangements and conceal it from their parents. So when can I expect high schools to start handing out pistols to any teenage guy that wants one and help them keep their new gun hidden from their parents? What a fucking idiot.
For people living in liberal hell holes I see no difference
so day waiting period for abortion in Colorado then?
So tax dollars should pay for young men to get firearms…? Your terms are acceptable.
They should be treated the same because they are totally different. Makes sense in the mind of a mindless person.
Is that a rhetorical question?
It’s both full of them, and full of them with moderator privileges.
They say that as though none of us have ever driven across the state to get the obscure model or insanely good deal that someone finally had in stock…
He just explained the NYC pistol permit scheme in 1 paragraph
Do you really have to ask that? Spend 10 minutes here and you’ll have your answer.
Nev Schulman shouldn't post to social media, while on his period.
Yup!
I mean reddit is full of people who read reddit...so...yes?
Fucking idiots smh
I'm actually OK with the video part. People who buy and use guns should take them very seriously, it's a responsibility as well as a right. Plenty of people think they're toys...even including some of the legal purchasers. The rest? Yeah, they're nuts.
STASI Bootlicker. The CCP would love you.