When did gun rights become more important than kids lives?

@SumKindaMunster What do those have to do with each other? Are you saying a zygote is the same as a child? Congratulations, you’ve figured out that liberals support abortion rights and conservatives support gun rights.

@LeopoldBloom I'm glad you asked.

[quote] Are you saying a zygote is the same as a child? [/quote]

I'm not, but plenty of rational and moral people believe that is a child and they oppose abortion because they feel it is murdering children.

My point is that my response is just as unhelpful, inaccurate and completely irrelevant to the discussion of abortion as is the original posters ridiculous position that gun rights are more important that children's lives. That's not the argument and you all know it.

@SumKindaMunster I'm aware that the abortion debate is between people who think a ZEF is a child, and people who view abortion restrictions as an infringement on bodily autonomy. As Louis CK said, "it's a baby! You're killing a baby!" vs. "It's in her pussy! You can kill someone you don't want in your house, and it's in her pussy!"

We seem to have made the decision that the right of anyone to own almost any gun for any reason is worth a few dead kids. I'm not passing judgment; I'm saying that's how it is. I wouldn't like it if some government agent showed up at my door and demanded that I hand over my guns because I might shoot up a school. But I wouldn't have a problem with registering them in a government database. I like owning guns and I don't care who knows I have them because I don't plan on doing anything illegal with them.

@LeopoldBloom [quote]I'm aware that the abortion debate is between people who think a ZEF is a child, and people who view abortion restrictions as an infringement on bodily autonomy[/quote]

You aren't doing yourself or your side any favors by calling a baby a "ZEF" or "zygote". It's a baby or a child. Nobody says "Hey, you wanna see picks of my new zygote!" or "John and I are excited to announce we are having a ZEF!" 😆

[quote]We seem to have made the decision that the right of anyone to own almost any gun for any reason is worth a few dead kids.[/quote]

That's not true and you [i]are[/i] passing judgement by promoting this strawman argument.

[quote]I wouldn't have a problem with registering them in a government database. I like owning guns and I don't care who knows I have them because I don't plan on doing anything illegal with them.[/quote]

Those things already exist! I had to register my 2 guns with the state. They know how many guns I have and how many bullets I have purchased. This info is readily available to any LEO who pulls me over.

How about enforcing the existing laws? You know I live outside of Philly and that Soros sucking piece of shit Krasner isn't pursuing gun violations...

[quote]Just listen to Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner this week on how his office won’t prosecute illegal gun possession:

“We do not believe that arresting people and convicting them for illegal gun possession is a viable strategy to reduce shootings,” the DA’s office said. [/quote]

Bottom line and the point of my post:

Until people start speaking realistically about what can be done regarding the contentious issues of gun control and abortion, nothing is going to change. I didn't appreciate the unhelpful and ridiculous hyperbole that since mass shootings happen and kids get killed, that means we care about guns more. That's ridiculous, and again, completely unhelpful if you want to address these issues substantively.

@SumKindaMunster ZEF stands for zygote/embryo/fetus. Baby or child is needlessly vague and emotionally manipulative. A woman having a "baby shower" isn't the same thing. I believe in using the most accurate terms. If we're talking about unborn humans in the context of abortion rights, we should be accurate, not manipulative. Why don't we call fetuses "animals?" Humans are animals, so our unborn offspring are also animals. Women should have the right to remove an unwanted animal from their uterus.

Whenever there's a particularly gruesome shooting, Democrats talk about gun control and Republicans talk about mental health, but neither side does anything meaningful. So it is like we've decided that this is something we're willing to live with.

Thank you for clarifying that you're either an antisemite or just lapping up antisemitic propaganda. George Soros does not control Krasner. You should be upset about fascist pigs like the Mercers or Peter Thiel who are also contributing to political causes, except those are the ones you support.

@LeopoldBloom [quote] ZEF stands for zygote/embryo/fetus. Baby or child is needlessly vague and emotionally manipulative[/quote] And the ones you use aren't???? They purposely dehumanize a human baby so it sounds less cruel when you abort them.

[quote] I believe in using the most accurate terms.[/quote]

And my point was using these terms is unhelpful if your goal is to find a compromise on this issue that will work.

[quote]Whenever there's a particularly gruesome shooting, Democrats talk about gun control and Republicans talk about mental health, but neither side does anything meaningful. So it is like we've decided that this is something we're willing to live with.[/quote]

It seems to be, yes. You remember Columbine? It was the same thing. Dems blamed Hollywood for glorifying violence, Repubs pushed that the parents were at fault for allowing these kids to develop violent fantasies and collect guns.

Let me ask you. Do you know anybody personally who was involved in a mass shooting in any way? I don't.

[quote]Thank you for clarifying that you're either an antisemite or just lapping up antisemitic propaganda. George Soros does not control Krasner. You should be upset about fascist pigs like the Mercers or Peter Thiel who are also contributing to political causes, except those are the ones you support.
[/quote]

Ugh.

Look, just because I call out George Soros for contributing to PACs that have undue influence on elections in America doesn't make it "antisemitic" Where is the anti semetisim in this? Because Soros is a Jew? That has nothing to do with what he is doing nor my opposition to his behavior.

Hey, as an aside do you know that Soros worked for the Nazi's as a lad? As Paul Harvey used to say...."Itttttttttt's TRUE!"

@SumKindaMunster Poor comparison my friend. Nobody last time I checked is forcing conservative/Christian women to abort against their will. Bullets, on the other hands, tend to indiscriminately kill even those who want stricter gun laws.

@Elessar Hm, well take that up with the original poster then, it was his comparison.

@SumKindaMunster I don't think he was referring to abortions, but the young victims of mass shootings.

@Elessar Yes and my comparison was an obvious counterpart to his and if you don't think mine was apt, then neither was his. I covered this in my response to Bloom. Did you not read it?

@SumKindaMunster I did. I still think it's comparing apples to oranges, for the reason that I pointed out.

@Elessar And you think the original posters question wasn't?

@SumKindaMunster No, the OP is pointing out that one issue (gun rights) is being prioritized by some people and organizations over another that is inversely correlated (i.e. the death of children at the hands of shooters). A sacrifice that gun right activists are willing to take, especially so long as it's not their kids, since it seems they're not open to any compromise. I don't necessarily disagree with his vision.

Abortions on the other hand, not only are completely irrelevant with the OP's point, but are no cause of harm to those who don't want them for themselves. They're not imposed, they're a right that every woman/family ideally can choose to have or not to have - Christians can choose to carry a pregnancy to term against their own will if they want (which typically doesn't happen anyway, the levels of hypocrisy are very high in that camp). Families that lose their children to mass shooters, however, don't really have a choice.

@Elessar No, that's your very generous interpretation which you did not give to me. It's a strawman argument. You can't have it both ways.

[quote]the OP is pointing out that one issue (gun rights) is being prioritized by some people and organizations over another that is inversely correlated (i.e. the death of children at the hands of shooters)[/quote]

No, they are not, nobody is doing that. That's a very biased interpretation. People don't want their rights taken away due to people misusing guns. Nobody is sacrificing children. This is another apples and oranges comparison.

[quote]Abortions on the other hand, not only are completely irrelevant with the OP's point, but are no cause of harm to those who don't want them for themselves. [/quote]

Hm that only works if you choose to believe that the aborted baby is merely an extension of a woman's body and not a child's life. That's not the position many take and you are being disingenuous to take this position as you well know that many people see an unborn baby as a unique life worthy of protection. If you take that position, that children are being murdered by their mothers, then your whole argument evaporates.

You certainly don't have to agree with that position, but its very disappointing to see you just pretend that your argument is somehow different than mine. Or the original posters.

@SumKindaMunster How is it a strawman, when there's a quite evident cause-effect relationship there? There's as many examples as you want all over the world of jurisdictions with stricter gun laws where mass murders like you see in the U.S. are nowhere as prevalent.

If you deliberately ignore a known, tangible and measurable side effect of something you advocate for, you're implicitly prioritizing the thing you're advocating over the safety / right to live of those who happen to be affected by the side effect. Many of these gun activists understood the concept very well, when they were advocating to stop the vaccination campaign amid a presumed side-effect. They just have a different standard for when the thing is something they like (unrestricted guns) as opposed to something they don't (in that case, a vaccine).

[quote]
Hm that only works if you choose to believe that the aborted baby is merely an extension of a woman's body and not a child's life. That's not the position many take and you are being disingenuous to take this position as you well know that many people see an unborn baby as a unique life worthy of protection. If you take that position, that children are being murdered by their mothers, then your whole argument evaporates. [/quote]
No, that's a very flawed argument even just looking at the very definition of words:

[b][i]Murder[/i][/b]: the unlawful killing of a [b][i][u]person[/u][/i][/b], esp. when done deliberately.

There isn't a single jurisdiction in the first world (and possibly second and third too) in which a fetus is recognized as a person. Zero. Not even at the 9th month of pregnancy. You're a person the moment you're born out of the mother's womb, you can check on your ID if your country or state tracks your date of birth or your date of conception if you don't believe me.

Speaking of "murder" when it comes to abortion makes - legally and biologically - exactly as much sense as speaking of mass murder whenever you jerk off and throw away the semen (millions if not billions of potential [i]unborun babies[/i], not necessarily an extension of your body by the very same definition, if we don't want to apply double standards for men and women).

@Elessar [quote]when there's a quite evident cause-effect relationship there? There's as many examples as you want all over the world of jurisdictions with stricter gun laws where mass murders like you see in the U.S. are nowhere as prevalen[/quote]

Mass murders? I thought the sticky wicket was the death of children? You're changing your position now.

[quote]If you deliberately ignore a known, tangible and measurable side effect of something you advocate for, you're implicitly prioritizing the thing you're advocating over the safety / right to live of those who happen to be affected by the side effect[/quote]

Perhaps, but when you choose to focus solely on just deaths of a very small subset of the population you skew the data and results. This is confirmation bias, something you do a lot.

[quote]There isn't a single jurisdiction in this world in which a fetus is a person[/quote] That's a [i]legal[/i] definition. That's not how many people choose to view an unborn child.

If you can't see it any other way, you don't have empathy for others who disagree and you aren't being genuine in your responses.

[quote]Speaking of "murder" when it comes to abortion makes - legally - makes exactly as much sense as speaking of mass murder whenever you jerk off and throw away the semen (millions if not billions of potential unborun babies, not necessarily an extension of your body by the very same definition, if we don't want to apply double standards for men and women).[/quote]

Just a totally unnecessary comment and completely condescending response to those who believe unborn children deserve rights and protections.

Again, you don't have to agree, but spare me your biased notions that say the original poster is being sincere and genuine and I am not.

@SumKindaMunster [quote]Mass murders? I thought the sticky wicket was the death of children? You're changing your position now. [/quote]
Huh, not really. Children being killed in mass shootings is just a subset of mass shootings which is just a subset of mass murders. I'm "guilty" of making an abstraction here at most.

[quote]Perhaps, but when you choose to focus solely on just deaths of a very small subset of the population you skew the data and results. This is confirmation bias, something you do a lot. [/quote]
I'm focusing on the subset being highlighted by the OP, however you seemed to have a problem in the previous paragraph when I went for the larger superset. So this is contradictory - should I focus on the initial set, or should I go for the actual superset? Because I'm receiving criticism for both, lol

[quote] That's a legal definition. That's not how many people choose to view an unborn child. [/quote]
Doesn't mean a thing, conservative feelings are no reason for me to give up rights. The law controls society, not feelings; and the law is generally based upon hard-evidence / data, not feelings. Unrestricted guns posing a danger for children is backed by data/evidence, outlawing legal abortions (because let's be honest, it's prohibitionism 2.0 - they'll only be replaced with illegal/clandestine ones ultimately) over a very controversial "moral" ground is not.

And where's the empathy for the women (or even children) who have to carry a pregnancy to term against her own will?

[quote]Just a totally unnecessary comment and completely condescending response to those who believe unborn children deserve rights and protections. [/quote]
I don't think so, I think it's an apt comparison. Both biologically and legally sperm cells, egg cells and fertilized cells have exactly the same fitness for being called "unborn babies". The fact that only the latter are glorified and deemed worthy of rights and protections, in a society/world that unanimously and historically does NOT grant them personhood until born and out of the womb, is purely the fruit of double standards in a certain population.

@Elessar Well again, my point was that saying people care about guns more than children's lives is a strawman argument and I made my point by making another biased comparison.

I'm not really interested in getting into the minutia of your bias, suffice to say you strongly believe in your position and aren't going to back off of it.

I make this point a lot, and it is what I will leave you with:

It's disappointing to me to see how both sides on these issues say they want the same thing...safety and care for children.

However, both sides seem to value their arguments more than the actual lives of children. It seems to me you are just using this as a cudgel to beat the other side over the head with your beliefs as to what needs to be done. If you want to see change, figure out what compromises you are willing to accept in exchange for compromises made by the other side and start promoting [i]that[/i], not your need to prove your side is correct.

Until a compromise is broached and people stop caring about being "correct" on an issue that plagues society, nothing will change.

Have a good day.

@SumKindaMunster I understand, I'm not saying you're discussing in bad faith, I just think the OP is building his comparison upon a cause-effect relationship; it's quite different than the pro-lifer cause where pro-lifers aren't really forced to abort themselves. I don't think either qualify as a strawman btw, I just think the latter is a poorer comparison.

[quote]However, both sides seem to value their arguments more than the actual lives of children. It seems to me you are just using this as a cudgel to beat the other side over the head with your beliefs as to what needs to be done. If you want to see change, figure out what compromises you are willing to accept in exchange for compromises made by the other side and start promoting that, not your need to prove your side is correct[/quote]
Actually I don't disagree with this. Coherently, my position on gun control is far from a blanket ban (also because I believe, like abortions and like prohibition, it'll only seed black markets), it's more of a compromise where gun access is retained for a limited set of weapons (excluding assault rifles, for starters), controlled by (renewable) permits so that anyone needs to go through medical and psychological fitness assessment prior being able to purchase either guns or ammo.

@SumKindaMunster George Soros did not "work for the Nazis." When he was 12, the Nazis who had captured his home town asked him to deliver summons to Jews that they intended to execute. Soros asked his father what he should do, and his father advised him to flee, which he did. The slur that Soros "worked for the Nazis" is disgusting, especially considering his age at the time. The same conservatives pushing this garbage were delighted to give Brett Kavanaugh a pass for sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford when he was a teenager.

Regarding abortion, we already had a compromise with Roe v. Wade. As the ZEF progresses from conception to birth, the state can take a correspondingly greater interest in it. I don't personally agree with that myself; I think as long as the ZEF is inside the woman's body, her wishes take precedence, but that compromise worked for almost 50 years. The problem is that compromise is impossible with people whose goal is to outlaw all abortions, for all reasons, nationwide. And if you don't think that's the end goal, you're very naive.

I'm not going to call a ZEF a "baby" just to placate religious lunatics who aren't interested in dialog. The proper course of action is to outvote them. More Americans, even including conservative Republicans, support abortion rights than oppose them. The proof is the six elections so far since Dobbs when abortion was on the ballot in some form have supported abortion rights. The 2024 election will be about abortion whether Republicans like it or not.

@LeopoldBloom [quote]George Soros did not "work for the Nazis." When he was 12, the Nazis who had captured his home town asked him to deliver summons to Jews that they intended to execute. Soros asked his father what he should do, and his father advised him to flee, which he did. The slur that Soros "worked for the Nazis" is disgusting, especially considering his age at the time. The same conservatives pushing this garbage were delighted to give Brett Kavanaugh a pass for sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford when he was a teenager.[/quote]

Whatever dude. What you typed is the end of the story. The beginning is he did work for the Nazi's, he was selected to go to Jews homes and help them categorize their belongings. Yes, his father did get him out of it, but not until Soros went to him and explained what was happening.

So yes, he [b]did [/b]work for the Nazi's. I understand he was young and didn't fully comprehend what he was doing... BUT...the fact stands. He worked for the Nazis.

[quote] The same conservatives pushing this garbage were delighted to give Brett Kavanaugh a pass for sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford when he was a teenager.[/quote]

Ugh, whatever. Did you give Tara Reade this much benefit of the doubt? It's a shame that lady didn't have anything more than some vague memories, but that's what happened and Cavanaugh was rightly confirmed because of the fact there wasn't any evidence this lady was accurate in her memories.

I've already made my points otherwise on this argument between you and Ellesar's responses.

I'm not repeating myself knowing you have no intention of reading and comprehending my position.

What's a shame is I actually support a compromise on abortion. I'd be happy to have a conversation about what we can do as a nation to reach an acceptable compromise on this issue, but that's not what is desired here.

Have a good day.

@SumKindaMunster Saying "he worked for the Nazis" without providing any context is deliberately misleading. The intention is to disparage a Jewish man by implying that he's a self-serving monster who sold out his own people by leaving out important facts.

The investigation into Kavanaugh's assault on Ford was perfunctory and nothing more than a CYA. That being said, he was a drunk teenager. I'm not excusing that kind of behavior, but that's not what should have disqualified him. He disqualified himself with his attitude and desire for revenge with his "what goes around, comes around" comment. If he'd been a liberal, you'd be the first to say that he had no business on the court with that temperment.

Tara Reade was a Sanders supporter who changed her story after Biden became the presumptive nominee. She also had a history of lying under oath, and her description of Biden attacking her in a hallway was highly implausible. She was given as much consideration as she deserved.

It's nice that you're open to a compromise on abortion, except we already had one for almost 50 years. The problem is that it's impossible to compromise with abolitionists. All we can do is outvote them, and that seems to be what's happening.

@LeopoldBloom [quote] The intention is to disparage a Jewish man by implying that he's a self-serving monster who sold out his own people by leaving out important facts.[/quote]

Don't tell me what my intention is Bloom. You don't know and you certainly don't seem to remember anything I tell you, even though I remember things you tell me Shoes of Wandering, George Washington Jr.

My intention is to demonstrate that he is a self serving piece of shit, and has been since he was a lad. This has nothing to do with his faith, and everything to do with his behavior and character. Spare me your attempt to silence my criticism using hackneyed anti-Semite propaganda. I won't fall for it.

[quote]The investigation into Kavanaugh's assault on Ford was perfunctory and nothing more than a CYA. That being said, he was a drunk teenager. I'm not excusing that kind of behavior, but that's not what should have disqualified him. He disqualified himself with his attitude and desire for revenge with his "what goes around, comes around" comment. If he'd been a liberal, you'd be the first to say that he had no business on the court with that temperment.

Tara Reade was a Sanders supporter who changed her story after Biden became the presumptive nominee. She also had a history of lying under oath, and her description of Biden attacking her in a hallway was highly implausible. She was given as much consideration as she deserved.[/quote]

Certainly interesting the level of consideration you give to these women, while simultaneously supporting and taking at face value the civil suite against Trump. It's just as weak, but somehow you have no problem believing her while disparaging Biden's accuser. I guess its all about who is saying what against whom, huh?

I'd love to see your sources on Reade's implausibility. It's not what I found. She was credible, regardless of her motivations. Personally, I don't think what she said happened raised this to a crime, but again, it's interesting how a person's credibility is based on their politics in your world.

@SumKindaMunster When you repeat antisemitic tropes like "Soros worked with the Nazis" without qualifying it the way you did when I called you out, what am I supposed to think? And if Soros is a "self-serving piece of shit," what about the Mercers, Peter Theil, the surviving Koch brother, and Harlan Crow? I guess they're OK because they pay for the results you approve of. Imagine if Elena Kagan had accepted half-million dollar vacations from Soros the way Thomas did from Crow, and had failed to report them. You'd be screaming not just for her ouster, but for every decision she wrote to be redone, and for her to be thrown in prison. But hey, Thomas is entitled to a little R&R courtesy of his "friend," what's the big deal?

Reade made her initial accusations a year earlier, then suddenly escalated them when Biden was the presumptive nominee. It's suspicious. And when it came out that she had repeatedly falsified her credentials on the stand, it's not surprising that no conservative DA wanted to take her case. Carroll on the other hand told several friends right after the incident, and it doesn't help that Trump has been accused of sexual assault by two dozen other women, and is on tape boasting about it. So the two cases aren't comparable except in your "both sides" world.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7je3b/tara-reade-is-now-being-investigated-for-allegedly-lying-on-the-witness-stand

@LeopoldBloom [quote]what am I supposed to think?[/quote] 😆

I dunno dude, that's a question I ask myself sometimes.

[quote]And if Soros is a "self-serving piece of shit," what about the Mercers, Peter Theil, the surviving Koch brother, and Harlan Crow?[/quote]

I don't even know half these people but if they purposefully use their money and power to directly influence American politics for their own selfish purposes then yes they too are "pieces of shit". Ok?

[quote]if Elena Kagan had accepted half-million dollar vacations from Soros the way Thomas did from Crow, and had failed to report them. You'd be screaming not just for her ouster, but for every decision she wrote to be redone, and for her to be thrown in prison[/quote]

No, and again I can't help but chastise you for acting like the guy in "Memento". It's like every time I speak to you, its the first time we've ever conversed. While my politics and sympathies lie on the right hand side of the political spectrum, I am not a slavering right winger who just believes everything a right wing pundit or politician says. And I have disavowed many a right wing conspiracy theory if I think its bullshit, and dismissed many a right wing ideal if I believe it is harmful or doesn't help the country.

If you can be bothered to remember [i]anything[/i] about me for future conversations, I would appreciate if it was that.

[quote]Reade made her initial accusations a year earlier, then suddenly escalated them when Biden was the presumptive nominee. It's suspicious.[/quote] Oh, it's suspicious to you so therefore she is not credible.

[quote]Carroll on the other hand told several friends right after the incident, and it doesn't help that Trump has been accused of sexual assault by two dozen other women, and is on tape boasting about it. So the two cases aren't comparable except in your "both sides" world.[/quote]

Each case deserves to be viewed on its own merits, not whether or not someone has had other accusations in their past.

As far as Reade goes, her lying on the stand about her credentials is certainly notable when it comes to her credibility, however you and other leftists were dismissive of her claims long before any of that came out. I guess its good someone finally found something unrelated to her accusation that tarnished her credibility so you have something to hang your hat on.