Skip to main content

It occurs to me that there is a connection between gun lovers and women.  Hear me out.
We both are outraged at what we see as intolerable intrusions into private citizens' lives. We both are seen as  amoral, bloody-handed killers. Self-centered pariahs demanding society bend to what we feel are our sacred rights.

I feel your pain, Bro.  

I think we can find common ground.  Beneath the orange Mardi Gras throw..

We should have each others' backs.
Proud Americans, resisting government interference into something so personal.  Every day, new laws are proposed that place restrictions on my Constitutional rights.  People who have never fired a gun or menstruated should be banned from making laws about things they know nothing about.

We are on the same page here. If we band together, we'd be a formidable voting block. All we have to do is  agree that laws about uteri and laws about guns are equally protected under the Constitution.  No restrictions, no 'state's rights' crap.  Your gun = my uterus.

Just to get us on an even wave length, I'll lay out our current status in gun terms.

Only one gun shop in the state.  With anti-gun freaks screaming outside.
48 hour waiting periods.  
Instructional videos to shame you about your gun
A doctor has to show you gunshot wounds. Real ones.
Your pharmacist and mechanic get a vote on the purchase
as does your priest
and every other atheist, anti-gun lefty in the country
People who never held a gun get to make the laws.
The government amends the 2nd amendment anyway - claims government has a moral role in gun ownership.
etc., etc.,etc.

They picked off our freedom first. Now they've come for you.

Your guns = my uterus. If the law is good for the gun, it's good for women's control over their own bodies.

Now. Let's talk about freedom.

Originally posted to nolagrl on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 02:23 PM PST.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA) and Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Hey, I'd much prefer we see my views on abortion (14+ / 0-)

    applied to firearms (and abortion as well).  

    My views on abortion:

    Entirely the mother's choice.
    Free.
    Available anywhere.
    Federally funded.
    Discussed in sex ed.

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 02:26:49 PM PST

  •  Don't like guns/abortion? Don't have one. (11+ / 0-)

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 02:36:29 PM PST

  •  You might add (13+ / 0-)

    Mandatory proctological exam before delivery of any firearm.

    I'm not too fond of the analogy you are making, but it does set up opportunities for some humor.  

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 02:41:21 PM PST

    •  I think the analogy is apt. (11+ / 0-)

      Individual liberties = individual liberties.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 02:47:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is your right to bodily integrity equal (14+ / 0-)

        to your right to own certain guns?  I think not.

        It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

        by Radiowalla on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:07:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A liberty is a liberty and should not be (8+ / 0-)

          infringed.

          When it comes to liberties the similarities between them are vast and the differences are few.
          We should stand up for all of them.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:20:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  False equivalence (4+ / 0-)

            Your body is your own and a uterus is part of that package for those who have one.

            A weapon is a tool.

            Not seeing the "liberty" connection here.

            "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

            by wader on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 04:42:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No one is trying to ban a uterus (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              fuzzyguy

              'False equivalence' indeed.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:30:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  There's only one flavor of uterus: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Silvia Nightshade

                the kind that isn't a tool for killing people, but instead an inherent portion of a female body.

                Looking for that equivalence, still . . . I know you'll keep trying.

                "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                by wader on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:39:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Uh, no. There is no equivalence between a uterus (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  43north, fuzzyguy

                  and the AWB.
                  There is an equivalence between pushing to ban abortions & pushing to ban firearms.
                  .......but, you already knew that-which is why you are avoiding the discussion by trying to substitute the word 'uterus' for 'abortion'.

                  Hence, 'false equivalence'

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:47:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I've clearly stated that they are entirely (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Alexandre

                    different entities, and therefore have no such equivalence.

                    There is far more written in the Constitution about our individual rights than those related to owning and using firearms, and even those are differentiated because they pertain to our BODIES vs KILLING TOOLS.

                    It's a supreme insult and shows marked lack of character for RKBA to try and glom onto a women's health privacy issue by somehow acting as if that's at all similar - let alone equal in stature - to which styles and/or modes of use are allowed related to firearm weaponry.

                    Truly, this flies into right-wing fantasy land, where contexts are narrowed into specific keywords (e.g., "liberties") as a sorry means to attempt some sort of level-sounding comparison.

                    Instead, this practice is better known as "obfuscation" and is readily apparent to someone like myself . . . a former Republican and ex-NRA member.

                    "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                    by wader on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:08:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Individual liberties are individual liberties. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      fuzzyguy

                      That is an equivalence, no matter how you try to dodge it.

                      The 2nd Amendment is also about our individual rights. And there is more written in the Constitution about the right to keep and bear arms than there is about abortion....I really can't comprehend how you think this bolsters your case.

                      "lack of character for RKBA"
                      Neither I, nor the author of this diary are members of RKBA....you're going to have to find a different reason to try to disparage those that dare disagree with you.

                      "keywords"
                      Liberty is a word with a definition.
                      "Liberty NOUN:
                             1) a) The condition of being free from restriction or control.
                                 b) The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
                              2)Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
                               3)A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. "

                      Word meanings don't change because you are uncomfortable with their definition

                      "Obfuscation"
                      You mean like dismissing accurate words as keywords? Like changing the conversation from 'abortion' to 'uterus'? Like refusing to acknowledge that you are pushing to infringe on individual liberties? Like blaming a group that neither I, nor the diarist are members of?
                      Kinda like that?

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:53:37 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Funny thing, if your doctor thinks your uterus (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nolagrl

                is a danger to your health, they're allowed to talk to you about removing it.

                They're not allowed to do that with guns in some states.

          •  Standing up does not necessarily imply absolutism (0+ / 0-)

            and the devil is in the details.

            YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

            by raincrow on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 05:54:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  The ability to defend oneself ... (7+ / 0-)

          is ALL about bodily integrity, especially considering the number of women who want to defend their bodies from assault.

          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

          by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:42:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  What a woman allows to be done to her body or (2+ / 0-)

        who or what she allows to us it is her choice. But whatever choice she makes does not kill a lovely girl sheltering in a park or 20  6 year olds. The only apt part of the analogy is if someone is attempting to assault another by using or harming thier body against thier will then they have a right to self defend...

        Otherwise a gun affects any whom the owner chooses to target and affects many as collateral damage or a statement.

        The analogy is crap.

        Fear is the Mind Killer...

        by boophus on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 04:39:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No choise, I and hundred of millions of innocent (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fuzzyguy

          Americans have killed anybody.

          Don't try to infringe on the liberties of innocent Americans for the acts of a murderer.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:33:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  There are many more responsible drivers that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Recall

            have never killed anyone driving drunk and yet we subject ourselves to blood alcohol limits, road blocks with check points and other limits that have nothing to do with us.  Yes the drunk drivers are a minority but we need everyone subject to the same rules - same thing goes for firearms, you want to own/operate a deadly object then everyone should live with the inconvenience of regulations in order to ameliorate the senseless carnage.

            The trend in people getting shot was dropping until the AWB expired (it bottomed out at about 90k people getting shot every year), but now it has risen to about 110k and the trend line is pretty clear - the number of shootings is rising at about 3,300 per year.  Data from Violence Policy Center - PDF.

            Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

            by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:35:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  The only product that injures over 100k people (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Alexandre

          every year (with about 32k dying) and gets away with it.  There are no effective firearm regulations on a national level and the NRA (plus the gun cultists they created) are just fine with that.  Can you imagine how quickly our Government would regulate any product that injures.maims/kills more than 5k-10k people?

          The only product that comes even close is the automobile, and we know that our Government did create a lot of regulations that are indeed saving lives (in spite of having more than twice as many cars and nearly twice as many drivers as 40 years ago, automobile fatalities have been cut nearly in half).  As a matter of fact, gun fatalities are expected to surpass automobile deaths in the next couple of years.  And yet any call for even a fraction of the regulations that apply to automobiles is met with screams of "INFRINGEMENT, GERMANY, SLIPPERY SLOPE, CONFISCATION," and other facile whines from the gun fetishists.

          I would be very happy if firearms were regulated like cars.  That makes the most sense.

          Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

          by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:21:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Absolutely. Besides as I was talking to my (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            denig

            sweet. A shot gun is a good defense... THat dipshit woman talking about 5 men breaking in and needing an automatic is totally insane. She might take out the men but she has a good chance of taking out a child when the bullets go through walls.

            There is a small place for guns in our society and thier value should be weighed against the potential to harm unarmed others who are not partaking in your fetish. Other countries manage to control guns, why can't we?

            I see it as merely  a gut response of some who are not really interested in guns for hunting (geesh hit a pheasant with some of these guns and poof it is feather dust)or for basic home safety  but rather as a crutch for egos that need to know if others make them unhappy or displease them or they are just flat out burning up with rage they can take some people out to show that they are powerful. Powerful cowards usually because they pick targets who are unsuspecting and unarmed. But I think it makes them feel manly in some sick definition of the term.

            But to equate the right to abortion (the control of the very use of your own body) to gun regulation is wrong because your body is what you need to exist but a gun is not necessary to exist. We outlawed slavery in the 1800s where others had the claim to use , abuse or kill another human being for thier interests. I see a resurgence in the mentality that sees nothing wrong with slavery in the attacks on labor, for profit prisons and all the laws trying to take away a womans right to control her own bodies use and redefine misuse....Mankind survived for a lot longer then there have been guns.

            Personal freedom means you determine what is best for you and when your hungers or urges come into conflict with the right of others to feel safe in your vicinity they have a right to regulate that potential for harm. Not to use anothers body against thier will.  Guns are in the public arena because they can impact large numbers.

            Fear is the Mind Killer...

            by boophus on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:48:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Frank - I do too (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, ER Doc, fuzzyguy

        and I think they are both on a similar path. The SCOTUS by a 5-4 vote said that women have a legal right to access abortion. However, there is a lot of latitude regarding access and various states have limited that access. The SCOTUS by a 5-4 vote said that people have a legal right to own guns. However, there is a lot of latitude regarding gun control and various states have limited access. There is a very significant parallel, a individual constitutional right with the ability of states to legally restrict that right by making access restricted or more bureaucratic, or expensive, or time consuming.  

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:36:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I hear you sister. (7+ / 0-)

    However, as another local enshrouded in the sanctity of liberal New Orleans, you have to believe your arguments will find little  appeal to the rest of the gun toting, bigoted, white male, scary christian population in the rest of this state. They cringe at the mention of the word "uterus," or don't know what it means. Instead of appreciating the very persuasive comparisons you make, they will yell "pro-life" as loud as they can while cleaning their guns and loading them with ammo. Their freedom is sacred, ours is just all in our head - or against their religion - or destroying life. Somehow gun murders taking innocent lives don't require gun restrictions, while a woman saving her own life or sanity with a medical procedure must be outlawed. I loved your post. Too bad those who need to understand it just won't get it.

  •  The laws against the rights of women (4+ / 0-)

    will go away (as they should) long before additional gun control laws will be enacted. They don't even enforce what is in place now.

     

    Trade always exists for the traders. Any time you hear businessmen debating "which policy is better for America," don’t bend over. -George Carlin-

    by not4morewars on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 02:46:33 PM PST

  •  So let me get the gist of this diary straight. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, MKSinSA, wader

    You think Democrats should fight just as hard for on-demand machine guns as much as we want to fight for a woman exercising choice over her own body?

    Because if you don't want any gun regulations, you want machine guns to be in civilian hands.   I am not making a slippery slope argument, since if you believe that a gun regulation is the same as any regulation that prevents abortions, then that would be the logical analogue.

    I agree with President Obama, our country's journey is not yet complete. We must continue the work that our forebearers at Seneca Falls started, and put the Equal Rights Amendment into our Constitution.

    by pistolSO on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 02:49:16 PM PST

    •  Hey, we don't regulate the rate of erection. (6+ / 0-)

      It's up to you to control that thing and not point it everywhere you can.

      It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not more gun control, it's people care.

      by JayFromPA on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:08:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •   YEAH, JayFromPA & Diarist (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        43north, ban nock, fuzzyguy
        It occurs to me that there is a connection between gun lovers and women.  Hear me out.
        We both are outraged at what we see as intolerable intrusions into private citizens' lives. We both are seen as  amoral, bloody-handed killers. Self-centered pariahs demanding society bend to what we feel are our sacred rights.
        Absolutely.
        As somebody who happens to be both, I agree. We need to have each other's backs.

        LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

        by BlackSheep1 on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 05:56:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  a glance through history shows (5+ / 0-)

      that liberals need their guns more than conservatives..

      Every tyranny was a racial/cultura 'majority' that took guns from a liberal minority that would fit right in the Democratic party.

      the Black Panthers were the pioneer of modern gun rights for a reason - the police would not stop going in their neighborhoods to kill them, despite every legal measure the Panthers tried.   Police abuse is still a problem today.

      Gun control progressives see with their own eyes that the areas with the strictest gun control laws still doesn't prevent outlaws from owning guns. Yet they want to double down.

      They refuse to understand that poor people in urban areas need their guns for self defense against other poor people who rob to survive,  due to the great distrust of the police and  that police tend to not answer 911 calls on time.

      As much as pro-gun control Progressives scream for gun control - these are much of the same people who were fearful during the Bush years and the Tea Party, because they were afraid that the views of the well armed 1200  Right wing  dominionist/neoconfederate/white supremacist militias were becoming mainstream.

      Gun control progressives are oddly deeply distrustful of the government, point out its corruption, and acknowledge that the government has a Right Wing bent, yet are in a hurry to make people give up their guns to the very government that they fear.

      Gun control progressives see how the government & police have abused Leftists yet are favorable to the Right, yet want to give up their guns to said government. See the treatment of OWS vs the Tea Party by the police and FBI.  Look up COINTELPRO in wikipedia.

      If the government ever collapses, what protection do you have from the 1200 well armed right wing militias  scattered around the country?  The government is not going to protect you and will likely do you as a liberal just like every conservative majority rule tyranny ever.

      Gun rights used to be a Leftist issue. It should still be a Leftist issue. Liberals need their guns more than the Right - they are outnumbered. 1200 militias, remember? Don't be stupid.

      •  just as banning abortions didnt outlaw abortions (5+ / 0-)

        and the war on drugs didnt outlaw marijuana

        neither will outlawing guns.  

        Gun control is the number one  issue I disagree with most on the Left - they  seem to be brain dead on this issue

        •  all the things you cited are/were outlawed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fuzzyguy, nolagrl

          What didn't happen, is ceasing those activities.

          Abortions still happened, only at greater peril to the provider and the patient.

          Weed will be weed, now it's buying guns for gangs instead of growing wild in your backyard.

          The Great Depression didn't make Al Capone rich and dangerous, Prohibition did.

          The National Firearms Act of 1934 didn't stop the next St. Valentines Day Massacre.  The repeal of the Volstead Act did.
          The end of Prohibition removed the source of income to the gangs, and the reason for turf wars.

      •  I think you managed (6+ / 0-)

        to slip in every single right wing talking point I've heard since the mass shooting in Newtown.

        If the government ever collapses, what protection do you have from the 1200 well armed right wing militias  scattered around the country?  The government is not going to protect you and will likely do you as a liberal just like every conservative majority rule tyranny ever.
        Step away from Fantasy Land, bud, you're about to go over the edge.

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:39:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/militia-grou (0+ / 0-)
        •  yeah i overstepped alright. (4+ / 0-)

          "HICKORY, N.C. — In the last four years, the number of militia groups in the United States has grown to more than 1,200.
          "Everybody needs to be living by these rules," said Commander James Kendrick with the Freedom Warriors National Militia.
          James Kendrick, his wife Trin, and some of their friends spend a lot of time in uniform despite never being in any part of the military.  "

          http://www.wsoctv.com/...

          •  Well, there we go (3+ / 0-)

            I should live in fear from extremists because it's going to be Somalia in my backyard, any day now.  Including a breakdown in government military and/or police forces.

            Yeah, fear just convinced me to go buy as powerful a firearm as possible, now.

            "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

            by wader on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 04:45:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Having survived several hurricanes (0+ / 0-)

              where civil society broke down, if ever so briefly, you are a fool if you don't think civilization hangs by but a thread onto its current existence. I would not begrudge someone for taking civilization for granted, but to think that it can not collapse when history has shown repeatedly that advanced societies collapse once all available resources have been depleted is naive. This is amplified further still given unsustainable agriculture resource depletion, and global climate change.

              I suspect many here are also not old enough to have had family members in their lives who utilized fire arms to defend themselves, their friends, and their family from Pinkerton thugs looking to butcher them for the 1% all under the colour of and with the protection of law to bust workers' unions.

              As a liberal, the liberalization of all of our rights and the expansion of those rights is progressive. No illegal wire taps, no indefinite detentions, no arbitrary bans or restrictions of fire arms, and the list goes on. This includes ensuring that no one is making rights onerously expensive to utilize so that rights are only effectively for those with the lucre to utilize them. It is just anathema to liberty if the Governor of TX puts forth policies to effectively render the right to abortion impossible for those at lower incomes and it is just as anathema to liberty for only the rich and the celebrities to be able to exercise their second amendment rights and be protected under their fourth amendment rights under Bloomberg's fiefdom in NYC.

        •  research on www.splcenter.org (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happy camper, BlackSheep1

          on how the number of rightwing militias have exploded in the last 4 years

      •  LOL, I disagree with you, but that reminds me of (3+ / 0-)

        a line from the 1967 film The President's Analyst:

        "These guns, karate… Why?"

        "The right-wing extremists. Disarm them, and us liberals will disarm."

      •  Doesn't seem like a good example. (3+ / 0-)
        the Black Panthers were the pioneer of modern gun rights for a reason - the police would not stop going in their neighborhoods to kill them, despite every legal measure the Panthers tried.   Police abuse is still a problem today.
        Sounds like it didn't work.
        They refuse to understand that poor people in urban areas need their guns for self defense against other poor people who rob to survive,  due to the great distrust of the police and  that police tend to not answer 911 calls on time.
        So much fail.
    •  I'm demonstrating the (0+ / 0-)

      commonalities and differing responses to 2 hot button issues that politicians have either run from or glommed onto.

      I'm all for gun control, and government out of my uterus.

      Jesus died to save you from Yahweh.

      by nolagrl on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:30:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  My uterus can't kill people (17+ / 0-)

    End of discussion.

    David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

    by PsychoSavannah on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:04:12 PM PST

    •  My guns has never taken any life with human DNA (3+ / 0-)

      Discussion started.

      (FYI, I am completely in favor of pro-choice....your body, your choice)

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:25:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But misuse of your uterus -- abortion -- would, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy

      or so would say abortion opponents, and in numbers that make annual gun deaths pale. Between '73 and '08, the Guttmacher Institute estimated almost 50 million abortions were performed in the U.S. In the same period, perhaps 1.5 million people were killed with guns, accidentally, criminally, or by suicide -- on par with one year's worth of abortions.

      This is not to draw any other comparisons between abortion and gun ownership, their warrant or lack thereof, simply to drive home the point that nolagrl has drawn an extremely interesting and, IMNSHO, apt equation.

      YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

      by raincrow on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:15:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  An abortion kills a fetus, scientifically defined (3+ / 0-)

        as not a person.  The 32k GSW deaths every year (not to mention the 70k plus that are shot but live - some like Gabby Giffords) are persons, you know scientifically defined as persons.

        So you comment is complete BS, false equivalency and giving the "pro-life" cult equal standing as women. This is not surprising from someone that reveres guns in a cult-like manner.

        Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

        by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:32:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What baloney. "Science" can no more "define" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fuzzyguy

          what constitutes a "person" than it can "define" love or consciousness.

          Personhood is strictly a philosophical construct with ZERO measurable / quantifiable content. You can show me no PERSON-O-METER(R).

          We wave hands about the various characteristics we BELIEVE do or don't or may indicate personhood in other organisms; and/or measurable phenomena we collaterally observe when we believe we do or don't or may perceive personhood in those organisms.

          Then we juggle all these bits together and attempt to arrive at nothing more than a negotiated settlement on what constitutes official person-dom and its degrees of existence. Generally we do this when it's time to legislate concerning entities that can't speak for themselves, such as fetuses, coma patients, whales, primates, pets as distinguished from food or lab animals, etc., etc., etc.

          At this moment, the U.S. electorate is approaching the abortion issue with three or so definitions of fetal personhood, all equally faith-based: (a) fetus as non-person/blob until a certain calendar date roughly coinciding with a stage of neuronal development, at which point "scientific" personhood air-drops from out of the mysteries, rather like the Holy Spirit; (b) fetus as legal person at gamete fusion, the moment at which a unique new genome is formed; and (c) fetus as super person at (or even a little before) gamete fusion, whose super rights trump the non-super rights of the mother until it is born, at which time its superdom PIFFs into the beyond rather like the Ascension, and Republicans are content to let it die of starvation.

          And fwiw, your characterization of my stance on guns is as ignorant as your "science," but I'm pretty sure that won't temper your attitude. Whatevah.

          YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

          by raincrow on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:58:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's called Roe v. Wade and it had nothing to do (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gramofsam1, Silvia Nightshade

            with faith.

            Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

            by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 03:38:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're calling a judicial decision "science"? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              fuzzyguy

              If that's the case, then I guess it is now a SCIENTIFIC FACT, post Citizens United, that corporations really are persons.

              And you know what that means: the Heller decision, too, must have established a SCIENTIFIC FACT, e.g., that we are endowed as humans with the inalienable and personal right to keep and bear firearms.

              Your profound understanding of the nature and source of scientific proofs has added refreshing clarity to the present debate, I must hand it to you!

              Cheers!

              YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

              by raincrow on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 09:35:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  I am surprised than none of the gun absolutists (0+ / 0-)

      have told you that their guns are protected explicitly by the Constitution and your uterus is not.

      If they start making that argument, I will be glad to use some donuts.

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:19:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Roflmao. (6+ / 0-)

    The few times I've approached the same point made by the diarist, I was accused of hijacking women's rights as a cover for my fetish substitute penis, and that women can't choose not to have a uterus but I can choose not to have a gun therefore I must shut up and accept what restrictions are handed to me.

    Nolagrl, I'm with you.

    Don't forget things like the NY Safe Act of 2013 being the gun version of TRAP laws. Each ammo store must register is like each condom seller being forced to register and perform background check and keep a record of the brand/pack size of the condoms that you purchased... You know, in order to better track you down if one of those evil condoms is 'stolen' and ends up in the hands of a couple of teenagers on prom night.

    NolaGrl, You go! You go girl!

    It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not more gun control, it's people care.

    by JayFromPA on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:05:49 PM PST

  •  I don't like this comparison whatsoever (10+ / 0-)

    My uterus/vagina aren't dangerous when in the wrong hands. Besides, those who bitch about gun control, I've found in my observations, are the ones who shouldn't have a gun in the first place.

    Dr Tiller was murdered with a gun, as were other abortion providers. I don't want to make it easier for anti-choice nutjobs to get their hands on guns.......

    Sorry.

  •  Or Like Health Care: (6+ / 0-)

    Sorry Mr. Jones, our records show it's too early to refill your prescription for handgun bullets.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:21:32 PM PST

  •  Of course, the restrictions that have been (8+ / 0-)

    imposed on a woman's right to choose are mostly nothing more than imposing hurdles designed to discourage her from getting an abortion. There's no legitimate reason to require an additional ultrasound for a woman who has already had one, or to require a doctor to read a list of state mandated medical misinformation, or to require that an abortion clinic have a certain number of parking spaces or a special elevator.

    The restrictions that we are discussing on the purchase of guns are designed to make it safer for all of us to live in this society while still allowing law abiding (and non homicidal) gun users to keep their guns.

    That's a huge difference, don't you think?

    •  Your restrictions will only infringe on the (3+ / 0-)

      liberties of innocent Americans.

      I am surrounded by people with firearms & my safety isn't at all in jeopardy.

      There is a huge similarity between American liberties......and......ya know American liberties.
      I support all American liberties, why don't you?

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:30:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I support your liberties with limits, (3+ / 0-)

        just as there are limits on my liberty to have an abortion.
        Just as there are limits on the First Amendment, etc.
        Those limits are usually imposed with laws passed by Congress, which is within their Constitutional powers.

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:45:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are already limits to the 2nd. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fuzzyguy

          I don't think there should be more limitations on abortions, the 2nd, the 1st or any other American liberty

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:12:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just limitations equal to what over 50% of the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LadyMiseryAli

            population has to live with. Since gun owners are a smaller percentage at about 35% clearly gun owners should at least have to put up with the same restriction.

            Can't you get the irony?  Very few in the gun cult will ever support even considering that a woman has equal rights to men or should have the right to make a decision regarding her body.  All holler about how oppressed gun owners are and very few even blink when attacking women's rights!

            Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

            by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:05:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  No, there are many limits on what is your (3+ / 0-)

        legal right to do and/or own - all related to common good or similar arguments.

        "Liberty" or "freedom" is typically used by libertarians to mean: ability to do what I want, for my own interests and concerns, without being liable for potentially negative results to others.

        Your harping on "liberties" isn't helping your argument.  Nor is this diary's odd apples to oranges comparison.

        "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

        by wader on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 04:50:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are many limits (0+ / 0-)

          I don't think there should be more.

          "Liberty" has a meaning. Its definition doesn't change because you are uncomfortable infringing upon them.

          Nor do I need your advise on what is 'helping'. The AWB will not pass & the Dems aren't being helped with your insistance on trying.

          If you want to 'help' the Dems be elected, you are doing it wrong.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:15:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tired of being held hostage to threats of losing (3+ / 0-)

            votes due to extreme gun ownership arguments.

            Polling shows that much of what Biden proposes are favored by USA citizens, and most won't see or feel the impact of supply chain auditing/monitoring.  It's a good moment in time to effect some positive change in an area lacking in the basics that law enforcement and investigatory agencies have requested for decades.

            "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

            by wader on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:37:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Its not a 'threat' it is a reasonable conclusion (0+ / 0-)

              based upon historical evidence.
              This push will, beyond question, cost the Dems voters.

              Public support for gun control had far more support in 1994 & the Dems got the bejesus kicked out of them b/c of the AWB.

              I hope this useless ban is something that is very important for you, because it will cost the Democratic party dearly.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:42:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  1994 was overblown as a NRA-effect (3+ / 0-)

                Still, I was wondering when you'd toss that out there.

                Regardless, the landscape has changed quite a good deal, culturally.  Fewer private gun owners, more skepticism about the NRA's purpose and of corporate backers to any spokesbody such as they, plus we've seen a gradual wearing down of far-right and ultra-libertarian, "feed the rich" talking points in public elections.  The NRA is fitting that mode and the 2nd Amendment is getting a similar consideration by their association.

                I clearly stated above that gun control measures mean nothing with supply chain tracking - something I talked about here years ago when reporting on law enforcement/investigatory agency needs related to better understanding gun violence causes and sources.  Plus, the Biden proposal includes statistical studies of causes beyond the physical flow of guns, themselves - it adds up to a larger picture of change for better understanding what is happening.

                Nobody will be hurt by these proposals.  Perhaps fewer people will be hurt over time, as they are implemented as a whole.  You have little reason to complain.

                "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

                by wader on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:14:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Bill Clinton disagrees. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fuzzyguy

                  He attributed 20 house seats lost as a result of AWB.
                  The Democratic party disagreed as well, and didn't touch it again for 20 yrs.

                  "Nobody will be hurt.."
                  The Democratic party will be.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:24:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  It's odd, but I was thinking about a similar... (3+ / 0-)

    ... analogy along a different line of thought.  A right is a right.

    I was wondering what the 2A folks would say if states passed TRAP laws, like the ones they use against women's health service providers, forcing gun merchants to follow similarly difficult to comply with laws.

    What would they say if EVERY gun seller had to have an indoor range with very specific dimensions for each shooting station.  That the wall being fired towards had to be a certain thickness, made of a specific material, and be repaired on a fixed cycle.  That there had to be a state trained and licensed range operator on hand every minute the range was in use.  And that there had to be a trauma doctor with admitting privileges to a local hospital on hand when the range was in use as well.

    I live in New Orleans as well.  There must have been something in the water today.

    I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

    by Hey338Too on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:58:08 PM PST

  •  property rights vs. rights to bodily integrity (5+ / 0-)

    This analogy falls apart along a basic distinction of legal reasoning.

    The body exists prior to the state. Therefore the state does not have the authority to regulate the body. This is the "right to privacy."

    Property rights exist after state authority. There is no property without contracts and enforcement by the state. This is why the state has the authority to regulate property.

    This distinction is also fundamental to why pro life does not equal abolition.

    Some people relate to their bodies as a piece of property that they own. But this is a neurotic relationship. The body is not owned by you. It IS you.

    •  A bit too far (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlackSheep1, raincrow
      Therefore the state does not have the authority to regulate the body.
      The state has the authority it gives itself and is not prevented from exercising by the governed. If the state wants to have authority over your body, it can...and does.

      Whether or not this is a legitimate authority depends on who is defining "legitimate".

  •  Good piece of satire (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution

    I might, however, take objection to your waving your uterus (or a gun) around in public.

    Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, as the old saying goes.

    If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

    by Major Kong on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 04:50:53 PM PST

  •  uhg. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution

    blech.

    SNAP! (The analogy just broke and hit someone in the eye.)

  •  I think you're completely right. (5+ / 0-)

    Anti-choice legislation has taken what the SCOTUS ruled is a personal right and chipped away at it, what with waiting periods, sonograms, videos, hospital-caliber clinics, &c., until our right to abortion has been taken away, and women turn to risking their lives with back-alley "solutions."

    This is exactly what the Gunners are afraid of -- that their rights will be chipped at, bit by bit; they'll have to have things like waiting periods imposed on them. But they should also have to visit morgues to see the result of guns, and given as many hoops to jump through as women seeking a medical procedure.

    It's not just a zip code, it's an attitude.

    by sboucher on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:05:20 PM PST

  •  This is brilliantly written! Especially the whole (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jarbyus, Silvia Nightshade

    part about having the gun fetishists either stand up for women's rights or else be subjected to the same scrutiny that women's right are given - neither will happen, but it exposes the sheer hypocrisy and BS surrounding these two very important issues.

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:15:22 PM PST

  •  Good post (0+ / 0-)

    Doctor Tiller had a simple expression, "let the woman choose". Meaning the woman should be the sole decision maker about when and if to have an abortion. I heard some people that used to work for him are trying to re open.

    There are many similarities to the issue.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 09:42:36 PM PST

  •  The NRA has been peddling this lately (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LadyMiseryAli

    I assume they think we women are complete idiots who will buy this insulting comparison. Not gonna happen.

    I voted for the human beings.

    by denig on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:11:22 AM PST

  •  Sorry, but no. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LadyMiseryAli

    A uterus is not the same thing as a gun.

    And all liberties aren't created equal.

    It does expose blatant hypocrisies of the right.

    But if you're saying as a leftie I should be for everyone owning a gun whenever/wherever/unapologetically, nope, not gonna happen.  Because a uterus / a gun, no matter how hard you want to make it sound like it is.

    "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

    by Silvia Nightshade on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 07:17:24 AM PST

  •  I find myself having a hard time understanding (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fuzzyguy

    how so many individuals can't see the importance of supporting everyone's rights and personal choices.  I also fail to see how it isn't apparent to these same individuals that it is equally important to support these rights irrespective of whether or not they personally believe in or exercise them, but to support them on the basis that they are enshrined liberties and should remain that way because it is the correct thing to do.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site