What If We Regulated Guns and Ammunition Like We Regulate Abortion?

[boutons_deux]

what would happen if gun purchasing, licensing, and access were treated with the same fervor as restricting a woman's right to choose. Why can't we create a Targeted Regulation of Ammunition Providers? How can a state that makes a woman wait 72 hours after talking to a doctor before she can have an abortion allow a person to purchase a handgun the second an "instant background check (http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/FirearmLaws.html)" comes back clean? How does it seem reasonable that I receive about 4000 locations for "gun shops in Mississippi," yet the state offers only one clinic where a woman can end an unwanted pregnancy?

What if for every regulation on clinics and providers, termination methods or informed consent mandate, an equal bill was proposed to regulate the firearms industry? While trying to access a gun shop, the customer will need to first navigate his or her way past sidewalk counselors who will be offering pamphlets or maybe even large posters showing what the victims of gun crimes look like. On a good day, it may just be someone imploring the customer to be more responsible, that a weapon isn't the answer. Other days there may be more zealous counselors who unfortunately might call them names, shout, perhaps even try to block their access to the store in an attempt to start a conversation.

No gun or ammunition purchase could be completed until a potential customer speaks to a shop owner, then returns home and comes back to the shop a minimum of 24 hours later (72 hours if you live in Utah). Guns can only be purchased in stores dedicated directly to the seling of firearms and ammunition, and obtained from sellers with full legal arms licensing and certification as well as a proper professional background, such as former military or police officers. The gun shops themselves should sell only guns and gun supplies, and may not be a part of any other store such as department or sporting goods store. However it also must ensure that it is the full size and scope in layout and building plan of any other retail store, despite not needing the additional space or equipment.

A customer must provide the gun seller with the reason he or she is purchasing the gun, as well as sit down with the seller to tell him or her if anyone may be pressuring the customer into purchasing a gun. The seller will need to determine if the customer may feel unsafe and remind the potential customer that there are in fact other protection options.

In South Dakota, a customer would also have to go visit an outside organization before completing the handgun or ammunition purchase. The outside group will simply be checking to ensure that the potential gun owner is making the right decision. Unfortunately, there may be some strong-arming to try to talk him or her out of continuing the purchase, and either way the outside group will now have personal information about the customer and his or her intent to buy a weapon.

Many other states, on the other hand, will provide the shop owner with a script to be read to the customer before final payment and exchange of goods, reminding him or her that a gun is a dangerous weapon and repeating the names of each mass shooting in the last 12 months. Some states may even require customers to listen to a description of a recent shooting, although that can be bypassed if it is watched 24 hours in advance via website or phone recording.
Regardless of all of these steps, and whether the weapon is in the end obtained legally, the shop owner would still be held liable for any injuries that occur from the purchased gun or ammunition. The owner could be sued not just by the person who purchased the gun, but any relatives would also acquire the right to sue should any unintended violence occur at the hands of the purchaser.

If it's so easy to regulate abortion out of existence under the guise of protecting the women who are legally enacting their right to privacy, why can't we regulate guns just enough to ensure that 20 schoolkids can't be slaughtered in time it takes to sing the alphabet?

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/12/16/we-regulated-guns-and-ammunition-like-we-regulate-abortion?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rhrealitycheck+%28RH+Reality+ Check%29

I would require the gun store owner to perform a DRE on each gun buyer, at time of application and then upon delivery, while video recording all DREs to be sent to FBI.

[CosmicCowboy]

You stupid fucktard. We don't restrict abortion. If you want to compare the abortion argument with gun arguments then we should be arguing that the government should buy my guns for me.

[boutons_deux]

"We don't restrict abortion"

You stupid fucktard. TX and other "Christian" red-states have restricted abortion with many obstacles, just like the one in the above article.

[boutons_deux]

"the government should buy my guns for me."

I would prefer an annual gun ownership tax and heavy sales taxes on guns and ammo.

[ElNono]

If you want to compare the abortion argument with gun arguments then we should be arguing that the government should buy my guns for me.

Uh?

[CosmicCowboy]

"the government should buy my guns for me."

I would prefer an annual gun ownership tax and heavy sales taxes on guns and ammo.




:lmao You are too fucking dumb to even get it. You support free contraception and abortions by the government. Why not free guns from the government?

[CosmicCowboy]

Uh?

The current (realistic) arguments on abortion are simply who should pay for it. Nobody is realistically talking about banning abortion.

[ElNono]

The current (realistic) arguments on abortion are simply who should pay for it.

Disagree. And abortions are not free. There's a difference between government subsidizing abortion clinics and "free abortions"...

In 2009, the average cost of a nonhospital abortion with local anesthesia at 10 weeks of gestation was $451 (AGI)

[boutons_deux]

The current (realistic) arguments on abortion are simply who should pay for it. Nobody is realistically talking about banning abortion.

Rick Perry just said today that he plans to support any TX legislation that effectively blocks all abortions in TX. All the red-states are putting up obstacles that effectively ban, even criminalize, abortion.

[boutons_deux]

Rick Perry: Legislature Will Work Out Punishment for Women Seeking Later Abortions Under Proposed Ban
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/12/17/rick-perry-punishment-women-who-seek-later-term-abortions-to-be-worked-out-by-law?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rhrealitycheck+%28RH+Reality+ Check%29

It's AL I think that was planning to imprison a lady because she was an addict and pregnant.

[CosmicCowboy]

Disagree. And abortions are not free. There's a difference between government subsidizing abortion clinics and "free abortions"...

In 2009, the average cost of a nonhospital abortion with local anesthesia at 10 weeks of gestation was $451 (AGI)

Oh please. In many cases(admittedly, not all) Medicaid or the state pays for it.

[CosmicCowboy]

Rick Perry just said today that he plans to support any TX legislation that effectively blocks all abortions in TX. All the red-states are putting up obstacles that effectively ban, even criminalize, abortion.
So? He can throw out whatever bullshit he wants but that doesn't mean he can do it.

I want my free assault rifle.

[ChumpDumper]

You stupid fucktard. We don't restrict abortion.:lol


Oh please. In many cases(admittedly, not all) Medicaid or the state pays for it.Source? Thanks.

[cantthinkofanything]

Rick Perry: Legislature Will Work Out Punishment for Women Seeking Later Abortions Under Proposed Ban


http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/12/17/rick-perry-punishment-women-who-seek-later-term-abortions-to-be-worked-out-by-law?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rhrealitycheck+%28RH+Reality+ Check%29

It's AL I think that was planning to imprison a lady because she was an addict and pregnant.

What's the significance of a 20 week ban? Does it have anything to do with the inauguration?

[CosmicCowboy]

Rick Perry: Legislature Will Work Out Punishment for Women Seeking Later Abortions Under Proposed Ban
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/12/17/rick-perry-punishment-women-who-seek-later-term-abortions-to-be-worked-out-by-law?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rhrealitycheck+%28RH+Reality+ Check%29

It's AL I think that was planning to imprison a lady because she was an addict and pregnant.

Good. That is the moral equivalent of charging someone with vehicular manslaughter when they kill someone else while driving drunk.

[boutons_deux]

Six Extreme Policies That Prove The NRA Is Out Of Step With America (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/17/1345641/nra-gun-laws/)
1. Wanted people on the terrorist watch list to be legally able to acquire guns. Inasmuch as it makes sense to have a secret “terrorism watch list (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/are-we-safer/new-details-of-fbi-terrorism-watch-list-revealed/),” one would think a primary reason would be to prevent people who might commit terrorism from accessing the weapons that one uses to do so. Yet people on the watch list are still allowed to by guns: in 2010 alone, at least 247 people suspected of involvement with terrorism bought guns legally (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/28/fbi-247-people-terro-watch-list-bought-guns-2010/). While 71 percent of NRA membesr support (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/24/577091/nra-members-agree-regulating-guns-makes-sense/) closing the so-called “terror gap,” the NRA claims efforts to close the loophole are plots (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/05/AR2010050505211.html) by “politicians who hate the Second Amendment.”

2. Opposed required background checks on every gun sale. Forty percent of all gun sales legally take place without background checks on the purchaser, because federal law doesn’t require them for so-called “private” gun sales at places like gun shows. Eighty percent of gun crimes involve guns purchased in this fashion (http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdf). NRA members recognize how dangerous this law is; 69 percent of them support (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/16/opinion/la-ed-guns16-2009dec16) a “proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns.” Yet the NRA opposes (http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2010/2/gun-shows-in-minnesota-under-attack%21.aspx) any effort to close this loophole, calling it “a stepping stone for gun control advocates seeking to ban all private sales, even among family and friends.”

3. Lobbied to allow warlords to get arms on the international market. The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is a small step towards the regulation of the massive international weapons trade (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/12/17/1345041/us-guns-international/), aimed at (http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/why-does-the-n-r-a-oppose-the-global-arms-trade-treaty/) keeping guns out of the hands of murderous insurgents and terrorists. It contains zero restrictions (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/10/513535/the-right-wings-favorite-new-conspiracy-the-un-is-after-your-guns/) on domestic gun markets. Yet the NRA has vigorously opposed the ATT (http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/obama-administration-endorses-new-un-arms-trade-treaty-negotiations.aspx), calling it an “attack on our Second Amendment freedoms (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/10/513535/the-right-wings-favorite-new-conspiracy-the-un-is-after-your-guns/)” by “global gun grabbers.”

4. Wanted to prevent the public from accessing information about where guns come from. Though there’s a federal database that traces sales of guns used in crimes, you’ll never know what’s in there. That’s because NRA has helped muscle through (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/23/AR2010102303763.html) the so-called “Tiahrt Amendments” (named after sponsor, former Rep. Todd Tiahrt [R-KS]) to the federal gun code, which prevent the public, journalists, academic researchers, some police officers (http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-tiahrt-amendments/), and people suing the gun industry (http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-tiahrt-amendments/) from accessing crucially valuable data. The Tiahrt Amendments were passed over the objection of federal and local law enforcement (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/23/AR2010102303763.html).

5. Pushed to keep guns in bars. Guns and drunk people don’t mix well (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925003/). Yet when the Tennessee legislature was considering banning guns in establishments that make most of their money from booze, an NRA lobbyist was given a rare opportunity (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/may/06/nra-lobbyist-spoke-gop-caucus-just-guns-bars-vote/) to address the state GOP caucus opposing the bill. It died (http://blogs.knoxnews.com/humphrey/2010/05/nra-lobbied-gop-just-before-gu.html).

6) Supported forcing all business owners to allow guns on their property. Many business owners are understandably nervous about permitting people to bring loaded guns to work. Yet the NRA has pushed legislation in a number of states (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-12/guns-to-work-laws-spread-in-u-s-as-business-fights-group.html) that would force businesses to allow employees to bring guns to work provided they leave them in their cars (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/02/629351/nra-tennessee-maggart/).

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/17/1345641/nra-gun-laws/

[boutons_deux]

9 Horrible Gun Laws Backed by the Right Wing

1. Guns on Campus

Dubbed the “Campus Personal Protection Act,” (http://alecexposed.org/w/images/9/90/7J1-Campus_Personal_Protection_Act_Exposed.pdf) [5]this model legislation would allow handguns to be carried on campus. The ALEC bill would also “limit” regulations that the governing boards of colleges imposed on the carrying of guns on campus.

The bill is part of a wave of “concealed carry” gun laws that have passed around the nation--some with ALEC’s help. As the Center for Media and Democracy notes (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/12/11908/nraalec-reactionary-gun-agenda) [3], “allowing ‘concealed carry’ has been a long-standing part of the NRA-ALEC agenda, passing in Wisconsin a year ago at the urging of Governor Scott Walker, who was given an award by the NRA (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/12/11908/nraalec-reactionary-gun-agenda?http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/04/11450/nra-gives-walker-award-signing-alec-inspired-stand-your-groundshoot-first-law) [6] for making this item law along with a version of the controversial ALEC-NRA "Stand Your Ground"/"Castle Doctrine" bill. A concealed carry law also was just passed last week in Michigan (http://www.vltp.net/uncategorized/michigan-lawmakers-vote-for-guns-in-schools) [7].”

2. Immediate Firearm Purchases

ALEC wants you to be able to get your gun--and get it fast. Blueprint legislation passed by the group’s NRA-chaired “Public Safety and Election Task Force” would prohibit waiting periods from being used on gun purchases. “The imposition of ‘waiting periods’ for firearms purchases is a diversion of scarce law enforcement resources away from violent crime and criminals,” the bill reads. (http://alecexposed.org/w/images/3/37/7J10-Resolution_On_Firearms_Purchase_Waiting_Periods_Ex posed.pdf) [8]

3. More ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws

The Trayvon Martin case made “stand your ground” laws, or “Castle Doctrine” laws, a household name. Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, claimed that he acted lawfully in “self-defense” when he shot the unarmed teenager. Florida has a “Stand Your Ground” bill on the books that makes it more difficult to prosecute people for killing someone if they claim “self-defense.”

ALEC wants to bring more of these laws to your state. Here’s how they sum up what the bill does: (http://alecexposed.org/w/images/7/7e/7J2-Castle_Doctrine_Act_Exposed.PDF) [9] “This act authorizes the use of force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker in a dwelling, residence, or vehicle under specified circumstances.” Many states already have have “stand your ground” laws.

4. No Borders to Firearm Movement

This ALEC bill would, (http://alecexposed.org/w/images/9/98/7J3-Concealed_Carry_Outright_Recognition_Act_Exposed.p df) [10] if passed, require states to recognize “concealed carry” permits or licenses from other states. This would mean that the state where guns are being carried in would have no recourse to go after people with guns if they have a permit and came from a state that allows “concealed carry” permits.

5. Annulling Local Regulations on Guns

For all its talk of federalism and love of local democracy, ALEC still wants to be able to impose its agenda--even if a locality wants nothing to do with it. One model bill (http://alecexposed.org/w/images/1/15/7J5-Consistency_in_Firearms_Regulation_Act_Exposed.pdf ) [11]the group wants passed in states is a provision that would “prohibit local jurisdictions from independently enacting restrictions on the possession of firearms.” If a city wanted to restrict guns, they’d be out of luck--this bill would take away their authority to do so.

6. Defending an Unregulated Gun Market

Governments, local officials and law enforcement groups have tried to push for gun manufacturers to adhere to some basic ground rules for the sale of weapons. One way to do this is by pushing for a “Code of Conduct” that gun manufacturers adopt. One example of what a “code” like this would do is getting a pledge from firearms makers to not promote weapons for extremely dangerous uses, like killing police officers with special bullets.

ALEC wants none of that (http://alecexposed.org/w/images/0/08/7J7-Defense_of_Free_Market_and_Public_Safety_Resolutio n_Exposed.pdf) [12]. A blueprint for legislation calls such codes “politically-driven.”

7. Guns for Emergencies

This ALEC-backed legislation (http://alecexposed.org/w/images/0/09/7J8-Emergency_Powers_Firearm_Owner_Protection_Act_Expo sed.pdf) [13] would prohibit states from confiscating firearms in the wake of a declared “state of emergency.” The group claims such a law would run afoul of the Second Amendment. It also calls for public employees who confiscate firearms to be found “guilty of the crime of larceny of a firearm or ammunition,” if such a law were on the books.

8. Semi-Automatics for Everyone

The killer at Sandy Hook Elementary School used a semi-automatic rifle to carry out his massacre. ALEC wants to restrict regulations that would curb the use and sale of semi-automatic rifles.

A resolution (http://alecexposed.org/w/images/0/00/7J11-Resolution_on_Semicopy_Exposed.pdf) [14] pushed by the group decries laws and regulations concerning semi-automatic rifles. The “American Legislative Exchange Council recommends the rejection of current proposals at the local, state, and federal levels that arbitrarily restrict the possession of the semi-automatic class of firearms by law-abiding American citizens,” ALEC writes.

9. Bolstering the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment is not going anywhere. But ALEC remains worried about attempts to regulate firearms, and passed a resolution decrying gun control while celebrating the amendment. The “American Legislative Exchange Council recommends the rejection of further restrictive firearms laws that only serve to limit law abiding citizens in the exercise of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights while having no effect on the activities of the criminal element in our society,” the resolution reads. (http://alecexposed.org/w/images/6/64/7J12-Resolution_on_the_Second_Amendment_to_the_U_Expose d.pdf) [15]


http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/9-horrible-gun-laws-backed-right-wing

[ElNono]

Oh please. In many cases(admittedly, not all) Medicaid or the state pays for it.

How many is many? The impression from your initial post is that we should just assume it's largely a free procedure.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

If you don't think any states are trying to (and successfully have) restrict abortions and make them harder to get you aren't paying attention.

[boutons_deux]

How Walmart Helped Make Newtown Shooter's AR-15 the Most Popular Assault Weapon in America In April 2011, Walmart began stocking guns in more and more stores, expanding the sales to 1,750 outlets nationwide. By the end of that year, the FBI received 16.4 million background check requests; the number is 16.8 million this year. Overall Walmart sales figures are back on track after the 2011 slump, and executive vice president Duncan Mac Naughton told shareholders at a meeting in October 2012 that gun sales in particular are a staple of the chain’s strategy to continue boosting its numbers. He said that over the past twenty-six months, gun sales at Walmart stores open for a year or more were up an astonishing 76 percent, while ammunition sales were up 30 percent. Walmart is now the biggest seller of firearms and ammunition in America.

http://www.thenation.com/article/171808/how-walmart-helped-make-newtown-shooters-ar-15-most-popular-assault-weapon-america#

[cantthinkofanything]

How Walmart Helped Make Newtown Shooter's AR-15 the Most Popular Assault Weapon in America

In April 2011, Walmart began stocking guns in more and more stores, expanding the sales to 1,750 outlets nationwide. By the end of that year, the FBI received 16.4 million background check requests; the number is 16.8 million this year. Overall Walmart sales figures are back on track after the 2011 slump, and executive vice president Duncan Mac Naughton told shareholders at a meeting in October 2012 that gun sales in particular are a staple of the chain’s strategy to continue boosting its numbers. He said that over the past twenty-six months, gun sales at Walmart stores open for a year or more were up an astonishing 76 percent, while ammunition sales were up 30 percent. Walmart is now the biggest seller of firearms and ammunition in America.

http://www.thenation.com/article/171808/how-walmart-helped-make-newtown-shooters-ar-15-most-popular-assault-weapon-america#

So what. Walmart is the biggest seller of Ritz Crackers in America also.

[boutons_deux]

In America, It’s Easier to Ban Lawn Darts Than Assault Weapons
http://ww1.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Screen-Shot-2012-12-17-at-3.31.20-PM.png

Yes, apparently there was a lawn dart game called Jarts that got banned after killing two children (one was killed by “an altered lawn dart”, proving that lawn darts just didn’t have the lobbyists guns do). But to be fair, they did injure (http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml87/87042.html) 3,200 people in eight years.


Oh, wait (http://www.nationwidechildrens.org/cirp-gun-safety), MATH:

“Every year, nearly 1,500 children die from guns and many more are seriously injured. The American Academy of Pediatrics believes the best way to prevent gun-related injuries to children is to remove guns from the home.”

http://www.politicususa.com/killing-children-lawn-darts-banned-america.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[ChumpDumper]

How Walmart Helped Make Newtown Shooter's AR-15 the Most Popular Assault Weapon in America In April 2011, Walmart began stocking guns in more and more stores, expanding the sales to 1,750 outlets nationwide. By the end of that year, the FBI received 16.4 million background check requests; the number is 16.8 million this year. Overall Walmart sales figures are back on track after the 2011 slump, and executive vice president Duncan Mac Naughton told shareholders at a meeting in October 2012 that gun sales in particular are a staple of the chain’s strategy to continue boosting its numbers. He said that over the past twenty-six months, gun sales at Walmart stores open for a year or more were up an astonishing 76 percent, while ammunition sales were up 30 percent. Walmart is now the biggest seller of firearms and ammunition in America.

http://www.thenation.com/article/171808/how-walmart-helped-make-newtown-shooters-ar-15-most-popular-assault-weapon-america#Eh, it's chicken and eggy with this kind of thing. I think assault weapons got really popular after they were banned, then pathological fear of more bans drove the gun sales up further.

People like being afraid for some reason, Wal-Mart just amorally cashed in on it.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

For a president who supposedly wants to take guns away, Obama has sure seen a HUGE spike in gun sales during his presidency while doing nothing to stop it.

[CosmicCowboy]

How many is many? The impression from your initial post is that we should just assume it's largely a free procedure.

Jeez. Why don't you and chump do your own research? Yes, the Hyde amendment restricted the previous policy of medicaid paying for all abortions if they qualified by income but all 50 states have some exceptions where medicaid covers the cost of abortions. in almost half the states (not Texas, of course) the States have greatly expanded coverage where if they qualify by income their abortions are covered by medicaid.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh please. In many cases(admittedly, not all) Medicaid or the state pays for it.


Source? Thanks.


How many is many? The impression from your initial post is that we should just assume it's largely a free procedure.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KBpB_7xaN5g/T29XZJ7PIfI/AAAAAAAAALg/sFNFqGvJdbk/s320/312px-RCA_Indian_Head_test_pattern.JPG

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Medicaid paying for abortions isn't something to be a happy about, but I'll certainly take medicaid paying for an abortion over the mother (who's obviously dirt poor since she can't afford insurance or an abortion) having a kid who's gonna be another welfare check and another government dependent. Like it or not, medicaid paying for abortions saves taxpayers money.

[CosmicCowboy]

Like I said, chumpster...your answers were just a google click away if you really wanted to know and not just be an ankle biter.

[CosmicCowboy]

Medicaid paying for abortions isn't something to be a happy about, but I'll certainly take medicaid paying for an abortion over the mother (who's obviously dirt poor since she can't afford insurance or an abortion) having a kid who's gonna be another welfare check and another government dependent. Like it or not, medicaid paying for abortions saves taxpayers money.

I agree with you. I'm all for terminating pregnancies in poor people...It's a great investment...:)

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

Like I said, chumpster...your answers were just a google click away if you really wanted to know and not just be an ankle biter.Like I said, ComicCowboy...your claim, your burden of proof.

[CosmicCowboy]

Like I said, ComicCowboy...your claim, your burden of proof.

OK, proven then, ankle biter.

[Th'Pusher]

Jeez. Why don't you and chump do your own research? Yes, the Hyde amendment restricted the previous policy of medicaid paying for all abortions if they qualified by income but all 50 states have some exceptions where medicaid covers the cost of abortions. in almost half the states (not Texas, of course) the States have greatly expanded coverage where if they qualify by income their abortions are covered by medicaid.
That funding has to come from the state IIRC.

[ElNono]

Jeez. Why don't you and chump do your own research? Yes, the Hyde amendment restricted the previous policy of medicaid paying for all abortions if they qualified by income but all 50 states have some exceptions where medicaid covers the cost of abortions. in almost half the states (not Texas, of course) the States have greatly expanded coverage where if they qualify by income their abortions are covered by medicaid.

Not trolling, just asking how many are many. The 'biggest' figure I could find was 31%... and the 'smallest': under 100 procedures funded by medicaid/state aid a year. Either case strike me as a minority.

[ChumpDumper]

Not trolling, just asking how many are many. The 'biggest' figure I could find was 31%... and the 'smallest': under 100 procedures funded by medicaid/state aid a year. Either case strike me as a minority.Right.

Neither of us are trolling. Quit being so insecure and just source these things you claim to be easily found facts.

[Koolaid_Man]

what would happen if gun purchasing, licensing, and access were treated with the same fervor as restricting a woman's right to choose. Why can't we create a Targeted Regulation of Ammunition Providers? How can a state that makes a woman wait 72 hours after talking to a doctor before she can have an abortion allow a person to purchase a handgun the second an "instant background check (http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/FirearmLaws.html)" comes back clean? How does it seem reasonable that I receive about 4000 locations for "gun shops in Mississippi," yet the state offers only one clinic where a woman can end an unwanted pregnancy?

What if for every regulation on clinics and providers, termination methods or informed consent mandate, an equal bill was proposed to regulate the firearms industry? While trying to access a gun shop, the customer will need to first navigate his or her way past sidewalk counselors who will be offering pamphlets or maybe even large posters showing what the victims of gun crimes look like. On a good day, it may just be someone imploring the customer to be more responsible, that a weapon isn't the answer. Other days there may be more zealous counselors who unfortunately might call them names, shout, perhaps even try to block their access to the store in an attempt to start a conversation.

No gun or ammunition purchase could be completed until a potential customer speaks to a shop owner, then returns home and comes back to the shop a minimum of 24 hours later (72 hours if you live in Utah). Guns can only be purchased in stores dedicated directly to the seling of firearms and ammunition, and obtained from sellers with full legal arms licensing and certification as well as a proper professional background, such as former military or police officers. The gun shops themselves should sell only guns and gun supplies, and may not be a part of any other store such as department or sporting goods store. However it also must ensure that it is the full size and scope in layout and building plan of any other retail store, despite not needing the additional space or equipment.

A customer must provide the gun seller with the reason he or she is purchasing the gun, as well as sit down with the seller to tell him or her if anyone may be pressuring the customer into purchasing a gun. The seller will need to determine if the customer may feel unsafe and remind the potential customer that there are in fact other protection options.

In South Dakota, a customer would also have to go visit an outside organization before completing the handgun or ammunition purchase. The outside group will simply be checking to ensure that the potential gun owner is making the right decision. Unfortunately, there may be some strong-arming to try to talk him or her out of continuing the purchase, and either way the outside group will now have personal information about the customer and his or her intent to buy a weapon.

Many other states, on the other hand, will provide the shop owner with a script to be read to the customer before final payment and exchange of goods, reminding him or her that a gun is a dangerous weapon and repeating the names of each mass shooting in the last 12 months. Some states may even require customers to listen to a description of a recent shooting, although that can be bypassed if it is watched 24 hours in advance via website or phone recording.
Regardless of all of these steps, and whether the weapon is in the end obtained legally, the shop owner would still be held liable for any injuries that occur from the purchased gun or ammunition. The owner could be sued not just by the person who purchased the gun, but any relatives would also acquire the right to sue should any unintended violence occur at the hands of the purchaser.

If it's so easy to regulate abortion out of existence under the guise of protecting the women who are legally enacting their right to privacy, why can't we regulate guns just enough to ensure that 20 schoolkids can't be slaughtered in time it takes to sing the alphabet?

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/12/16/we-regulated-guns-and-ammunition-like-we-regulate-abortion?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rhrealitycheck+%28RH+Reality+ Check%29

I would require the gun store owner to perform a DRE on each gun buyer, at time of application and then upon delivery, while video recording all DREs to be sent to FBI.

you don't go far enough...there's a red-neck fire-arms cold war that's been ongoing for quite some time in America....there's only 2 reasons for it...

1.) To try and overthrow the government
2.) Preparing for a race war

we need to mobilize around this tragedy...feeling sorrow, pain, and anguishfor the victims won't do a dam thing..they're dead and gone it's high- time for legislation...to for Obama to go Mao Tse-Tung on the repubs...

now these aren't 100% foolproof but it's a start...this is for the law abiding...those who are already criminals a separate more severe process is required...one that Hitler himself would be proud of. I will discuss that one later...for those of us that are generally law-abiding:

1st we need to start by requiring a psychological profile for all would be gun owners. Under go a government issued test to see if they are high risk...just like with other responsibilities that can mean life and death such as driving a car or flying a plane...you have to under go a test to prove your competence and then you're licensed.

2nd if you have someone in your home that is a mental threat or danger then you have to show / prove demonstrate actions you've taken to ensure they can't access your firearm else you should not qualify

3rd for those who already own assault weapons and they're hiding them...I say simply stop the sale of bullets...essentially rendering them EOL sooner rather than later.

We also need a million gun reform march on Washington..we need a ground swell of support we need to start a movement to defeat the NRA :toast

all good ideas by Koolaid_Man

[CosmicCowboy]

Right.

Neither of us are trolling. Quit being so insecure and just source these things you claim to be easily found facts.

Actually, if you go back to the original point it was about comparing abortion rights to gun rights. If the government is giving free abortions I want free guns. If you weren't so eager to bite my socks you would have caught that I was simply playing with the concept.

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually, the government giving out assault rifles to all adult males is a proven concept that works. Of course, you are too lazy to google which government issues SIG SG550's to every adult male.

http://www.swissrifles.com/sig550.jpg

[ElNono]

Actually, if you go back to the original point it was about comparing abortion rights to gun rights. If the government is giving free abortions I want free guns. If you weren't so eager to bite my socks you would have caught that I was simply playing with the concept.

Government does give free guns to qualified adults... that's why I didn't quite get the comparison.

[CosmicCowboy]

Government does give free guns to qualified adults... that's why I didn't quite get the comparison.

I'm talking about civilians, not just police or active military.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, if you go back to the original point it was about comparing abortion rights to gun rights. If the government is giving free abortions I want free guns. If you weren't so eager to bite my socks you would have caught that I was simply playing with the concept.I know what your original point was. You just spouted of a bunch of stuff as fact and I asked for a source, which you still haven't provided. I don't' know why you're still whining about it -- just give your source.

[CosmicCowboy]

I know what your original point was. You just spouted of a bunch of stuff as fact and I asked for a source, which you still haven't provided.

The conversation has moved on. Try to keep up. If the topic interests you then google is your friend.

[mavs>spurs]

You stupid fucktard. We don't restrict abortion. If you want to compare the abortion argument with gun arguments then we should be arguing that the government should buy my guns for me.

pppppppppppppppppppppppppahahhahahahhha dickowned i saaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiddddd!!! :lmao:lmao..

[ChumpDumper]

The conversation has moved on.We're still conversing about it right now.
Try to keep up. If the topic interests you then google is your friend.It's OK, we can conclude you made it up. I understand you would want to run away from it quickly.

[mavs>spurs]

Actually, the government giving out assault rifles to all adult males is a proven concept that works. Of course, you are too lazy to google which government issues SIG SG550's to every adult male.

http://www.swissrifles.com/sig550.jpg
switzerland, low crime rate great place to live. they actually have sound currency too.

[ElNono]

I'm talking about civilians, not just police or active military.

Police are still civilians. They're just qualified to receive free guns and ammo from the government.

[ChumpDumper]

Man, Alex Jones talking points are flying all over this forum today.

[Koolaid_Man]

Children of all races always respond well to President Obama. How children act around a stranger tells you as much about the stranger as about the children themselves. I love how comfortable little children are with our president. He is such a good man, and if we aren't, WE SHOULD BE so proud to have a person like him as our president.

What a precious picture..It goes to show that racists aren't born they are bred....Stop the madness folks

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/Koolbreezey/Obamakids.jpg

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm looking forward to when he and Michelle are running a daycare for underprivileged children instead of being POTUS and First Lady.














:lmao

Like that shit will ever happen.....:lmao

keep drinking that koolaid.

[spursncowboys]

2D2wpnKxI6o

[mavs>spurs]

what really cracks me up is when people who own guns (at least one on this forum) are anti gun because their daddeh ran for democratic office once while simultaneously OWNING A GUN, just like the anti-gun liberal congressman who was busted at the airport with a gun a while back. you think these motherfuckers wanting to take your guns won't have guns of their own and armed security? shiieeeeet

[Winehole23]

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson today ruled an Alabama law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals is unconstitutional, saying that it poses an undue burden on women's right to abortion. Abortion providers sued to block the law, passed in 2013, saying it would force three of Alabama's five abortion clinics to close. The law has not been enforced while the lawsuit is pending.


The clinics use traveling doctors who could not get admitting privileges, they said.


Thompson held a three-week, non-jury trial in May and June. In a 172-page opinion released today, the judge wrote: "The evidence compellingly demonstrates that the requirement would have the striking result of closing three of Alabama's five abortion clinics, clinics which perform only early abortions, long before viability."


Gov. Robert Bentley said in a statement he was "extremely disappointed" by the ruling and supports an appeal.


Thompson had initially planned to rule in July, but last week notified attorneys that he was delaying his decision until today (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/us_district_judge_myron_thomps.html) to give him more time to study the opinions in a federal appeals court ruling on a similar law in Mississippi.

The appeals court last week ruled 2-1 that the Mississippi law was unconstitutional.http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/judge_myron_thompson_rules_ala.html

[Winehole23]

Thompson posed this hypothetical in his 172-page opinion: Suppose the state or federal government passed a new restriction on who could sell firearms, and it resulted in only two vendors being able to stay in business, one in Huntsville and one in Tuscaloosa.


"The defenders of this law would be called upon to do a heck of a lot of explaining -- and rightly so in the face of an effect so severe," Thompson wrote. "Similarly, in this case, so long as the Supreme Court continues to recognize a constitutional right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, any regulation that would, in effect, restrict the exercise of that right to only Huntsville and Tuscaloosa should be subject to the same skepticism."

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/judge_poses_hypothetical_in_ab.html

[boutons_deux]

another take on the "No Law Is Above The Man" legal system, esp the (Catholic) SCOTUS5, specifically, selective enforcement/protection and discrimination

Justices’ Rulings Advance Gays; Women Less So

When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reflects on the Supreme Court’s recent rulings, she sees an inconsistency.

In its gay rights rulings, she told a law school audience last week, the court uses the soaring language of “equal dignity” and has endorsed the fundamental values of “liberty and equality.” Indeed, a court that just three decades ago allowed criminal prosecutions for gay sex now speaks with sympathy for gay families and seems on the cusp of embracing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

But in cases involving gender, she said, the court has never fully embraced “the ability of women to decide for themselves what their destiny will be.” She said the court’s five-justice conservative majority, all men, did not understand the challenges women face in achieving authentic equality.

Justice Ginsburg is not the only one who has sensed that cases involving gay people and women are on different trajectories.

(http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/us/as-gays-prevail-in-supreme-court-women-see-setbacks.html?_r=1#modal-lightbox)Gay men and lesbians still have a long way to go before they achieve the formal legal equality that women have long enjoyed. But they have made stunning progress at the Supreme Court over the last decade, gaining legal protection for sexual intimacy and unconventional families with stirring language unimaginable a generation ago.

At the same time, legal scholars say, the court has delivered blows to women’s groups in cases involving equal pay, medical leave, abortion and contraception, culminating in a furious dissent last month from the court’s three female members.

Many forces are contributing to this divide, but the most powerful is the role of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court’s swing vote. Legal scholars say his jurisprudence is marked by both libertarian and paternalistic impulses, ones that have bolstered gay rights and dealt setbacks to women’s groups.

A Sacramento lawyer and lobbyist who still lived in the house he grew up in when President Ronald Reagan nominated him to the Supreme Court in 1987, Justice Kennedy is the product of a placid middle-class existence in which most women stayed within traditional roles. Some of his judicial writing, Justice Ginsburg oncewrote in dissent (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZD.html), reflected “ancient notions about women’s place in the family.”

(http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/us/as-gays-prevail-in-supreme-court-women-see-setbacks.html?_r=1#modal-lightbox)But Justice Kennedy, 78, has long had gay friends, and his legal philosophy is characterized by an expansive commitment to individual liberty. He wrote the majority opinions in all three of the court’s gay rights landmarks, which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that banned laws protecting gay men and lesbians, a Texas law that made gay sex a crime, and the heart of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Last year, he explained in vivid terms why the marriage law drew an unconstitutional distinction by barring benefits for married same-sex couples.

“The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects and whose relationship the state has sought to dignify,” he wrote (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf). “And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.”

Justice Kennedy writes in a different register in cases about women’s sexual freedom and motherhood, said David S. Cohen (http://drexel.edu/law/faculty/fulltime_fac/David%20Cohen/), a law professor at Drexel University.

In those cases, Justice Kennedy tends to vote with the court’s four more conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — and to read statutes narrowly in favor of employers and religious freedom. In an article (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1096676) in The South Carolina Law Review surveying “Justice Kennedy’s gendered world,” Professor Cohen concluded that “Justice Kennedy relies on traditional and paternalistic gender stereotypes about nontraditional fathers, idealized mothers and second-guessing women’s decisions.”

Perhaps the most memorable — and to women’s groups the most troubling — passage of this sort came in Justice Kennedy’s 2007 majority opinion (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/washington/19scotus.html) in a 5-to-4 vote sustaining the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

“Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child,” he wrote (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7079370668659431881&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr). “While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.”

If Justice Kennedy best embodies the court’s conflicting impulses toward gays and women, Justice Ginsburg is in many ways his opposite. She voted with him in all of the major gay rights cases, but in women’s rights cases she has issued a series of sharp dissents.

Justice Ginsburg, 81, was a prominent women’s rights litigator before she became a judge, overcoming obstacles related to her gender along the way. After attending Harvard Law School as one of nine women in a class of more than 500 and graduating from Columbia Law School, she was turned down by law firms and was refused judicial clerkships because she was a woman. When she became a professor at Rutgers School of Law, she was told she would be paid less than her male colleagues because her husband, also a lawyer, had a good job. She later became the first tenured female professor at Columbia Law School.

Speaking last week at a reception for students and alumni of Duke University School of Law, she said the Supreme Court had made a grave error in June in its Hobby Lobby decision, which allowed some employers to refuse to pay for insurance coverage for contraception based on religious objections. “There was no way to read that decision narrowly,” she said, adding that it opened the door to job discrimination against women.

“What of the employer whose religious faith teaches that it’s sinful to employ a single woman without her father’s consent or a married woman without her husband’s consent?” she asked. The court, she said, “had ventured into a minefield.”

She summarized her dissent in the Hobby Lobby case from the bench, a rare move signaling vehement disagreement, one that happens perhaps four times a term. When Justice Ginsburg issues an oral dissent, it is very often in a case concerning women’s rights.

In 2007, Justice Ginsburg, the only woman on the court at the time, dissented from the bench in the abortion case, calling Justice Kennedy’s worldview alarming. A month later, she issued a second oral dissent in another 5-to-4 decision, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1074.pdf), this one protesting what she called the majority’s cramped interpretation of time limits for filing sex discrimination suits. Prompted by the dissent, Congress later overturned the ruling (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html).

She dissented again from the bench in 2012 in Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-1016), a 5-to-4 decision limiting the availability of medical leaves. In his controlling opinion, Justice Kennedy said he saw no “widespread evidence of sex discrimination or sex stereotyping in the administration of sick leave,” while Justice Ginsburg said from the bench that the decision made it harder for women “to live balanced lives, at home and in gainful employment.”

The recent cases concerning women are not directly comparable to those involving gay rights, which considered questions as fundamental as whether states can make gay sex a crime. And gay rights groups say there is much work to be done before gay men and lesbians achieve the legal protections women have long had.

In much of the country, for instance, employers and landlords are free to discriminate based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court has never recognized heightened constitutional scrutiny for discrimination based on sexual orientation, though it has long done so for ones based on gender.

For now, said Suzanne B. Goldberg (http://www.law.columbia.edu/fac/Suzanne_Goldberg), a law professor at Columbia, “the court’s recent gay rights decisions seem to be catching up with women’s rights cases of earlier decades.”

“At the same time,” she added, “we live in a society that now seems more receptive to gay rights than women’s rights generally, so it is disheartening but not surprising to see that reflected in decisions like Hobby Lobby, which failed to see the link between contraception access and women’s equality.”

Justice Ginsburg has suggested that her male colleagues sometimes do not hear a woman’s voice, including her own. In a 2009 interview (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-05-05-ruthginsburg_N.htm) with USA Today, she said the other justices, who were then all men, sometimes ignored the arguments she made at their private conferences.

“I will say something — and I don’t think I’m a confused speaker — and it isn’t until somebody else says it that everyone will focus on the point,” Justice Ginsburg said.

Between 2006 and 2009, after the resignation of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and before the appointment of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Ginsburg was the lone woman on the court, a situation she said she found isolating and disturbing. Now, with the addition of Justice Elena Kagan in 2010, there are three women, and they often vote together.

They did so last month in dissenting from an order (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf) allowing Wheaton College, a Christian institution in Illinois, to forgo using a federal form to claim an exemption from a contraception coverage requirement under the Affordable Care Act. Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissent, which accused the majority of failing to protect “women’s well-being.”

Nan Hunter (http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/hunter-nan.cfm), a law professor at Georgetown University, said the dissent was noteworthy. “For many American women,” she said, “it was no surprise that it was those three justices who felt strongly enough to cry foul.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/us/as-gays-prevail-in-supreme-court-women-see-setbacks.html?_r=1

[Winehole23]

lol boutons derailing his own thread

[boutons_deux]

lol boutons derailing his own thread

:lol whine hole with his head up his ass

[Winehole23]

the fox sees many things; the hedgehog, one big thing

[TDMVPDPOY]

aint regulated shit when everyone buys a 3d printer to print their own guns...

[Wild Cobra]

I could just see it.

Any 13 year old who wanted would go out and get guns and ammunition without parental consent.

I mean... If we regulate guns like abortions, isn't this the end result?

[boutons_deux]

aint regulated shit when everyone buys a 3d printer to print their own guns...

no problem at all, IF every gun, no matter the origination, is serialized and registered in a federal database.

Any gun found without a serial number and/or not in federal gun database is to be confiscated AND destroyed, without appeal.