Guns And Abortions

CBS' Dick Meyer Says Those Two Reignited Arguments Won't Be Resolved Anytime Soon

(CBS)  This column was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.

---

Two big arguments were enflamed this week, both old and both unending.

The slaughter at Virginia Tech rekindles an argument about controlling firearms. The decision by the Supreme Court to uphold a Congressional ban on what that law calls partial-birth abortion will fire up the debate about controlling female bodies and fetuses. These are not resolvable arguments in our society. Resolution requires some common ground, a shared moral vocabulary, values that can be weighed on the same scale. We don't have that.

The vehemence of the gun control and abortion arguments in America is extraordinary. That vehemence — the volume and intensity of hostilities — will get worse, temporarily, in the wake of an extraordinary cruel and sick crime and in the wake of a landmark Supreme Court decision. Gun rights advocates will feel threatened; abortion rights advocates will feel threatened.

But it is important, to my mind at least, to recognize that as frustrating and ceaseless as these debates are, they are not skirmishes in a culture war and they are not signs of a polarized polity acting out. That is how the dominant narrative of our politics describes our politics, our redness and our blueness. It is narrative that contributes to the belligerence and recalcitrance of our obnoxious style of political argument.

The culture war model is too superficial. We are way more complicated than that. And way more confused. We aren't polarized, we are pluralized.

That pluralism runs deeper than diversity, than being a country with lots of creeds and colors. It is a pluralism of values and moralities, of competing and colliding ethical worldviews. There aren't just two, red and blue. We Americans, above all, it seems, are consumers — pickers and choosers. Our beliefs aren't exempt from that. One can be red on gun control and blue on abortion; many are.

Some issues are vehemence-magnets. Abortion and guns are at the top of the list.

The common language we have for sorting out this cacophony of interests is Constitutional law. It works well in the big picture. These big disputes are weighed and carefully balanced, all sides are heard from, the process is fair and transparent and the system is stable. But from a different angle, legal arguments don't settle or even calm our arguments. They can't.

Indeed, rights talk hardens positions for most people. An argument about the Second Amendment will get hotter faster than an argument about the practicality of gun laws. An argument about a Constitutional right to privacy calcifies in the same way. On some level, gun rights advocates are from Mars and gun control advocates are from Venus. Abortion rights advocates are from Saturn and anti-abortion rights people are from Jupiter. Our view of rights does not exist in the Platonic vacuum of constitutional law.

This is apparent in the Supreme Court opinions on this abortion ruling. Justice Kennedy, in upholding the ban on this abortion procedure, said the ruling shows that "respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child." In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg wrote that "this way of thinking reflects ancient notions of women's place in the family and under the Constitution — ideas that have since been discredited." Worldviews collide.

The gun control debate will simmer down soon. One of the ways the political culture digests atrocities like Virginia Tech is to rehash the gun fight. It has an aspect of ritual to it.

The abortion debate, on the other hand, will stay hot — perhaps hotter than at any point since Roe v. Wade. Despite that heat, it is important to note that the legal debate argument will likely never end for good. And few political arguments will be settled and reconciled.

My advice is to listen least to the loudest.

---

Dick Meyer is the editorial director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington.

If you prefer e-mail to public comments, complaints or arguments, send them along to Against the Grain. We may occasionally publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.

[oleander8]

"These big disputes are weighed and carefully balanced, all sides are heard from, the process is fair and transparent and the system is stable."

I couldn't disagree more. The NRA is a rich and powerful lobby that figuratively owns our politicians. The 59% of American citizenry that WANT gun control is ignored.

The anti-choice lobby is predominately headed by men who think you can legislate morals. Men who are against abortion can prevent it BEFORE conception. After that, it's a woman's issue and a woman's decision. That women have to go hat-in-hand to men for control over their own bodies is criminal in itself. If the shoe were on the other foot - abortions would be available at the grocery store. Men would never tolerate this interference with control over their bodies.

[anopinion1]

The day the gov. bans firearms(will never happen) is the day the country falls apart.

[hawksprings]

oleander8, it's so funny to hear you talk about the "woman's body". What about the little body they are pulling 4/5ths of the way out of the mom and stabbing it in the head and sucking it's brains out to kill it? And 50% of those little babies are female. What about their rights?

We don't need a procedure where the baby is practically delivered, only leaving the head in the birth canal and then crush the baby's skull or suck out the brains.

It's a sick procedure and this was the right ruling.

[simpsonman19]

If every American could carry a concealed weapon that would be the NRA's wet dream. But I quite frankly would not feel safer walking around the city. I would be afraid that every Joe Blowyouaway would be walking around with a gun on his person and there's no way to tell how he will act with it. Just because a person has no prior problems doesn't make him a safe individual automatically. Also what if two people were to get into a fight...instead of fists flying they whip out guns and possibly kill innocent bystanders...oh wait, in a perfect world (according to the NRA) there would be no innocent bystanders because everyone has perfect aim. Guns are just terrible all around, the 2nd admendment was important back in those days because we feared invasion and didn't have a well organized army like we do today. Besides, the admendment says people should have arms to keep a militia, we have that, it's the army and the army has guns so no need for regular Joes.

[irishbitch1]

Stricter regulations when purchasing a gun is what is needed! I do not think you have to ban guns. Even though for the life of me I cannot see the reasoning behind owning an ak47 or other assault weapons.
Partial birth abortions are wrong and the court made the right call. Please read roe v wade, it legalizes abortions in the first trimester only. Late term abortions are wrong.

[lurch198]

To simpsonman19:

Ask a european who is old enough to remember WW2 what happens when only the Army has weapons.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one...."

[oleander8]

"oleander8, it's so funny to hear you talk about the "woman's body". What about the little body they are pulling 4/5ths of the way out of the mom and stabbing it in the head and sucking it's brains out to kill it? And 50% of those little babies are female. What about their rights?" [Posted by HawkSprings]

There was nothing in my comment about partial-birth abortion or the recent ruling. As a medical procedure I am sure there are many that would horrify me - I do not presume to know what the medical reasons are for them.

[gunownerdan]

"Let me make a point here, in case this isn't becoming extremely clear. My state has gun control laws. It did not keep Hennard from coming in and killing everybody! What it did do, was keep me from protecting my family!"
- Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, Killeen Texas Luby's massacre survivor
a-human-right.com

[sy2502]

If the shoe were on the other foot - abortions would be available at the grocery store. oleander8

You are so right!!!

Well, at least we can take guns away from resident aliens. Nancy_Naive

Where did the Columbine guys come from? Where was Timothy McVeigh born? Just because 1 deranged immigrant went nuts we have to take guns away from ALL legal immigrants? It seems to me the kind of over-the-top suggestion aimed more to make yourself feel good than to actually solve a problem. Making laws on the wave of strong emotions is a pretty stupid and dangerous thing to do.

[sy2502]

Oh, and for those of you that are so convinced that banning guns will solve all your problems, you may want to read what happened in Britain when they did just that:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

To summarize it for you, in the 2 years after the complete gun ban, the use of guns in crimes ROSE 40%, because, as any even mildly intelligent person would understand, only law abiding citizens who aren't likely to shoot anybody in the first place are going to respect gun laws.

[heyitsme_76]

To all the religious 'pro-life' morons out there.. Shouldn't there be an exception to this ruling in cases of rape/incest or when the woman's life is at risk ?? Is it okay to save the baby's life and let the mom die ?
I think the US Govt should make it mandatory for every 'pro-life' family in this country to adapt atleast one child amongst the thousands of unwanted children who are abandoned in orphanages or are born to women who have been victims of rape/incest.. Pro-life, my a**..

[tejasdemo]

Too many extremists anymore. I agree with Mr. Meyers. We are much more complicated than we care too admit.

[simpsonman19]

To lurch198

So if only a handful of civilians have guns like here in America, is that what is stopping the terrorists from attacking and invading? If so then apparently it's working.

[lurch198]

To simpsonman19,

I didnt type anything of the sort. I believe my post had to do with government and its tendency to abuse its powers and its people. Free speech will not protect you from abuses by your government, but a population armed with rifles will. Only an armed society can truly be free.
Oh, by the way, I didnt come up with any of this. These are the sentiments of the men who formed this Republic that we call home. In the years since conservatives and liberals alike have shredded our constitution to their own ends.

The US, because of its geographic location would be nearly impossible to "invade." Large oceans to either side, Alaska thru canada is ruled out because there is only one road, and the terrain will not support large bodies of troops or vehicles. Gee, maybe we should defend our southern border?

[lantz56]

I believe women AND men are abortion victums... a woman of course has every right to decide what to do with her own body (well unless she wants to earn money with it... which is probably some man's fault as well)...the body she does NOT have a right to decide about is the fate of the unborn man OR WOMAN.

I am obviously a man, so you may discount my opinion handily.

BTW I am also NOT in favor of unreasonable gun control... but am in favor of social assistance for school tuition (college students are america's future), against national health care, for environmental legislation ....

Not too sure where I fit in the political climate, neither side has all the answers.

And YES, I do believe social issues will be the big divide in the next presidential election again.

[lantz56]

To heyitsme_76:

So you don't want govt intervention in abortion, do want it in gun control, and belive pro-life people are 'religious morons' and the guvment should make anyone who thinks that way adopt a chile... hmmmm hope you just sit out the next election.. maybe there's something good on TV...

LOL just kidding... but your tirade was too typical not to respond to :)

Peace

[mgpm-2009]

Extremists always muddy the waters. Late term, partial birth abortions are rare. Very rare. So rare as to almost be non existent.

Rational people do not want a ban on all guns.
A sensible approach would be to ban all automatic or semi automatic weapons. No one needs these weapons for hunting or self defense.

Lets have some COMMON SENSE.

[lantz56]

why ban semi-automatic weapons? There are already limits on load capacity... where they can be carried..you may have noticed that the student at VT didn't observe the rule...treated it more as a guideline...

One scary thing that would have helped is a more aggressive compulsory mental help process... but that just screams potential abuse by authorities...

So, in a free society you either have individual freedom (authority) AND responsibility ...

or you do not. I think most Americans value the individual freedoms (many have died to defend it)..

Really hard to plan for the chaos of abberation.

[simpsonman19]

To lurch198

I totally agree, we should protect our southern border from illegal aliens. But you speak as if you want all Americans to have guns so that they may throw over their ruling government. (and when i say ruling I mean ruling lol)

[lurch198]

Simpsonman said with sarcasm "So if only a handful of civilians have guns like here in America, is that what is stopping the terrorists from attacking and invading? If so then apparently it's working."
That, among other anti gun ownership things.

Your "handful" of US civilians that own guns is 34.5% as of 2006. Thats quite a minority huh? Thats ONLY about 100 million people. Most of whom never cause a problem.

[mike71067]

This is simple. There is NO constitutional right to have an abortion. There IS a constitutional right to own a firearm. That's all there is to it.

You can argue about guns and abortions all day long, but in the end, it comes down to that.

[lurch198]

I am not saying we should do that. We are nowhere near that. But history has shown that EVERY government at some point, will turn on and abuse its people. Look at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Yes, i said Waco. Whatever David Koresh did or didnt do, the government never proved it BEFORE they went in. Three investigations into him never came up with anyhthing illegal.

Oh, and read the 1st amendment, its quite legal to proclaim yourself God.

[tullymet]

Can someonetell me why anyone, other than a soldier or perhaps some police, needs an automatic weapon?

[samthetvcat]

"This is simple. There is NO constitutional right to have an abortion. There IS a constitutional right to own a firearm. That's all there is to it.

You can argue about guns and abortions all day long, but in the end, it comes down to that."
Posted by mike71067

That's not accurate - there is an enumerated right in the constitution that gives express right of individuals to bear arms (2A). There is a judicially-recognized common law right of individuals to an abortion (14A - fundamental right to bodily integrity/privacy, 14A - equal protection, even 1A - freedom of religion). The fact that one is enumerated and one is implied makes no difference in terms of the standard a law must pass if it infringes on a fundamental right.

Meaning that now that the high court has set a new standard for running roughshod over this fundamental right now, they're inadvertently setting precedent for running roughshod over other fundamental rights such as the right to bear arms later . . . this 'win' is coming at a cost to those who are anti-abortion but pro-gun.

[bgreen415]

Until the time occurs when a fetus can survive outside a woman to term I can not consider the mass of cells of an early fetus a person. To each his or her own opinion but I feel it is a personal issue and not one for legislation.

Thank God for the Constitution and the Right to Bear Arms. The constitution protects us from becoming a nation ruled by radical fundamentalist zealots and the Right To Bear Arms, also given by the constitution, affords me the right to Responsibly protect myself when the authorities can not.

[toldyouso21]

"This is simple. There is NO constitutional right to have an abortion. There IS a constitutional right to own a firearm. That's all there is to it.

You can argue about guns and abortions all day long, but in the end, it comes down to that."
Posted by mike71067


Hmmmm one could argue that the right to bear arms means that anyone who thinks they can come in a woman's home and force her to do something against her will (if she does NOT want to have the baby) have to understand and accept she has the RIGHT to shoot their azz for interfering in her life and for entering her home.

yep. you wrapped that up nicely. Because that "right to bear arms" extends to all the 'baby haters' too.

[lisamort]

I saw in an ultra sounds a picture of my new grand baby. you call it a mass, this is a 11 week old baby in utro. it was sleeping and she bounced my daughters tummy and it woke up and started moving around. It was awesome to see my grand child moving around and playing inside my daughters tummy. This is what you are calling a "mass" under the law in most states she could still get an abortion. This is my grand child moving around, you can see its hands and fingers, its foot and face, its little nose. this is not a "mass" and should be protected under the right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It is not a "mass" at 11 weeks along.

[lurch198]

tullymet, who said anything about need? Why do you have a problem with your say, neighbor having one, so long as they use it responsibly. Yes, I busted out RESPONSIBLY, maybe I should include a definition since most of the American Sheeple have forgoten it.

[toldyouso21]

yep. you wrapped that up nicely. Because that "right to bear arms" extends to all the 'baby haters' too.
Posted by toldyouso21 at 03:25 PM : Apr 19, 2007

Sorry forgot to add--that if the Government tries to Ruby ridge a pregnant woman who does not want to have a baby and takes up arms--then the anti-life people still win except now instead of 1 death they have 2. The reason that everyone should mind their OWN business is that controlling abortions is not possible. Many times--you don't even know who or who is not pregnant around you and you do not know to what lengths they are willing to go to get unpregnant. as for the woman who saw her grandchild. CONGRATS!!! And know that is YOUR and YOUR people's choice--but it is not everyone else's as they really do not care what you think or what you saw on the ultrasound --and many women would not even watch the ultra sound if they did not want to.

I saw the ultrasound of all 4 of my kids. It looked like a blob. and the operator kept trying to show me arms and legs--etc I could not see much, it was too grainy. I took her word for it and kept my fingers crossed that they would come out with all of their body parts. But if women are forced to see ultrasounds before an abortion--count on many just keeping their eyes shut and trying not to hear that swishing, heart pumping noise.

[tullymet]

Perhaps I asked the wrong question. Instead of why do you need a automatic weapon, I should ask what is the advantage? Other than for soldiers and police of course

[soldat44]

I saw the ultrasound of all 4 of my kids. It looked like a blob. and the operator kept trying to show me arms and legs--etc I could not see much, it was too grainy. I took her word for it and kept my fingers crossed that they would come out with all of their body parts. But if women are forced to see ultrasounds before an abortion--count on many just keeping their eyes shut and trying not to hear that swishing, heart pumping noise.
Posted by toldyouso21 at 03:33 PM : Apr 19, 2007

Great post!

God Bless You

[soldat44]

saw in an ultra sounds a picture of my new grand baby. you call it a mass, this is a 11 week old baby in utro. it was sleeping and she bounced my daughters tummy and it woke up and started moving around. It was awesome to see my grand child moving around and playing inside my daughters tummy. This is what you are calling a "mass" under the law in most states she could still get an abortion. This is my grand child moving around, you can see its hands and fingers, its foot and face, its little nose. this is not a "mass" and should be protected under the right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It is not a "mass" at 11 weeks along.
Posted by lisamort at 03:25 PM : Apr 19, 2007







Amen

[lurch198]

The advantage is obviously faster rate of fire, less reloading. The need for that? Its fun! Have you ever fired one?

I see your point, but the fact is, it isnt about need. In the supreme court case US vs. Miller, 1939 the court said that a sawed off shotgun is not a useful piece of military equipment and thus its ownership is not protected under the 2nd amendment. So, based on that, since an M16 is current military issue, should we the people be able to have them?

Look, its illegal and wrong to commit a crime with anything. Fists, knives, guns, whatever. But so long as I behave myself, why cant I have and use those items?

[long_rider]

Here we go again about guns. We have the right to bear arms, and no one can take that from us.

This Cho, who killed all of those peoplein Va, followed all of the existing laws and got his guns. So now, we have to take away everyones guns?

When are people going to realize people like Cho will get a gun no matter what. Go to any major city and you can buy a gun faster than you can buy a pack of cigeretts.

Americans may need their guns to get their lives back from this government, so don't be so quick to give them up.

[lisamort]

where I live, more people are killed by DWI then by guns. I believe that this is a nation wide. Should we outlaw alcohol? Should we outlaw cars?

[alphaa10-2009]

Abortion and gun control have been hot-button issues for generations, but in America, this is a sign of political health, not dysfunction. Strong opinions symbolize political freedom and are rarely seen in a dictatorship.

Through spirited debates ranging from abortion to gun control to Iraq, America dramatically demonstrates people can think and speak independently in (relatively) peaceful coexistence. This makes our country the most remarkable enterprise in all of history..

With common agreement on ground rules and terms of engagement-- aka "the social contract" of the rule of law-- fundamental conflicts remain ideational and relatively civil. People do tend to reach out and talk with their neighbors, and where there is discussion and exchange, neighbors discover shared interests and maintain the social fabric. This is a huge engine of progress in the rational self-rule we like to call democracy.

While current tensions are significant, it has been much worse. Our American Civil War began only when people doubted the social contract, the fundamental role of laws and civil order. Likewise, when a president or party shows contempt for the common good and deals deceitfully with the people we are reminded how narrowly we sometimes skirt the abyss.

[sy2502]

The bottom line is: if you want to get hold of a gun, you are going to find it, whether it is legal or not. And if you want to have an abortion, you are going to have it, whether it is legal or not.

The advantage of having automatic or semi-automatic weapons? It is not a matter of advantage, but the military has access to these weapons, and the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow citizens to protect themselves from, among others, the army, police, etc.

As you can see, I am in favor of both guns and abortion, because I believe in full personal responsibility. Those who want gun laws think the government knows best and is this nice, trustworthy, dependable "big daddy". I don't.
And banning abortion is another way of taking the power off the hands of the woman and giving it to the self-righteous moralists, who just happen to know exactly what's right and wrong, and want to impose it on everybody else. Well you are free to live your life according to your oh-so-superior moral principles, but you are not going to force me to do the same.

[bill_in_nh]

One advantage of a semi automatic weapon (not "automatic" -- that would be a machine gun) is that a semiautomatic usually a higher rate of fire. Although some Cowboy Shooting competitors might dispute that. It is also quicker and easier to reload, and often has a larger ammunition capacity than a revolver though again this is not always the case.

[bill_in_nh]

Just one month ago, the Washington, DC court of appeals ruled that the right to keep and bear arms, that is recognized by the 2nd Amendment, refers to an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms. Not a collective right. It also ruled you do not have to be a past or current member of the military, the militia or any other organization, in order to possess the right to keep and bear arms. In other words the anti-gun argument that 2nd Amerdment "really means" that only the National Guard members can own guns or similar nonsense, has been debunked.

[talkingham]

The cops at VT had guns and they stood around and just listened to the gun shots coming from the classroom and literally left those people to die while one idiot given the right to carry a weapon even though he had obvious mental problems became judge jury and executioner for those innocent students.

I've always heard from the gun lobby folks that freedom isn't free and rights have to be earned, that is, unless it involves carrying a weapon of personal mass destruction.

I think the right to carry a weapon should have to be earned. You have to prove your worthy of that right. I can see why so many gun nuts are worried, they know the kind of people they are and it worries them. I guess because many of them just feel inferior unless they are carrying a gun.

I received my weapons training in the US Army. I'm glad I was trained. I think anyone purchasing a gun should prove they have had and passed weapons training, just like when you get the right to drive a car (for the clown who compares this problem to DUIs).

[lurch198]

Talkingham,

Somewhere around 80% of shots fired by trained police miss the target. I was trained to shoot first at home, then in the USMC. I think that alone "qualifies" me to own/carry. But then again, I know military members who hardly know which end the round comes out.

[sy2502]

talkingham, first of all thank you for your service in the Army.
From your post you seem to bunch all the gun owners into the nut category. I beg to disagree. Plenty of people are responsible owners, who follow safe handling and storing procedures, and would never use their guns unless they had no other choice. I come from Europe, where the criminals break into homes on purpose when people are in the house, because they know they can point a gun to them and make them do what they want. People there are completely powerless against criminals, all they can do is barricade themselves in their homes, with steel doors, bars at their windows, and hope nothing bad happens. So the 1st thing I did when I moved to the US was to buy a gun, and had an ex-Marine, Vietnam veteran teach me how to use it. If you want to sneer at a law abiding individual's inferiority complex toward well armed criminals, go ahead. I don't see anything funny in it.

[guysdigdirt]

Somewhere around 80% of shots fired by trained police miss the target. I was trained to shoot first at home, then in the USMC. I think that alone "qualifies" me to own/carry. But then again, I know military members who hardly know which end the round comes out.
Posted by lurch198
------------------------------------------
This 80% number you quote could only be accurate for an extreme gunfight situation. Qualified and trained PD officers are much better than that.

If you only feel qualified for those reasons, so be it. I know many people that are qualified who have never had any formal military or PD training other than that required for the CCW and impressed the Rangemaster to the extent they were asked to joing specific teams for different reasons.

[guysdigdirt]

I am in favor of abortion, because I believe in full personal responsibility. banning abortion is another way of taking the power off the hands of the woman and giving it to the self-righteous moralists, Well you are free to live your life according to your oh-so-superior moral principles, but you are not going to force me to do the same.

Posted by sy2502
------------------------------------

I think you just proved you are wrong. If you are responsible you would not get pregnant in the first place. Then to fix your mistake you kill another person? So you can then force your beliefs upon another person by killing them through abortion. Kind of silly and backwards.

[guysdigdirt]

I think anyone purchasing a gun should prove they have had and passed weapons training, just like when you get the right to drive a car (for the clown who compares this problem to DUIs).
Posted by talkingham
--------------------------------------------
I agree, and anyone who uses a swimming pool has to prove they have swiming training, anyone who wants to purchase a knife must have cooking training, and so forth. I actually do agree with you on the gun issue but who is to say what proper training is? You? The government? The army? Once you start giving your rights up like that where do you stop? Once you give up a right, the trend is set and the next one will go easier.

[guysdigdirt]

This Cho, who killed all of those peoplein Va, followed all of the existing laws and got his guns. So now, we have to take away everyones guns?
Posted by long_rider
-------------------------------------------
No, he did not follow the laws, he lied on his application to buy the gun or he would not have been able to buy it. Those who want more gun control need to understand that more laws are not the answer, enforcing the ones we have is not working, why would more laws.

Almost every, if not every, incident like this happens in a gun-free zone. If a nutjob like this goes looking to kill, he does not want to run into someone else with a gun. Look at what happened in SLC, a man with a gun took out the bad guy before he did all the damage he wanted to do. Guns save lives every day, but you will not see it on the news as it does not fit the media's agenda.

[guysdigdirt]

Can someonetell me why anyone, other than a soldier or perhaps some police, needs an automatic weapon?
Posted by tullymet
--------------------------------------
fully automatic weapons are illegal unless a proper permit is issued for someone like a collector. Were you referring to a semi-automatic?

If so let's assume at 1 in the morning you see the shadows of two large male intruders going into your 8 year old daughter's room. If you have a single shot (non-semi-auto) you have one shot before you have to reload & get the other guy before he gets you and/or your daughter. I bet you gun haters wish you had that semi-auto now don't you.

[sy2502]

I think you just proved you are wrong. If you are responsible you would not get pregnant in the first place. Then to fix your mistake you kill another person? So you can then force your beliefs upon another person by killing them through abortion. Kind of silly and backwards.
Posted by guysdigdirt at 05:18 PM : Apr 19, 2007

Pregnancy can't always be avoided. Abortion is not a method of birth control and shouldn't be used as such. But when a woman is in fact pregnant it is not your place to tell her what to do.
Also by having an abortion you don't force your beliefs onto anybody because the fetus is not a person. I, on the other hand am a person, and I don't want you to impose your morals onto me.

[gunownerdan]

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms."
- Lenin

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."
- Mao

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."
-- Joseph Stalin

"... I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results."
- Benito Mussolini

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered races to have arms; history teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
-- Adolf Hitler

"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately...The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every responsible opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above-named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon...must be regarded as an enemy of the national government."
- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."
- Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's SS leader

a-human-right.com

[brittany456]

I think that the video should not be posted on t.v. and online. It is bad enough that the families have to deal with it already and now you want to show video clips. Everyone wants to see it but we are just giving the killer what he wanted to be famous for the horrible thing he did. All of the families should stand up because it is their buisness and it shouldn't be avalible to the world. If I was one of the parents or any family member I would probably be very aggervated and mad.