It Begins. Holder Announces Plan To Ban Semi-Auto Guns

Quote from hapaboy:

Wow, this is a a very revealing post. Thank you for clarifying that you do not believe that women should be able to defend themselves. After all, when a would-be rapist or murderer comes after her, she may feel the "impulse" to fend him off by, God forbid, inflicting harm on him.

Your contempt and disregard for women is astounding. It explains much about you, though. Thanks for providing another piece of the puzzle.
I did not only refer to women in my post. Please save your fraudulent sanctimony for the pulpit.
 
Women should have the right to defend themselves in a reasonable legal manner, and they should also have the right to privacy between themselves and their doctor.

If a woman wants to legally go through the process of getting a weapon for self defense, and proper training in how to use it, and be registered to carry it, etc. then there is not a problem.

The problem might come if her hormones are out of whack and her boyfriend/husband act like a toad...or if they are seriously scorned in some way by a man.

Women can sometimes burn a man with just a look, but with a loaded gun...

Or worse:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/genitals-fire-husband-australia
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Women should have the right to defend themselves in a reasonable legal manner, and they should also have the right to privacy between themselves and their doctor.

If a woman wants to legally go through the process of getting a weapon for self defense, and proper training in how to use it, and be registered to carry it, etc. then there is not a problem.

The problem might come if her hormones are out of whack and her boyfriend/husband act like a toad...or if they are seriously scorned in some way by a man.

Women can sometimes burn a man with just a look, but with a loaded gun...

Or worse:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/06/genitals-fire-husband-australia


Ain't it weird that the same people who are so concerned about women being attacked by 220lbs thugs want to deny those same women the right to control what happens to their body...

One of the many stupid things about republicans.
 
Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Ain't it weird that the same people who are so concerned about women being attacked by 220lbs thugs want to deny those same women the right to control what happens to their body...

One of the many stupid things about republicans.

I agree. That is odd. But that's a broad brush you're painting with there.

I'm a gun owner who supports a woman's right to choose. Actually, I don't believe I should have a say in what a woman does.

But there is some logical consistency in the belief of self defense and defending those who can't defend themselves (babies, fetus). Problem is, no one has come up with an definitive way of determining when sentient life begins.
 
Yes it is strange that they would force a woman who was raped to bear the child that resulted from the rape...

I was thinking today about medical science, and how some day medical science will be able to disable a man's ability to impregnate a woman and then reverse it to make the man capable of fathering a child...almost like an on and off switch.

Then say the government forced all men to have the switch put in the "off" position until the man proved that he was qualified to be a father and support a child.

How would the men like the government controlling their reproductive system?

Deciding who they get to impregnate, when they get to impregnate, and how they have to care for the child after impregnation...imagine if a government had the power to do that to men, how would the republican men respond?

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Ain't it weird that the same people who are so concerned about women being attacked by 220lbs thugs want to deny those same women the right to control what happens to their body...

One of the many stupid things about republicans.
 
"Problem is, no one has come up with an definitive way of determining when sentient life begins."

The Pope and others who rely on religion to determine when life begins have no problem in claiming to "know" when life begins...and they are extremely definitive about it.

Quote from DmanX:

I agree. That is odd. But that's a broad brush you're painting with there.

I'm a gun owner who supports a woman's right to choose. Actually, I don't believe I should have a say in what a woman does.

But there is some logical consistency in the belief of self defense and defending those who can't defend themselves (babies, fetus). Problem is, no one has come up with an definitive way of determining when sentient life begins.
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

"Problem is, no one has come up with an definitive way of determining when sentient life begins."

The Pope and others who rely on religion to determine when life begins have no problem in claiming to "know" when life begins...and they are extremely definitive about it.

They're not definitive about when SENTIENT life begins. Only "life." A zygote is life as in being alive in as much as a skin cell is. No denying that.

But our civil laws against harm to persons apply to sentient human beings. So at what stage of gestation is a fetus sentient?
 
Quote from Thunderdog:

I did not only refer to women in my post. Please save your fraudulent sanctimony for the pulpit.
I stand corrected.

Thank you for clarifying that not only do you believe that women should not be able to defend themselves with firearms from would-be rapists and/or murderers, but innocent men should not be able to defend themselves either.
 
Back
Top