Missouri Bill Would Put State Gun Sales Under Same Restrictions as Abortions

[publicunofficial]

Troll topic, I know, but I really love this bill, despite the little chance it has of passing,:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The bill also puts a 72-hour waiting period on firearm purchases. Obviously most of these aren't serious proposals, and the bill is merely a statement on both topics that would put lawmakers in an awkward arguing position.

[Kingpoleon]

What restrictions should be placed if abortions and guns are to have equal restrictions?

[TJ in Oregon]

What restrictions should be placed if abortions and guns are to have equal restrictions?

Background checks, requiring a permit, and allowing the abortion to be publicly released through an open records request obviously.

[The_Doctor]

This is largely ceremonial but applied to gun purchasers makes little sense. 99% of gun owners are law abiding citizens. An equally large number do not need to seek a doctor's or psychologist’s letter to own a gun. On the other hand, since I view abortion as murder, I understand trying to convince women to seek out alternatives to abortion. In one case I believe a woman is committing a (constitutional and legal) mistake and in another I think someone is exercising a legal and constitutional right to own a gun.

Some of the ideas make sense, such as closing the gun show loophole and requiring all firearms owners to have training and to pass a test to own a gun. Ditto barring felons and those with mental illnesses from owning guns. think that actually would go a long way to reducing fatalities and gun deaths and accidents.

A 72 hour waiting period is already in force I believe for some purchases. I think that's reasonable as well.

[Gass3268]

Hopefully states like California, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Oregon, etc will pass these sensible reforms. If states are allowed to put restrictions on one constitutional right there should be no reason to do it on another.

[ag]

Ver sensible. Before you buy a weapon you can only use to (and, probably, are planning to use to) murder, you should be forced to watch a 30 minute movie about what the said murder entails. This is not infringement of anyone's rights: one can still purchase the murder weapons. I cannot see how the pro-murder caucus and our murder enthusiasts here could object.

[user12345]

Freedom bill and freedom legislature. These restrictions actually make sense with guns where as on abortions, they don't.

[Hifly]

Freedom Bill.

I await the blessed day when the 2nd Amendment and the death penalty are both consigned to the annals of history. It would be a milestone for the right to life. 

[Mercenary]

Because killing your child and buying a tool for protecting your home should be treated the same...

[MK]

It will fail, then again Missouri is a mess of a state.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Because killing your child and buying a tool for protecting your home should be treated the same...

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Because killing your child and buying a tool for protecting your home should be treated the same...

I love how every part of this post is wrong.

No children are killed in an abortion. A gun is a weapon, not a "tool." And owning a gun makes your household less safe.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Because killing your child and buying a tool for protecting your home should be treated the same...

I love how every part of this post is wrong.

No children are killed in an abortion. A gun is a weapon, not a "tool." And owning a gun makes your household less safe.

What do you think an abortion is?   What do you think a tool is?   

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Because killing your child and buying a tool for protecting your home should be treated the same...

I love how every part of this post is wrong.

No children are killed in an abortion. A gun is a weapon, not a "tool." And owning a gun makes your household less safe.

What do you think an abortion is?   

The termination of a fetus. >99.9% of the time, this is done before a. the point of viability and b. the threshold significant neurological development and activity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you intentionally dense?

Clearly a weapon is a subset of a tool. Let's call a spade a spade and not obfuscate a gun's true purpose: to more easily facilitate the injury or killing of another.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

if the babby had guns ... then no abortion

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Because killing your child and buying a tool for protecting your home should be treated the same...

I love how every part of this post is wrong.

No children are killed in an abortion. A gun is a weapon, not a "tool." And owning a gun makes your household less safe.

What do you think an abortion is?   

The termination of a fetus. >99.9% of the time, this is done before a. the point of viability and b. the threshold significant neurological development and activity.

No, it isn't.  You're just making up a statistic.  Viability is a completely arbitrary distinction in determining value, as is what you consider to be significant neurological development. This is a child, regardless of whatever competency tests you want to introduce.  A very young child in the first stages of development, yes. Just admit you don't think these children have any value. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you intentionally dense?

Clearly a weapon is a subset of a tool. Let's call a spade a spade and not obfuscate a gun's true purpose: to more easily facilitate the injury or killing of another.
[/quote]

Yes, that's why it is potentially useful for protection. 

Are you intentionally an annoying cockalorum?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Let them try and tell the rubes in the Ozarks about this bill.........lol.

[DC Al Fine]

Because killing your child and buying a tool for protecting your home should be treated the same...

I love how every part of this post is wrong.

No children are killed in an abortion. A gun is a weapon, not a "tool." And owning a gun makes your household less safe.

What do you think an abortion is?   

The termination of a fetus. >99.9% of the time, this is done before a. the point of viability and b. the threshold significant neurological development and activity.

No, it isn't.  You're just making up a statistic.  Viability is a completely arbitrary distinction in determining value, as is what you consider to be significant neurological development. This is a child, regardless of whatever competency tests you want to introduce.  A very young child in the first stages of development, yes. Just admit you don't think these children have any value. 

And of course 'viability' is itself a goalpost that moves as medical science improves. Using viability as a standard for personhood leads to the farce of a given 2015 fetus being a person but not its 1970 counterpart.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

No, it isn't.  You're just making up a statistic.

99% within 20 weeks. That's well within the constraints what Roe laid down for viability or the benchmarks of brain development.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You and I, and 7 billion other human beings on this planet, are the manifested consciousness in our brains. We can think and reason. That is where the "being" in human being resides. That is what truly makes us a unique person. You have to choose some criterion, and there is a reason why brain death is defined as definitive death in our legal system. It's logical, from both a legal and a philosophical perspective, that the beginning ought be placed at the onset of this activity.

Sure, the exact moment of this is arbitrary, but there are definitive benchmarks when we can draw the line. The large-scale linking up of neurons in the fetus doesn't occur until between the 24th-27th weeks of pregnancy. You don't see a regular pattern of brain waves until the 30th week. Fetuses lack the necessary architecture to be a person until this point. It also happens that nearly (again >=99%) of abortions happen well before the 24 week mark. No murder is occurring here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have conflicting definitions of what a child is. Potential to be a child does not equate to being a child in my view. As to the value, I leave that to be determined by each individual pregnant woman to make that determination herself. Nice attempt to smear my character though, but I suppose that's always a given with you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that statistically you are less safe if there's a fire arm in your home.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Congrats, you found a dictionary to try and up the ante of your personal attack!

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No, it isn't.  You're just making up a statistic.

99% within 20 weeks. That's well within the constraints what Roe laid down for viability or the benchmarks of brain development.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You and I, and 7 billion other human beings on this planet, are the manifested consciousness in our brains. We can think and reason. That is where the "being" in human being resides. That is what truly makes us a unique person. You have to choose some criterion, and there is a reason why brain death is defined as definitive death in our legal system. It's logical, from both a legal and a philosophical perspective, that the beginning ought be placed at the onset of this activity.

Sure, the exact moment of this is arbitrary, but there are definitive benchmarks when we can draw the line. The large-scale linking up of neurons in the fetus doesn't occur until between the 24th-27th weeks of pregnancy. You don't see a regular pattern of brain waves until the 30th week. Fetuses lack the necessary architecture to be a person until this point. It also happens that nearly (again >=99%) of abortions happen well before the 24 week mark. No murder is occurring here.

I don't buy into Cartesian dualism.  We are the sum totals of ourselves, not only our ability for  reason divorced from bodily experience.  Giving people IQ tests to determine if they are dumb enough to kill is something I hope we can generally manage to avoid.
I have no idea what you mean by "large-scale linking up of neurons" since the nervous system develops to a great extent very early, since otherwise it would be impossible for the fetus to move or even have functioning organs.  Brain death is a completely different thing from having a brain that is functioning and developing. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have conflicting definitions of what a child is. Potential to be a child does not equate to being a child in my view. As to the value, I leave that to be determined by each individual pregnant woman to make that determination herself. Nice attempt to smear my character though, but I suppose that's always a given with you.
[/quote]

It's not smearing your character. It is an accurate statement of your value system. I'm sure you are very sincere or whatever in holding this value system but that is beside the point. If you believe a life is not worthy of either identity to be called as such or a right to be protected from violence, then you do not value that life in any meaningful sense aside from perhaps instrumentally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Congrats, you found a dictionary to try and up the ante of your personal attack!
[/quote]

you complain about personal attacks?  lol   There were plenty of words I could have used that were more familiar but also more uncharitable.  "Cockalorum" seemed the most appropriate word to use without too greatly overstepping the line of decency. 

[tik 🪀✨]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have conflicting definitions of what a child is. Potential to be a child does not equate to being a child in my view. As to the value, I leave that to be determined by each individual pregnant woman to make that determination herself. Nice attempt to smear my character though, but I suppose that's always a given with you.
[/quote]

It's not smearing your character. It is an accurate statement of your value system. I'm sure you are very sincere or whatever in holding this value system but that is beside the point. If you believe a life is not worthy of either identity to be called as such or a right to be protected from violence, then you do not value that life in any meaningful sense aside from perhaps instrumentally.[/quote]

Its potential wholly depends on the mother exclusively, so why does it deserve to be granted its own identity unless the mother grants it one?

Awful, terrible question for you: Do you mourn the same for a natural early-term miscarriage as you do the death of a two-year-old?

Don't worry, I think I know the awful, terrible answer already, you don't need to say anything. Shouldn't have brought it up really.

[afleitch]

Don't argue with shua. He can't process other opinions particularly well.

[Goldwater]

TBH I didn't realize that the abortion laws in Missouri were that ridiculously restrictive. 5, 7, and 8 are particularly ludicrous, regardless of whether we're talking abortion or guns.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have conflicting definitions of what a child is. Potential to be a child does not equate to being a child in my view. As to the value, I leave that to be determined by each individual pregnant woman to make that determination herself. Nice attempt to smear my character though, but I suppose that's always a given with you.

It's not smearing your character. It is an accurate statement of your value system. I'm sure you are very sincere or whatever in holding this value system but that is beside the point. If you believe a life is not worthy of either identity to be called as such or a right to be protected from violence, then you do not value that life in any meaningful sense aside from perhaps instrumentally.[/quote]

Its potential wholly depends on the mother exclusively, so why does it deserve to be granted its own identity unless the mother grants it one?

Awful, terrible question for you: Do you mourn the same for a natural early-term miscarriage as you do the death of a two-year-old?

Don't worry, I think I know the awful, terrible answer already, you don't need to say anything. Shouldn't have brought it up really.
[/quote]

I view identity as a human being as an intrinsic characteristic, not something that can granted or taken away by the wishes of someone.

Would you mourn more for a pet who died or five random people in Africa?  Don't worry, I think I know the answer.  Not sure why that sort of question is relevant here though.

[Ebowed]

Even if we accept the premise that the fetus is a conscious human being with ethical entitlements, it does not follow that the mother has an obligation to carry it.  Criminalizing a woman who doesn't wish to keep housing another being is like sending someone to jail for not giving blood when someone else needed it.  It's not illegal to not be an organ donor, etc.

Our basic values of autonomy are not compatible with the logic required to criminalize abortion.