What If Buying A Gun Required The Same Restrictions As Getting An Abortion?
I saw this on Daily Kos, and I’m so stealing it! The comment originally appeared in the NYT’s comment section.
“Why do lawmakers make it harder and harder to get an abortion, even in the cases where the mother will die, but easier and easier to get a gun? Do they only care about a life before it is born?
Why don’t gun buyers have to follow the same rules women are forced to follow? Wait 48 hours after applying. View on ultrasound of a body with a bullet in it. Listen to the heartbeat of someone as they die of a gunshot wound. Get a lecture from a surgeon on what it is like to operate on a gunshot wound. After all that, if a person still wants a gun, he or she can buy one. Why should buying a gun be any easier than having an abortion?”
Why indeedy.
Tags: Abortion, gun control, Women Issues
You know, we had this discussion about creating gun threads the other day, and there you go.
I’m going to sit back and let you re-learn this lesson.
However, the logic is slippery here: If I oppose restrictions on abortion (which I do) and use the gun-buying argument by saying, “Why is it easier to buy a gun than to get an abortion?” Then why can’t I say, “If both are protected constitutionally (and they are), then neither should be subject to such restrictions, so let’s get rid of all waiting periods and background checks for gun buyers in exchange for not resisting abortion on demand!”
Not my position, but the logical conundrum does strike me. I’m getting into my bunker now while you reap what you have sown.
I actually thought of you when I wrote this, Steve! 😉
I’m relying on the average (not all) conservative gun owner’s disconnect. Hands off my gun! vs Hands on women’s bodies!
‘sa matter steve… dont like pounding your head against a wall?
They should take the police tazer/mace training approach to buying a gun. if oyu want to buy a gun, you should get shot with it. NOt anywhere vital… a well aimed through-and-through so you know full well what you would be doing to someone.
To stretch this a bit further. If one has the right to do what one wants with their body (and I believe they do), should that right not extend to jumping off a bridge? Don’t first responders physically restrain jumpers if given a chance? And don’t we applaud them when they do? Yet, why doesn’t someone have the right to end their life? And if they have that right, when do they receive it? 18? any age if emancipated? puberty?
The rights we have are not unregulated and cannot be if society is to survive. The Second Ammendment requires a well regualated militia as a condition of the right to bear arms. Shouldn’t all other rights be conditioned (regulatedd) as well? Are there any unregulated rights?
When you buy a gun, you are buying something that can be used to kill somebody. When you get an abortion, you are killing somebody.
If you jump off a bridge you are killing yourself in public, and will probably cause a traffic jam. If you kill yourself at home, chances are you’ll succeed. People trying to kill themselves by jumping off a bridge usually hesitate before jumping, thereby calling attention to themselves and making people/authorities question if they really want to die.
And Walt, we’ll get busy working on lining up gun laws with abortion laws.
all this thread is missing is Israel.
sorry MJ.
is bridge-jumping a metaphor for this thread?
These are actually related. A major problem here is abortion by bullet. In fact, the #1 cause of maternal death for pregnant women in America is getting shot by redneck boyfriend/husband. Nearly one third of all murders in the US are spousal in nature, and it rarely makes the news.
If you own a gun, and it is used to kill someone, 90% of the time it’s killed family or friends. Those odds are terrible…
Only in America… where we only pretend to be in the 1st world.
This is an important health issue. Women have a right to not get shot at. If American men can’t stop shooting their girlfriends and wives, then they shouldn’t be allowed to play with guns.