No one holds this position.
Straw man argument.
Pro-Life: to be wrong means one has willfully taken part in the oppression of ones neighbors, and invited tyranny on us all.
Pro-Choice: to be wrong means one has willfully taken part in the murder of babies, and advocated that others do likewise.
If one must be wrong, which is best to be wrong about....
The right to life is a Constitutionally protected right, as is the right to keep and bear arms.
Here's Cutter's original article. He sounds like a reasonable moderate. /sarcasm
Whoa! Stop right there! Read no further.
Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. You cannot compare the two.
Do we license the Chicago Tribune and require them to pass a fairness test? Do we license Dan Rather or Peter Jennings?
This is something that's always puzzled me about Liberals. They think the solution to all sex-related things is more education and availablity of resources to the kiddies, but if you try to solve issues regarding firearms with more education and availability, those same Liberals will rail against it with a fervor unparalleled.
For some reason, they think sex education should be required so that everyone can make informed choices about sex, but guns and gun education should be banned because it will turn those same people into maniacal mass-murderers.
Makes me wonder what color the sky is in their world...
So much for the tenth ammendment.
The author reveals himself to be an idiot before he even gets started making his argument.
The 2nd is clear except for idiots who have only lived in the cave of socialist plato and do not understand the word ownership.
It simply means that the state can lose control of itself and lose legitimacy and reasonable ownership of itself, becoming insane, tyranical and what not.
Thus the only way to prevent such an anarchic state to riot against the people is for the people to have the means to organize a militia to control the riot and put the state in time out during its temporary insanity, and rebuild it from scratch.
In order for such militia to be able to be put together, individuals and corporations of individuals can arm themselves in reserve of such event.
Of course liberals do not understand a clear sentence, much like the insane is incapable of understanding sanity, simply because the insane cannot have a personal situational awareness that corroborates with the words, or, rather, the words as corroborative evidence to what they know.
In other words, the liberal idiot does not see that texts are not meant to tell you something off hand, but it is the heart that is to tell you what to do, through the living and the action being read, as opposed to words processed. Words on a text are to the heart, just like professional government is to the militia, they are only a corroborative and back up help.
And as far as abortion goes, well, anyone should be against the loss of governance and property of any genetic make up. Doing otherwise is genocide and obvious support of assuaging words on devil text before the heart.
Let's stop for a second. I'm not even going to get into the constitutional issue and the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is protected and that the Federal government is explicitly prohibited from interfering with that right by the 2nd amendment, and the states are similarly prohibited from interfering with that right by the 14th amendment.
Using the template of a drivers license, we could explore federal legislation on firearms that would involve a test-based license - one for simple ownership, with a more extensive test for a concealed-carry permit. These exams - uniform, and nationally administered - would encompass knowledge of gun safety, gun laws, and a shooting-range assessment of minimal skill levels.
Ignoring that, there is no "ownership license" for automobiles. Anybody can own an automobile. There is no test required. You just buy a new or used car from a dealer or a used car from an individual. If you have the money to pay for it, you can purchase the car. There is no background check. There is no license. There is no "proficiency test."
If you buy a car and you want to drive it around your own private property, no license is required. You don't have to have a drivers licesne. You don't need to have a tag on the car. You don't have to register the car.
Registration, licensing, and taxation only happens if you want to drive the car on public roads.
By the "let's treat guns like cars" logic, I should be able to buy any gun without a background check, just like I can buy any car without a background check. If I own 40 acres and I want to go deer hunting, or just plink some tin cans on my own property with my gun, I shouldn't need an "operators license," just like I don't need a drivers license to drive my old heap (untagged, unregistered car) down to the end of the driveway to pick up the mail from my mail box. The same goes for someone who just wants to keep a gun in the house for home protection. No license is required to keep an old "spare car" in the garage.
First, licensing of drivers really doesn't make safe drivers. Licensing is another way for the state to make money and provide employment to more members of the bureaucracy. There are plenty of people who have licenses and are still bad drivers. People become good drivers by making efforts to improve their skills beyond what is necessary for a license and by practicing over time. Those who make those efforts and exercise basic caution and courtesy are usually pretty safe people with whom to share the road. Those who don't make these efforts are a constant moving hazard. While a license is needed to drive legally, many people who don't have licenses still drive when they need to drive. They may lack a license because they are bad drivers, but they aren't bad drivers because they lack a license.
Would licensing all gun owners make the presence of guns in our society any safer? No, and the example of driving is the best explanation of why licensing gun owners is silly. If we licensed gun owners, we'd still have people who have licenses and act irresponsibly. They'd still have occasional accidents and kill innocent people. They'd still kill in a moment of passion occasionally. Some would still kill in cold blood either for the sake of killing or as part of the commission of some other crime. Nothing would change in terms of the impact of firearms on our society. The only difference would be that we would have to build another bureaucracy to spend taxpayer and gun owner money in order to administer the licenses.
I realize that those who think that government restrictions, regulation, or intrusion can improve every problem will not understand this reality. They will see my example and still refuse to believe that licenses won't make the situation any better. They will still insist that we should pay to build a huge new bureaucracy because we must "do something" about a problem. In reality, our only problems are that 1) too many people hold the delusion that some government action or series of actions can eliminate tragedy as a fact of life; 2) there has been a breakdown of the family over the past generation that has left more young people without the self-control to curb their passions and wrong intentions. Problem youth have always existed, but the demise of the family has created more; 3) people vastly overrate the risk of firearm misuse because the media exaggerate every firearm incident.
The evidence is not conclusive and may not even suggest that more government-sponsored education about contraception lowers the rate of unwanted pregnancies. This issue is a little similar to the driving issue. The government can burn millions of dollars in "education," but ultimately, the rate of unwanted pregnancy will be determined by people's willingness to make responsible decisions. People who are responsible will find the information without needing a government education program around contraception. Those who aren't responsible won't act on what they learn no matter how many hours they spend in these classes.
I'm a member of what Cutter calls the "third group" of abortion opponents. I believe that when a woman is pregnant as a result of rape, neither she nor her doctor should be prosecuted for aborting the baby. While the baby's death is tragic, I don't believe in forcing her to give a year of her life to carrying the baby when she wasn't the one responsible for its existance. Instead, I believe that when a rape results in pregnancy, the rapist's sentence should be extended to punish him for creating the situation regardless of the choice made by the victim. I used to have two fairly long articles about this issue on my website, but the $&%*%%$^*% at Yahoo disconnected my site (apparently because someone hacked it and posted dirty pictures).
The author does not understand the right to life or those who defend it.
Each of us has the right not to be killed by the arbitrary "choice" of another. The right to life justifies acting in self defense and calling on the government (which is a collection of "us") to protect us when we are in immediate and clear danger from others who would kill us. In every other case of self defense, the law requires at least some evidence to prove endangerment that will stand up in court. Those of us who believe that a woman has the right to protect her life when she is at risk of dying due to her pregnancy do not question or negotiate on the child's right to life. Rights are not negotiable, they can only be infringed or enforced. While most of us agree that the woman has the right to remove the child from her body if there is no other way to save her life, we would prefer live birth when it will allow the woman to protect her life, while the pro-abortion crowd seems to accept nothing less than the right to a dead child.
The pro-human rights advocates who accept abortion in the case of rape and incest do so either out of tradition or see the pregnancy as a continuing assault on the woman and the abortion as self defense. However, many of us do not accept abortion in this case, since the woman is not actually in danger of losing her life and see no reason to punish the child by the death penalty for his or her father's infringement of his or her mother's right to liberty.
While pregnancy is definitely a special case that is hardly analogous to any other situation, it is a fact that parents are required by law to sacrifice their liberty and property for the benefit of their children, at the risk of being charged with negligence if they don't. There's no justification for allowing parents to "choose" to kill a child - either before or after birth.
Somehow or other, I don't think that the Founding Fathers ever envisioned using horses, carriages or even horseless carriages (yes, there were some who proposed such things, but they weren't technologically feasible) to overthrow a tyrannical government. Guns ARE different, which is why they are the only technological device that is specifically mentioned as being protected by the Constitution against infringement.
Also, as mentioned by others, you don't need a license to operate a car on your own private property. At least the same should apply to guns.
BS, they've generally ducked the issue. The last time they ruled on it was 1939, and then they ruled that a lower court should not have taken judicial notice that a short barreled shotgun is the sort of arm useful for contributing to a well regulated militia and thus one protected by the second amendment. They didn't rule that it wasn't you understand, just that the lower court erred in ruling that it was, without taking any evidence on the matter. In that ruling they, at the very least, implied that militarily useful weapons, are so protected. They rejected the government's contention that the second amendment did not protect the rights of individual members of the group "the people". They've never ruled on the 1986 ban on new production machine guns for civilian use for example, nor on the current assault weapons ban, nor on the equivalent ban of any state.
"Intrauterine Cranial Decompression"??
Well, isn't that nice? They've finally come up with a nice medical term for "sucking the kid's brain out".
(Sorry to sound so crude but that's literally what the term does mean.)
"The ultimate question - is this right conferred to the people, or to the state? - has never been resolved by our highest court, despite recent efforts to force their hand: "The Supreme Court passed up a chance
to rule on the Bush administrations assertion that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to bear firearms." (NewsMax.com, 6/11/2002)"
I just couldn't read on after this part. The Bill Of Rights have always and will always relate to the rights of the individuals. This is our system and no court can change this. Our government governs by the consent of the people, not the other way around.
Pro-Gun Rights and Anti-Infanticide.
One for freedom and to throw of tyranny's yoke is need be.
The other to free the unborn from the peril they face.
And the two shall meet one day I fear.
How many straw-man arguments can I get into this stupid article?
There's nothing awkward about it. It's clear, concise and unambiguous to all but the radical liberal activist lawyers who attempt to corrupt its verbage and its meaning.
The ultimate question - is this right conferred to the people, or to the state? -
There is no question. Just who exactly are The Militia if not the individual American citizens, a.k.a. "The People."
has never been resolved by our highest court, despite recent efforts to force their hand
No need for the validation of a radical leftist activist kangaroo court. The Supreme Court cannot abolish a right that has been given to the people by God Himself -- the right of self-defense.