|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Ponycar
F L I N T O I D
|
A little gun history,
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to about 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Defensless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th cetury because of gun control : 56 million.
After the 1st year in Australia where gun owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms by their own goverment, the results are in. Assaults are up 8.6 % Australia wide. Armed robberies are up 44% ( yes 44%).
In the Australian state of Victoria alone homocides with firearms are up 300 %. While law abiding citizens turned their guns in, criminals did not, and criminals still posess their guns.
Since the figures over the previous 25 years showed a decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward during the1st year of Australia's new gun control law since criminals are now guaranteed that thier prey is unarmed.
There has also been an increase in break ins, and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased after successfully ridding Australians of their guns.
You won't see this on the news. Guns in the hands of honest law abiding citizens save lives and property, and yes gun control laws only affect law abiding citizens.
With guns, were are citizens, without them we are subjects.
During WW-2, the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew, most americans were ARMED !!!! |
|
|
Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:22 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Heres Doctor Ron Pauls Views on abortion. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”
Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.
Back to issues main page ›
Dr. Paul’s Writings On This IssuePro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Federalizing Social Policy
Respect for Life begins with Respect for the Constitutional Rule of Law
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000
More Writings...
I would think those worried about losing "reproductive rights" would be more inclined to get on the Hillary or Obama bandwagon.
|
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:27 pm |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
twotap, I stand corrected. I didn't know about this case.
How have I lost my reproductive rights? Well I know it's not popular, but the upholding of the ban on partial birth abortions. It's not that I mourn the loss of that in and of itself. It's because it's the first step, and I think we can all agree on this because it was Bush's plan all along with Alito and Roberts, the first step toward making abortion illegal. So, my error aside, I think it infinitely more likely that abortion will become illegal before you ever lose your right to own and carry a gun.
I should listen to Andi's wisdom though and watch out on this subject, because I know how touchy it is.
I would like to see how that poll came out.
And I wish all the men who were saved from being trapped into child support and a lifetime of obligation because a woman had an abortion would speak up, too. Unfortunately, they seem to be the ones who go with the "it's a woman's private choice" argument. |
|
|
|
Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:35 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
I mentioned once before that on several other forums that I frequent using the word abortion in a post will get that post automatically sent to the scrap bin. People from both sides get very hostile. Demeralda, glad I could update you on the soon to be heard by the supremes the 2nd ammendment question.  |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:40 pm |
|
|
andi03
F L I N T O I D
|
Howdy Twotap,
Just because a candidate is pro-choice doesn't mean that women like myself that would like to see a specific candidate in office that touts women's reproductive rights are utmost. What I am trying to say is that a lot of women that are pro-choice are not necessarily single issue voters. Does that make sense? Oy....
Actually I spoke to my staunch Democratic aunt a couple of days ago at a late Christmas party and she said that she wouldn't vote for Hillary, I was floored!!!
Actually this election I believe will prove to be an interesting one all around. I think that people are getting out of the single issue mentality....although I could be wrong.....once in a blue moon.  |
_________________
Build a bridge and get over it! |
|
|
Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:42 pm |
|
|
andi03
F L I N T O I D
|
Demeralda:
No, I didn't mean to silence you point of view!! Please don't construe it that way in any way, shape or form. You are probably one of the first women that I have met in a forum venue that would like to carry on a discussion like this without us having to wave our uterine rights on a stick, like I have in the past. I am not stating that you are like that as you seem very down to earth, I am type A all the way.
I am married to a very, very, very, conservative man in every way possible, even down to the "religion thing". We are complete opposite!! We joke that we shouldn't go to the voting booth at all because our votes cancel each others out. But one thing that we do agree upon is that the need for women seeking abortion should be quenched. Of course, I believe in birth control and he doesn't.....oy.
But in my opinion while Ron Paul was an OB/GYN he may have not performed any abortions because they choose to practice what doctors want to practice in that profession. When a man OB/GYN doesn't give me a local to burn polyps on my cervix as has been done in the past, I may start having a little bit more respect for the profession and for their opinions. He is one doctor, with one opinion.....
off of soapbox......This post is not meant to be taken in a snarky tone, I am just being serious....can't add too many smilies to this kind of conversation, eh? |
_________________
Build a bridge and get over it! |
|
|
Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:54 pm |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
Andi:
I didn't construe it that way, at all I always respect your point of view, and I only meant that you are probably right... I may not want to open the can of worms!
I would have more respect for the more militant pro-life folks if I saw more consistency from beginning to end. As in wanting free birth control for any woman, for example. Or in adopting or serving as foster parents. They all seem to want the baby regardless of the mother, and yet I rarely see any compassion for those women who DO choose to give birth but aren't prepared. Catch-22! If you have an abortion, you're a crappy woman. If you have the baby and can't support it, you're a piece of crap for taking welfare. Why so concerned about the birth but so discompassionate about the baby's quality of life?
And it's funny you brought up a male OB/GYN, because I had one who many people spoke highly of, but I thought was horrible the minute he told me he was going to "let me" have a say in my healthcare. Not to mention he figured pain is just something we're supposed to deal with.
I'm not advocating abortion, I'm just saying government has no business worrying about it. |
|
|
|
Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:13 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
[quote]and she said that she wouldn't vote for Hillary, I was floored!!!
quote:
Not surprising at all Hillary is the most two faced obnoxious self centered phony person to ever seek the presidency and I am sure many devote Dems see here that way also. It appears it aint gonna be the cakewalk to the coronation it was supposed to be. 
|
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:16 pm |
|
|
andi03
F L I N T O I D
|
******I'm not advocating abortion, I'm just saying government has no business worrying about it.*******
Exact-a-mundo. |
_________________
Build a bridge and get over it! |
|
|
Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:27 pm |
|
|
andi03
F L I N T O I D
|
Oy, two tap, ya never give up, eh?  |
_________________
Build a bridge and get over it! |
|
|
Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:28 pm |
|
|
FlintConservative
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Demeralda schreef:
I would have more respect for the more militant pro-life folks if I saw more consistency from beginning to end. As in wanting free birth control for any woman, for example. Or in adopting or serving as foster parents. They all seem to want the baby regardless of the mother, and yet I rarely see any compassion for those women who DO choose to give birth but aren't prepared. Catch-22! If you have an abortion, you're a crappy woman. If you have the baby and can't support it, you're a piece of crap for taking welfare. Why so concerned about the birth but so discompassionate about the baby's quality of life?
I've been saying for weeks I should keep my mouth shut, so at least give me credit for my patience. (g)
First, I am very pro-life and very active (both in volunteer time and financial support) in several charities that support both pregnant women and women with children. As for foster-parenting, I am grateful for the people who do that but as a conservative believe in people taking responsibility for their own actions. I am not against birth control (even though my church tells me I should be) but I don't get the argument that if a woman chooses to get pregnant I should have to take total responsibility for that child. Having said that there is, however, a long waiting list of people who do want to adopt.
As for consistency beginning to end, I agree whole-heartedly. I see many people who are pro-choice and against the death penalty. They often point to the hypocrisy of one being pro-life and pro-death penalty. In my mind, that is equating a baby, the epitome of purity and innocence, with, for example, a mass murderer. I don't get it.
I see the same hypocrisy with many hollyweird types who are animal rights fanatics but are also pro-choice. It certainly appears that they value the life of an animal more than that of a child.
Ultimately, as stated elsewhere, the true issue is when life begins. While I certainly can understand the argument against life beginning at conception, I can't comprehend how the proper moment is birth. Partial birth abortion has to be one of the most barbaric procedures permitted in the 21st century. I also find it interesting that the American Medical Assocation won't take a stand on abortion.
Before I close, let me just add that Planned Parenthood makes hundreds of millions of dollars each year performing abortions. I have yet to find a pro-life organization that would financially benefit by have zero abortions performed.
Ok, I promised myself I'd keep my mouth shut and didn't.
Feel free to dismember me at will. |
|
|
|
Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:50 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
| "dismember me at will" |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:59 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Partial birth abortion has to be one of the most barbaric procedures permitted in the 21st century.
For sure.  |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:37 pm |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
I respect Dr. Ron Paul's choice not to perform abortions, but I don't agree with his authoring and supporting legislation that would interfere with a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. He has exercised the right to choose for himself, he does not have the right to deny another the same right of choice.
He has authored legislation to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094; he is prime sponsor of HR 300 to negate the affect of Roe v Wade; and authored HR 1095 which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called "population control." There should be no law telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body, it is an interference with her personal rights, illegal control over another human being.
If sponsors of legislation such as Dr. Paul really want to get serious about controlling and violating rights of others they ought to consider this. If there is a law telling a woman she must bear a child from an unwanted pregnancy, then both parents must sign acknowledgment of parentage and waiver of parental rights, submit to DNA testing of themselves and the baby for an official record. The baby would become a ward of the state at birth for placement by adoption. The same law would force the parents to have tubal ligation and vasectomy at the time of the child's birth. If at a time later in life they can prove they are ready to be parents and can support a child they can have the surgical procedure reversed. |
|
|
|
Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:55 pm |
|
|
andi03
F L I N T O I D
|
Howdy FC,
Think of the people that Planned Parenthood helps though. They helped me when I had a pregnancy test done on a wanted child, believe it or not.
I got married and three years later we decided to have a child and I remembered how much they helped me out, not through abortion services but through contraceptive information, this is when the shots for Depo came out.
I told them that I wanted a pregnancy test 5.00 and boy did I find out fast.....sure enough I told them the correct date of my last cycle, the doctor signed a sheet of paper and said take this to the ob of your choice for delivery, as I told them that "I wanted" this pregnancy. Sure enough the "regular" ob said, yep we will take this due date as gospel, but the nurse decided to check it out on her stupid little wheel and sure as stuff, same date.
So they offer a pregnancy test at the time back in 1996 for 5.00 with immediate results and signed by a doctor with the correct due date and a script for pre-natal vitamins and you go to Rite Aid purchase a pregnancy test for 8.00 +/- at the time with none of the above, where would you rather go as a woman for help and as a wonderful surprise to tell your husband about? There is much more to Planned Parenthood than meets the eye. (This is to be construed as Devil's Advocate Material.)
I have done a lot of research about Margaret Sanger, but have forgotten some. The main thing that I remember is the eugenics portion of what was driving the concept behind the concept. In order to fathom how Planned Parenthood started one must remember that Margaret Sanger was NOT for abortions, she was for preventing abortions, teaching women how to avoid pregnancy. Although at that point in time women were befuddled by the choices that they had, discontinue a pregnancy and die, possibly continue with a pregnancy and die (due to the lack of medical care available at the time.).
So to encapsulate this more or less the women that are "for abortions" don't necessarily advocate abortions, what we would like is to have the option open for the women that feel it is in their best interest to have one.
Real life scenario. Mom has epilepsy (aka Grand Mal), told child birth risky, birth control failed, child conceived, fine through pregnancy, epilepsy resurfaces after physical toll on body after vaginal delivery, in Neuro ICU for 72 hours and monitored for brain damage for two weeks, due to said delivery. Not to mention new dad and new child, both are fine, but dad stressed about child and wife. This was my mom. Granted I wouldn't be here today had it not been for her decision to have me, but in retrospect, I would NOT have blamed her for having an abortion to thwart the possibility of brain damage occurring due to lack of oxygen in the brain after delivery. She did deliver one more time, but in the 70's it was "okay" to take Dilantin during pregnancy and then wham!!! Come to find out limbs would be missing from children whose mothers were on this med.....She delivered one week after getting her Masters and still being in the dam* hospital due to seizures!!!!
FC, this is NOT a post to be snarky, just showing real life situations that come from a poster. |
_________________
Build a bridge and get over it! |
|
|
Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:34 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
