In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
What We're Missing About the Marches
dfletcher
Member Posts: 8,178 ✭✭✭
I live in San Francisco - yes, it sucks even worse than being in CA. But last night I was near one of the big "marches" on Market St. I think we're missing a political point and do so at our own peril.
Yes, they are being "spoiled snowflakes" upset their candidate lost. They want to damage the victory. There are alot of goofballs attending being nothing but destructive. But I'll put my political concern in the form of a question:
Is it possible to nominate a SCOTUS Justice who is both pro-gun and pro-choice?
Maybe, but the positions are conventionally viewed as being mutually exclusive, that you can have one or the other but not both. And whatever the nominee is "pro" on they are most likely "anti" toward the other. So as much as we'd like to dismiss them as miscreants and goofballs (as I said lot's of those types attending) they put a few million people in the streets in effect saying "hands off Roe" and with an eye on the upcoming SCOTUS nominee. Do we suppose this will not be noticed by the new President? Consider what lesson was just learned by US Senators like McCain, Graham and Portman - other Senators from less than solid red states.
They want a pro-abortion nominee and we want a pro-2nd Amendment nominee. They just put a few million people in the streets and when the time comes a compliant press will no doubt remind everyone of it. A shot has been fired across our bow and at our pro-2nd Amendment nominee and I'm not sure we even recognize it.
Yes, they are being "spoiled snowflakes" upset their candidate lost. They want to damage the victory. There are alot of goofballs attending being nothing but destructive. But I'll put my political concern in the form of a question:
Is it possible to nominate a SCOTUS Justice who is both pro-gun and pro-choice?
Maybe, but the positions are conventionally viewed as being mutually exclusive, that you can have one or the other but not both. And whatever the nominee is "pro" on they are most likely "anti" toward the other. So as much as we'd like to dismiss them as miscreants and goofballs (as I said lot's of those types attending) they put a few million people in the streets in effect saying "hands off Roe" and with an eye on the upcoming SCOTUS nominee. Do we suppose this will not be noticed by the new President? Consider what lesson was just learned by US Senators like McCain, Graham and Portman - other Senators from less than solid red states.
They want a pro-abortion nominee and we want a pro-2nd Amendment nominee. They just put a few million people in the streets and when the time comes a compliant press will no doubt remind everyone of it. A shot has been fired across our bow and at our pro-2nd Amendment nominee and I'm not sure we even recognize it.
Comments
Yes, one can be pro gun and pro choice, however the choice is done before conception. If a supreme court justice is sticking to the constitution, they will not believe the whoo dooo science that a human is not human until it breaths on its own. And for equality all humans need to be protected under the constitution.
Or a pro 2nd Amendment Justice may recognize that the killing of a fetus is not a prohibited or protected right, and return the abortion decision to the states where it belongs.
Th
Brad Steele
I am pro gun and pro choice. I don't know why it would be so hard to find a qualified justice who has similar views.
Thanks, was wondering the same.
It's tempting to blow them off as a bunch of sore losers. That was my initial reaction. And I think alot of them are, probably didn't even vote. But they're doing this for a reason.
Instead of a Clarence Thomas maybe we end up with an Anthony Kennedy, if not this time perhaps when Ginsburg leaves? I don't want that, but that might be the result.
While the libs are out fighting for abortion, they have less time and money to put to antigun projects. I look forward to the day that some of the abortion survivors have doctors charged with attempted murder.
On another note - did a tuna boat crash and burn in the Potomac??
I simply can not see any reason why being "Pro" on either topic is exclusive of a preference on the other.
Nor do I see why abortion has to be dragged into EVERY discussion regardless of topic. We all make life choices and live with the results but in some cases, others' "life choices" become OUR burdens for life.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/09/toyota-announced-10-billion-u-s-investment-days-after-trump-warns-company.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-08/fiat-chrysler-invest-1-billion-us-add-2000-jobs
And new ones coming today. Oh woe is me says the DNC scum who are praying for Trumps and the USA's failure like richy the know it all.
The 10 demonrats up for election better get in line or get tossed out. Voter ID coming too and that will kill a couple million demonrat votes immediately.
Working USA will kill deadbeat USA AKA the demonrat base.
I simply can not see any reason why being "Pro" on either topic is exclusive of a preference on the other.
Nor do I see why abortion has to be dragged into EVERY discussion regardless of topic. We all make life choices and live with the results but in some cases, others' "life choices" become OUR burdens for life.
THIS pretty much sums it up. Why do some folks who adamantly insist that one side not tell them how to live insist that they must somehow have the right to force their own particular religious views upon those who don't believe the same way. Don't we tell the anti-gun people "don't want one, don't buy one"? Why can't some on our side of that argument take the same advice to heart when it comes to life choices made by people outside our own individual spheres of influence? As has been pointed out so succinctly above, quite often those "life choices" some argue should be preserved at all cost become OUR lifetime burden. Ferguson, Baltimore, Detroit, Washington D.C. and the recent marches should serve as ample proof of that. I, too, see no reason why the two topics should be mutually exclusive.
Used to be pro choice. But since my Great Grand Daughter was born way early. My stance has changed.
Would you like to kill her now? If so, what would be different about killing her in the womb?
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
Well, I guess the point I kind of sucked at making is that they're out there trying to influence the SCOTUS nominee - and we're what,rehashing whether abortion is a right? For the upcoming political machinations I couldn't care less whether it is or isn't, whether it's wrong or right or immoral or evil. The specific point is irrelevant.
It's tempting to blow them off as a bunch of sore losers. That was my initial reaction. And I think alot of them are, probably didn't even vote. But they're doing this for a reason.
Instead of a Clarence Thomas maybe we end up with an Anthony Kennedy, if not this time perhaps when Ginsburg leaves? I don't want that, but that might be the result.
From what I gather, the reason behind the protests is that they do now realize the problem with supporting a non-viable candidate, or not going out to vote.
Right now, there appears to be a majority of the electorate who do not support the views of the POTUS, who apparently has pretty high unfavorables for being on a honeymoon, already.
Both give hope that they can field a candidate who can put the old coalition back together, as both POTUS and many of his supporters will probably age out of the process as demographics shift.
Leave it to the Don to fails to deliver, or continue to alienate the majority of the electorate, and we'll see what we get in four years.
I think the goal of these folks is more immediate and no different than ours - who gets sent up to SCOTUS, this year and when Ginsburg and/or Breyer go away. It's easy to dismiss them as a bunch of loons, so many of them are. But if Hillary Clinton had won we sure as hell wouldn't have had a few million pro-gun marchers around the US and if we had, we'd be doing high fives saying "that'll show her".
We shouldn't underestimate the enemy. I want 2 or three Clarence Thomas or "Machine Gun" Sammy Alito appointments on SCOTUS.
Especially when the man who caused it is out trying to sell drugs to my grand kids.
We pay the government. The Democrat party helps pass laws to support planned parenthood. Planned parenthood contributes to the Democrat party. This goes on with lots of other organizations also. It is called a political slush fund.