ZRT2209 (651 posts)
Why not a "conscience clause" for those opposed to guns, akin to pharmacists
Last edited Fri May 24, 2013, 01:49 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
opposed to dispensing birth control?
I mean, if teabaggers expect us to accept the argument that a pharmacist (or any health care provider) should not be forced to violate their consciences in providing medicine or services (because they believe in the sacredness of human life), then certainly they must accept the argument that some people, based on the sacredness of human life, should not be forced to rely on owning their own gun for self-protection?
Many teabaggers have argued that the woman who was raped in Josephine County, Oregon because there are no police to respond to 911 (due to anti-tax fanatics) should have owned a gun for self-protection.
Why should she be forced to pay with her life or safety because she chooses not to own a gun?
Jenoch (1,656 posts)
3. "Why should she be forced to pay with her life or safety because she chooses not to own a gun?"
Absolutely she should not be raped. However, if she were armed it is possible she would not have been harmed.
ZRT2209 (651 posts)
4. sounds like you're saying it was her fault she was raped
backwoodsbob (4,752 posts)
7. no one said any such thing
HOWEVER
If I was in her position...had been beaten by him before...ongoing threats...no police presence...Hell yeah I would have advised her to buy a gun.I would have advised her to buy a .44 Magnum.At the first sign of trouble that gun being fired will scare most people off
I don't see anyone saying it was her fault...that's a BS argument and is the reason I post so little here now.You make a bullshit conclusion based on an argument no one made.A strawman.....something that makes up probably half of the posts on this site now
marions ghost (13,946 posts)
13. Riddiculous
Turn people into murderers? Even if she could handle a gun with any speed and accuracy, it's still no guarantee. What if he's got a gun? She could get herself killed, not only raped. Or end up facing murder charges and living with having killed someone.
Escalation of such a volatile situation is stupid.
LAGC (4,543 posts)
15. Shooting someone in self-defense while they are trying to rape you is not murder. (n/t)
marions ghost (13,946 posts)
16. OK excuse me--let's get legal and call it homicide
whatever you want to call it, it's still the taking of a human life. Not easily justified under any circumstances.
We need better ways to deal with domestic violence than arming everybody to the teeth. Or giving everybody a pit bull.
Maybe the wife having a gun to threaten with would be "speaking the abuser's language"--eye for an eye & all that. But it is still a barbaric solution. And fairly often the armed abused wife just gets killed with her own gun.
Backward solutions to the problem. A gun is merely a symbol of security. It is not real security.
mwrguy (877 posts)
5. Gun Owners: "Join our cult or get raped"
I think that sums up their position.
alcibiades_mystery (28,421 posts)
14. More evidence for the basic proposition: gunners are assholes
Oooofah. They are the skeeve, for real.
magellan (12,536 posts)
8. The teabagger argument is just more blame the victim twaddle
Only because it happens to support their position that people should be responsible for their own safety, i.e. own a gun.
Following their logic, you'd think they'd be against say, people living in areas prone to tornado activity. But they aren't saying that because you can't stop a tornado with a bullet.
It's amazing to me that anyone would essentially argue on behalf of a criminal by saying the victim didn't take the opportunity to defend themselves properly. But teabaggers aren't known for their empathy, or for being able to view others and their situations outside their own narrow frame of reference. Everything is simple black and white to them. (No wonder they loved Bush** so much.) If only life were really so predictable.
I'm not sure why anyone wants to live in a place where their security is down to how fast they can reach their gun and use it, but apparently some do. My guess is most of them have never actually had to defend themselves in that position.
Nine (926 posts)
11. It takes a Republican gun nut to see things that way.
(their way, not the OP's way)
Let's see. A woman's ex-boyfriend shows up outside her door trying to get in. She calls 911 and begs for help, yet no officers are sent to help her. Eventually the guy breaks in and attacks her and rapes her. What's the moral of the story?
a. We need to stop dismantling the public infrastructure to the point where even basic services like police responding to 911 calls are compromised. (Hint: dismantling the public infrastructure = constantly fighting the taxes that pay for it.)
b. We need to take domestic violence more seriously than we do and make it a higher priority when police resources are strained.
c. Everyone should have a gun so they can act as their own law enforcement.
If you chose C, please show me the gun control legislation that prevented this woman from having a gun to protect her.
...and living with having killed someone.
marions ghost (13,946 posts)
16. OK excuse me--let's get legal and call it homicide
whatever you want to call it, it's still the taking of a human life. Not easily justified under any circumstances.
We need better ways to deal with domestic violence than arming everybody to the teeth. Or giving everybody a pit bull.
Maybe the wife having a gun to threaten with would be "speaking the abuser's language"--eye for an eye & all that. But it is still a barbaric solution. And fairly often the armed abused wife just gets killed with her own gun.
Backward solutions to the problem. A gun is merely a symbol of security. It is not real security.
ZRT2209 (651 posts)
Why not a "conscience clause" for those opposed to guns, akin to pharmacists
Last edited Fri May 24, 2013, 01:49 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
opposed to dispensing birth control?
I mean, if teabaggers expect us to accept the argument that a pharmacist (or any health care provider) should not be forced to violate their consciences in providing medicine or services (because they believe in the sacredness of human life), then certainly they must accept the argument that some people, based on the sacredness of human life, should not be forced to rely on owning their own gun for self-protection?
Many teabaggers have argued that the woman who was raped in Josephine County, Oregon because there are no police to respond to 911 (due to anti-tax fanatics) should have owned a gun for self-protection.
Why should she be forced to pay with her life or safety because she chooses not to own a gun?
I have a really hard time comprehending how these people think the cops are just ... THERE!
I'm sorry, I just don't believe that if you hear someone outside and feel threatened that you can call 911 and have a cop there before they kick in your door or crawl through a window. Even in a city. Unless you just happen to have a cop right around the corner, which is going to be highly unusual, you are going to be able to respond to your emergency faster than anyone!
If someone figures out you have a firearm when they get into the house, or even before, you have a MUCH better chance of them going to look for a softer target than if you're simply huddled up in the corner yelling "don't hurt me, I'll give you whatever you want!"
Please DUmmies, would one of you, just one of you come over and defend that position for me. I know I'm a mouth breather but I have common sense. Come help me understand how you think a cop can be there for me faster than I can be there for me or my family.
KC
magellan (12,536 posts)
8. The teabagger argument is just more blame the victim twaddle
Only because it happens to support their position that people should be responsible for their own safety, i.e. own a gun.
ZRT2209 (651 posts)
Why not a "conscience clause" for those opposed to guns, akin to pharmacists
Last edited Fri May 24, 2013, 01:49 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
opposed to dispensing birth control?
I mean, if teabaggers expect us to accept the argument that a pharmacist (or any health care provider) should not be forced to violate their consciences in providing medicine or services (because they believe in the sacredness of human life), then certainly they must accept the argument that some people, based on the sacredness of human life, should not be forced to rely on owning their own gun for self-protection?
Many teabaggers have argued that the woman who was raped in Josephine County, Oregon because there are no police to respond to 911 (due to anti-tax fanatics) should have owned a gun for self-protection.
Why should she be forced to pay with her life or safety because she chooses not to own a gun?
ZRT2209 (651 posts)
Why not a "conscience clause" for those opposed to guns, akin to pharmacists
I wonder why DUmmie Alexandra PhDDs isn't in on this conversation? Here is a situation where a woman needed to protect herself from rape and had no way to do it. I dare say all of her bloviating is just hot air and she really has no intention of seriously dealing with this "culture of rape".
zebonaut
It's time to rewrite the 2nd Amendment- How would YOU rewrite it?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2894319
BainsBane
6. This:
(http://panayola.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/delete1-300x180.jpg)
Because placing blame on the rapist is too much trouble.
backwoodsbob (4,752 posts)[youtube=425,350]
7. no one said any such thing
HOWEVER
If I was in her position...had been beaten by him before...ongoing threats...no police presence...Hell yeah I would have advised her to buy a gun.I would have advised her to buy a .44 Magnum.At the first sign of trouble that gun being fired will scare most people off
I don't see anyone saying it was her fault...that's a BS argument and is the reason I post so little here now.You make a bullshit conclusion based on an argument no one made.A strawman.....something that makes up probably half of the posts on this site now
They don't care about rapists.
They're OK with rape, The Kennedy KKKlan, Julian Assange, Roman Polanksi.
You are the political enemy impeding their dreams of Ewe-topia.
They want you disarmed.
If that means more rape then so be it; they're OK with that.
"The antipode of individualism is collectivism, which subordinates the individual to the group -- be it the 'community,' the tribe, the race, the proletariat, etc. A person's moral worth is judged by how much he sacrifices himself to the group. [Under collectivism] the more emergencies (and victims) the better, because they provide more opportunity for 'virtue'." -- Glenn Woiceshyn
DUmmies:
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/466/spockillogical2.png)
I have a really hard time comprehending how these people think the cops are just ... THERE!
I'm sorry, I just don't believe that if you hear someone outside and feel threatened that you can call 911 and have a cop there before they kick in your door or crawl through a window. Even in a city. Unless you just happen to have a cop right around the corner, which is going to be highly unusual, you are going to be able to respond to your emergency faster than anyone!
If someone figures out you have a firearm when they get into the house, or even before, you have a MUCH better chance of them going to look for a softer target than if you're simply huddled up in the corner yelling "don't hurt me, I'll give you whatever you want!"
Please DUmmies, would one of you, just one of you come over and defend that position for me. I know I'm a mouth breather but I have common sense. Come help me understand how you think a cop can be there for me faster than I can be there for me or my family.
KC
She is, but in a different thread on the topic of the 2nd Ammendment.
IOW, PhDD views potential rape victims as being on their own......... and good luck.
.
marions ghost (13,946 posts)Living with being raped is better than protecting ones self? :mental:
13. Riddiculous
Turn people into murderers? Even if she could handle a gun with any speed and accuracy, it's still no guarantee. What if he's got a gun? She could get herself killed, not only raped. Or end up facing murder charges and living with having killed someone.
Escalation of such a volatile situation is stupid.
Living with being raped is better than protecting ones self? :mental:
Megalo_Man (64 posts)
New Poll: Britain wants its guns back
Last Friday the Daily Telegraph, Britain's most widely read broadsheet newspaper, issued an online poll asking members of the public which proposal they would like to see introduced as a Private Members' Bill in the UK's Parliament.
Private Members' Bills are introduced by Members of Parliament or Peers who are not government ministers.
The choices include term limits for Prime Ministers, a flat tax, a law to encourage the 'greening' of public spaces and the repealing of Britain's hand gun ban. Following the Dunblane massacre in 1996, in which 16 schoolchildren were killed, Parliament passed The Firearms Act of 1997, which essentially banned handguns for the atrocity.
But Britons seem unconvinced by the law. The proposer, known as "Colliemum" asked, "...why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?"
While the poll continues, so far over 80 percent of the 11,000+ respondents have told the Telegraph that they want to see the handgun ban repealed. The news comes as America contemplates its own new laws on gun ownership, with British talk show host Piers Morgan claiming to back a UK-style ban for the United States.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3644/britain_wants_its_guns_back
I am going to stick this on here as I don't expect the thread or its author to be too long for the DUmp anyhow. I did note this is also in their gun dungeon with a couple typical DUmmy replies.Oops a daisy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022917980
No responses yet, I suspect the mole /troll thread will be disappeared shortly.
Wed May 29, 2013, 03:51 PM
Megalo_Man (70 posts)
Message hidden by jury decision
A Jury voted 4-2 to hide this post on Wed May 29, 2013, 04:20 PM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See Community Standards.) When the original post in a discussion thread is hidden by Jury decision, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted. 2
Yo dummies... you can disarm yourself all you want just DO NOT try to disarm me.
Some fool wants to break into my house or cause harm to me and mine... his life expectancy just dropped to zero. The thugs around here know that cause everyone around here is armed. There is not much crime in my neighborhood. Now we do get the occasional vandalism and shed/car break in, usually teens and meth heads, but home invasions just really do not happen around here.
Oops a daisy.
I mean, if teabaggers expect us to accept the argument that a pharmacist (or any health care provider) should not be forced to violate their consciences in providing medicine or services (because they believe in the sacredness of human life), then certainly they must accept the argument that some people, based on the sacredness of human life, should not be forced to rely on owning their own gun for self-protection?
Yo dummies... you can disarm yourself all you want just DO NOT try to disarm me.
They don't care about rapists.
They're OK with rape, The Kennedy KKKlan, Julian Assange, Roman Polanksi.