The dearth of self-awareness

[Syne]

@1:48

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/HkM18XCUReE

"...babies were massacred...should have required...to look at the autopsy photographs of those babies..."

What about the babies massacred in vastly greater numbers in the womb?
We can't even get Democrats on board with a woman viewing an ultrasound or hearing a heartbeat, god forbid viewing the result of an abortion.

Kamala needs to take her own medicine before anyone can take her seriously about prescribing it to others. She needs to be required to watch a baby fight for its life while being dismembered before any vote on abortion, which is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution. Then we can talk about what legislators should be subjected to before any vote on gun rights, which is in the Constitution.

[Magical Realist]

She makes a powerful argument. Thanks for posting that.

[Syne]

Someone else lacks self-awareness too.

We all know your nonsense about toweled-on personhood.

So...have you watched ultrasound videos of abortions or viewed the results?

Meh, probably wouldn't do any good. We know you're a callous bastard.

---

California Democrat Sen. Kamala Harris, while calling for stricter gun control laws, said during an MSNBC interview that Americans cannot take pride in their country while “our babies are being slaughtered.”
...
On the subject of babies, however, Harris is known for her staunch support of abortion rights.

Among other hardline positions, Harris goes so far as to support the public funding of abortion procedures. She also opposes a ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
- https://www.westernjournal.com/pro-abort...er-babies/

[confused2]

On the subject of babies, however, Harris is known for her staunch support of abortion rights.

So let's try to relate another issue to yet another unrelated issue...
Syne likes guns, owns guns and wants to be able to buy more guns - but would fail a background check.
So Syne (on behalf of himself and others who would fail a background check) is very much against background checks for whatever reason he can find on the day.
If the moon has no atmosphere then Syne is against background checks.
If the moon has a residual atmosphere then Syne is against background checks.
... Syne is against background checks.

[Syne]

On the subject of babies, however, Harris is known for her staunch support of abortion rights.

So let's try to relate another issue to yet another unrelated issue...
Syne likes guns, owns guns and wants to be able to buy more guns - but would fail a background check.
So Syne (on behalf of himself and others who would fail a background check) is very much against background checks for whatever reason he can find on the day.
If the moon has no atmosphere then Syne is against background checks.
If the moon has a residual atmosphere then Syne is against background checks.
... Syne is against background checks.

I'm actually for background checks, as are already required when buying from any licensed gun seller (including at gun shows)...and even when buying online, where it must ship to a licensed gun seller who is required to do a background check before handing over the gun.

What I'm against is useless or right-infringing laws, like requiring background checks between private individuals or even family members. In the latter, there are already laws against knowingly transferring a gun to a prohibited possessor. And in the former, there is no way to enforce private background checks without a gun registry...which is a violation of privacy and leftists would love to use for gun confiscation...another violation of rights.


Now, please show me where Kamala Harris has similarly shown anything but unwavering support for abortion.
In what circumstance has she said abortion is definitely prohibited? O_o

[Leigha]

I didn't watch the entire video, but sounds reasonable, background checks. Sounds necessary. I agree (with you, Syne) about late term abortions, but that is a separate topic. I won't vote for anyone who thinks that's a ''woman's right.'' But, in terms of background checks, there should be a stringent process of looking at a person's references, similar to being considered for a job. It seems people need to jump through more hoops to gain employment, than to legally purchase a gun.

Having said this though, if someone is seeking to harm others, whether at a school or in a crowded mall, he/she will find a way to find a weapon that will bring about the most destruction. Terrorists have used cars and planes. They also use homemade bombs. A not-so-fun fact - Most rapists don't use guns as their weapon of choice to subdue their victims. So, are guns the problem, or are they simply falling into the wrong hands? If it's mainly the latter, then improving the background check process is necessary.

[Syne]

I didn't watch the entire video, but sounds reasonable, background checks. Sounds necessary. I agree (with you, Syne) about late term abortions, but that is a separate topic. I won't vote for anyone who thinks that's a ''woman's right.'' But, in terms of background checks, there should be a stringent process of looking at a person's references, similar to being considered for a job. It seems people need to jump through more hoops to gain employment, than to legally purchase a gun.

Having said this though, if someone is seeking to harm others, whether at a school or in a crowded mall, he/she will find a way to find a weapon that will bring about the most destruction. Terrorists have used cars and planes. They also use homemade bombs. A not-so-fun fact - Most rapists don't use guns as their weapon of choice to subdue their victims. So, are guns the problem, or are they simply falling into the wrong hands? If it's mainly the latter, then improving the background check process is necessary.

I agree, it does "sound" reasonable. But it comes from people who either don't understand or refuse to accept the facts. In the real world, people wanting to get guns illegally will always find ways around any such laws, or like you say, seek other options (that a good guy with a gun can't readily counter). They either steal one or just have to find someone desperate enough to take twice the price for a gun in order to forego doing any "universal background check". But the problem of background checks is so far downstream from the actual problems that it's pointless. First, reporting to the national background check system (NICS) is spotty, including from the military...which might have stopped the Sutherland Springs massacre. So what dearly-held Democrat funding are they willing to give up to improve the NICS reporting and pay for free background checks for private gun sales? But even if they do, many mass shooters, like the Vegas shooter, had no record that would have barred them from buying guns in the first place.

A new FBI study of active shooters over a 13-year period reveals that the majority used legally purchased guns, have a history with the site that they attack, and contrary to popular belief do not have a long history of mental health issues.
...
Lanza [Sandy Hook] fits many of the categories — he attended elementary school at Sandy Hook, legally owned the guns used in the attack and had no criminal history.
- http://www.govtech.com/em/safety/FBI-Rep...Spree.html

So what background check can catch someone suddenly snapping without many warning signs making their way to official records? Pre-crime?

Even if everyone voluntarily cooperated with private sale background checks, even though there is currently a fee to do so and no way to enforce it, most mass shootings would not have been stopped. They wouldn't even have had to look for an alternative means of attack. So what "sounds necessary" has already been shown not to work. And Democrats are going to give up funding some other pet cause of theirs for zero results? And when that doesn't work, they can only say we need to get rid of guns...through confiscation. Which leads us to the only way you can enforce universal background checks...a nationwide gun registry. No one is going to help gun-grabbers know where to look.

And all this doesn't even touch how the federal government can force or even have oversight on states reporting to NICS.


The simple fact is that mass shooters can kill many people before police even have time to respond. The ONLY thing that can remedy that is more good people with guns, including armed women fending off rapists. Everything else is some idealistic, pacifist pie in the sky. The real world doesn't respond to ideals.

[Syne]

And if people think Democrats won't ever try to confiscate guns, just look at how many people thought they'd never be cheering for abortion up to and beyond obvious signs of labor. Democrats went from saying abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare" to #ShoutYourAbortion and cheering no limits and the removal of criminal penalties for killing even wanted babies in the womb, like when a pregnant woman is attacked or killed.

The left has proven that no slippery slope argument is hyperbole. Everything they once said was an exaggeration of their end goals has proven to be 100% true. They once said that gay marriage wouldn't hurt anyone either, except now we have people losing their businesses and their religious freedom. They just lie until they think they can get away with the truth.

[Syne]

"The GOP has scheduled a vote on a 20-week abortion ban on Monday. Add your name to demand Congress votes down this immoral bill." - Kamala Harris https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/...8567086081

So not only are late-term abortions good, wanting to stop them (you know, quit aborting viable babies) is somehow "immoral"?

---

On the subject of babies, however, Harris is known for her staunch support of abortion rights.

So let's try to relate another issue to yet another unrelated issue...
Syne likes guns, owns guns and wants to be able to buy more guns - but would fail a background check.
So Syne (on behalf of himself and others who would fail a background check) is very much against background checks for whatever reason he can find on the day.
If the moon has no atmosphere then Syne is against background checks.
If the moon has a residual atmosphere then Syne is against background checks.
... Syne is against background checks.

I'm actually for background checks, as are already required when buying from any licensed gun seller (including at gun shows)...and even when buying online, where it must ship to a licensed gun seller who is required to do a background check before handing over the gun.

What I'm against is useless or right-infringing laws, like requiring background checks between private individuals or even family members. In the latter, there are already laws against knowingly transferring a gun to a prohibited possessor. And in the former, there is no way to enforce private background checks without a gun registry...which is a violation of privacy and leftists would love to use for gun confiscation...another violation of rights.


Now, please show me where Kamala Harris has similarly shown anything but unwavering support for abortion.  
In what circumstance has she said abortion is definitely prohibited? O_o

What's wrong, C2? No comeback?

[confused2]

What's wrong, C2? No comeback?

I was impressed by your response - don't ask me to repeat it too often. It doesn't help to mix up the message with the messenger - which was my point. I doubt if you have a history of violence and it would be irrelevant to the discussion even if you did.
When I first visited France (say 1970) I was surprised at the amount of public drunkeness - not rowdy (like the English) just pissed as rats. In the years between then and about 1985 the French made public intoxication illegal and in 1985 I saw (almost) no evidence of public intoxication. Likewise in the UK we have banned smoking virtually everywhere and the number of smokers has decreased substantially. The changes in both cases are changes in the culture as much as changes in the law. In the UK the law (obviously) doesn't stop people having unlicenced guns but people with them don't sleep quite as easily as those without. Even unenforcable laws cause cultural change. Leroy might say "You ain't never taking my AK47 away from me." but his son might (or might not) be keen to inherit it if AK47's became less than legal.