Here I am writing another post that is not entirely sports related, but I will begin by reminding everyone that I did choose the Cardinals to win it all. I posted a short post yesterday declaring it was the National League’s year. Now on to two burning questions that I have for the liberals in this country:
Question Numero Uno:(Just a little Spanish Lingo for the Latin American readers)
Do you support the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms? Many liberals are opposed to assault weapons when that is exactly the purpose the founders of this country had in mind when they preserved this right in the constitution. The right to bear arms was not so that they could go out and kill deer, but rather to protest against an abusive government and possibly go to war.
Question Numero Dos:
Do you support the right to life? When does an unborn child have rights? If you get into an accident and kill a woman and her pregnant child you are tried on two counts for murder, but yet a woman can have her fetus aborted right up until the third trimester with no consequences. If you kill sea turtle eggs on the beaches of Pensacola you can go to jail, but if you abort a baby you are just practicing your right to privacy.
I am just curious to see how North, Brian, and Ultra will answer these questions, but I would love to hear from every blogger on these two points.
SoCalSportsFan
Okay, so I knew what their position would be from the start, but it just goes to show liberals are only concerned about the freedoms that apply to them.
Yes, I'm sure the the most advanced military in the world (should one day Bush just decide to turn them on the US populace for whatever odd reason) would be deterred by a bunch of #### in a shack with AK-47s as opposed to just plain hand/shotguns. Seriously, that's pretty much the weakest arguement for anything ever.
And what? Are you gonna start carrying around your M-16 just in case a suicide bomber is on a bus with you? Stick with the hunting thing, the deer with the bullet proof vests on must be taken care of. In fact, just shut the #### up about politics in general and go back to crying about the foxsports writers.
Yeah, don't get my ire up after Pitt loses, or pretty much when any team I follow loses for that matter. Thank God the Penguins won or who knows what the hell I'd be saying
That is where I thought you would stand. Spin it anyway you want, but that is not how I believe the founding fathers meant the 2nd ammendment. They wrote that right after defeating the British Empire. It was written after defending liberty vs tyrrany.
As for abortion, just wanted to confirm you were believed it was okay to kill babies as long as the mom thinks its okay. I guess once they are born if she decides to kill them it is then murder, ala Susan Smith of South Carolina.
Ultra, your own link says the 5th Court of Appeals agrees it means for citizens to carry arms. While the wikipedia definition does say that some people believe it to mean a military, it plainly says that it is up for debate and the commonly accepted definition is for an ordinary citizen to "bear arms". At least give me something more solid than Travis Humor to argue with you about.
Just thought I would say read the 2nd Amendment where it has 2 different terms people and Militia. They are not 1 and the same. Otherwise they would not have used the word "people".
Travis you make absolutely no sense. You can't fast forward to 2006 and make that kind of case. The founders wanted the people to keep and bear arms regradless of what the military has. I think you have the weak arguement on this one.
ANother point wikipedia is not the Constitution. Can we at least say this? I am so sick of seeing Wikipedia referenced here. If you use Wikipedia in a court of law the judge would laugh at you.
LSU, the wikipedia definition even agrees with me on this one, so it is okay, but I hear you. Wikipedia is about as reliable as an Edsel automobile. It works occassionaly, but not all the time.
The people of that era (Founding Fathers times) also owned slaves, #### in outhouses, died at 40, and thought birds flew because of magic.
Times change, just because the 2nd amendment was what the founding fathers wanted doesn't mean it's not antiquated. Hey, buy up all the guns you want, I don't care. Just don't bring that noise about it protecting you from the gov't, cuz it won't if they really want to get you.
And LSU, I'm always over your head for whatever reason. Go back to coloring your books and let the grown ups talk
"Do you support the right to life? When does an unborn child have rights?"
Before I answer, I'd like to pose a quick question to you.
Are you aware that unwanted babies are more likely to become criminals?
In the late-80's to early-90's, crime was at an all-time high, criminologists were predicting the ultimate demise of society with massive increases in teen-violence and prophesizing mass-murder in epic proportions. But, all-of-a-sudden, the crime-rate plunged -- inexplicably. The reason: Roe vs. Wade.
In 1973, the trial of Roe v. Wade nationally legalized abortion -- in the early 90's these now-aborted children would have been entering their criminal primes. This explains for the drop in crime -- those children who were aborted never existed, and thus, the crime rate dropped. To further prove this point, it's important to look at the states which legalized abortion prior to Roe v. Wade -- among them is New York. Sure enough, New York's crime drop began sooner and decreased lower than that of other states.
A baby's brain isn't developed until 6 months through pregnancy, a woman has the right to chose what to do with her body. The baby is nothing put a part of her body, until it is conceived. It's not the government's place to teach morality to those who chose to have an abortion -- if the woman does not consider it to be killing a baby, then that's her decision, not the governments.
Abortion has had only a positive effect on society, and I'm all-for improving the lives of those who are living. Allowing children to be born who are unwanted is unfa
Travis, are you booked on any comedy tours? If not, you should be.
I think this "Second Amendment" thing is pointless. We're obviously not going to change each other's mind on it, and it's just going to turn into an "I'm right, you're wrong" argument. There's absolutely nothing to be gained from debating this.
I think a woman should have the right to abort her child until it is born. I don't think people should be able to have firearms. You disagree with my (and most liberals') stand on those two issues.
...unfair to both the mother (whose life will be dramatically changed, many times for the worse), and to the baby (who, in many cases, will grow up to be a miserable and impoverished criminal).
Rights apply to those who are living human beings, a baby who hasn't even developed a brain doesn't have rights. As soon as it's born, it does.
Abortion will happen, with or without it's legalization -- we've stated, in the 1973 Roe v. Wade trial that we believe abortion is all right. No longer can we effectively change back -- just look at Prohibition: we tried to illegalize something that had been legal for many years -- it failed miserably. If you want to get rid of abortion, you're too late.
It could possibly, and probably would, save millions of lives if it were legal -- but the conservatives of this land say it's also "killing babies." Cures to cancer can wait, just look at all of the multicellular diploid eukaryotes, in their earliest stage of development, that we're "killing."
In case you were wondering, this is an image of what we're "killing:"
C'mon people, every sperm that's ####d doesn't need a name. Let's not be melodramatic. When given the choice: Cancer-cure (possibly hundreds of other cures as well) or saving the pictured multicellular diploid eukaryotes, in their earliest stage of development -- I'll take the Cancer-Cure.
Any other hot-topic political issues you want to bring up, that way we can yell at one another even more?
Just kidding with you, SoCal, I'm happy to answer any question you ask -- so long as it's reasonable.
I asked two simple questions North. Ultra answered them, but you want to pose rhetorical situations. I believe abortion is wrong. I believe in the rights of citizens to own guns. You are worried about losing free speech, but not these two, or at least you have not answered plainly.
You want me to answer questions in a matter of second, but you won't answer my questions -- calling them "rhetorical situations." You asked do I support abortion, I answer, you asked why, I answered. In doing so, I asked a few questions back towards, you. What's wrong with that?
As far as the Second Amendmend, I understand it's origins -- and I offer a clean answer to your question:
It's important to realize that murder in this country is primarily of the gun-related nature. The problem: This amendment is being used out-of-its original context. It's also important to realize that guns are the problem, and not the solution. To say that making more guns to prevent the use of others is circular reasoning, and defying the principle that "Two wrongs don't make a right."
Note this: I don't think we should get rid of the Second Amendment.
I'll say that again: I don't think we should get rid of the Second Amendment. Please, don't group Ultra and I together -- it's quite possible that he has a different view on this, you'll have to ask him.
To bear arms means simply to serve as a soldier. What I support is GUN-CONTROL, I don't think that allowing everyone to own a hand-gun solves anything -- and I do believe that restrictions should be applied accordingly. This does not conflict with the amendment, at all. In pre-20th-century terms, this amendment provided that anyone with a means to arm himself could serve in a militia, which could -- in some way, shape, or form, act as a check on the government. Obviously, this isn't true anymore -- with the existence of nuclear weapons, missiles, and more advanced technology which isn't purchasable by the average American; a couple of privately-owned hand guns aren't going to stop a corrupt US government. If you ask me, if this government turns on it's people in a military standpoint, our rights no l
I read something very interesting recently, I think it was (god I cannot believe I am saying this), Paul Harveys book the rest of the story. He said that Two women were thinking of ending thier pregnancies, both women decided to go through with them after much debate, one was the mother of Beethoven (think of what we would have missed, the other was ####s mother (think of what we would have missed). I only bring them up because they are incredible situations to contemplate as far as what ifs. I will not enter this debate because nothing is gained, I know all involved and I know that nothing I say will matter and thus I just left you with a wierd comment that will at least make you think..what if.
...longer matter (which is why we must stand up for them and not allow this to happen).
But, since this Amendment is being taken out of it's original context, in today's society, it's only upping the death count each year. Guns kill. They're no longer an efficient way to act as a check on the government -- the should be limited in order to protect the citizens of this country. Hence, gun-control.
All citizens should have the right to bear arms -- that is, they should be able to serve as a soldier. Producing millions of hand-guns per year and distributing them to any given person on the streets isn't/wasn't the original intention for this right.
"I only bring them up because they are incredible situations to contemplate as far as what ifs."
Please -- we're not debating allohistory. The facts are, unwanted babies are more likely to grow up in poor circumstances, and more likely to become criminals. In your two presented cases, Beethoven would be the abberation, #### would be the norm. But, again, we're not debating allohistry -- it won't lead us anywhere but disagreement.
So in other words North, our rights can evolve and we can lose them over time if they are antiquaited. Then it is reasonable to assume we are under different circumstances today with terrorists who use planes as missiles and therefore it is okay to change the rights of citizens to protect us. Just using your logic. By the way, the right to bear arms according to the 5th Circuit court of appeals does not mean to be in the army, but means to own hand guns and rifles.
"By the way, the right to bear arms according to the 5th Circuit court of appeals does not mean to be in the army, but means to own hand guns and rifles."
And the Eighth Amendment means...the...right to protection from cruel and unusual...pun..ish..ment.
"So in other words North, our rights can evolve and we can lose them over time if they are antiquaited."
No -- that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the amendment is being taken out-of-context due to it's archaic nature. But that was a convincing Straw-Man argument. It's fine to clarify the meaning of an amendment (the Right to Bear Arms is the right to serve as a soldier); it's not fine to take them away.
"This is foxsports.com. I stress the word sports."
Please... How many times do we have to go over this. This is a BLOGGING website -- there are no rules which prevent political talk. Please, go ahead -- report SoCal; all he's doing is promoting discussion.
By the way, SoCal -- I respect your intentions, and I don't think that there's anything wrong with posting a politically-drive blog on this site. Just because we enjoy sports doesn't mean we should ignore government. I applaud you.
SoCal: Let's talk about abortion. While abortion is an ugly reality, we should hope for break-throughs in contraception that reduce the need for it; and the ability of women and men to have access to it. One can reasonably wonder whether most aborted fetuses suffer during their destruction on any level, but we cannot wonder about the suffering that millions of men, women and children who must endure the torments of war, famine, political torture, or mental illness. At this very moment, millions are suffering unimaginable physical and mental afflictions in circumstances where the compassion of "God" is nowhere to be seen, and the compassion of human beings is often hobbbled by preposterous ideas about sin and salvation. It has been estimated that 50% of all human contraception ends in spontaneous abortion w/o the women knowing it; and 20% of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is an obvious truth that calls out for attention: if God exists, He is the most prolific abortionist of all.
Northsider, clearly I wasn't debating ####, I gave a what if scenerio. It intrigued me to think of the world without the two. In one case the world loses and in the other they have a great victory, that was my only point. I quit debating on this site long ago when I wanted to rip a guys throat out for being an #### and I promised my wife that I would not get involved with #### that pissed me off to that point. Since my return to Foxblogs I have been true to my word, can't you see the point that I was making? It is a simple thought.
1) i support the right to bear arms. i think everyone should have a weapon. because of my background, i'm trained on several assault rifles. i know the purpose of the amendment, but i'll give up my M-4 if it means my batshit crazy neighbor cant have rocket launcher. assault weapons should bne liscenced like cars. we should retain the right to overthrow a poorly run government.
2)life begins at conception. by that i mean that life begins when that clump of cells takes the path towards sentience. the stats support that the majority of unwanted pregnancies is by women who have the means but not the desire to raise a child. the law doesnt protect rape victims, it enables million of college sluts and unhappily married women to murder their children. this i know. foolishly in love, i allowed a good country gal to assassinate my child. she told me it was because of her health - but i know it was because her hill-billy parents would have lynched he for conceiving a mixed baby. i saved the name i had for that child - a boy - and gave it to my current son.
look at the consensus numbers, abortions arent saving lives, theyre protecting sluts and people too dumb to keep up with their pill.
Last edited by demonicume on October 21st at 11:47 PM.
Let's look at the other issue that the right has lost its mind on, stem-cell research. so a blastocyst has 150 cells (a human embryo) and in comparison, a the brain of a house-fly has over 100,000 cells. The human embryos that are destroyed have no brains or EVEN NEURONS. A reasonable person would believe that they cannot suffer during their destruction in any way at all. Let's compare when a human being's brain has died, we currently deem it appropriate to harvest its organs and bury it in the ground. If it is acceptable to treat a person whose brain has died as something less than a human being, then it should be acceptable to treat a blastocyst as such. If you are concerned about suffering in the world related to stem-cells, then you should have greater moral difficulties in killing a fly or scratching your nose, which kills more cells than a blastocyst has, and that has more potential for life as a human being than a blastocyst. The ideas that a soul is in a petri dish is morally indefensible, given the possiblity that stem-cell research holds. Info taken from a great book "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris
Last edited by portman on October 21st at 11:40 PM.
are we losing freedoms? yes, and even republicans have to admit it. the administration worked legislation into the last security bill which protects government workers from prosecution. this is enough proof for me that they did something wrong. but there's plenty more. our phones are tapped. our internet usage is recorded. alberto gonzolez asked search companies to retain 'search' records. this can be used to track you down - it happened to a lady after the AOL fiasco. he's asked Microsoft to built security flaws known as back doors into the next operating system. this would allow the FBI or CIA to squat in your machine recording every mouse click. it would allow them to disable your machine. thankfully, microsoft refuse (at least public ally) this was a stupid request, because if some low paid, government hack can get into the security hole - i can. think on that for a minute.
Last edited by demonicume on October 21st at 11:45 PM.
On gun rights: I believe completely in the right to bear arms. I own many firearms and enjoy shooting up here in the Pacific Northwest. I fear losing my right to bear arms with this current administration more than I do with the Dems. GWB wants total control and he and his ilk know that the last impediment is our right to have guns. This is what scares me about neo-cons, they blindly believe that the right is for smaller govt., less intrusion yet the recent laws that were passed take away rights and make govt. more intrusive. This is George Orwell 1984 all over, and you think because "we are at war" we should roll over and give up all our rights. I can hear the neo-cons now, "Geez, the president believes that terrorists might get ahold of our guns, we will be great patriots if we give our guns to the govt., it will help the war effort and hurt the terrorists." This is how you neo-cons sound, GWB can do no wrong and if you question it, you are not patriotic.
Last edited by portman on October 22nd at 12:11 AM.
i'm ashamed for ya'll, SOCAL. looking at american history, Politicians have been able to scare white folks out of their rights no less than 3 times. its funny and sad at the same time. among my boyz, we do have one simple-minded guy who followswhatever the news says. but most times, when Cheney #### on a piece of paper and calls it Terror REPORT Brown - its white people rushing out to buy water and ammo. you can set your watch buy it. you could run a poll of my various friends and accurately guess their answers simply by the color of their skin. this is is how Bush stays in office. its amazing to watch it from the outside. its amazing to watch my own wife - a white lady - freak out everytime some #### changes the threat level to burnt umber. her family members call each other with warning. they exchange emergency number and everything. damn it, socal, i live in the country. any terrorist that wants to blow columbia is welcome to it. but its already been done once. but i never get calls from my friends or family warning of impending attacks. maybe they just dont love me.
for the record, my gal's family are all neo-cons. its truly an amazing process. i would also like to exclude any person no identified by my comment. if the shoe dont fit - dont wear it.
Last edited by demonicume on October 21st at 11:43 PM.
"So in other words North, our rights can evolve and we can lose them over time if they are antiquaited. Then it is reasonable to assume we are under different circumstances today with terrorists who use planes as missiles and therefore it is okay to change the rights of citizens to protect us. Just using your logic."
I'm pretty sure he's got you there North. You sit there and argue about how worried you are the the big bad Bush is infringing on your personal freedoms, listening to you talk to your mom about the underwear you left at home. And yet you try to bring the argument that as times change, so do our rights? Pick a stand and stick to it. I am a conservative but have little against liberals in their views. They're just differing opinions. This, however, is one thing I can't get my head around. Liberals flip-flop back and forth and twist words to fit whatever they want it to. You can claim that's politics in general, but you look at the politicians of today and see which side is doing it. It looks like you've followed suit.
Keep fighting the good fight, socal. I think you've got them on the run.
I have seen studies done that support the notion that more guns = less crime. The reasoning is that if a criminal knows you have a gun, or it is likely that you have a gun, he will be less likely to attack you. I have seen studies where an entire town are all given guns. They monitor the crime rate before they give them guns, and after they all have guns. The crime rate goes down.
Here's a link to something interesting I found. It's from a book called "The Seven Myths of Gun Control".
As for abortion, and unwanted babies, if a mother doesn't want her baby all she has to do is have the baby and put it up for adoption. There are plenty of couples out there who can't have babies for whatever reason, but would love to have a child. There is no reason that there should be any "unwanted babies" in this country. Killing them off is the easy way out. Try taking some responsibility for yourself.
SoCal - I tried not to comment here...but my White, Catholic, Conservative, Republican, War-Mongering personality forced me to.
I Support our right to bear arms. I do not support the right to carry concealed weapons.
I am pro life. I am anti-abortion.
I'm glad that I don't buy into propoganda that some people do. If so, I would actually believe that todays crime rate could be attested to WANTED children. Maybe we should abort all WANTED children to cut our crime rate even MORE. Silly.
Last edited by FlyingPig on October 22nd at 6:26 AM.
North, as long as you are civil with me you fear no personal attacks. That is not something I support and I delete comments that get personal.
Portman, all I want is an answer to the questions. When we debate the loss of the freedom of speech the liberals always say we get off track and keep saying, "but your liberties are eroding". The same thing is true here. Let me also say that at least you are being consistent and saying that you are afraid of George Bush taking away the 2nd ammendment. I for one do not worry about him trying to do that. It would alienate his base of support even more.
For those who want to bring in stem cell research, it is not a wise idea. If abortion is wrong, stem cell research has no bearing on legalizing it or not. Stem cell research continues all over the world with or without abortion. I have a Master's in Biology and I know the unadulterated facts on stem cell research. Placental chord blood is rich in stem cells and available at every hospital. We have ample supplies of this blood if harvested without killing babies. In fact, if you did away with the millions of abortions you would have more available to fight cancers as well.
DMitch, I think I also have North in this argument, but he will not see it that way. He has always been able to rationalize his position and I know I will not change his or Ultra's mind. My point is exactly that if one right can change over time because of society, so can others.
FP, thanks for commentings.
Demon, the shocker is I agree with you. Even though I support the 2nd ammendment, I do not support assualt weapons anymore, but it does help to make my argument against those that don't think we can change privacy laws. I also agree with you that abortion is used more often by people that just don't want kids and not always poor people. How about learning self control and using birth control?
Jgrace, you did suprise me with your answers. I also have seen those studies and I agree with you that adoption should be the goal and not abortion. How much would a young mother learn from this experience as opposed to just being able to go get an abortion. It would teach her to be less promiscuious.
Last edited by socalsportsfan on October 22nd at 7:41 AM.
SoCal, I am not going to get into this debate here, I just want to point out the inconsistencies of the liberal "ideology" and I use that term loosely. Liberals don't believe in capital punishment because it is "inhumane" however, they are more than OK with murdering a fully developed child through partial birth abortion.
They are all about the constitution as long as it is translated the way they want it. Freedom of speech only applies to politically correct speech. Freedom of religion is actually freedom from religion and that pesky 2nd amendment, well it's got that comma and a reference to a militia that you can work around, but it's that damned "shall not be infringed" part that really chaps their collective a$$e$. So with a lack of logical argument, they resort to their idea of humor or insults, which brings to the surface their elitist attitudes.
Hammertime, I agree with you. I did not bring up capital punishment, but if you believe in abortion you most certainly should be fine with capital punishment, but my guess is they feel that is cruel and unusual punishment. As for rights being infringed, I didn't know that terrorists were US citizens. You have to be a citizen to have your rights infringed. When someone goes to jail for having their emails read, then we can challenge this new law. These pro terrorists organizations that are upset their emails are read, have any been arrested? Were any silenced? I don't see their freedom of speech restricted in any way. They just don't like it when someone is listening besides their faithful followers.
"I'm pretty sure he's got you there North. You sit there and argue about how worried you are the the big bad Bush is infringing on your personal freedoms, listening to you talk to your mom about the underwear you left at home. And yet you try to bring the argument that as times change, so do our rights? Pick a stand and stick to it."
Heh. As if.
Any more ad hominem arguments you want to throw in there? I find it funny that you talk down to me, and yet, you're only a year older than I am. Felling pretty big today?
You failed to even read my posts -- SoCal understood what I was saying, you did not. I clarified my point right after SoCal challenged it:
It's okay to clarify an Amendment -- you can't take away rights that never existed (because, in reality, the Second Amendment is being taken out of it's context). It's NOT okay to take away rights. Do you need me to clarify what "The Right to Protection from Cruel and Unusual Punishment", is?
And -- given how it seems that you think you have everything figured out -- why haven't you responded to my points I made on SoCal's earlier blog, out of curiosity?
Grow up, please. If you want to debate here, don't resort to petty insults.
There are only like four people who are sports fans that understand what you guys are talking about... I'm not reporting anybody. He's a good writer, but can't you blog about this stuff somewhere else?
I don't know Scotts...if you look at today's athletes..the right to bear arms seems to be an ongoing theme!!
I believe in the right to bear arms, because I believe in the right for everyone to protect themselves. I was just telling my wife last night that I needed to go to my folks' house and get one of my shot guns to keep here in our apartment. I promised her I wouldn't keep it loaded..and I wouldn't keep it visible.
Citizens of the U.S. are not militia...therefore if this law is meant to protect citizens from one another, then I'm all for it. I am certainly for gun control. I believe rifles and shotguns should be applied for and registered just like handguns. Why not? If you don't have a criminal background, then what are you worried about? And I certainly don't believe in ANY conceled weapon.
As for abortion...men and women need to take responsibility for their actions. It is a REAL problem. And using abortion as an easy way out is WRONG!!! I am in agreement that if you are against capital punishment, you should be against abortion....because they are ALL innocent!!! GROW UP AMERICA!!!
Northsider...still waiting on your religion blog?!!
Last edited by fatmaw1 on October 22nd at 10:25 AM.
In our current state of medical technology abortions should be almost non-existant. With C-Section on demand women can pick the day to have a kid. There is only a very few medical conditions that would even require a legit abortion in the first place. All other abortions are simply for selfish reasons.
Socal the problem with saying you are against assualt rifles is what the left considers an assualt rifle. Alot of hunting guns are considering assualt rifles. Don't get me wrong having a bazooka is not ok but the term "assualt rifle" is very broad in general.
AS for stem cell research I think socal hit it head on. Does the end justify the means? I mean what are we really talking about here? Killing life for life. Cord blood has cured more diseases then embryonic stem cells have.
"There are only like four people who are sports fans that understand what you guys are talking about"
So you're contending that the four who know are all present right now? As much as I love sports, government and current events is far more important -- it's essencial that all levels of society know what's going on in their country. If they do not, the government will just as easily manipulate it's citizens -- even Republicans will agree with me on this: People must be aware of their government's actions.
"DMitch, I think I also have North in this argument, but he will not see it that way. He has always been able to rationalize his position and I know I will not change his or Ultra's mind. My point is exactly that if one right can change over time because of society, so can others."
I can at least applaud you for refraining from the childish ad hominem arguments that DMitch differed to. But, I wasn't quite explicitly clear on my point in my first posts, so hopefully the above explanation makes more sense for you.
I almost answered these questions, but then decided that it could come back to bite me if I ever decided to run for office. My lawyer allowed me to provide this prepared statement:
"These are very serious issues, and all alternatives should be examined very closely. I would be happy to look into them, provided that the citizens of this great country make me rich beyond belief...and elect me as President. Your money...I mean, your support is appreciated."
