Will "abortion rights" kill our fight for the Second Amendment?

[AndreusMaximus]

Great post. I wish I could do more than give you a thumbs-up for it!

Thanks. And thank you, too, for the honest reply.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Great post. I wish I could do more than give you a thumbs-up for it!

Also, sorry, lol, Twangbanger posted while I was typing, otherwise I probably wouldn't have tried throwing a second giant wall of text at you.

 

[Creedmoor]

Folks, BW has asked that the conversation be confined to any possible effects this will have on 2A rights. Let’s do that instead of another useless abortion thread. If we’re only interested in discussing abortion, I’ll gladly lock this one down and you can start one in the political section.

Its not looking like some are paying attention.

 

[KellyinAvon]

At the risk of dragging this back to topic: amending a Constitution SHOULD BE HARD.

 

[ditcherman]

Its not looking like some are paying attention.

It's a great read, there is no animosity or baiting in there!
Just genuine curiosity and learning.
Let them talk.

 

[Creedmoor]

It's a great read, there is no animosity or baiting in there!
Just genuine curiosity and learning.
Let them talk.

Let me put in the other opinion in and see how much better it can get. lol

 

[chipbennett]

But allowing a small number of counties to stymy a referendum was the _point_. The Pro Life movement wanted abortion left to the states, but the states aren't behaving the way they wanted. They're afraid enough signatures could be collected in urban counties to get referenda on the ballot against the wishes of rural counties. So they went for the quad-fecta: a 60% passage threshold, two requirements related to the percentage and geographic distribution of petition signatures, and a final "F-U" measure dropping the ability of referendum-seekers to collect replacement signatures if the original ones are challenged.

IMHO, constitutional amendments should require super-majorities, not merely 50% +1. Constitutional amendment by straight majority is a recipe for mob rule, and undermines protection of rights for the minority.

 

[chipbennett]

Many people take that position. Others don't. Now the voters in each state can, through their elected representatives, choose what their laws are in this regard. I'm good with that.

In principle, I'm okay with that, too.

However, majority/mob rule shouldn't be able to override natural rights for minorities. Those on the pro-life side of the argument (not that there's any doubt, but I am on that side of the argument) believe that the unborn are living human beings who are equally endowed with all human rights. As such, those on the pro-life side of the argument see a direct analogy to the majority voting against abolition of slavery/against human rights for slaves: just because the majority votes in a certain way doesn't mean that what has been rendered as legal is therefore also moral. Southern states voted in the majority to uphold slavery; does that make such majority rule just?

(Yes, I know that those on the other side of the argument disagree with the fundamental position that underpins the pro-life policy preference; I'm not going to argue that fundamental position in this thread. There are other threads for that argument.)

 

[chipbennett]

Let's please save the abortion argument for the politics section, OK?

This discussion is about how our 2A fight can survive the "abortion rights" voter numbers. Can it?

A lotta folks do not realize that the reason the "red wave," expected to win us the Senate and House in 2020, did not happen was due to the SCOTUS decision on abortion.

The dems successfully played their "women's health" card again in 2020. Will it be successfully again in 2024, leaving the 2A in the wake of the liberal victory?

.

It's more likely that the "red wave" didn't happen because the GOP put up some crap candidates, and the Democrats have mastered ballot harvesting while the GOP twiddles their thumbs.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Gun control may be about government control to the politicians supporting it. But the problem is, it really _is_ about public safety, in the minds of people like my wife's Aunt. They want a society where people don't get shot. And they really think countries like Japan are examples of where somebody "got it right," and figured out how to legislate peace and safety and pacifism into real-world existence...by technocrats simply passing the right laws with the right language.

Wow…this is also an awesome post!

Unfortunately, yes…there is a belief on the left that order can be established through legislation and enforced through police action.

I also strongly disagree with this view.

Good post. Without being overly deep, I grew up in the 70s and 80s, and followed the opposite path of you. I was not a gigantic Reagan fan. My family came from coal miners who spent much of their lives in "company towns" being paid with scrip books (until the post-WW2 "factory economy" of the North gave them an escape route). Until WW2, the Republican party of Warren Harding was interested in things like sticking up for coal companies and crushing miner strikes. WW2 changed the Republican party and turned it into a Big Government party, which just had different "big government priorities" (eg. foreign policy intervention) than Democrats. Ronald Reagan put a different face on the party, and attracted "New Deal Democrats" into the fold*. The illusion was that Reagan was small government personified. But the Party of Reagan was not a small goverment party. It combined the interests of Big Government New Deal Democrats with those of Big Government "I like Ike" Military Foreign Policy Interventionists, and tried to "fake" a small government facade onto the front of that. In reality, we have to understand the "Reagan Revolution" would never have been possible without the New Deal Democrats he attracted to the party. Reagan cobbled together a lot of Big Government enthusiasts from both sides to create his winning coalition, and without those people on board, you're right back to the Harding/Coolidge/Hoover GOP of the 1930s. And that idea-set is not able to win elections in the post-WW2 era, which (I think) is a big part of the Republican Party's problem right now. It's trying to put a Calvin Coolidge policy-set in front of Republican voters who were raised on the big government aims of the New Deal and The Cold War. It's dusting off a type of Republicanism that has been locked in the basement since the 1930s - crushing coal miner strikes and keeping corporations firmly in control of common people's economic lives - and putting a modern "spin"on that with regard to Free Trade and Immigration - and selling it to people against a Democrat Party who is offering people all the Free Sh.t in the world. And they're losing. People don't want to go back to a George Will pre-WW2 1930s vision of America where less than 40% owned their own home, most people paid rent to a landlord until they were too old to work and had to move in with relatives, and the majority of Americans died penniless. And widespread dissatisfaction with the Iraq War then peeled even more Republicans off the coalition Reagan put together.

Ronald Reagan Republicans believe World War 2 made America great.

Calvin Coolidge Republicans believe World War 2, and the social changes it brought about, destroyed most of what was previously great about America.

See the difference?

There is a real rift there. And it is coming back into view clearly, after being hidden for most of our lifetimes. I would bet many so-called "conservatives" are not even aware of this factor, or the historical underpinnings of it.

There is a lot here, and I really appreciate your insight on this…you make some really potent points about the “Coolidge ” paradigm in contrast to the ”Reagen” paradigm…this has got me chewing on some long-standing ideological errata that has cluttered my mind for some decades now.

Good stuff!!!

I say all this, to say - the Republican Party is not a party of individual liberty. At least not since WW2. It is a party that believed on putting Big Government spending behind the "right" priorities - which were simply the opposite of what Democrats wanted to spend it on. As such, the Republican Party is not in any way aligned with Pro-Choice ideals on abortion...never was, never could be. Its Libertarianism is limited to the Milton Friedman type that benefits corporations - not individuals. They will let you keep your guns, up to a point, as long as it doesn't hurt their donors' pocketbooks too bad. But their real game is crushing miner strikes (old school), or importing a low-wage immigrant underclass to undercut wages of those already here, and offshoring good factory jobs to hell-hole countries with cheap labor (new school).

Man…this cuts right to the core of the issue: the party just isn’t broadly representative for me.

Your view is, in my opinion, salient.

On social issues, they very much want to impose their values on others. The Ohio Referendum is the perfect example. Outside of guns, there really is no "individual liberty" basis in the Republican Party, which would not be better described as a platform of letting corporations do whatever they want...with some trickledown benefits to ordinary people (until and unless the Oligarchy figures out how to undercut those if it affects their bottom line too much).

I’m glad you said it…I agree. Totally. I don’t think this idea would be well received if I posted it, lol.

On guns, specifically the Parkland incident you mention - what do you believe is wrong with the Republican position as regards school shootings? What should they change? Should they be more open to AW restrictions? There is another thread right now, about a 2018 Noblesville school shooter who is up for release to his parents' supervision, which perfectly summarizes (I think) the differences in the Republican and Democrat positions on school shootings. Here is an individual who is probably going to end up shooting people again, if released. But our compassionate society likes the idea of rehabilitating people. So I'm just wondering about your thoughts on that.

(*Yes, I realize he fired the Air Traffic Controllers early in his presidency, to pay homage to the Milton Friedman wing of his party. I think this is properly viewed as a one-off event designed to shore up his credibility with the Libertarian Economic Wing of the GOP).

This is where I am much less secure in my position…what should the Republicans be doing differently on guns?

Well, I think we need an ideological breakthrough with left-leaning voters on guns, but I’m afraid it would have to come from the left itself. That ship may have already sailed, but republicans really need voters to see the 2A as an American value, not a republican one,

I think they could step up rhetoric on personal responsibility and legal liability for the criminal use of their legally-possessed arms.

Specifically, I think there is air in the room enouh to talk about holding gun owners legally responsible when their arms fall into the hands of a criminal shooter, whether negligently or deliberately. In other words, if you don’t secure your guns and your kid shoots up a school with it, you should face criminal liability as well as the shooter.

They have to try something…else they look like they care more about punishing promiscuous women than saving the lives of actual children.

Great post...you have given me a lot to think about.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

They have to try something

I agree with most of your post, but I think this has been the problem with most gun laws. Most of us can agree that criminals aren't going to pay attention to new stricter gun laws, but it doesn't stop legislators from creating more and more all the time. And of course each one only infringes on the law abiding and does nothing to curb the criminals' behavior.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Lots of thoughts there; thanks for the insight into you thinking. I'm afraid I don't have time right now to give a good response to everything, but if you don't mind, I do have just a couple more questions.

I don’t mind at all…this is the kind of dialog I come here for.

I am glad there are others willing to engage. Thank you.

First, what was/were the main issue/issues that made you decide to vote Democrat in 2004? Reading between the lines, it sounded at first to me like it had to do with the whole war in Iraq, and the trampling on individual rights with things like the patriot act, etc. But that would confuse me a bit, because it seems like you see Republicans as moving further away from your ideals in more recent times, whereas it looks to me like Republicans (or at least the younger ones, or those newer to politics) have, in general, started to move more towards denouncing foreign wars like the Iraq war, etc, and come more towards a support of individual liberty over state security. Does that line up with your perception, or am I off-base here?

No, you are definitely on-target here!

The Iraq war and the patriot act were the largest motivators...that’s not conservative, that’s authoritarian…I couldn’t vote for W a second time.

Also, I agree that it seems Republicans have, in general, moved to the right on 2A issues over the past couple of decades. I think you're right about their messaging seeing a big shift in that time frame, too. However, while I don't want to sound like a toddler playing the "he started it" game, I seems to me like this shift happened on the left, first, and is now pretty much a hallmark of any political debate, no matter which side you look at.

Yep, agreed.

But laying aside issues of messaging, it seems that we would agree that the issue facing Republicans, and by extension our fight for 2A rights, is not so much that they've moved further to the right on abortion, but that society has moved further left, correct?

I have to agree: society continues to move left, which lends the appearance of republicans moving right.

There is a difference, but I think the result is the same.

Finally, more of a side note, but I guess I just fundamentally don't understand the idea of pro-abortion being an "individual liberty" stance. It seems to me that it comes down to one simple question: do you believe that a child in the womb is a human being with rights, or a blob of tissue with no rights? If you believe the former, well, I don't think anyone believes that killing another human being falls within the purview of "individual liberty." That it is the government's job to stop people from killing other, innocent people, is one thing we can all agree on, I think? But if you believe the latter (that a fetus in the womb has no human right to life) then of course it makes logical sense to say that the government shouldn't interfere.

I don't think I know of anyone who thinks that a an unborn child is a human with a right to life, but still thinks abortion should be up to individual choice. Conversely, I don't know of anyone who thinks a fetus in the womb is just a clump of cells with no right, but still thinks the government should outlaw abortion.

So, to get to my question; if I started from the premise that a fetus in the womb is not a human being in the sense of having human rights, then I would grant as a logical conclusion that abortion should be 100% legal with no government interference. So I'm curious to know: IF you granted the premise of a fetus in the womb having the same right to life as any other human being, would you still believe that the government shouldn't outlaw abortion?

I would agree…if I granted that premise...still not at a federal level though.

It should be no real surprise that I do not...


…and I want to try to explain as best I can.

From my perspective a person who lives inside another person does not have the same rights as those who live on their own…it is my view that the life of an unborn child belongs to the mother, not the state.

Sorry, that last question may have gotten a little off the rails again for this thread, so feel free to just ignore it if you feel that's better.

Yeah, I hope we aren’t running afoul of the spirit of the thread, I don‘t want to ignore BWs intent for the thread and hijack it for my own purposes.

I don’t think we are, it’s been a productive conversation from my perspective.

 

[bwframe]

It's more likely that the "red wave" didn't happen because the GOP put up some crap candidates, and the Democrats have mastered ballot harvesting while the GOP twiddles their thumbs.

That's the story some want us to believe. It get's repeated a lot.

Maybe the story should have been repeated in this election in Ohio? I'm just a dummy, but it sure looks like the abortion crowd won and are taking victory laps there? Strangely similar to the 2020 mid-terms?

 

[Twangbanger]

That's the story some want us to believe. It get's repeated a lot.

Maybe the story should have been repeated in this election in Ohio? I'm just a dummy, but it sure looks like the abortion crowd won and are taking victory laps there? Strangely similar to the 2020 mid-terms?

The GOP is making so many missteps, it gets hard to parse them out and assign differential responsibility to the individual mistakes.

But over time, keeping those college-educated, single, and/or democrat women stirred up is an incoming tide the GOP is going to struggle to swim against.

So I'll revise my position, slightly...if 2A rights ever come down to the GOP's ability to hold governing majorities...then yes, the constant onslaught of abortion laws and referenda keeps the hornet nest stirred, and eventually, probably undermines the 2A sooner. Again, the GOP gets so much wrong, it's hard to pinpoint exactly when this pushes the teetering clown-car over the cliff.

 

[Twangbanger]

IMHO, constitutional amendments should require super-majorities, not merely 50% +1. Constitutional amendment by straight majority is a recipe for mob rule, and undermines protection of rights for the minority.

Mob Rule means trampling the actual, constitutional rights of a minority.

At what point does that occur in Ohio? Does Mob Rule occur at:

53%?
57%?
59.5%?
59.9%?
59.99995%?

Why is Dick Uihlein's 60% the magic number of legitimacy? Why not 61%? Why not 75%? Why not 85%? Why should _any_ percentage of vote be allowed to trample the actual rights of a minority?

You know what happened in Ohio Tuesday isn't Mob Rule. That's why you used the weasel-phrase, "recipe for."

 

[chipbennett]

Mob Rule means trampling the actual, constitutional rights of a minority.

At what point does that occur in Ohio? Does Mob Rule occur at:

53%?
57%?
59.5%?
59.9%?
59.99995%?

Why is Dick Uihlein's 60% the magic number of legitimacy? Why not 61%? Why not 75%? Why not 85%? Why should _any_ percentage of vote be allowed to trample the actual rights of a minority?

You know what happened in Ohio Tuesday isn't Mob Rule. That's why you used the weasel-phrase, "recipe for."

Where did I say anything specifically about what happened in Ohio? Where did I claim that the outcome of that particular referendum was "mob rule"?

INGO is full of Straw Men today, it seems.

 

[Ingomike]

That's the story some want us to believe. It get's repeated a lot.

Maybe the story should have been repeated in this election in Ohio? I'm just a dummy, but it sure looks like the abortion crowd won and are taking victory laps there? Strangely similar to the 2020 mid-terms?

Sometimes things are not a binary as they seem. There were some onerous extra rules they put in the referendum that would have made it impossible to pass an amendment.

 

[Twangbanger]

Where did I say anything specifically about what happened in Ohio? Where did I claim that the outcome of that particular referendum was "mob rule"?

INGO is full of Straw Men today, it seems.

Pardon me if I misconstrued, but in your post #47, you replied to my post #11, and that post was very specific to the Ohio result. If you had no opinion on the Ohio result, which was what the OP and I both referenced, then it wouldn't seem there was any reason to respond.

But anyhoo, if you say you're not talking about Ohio, I'll humor that. But I was asking a simple question. Which you are free to ignore. Since you brought up Mob Rule - even in the abstract as you claim - do you think what happened in Ohio Tuesday constitutes a pathway to Mob Rule? Just a yes or no is fine. Or not, if you choose. We're all about gentlemanly conversation here. I've no intention of dragging you against your will into something you claim you're not interested in. Even though you responded to it

 

[BugI02]

So you can't show your work either...

Seems kind of pointless if we have to let you define what a child is. Why is it that a pregnant woman is described as being 'with child'?

I've often thought it would be hilarious if some male brought a suit about abortion
based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, stipulating that biological fathers are being treated unequally under the law because they are not allowed to kill their children in the womb and women are. If it then shook out that fathers were given equal say in whether to abort or not it would serve them right

 

[Creedmoor]

Seems kind of pointless if we have to let you define what a child is. Why is it that a pregnant woman is described as being 'with child'?

I've often thought it would be hilarious if some male brought a suit about abortion
based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, stipulating that biological fathers are being treated unequally under the law because they are not allowed to kill their children in the womb and women are. If it then shook out that fathers were given equal say in whether to abort or not it would serve them right

We have been asked twice to stop with the abortion in this thread.