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

[BugI02]

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.


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.

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).

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).

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).

excellent post

 

[KellyinAvon]

Between the ditches folks.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Between the ditches folks.

Maybe some threads need some of these...

 

[BugI02]

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

The historical perspective for Ohio is that there was not a right for citizens to introduce legislation by referendum or propose constitutional amendments until 1912, and Republican legislators, as well as some Democrats, fought the idea tooth and nail. It took 9 years to get to the point that the legislature could be convinced to advance that change. The push was driven largely by the issues of temperance and women's suffrage, and the threshold was set at simple majority from the beginning

From what I could see, the measure faced an uphill climb because it was a transparent attempt to tighten the rules just ahead of an abortion rights amendment, so gave the appearance of an underhanded anti-democratic strategem , and many of the same voices squawking 'Save Our Constitution' could not be bothered to object to enshrining in that constitution both a directive on the number, location and kind of casinos that would be allowed to be established as well as who and how many cronies would be allowed to grow marijuana commercially in Ohio. It was apparent that the GOP was only interested in saving the state constitution when there was no payoff in it for them

As it was, it wasn't all bad news. Turnout was higher than usual but nowhere near record territory for a referendum (800k+) and the issue won 57% to 43% which underperformed the polling on the abortion rights question (59% to 41%). I would conclude even with the tons of out of state money deployed on both sides, abortion is no more of a driver now than it has ever been. By trying to push the envelop on abortion restrictions, those in favor of more restrictions will probably get a worse deal than they could have had but it is their own fault. They clearly knew the electorate was unlikely to go along with it

 

[Dechrissen]

The historical perspective for Ohio is that there was not a right for citizens to introduce legislation by referendum or propose constitutional amendments until 1912, and Republican legislators, as well as some Democrats, fought the idea tooth and nail. It took 9 years to get to the point that the legislature could be convinced to advance that change. The push was driven largely by the issues of temperance and women's suffrage, and the threshold was set at simple majority from the beginning

From what I could see, the measure faced an uphill climb because it was a transparent attempt to tighten the rules just ahead of an abortion rights amendment, so gave the appearance of an underhanded anti-democratic strategem , and many of the same voices squawking 'Save Our Constitution' could not be bothered to object to enshrining in that constitution both a directive on the number, location and kind of casinos that would be allowed to be established as well as who and how many cronies would be allowed to grow marijuana commercially in Ohio. It was apparent that the GOP was only interested in saving the state constitution when there was no payoff in it for them

As it was, it wasn't all bad news. Turnout was higher than usual but nowhere near record territory for a referendum (800k+) and the issue won 57% to 43% which underperformed the polling on the abortion rights question (59% to 41%). I would conclude even with the tons of out of state money deployed on both sides, abortion is no more of a driver now than it has ever been. By trying to push the envelop on abortion restrictions, those in favor of more restrictions will probably get a worse deal than they could have had but it is their own fault. They clearly knew the electorate was unlikely to go along with it

I don't want to derail this conversation, it's an interesting read, but I wish you would change your text color back to black. It's really not pleasant on the eyes, nor typographically correct. No offense to you. I just constantly skip reading your posts because it's hard to look at.

 

[KellyinAvon]

The historical perspective for Ohio is that there was not a right for citizens to introduce legislation by referendum or propose constitutional amendments until 1912, and Republican legislators, as well as some Democrats, fought the idea tooth and nail. It took 9 years to get to the point that the legislature could be convinced to advance that change. The push was driven largely by the issues of temperance and women's suffrage, and the threshold was set at simple majority from the beginning

From what I could see, the measure faced an uphill climb because it was a transparent attempt to tighten the rules just ahead of an abortion rights amendment, so gave the appearance of an underhanded anti-democratic strategem , and many of the same voices squawking 'Save Our Constitution' could not be bothered to object to enshrining in that constitution both a directive on the number, location and kind of casinos that would be allowed to be established as well as who and how many cronies would be allowed to grow marijuana commercially in Ohio. It was apparent that the GOP was only interested in saving the state constitution when there was no payoff in it for them

As it was, it wasn't all bad news. Turnout was higher than usual but nowhere near record territory for a referendum (800k+) and the issue won 57% to 43% which underperformed the polling on the abortion rights question (59% to 41%). I would conclude even with the tons of out of state money deployed on both sides, abortion is no more of a driver now than it has ever been. By trying to push the envelop on abortion restrictions, those in favor of more restrictions will probably get a worse deal than they could have had but it is their own fault. They clearly knew the electorate was unlikely to go along with it

I'm not from Ohio, but I have family just south of you in Circleville. It always amazed me how a State like Ohio could elect Howard Metzenbaum to office for like 50 years.

I have cousins that went to Ohio State and Miami of Ohio. I had (passed on in 2016) an uncle who was quoted as saying, "I wouldn't send my dog to Ohio University."

I was a Florida resident for a lot of years. WAY too easy to amend the State Constitution there. Basically get it on the ballot with the "Yes" choice and it passed.

I know amending the US Constitution is really hard (as the Founders intended) and it's not easy in Indiana as I learned this year. Simple majority on one vote? Seems a bit crazy to me.

 

[chipbennett]

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

So, to clarify: I think that the status quo in Ohio can facilitate mob rule, because the constitution can be amended with a 50%+1 vote. Pure democracy does facilitate mob rule, because simple majority can be used to trample the natural rights of the minority. Thus, my belief that a) constitutional provisions constitute rule of law that upholds natural rights, and b) changing those constitutional provisions should require something more than mere simple majority.

I don't have much of an opinion on the referendum in Ohio, because I haven't informed myself of the details or specifics. I support its purported end - i.e. to require a supermajority to amend the Ohio constitution - but I don't know its specifics, how it was promoted, or how it was opposed. I defer to your informed opinion on the specific referendum, and from what you described, I can understand why it failed. I'm not sure that even I would vote in favor of it, as-written. I was merely voicing support of the underlying principle. No more, no less.

 

[Dean C.]

I would just like Indiana to allow referendums period, our state legislature needs to collectively just retire.

 

[INPatriot]

The Harpies, Bernies, and General-Low-Lifes have always been around in great quantities. The rest of us have been outnumbered since the day the Dead White Men walked out of Constitution Hall in Philadelphia.

The key has always been keeping this massive Democrat constituency un-engaged and not voting. No matter how bad things ever got in America, it rarely interfered with people walking down to King-Kwik to buy beer and lottery tickets. Things have been relatively easy in this country for a long time. All of which keeps the marginal democrat voter home, happy as a pig in slop, and most importantly, not voting. We always knew if the Democrats could get those people to show up on Election Day, with some hot burning issue in their hearts, the Republic was finished. The strength of America lay in maintaining general prosperity, and not giving people that burning platform to be mad about.

Now, with mail ballots, Trump, and the repeal of RvW and Affirmative Action, the hornet's nest has been whacked. And we can't seem to keep wealthy Pro-Life Republican donors from whacking it, again and again.

We have to hope that enough people see the value in the 2A, because Republican governing majorities will be shaky ground from now on. Once Republicans start turning against the 2A, and getting away with it, that will be the beginning of the end. People like Jefferson Shreve have to be melted into a blob right where they stand.

100%

 

[bwframe]

Ohio voters clarify the regional mindset on abortion • Indiana Capital Chronicle

42 days after Dobbs, Indiana passed a near total abortion ban. Every other state in the region is now moving the opposite direction.

indianacapitalchronicle.com

 

[Creedmoor]

Ohio voters clarify the regional mindset on abortion • Indiana Capital Chronicle

42 days after Dobbs, Indiana passed a near total abortion ban. Every other state in the region is now moving the opposite direction.

indianacapitalchronicle.com

And this has what to do with, the 2nd Amendment?

 

[bwframe]

And this has what to do with, the 2nd Amendment?

As outlined throughout this thread, abortion militants may leave their marginal support for the 2A behind in their quest to get their "women's health," back?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...ith-abortion-gun-bills-ahead-2024-2023-06-29/

On 'anniversaries,' CT Democrats see abortion, guns vital for '24

Connecticut Democrats see guns and reproductive rights as wedge issues, even if CT already has some of the nation’s strongest laws.

ctmirror.org

Democrats focus on issues from abortion to gun control ahead of November elections

Democrats have a slim majority in the state Senate, and they are hoping to keep control this year. Party leaders are trying to outline the issues.

www.wvtf.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/30/democrat-attorneys-general-abortion-guns/

 

[Ingomike]

This writer agrees with the premise of the thread.

The Abortion Battle Is Killing Republicans and Ushering in Communism

The Republicans had a wonderful chance to score an abortion victory but, in typical Republican style, drop-kicked the ball out of bounds.

pjmedia.com

 

[bwframe]

Trump in South Dakota: Decision to overturn Roe v. Wade ‘probably cost’ GOP politically

Former President Trump told a crowd in South Dakota on Friday that the Supreme Court’s decision to remove federal abortion rights protections “probably cost” the Republican Party politically, but w…

thehill.com

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

ObamaCare cost the democrats politically. They did it anyway because they thought it was the right thing to do. A few years later, and they’re back in control of the WH and congress. Even their disastrous handling of covid cost them some but they appear to be ready to do it all over again, if given a chance. Republicans are afraid of losing the next election over actually trying to fix the things they campaign on to get elected in the first place.

 

[bwframe]

ObamaCare cost the democrats politically. They did it anyway because they thought it was the right thing to do. A few years later, and they’re back in control of the WH and congress. Even their disastrous handling of covid cost them some but they appear to be ready to do it all over again, if given a chance. Republicans are afraid of losing the next election over actually trying to fix the things they campaign on to get elected in the first place.

That's certainly the question. Trump's SCOTUS gave us the the win. Arguably, the poor timing was forced on us by the mysterious "leak" from a liberal judge's office?

Now do we throw salt in the wound of a generation women (and libs) indoctrinated by our education system that abortion is "women's health?"

Do we take the loss to our 2A as collateral damage in our effort to solidify a change to something that has been effect for 50 years?

Is a permanent win on abortion (that the Senate would never vote in,) worth the consequences to the 2A that dem majorities in the House, Senate and Whitehouse could easily make happen?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That's certainly the question. Trump's SCOTUS gave us the the win. Arguably, the poor timing was forced on us by the mysterious "leak" from a liberal judge's office?

Now do we throw salt in the wound of a generation women (and libs) indoctrinated by our education system that abortion is "women's health?"

Do we take the loss to our 2A as collateral damage in our effort to solidify a change to something that has been effect for 50 years?

Is a permanent win on abortion (that the Senate would never vote in,) worth the consequences to the 2A that dem majorities in the House, Senate and Whitehouse could easily make happen?

If only the fudds and butters locked step with us as (seemingly) all abortion advocates march together. That would help.

 

[bwframe]

If only the fudds and butters locked step with us as (seemingly) all abortion advocates march together. That would help.

This is exactly right. If only...?

We need to come up with better messaging to bring unity to gun owners. We need to educate all of ours as to why we must stick together vs the "I have mine, sorry about yours" attitude.

Maybe we need to start by not calling names? How many of our numbers in the fight have been lost to being negatively branded for not being in link step?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This is exactly right. If only...?

We need to come up with better messaging to bring unity to gun owners. We need to educate all of ours as to why we must stick together vs the "I have mine, sorry about yours" attitude.

Maybe we need to start by not calling names? How many of our numbers in the fight have been lost to being negatively branded for not being in link step?

Maybe we should do what the pro-abortion crowd does. They don't seem to entertain any descent.

 

[bwframe]

Seems like a time to look at this thread again?

Next election, will our Second Amendment rights get caught in the "abortion rights" toilet swirl?