A gun owner holsters her weapon for no reason!

I found this story a few days ago, and immediately didn't like it.  A picture of a child with a shoulder-fired missile.  That was an immediate red flag that the article would be superfluous and full of nonsense.

" I can honestly tell you that I have not seen a gun sale that didn’t seem worthy of a short background check, nor have I seen a sale impeded by that process."

I'd hazard a guess that she's never seen a gun sale by a dealer WITHOUT a background check, either.  There is no 'loophole' for gun shows.  Any dealer MUST do a background check.  A private citizen selling to a private citizen does not have to do one.  If you think it's a 'loophole', then you won't like this article.  Whether at a gun show or at home selling to a friend, a private sale doesn't have to do a background check in many states.

"I have never seen any form of wild game hunted with one of the guns that was once banned under the previous assault weapons ban.I have never seen a sportsman with a magazine on his gun and I have never seen a competition shooter loaded down with more than a few bullets either."

And the Constitution mentions hunting as a reason for owning guns zero times.  Thanks for bringing up an irrelevant point.  Same with sportsman.  The Constitution says the following,

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing about hunting, nothing about target practice.  Maintaining freedom.  And let me add this; the weapons used by many colonists were superior to British muskets.  They were accurate long rifles that they had used to stay alive.  Even with a superior firearm, if you don't have a lifetime dedicated to combat that your adversary does, you're at a disadvantage.

"I have never seen a gun law that would impede any lawful or sane individual from any of the rational or common uses for guns  – and I come from a gun-toting Wyoming family."

Then my guess is you haven't seen the proposed laws or have a very limited view of 'rational' or 'common'.  What is considered rational and by whom?  What do you consider common?  Should we disregard the constitutional reason for guns just because it's not common or because someone doesn't see it as rational?

"Not one liberal gun control law would harm any of those people or their second amendment rights."

Really?  I own a gun that would be on the list.  Why should I get it taken away?



But NOW, she gets to her point.  She sucks people in with guns and switches to abortion.

"On the flip side, I can think of women I know, women I will never meet, women I’ve known and women I love dearly who are now and will be further impacted by the 694 new proposed laws infringing on our 14th amendment right to health and privacy which include a right to an abortion and other private health choices."

I'm assuming she's talking about section 1, which loosely fits... about as well as the 'good and welfare clause'

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I'm not sure how stopping abortions would deprive anyone of life.  Liberty?  Property?  Equal protection?  I'm really not sure how this fits.  If the mother's life is at risk, the people that make that decision are the family, plain and simple.  If I were in the situation, I'd choose my wife over the child because I make a commitment to her when I say "I do".  With the options we have for surgeries these days, I think this response, however, is based on emotions, not evidence.  I know a woman who was having serious issues with the birth of her child.  Were her life in danger, they would have performed a C-Section or induced, but it wasn't.
The question I have is this:  Is there another option?
If the baby can't be afforded, is there another option?  Adoption!
If the baby is a response to rape or incest, is there another option to keeping the baby?  Adoption!  Why should the baby be punished?
If the health of the mother is at risk, is there another option?  From my admittedly limited knowledge on the subject, I say yes.  The baby can be born early, not born 'naturally' (C-section), or killed.  Killing it should be the last option.

"Former VP wannabe, Paul Ryan, may dream of a country where abortion is never considered. I dream of one where the constitutionally protected right to life and the pursuit of happiness that the GOP is so concerned about when they think it applies to zygotes, is never threatened by a gun toting intruder in a first grade classroom.

I dream of an America where lock downs in elementary schools aren’t even considered.When living, breathing, first graders can learn to read, safe from lunatics and gunfire… Then I propose that we can stop and go out to the shooting range and blow some shit up just to let off steam in our oh so destructive patriotism."

Well, ma'am, it does exist.  If you look at mass shootings, they're held at 'soft targets' for a reason.  The person committing the atrocity is generally a coward who kills himself upon the cops' arrival (except for James Holmes who was not mentally stable) and wants as little interference as possible.  Many who commit these atrocities should have been put into insane asylums, not allowed to wander.  Many were on 'helpful drugs' which may not have been all that helpful.

What you're asking for, ma'am, is that law abiding citizens give up their rights for the minority who already isn't even allowed to own guns.  Lanza tried buying a gun and couldn't, he stole his mom's.  Loughner was pulled over before his killing spree and let go; he was also not allowed to buy ammunition.

What would the murder rate in this country be outside of a few cities?  What would the gun murder rate be without just 2 (Chicago and Washington DC)?  How come gun free cities like that have such high rates and how do you make criminals follow the laws passed by overzealous lawmakers?


I always laugh with a little sadness when people defend abortion and then demand strict gun control.  It's ok to kill a baby before birth, but after birth it has rights.  It's ok to choose to kill a baby before birth, but if a mother and unborn child are killed by a drunk driver, the driver of the vehicle can be charged with 2 homicides.  So why not just call any shooting from here on out a 'post birth abortion' and get on with life?  Far too many people don't see what Gosnell did wrong, killing babies born alive (among other terrible things).  Fortunately, he was actually charged with murder, as he should have been.

Until people can move past a petition such as this one, we're in sorry shape and are mislead more than we get any facts.  We're incredibly uninformed and it's on us to change it.  Make the Truth, not a political party, your agenda.  I'm wrong often, that's life.  But when I've found Truth, I'm never backing down.














For the record, yes, I know how offensive and hurtful it is to call any murder, especially that of a child by a gun, a 'post birth abortion'.  I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

I also can respect people who don't want guns, and I'm certainly ok with them abstaining.  It is THEIR choice.  We can live in peace right next to each other because that's what America is about.  Not agreeing about everything, but being able to get along for the greater good.