A challenge for our times: getting bullets vs. birth control
A clever gal named Laura Hammons wondered which would be harder to get at Walmart: bullets or birth control? Shot in Austin, Texas, the video below answers the question. Here’s Laura’s Facebook page.
January 11, 2013 - 8:00 AM
Isn’t there a link between birth control pills and cancer?
Honestly, this is NOT a good idication. You MUST have a prescription from a doctor in order to get birth control. You can’t just walk up to the pharmacy and ask to buy Yaz or something similar.
What was the point this girl was trying to make? She goes to the pharmacy and asks for a type of BC that you need a prescription for and expects them to give it to her? And she doesn’t film the part where someone has to unlock a cabinet and give her the 22 ammo. At least that’s how it works in every Walmart Ive ever bought ammo in, but this is a store in Texas so maybe it is self service down there. As fast as ammo is flying off the shelves everywhere now, I’m surprised she actually found some to purchase. Now that Biden is hinting of possible executive orders where guns and ammo are concerned I suspect they both will be dissapearing even faster.
…and the point is?
..la de da de de, la de da de da…
Yes Henry. Oral birth control is connected to a decreased rate of ovarian cancer. Good point.
Henry, that IS the point. You MUST have a prescription, written by an authority to gain birth control pills and you do not need any such thing to buy a weapon that kills people. Do you miss the “funny” irony in that too?
Well, she didn’t buy a weapon to kill people either. She simply bought the ammo. In order to buy a weapon she would be subjected to a background check. So her little video actually proves nothing.
Sandi, the young lady could have chosen another method of birth control that was available over the counter. Just as someone bent on doing harm to another could choose from any number of weapons. Again, the point of this little undercover operation was?
So should women be allowed to get birth control without a prescription? After all, you can get ammo with out a prescription.
Don’t police carry those weapons that kill people into schools? Should we be worried about that?
Maybe she should be required to purchase a permit to obtain over the counter BC such as condoms or spermicidal cream. I mean, think of how many potential human beings/fetuses she is killing in one fatal application! Egad!You have to have one to own a machine gun that’s capable of killing hundreds, even thousands of people so why not?
That all sounds as ludicrous as this adventure into Walmart was, don’t you agree?
Henry, isn’t there a link between bullets and death?
Seriously, gentlemen, the irony here is obvious. And Huntersdad, are there not factions of the right to life movement who have sponsored legislation to ban all forms of contaception? Once again, the point is we put in place obstacle upon obstacle to a woman’s reproductive rights and basic health, yet ammunition is so easily accessible.
well the libbies will kill them before they are born so no worry there huh?
Comment by Huntersdad — January 11, 2013 @ 1:44 pm
“Maybe she should be required to purchase a permit to obtain over the counter BC such as condoms or spermicidal cream.
That all sounds as ludicrous as this adventure into Walmart was, don’t you agree?”
Now THAT’S “ludicrous” – your belief that women should buy condoms…do we have to do everything for you?
BTW – Democrats want to regulate guns, republicans want to regulate a woman’s uterus…now that should be the definition of “ludicrous”…”don’t you agree?”
Maybe she should go to planned parenthood to get birth control.
Heck, if she shows up too late for the “control” part, they will kill her child for her (no bullets necessary).
It is all because of “Agenda 21″
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/alex-jones-youre-in-danger-huffpost-live_n_2459055.html
“You’re in danger!”
Henry, it is very apparent that you worry so much about the police that none of us will ever need to.
Yes Mike o, they will. The difference is, hers is the only fetus’ life she will have that choice over.
Hillary , thanks for the chuckle@ 4:07. You’ll be surprised to know I couldn’t agree more on your points about both parties. What goes on with a women’s body is her decision, made between her , her health care provider and her conscience if that even applies.
When government regulation on guns and ammo get to the point they make it impossible for me to go down to Walmart and buy a single box of 30.06 or .270 to deer hunt with something’s gonna have to give. And with all the hysteria over recent events I fear that point is not too far off in the future. I’ve just been enjoying poking fun at this nonsense of a video.
If a gunman shouldn’t have the right to choose to kill another human being, neither should a woman.
oh but Suzie it’s so convenient !! you know the liberals just adore abortion but if a child get murdered by a gun or a club, what’s the difference? murder is murder HYPOCRITES
I get it that you all believe you have the right to say that abortion is murder and should not be legal. I see that you all vote to make that a real law. I guess that makes us even.
More sockpuppet theater. Yawn…
The unfair comparison is that we only want to regulate some guns, you all want to regulate every fetus. Well except the ones you don’t mind destroying while playing God with in vitro.
pammala, when do you believe death begins?
The unfair comparison is that we only want to regulate some guns…
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 11, 2013 @ 11:09 pm
Sandi, who is “we?” Am I to assume that you do not support Diane Feinstein’s proposed bill?
Comment by Warren — January 11, 2013 @ 11:13 pm
“pammala, when do you believe death begins?”
I’ll take a shot at this. Answer: the minute I begin reading one of pammala’s post.
Re: Jack @ 8:58 am
I have wondered about that myself.
On the one hand. “We….”
Then OTOH, “I never….” and/or “No one ever….” — when in fact there are voices in the pro-more-restrictions/prohibition chorus chanting that exact mantra.
At this point, I do not support Feinstein’s bill.
Dave Hicks, as I have said repeatedly, I have little to no hope of meaningful gun control being enacted. That does not mean I do not support meaningful gun control. It means I have no faith in Congress. No secret there.
Robert Reich made a great point “The easy availability of guns, the celebration of violence, the inadequacy of healthcare and of public health, the lack of jobs for many of our young, among other things, are all factors. Along with individual responsibility goes some societal responsibility to enable young people and their parents to do what they need to do. Otherwise, what is a society?”
The purpose of gun control is not to punish gun owners, it is to make an effort to protect society and send the message that some guns, some activities are not going to be accepted as the cost of gun rights. I am sorry you all take this as such personal insult and restriction and I cannot fathom a way to make the changes needed without such restriction but there is no insult behind it from me.
Thanks for the clarification, Sandi. We’re probably on the same page regarding armed security guard in schools, too. I don’t support that, either.
What bad things do you envision from SRO’s in schools Jack?
Jack, if you, Dave Hicks and John Wilburn can come up with a way to get these guns out of the wrong hands without it coming back on law abiding people who never would harm anyone, like yourselves, I for one, and I believe many, many other Americans, would be all ears. There is no comprehensive way to take “their” guns without it coming back on good guys too. I wish there was and would be happy to see it offered.
We are just not real good at solutions in this nation. In small groups sure, for the masses, no way.
Sandi,
Back during the first “AW”B, “high capacity” magazines had “For Law-Enforcement Only” stamped on the bottom of them.
Maybe we could insist that all newly manufactured guns have “For Non-Criminals Only” engraved on the side?
Sandi #29 @5:14pm:
Plus +1 in a big way (and +1 Robert Reich’s quote too!)
Re: Jack @ 5:15 pm
Well that disproves Dan’s claim about all the pro-freedom folk being in lock-step.
@Dave Hicks @ 11:30pm
I just don’t see the point in spending a lot of taxpayer money on a problem that can be just as easily resolved with no cost to the taxpayers.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 5:14 pm
I hear you and I have been very careful to not attribute positions to you, personally, which you have you voiced. OTHO, the repeated use of “we” is troubling.
FWIIW, I try hard to come across as not speak for anyone but me. Yet, many of the pro-more-restriction / prohibition still appear to assume that I do.
As to taking the guns out of the hands of those who will commit violent crimes, maybe the answer lies in reducing the number of those who will commit violent crimes — the press and game industry reducing the celebration of violence, providing healthcare and the provision of better public health facilities for mental health, more jobs for our young might be a great start. However, many Americans are not “all ears” save for firearm prohibition.
@ Jack January 12, 2013 @ 7:40 pm #33, hilarious and sadly probably right along the lines of what we will indeed get.
I see the confusion Dave Hicks, I use “we” to mean those of us who believe there is a role for meaningful gun control in stopping so much carnage. I suppose I get carried away in thinking others agree with me.
Not too bad for CNN, given they (CNN and most colleges) would not yet approve of student with guns, IMHO.
http://tinyurl.com/ak2hpho
**
Schools teach how to act during shooting
The Situation Room
Added on January 9, 2013
Miguel Marquez finds that universities and colleges are using shooter
training to prepare for armed intruders on campus
[video]
**
Maybe, in time the idea that professors armed with guns might be better than
being armed with books to throw will dawn on the professors, in the future. Then, maybe….
Well one can hope.
.
Re: Jack @ 11:33 pm
Who insists that the “armed” folk in the schools had to be paid or mandated?
That slips in when the authoritarian we-are-in-control folk step in to insure they remain in control.
.
LOL
Looks as if I left a not out of, “… I have been very careful to not attribute positions to you, personally, which you have you voiced. OTHO, the repeated use of “we” is troubling.”
OTHO, looks as if Sandi got it. Good for you, Sandi.
For those who like to pick on my poor typing / getting ahead of my thoughts / proofos / etc, FWIIW, I intended, “I have been very careful to not attribute positions to you, personally, which you have [not] voiced. OTHO, the repeated use of “we” is troubling.”
How about a meaningful debate: Glocks vs 1911s
Phil Chitwood:
“How about a meaningful debate: Glocks vs 1911s”
I don’t know how Dan could have missed such an obvious thread topic. But, unlike liberty vs. gun control, BOTH the Glock and 1911 are good things.
.
This is lopsided for so many reasons, first of all abstinence is free–F-R-E-E! Secondly, condoms are not that expense and although they are not idiot proof, offer a lot of protect for those willing and able to use them correctly. Secondly, the rhythm method, for which the PILL was designed to supplement (as a way to encourage REGULAR menses), offers a lot of protection, once again, to those willing and able to use this method correctly, also–F-R-E-E! The problem is as with all medications, people want a quick fix that will end up doing more damage that the symptom. Cancer, blood clots, etc…I say let them have their over counter meds with no doctor supervision, great way to cull the already half dead population!