Are you the Ultimate Red Sox Fan? Enter your photo in our contest and you could win fan-tastic prizes.
A well-written life is almost as rare as a well-spent one.
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
President Obama telling the American public that he is not attempting to take away citizens’ guns (that those who say otherwise are “fanning the flames” of such concern) while he embarks on doing exactly such, is the epitome of 1984 newspeak/newthink propaganda.
As I have stated before, the assault on our civil/Constitutional liberties is not only on the gun front. The greatest coinciding attack will be against those “determined” to be “mentally ill”.
Please, no one approaching reasonable perspective advocates those mentally unstable from obtaining/possessing firearms. Yet, who will make such determination? What will be the due-process? What will be the appeal process?
One can easily foresee an anti-gun mental health “official” from psychiatrist to family counselor deciding someone is “unstable”. That anyone who wants a gun is by definition such. Classic catch-22.
Will gun advocates, especially the NRA throw such under the bus? Knowing that if they don’t, gun grabbers will claim they support “crazy” people having guns?
Or will they, once again stand for the freedoms of us all?
The exploitation of the parents in Newtown continues. Is anyone less able to manifest a logical & objective POV? Ironically, are they right now, mentally stable? (Factious, sort of).
If the people of Mass. (or any other state) which to support Planned Parenthood with their tax dollars, their right.
If those in Texas choose otherwise, theirs.
PP receives revenues based on operations that are 90% abortion. Why should tax payers in any state not have the right to object?
Obama plays Chicago politics per the (now) norm and threatens to withhold unrelated federal funds….local money already collected from citizens. That is nothing short of a shake-down.
I have the perfect solution to the gun issue. It will give anyone and everyone the right to own what ever type of gun they want. Simply do not sell the ammunition to go with them. It in no way infringes upon the second amendment and keeps guns everyone’s hands that want them.
Jim…let me see if I understand your POV here.
You’re okay with women spitting out children like a pez dispenser; but at the same time, those kids will have to suffer because a) the parents are too stupid to not to have known how to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place, b) they never had the financial wherewithal to support themselves much less a child, c) you hate the notion of any kind of monetary welfare for the parents or the kids. So in a nutshell, fight like hell to get the baby outside the womb full term and then let the child be damned. Sounds reasonable to me. Not.
4 – well, geez, Will, if we’re trying to prevent suffering by killing babies, we could extend that logic to anyone who is – or might at some time be – suffering.
Instead of searching for a cure for AIDS, just put a bullet in the sufferer’s head.
Instead of trying to ease the misery of an Alzheimer’s patient, just hold a pillow over his head.
Instead of offering comfort to a parent who just lost a loved one (suffering takes many forms), prescribe an overdose of sleeping pills.
Instead of operating on my sister’s cancer (she had a radical hysterectomy today, and I hope they got it all) just giver her a shot of arsenic.
It’s all about ending suffering and misery, right?
The point that I am trying to make is that so many on the right are consumed with the notion that a birth has to take place regardless of the circumstances that the child will find itself in once it is outside the womb. They feel like they’ve done their job once the child is born…but in my eyes and in a lot of situations, that’s when the real misery for the child begins.
The child can’t defend itself, feed itself, cloth itself nor do a host of other things that are generally expected and required in order to nurture a child in a safe and healthy environment. In today’s economic climate and the feeling that the government is over spending on social programs or entitlements, where does the fate of the child rest?
In a perfect world, every child conceived will be brought into a world with caring and loving parents who have planned for the future care and welfare of the child. We both know that is not the real world.
As a society, if we are going to insist on the birth of every child regardless of the circumstance of conception and the circumstance that the child will be in once outside the womb then we are going to have to be able to accept willingly and honestly the responsiblity of careing for those children who are in circumstances less than ideal for their care and well being.
I simply don’t hear those who are so anti-abortion step up to the plate when it comes to funding for the care and education of those children who were born in circumstances that don’t promote either.
On another note, I wish your sister all the best. As a cancer survivor myself, I understand the anxiety and stress that she and the rest of your family are experiencing. My thoughts will be with you for her recovery and cure.
89Hoo, I just read Will’s comment. I’m sorry. I didn’t know your sister has cancer (same for Will). I hope it turns out OK.
Thank you, Will. They went in and found that it had spread outside of the uterus, is now stage 4 (but still grade 1, I believe, which is at least a glimmer of a silver lining). The doctors are optimistic they got it all, but there will be chemo and follow-ups and all that (I know you know). Please keep her and her family in your prayers.
Will….I said nothing about birth, suffering or welfare.
I spoke to taxpayers having some say (through their elected officials) how their confiscated monies are spent. (Federal funding for abortion is supposed to be illegal).
And, Obama using the omni-present federal reach to circumvent such say (and laws).
#3 Will, at least you are honest as to your intent. I suggest you start a grass-roots campaign to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
I have no desire to repeal the second amendment. I am a gun owner myself and enjoy shooting my old single shot rifle and my old S&W 38.
Perhaps if we can control where the ammo goes, we can better protect ourselves.
Name is required
A valid email is required (email@example.com)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.All fields are required to comment.
Mon, 20 May 2013 05:22:51 +0000