A useful way to look at things, although not necessarily perfect, as any way to distinguish why some issues move more than others has exceptions and is subject to how the issue is framed.
For example, climate change "doesn't start with...truths about freedom."
Perhaps it should. What about the freedom of Maldivians to live on land whose very presence is threatened with sea level rise? Doesn't get more basic than that.
And we know who is most guilty of putting them in this position--us!
Now would we respond to such an argument? Probably not if we're perpetually apathetic to the welfare of those in other countries. Perhaps so, though, if the argument is well-crafted to touch our "Responsibility Zone."
Say, "Look what we're doing to those WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING TO US! Is that not worth the reduction in our carbon emissions (that escape our cost:benefit calculations)?
Wish someone would try it.
For example, climate change "doesn't start with...truths about freedom."
Perhaps it should. What about the freedom of Maldivians to live on land whose very presence is threatened with sea level rise? Doesn't get more basic than that.
And we know who is most guilty of putting them in this position--us!
Now would we respond to such an argument? Probably not if we're perpetually apathetic to the welfare of those in other countries. Perhaps so, though, if the argument is well-crafted to touch our "Responsibility Zone."
Say, "Look what we're doing to those WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING TO US! Is that not worth the reduction in our carbon emissions (that escape our cost:benefit calculations)?
Wish someone would try it.
3
There is no defined right "not to die and be injured by gun violence". People look to the government to protect them from all kinds of things, but that does not constitute a defined right. The problem with guns is that the technology has expanded light years away from what the Founding Fathers could have imagined. Back in the day, to fire a gun you had to put powder down the barrel, tamp it down, put in a ball, tamp it down... Now you can fire off dozens of rounds without stopping. Nuts...
9
The same-sex marriage is something that will fundamentally change the fates of millions of people. That's why this issue becomes the major political issue in American political life.
I'd like to hear from the author, and other readers, do 96% of Americans really consider voting for a Black president, or do 96% of Americans answer a poll saying that they would? Ditto for 95% for Female president. I ask as I doubt that 95-96% of Americans can really agree on anything.
2
May I just point out that no one ever DIED from a couple being married.
The same cannot be said of guns, and (if you believe this way) from abortions.
The same cannot be said of guns, and (if you believe this way) from abortions.
3
My experience is that even the most religious person becomes much less opposed to abortion when she finds herself inconveniently and embarrassingly pregnant. The men and women I see as despicable are those who, having secretly arranged their own abortion or gotten one for their daughter, continue to rant against the availability of safe, legal abortion for other women. It's annoying to think of all those self-righteous hypocrites setting the rules for women that they themselves flout when they want to.
26
Reading the comments on this article, I get the impression Americans have replaced logic with sound bites. Many commentators say the fetus is or isn't a person. But that begs the question. First, we need to establish who a "person" is. Then, we need to establish whether a person has rights. Where do they come from? the Constitution? Society? the natural dignity of the person?
Let's tamp down the emotions a bit and have a thoughtful discussion about these issues. Both sides deserve that level of respect.
Let's tamp down the emotions a bit and have a thoughtful discussion about these issues. Both sides deserve that level of respect.
1
Where have you been? These so-called "personhood" amendments have been floated in many states for years. Colorado has rejected them 3 times.
Not only that- the guy who was one of the writers of this legislation here- Cory Gardner- acted like he didn't understand his own bill when the implications of it became known, and he wanted to be a Senator.
Not only that- the guy who was one of the writers of this legislation here- Cory Gardner- acted like he didn't understand his own bill when the implications of it became known, and he wanted to be a Senator.
10
As a pro-life male I was pleasantly surprised to learn in college about fifteen years ago that women are almost equally divided as men on the issue of abortion. The primary difference was the intensity that women held their views. A simple google search now of women's attitudes towards abortion will lead to a number of credible studies and polls showing this.
2
The reason people become more progressive on civil liberties issues over time is twofold: (1) it becomes apparent that a group is being harmed and (2) there is no effect on the unharmed group of granting the civil liberties. The other issues all affect the unharmed group in some way. Gun control affects gun owners. Abortions affect others in that there is a real belief that abortion is murder. Climate change regulation affects businesses.
But change only happens when the disenfranchised group, or someone on the group's behalf, advocates successfully. For continued progress on legalization of marijuana and for real criminal justice reform, there must also be sophisticated, dedicated advocates. Marijuana, at least, has money on its side.
But change only happens when the disenfranchised group, or someone on the group's behalf, advocates successfully. For continued progress on legalization of marijuana and for real criminal justice reform, there must also be sophisticated, dedicated advocates. Marijuana, at least, has money on its side.
6
The issue that interests me most here is a woman's right to choose abortion. That's because we seem to have gone backward on that issue during the past 45 years. This is due largely to the increased political clout wielded by Christian fundamentalist organizations. But as a strong supporter of choice on abortion, I've got to say, some of the blame falls on our fear of the 'slippery slope'. Let's admit 2 things. First: a fetus is not a person, it's a parasite, which has a potential of becoming a person. Second: during the 3rd trimester, a fetus has the probability of being able to survive independently, and should therefore be delivered and not aborted only if the mother's life and health are at stake. Secondly, we have allowed a woman's right to chose abortion to be limited and progressively eliminated in a redder states, due to the organizational drift, (some of which I've witnessed) in pro-choice organizations. In planned parenthood in particular, the leadership mindlessly supports Democrats, who 'talk the talk' (as they all do), without demanding that they 'walk the walk' on choice by demanding federal action to keep abortion clinics open and safe even in the most reactionary states.
10
The genius was in using the phrase "marriage equality". Everyone wants "equality", right? Previously, the debate was focused on homosexual behavior, which many still consider at best mental illness, and at worst sexual perversion, and certainly not worthy of endorsement, promotion, or celebration.
1
You might want to check your time machine- it is only back to about 1970.
6
Nobody with any credibility considers homosexual behavior "mental illness" but an increasing number consider homophobia a form of mental dis-ease.
10
This is such nonsense. Here we are arguing about the very canards that the powers that be want us to argue about. Race, guns, abortion, gender equality - these are meaningless to the elite. They are useful in distracting us from the policies and issues that keep them in power and money.
Labor law, banking regulations, campaign finance, trade agreements, tax law - these are the levers that keep these folks in power. Everytime an article about abortion or the patriarchy, or guns, or racism comes up, there are 1700 comments. An article about the inefficacy of the FEC? 120 comments. Pathetic.
The energy people put into these meaningless social issues is exactly what keeps us divided and keeps our eye off the things that are important to these people.
Labor law, banking regulations, campaign finance, trade agreements, tax law - these are the levers that keep these folks in power. Everytime an article about abortion or the patriarchy, or guns, or racism comes up, there are 1700 comments. An article about the inefficacy of the FEC? 120 comments. Pathetic.
The energy people put into these meaningless social issues is exactly what keeps us divided and keeps our eye off the things that are important to these people.
20
I am surprised that in an Economix blog, the economic angle of social change was completely overlooked. Once restrictive abortion laws start impacting middle or upper middle class women, there will be push back.
As for gun control, we need to start making gun owners bear the cost of bearing arms. How long do we let them claim that owning guns makes people safer? Does that square with what insurance companies believe? Gun owners should have to insure their guns for wrongful use. If the gun is stolen, or involved in an accidental shooting, or damage is caused by an unlicensed user the insurance rate should go up.
As for gun control, we need to start making gun owners bear the cost of bearing arms. How long do we let them claim that owning guns makes people safer? Does that square with what insurance companies believe? Gun owners should have to insure their guns for wrongful use. If the gun is stolen, or involved in an accidental shooting, or damage is caused by an unlicensed user the insurance rate should go up.
27
"Why Gun Control and Abortion Are Different From Gay Marriage". The twisted-pretzel-logic of this article's title strongly suggests its first paragraph desperately needed to clarify that "gun control" is not a "right", but, rather, that personal gun ownership IS a right under the 2nd Amendment, whereas both abortion and gay marriage are rights NOT specified anywhere nearly as succinctly verbatim in the US Constitution.
Amazingly, some people on here want to use alleged similar pretzel-logic to justify the Federal Government specially limiting the number of guns people can own, whilst I wonder if they would similarly argue for such stated limitations being placed either on the number of children one could bear, or the number of abortions allowed in a lifetime.
I also seriously doubt some in the "anti-gun" crowd on here would support limitations on marriage of any type, including poly-amorous unions.
So, unless they are felons, let people own as many guns as they like and let them carry them concealed without permits or restriction: its the liberal thing to do.
Amazingly, some people on here want to use alleged similar pretzel-logic to justify the Federal Government specially limiting the number of guns people can own, whilst I wonder if they would similarly argue for such stated limitations being placed either on the number of children one could bear, or the number of abortions allowed in a lifetime.
I also seriously doubt some in the "anti-gun" crowd on here would support limitations on marriage of any type, including poly-amorous unions.
So, unless they are felons, let people own as many guns as they like and let them carry them concealed without permits or restriction: its the liberal thing to do.
1
A personal right to gun ownership is, by the intent of the Founding Fathers, limited to those who serve in a (quoting the 2nd Amendment) "well regulated militia." Back then, lots of people had hunting rifles, but America's standing army was miniscule and lacking basic equipment -- including guns. So the 2nd Amendment was enacted to enable hunters and farmers who possessed guns to use them in state militias that could be deputized into the military if or as needed.
That bastion of Constitutional originalism, Antonin Scalia, broadened this narrowly defined right to an unlimited invitation to everyone to purchase as many guns as they could get their hands on. This decision was reached in the infamous Heller decision, at the behest of gun industry lobbyists. Sooner or later, we will come to our senses and walk back the Heller decision to something more reasonable.
That bastion of Constitutional originalism, Antonin Scalia, broadened this narrowly defined right to an unlimited invitation to everyone to purchase as many guns as they could get their hands on. This decision was reached in the infamous Heller decision, at the behest of gun industry lobbyists. Sooner or later, we will come to our senses and walk back the Heller decision to something more reasonable.
6
People in America have hunting cabins far out in the woods which they leave unguarded so escaped prisoners can break in and obtain guns.
2
pot legalization is part of a greater movement of harm reduction as an alternative to a 'war on drugs' approach. To say that those that are in jail for pot 'also committed serious crimes' is a cop out. If they were guilty of assault, murder, theft or rape, those charges are likely the bulk of their sentence. However, there are many people jailed for possession, production or distribution of weed that go to jail for a long time. Being lumped in with gangs, murderers and rapists. For these people it is a rights issue.
This also treads the same cultural boundary that separates pro and anti gay marriage and pro and anti abortion.
This also treads the same cultural boundary that separates pro and anti gay marriage and pro and anti abortion.
4
Why do the media, and on-air 'experts' on race relations in the US regularly - REGULARLY - ignore the history of discrimination against Asians in this country, dating back to the 1800's?
At one time in the US, Chinese were not allowed to marry or own real estate; during the days of the Gold Rush and the building of the Trans-continental railroad.
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was passed to stop Chinese from immigrating to the US, once their precious railroad was built.
Has anyone forgotten the internment camps where Americans of Japanese descent were rounded up, like cattle, and sent to live in what used to be stables for live stock?
In the 1950's, my grandfather, an American citizen from China, who fought for the US in WWII, sought to buy a house in Milwaukee, WI for his family. Time after time, he went to open houses, wrote offers to purchase - for cash - and time after time he was refused. The realtor and sellers, all white, refused to sell to a Chinese.
Can anyone in the media explain to me why, when there is talk of race relations or civil rights in this country, we Asians are never included in the discussion?
At one time in the US, Chinese were not allowed to marry or own real estate; during the days of the Gold Rush and the building of the Trans-continental railroad.
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was passed to stop Chinese from immigrating to the US, once their precious railroad was built.
Has anyone forgotten the internment camps where Americans of Japanese descent were rounded up, like cattle, and sent to live in what used to be stables for live stock?
In the 1950's, my grandfather, an American citizen from China, who fought for the US in WWII, sought to buy a house in Milwaukee, WI for his family. Time after time, he went to open houses, wrote offers to purchase - for cash - and time after time he was refused. The realtor and sellers, all white, refused to sell to a Chinese.
Can anyone in the media explain to me why, when there is talk of race relations or civil rights in this country, we Asians are never included in the discussion?
9
I am beginning to think that the real issue is "Who is saying this?" or "Consider the Source". Maybe an inkling movement for critical thinking has begun.
When gay rights/marriage equality was interpreted by fundamentalist Christians, what did they do? They equated all gay folks were with pedophiles. When family planning or interpreted by fundamentalist religious folk, a fertilized egg is a person, a woman is a vessel for that only, and criminal acts against women are waved away as some silly argument. Women become "murderers", miscarriage can land you in jail like that woman in Indiana, and people who actually DO commit sexual molestations like Josh Duggar can end up with actual power in the GOP as some Family Research Council bigwig. Wayne LaPierre gets to tell parents they are lunatics for expecting to limit the way the mentally unstable and outright criminals are shielded by his efforts. Why? Because he is a gun salesman for a powerful industry. He does not give a rip about "freedom"- he is enhancing the bottom line.
The amazing thing about the marriage equality and flag issues were that some other voices FINALLY got to say something and the narrative got taken away from those in bed with powerful interests. Once we consider the source we can take our own power back from these cynics.
When gay rights/marriage equality was interpreted by fundamentalist Christians, what did they do? They equated all gay folks were with pedophiles. When family planning or interpreted by fundamentalist religious folk, a fertilized egg is a person, a woman is a vessel for that only, and criminal acts against women are waved away as some silly argument. Women become "murderers", miscarriage can land you in jail like that woman in Indiana, and people who actually DO commit sexual molestations like Josh Duggar can end up with actual power in the GOP as some Family Research Council bigwig. Wayne LaPierre gets to tell parents they are lunatics for expecting to limit the way the mentally unstable and outright criminals are shielded by his efforts. Why? Because he is a gun salesman for a powerful industry. He does not give a rip about "freedom"- he is enhancing the bottom line.
The amazing thing about the marriage equality and flag issues were that some other voices FINALLY got to say something and the narrative got taken away from those in bed with powerful interests. Once we consider the source we can take our own power back from these cynics.
12
Is it possible the Upshot hasn't noticed that women's rights are often opposed by men who claim their own civil right to beat or rape their wives, determine when their wives can leave the house, etc.? How is that in any way different from the fetus' rights argument? Similarly, slavery was (and still is) defended as a matter of civil rights: property rights, the right of a white man to treat his slave property however he chooses.
14
Maybe rights and their associated duties have been disconnected.
2
Marriages are licensed. Obvious, ain't it?
3
I have difficulty with concluding that views on gun "rights" are highly resistant to movement. The chart shows opinions since 1990 well into the NRAs ascendancy.
There is a pre-history, if you will, to the ubiquity of guns in America. I wish we had data from before 1990. It would be useful to have some notion of how widespread gun ownership was since, say, 1920 or so. What kinds of guns people owned, quantities that were typical, any kind of local or state control of ownership. How big were gun manufacturers, that kind of thing.
Anecdotally I remember few people having guns when I lived in rural Alabama in the 1960s and 1970s. Yes, they were used to kill rattlesnakes and squirrels. They were for hunting. No one every brandished a gun, no one ever claimed they had to protect kith and kin from bad guys, I never even touched one. Now, the word from an acquaintance is that they have to have a lot of guns because the police will never protect them. I suggest that attitudes have changed over the years, they just aren't captured in a poll that begins in 1990.
There is a pre-history, if you will, to the ubiquity of guns in America. I wish we had data from before 1990. It would be useful to have some notion of how widespread gun ownership was since, say, 1920 or so. What kinds of guns people owned, quantities that were typical, any kind of local or state control of ownership. How big were gun manufacturers, that kind of thing.
Anecdotally I remember few people having guns when I lived in rural Alabama in the 1960s and 1970s. Yes, they were used to kill rattlesnakes and squirrels. They were for hunting. No one every brandished a gun, no one ever claimed they had to protect kith and kin from bad guys, I never even touched one. Now, the word from an acquaintance is that they have to have a lot of guns because the police will never protect them. I suggest that attitudes have changed over the years, they just aren't captured in a poll that begins in 1990.
7
It seems that the question in same-sex marriage is entirely about the individual and only the individual. In order to do this, the Supreme Court redefined marriage to say that the only value is the commitment made by one person to another. Actual marriage, of course, does support this commitment, but it also defends the rights of individuals born from sexual intercourse (i.e. children). The Supreme Court has now said that children are irrelevant to marriage. One may argue that same-sex couples can adopt, but there are already laws protecting children to be adopted. I do not oppose the rights and dignity of homosexual persons but this is the question of entering an institution that has been defined for thousands of years as including children born of sexual intercourse
1
GUNS KILL! And gays live! Comparing a life affirming right for same-sex marriage to be legal is the opposite of the lethal finding by the Supreme Court that the right to bear arms is an individual and not a group right. Since the assassinations of 1968 of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy, more than twice the number of Americans have been killed by guns than in all the wars since the establishment of the USA. Going by the numbers, that makes gun violence the number one threat to national security. Citizens are more than twice as likely to die on US soil by gunshot as on a battlefield, measured as a single population. And same sex marriage has killed how many? My belief is that nobody has been killed for being a partner in a same-sex marriage. However, if same-sex partners were to die, the chances that it would be as the result of gun violence is pretty high. So, you were saying that there is a comparison between same-sex marriage and gun violence? The fact is that guns turn arguments into killings. In my opinion, the reckless, irresponsible interpretation of the Second Amendment, which begins, In order to form an organized militia, results in the majority of the Supreme Court that found gun rights to be individual have blood on their hands. And a lot of it!
6
These stats are very interesting and how much religion plays a part in the American culture. A black women who was a feminist Jew would be elected president before a white male Atheist.
2
I am for the Civil Right not to be slaughtered or subjected to Gun Violence.
8
The trend of the 20th century was toward a sharp delineation between civil rights and property rights.
The arc of the 21st century has involved the blurring of the distinction between civil liberties and economic liberties. As a result, the Bill of Rights is now the basis for "advances" that would have been incomprehensible 50 years ago.
The 1st Amendment now expands government's power to sell messages (on license plates) without traditional burdens to avoid viewpoint discrimination, the 5th Amendment allows businesses to borrow the government's power to confiscate private property, the 5th Amendment now permits double jeopardy where only a civil conviction can be obtained, and governmental functions ranging from schools to prisons to defense forces are in a state of widespread conversion to private or semi-private organizations.
We now live in an era in which it is difficult either to distinguish between expansion and contraction of government power, or to find a clear legal line between individuals and businesses.
The arc of the 21st century has involved the blurring of the distinction between civil liberties and economic liberties. As a result, the Bill of Rights is now the basis for "advances" that would have been incomprehensible 50 years ago.
The 1st Amendment now expands government's power to sell messages (on license plates) without traditional burdens to avoid viewpoint discrimination, the 5th Amendment allows businesses to borrow the government's power to confiscate private property, the 5th Amendment now permits double jeopardy where only a civil conviction can be obtained, and governmental functions ranging from schools to prisons to defense forces are in a state of widespread conversion to private or semi-private organizations.
We now live in an era in which it is difficult either to distinguish between expansion and contraction of government power, or to find a clear legal line between individuals and businesses.
1
A earlier comment suggested that there will no change in gun laws in the near term. That is likely true until we repeal the 2nd amendment. We must end forever the idea that owning a deadly weapon is the same as peaceably speaking one's mind. It is not and gun owners know this, whether they admit it or not. Guns, like automobiles, are a tool. They should be regulated in the same way.
5
Here's another theory: Rights that primarily impact men (or are perceived to) have more resilience and expand more quickly than rights that mainly (or solely) impact women.
While gay marriage obviously affects lesbians as much as gay men, much of the public thinks of it as a gay men's issue (hence the term "gay marriage"). And it has expanded immensely (as it should!). At the same time, gun rights have also expanded in most places, despite Newtown, etc. Again, while women own and use guns, it is mostly thought of as a man's issue.
On the other hand, anything to do with abortion and reproductive freedom has hugely contracted over the same period. And there's no impetus for an Equal Rights Amendment at all. I wonder if gay marriage had mainly interested lesbians but not many gay men, if we'd be in the same place at all.......
While gay marriage obviously affects lesbians as much as gay men, much of the public thinks of it as a gay men's issue (hence the term "gay marriage"). And it has expanded immensely (as it should!). At the same time, gun rights have also expanded in most places, despite Newtown, etc. Again, while women own and use guns, it is mostly thought of as a man's issue.
On the other hand, anything to do with abortion and reproductive freedom has hugely contracted over the same period. And there's no impetus for an Equal Rights Amendment at all. I wonder if gay marriage had mainly interested lesbians but not many gay men, if we'd be in the same place at all.......
11
I think you make some good points.
I find the intractable quality of many of the males in the pro-life movement similarly strange. Women have been fully capable of handling the lady business since Eve, but it has proven to be some sort of odd retirement project for middle aged mostly white males to get involved in the abortion issue for what reasons? Because they like kids? I really doubt that. They can pick some guy stuff like stop supporting wars that involve other people's kids or some nice prostate education thingey and leave the lady issues alone for a while.
I find the intractable quality of many of the males in the pro-life movement similarly strange. Women have been fully capable of handling the lady business since Eve, but it has proven to be some sort of odd retirement project for middle aged mostly white males to get involved in the abortion issue for what reasons? Because they like kids? I really doubt that. They can pick some guy stuff like stop supporting wars that involve other people's kids or some nice prostate education thingey and leave the lady issues alone for a while.
5
In 2014 there were 400K deaths in the US by preventable medical mistakes. (www.healthcareitnews.com
The CDC reports 11208 death by firearms (61%) were suicide.
The CDC reports 11208 death by firearms (61%) were suicide.
Gun Control, Abortion and Gay Marriage are different? NOW you tell me!!!!!!! No wonder I had trouble getting the correct license........
I am personally against most people having guns. If every gun owner was as responsible as the NRA crams down our throats, we wouldn't have accidental shootings and they would lobby so hard to not let the CDC produce the stats. With the exception of Dick Cheney, I'm not sure I can name 5 hunting accidents. I can't name a lot of high profile self defense unless you want to include all the people who are unfortunate enough to knock on a door and the middle of the night.
There are too many guns and too much access to them. In a fit of depression, someone is likely to take their lives. Even though the more we learn about depression is that it ebbs and flows. Guns are not the same because they are detached forms of killing, they are so quick (it's called automatic for a reason) and is typically either fatal or life altering. Add to that alcohol and drugs.
It should not be regulated because we are crazy but you should need insurance. That had a huge effect on drunk driving. I don't think any drunk driver means to run over a 6 year old any more than I think a gun owner would have their 6 year old shoot their 3 year old. I don't think there is intent but the drunk driver gets a sentence of prison for bad judgement and the gun owner who leaves a loaded weapon out is not charged. Dead is dead. The gun owner should be equally as responsible as a man getting into his vehicle after drinking.
There are too many guns and too much access to them. In a fit of depression, someone is likely to take their lives. Even though the more we learn about depression is that it ebbs and flows. Guns are not the same because they are detached forms of killing, they are so quick (it's called automatic for a reason) and is typically either fatal or life altering. Add to that alcohol and drugs.
It should not be regulated because we are crazy but you should need insurance. That had a huge effect on drunk driving. I don't think any drunk driver means to run over a 6 year old any more than I think a gun owner would have their 6 year old shoot their 3 year old. I don't think there is intent but the drunk driver gets a sentence of prison for bad judgement and the gun owner who leaves a loaded weapon out is not charged. Dead is dead. The gun owner should be equally as responsible as a man getting into his vehicle after drinking.
4
America is a place where guys have hunting cabins far out in the woods which they leave unguarded so escaped prisoners can break in and obtain weapons.
I don't see where gun control is a log jam. Supporters of gun rights are turning back prohibitions on firearms. If nothing else that issue, whose supporters embolden by Heller and McDonald are still actively pursing, is tipping in favor of liberty. That is despite the fact that the POTUS is using the bully pulpit to push for gun control.
To those calling for repeal of the second. Good luck with that. Only one amendment has been overturned in our 239 year history and that was the 18th. The 21st amendment, passed to repeal the 18th expanded liberties. Firearms prohibitionist, who have recently tried to re-brand themselves as gun safety activists, seem more to be floundering and wringing their hands. Even the fact that Bloomberg recently gave their movement a large infusion of cash doesn't seem to be changing public opinion on this matter. The reason? Because most people realize that true common sense regarding the second amendment is not to further restrict it.
To those calling for repeal of the second. Good luck with that. Only one amendment has been overturned in our 239 year history and that was the 18th. The 21st amendment, passed to repeal the 18th expanded liberties. Firearms prohibitionist, who have recently tried to re-brand themselves as gun safety activists, seem more to be floundering and wringing their hands. Even the fact that Bloomberg recently gave their movement a large infusion of cash doesn't seem to be changing public opinion on this matter. The reason? Because most people realize that true common sense regarding the second amendment is not to further restrict it.
1
Great analysis, thanks. Interesting that the question of whether people would vote for an openly gay president wasn't on the list there; I think that's still lagging and would be lower support than an atheist, but I could be wrong.
The abortion issue will take time, but the nation will definitely swing around to the pro-choice side. Religion is losing its hold on the country, we don't actually show signs of turning into a theocracy like Iran, and religion is the only reason to consider the fetus' rights over the pregnant woman's.
The gun control issue is going to be thorny for a long time, because if too much restrictions are put in, a fascist state will follow. Sneer at this concept all you like, but every single time a gov't has imposed heavy restrictions on who can or can't own guns, it's turned fascist, and all fascist nations have confiscated guns from those they intended to oppress. Part of the reason so many African-Americans were lynched after the Civil War is that they were generally prevented from owning guns.
As for legalizing marijuana, that's coming faster than people think, because having had many states relax the rules, it's impossible to keep it out of states with strong anti-weed laws. Just like with prohibition, it's not so much a right, as a vice that simply can't be prevented. Prostitution is much the same thing, and really the strongest opposition to these comes from the theocratic community, which I sure hope is dying off.
The abortion issue will take time, but the nation will definitely swing around to the pro-choice side. Religion is losing its hold on the country, we don't actually show signs of turning into a theocracy like Iran, and religion is the only reason to consider the fetus' rights over the pregnant woman's.
The gun control issue is going to be thorny for a long time, because if too much restrictions are put in, a fascist state will follow. Sneer at this concept all you like, but every single time a gov't has imposed heavy restrictions on who can or can't own guns, it's turned fascist, and all fascist nations have confiscated guns from those they intended to oppress. Part of the reason so many African-Americans were lynched after the Civil War is that they were generally prevented from owning guns.
As for legalizing marijuana, that's coming faster than people think, because having had many states relax the rules, it's impossible to keep it out of states with strong anti-weed laws. Just like with prohibition, it's not so much a right, as a vice that simply can't be prevented. Prostitution is much the same thing, and really the strongest opposition to these comes from the theocratic community, which I sure hope is dying off.
1
I am curious: what are the historical examples of countries that established gun control and then turned fascist as a result?
Just a wild guess, but I'd say that same-sex marriage kills fewer people than uncontrolled guns.
4
Actually, SCOTUS has pushed "guns for all". With the present court, precedent has no meaning, so this ruling can be reversed if reasonable justices are appointed by the next president.
Many of the different issues that are combined in this article have nothing to do one with another. Yes, the views on the gender, skin color, and religion of the President are interrelated, but not gun laws, abortion, and death penalty. The increased number of supporters of the ban on smoking in public places, when compared with an increase of supporters of legalized marijuana, gives a distorted picture of correlation between two. I am strongly against the death penalty and against the ban on smoking. But I am wholeheartedly for the RESPONSIBLE and MENTALLY WELL BALANCED citizens carrying firearms wherever and whenever they believe expedient. Safety of the individual and individual's property cannot be relied upon when it is placed in the hands of hired guns in the employ of municipalities.
1
Is anybody sure that this isn't all about men, and then, white men? Gun control DOES apply to the black community, through barbaric mandatory minimum sentences for guns used in crime or possessed by felons, and from discrimination in application of the laws by police. Here we have same-gender marriage and still are fighting over a woman's right to choose and a woman's right to equal pay for equal work.
7
Here's the easy answer to the article's caption question:
Gun rights are clearly enshrined in the Constitution and gay marriage/abortion are made up out of judicial inference.
Gun rights are clearly enshrined in the Constitution and gay marriage/abortion are made up out of judicial inference.
To be fair, the rights of women and people of color to vote and be active in public life were also made up by judicial inference. If you believe that the Constitution was not meant to adapt to the societal context of a changing nation, you must also think that white landowning males should be the only people able to vote or hold public office.
I, on the other hand, believe that the Founding Fathers intentionally created a living document that would work in many societal contexts to be interpreted by a Court that they set up to do just that.
I, on the other hand, believe that the Founding Fathers intentionally created a living document that would work in many societal contexts to be interpreted by a Court that they set up to do just that.
1
That's just false. Both women voting and "people of color" voting were not "made up by judicial inference." They were granted by amending the constitution through a purely legislative process (the Nineteenth and Fifteenth Amendments). The Supreme Court had a grant total of nothing at all do with either.
Until liberals decided that they didn't have to bother and could just exercise raw power, the only way to "adapt to the societal context of a changing nation" was the mechanism provided for exactly that--the amendment process. It was used successfully, but liberals didn't want to bother with democracy, so now they just impose whatever they want.
The solution is for conservatives to start doing the same thing, and to impeach and remove all liberal Supreme Court justices the moment they can (when the next Republican president is elected, presumably), followed by imposition of conservative beliefs (e.g., the Supreme Court criminalizing abortion nationwide as a violation of the Constitution's guarantee that a person not be deprived of life without due process of law). Liberals will have nothing to complain of. Turnabout is fair play.
Of course, I expect the response to this to be incoherent, ranting and not address any of my points or logic.
Until liberals decided that they didn't have to bother and could just exercise raw power, the only way to "adapt to the societal context of a changing nation" was the mechanism provided for exactly that--the amendment process. It was used successfully, but liberals didn't want to bother with democracy, so now they just impose whatever they want.
The solution is for conservatives to start doing the same thing, and to impeach and remove all liberal Supreme Court justices the moment they can (when the next Republican president is elected, presumably), followed by imposition of conservative beliefs (e.g., the Supreme Court criminalizing abortion nationwide as a violation of the Constitution's guarantee that a person not be deprived of life without due process of law). Liberals will have nothing to complain of. Turnabout is fair play.
Of course, I expect the response to this to be incoherent, ranting and not address any of my points or logic.
I don't agree with your statement that "most Americans have long seen an unavoidable tension between a mother’s rights and a fetus’s". I think most women in our country feel it's their right and theirs alone to decide whether they bring a child into this world. Regardless of how difficult these issues are, the bottom line is that you can't make a woman have a child.
8
The only difference in these issues is how the media and entertainment industry portray them.
It's unthinkable for a respectable character on television or in film to have an abortion. There is just never any cause in the ideas of the story tellers. Because they know, no one WANTS to have an abortion and some are out and out against it. it's the safe road to write the story so that it never happens a woman has to make a difficult choice.
Our love affair with killing things never ends. If Hollywood or the media got on board portraying gun violence in a different and more realistic way they would have to cut their yearly releases to a quarter. It will never happen.
Climate change? Nothing sexy about that. Some fodder for the SyFy channel but no one is going to undertake it seriously in Hollywood.
Every social issue in the last 25 years has been driven by Hollywood and how they feel about it. Women are still treated like second class sex dolls because Hollywood is run by men who want that. We have a biracial president because we saw 10 years of them in film and in television.
There is no difference. The only difference is the steady diet of visual garbage we feed to our citizenry.
It's unthinkable for a respectable character on television or in film to have an abortion. There is just never any cause in the ideas of the story tellers. Because they know, no one WANTS to have an abortion and some are out and out against it. it's the safe road to write the story so that it never happens a woman has to make a difficult choice.
Our love affair with killing things never ends. If Hollywood or the media got on board portraying gun violence in a different and more realistic way they would have to cut their yearly releases to a quarter. It will never happen.
Climate change? Nothing sexy about that. Some fodder for the SyFy channel but no one is going to undertake it seriously in Hollywood.
Every social issue in the last 25 years has been driven by Hollywood and how they feel about it. Women are still treated like second class sex dolls because Hollywood is run by men who want that. We have a biracial president because we saw 10 years of them in film and in television.
There is no difference. The only difference is the steady diet of visual garbage we feed to our citizenry.
2
I find it curious that polls, the government, and the courts are mentioned, as are justice, and civil rights in this article. But not a direct word about the Constitution.
As if all future legal issues will be decided somewhere between opinion polls, and gazing into a crystal ball.
As if all future legal issues will be decided somewhere between opinion polls, and gazing into a crystal ball.
What your graphs illustrate is that 1. Society is more tolerant regarding differences in identity, but also that 2. Society is more brutal, as shown by increased support for the death penalty, which serves no purpose, and continued support for gun ownership even as crime rates have dropped. Why would we be surprised? Forty years ago, cinemas were filled with character-based films, tv mostly featured sitcoms and music was about sex or against war. Today our entertainment culture is dominated by violent video games and "action" movies that feature mass murders and explosions. Entertainment culture promotes solutions through violence and physical strength and promotes a simplistic, dog-eat-dog, us v. them worldview that is essentially paranoid. Even Star Wars showed a human relationship between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader.
1
Maybe someone would like to explain why the GOP wants the government out of out lives and is nevertheless in favor of intruding into women's reproductive lives? Such hypocrisy is disgusting.
4
It seems to me the only topic that was brought up, that has a huge, profit-driven industry behind it are "gun laws", nevermind their mouthpiece, the NRA. The rest are just social opinions that have changed over the years.
Sometimes I wonder about the American electorate & complex issues. Just on Marriage issues alone ,the dissenters on the Supreme Court were trite on their opposition to the issue. The "applesauce" commentary alone by Justice Scalia alone shows how he has ignored his pedantic nature of addressing issues. Chief Justice Roberts ignores history of marriage & it's evolution. From an institution that was polygamous, adulterous, a form of gender slavery & in the case of Henry VIII cause to force his version of religion on a nation. The dissenters ignore in ruling after ruling the intent of the Constitution as outlined in our Preamble of a more perfect Union. They need to start recusing themselves or fess up to their personal prejudices. The pivotal vote in the recent major rulings was based on the Constitution ,& anyone calling it "applesauce" in a tantrum is either on the verge of senility or has an odious problem of self worth. Calling his own institution , as established by our founding fathers, as an elite institution out of sync with the electorate , he believes that the vote should only be held by the moneyed class of the likes of the Koch brothers. He has supported this stance over the years & denigrates the court he should be serving, rather than pontificating like a child needing a diaper change. How can we trust him to balance public safety with the right to have a gun. Soon he will be siding with those who want to carry guns into the classroom & the churches.
Marriage equality may have been accelerated, in part, by the 1980s and 1990s AIDS epidemic in the US. This devastating crisis humanized its victims, a number of whom were gay men, to the broader populace through media coverage, and over time it revealed the power that gay rights groups could have on the political process. Through this crucible, rights groups realized that beyond effectively fighting for research and access to medicine that could save their lives that they could also fight for their dignity in the public sphere.
100% agree Vineet. In addition, several public figures who have came out over the last 2 decades have changed quite a few minds as well. I have friends and relatives who have changed their minds of gay and lesbian Americans simply by their exposure to Ellen DeGeneres and Sean Hayes. It may sound trivial, but they (and many others) and including television shows such as Modern Family have made a difference, at least in the United States. Bravo to all who've worked publicly and privately to move acceptance forward.
"But most Americans have long seen an unavoidable tension between a mother’s rights and a fetus’s"
But what is remarkable is a comparative lack of discussion of "when" and "why".
Lots of countries look askance at abortion after the first trimester. But many pro-lifers want to protect the fetus and many pro-choicers want NO limitations.
Similarly the "why" matters. Abortion of a fetus who would have a miserable life if allowed to live, is one thing. Abortion because "I broke up with my boyfriend" is another.
Such differences have not been addressed in public debate - partly because the SC insists that we cannot ask a woman WHY she is choosing abortion.
Republicans who are the main opponents of abortion, have tended to take rather extreme positions, some even objecting to abortion in case of rape.
And thus the issues of "when" and "why" have been pushed into the background.
But what is remarkable is a comparative lack of discussion of "when" and "why".
Lots of countries look askance at abortion after the first trimester. But many pro-lifers want to protect the fetus and many pro-choicers want NO limitations.
Similarly the "why" matters. Abortion of a fetus who would have a miserable life if allowed to live, is one thing. Abortion because "I broke up with my boyfriend" is another.
Such differences have not been addressed in public debate - partly because the SC insists that we cannot ask a woman WHY she is choosing abortion.
Republicans who are the main opponents of abortion, have tended to take rather extreme positions, some even objecting to abortion in case of rape.
And thus the issues of "when" and "why" have been pushed into the background.
A fetus is not a person.
Abortion is always an act of self defense by the woman.
Laws prohibiting abortion treat the woman as a thing to be used, a legal slave of a more of less organized group of cells.
Abortion is always an act of self defense by the woman.
Laws prohibiting abortion treat the woman as a thing to be used, a legal slave of a more of less organized group of cells.
The connection between guns and marriage used to be a shotgun.
5
Part of the reason people's views on guns seem to have grown more supportive is that the gun lobby has shut down the CDC and other gun violence research by passing laws that make it illegal. It's a similar strategy they use to deny climate change science. I wish NYT reporters would mention this fact in their "analysis" ... the gun lobby is no different than the tobacco lobby - they lie about their danger and risks of their products and so we get an ignorant population that does not realize there are more accidental shooting deaths each year than successful defensive gun uses - and yet, too many of the public by the gun lobby lie that you need a gun in your home to be safe. That's not true, in fact, it is exactly the opposite.
Profits over people - that's the gun lobby's true motto.
Profits over people - that's the gun lobby's true motto.
2
The laws requiring background checks on gun buyers are not nearly as strong as the majority of Americans who favor them. Reason: NRA.
1
I do not like the NRA but our politicians deserve all of the blame. The NRA has incomparable power because our duplicitous politicians have their hands out.
2
So people still won't vote for an atheist President. Is there any polling about whether they would vote for a gay President?
2
Gun "rights" under the 2nd Amendment is a relatively new construct, championed by Scalia (among others) as reflecting the original intent of the Founding Fathers. This interpretation, in fact, was cobbled together by gun industry lawyers who managed to persuade a majority on SCOTUS to buy into the notion that "well regulated militia" includes yahoos strutting around in grocery stores with assault rifles and pistols in plain view.
Over time, sanity will prevail, as it did in smoking, when people conclude that guns are just as injurious to public health as second hand smoke. Until then, however, our society will continue to pile up the gunshot dead.
Over time, sanity will prevail, as it did in smoking, when people conclude that guns are just as injurious to public health as second hand smoke. Until then, however, our society will continue to pile up the gunshot dead.
3
Dear PaulB,
Sorry but that's not the reason guns will be banned. There has been a lot of pushback against tobacco smoke lately, but overall Americans do not like to regulate things that kill us on a regular basis. Unhealthy food, like fast food, cake, candy, donuts, etc., has a hand in killing about sixty times as many people as gun homicides, but we have no interest in preventing its sale. Car crashes kill about four times as many as gun murders, but we don't want to install speed governors preventing cars from going over 15 mph (which would save nearly everyone).
We will continue to pile up the gunshot dead, and the tobacco dead, and the fast car dead, and the fast food dead, and the high stress dead (don't even try regulating that), and that's fine. The world needs less humans. One thing we won't do is sacrifice freedoms in the name of health; just look at how unhealthy the average American is.
Sorry but that's not the reason guns will be banned. There has been a lot of pushback against tobacco smoke lately, but overall Americans do not like to regulate things that kill us on a regular basis. Unhealthy food, like fast food, cake, candy, donuts, etc., has a hand in killing about sixty times as many people as gun homicides, but we have no interest in preventing its sale. Car crashes kill about four times as many as gun murders, but we don't want to install speed governors preventing cars from going over 15 mph (which would save nearly everyone).
We will continue to pile up the gunshot dead, and the tobacco dead, and the fast car dead, and the fast food dead, and the high stress dead (don't even try regulating that), and that's fine. The world needs less humans. One thing we won't do is sacrifice freedoms in the name of health; just look at how unhealthy the average American is.
If we cannot ban guns, we should make the requirements for owning a gun very strict. One should pass through a series of tests and examinations including mental health and criminal background examinations. There should be renewal licensing that must occur every year or every other year like we do with a driver's license or car registration with mandatory reexamination after five years to make sure the person who owns the weapon accountable. A person must prove beyond any doubt that they do not pose a threat to the health and safety of others. A way to insure this would be to amend the Constitution and directly change the way the law is interpreted. No matter what, the United States must institute gun control. We really do not need any further evidence.
2
"A person must prove beyond any doubt that they do not pose a threat to the health and safety of others." -adriana
That would most likely be impossible to accomplish. So, as it can probably never be proven beyond any doubt that anyone would never hurt, for example, a criminal attempting to do them harm, no amendment to the Constitution would be necessary. Everyone, including the police, and the rest of the government, would have to be disarmed on the basis that they might possibly do someone harm.
That would most likely be impossible to accomplish. So, as it can probably never be proven beyond any doubt that anyone would never hurt, for example, a criminal attempting to do them harm, no amendment to the Constitution would be necessary. Everyone, including the police, and the rest of the government, would have to be disarmed on the basis that they might possibly do someone harm.
That's harrassment. Gun ownerhip is a right. Why don't we go through your same procedure in order to vote?
Both gun control and environmental regulation have strong financial interests opposing them. We know the NRA receives a great deal of funding from gun manufacturers and obviously industries polluting the environment oppose anything cutting into their profits.
As to abortion and the death penalty. There are no doubt some who oppose the first and support the second who do so based on moral beliefs (although it should be noted that by doing so there appears to be a great deal of inconsistency in those beliefs). However, the primary reason is politicians finding them easy issues. If there was a moral basis to their beliefs then how could Ronald Reagan have signed one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country when he was governor of California or how come George H.W. Bush wasn't bothered by his mother being president of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut. As long as politicians believe they can get votes on these issues and avoid doing anything about the real problems in this country like economic inequality it is doubtful they will ever change.
As to abortion and the death penalty. There are no doubt some who oppose the first and support the second who do so based on moral beliefs (although it should be noted that by doing so there appears to be a great deal of inconsistency in those beliefs). However, the primary reason is politicians finding them easy issues. If there was a moral basis to their beliefs then how could Ronald Reagan have signed one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country when he was governor of California or how come George H.W. Bush wasn't bothered by his mother being president of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut. As long as politicians believe they can get votes on these issues and avoid doing anything about the real problems in this country like economic inequality it is doubtful they will ever change.
1
For me gun control is a common sense issue. Making it harder for violent criminals and the mentally unstable to get their hands on guns is not the same as denying law abiding citizens the right to own and use guns in a legal and responsible way. People who advocate the fetus' s right to life in the abortion debate are usually the same hypocrites who rally against public assistance benefits for poor mothers and children. The fetus has a right to be born, but the ability to support it into adulthood isn't as important as biblical rhetoric.
New York city alone has been outed for the obscene amounts of money spent on locking up people for small possession of marijuana. Some estimates go as high as $75 mill a year. With a criminal record hanging over their head it will be much harder to get a decent job, which increases the likelihood of them becoming career criminals that will spend most of their adult lives in prisons funded by none other than the taxpayers. Meanwhile in Denver, CO Peyton Manning and Papa Johns are laughing all the way to the bank since they legalized marijuana.
We have fallen behind on both civil rights and common sense in this country and its time for more action and less charts and graphs and endless circuitous debates.
New York city alone has been outed for the obscene amounts of money spent on locking up people for small possession of marijuana. Some estimates go as high as $75 mill a year. With a criminal record hanging over their head it will be much harder to get a decent job, which increases the likelihood of them becoming career criminals that will spend most of their adult lives in prisons funded by none other than the taxpayers. Meanwhile in Denver, CO Peyton Manning and Papa Johns are laughing all the way to the bank since they legalized marijuana.
We have fallen behind on both civil rights and common sense in this country and its time for more action and less charts and graphs and endless circuitous debates.
8
Meanwhile, Wcdessert Girl, the liberal Mayor of New York City is planning on spending over a hundred million dollars on more police officers. Because it's what the liberal citizens of NYC seem to want.
1
No. Because De Blasio seems to be afraid of denying Bratton and the police unions after the police work slowdown. The Mayor has proven himself to be another politician who does an about face on his campaign promises. Liberal or conservative, we can all agree about the fact that the NYPD is the largest individual police force in the country and doesn't need more money for more officers. Our city needs more money for schools, maintenance, and programs to support putting more people in jobs with wages that can sustain them without dependence on government benefits.
I live in a Southern state. I can assure you, further gun restrictions are not winning in these states in the foreseeable future. Many people are fine with same sex marriage, even conservatives. But gun controls garner very little support here. This has nothing to do with lobbying. It is part of the tradition that doesn't go away easily. Federal level gun restrictions will only alienate these states. Forget it. This is a no win fight. Move on.
5
Wait, wasn't segregation also an issue that didn't go away easily? I don't see that as any reason not to make the effort.
That is not true. First, you cannot believe one Wallace represented the South. Second, segregation is clearly not constitutional. The same cannot be said of gun ownership.
the simple contrast is that some laws deal with the identity of persons and other laws deal with the implications of acts.
persons can argue for or against concepts of identity based on personal experience, and this is a powerful engine for change supported by their testimony.
acts (and things like guns or joints) can't argue for themselves, so we argue about them, using causal models that force us to make interpretations.
the real story is why, for example, we are more convinced by rights based arguments in favor of legalized marijuana than by all the carefully done research that shows the drug is essentially harmless. or why alcohol is legal and non controversial (after a spate of prohibition) despite all the evidence to show the many negative consequences of its use.
facts are just not that potent a guide to behavior, unless they are the facts of personal experience.
persons can argue for or against concepts of identity based on personal experience, and this is a powerful engine for change supported by their testimony.
acts (and things like guns or joints) can't argue for themselves, so we argue about them, using causal models that force us to make interpretations.
the real story is why, for example, we are more convinced by rights based arguments in favor of legalized marijuana than by all the carefully done research that shows the drug is essentially harmless. or why alcohol is legal and non controversial (after a spate of prohibition) despite all the evidence to show the many negative consequences of its use.
facts are just not that potent a guide to behavior, unless they are the facts of personal experience.
I think abortion is far more difficult than any of the other issues cited because the difference is philosophical and in that sense, it has no answer. Gun control, on the other hand, might have a practical solution. While certainly there are those who hate guns on philosophical grounds and want all guns to be banned, most of us are willing tolerate the existence of guns so long as they as kept away from children, properly regulated etc. It's only the NRA and its ilk that claim that you have a natural right to a gun regardless of the damage it causes.
2
Common mistake. While the NRA is indeed the national political and public face of guns, there are millions of indiviuals that own guns and do not belong to the NRA and do not want their rights to be curtailed. Millions. Many, many millions.
1
I am curious. What do you consider proper regulation? As far as the idea that firearms should be kept from children, you will find very few people and I personally don't know ANY NRA members who don't support keeping firearms out of the hands of children. They even have an education program specifically tailored to do that. For years firearms prohibitionists have tried to use "public safety" to push laws for the safe storage of firearms that were instead designed to disarm people. Case in point was the former law in DC that required people to keep their firearms disassembled and locked up. How can you even regulate something like that? I do have a problem how you say you will "tolerate" firearms. This is a constitutional right, re-affirmed in the modern era.
Source?
First and foremost is limiting the judicial activism of Scalia to the four corners of the Heller decision. Beyond a constitutional right to own a gun for defense in one's home all other regulations are on the table as reasonable or rationally related to public safety. The notion that any registration of guns or tracing of weapons is an infringement is absurd. Congress passed absurd laws hamstringing the ATF on tracing guns or even having the CDC research gun violence among young males as a health issue. All this was to benefit a gun industry run amok. Time to reign them is Mr. president.
24
As a gun owner, I was and am for background checks on all transfers and stringent training for those who seek a CCW and no open carry. However, when you want to register my guns, I join the NRA to help them fight it. The first thing totalitarian regimes do is confiscate guns.Beyond a background check whose record is then destroyed, the public has no interest in registering the guns of its citizens. It is NOT a reasonable measure. What is absurd is how easily you throw away the rights (a constitutional one at that) of your fellow citizens.
1
Everyone likes SCOTUS when they agree with them. They are not supposed to be ruling based upon the popularity of opinion, but on correct interpretation of the Constitution. Roe was a much greater stretch than Heller. There are people who believe that killing of the unborn is much greater problem than gun deaths. That said the recent marriage ruling expanded civil rights, gun control curtails them. While the Second amendment is most cited the 14th comes into play as well. It is important to remember that "gun control" has its roots in Jim Crow. I think this President had a pretty good week from the Supreme court
1
President Obama commissioned the CDC to perform a study on guns in America. The reason you do not hear of that study is the fact that it undermines every gun control shibboleth fostered by the President and the anti-gun lobby.
What you do see is distortion in the media. Just look at this article’s headline:
"Why Gun Control and Abortion Are Different From Gay Marriage”
This headline makes you think that the two focal points of the story are gay marriage and gun control - they are not. Gun control is one of many national issues included in this article and contrasted with gay marraige. The Times is at pains to author headlines which focus on guns even when the subject does not dominate a story. What has happened to the objective, " paper of record" which used to sit on my homeroom desk when I arrived at high school each morning?
What you do see is distortion in the media. Just look at this article’s headline:
"Why Gun Control and Abortion Are Different From Gay Marriage”
This headline makes you think that the two focal points of the story are gay marriage and gun control - they are not. Gun control is one of many national issues included in this article and contrasted with gay marraige. The Times is at pains to author headlines which focus on guns even when the subject does not dominate a story. What has happened to the objective, " paper of record" which used to sit on my homeroom desk when I arrived at high school each morning?
2
Ironically it took a near fatal assassination attempt on Reagan to pass the Brady Act. Will it take another presidential assassination attempt to pass some form of common sense gun control policy in this country? When gun ownership is placed above God, Liberty, and Country to near mythological appropriations its the recipe of daily fatal shootings of unarmed citizens i.e. the massacre in Charleston, S.C.. The best way to control a person or group is by keeping them in a constant state of fear and panic. The best way to do that is to say the government is trying to take away your rights. In essence this is the playbook of the NRA. The NRA isn't an advocate of gun owners but advocates for gun manufacturers whom are in the business of generating huge profits. Anything that erodes the bottom line of this multi-billion dollar industry is seen as an existential threat to their livelihood. ThE NRA is nothing more than the political arm of the gun industry.
32
The NRA is an effective civil rights organization with over 5mm members, they are the most grassroots of organizations they do not represent manufacturers, the NSSF does that. You can discount them all you want but that does not change the fact that most Americans do not want anymore gun control.
1
" Will it take another presidential assassination attempt to pass some form of common sense gun control policy in this country? "
Yes, at least that or assassination attempts on some Federal or Supreme Court Justices. (And the cynic in me says even then the intended target will need to be a white male.)
Yes, at least that or assassination attempts on some Federal or Supreme Court Justices. (And the cynic in me says even then the intended target will need to be a white male.)
1
By my reckoning, the only one of those issues that's explicitly protected as a right by the Constitution is gun ownership.
4
As Wikipedia says, "In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia'."
But there is the part about a well-regulated militia.
I don't think it's a protected as you might think. To the extent that "your" or society's gun ownership infringes on my right to safety, it must be limited.
What about re-framing the gun control issue so that the NRA, etc. cannot hide behind the Second Amendment? I read about this in a recent Wash. Post column by E.J. Dionne. He quoted Guy Molyneux, a national pollster, as saying that we should go about edging our way into SOME kind of gun control (e.g., background checks) much as the anti-smoking campaign was most successful when it focussed on non-smoker's rights. The NRA says unregulated gun ownership is an essential part of the the right to defend yourself, to be safe. What if Gun Control advocates used another tactic -
the rights of people who feel that no back ground checks, Open Carry laws and the sale of assault weapons makes public areas LESS safe? There are
more ways to skin a cat.
the rights of people who feel that no back ground checks, Open Carry laws and the sale of assault weapons makes public areas LESS safe? There are
more ways to skin a cat.
7
We have many laws on the books and aside from the loophole in private sales between individuals, the Gun Control Act of 1968 requires background checks. We need to enforce the laws we already have on the books.
1
finally someone saying something that makes sense. the rest of these sheep just want to make emotional decisions when rational ones are needed.
With respect to abortion: medical capabilities have improved to the point that a fetus as young as 21.7 weeks old grows to be a healthy and beautiful adult. This is why there is a shrinking limit on legal abortions. When a fetus can survive on their own, is abortion not murder? This is why its reasonable to limit abortions to be only legal before 20 weeks. Its because of the advance of medicine.
With respect to religion and gay marriage: This is more complex only in that it drags in more inter-related laws that aren't really correct. Briefly, probate, taxes, health insurance, and more laws are tied to marriage. In that sense clearly a gay union should have the same rights and privileges as a "married heterosexual couple". Drag in religion however, and its the right of each religion to define and view marriage according to the tenets of each religion. Its in the constitution. These views can co-exist. Does this promote discrimination? Not normally and not around me. Both of these "rights" must be protected and/or laws enforced. There are mechanisms to change the laws, and SCOTUS is not one of those mechanisms even though SCOTUS thinks it can. I think there are societal solutions to the remaining issues. I hope that society gets it right and laws are modified to codify this societal view.
With respect to religion and gay marriage: This is more complex only in that it drags in more inter-related laws that aren't really correct. Briefly, probate, taxes, health insurance, and more laws are tied to marriage. In that sense clearly a gay union should have the same rights and privileges as a "married heterosexual couple". Drag in religion however, and its the right of each religion to define and view marriage according to the tenets of each religion. Its in the constitution. These views can co-exist. Does this promote discrimination? Not normally and not around me. Both of these "rights" must be protected and/or laws enforced. There are mechanisms to change the laws, and SCOTUS is not one of those mechanisms even though SCOTUS thinks it can. I think there are societal solutions to the remaining issues. I hope that society gets it right and laws are modified to codify this societal view.
2
"With respect to abortion: medical capabilities have improved to the point that a fetus as young as 21.7 weeks old grows to be a healthy and beautiful adult. This is why there is a shrinking limit on legal abortions. When a fetus can survive on their own, is abortion not murder? This is why its reasonable to limit abortions to be only legal before 20 weeks. Its because of the advance of medicine."
Not one word about the rights of the mother, save for a reference to her as a potential murderer.
A clear example of the thinking of a patriarch.
Not one word about the rights of the mother, save for a reference to her as a potential murderer.
A clear example of the thinking of a patriarch.
33
It is barbaric to force any woman to carry a child to term that she does not want. No civilized society does this. Many countries provide abortion on demand and it is part of their national healthcare.
4
As to abortion, are you against more sex education, bill control methods and ready availability of RU486 pills? None of these are affecting 21 week olds.
Perhaps the best 2 issues to compare are expanding gun control and voter registration laws. These issues illustrate how deeply divided Americans are on social issues due to political party affiliation. The irony, of course, is that you will not find a person supportive of both, despite the arguments against them are identical.
Expanding voter registration laws unfairly deprives the impoverished of a constitutional right. Requiring a special or new ID or registration requires time away from work to go to a govt office ( fees), additional transportation costs, and anything done off work may require the burden of child care cost. All of this just for a citizen to do what is constitutionally guarantee. This argument can be applied to gun control laws--VERBATIM.
Expanding voter registration laws unfairly deprives the impoverished of a constitutional right. Requiring a special or new ID or registration requires time away from work to go to a govt office ( fees), additional transportation costs, and anything done off work may require the burden of child care cost. All of this just for a citizen to do what is constitutionally guarantee. This argument can be applied to gun control laws--VERBATIM.
2
But for both, on a practical level, how does one exist in mainstream American society without ID? Maybe the young who don't drive and the old who live in care facilities but that's fixable. How do others get through day to day without ID and if they are poor and marginalized, shouldn't they have ID to prove they qualify for vital social services?
I understand the philosophical argument against voter ID but as a practical matter, how many people really can live without ID these days and still even go to the drugstore?
I understand the philosophical argument against voter ID but as a practical matter, how many people really can live without ID these days and still even go to the drugstore?
1
I'm afraid that the authors' arguments are based on 20-20 hindsight. Whatever changes have taken place are the sorts of changes that were going to take place. The ones that didn't, weren't.
But the straight-line generalizations are as silly as they are commonplace ("Once opinions start to move, they continue to do so"). There was far more full frontal nudity in mainstream movies of the '70s than in those of the '50s or in today's films. Societal attitudes have repeated their swings from one extreme to the other for centuries.
Predictions of future developments are just as easy. You can make any claims you like because they will long be forgotten when the time comes for them to be confirmed.
But the straight-line generalizations are as silly as they are commonplace ("Once opinions start to move, they continue to do so"). There was far more full frontal nudity in mainstream movies of the '70s than in those of the '50s or in today's films. Societal attitudes have repeated their swings from one extreme to the other for centuries.
Predictions of future developments are just as easy. You can make any claims you like because they will long be forgotten when the time comes for them to be confirmed.
2
Guns definitely make criminals, and the psychopaths, safer. Occasionally ordinary people, too. But no amount of legally owned, locked guns, or hunting rifles, can deter those who seek to kill, or be killed, in a frenzy of bloody publicity/mass murder. Nor will it stop the endless shootings of gang members, all whom obtain weapons easily, whose victims are often happenstance. The major difference between advocates for abortion rights, or their opponents, is that the respective lobbies don't have the deadly control of the pro-gun lobby. Which shows no hint of yielding its influential grip on our lawmakers.
7
Discrimination never ebbs, it merely changes form.
That's so surprising! I always thought gun control, abortion, and gay marriage were the very same issue.
5
Power is the issue.
And who gets to have it. So yeah, in a way, it is the same issue.
And who gets to have it. So yeah, in a way, it is the same issue.
6
Tunisia has gun control laws that are more strict than the U.S. If that happened here, as it probably will with the way Barry is ignoring the Islamic State, there is no chance of ever getting the American population to relinquish their weaponry.
1
But in the US, there are more mass killings by white supremacists. I would argue that gun registration would be a definite improvement since many of the supremacists have some criminal record.
The Washington Post reports that in the U.S. the rate of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births is 18.5. Carrying a baby to term is risky. I don’t understand why people who are comfortable mandating a woman must carry a baby to term, don’t also mandate that people must be kidney donors, if their kidney is a match to a dying person. Or must give blood, if they have a rare type. Since the debate seems to be about competing rights, why are the only rights that are up for grabs are those of a pregnant woman?
18
Love this analogy. A woman's right to control her body is fundamental and trumps any rights developing fetal cells may have within her.
This is just hilarious. Despite the ownership of guns being guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and despite the "right of the people" guaranteed there, the Times cannot bring itself to present gun ownership as a civil right. You couldn't construct a better parody of its prejudices.
11
Gun ownership is NOT guaranteed! That is an interpretation by SCOTUS, which I hope will be changed.
Stubbs, you, like Scalia should try reading the constitution some time. The entirety of the second amendment follows: "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." Gun? Where IS that in the amendment? While in his opinion in Heller, Scalia, the putative "originaist," chose to simply ignore the opening clause concerning militias, he DID specifically state that here are numerous ways in which the right enumerated may very well be constitutionally infringed. Scalia used to carry a disassembled rifle to the Catholic military High School he attended in New York City on our subways (Xavier HS). Can you go to the court and show your gun to fellow enthusiast Scalia? Try it and let me know how it turns out for you. Can you take one on a carry on bag onto a commercial flight? Can you own a fully armed tank? Can you own a fully automatic weapon? Can you own your own tactical nuclear warhead?
Why a driver's license is OK, and no training to own a gun is required is a fair reflection of the fatuousness of gun nuts such as yourself.
Why a driver's license is OK, and no training to own a gun is required is a fair reflection of the fatuousness of gun nuts such as yourself.
Gun rights are the opposite of gay rights, in numerous ways; the main one being - no gay person is going to murder anyone with fabulousness.
Besides, no one except the extremists is talking about eliminating gun rights. They are talking about placing the same rational limits on those rights as we do on driving, using dynamite, and every other dangerous activity. Every insane violent person wielding a weapon is curtailing the civil rights of his victims, and his potential victims. Children shouldn't need to wear bulletproof vests to McDonalds to cater to the egos of adult children obsessed with guns.
Besides, no one except the extremists is talking about eliminating gun rights. They are talking about placing the same rational limits on those rights as we do on driving, using dynamite, and every other dangerous activity. Every insane violent person wielding a weapon is curtailing the civil rights of his victims, and his potential victims. Children shouldn't need to wear bulletproof vests to McDonalds to cater to the egos of adult children obsessed with guns.
26
"no gay person is going to murder anyone with fabulousness."
Really? Maybe you're too young to remember Andrew Cunanan, the gay "American serial killer who murdered at least five people, including fashion designer Gianni Versace, during a three-month period in 1997":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cunanan
Really? Maybe you're too young to remember Andrew Cunanan, the gay "American serial killer who murdered at least five people, including fashion designer Gianni Versace, during a three-month period in 1997":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cunanan
1
Don't you find it curious then, shockratees, that the nation with the greatest gun rights also has the greatest gay rights?
In St. Louis, a gun-rights advocate from Ohio has filed a lawsuit, because he wants to carry his weapon, in a holster, throughout the St. Louiz Zoo. Currently, he is prohibited from doing so by law.
This is how pro-gun people lose support. There is absolutely NO REASON for holstered "look-how-bad-I-am" weapons on display at the Zoo. None. It's ego, pure and simple. Concealed carry is one thing. If you're that paranoid, fine. Bring your bad gun. But there's no need to advertise.
This is how pro-gun people lose support. There is absolutely NO REASON for holstered "look-how-bad-I-am" weapons on display at the Zoo. None. It's ego, pure and simple. Concealed carry is one thing. If you're that paranoid, fine. Bring your bad gun. But there's no need to advertise.
22
Read the article, considered the percentages in the charts, and concluded that yes, the summary is basically on point and nothing new either. In my view, this article merely stated the obvious.
The Supreme Court has said the 2nd Amendment says what it means and individuals can own guns. But since guns create a significant public health hazard and raise costs for policing and health care, then they, or the ammo they use, should be taxed like a public health hazard, like tobacco.
If you doubled the cost of guns and or ammo you'd reduce gun ownership and gun usage, yet not affect gun rights.
If you doubled the cost of guns and or ammo you'd reduce gun ownership and gun usage, yet not affect gun rights.
6
Facts please.
Chuck, what the Constitution *actually* says is: "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."
While in his opinion in Heller, Scalia chose to simply ignore the opening, controlling clause, he DID specifically state a number of ways that the right to keep and bear arms ( note, no mention of guns in the constitution AT ALL) MAY be infringed. This includes, in a risibly ironic way, your right to show your gun to fellow enthusiast Scalia at his place of work. Arms include flamethrower a, rocket propelled grenade launchers, a tank or even your own tactical nuclear weapon. Can you have any of those arms. Can you take your gun in a carry on on a plane?
While in his opinion in Heller, Scalia chose to simply ignore the opening, controlling clause, he DID specifically state a number of ways that the right to keep and bear arms ( note, no mention of guns in the constitution AT ALL) MAY be infringed. This includes, in a risibly ironic way, your right to show your gun to fellow enthusiast Scalia at his place of work. Arms include flamethrower a, rocket propelled grenade launchers, a tank or even your own tactical nuclear weapon. Can you have any of those arms. Can you take your gun in a carry on on a plane?
I believe that with regards to voting rights, those kinds of added costs, referred to as, "Poll Taxes" were designed back during the bad old days of "Jim Crow" to try and keep the poor away from the polls.
I am a devoted reader of The Upshot and have learned a lot. Today, they miss the mark on a critical point. To group climate change with abortion and gun control creates a false equivalency between an issue that should be resolved by science and isn't a matter of belief. Seeing such a grouping in The Upshot is extremely disappointing and points in the direction that the "science denier" extremists are winning the battle. If they can't win with the facts they either label unsubstantiated conjecture "fact" and base their further reasoning a the fallacy of fantasy or they change the basis of the argument from an issue best addressed by the scientific method to one being settled by opinion, no matter how uninformed.
Please don't add to the fog of belief into which the deniers strive to place climate change. Keep in the scientific realm of discussion where it belongs. We're counting on journalism as demonstrated by the NYT and The Upshot to inform, not distort.
Please don't add to the fog of belief into which the deniers strive to place climate change. Keep in the scientific realm of discussion where it belongs. We're counting on journalism as demonstrated by the NYT and The Upshot to inform, not distort.
11
Regarding the supposed tension between the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus... the argument I don't hear nearly enough would be WHICH fetus.
It is clear that women choose to have fewer babies than they could have, via (entirely appropriate) family planning. So if forced to have a baby they don't feel ready for, another child that would have been born will not be born. For all those people sanctimoniously saying, "thanks Mom, for not aborting me" there are many who should be saying, "thanks Mom, for waiting until you could be such a great Mom to me." Women should have babies when they think they are ready and prepared, period. No one else should be deciding for them. Society is always the better when women have choice.
It is clear that women choose to have fewer babies than they could have, via (entirely appropriate) family planning. So if forced to have a baby they don't feel ready for, another child that would have been born will not be born. For all those people sanctimoniously saying, "thanks Mom, for not aborting me" there are many who should be saying, "thanks Mom, for waiting until you could be such a great Mom to me." Women should have babies when they think they are ready and prepared, period. No one else should be deciding for them. Society is always the better when women have choice.
47
"Society is always the better when women have choice."
Individual choices, in aggregate, can have negative consequences for society, which is why countries such as India and China are realizing the predictable and , if unintended consequences of sex-selective abortions
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/24/society-sex-selecti...
Individual choices, in aggregate, can have negative consequences for society, which is why countries such as India and China are realizing the predictable and , if unintended consequences of sex-selective abortions
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/24/society-sex-selecti...
Please don't blur the issue here which is a woman's right to control her own body. Valuing and empowering women are the actual points to be considered here because the desire to 'sex-select' is rooted in paternalistic and misogynistic ideas about women/girls and their worth. If outdated and dangerous cultural ideals were modernized then aborting female fetuses wouldn't be desirable.
3
I think you don't hear that argument much partly because it's not a very good argument.
The column is quite correct in its thesis. The rights of certain groups that have been denied them only because of mean-spirited prejudice are destined to be granted as society becomes less insular and as people who were in the past isolated from the force of reasonable opinion are exposed to it. On the other hand those 'rights' that seem to violate a counter right will always be up for grabs since there is no 'force of reasonable opinion' to give them inevitability.
Many of the commenters seem to not have the ability to look at the other side of things like abortion, gun control and marijuana to see the counterargument that makes them not quite the irrefragable 'right' they claim. The emotional stake for those who believe the fetus deserves legal protection, that guns make people safer and that marijuana use makes them less safe is as great as it is for those who believe the opposite. It seems to me that the best strategy for abortion and gun control advocates especially is the reasonable 'lets meet in the middle' approach. I'll give a little if you will then, if the other side doesn't compromise, they look unreasonable and the battle for public opinion focuses on that rather than the emotional "I say-you say" debate of competing absolute rights. A debate that forces those in the middle to take sides when they see validity in both.
Many of the commenters seem to not have the ability to look at the other side of things like abortion, gun control and marijuana to see the counterargument that makes them not quite the irrefragable 'right' they claim. The emotional stake for those who believe the fetus deserves legal protection, that guns make people safer and that marijuana use makes them less safe is as great as it is for those who believe the opposite. It seems to me that the best strategy for abortion and gun control advocates especially is the reasonable 'lets meet in the middle' approach. I'll give a little if you will then, if the other side doesn't compromise, they look unreasonable and the battle for public opinion focuses on that rather than the emotional "I say-you say" debate of competing absolute rights. A debate that forces those in the middle to take sides when they see validity in both.
You are making a big assumption here.
Ie, : That people who run these kind of personhood campaigns, for example, will meet "in the middle", on anything. We have rejected these personhood issues 3 times in Colorado. The people spoke. Three Times. And still the fundamentalists march on. Why? Because they are not interested in the democratic process. They believe they have The Truth. About family planning, about gay people, about guns- a closer look at the Duggar fiasco says a lot about this mindset. Purity does not equal being ethical in the real world.
Ie, : That people who run these kind of personhood campaigns, for example, will meet "in the middle", on anything. We have rejected these personhood issues 3 times in Colorado. The people spoke. Three Times. And still the fundamentalists march on. Why? Because they are not interested in the democratic process. They believe they have The Truth. About family planning, about gay people, about guns- a closer look at the Duggar fiasco says a lot about this mindset. Purity does not equal being ethical in the real world.
13
Separation of church and state needs to be upheld. Religion and religious ideals have no business being codified into law.
They just have a different opinion and disagree with you. You are both evil to each other.
The better comparison is gun control and smoking laws. Fifty years ago, laws limiting the use of tobacco products in public were unthinkable. Today, as we understand the deadly effects of tobacco more clearly, you can't even smoke in a bar in North Carolina. We can hardly imagine a day when a man smoked at a restaurant next to his infant child (and did not have anyone in seatbelts on the way there). I suspect 50 years from now we will look back on the present Gun Age and think to ourselves, that was completely insane back then. Gun insanity will go the way of smokers puffing away in your local restaurant. Some day, we'll wake up. Like smoking, however, a lot more people will have to die first.
10
Except you can't protect yourself in a home invasion with a cigarette.
The differences; smoking is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right, and guns can save lives. Gun murder is down 49% since 1993 and gun rights are expanded.
1
and one day we will look at the masses of hungry, miserable people, with no chance of better lives, and say, "we had the means to prevent these poor souls from coming into the world to suffer, and we refused to do it."
In part public opinion is influenced by the media and media coverage. It is also influenced by political leadership. Neither of these groups has done a particularly good job at having a conversation about abortion, gun control and climate change.
1
All other stats aside, this just reminded me that "atheist" is still a dirty word in the US.
4
If you're an atheist running for office in the deep south (which may include parts of Missouri and all of Indiana), you're in no worse position than a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Catholic.
I think the more relevant aspect of a candidate is his/her record of achievement.
I think the more relevant aspect of a candidate is his/her record of achievement.
People like easy categories and black and white for one thing.
The "stunning speed" of marriage-equality was built on decades of slow work by the gay rights folks. That did not happen in a vacuum.
The abortion issue pits specific religious definitions and even dogma of certain groups against what most people see as private family planning issues. The idea that a fertilized egg is a person is a very recent incarnation of this. Many fertilized eggs are naturally shed by the body- that is not seen as crime territory. The purity folk don't take violent crimes like rape or incest into account and that is certainly a civil rights issue for the woman.
Getting something practical like gun background checks becomes framed as some sort of "freedom" issue because the gun lobby has twisted politicians' arms for an industry. People support background checks and they still do.
How can you defend the right of a criminal to carry a weapon but require a woman who has been raped to be a bystander/vessel to protect some some criminal's DNA? Sounds like abstraction over practical ethics. When a belief system requires "other people" outside your belief system to do or be something for you to practice your beliefs is going to be a problem in America.
The "stunning speed" of marriage-equality was built on decades of slow work by the gay rights folks. That did not happen in a vacuum.
The abortion issue pits specific religious definitions and even dogma of certain groups against what most people see as private family planning issues. The idea that a fertilized egg is a person is a very recent incarnation of this. Many fertilized eggs are naturally shed by the body- that is not seen as crime territory. The purity folk don't take violent crimes like rape or incest into account and that is certainly a civil rights issue for the woman.
Getting something practical like gun background checks becomes framed as some sort of "freedom" issue because the gun lobby has twisted politicians' arms for an industry. People support background checks and they still do.
How can you defend the right of a criminal to carry a weapon but require a woman who has been raped to be a bystander/vessel to protect some some criminal's DNA? Sounds like abstraction over practical ethics. When a belief system requires "other people" outside your belief system to do or be something for you to practice your beliefs is going to be a problem in America.
11
Most Americans know someone who is gay by now. At some point most Americans will know someone who has been harmed by a gun. Sad to say, that may be what it takes to counter the NRA and a venal congress.
5
Harmed or saved.....
I'm confused because isn't abortion also a rights-based issue?
1
K,
Yeah but it only applies to women so ....
Yeah but it only applies to women so ....
On many racial, gender and religious discrimination issues there is strong public non-political institutional support. Same-sex marriage was supported by ordinary corporations like Microsoft, Apple, Target and so on, as well as supported by a large number of progressive organizations. There was (and is) institutional opposition, but the support is public and omnipresent. By contrast, there is very little public institutional support in the U.S. for abortion rights, eliminating the death penalty or having stricter gun laws. Certainly there are progressive groups supporting abortion rights and restricting the death penalty and gun laws, just as there are conservative groups (and religious institutions) taking the contrary position. But there is virtually no public voice by corporations and other public institutions on these issues. I suggest that the failure of corporations and other largely non-political institutions to take a position on gun laws, abortion and the death penalty has contributed mightily to the stagnation in public opinion on these issues.
2
America is just not seeing the forest through the trees on 'gun control'. People are not looking at the big picture here. If the country failed to get things right after the Sandy Hook School shootings--then we are doomed.
6
Why is gun control different than same-sex marriage? Same-sex marriage is a celebration of what's good about humanity, whereas gun control is protection and precaution about what's bad about humanity.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
3
Gun control and abortion are different from the gay marriage because:
Gun control is about the Second Amendment. "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."
Bearing arms is more dangerous than abortions, death from the gun occurs instantly. If one man shots the other, he is considered a murderer.
It just so happened in our society, If women performs abortion, she is not considered to be a murderer.
What about same-sex marriages and procreation, these people have defined their own fate themselves.
Gun control is about the Second Amendment. "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."
Bearing arms is more dangerous than abortions, death from the gun occurs instantly. If one man shots the other, he is considered a murderer.
It just so happened in our society, If women performs abortion, she is not considered to be a murderer.
What about same-sex marriages and procreation, these people have defined their own fate themselves.
It's good that they are showing that picture of Roof with his gun. Now I know what a well regulated militia looks like
6
The difference between issues that move steadily in one direction from those that do not seems fairly straightforward. The first issue concerns identity: I am Catholic, or black, or gay, or whatever. The issues that fluctuate are about other things, mainly behavior: carrying guns, having abortions, etc. For the identity issue to prevail, members of the group at issue merely have to persuade non-members that their identity will not change if members gain rights and power. But behavior issues offer no such formula for success.
Gay rights changed when people knew more gay people.
Gun rights will change when more people know people who've been shot.
Gun rights will change when more people know people who've been shot.
6
Follow the money: guns are one of the few things America still manufactures. Likewise, big money was overwhelmingly on the side of gay marriage.
3
Why are women a "group"? They are listed among "the groups in question and their allies". Women are half the human species. That our rights are considered as a special subset tells you what's wrong: defining "rights" as male prerogatives. Are men a "group"?
Gay and transgender rights threaten conservative thinking because they elude the male/female dichotomy that allows men to have rights by nature, whereas the rights of women are defined in relation to what men will allow them. Men's rights aren't granted by anybody but some mysterious Creator, or Nature; women's rights are granted by men, who get to decide whether she can be forced to serve as an incubator. We don't force men to propagate—though we like to make it easy for them by covering erectile dysfunction drugs, while doling out birth control for women, or not, with stern disapproval.
Keep in mind that as oppressed as black men are and have been in the U.S., they got the right to vote several decades before women of any color.
Men don't have to give me my rights as a citizen or a human being. My rights exist as surely as theirs do. But some men sure do expend a lot of effort trying to deny my rights.
The fervor some men feel for the right to kill, their gun fetish, is just the flip side of their obsession with controlling women's reproductive capacity. Ancient Roman law codified the patriarch's power of life and death over others. That sick desire in a minority of men hasn't gone away.
Gay and transgender rights threaten conservative thinking because they elude the male/female dichotomy that allows men to have rights by nature, whereas the rights of women are defined in relation to what men will allow them. Men's rights aren't granted by anybody but some mysterious Creator, or Nature; women's rights are granted by men, who get to decide whether she can be forced to serve as an incubator. We don't force men to propagate—though we like to make it easy for them by covering erectile dysfunction drugs, while doling out birth control for women, or not, with stern disapproval.
Keep in mind that as oppressed as black men are and have been in the U.S., they got the right to vote several decades before women of any color.
Men don't have to give me my rights as a citizen or a human being. My rights exist as surely as theirs do. But some men sure do expend a lot of effort trying to deny my rights.
The fervor some men feel for the right to kill, their gun fetish, is just the flip side of their obsession with controlling women's reproductive capacity. Ancient Roman law codified the patriarch's power of life and death over others. That sick desire in a minority of men hasn't gone away.
47
You might enjoy the documentary Not For Ourselves Alone. One of the things covered in it is the fact that at one time women and black men were working together to gain voting rights but the two groups ended up splitting.
I often wonder what history would have been like if that split hadn't occurred.
I often wonder what history would have been like if that split hadn't occurred.
Many, many women helped black men achieve the right to vote and were forced to wait and work for decades more for their own suffrage. Likewise, many non-LGBT men and women have worked for marriage equity. Isn't it time for the needs of the majority of the human population, women, to be prioritized? We've already waited long enough!
Let's take a look at this same poll in 2024, after Hillary Rodham Clinton has been President of the United States for eight years and WE have elected a Congress of democrats and other politicians who truthfully want to restore democracy in America for 99% of us. There is a sea change in the social thinking of the vast majority of citizens ion America that is in no way reflected in the current ALEC/Koch brothers/Wall Street/nra/u.s. chamber of commerce/radical religious right/major media "conservative" corporate conglomerate that has taken over OUR country. That sea change includes an Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution that guarantees women control over their own lives and bodies - free from any government or religious interference - and serious gun ownership regulation. Watch what happens on November 8 - a little over four months from now - when the silent majority roars it's disapproval of the current "corporate conglomerate" state of America. Just watch.
3
Thanks for your post. I was not aware that the presidential election was in four months--thought we voted for the president every 4 years.
1
A few too many cliches in this article.
First, abortion doesn't relate to womens' control over their bodies. That occurs when they have unprotected sex. The primary issue is the tension between a woman's desire to choose -- not right to choose - and the rights of the father (usually one of those is involved last time I checked the facts of life) and the fetus.
Second, the civil rights issue in criminal justice is on the victims' side. I have the right not to have been mugged 8 times in 15 years by thugs (the "walking while white" problem). And my wife has the right to walk on the streets of Manhattan without some kid (sorry, but usually "of color") harassing or threatening her.
Third, gun control is a pandering, hopeless demogogic issue, not a real one. Sadly, with over 250,000,000 guns out there, there is nothing -- nothing -- that can be done to end the violence that plagues all of us. It's too late, and politicians doddled over this for too many decades. We will never ever be free of the insane violence, and none of the proposed or enacted laws impacts the crimes that spur us to this discussion.
And last, the statistics on a Jewish president make no sense. There is a steady, virulent, 15% or so of Americans who are rabidly anti black and anti-Jewish. But there were enough whites to carry Obama through on sympathy and feel-goodism, but that doesn't exist for Jewish people -- the only true minority against whom one discriminates without consequence.
First, abortion doesn't relate to womens' control over their bodies. That occurs when they have unprotected sex. The primary issue is the tension between a woman's desire to choose -- not right to choose - and the rights of the father (usually one of those is involved last time I checked the facts of life) and the fetus.
Second, the civil rights issue in criminal justice is on the victims' side. I have the right not to have been mugged 8 times in 15 years by thugs (the "walking while white" problem). And my wife has the right to walk on the streets of Manhattan without some kid (sorry, but usually "of color") harassing or threatening her.
Third, gun control is a pandering, hopeless demogogic issue, not a real one. Sadly, with over 250,000,000 guns out there, there is nothing -- nothing -- that can be done to end the violence that plagues all of us. It's too late, and politicians doddled over this for too many decades. We will never ever be free of the insane violence, and none of the proposed or enacted laws impacts the crimes that spur us to this discussion.
And last, the statistics on a Jewish president make no sense. There is a steady, virulent, 15% or so of Americans who are rabidly anti black and anti-Jewish. But there were enough whites to carry Obama through on sympathy and feel-goodism, but that doesn't exist for Jewish people -- the only true minority against whom one discriminates without consequence.
2
Abortion is absolutely about a woman's rights to control her body. Birth control fails and because a woman carries a fetus to term in HER body it is her right to terminate the pregnancy.
This is one right that men should not be able to control.
This is one right that men should not be able to control.
1
"First, abortion doesn't relate to womens' control over their bodies. That occurs when they have unprotected sex."
Right. Because, you know, pregnancies don't occur inside a woman's body, being pregnant has no effect at all on a woman's short or long-term health, serious complications never occur during a wanted pregnancy, and birth control is always 100% perfect.
Right. Because, you know, pregnancies don't occur inside a woman's body, being pregnant has no effect at all on a woman's short or long-term health, serious complications never occur during a wanted pregnancy, and birth control is always 100% perfect.
Abortion is a right. Too many people forget that fact.
Without the fundamental right to determine when and if they will bear children, women have no true freedom. Self-determination is the most basic freedom we Americans pretend to value, except when it comes to women.
When will women be accepted as full human beings and equal citizens with the same dignity and freedoms as men?
Without the fundamental right to determine when and if they will bear children, women have no true freedom. Self-determination is the most basic freedom we Americans pretend to value, except when it comes to women.
When will women be accepted as full human beings and equal citizens with the same dignity and freedoms as men?
81
"kr", I am tempted to write in response to your last paragraph: When men can produce babies. My point is not to be snide, but to point out that it is not all that helpful to cast every issue as one of "freedom and dignity" in the search for true equality. The actual, direct answer to your question would be that men have every right at the moment to get an abortion, so women should have that right, too?
The entire issue of abortion has been kept in the forefront partly for political purposes by the fundamentalist right wing in America. It was generated originally by the Catholic church, which forbids the use of contraception and then forbids the use of anything to deal with the consequences of the first prohibition. The Catholic church, however, has a vested interest in "be fruitful and multiply" because that is the only way it generally gets new members, since there are very few converts of adults.
Most people support abortion rights for women. It is a loud, insistent minority who have had more influence than the rest of us.
The entire issue of abortion has been kept in the forefront partly for political purposes by the fundamentalist right wing in America. It was generated originally by the Catholic church, which forbids the use of contraception and then forbids the use of anything to deal with the consequences of the first prohibition. The Catholic church, however, has a vested interest in "be fruitful and multiply" because that is the only way it generally gets new members, since there are very few converts of adults.
Most people support abortion rights for women. It is a loud, insistent minority who have had more influence than the rest of us.
Life is a right. Too many people forget that fact. By giving someone the right to determine whether a child lives or dies, children have no true freedom. Life is the most basic freedom we Americans pretend to value, except when it comes to children.
When will a fetus be accepted as a full human being and equal citizens with the same dignity and freedoms as men and women?
When will a fetus be accepted as a full human being and equal citizens with the same dignity and freedoms as men and women?
1
Well said. Thank you.
3
Oddly enough, there seems to be no right of freedom from bullying by gun owners - specifically the ones who carry them in public, sport bumper stickers advertising their violent nature, etc. One would think that such an elemental safety issue would not require a statute, but clearly the violent mentality that is growing in the population of gun owners requires laws and enforcement. Until "freedom from arms" is recognized by the general population, we're subject to the whims of those that arms themselves with dubious intentions.
29
There's no more a "freedom from arms" than there is a freedom from gay marriage.
You have an irrational fear.
So should I feel bullied when I see a rainbow sticker on a car or when I am visit P-town this summer, for fear that I may be sexually harassed due to my overwhelmingly handsome looks and awesome physique? I want "freedom from ogling eyes"
So should I feel bullied when I see a rainbow sticker on a car or when I am visit P-town this summer, for fear that I may be sexually harassed due to my overwhelmingly handsome looks and awesome physique? I want "freedom from ogling eyes"
No change in public opinion on legalizing marijuana? How about we start with our media taking a more prominent role in educating the masses. I believe it was in the past 12 months that Dr. Sanjay Gupta apologized for his repeated lies on the supposed not so salubrious effects of marijuana.
Abortion and gun control are not rights-based issues? The left thinks the former is and the right thinks the latter is. I detect confusion on the part of the author.
LGBT rights have had enormous momentum because being LGBT is uncorrelated with other social factors. There are LGBTs in every walk of society. There are industry leaders with big money who can move corporations, like what happened in Indiana. And every extended family has LGBT members (whether the family is aware of it or not), which generates empathy and the humane understanding that LGBTs are people, not monsters.
In this key way, LGBT rights differ from other issues.
LGBT rights have had enormous momentum because being LGBT is uncorrelated with other social factors. There are LGBTs in every walk of society. There are industry leaders with big money who can move corporations, like what happened in Indiana. And every extended family has LGBT members (whether the family is aware of it or not), which generates empathy and the humane understanding that LGBTs are people, not monsters.
In this key way, LGBT rights differ from other issues.
4
There is no confusion on the part of the author. The author clearly delineates the argument why abortion and gun control aren't the same sort of rights-bases issues. In the article it states that on these issues each side of the debate has a legitimate argument that they are protecting a right and/or freedom (eg, abortion- right to choose vs right of fetus; gun control - 2nd amendment vs right to be protected from gun violence). In gay marriage, interracial marriage, etc, the opposing side was never able to gain traction in the argument that they were defending a right and therefore came across as bigoted.
Abortion is absolutely a woman's right. She has a right to control her body. Period.
Fetuses do not have rights.
That argument is a red herring to disguise the real agenda of those who oppose abortion and birth control. The only right at stake is for males, establishing a legal basis to control reproduction - to be able to prevent women from avoiding pregnancy and to force them to give birth.
That argument is a red herring to disguise the real agenda of those who oppose abortion and birth control. The only right at stake is for males, establishing a legal basis to control reproduction - to be able to prevent women from avoiding pregnancy and to force them to give birth.
97
Its hard to prevent women from avoiding pregnancy since you have that choice before engaging in sexual activity. Birth control is widely available.
1
The trends do not show all years so it is hard to compare when there is an increase or not in rate of agreement. I think because a few states have already legalized recreational marijuana, and medical marijuana is legal in a number of states, we will see either widespread state legalization and/or federal legalization for private indoor use within a decade at most.
2
As a gun owner, I really detest the NRA and its ilk, for their absolutist ideas that make the 2nd Amendment and responsible gun owners a punch line.
Guns, like any inanimate object whether a knife or a car, are only as dangerous as the person using them. A repeated failure for robust background checks to make it through a cuckold Congress, poor treatment of the mentally ill and dullards who advocate "open carry" in restaurants and stores to compensate for a shortage in their pants only magnify the problem.
Unfortunately, after Sandy Hook, Aurora or Charleston, the beltway cynics merely see these tragedies as opportunities for fund raising, rather than engaging in meaningful debate over responsible gun ownership the embraces the 2nd Amendment, and yet recognizes that not every person with a pulse should have access to guns.
Guns, like any inanimate object whether a knife or a car, are only as dangerous as the person using them. A repeated failure for robust background checks to make it through a cuckold Congress, poor treatment of the mentally ill and dullards who advocate "open carry" in restaurants and stores to compensate for a shortage in their pants only magnify the problem.
Unfortunately, after Sandy Hook, Aurora or Charleston, the beltway cynics merely see these tragedies as opportunities for fund raising, rather than engaging in meaningful debate over responsible gun ownership the embraces the 2nd Amendment, and yet recognizes that not every person with a pulse should have access to guns.
112
And we won't "compromise" until the left recognizes that the right to keep and bear arms exists in the first place.
1
Our Senator lost his job thanks to the NRA targeting him for doing what Colorado citizens wanted after the Aurora massacre at that movie theater. We got some background checks and smaller magazine size for weapons and the legislation stood even though they got a recall victory in the slimiest possible way. The GOP hack who replaced him in the recall was replaced himself as soon as a regular election came round.
"Dullard" and "compensate for a shortage in their pants" - Well done and spot on.
1
Marriage equality was "cheap" - there wasn't much money, prestige, or power to be lost by the opponents. Guns and gender inequality are two issues precisely different - they define patriarchy which is a foundation of conservatism and huge economic activity. That's why improvement in these struggles is so hard.
99
I think Dave and Alicia are essentially correct. Many of us that had opposed same sex marriage were very much in favor of an institution such as a civil union - something other than marriage - that would have recognized and protected same sex couples with most of the same rights and recognitions as marriage.
We did not grant new rights to gays - they always had the right to join in marriage as previously defined, and many had - but alter the definition of marriage that had stood since the dawn of civilization. So be it that the definition now has additional meanings that expand it's use in society. I am very glad for gays to be able to both live in their own dedicated, monogamous lifestyle but also enjoy all of the rights and protections previous reserved only for the previous definition of marriage.
Gun control is very different, just as the authors conclude. And no Mr. Cahill, SCOTUS has in multiple decisions rejected your notion. Points 1 and 2 are not incorrect but number 3 is both incorrect and incomplete and the rest is just speculative conjecture.
I believe Roe will fall in due time. I believe it will be seen as the Dred Scott of our time by future, more enlightened generations. The complete argument is too long but the major issue is one of personhood. Just as blacks, or really any non-white, women and non property owning white men were not originally considered a person with full legal standing, someday, personhood will be recognized for every human being.
We did not grant new rights to gays - they always had the right to join in marriage as previously defined, and many had - but alter the definition of marriage that had stood since the dawn of civilization. So be it that the definition now has additional meanings that expand it's use in society. I am very glad for gays to be able to both live in their own dedicated, monogamous lifestyle but also enjoy all of the rights and protections previous reserved only for the previous definition of marriage.
Gun control is very different, just as the authors conclude. And no Mr. Cahill, SCOTUS has in multiple decisions rejected your notion. Points 1 and 2 are not incorrect but number 3 is both incorrect and incomplete and the rest is just speculative conjecture.
I believe Roe will fall in due time. I believe it will be seen as the Dred Scott of our time by future, more enlightened generations. The complete argument is too long but the major issue is one of personhood. Just as blacks, or really any non-white, women and non property owning white men were not originally considered a person with full legal standing, someday, personhood will be recognized for every human being.
5
A woman's right to control her body and reproductive choices is an absolutely enlightened position. Easily accessible, free birth control and comprehensive sexual education are the keys to lowering unwanted pregnancies. Not a shame based, ineffective abstinence only approach.
7
Personhood does not develop until birth because it requires experience of living. Birth is the start of life, not conception.
6
Yes, the state of marriage has changed. It has been made better. You should be grateful.
3
Mr. Cahill has of course twisted logic on its head.
It is the milita that in the 2nd Amendment is to be "well regulated".
(Witness the cop shooting the black fellow in the back in SC; the corrupt police forces all over the world; an armed force is always a key to tyranny.)
So, yes, we need a "well-regulated militia", but, given that necessity, the concluding operative right spelled out is: "...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Note Mr. Cahill it does not say, as it might have, "the right of the miltia" or "the right of the President".
This clear Constitutional right was spelled out for two reasons: one, to have a populace capable of, as they did beginning at Lexington and Concord, rising and defending themselves and their freedom. Second, as a check on the rise tyranny in its many forms.
It is the milita that in the 2nd Amendment is to be "well regulated".
(Witness the cop shooting the black fellow in the back in SC; the corrupt police forces all over the world; an armed force is always a key to tyranny.)
So, yes, we need a "well-regulated militia", but, given that necessity, the concluding operative right spelled out is: "...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Note Mr. Cahill it does not say, as it might have, "the right of the miltia" or "the right of the President".
This clear Constitutional right was spelled out for two reasons: one, to have a populace capable of, as they did beginning at Lexington and Concord, rising and defending themselves and their freedom. Second, as a check on the rise tyranny in its many forms.
7
Third, the government was too cheap at its inception to fund a standing army.
This idea by right wingers that they and their arsenals are going to save 'Murica from tyranny cracks me up. When the Air Force and Army arrive at their 3 bedroom/2 bath in suburbia where they have started their revolution, it's apparently going to be a big shock.
The vast majority of Americans are straight. And they support gay rights because they understand intuitively that gays pose no threat to them. Live and let live, they now think. But gun ownership is different, and all can sense it. Gun purchases have increased since the Citizens United decision, perhaps because people sense that our government is now more open to the corrosive effect of money. Our government will eventually become violently corrupt, they imagine, so they arm themselves before it's too late.
2
This is an interesting theory but the people who are arming themselves are the ones voting for the politicians who are the most corrupt.
Gun control advocates are stymied because they want to remove freedom from many law-abiding, peaceful people. In addition, their proposals actually will do NOTHING to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook and Charleston, which proves that they really don't understand the issue at all.
4
No, it is about background checks and reasonable limits which to prevent tragedies.
Getting a background check isn't loss of freedom. Even Tony S. acknowledged as much.
Simply stating that your conclusion is true does not constitute evidence for your conclusion. You assert that gun control proposals will do nothing to prevent tragedies, without providing proof for that assertion. You then assert that your opponents do not understand the issue because if they did, they would know that gun control proposals will do nothing...I feel like I'm chasing my tail.
It's not that difficult. The Supreme ruled there is a "traditional" right to gun ownership, but what is the traditional USE of an AK47 or any other automatic weapon? Canada simply made a list of all weapons that could be used for mass murder and banned them, leaving hunting rifles, simple handguns, etc.
58
Automatic weapons are not publicly available. You can buy an AK-47 style rifle but its semi-automatic.
1
With Gun control there isn't a well financed push behind it like marriage equality. The pro-gun side has deep pockets to fiance campaigns from the local to the federal level to squash any dissent on the issue. The NRA will use any bare knuckle tactic to protect gun owners rights if not expand them. The biggest thing to shape public opinion is having a PR juggernaut to effect the outcome. Of course sharing the mentality that its; "Its my God given right to fill in the blank!"
8
I always thought that one reason gay rights gained acceptability was that almost everyone has a gay friend or family member - even Dick Cheney. And probably most people know someone who has had an abortion BUT those who have do not speak out due to shame and privacy so the general knowledge that you know someone who has had the procedure is not as demonstrative. And I fear that many people in private conversations with peers are reluctant to express their support for abortion rights. It is an uncomfortable topic. Ultimately I fear Roe will be overturned and then people will realize they know women who have to find illegal ones.
12
What would be interesting would be a comparison of how certain attitudes became widely accepted - a change in public opinion (Catholic or Jewish president), a change in laws or the constitution (women getting to vote) or a court decision (interracial and same sex marriage.)
1
That the right to bear arms is an express right in the Bill of Rights makes it different on its face.
6
"As a result, it’s fair to divide the major issues in American political life into two broad categories. In one category are the rights-based issues in which the future can be safely predicted. In the other category — which includes abortion, gun control and climate change — there is far less clarity about the direction of public opinion."
Hate to break it to you that gun control is also a rights-based issue.
Hate to break it to you that gun control is also a rights-based issue.
3
The Catholic Pro life movement is one of the most successful programs in the US, 1.2 million babies are born to single girls who cannot financially support them, but depend on Uncle Sam. In short the family unit was destroyed as grandparents or others cared for many of these unwanted kids. With the two rulings by the Supreme Court, the opportunity to create a family by loving and caring individuals through marriage, receiving Obamacare ... will allow the regeneration of a family/families. The US will be stronger and healthier for these decisions because we will create taxpayers, not tax users.
5
Elimintion of all guns would be great, but this is impossible.
I hate guns and I do not have guns. But I know "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is too true.
I hate guns and I do not have guns. But I know "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is too true.
8
@ R. R.
As usual with your pronouncements a mixture of false hypotheticals and error. No one is proposing to "outlaw" guns (whatever that means presumably tighter controls). And just to take one society where the ownership of guns is actually quite high, Germany, but regulation is strict. Gun homicides in Germany are 1.8 per million whereas here they are 30. But don't let the facts confuse you.
As usual with your pronouncements a mixture of false hypotheticals and error. No one is proposing to "outlaw" guns (whatever that means presumably tighter controls). And just to take one society where the ownership of guns is actually quite high, Germany, but regulation is strict. Gun homicides in Germany are 1.8 per million whereas here they are 30. But don't let the facts confuse you.
63
But they and the mentally deranged will have a harder time finding them.
8
Who has been proposing the"elimination " of guns? I believe we are proposing more restrictions on who can purchase guns.
26
One difference, is that abortion and gay rights are NOT in the US Const, while gun freedom is, AND if the polls are accurate that there is majority support, then the political process has failed, that is, we do not have democracy, OR the polls are faulty, OR we do not have democracy, or that advocates don't vote, or lie to pollsters....
OR we have abandoned democracy to an elite, so let's skip elections and save some money, skip to Kim and Caitlyn, better visuals at least
- as for expanding rights, Madame Justice Ginsburg listed how many groups were added to protected categories over our country's lifetime, women, blacks, children, disabled persons, non-nuclear families, same-sex preference persons, minors, the elderly, the poor, the illegal immigrants invading our country...
when do the unborn (not-yet-born?) get added to this list? are THEY humans?
is abortion murder?
well, 'life,' for purposes of legal protections, is a social construct, we DECIDE who is worthy of life and which life is unworthy of life (anyone remember the quote's origins?), thus democracy, vs pseudo-democracy via governance by elites
me I'd rather have fascism of the masses vs fascism of the elites, but hey I'm a right wing extremist, loud and proud, color me populist
OR we have abandoned democracy to an elite, so let's skip elections and save some money, skip to Kim and Caitlyn, better visuals at least
- as for expanding rights, Madame Justice Ginsburg listed how many groups were added to protected categories over our country's lifetime, women, blacks, children, disabled persons, non-nuclear families, same-sex preference persons, minors, the elderly, the poor, the illegal immigrants invading our country...
when do the unborn (not-yet-born?) get added to this list? are THEY humans?
is abortion murder?
well, 'life,' for purposes of legal protections, is a social construct, we DECIDE who is worthy of life and which life is unworthy of life (anyone remember the quote's origins?), thus democracy, vs pseudo-democracy via governance by elites
me I'd rather have fascism of the masses vs fascism of the elites, but hey I'm a right wing extremist, loud and proud, color me populist
2
The "well regulated militia" clause was intended to give the unarmed the power to vetthose who want to police them.
To answer your question. No, an egg (fertilized or not), an embryo and a fetus are not "human." And abortion is not murder.
If you disagree, I invite you to not have an abortion.
If you disagree, I invite you to not have an abortion.
1
Fortress: I will give you $1000 for every mention of the word "gun" in the second amendment. And despite ignoring the phrase "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," in Heller, while Scalia found an unprecedented individual right to gun ownership, he also said quite clearly that there are man legitimate infringement of that right. They include, and are not limited to, bringing your cool gun to show Justice Scalia at his place of work.
1
The gun control issue is a rights-based issue, as well. It's just that gun owners are the last group that it's socially acceptable to be utterly bigoted toward.
4
I don't know why anyone expects to be honored for going around prepared to shoot other people.
9
The abortion issue raises a question not often mentioned: What gives a person the right to interfere in the medical matters of a person with whom they have no relationship? The Terri Schiavo case comes to mind.
If you ask to involve yourself in my medical matters, my first reaction would be to say "First you show me ALL of YOUR medical records, and then I will consider whether I should let you have any involvement at all." (And my answer after that would very liely be "I will deal with my medical matters with my doctor and my immediate family.")
Your morality has no hold on any other person. If you insist that I follow your moral code, I will insist that you first follow mine.
If you ask to involve yourself in my medical matters, my first reaction would be to say "First you show me ALL of YOUR medical records, and then I will consider whether I should let you have any involvement at all." (And my answer after that would very liely be "I will deal with my medical matters with my doctor and my immediate family.")
Your morality has no hold on any other person. If you insist that I follow your moral code, I will insist that you first follow mine.
80
Amazing how gays have shaped their agenda. All this hoopla, mostly orchestrated and financed by Hollywood and 1 other minority religion group in this country, over a ruling that affects maybe 2% of the population. Nobody really knows. Where does it end? Transgender? Boys in girls locker rooms? People want to marry their pets?
4
Everybody is some kind of minority somewhere. Even you.
2
What is this creepy obsession conservatives have with sex with animals?
I'm a straight grandmother and I fought hard for marriage equality. I don't want my grandchildren living in a country where people aren't treated equally.
This issue wasn't just about gay people, it's about all of us.
I'm a straight grandmother and I fought hard for marriage equality. I don't want my grandchildren living in a country where people aren't treated equally.
This issue wasn't just about gay people, it's about all of us.
13
"People want to marry their pets?"
Your imagination is showing again, Mr. Tagley.
Your imagination is showing again, Mr. Tagley.
4
The difference between gay marriage and gun control is easy to see.
Opposition to gay marriage is based on ignorance and bigotry.
Opposition to gun control is based on the widespread mental illness of the people who value guns more than they value the lives of their children.
Opposition to gay marriage is based on ignorance and bigotry.
Opposition to gun control is based on the widespread mental illness of the people who value guns more than they value the lives of their children.
19
Gun rights is self-sustaining: the more guns the more one needs a gun equalizer.
4
Abortion, being against it, is a tool for controlling women, period.
42
Money plays a prominent role in social issues. There is a lot of money made in the manufacture and sale of guns. That is why it is so hard to do the right thing: save lives by banning guns.
Abortion is not about money, but religion: those who want to criminalize abortion, feel that way because they think it is a "sin".
There was no money in preventing gay marriage, so it was easy to change.
The death penalty will be abolished some day, because it is morally wrong, and because there is no financial reason to keep it.
Abortion is not about money, but religion: those who want to criminalize abortion, feel that way because they think it is a "sin".
There was no money in preventing gay marriage, so it was easy to change.
The death penalty will be abolished some day, because it is morally wrong, and because there is no financial reason to keep it.
70
Apparently they consider children God's punishment for sexual pleasure.
5
I think abortion also has a lot to do with notions of proper behavior. After all you can only have children if you have sex and we have all kinds of feelings about that. Further, getting pregnant if you don't want to means you had irresponsible sex and of course you should bear the consequences of you irresponsible personal behavior. Finally, it had a lot to of with power and gender roles. Controlling your body is empowering and we don't want that. Hence, efforts to reduce pregnancy such as real sex education, access to reproductive care etc (anything short of abortion) are all rejected in favor of the preferred punitive approach.
3
Abortion opposition has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with patriarchy.
1
Guns are a religion in the U.S. They will be indulged until we enforce the constitutional ban on faith based enablement in the U.S.
5
"Why Gun Control and Abortion Are Different From Gay Marriage"
Ummm, maybe because only one is explicitly prohibited by a dedicated Constitutional amendment.
Ummm, maybe because only one is explicitly prohibited by a dedicated Constitutional amendment.
5
@Charles, none of the rights in the Bill of Rights is absolute. Speech, the subject of the 1st Amdt., may be properly - and constitutionally - restricted as to time, place and manner. Likewise, it would be completely constitutional to have reasonable - in the name of public safety - limits on individual gun ownership. More thorough background checks, stricter penalties for possession of or trafficking in illegal guns, a waiting period, reasonable bans on military-style auto- or semi-automatic, bans on "cop-killer" bullets: all of these could be constitutionally enacted.
1
AJB,
To say nothing of requiring gun owners to keep their guns stored in such a way that children (or burglars) can't get them. And mandating liability insurance, just as is required on cars.
And I think the enthusiasm for gun ownership might go down if gun owners were made criminally liable for any harm caused by their weapon (whether they, or someone else, was the shooter).
To say nothing of requiring gun owners to keep their guns stored in such a way that children (or burglars) can't get them. And mandating liability insurance, just as is required on cars.
And I think the enthusiasm for gun ownership might go down if gun owners were made criminally liable for any harm caused by their weapon (whether they, or someone else, was the shooter).
3
The "originalist" and "textualist" Justice Scalia conveniently ignores and assigns absolutely no weight to the words that occur first in the 2nd Amendment, namely "a well regulated Militai, being necessary to the security of a free state." It is a principle of law that words in such a government document are not a nullity, but were delibereately inserted and need to be recognized.
Afret his screed in his recent dissent in King, one wonders how he keeps a straight face.
The recent 2nd Amendment decison is wrong on its face. I believe that that opinion will be modified in the future.
Afret his screed in his recent dissent in King, one wonders how he keeps a straight face.
The recent 2nd Amendment decison is wrong on its face. I believe that that opinion will be modified in the future.
1
This is a very interesting analysis and use of data; great job. Generally the American public has been steady over the years in its thoughts on these issues, but the trends for some issues is dynamic for sure.
On gun control, Ed Dionne recently wrote a fine op-ed on the rights of Americans who do not want to be anywhere near guns. Worthwhile reading and interesting perspective..... See http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-right-to-be-free-from-guns/20...
On gun control, Ed Dionne recently wrote a fine op-ed on the rights of Americans who do not want to be anywhere near guns. Worthwhile reading and interesting perspective..... See http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-right-to-be-free-from-guns/20...
1
"People who favor gun rights can point to a gun owner’s right to bear arms; people who favor gun restrictions can point to Americans’ right not to die and be injured by gun violence." How better to sum this up and still miss the point?
These are not two separate points. Those who favor gun rights do not do so just to bear arms, but to have those arms readily available for the purpose of "American's right not to die and be injured by gun violence" from criminals and crazy people. And those who favor gun control are then relying exclusively on the police who, for the most part, only arrive in time to investigate the crime and draw chalk outlines around the bodies.
These are not two separate points. Those who favor gun rights do not do so just to bear arms, but to have those arms readily available for the purpose of "American's right not to die and be injured by gun violence" from criminals and crazy people. And those who favor gun control are then relying exclusively on the police who, for the most part, only arrive in time to investigate the crime and draw chalk outlines around the bodies.
9
Kind like a viscous circle: Crazy people want to defend themselves from other crazy people.
3
Going around prepared to shoot other people is guaranteed to produce reciprocity.
11
Many rural areas are not regularly patrolled by law enforcement, and the response time for law enforcement is very long. Additionally, many suburban and urban areas have long law enforcement response times. Unless we want to corral people into areas that are under constant survailance, there will always be a reason for gun ownership for people to protect themselves.
4
On some issues I think it takes a galvanizing event to change public perception. This happened in civil rights and may have played a part in gay rights. Concerning gun control, I'd have thought that the mass shootings would have served this function as well, but apparently the slaughter has not reached a sufficient level of horror to have a triggering effect.
Any rational look at the continuing cost of gun ownership in the US would have to say that Americans are not mature enough to own guns. We are killing off the equivalent of a small town each year with gun violence. Yet in spite of all evidence of the cost of keeping guns widely available, even the most timid attempt at gun regulation has not happened. I think in part this is due to the mystic of guns and the founding of our country. The other part is the continuing glorification of guns and violence in the media.
I am afraid it is going to take a truly horrific event to change the media's attitude about guns and violence, this in turn will help shape the public's perception and allow common sense gun regulation to take place.
Any rational look at the continuing cost of gun ownership in the US would have to say that Americans are not mature enough to own guns. We are killing off the equivalent of a small town each year with gun violence. Yet in spite of all evidence of the cost of keeping guns widely available, even the most timid attempt at gun regulation has not happened. I think in part this is due to the mystic of guns and the founding of our country. The other part is the continuing glorification of guns and violence in the media.
I am afraid it is going to take a truly horrific event to change the media's attitude about guns and violence, this in turn will help shape the public's perception and allow common sense gun regulation to take place.
14
Those "horrific events" have already occurred.
18
More horrific than the dozens of events we've already had?
18
You mean, like over a dozen children being murdered in their classroom by a sociopath whose parents couldn't control him and whose mother nevertheless had guns in the house? And not just a gun, but many large-capacity automatics?
3
The distinction between the categories described is of immutable identity (e.g., gender, ethnicity, etc.), or at least perceived immutability (religion), versus behavior (e.g., regulations, crime & punishment), which is independent of the first category. It should come as no surprise that there is a big difference with regard to public opinion trending between these categories.
As we become more personally familiar with diverse groups we become more accepting and less judgmental, whereas abortion, guns and punishment are much more intricately linked with political cycles of the day.
As we become more personally familiar with diverse groups we become more accepting and less judgmental, whereas abortion, guns and punishment are much more intricately linked with political cycles of the day.
5
Perhaps public opinion on gun control is a logjam. If so, you could have fooled me. For every victory to advocates for sensible gun regulation, proponents of unfettered distribution of firearms win multiple victories.
Gun "rights" lobbying outspends efforts to control the flow of firearms by a ratio of 7:1. This, combined with almost-incomprehensible legislative fecklessness in Washington, keeps sensible movement on the issue in reverse gear.
So, here we have an issue where the natural progress of good research and plain common sense is stymied by cynical demagoguery and bottomless pits of cash. This is one of many consequences of a national culture that puts public policy up for auction.
Gun "rights" lobbying outspends efforts to control the flow of firearms by a ratio of 7:1. This, combined with almost-incomprehensible legislative fecklessness in Washington, keeps sensible movement on the issue in reverse gear.
So, here we have an issue where the natural progress of good research and plain common sense is stymied by cynical demagoguery and bottomless pits of cash. This is one of many consequences of a national culture that puts public policy up for auction.
145
It parallels today's story about the US Chamber of Commerce pushing the interests of the tobacco industry.
My own legislator does an NRA sponsored debate. Yeah. Right.
My own legislator does an NRA sponsored debate. Yeah. Right.
3
Aside from their arrogantly unwarranted intrusion into the internal affairs of other nations, the chief officers of the USCoC are guilty of mass murder on a global scale and should be prosecuted accordingly in the International Criminal Court.
1
The 23 point rise in public acceptance of marijuana suggests we may not have to wait another three decades for nationwide acceptance. There seems to be growing data and a realization by the "thinking" public of the numerous positive uses for marijuana. Additionally, as the costs of the so called " war on drugs" has proven to be fruitless while the legalization of marijuana portends greater tax revenue, even the more resistant Americans may respond to the monetary benefits of legalization.
Short of that, the supply is ample to meet the current demand while government officials continue to chase their tails in an unwinnable venture to restrict the use of this wonderful weed.
Short of that, the supply is ample to meet the current demand while government officials continue to chase their tails in an unwinnable venture to restrict the use of this wonderful weed.
6
As to marijuana:
If the stench doesn't waft into my house, and if the user is not in a position of responsibilty -- i.e., the person driving the Q train, the guy who's welding during bridge repair, my bank teller, my pharmacist, to name a few -- then fine.
But people walking to the subway at 7am, presumably to go to work, aren't going to do much of a job. Ditto for high school kids.
If the stench doesn't waft into my house, and if the user is not in a position of responsibilty -- i.e., the person driving the Q train, the guy who's welding during bridge repair, my bank teller, my pharmacist, to name a few -- then fine.
But people walking to the subway at 7am, presumably to go to work, aren't going to do much of a job. Ditto for high school kids.
4
John Cahill NY Pending Approval
Were Justice Scalia to apply the same reasoning in his recent dissent, to the precise language of the Constitution he would necessarily come to the following conclusions about gun control:
1) The right to keep and bear arms is inextricably tied to the need for a "well regulated militia";
2) Such a "well-regulated militia" is justified because it is "necessary to the security of a free State";
3) The government official to whom the Constitution assigns the ultimate authority over, and responsibility for, the militia and its regulation is the President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief;
4) Such regulatory authority includes the responsibility to regulate the arms that are justified by the need for the "well-regulated militia" specifically cited in the text of the Second Amendment;
5) This regulatory authority includes, of necessity, the responsibility to make and enforce rules for the storage, possession, sale and use of any and all arms in the United States.
The only way Justice Scalia was able to escape these logical, well-reasoned conclusions in his majority opinion on gun control was by doing exactly what he says the majority should never do: Asserting that the text does not really say what is written on the page.
President Obama should now rely upon the actual words of the Constitution to issue an Executive Order that sets logical, rational limits on gun ownership, sales and usage. Those words give him that authority.
Were Justice Scalia to apply the same reasoning in his recent dissent, to the precise language of the Constitution he would necessarily come to the following conclusions about gun control:
1) The right to keep and bear arms is inextricably tied to the need for a "well regulated militia";
2) Such a "well-regulated militia" is justified because it is "necessary to the security of a free State";
3) The government official to whom the Constitution assigns the ultimate authority over, and responsibility for, the militia and its regulation is the President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief;
4) Such regulatory authority includes the responsibility to regulate the arms that are justified by the need for the "well-regulated militia" specifically cited in the text of the Second Amendment;
5) This regulatory authority includes, of necessity, the responsibility to make and enforce rules for the storage, possession, sale and use of any and all arms in the United States.
The only way Justice Scalia was able to escape these logical, well-reasoned conclusions in his majority opinion on gun control was by doing exactly what he says the majority should never do: Asserting that the text does not really say what is written on the page.
President Obama should now rely upon the actual words of the Constitution to issue an Executive Order that sets logical, rational limits on gun ownership, sales and usage. Those words give him that authority.
136
I do not own a gun. I have no need to own a gun. I do not however, oppose the private ownership of guns by demonstrably stable, law-abiding individuals.
The frightening thing about the Second Amendment is that it probably means just what it says. Now we have to figure out what that is.
One argument is that the Second Amendment is a product of the Glorious Revolution (not ours), the English Bill of Rights, and Blackstone's Commentaries. One of the reasons it is in the Bill of Rights (ours) at all was to mollify opponents of a strong central government. James II had disarmed the English people. The 1688 Bill of Rights guarantied, to all loyal Protestants, the right to bear arms for, among other things, personal protection. Personal protection also weighs heavily on the right in Blackstone's Commentaries. "Regulated" also means "trained", as in "British Regulars".
The historical arguments supporting Mr. Cahill are as numerous as those opposing him. The current fact is, however, that firearm possession is now more a threat to, than guardian of our freedoms - especially life.
The frightening thing about the Second Amendment is that it probably means just what it says. Now we have to figure out what that is.
One argument is that the Second Amendment is a product of the Glorious Revolution (not ours), the English Bill of Rights, and Blackstone's Commentaries. One of the reasons it is in the Bill of Rights (ours) at all was to mollify opponents of a strong central government. James II had disarmed the English people. The 1688 Bill of Rights guarantied, to all loyal Protestants, the right to bear arms for, among other things, personal protection. Personal protection also weighs heavily on the right in Blackstone's Commentaries. "Regulated" also means "trained", as in "British Regulars".
The historical arguments supporting Mr. Cahill are as numerous as those opposing him. The current fact is, however, that firearm possession is now more a threat to, than guardian of our freedoms - especially life.
2
Another glaring omission from Scalia's Heller decision is the fact that at the time of the constitutional convention the major role of "well regulated militia's" was the conscripted slave patrols of the southern states. Free white's were required to perform this 'public service' and many southern delegates were fearful that the federal government might enact laws that limited these slave patrols.
4
Borderpipe - I'm lucky enough to live in a place without a lot of gun violence. Most of our gun injuries and deaths have been accidents.
We do have a few murders each year and those are usually committed by "law abiding" citizens who had a license for the gun they used to kill their friend or family member.
We do have a few murders each year and those are usually committed by "law abiding" citizens who had a license for the gun they used to kill their friend or family member.
2
One important point in discussing the role of the Supreme Court in debates that divide that is being left out in the current coverage of Marriage Equality is the fact that the Loving ruling that made interracial marriage legal was unanimous, but was made at a time when 80% of Americans opposed such marriages. The recent Obergefell ruling making same sex marriage legal came when 60% of Americans support such marriages but was made by a 5-4 divided court, with four separate dissents and a dissent by the Chief Justice that seeks to delegitimize the majority opinion. That their opposition to marriage equality mirrors that of the majority of the Republican party demonstrates how politicized the court has become.
43
"That their opposition to marriage equality mirrors that of the majority of the Republican party demonstrates how politicized the court has become."
Oh no but ginsperg, kegan, sotomayor, and breyer all voting the same on every single case is not politicized. Also don't forget it is the votes of republican appointees roberts and kennedy that allowed recent decisions on same sex marriage and other issues.
Oh no but ginsperg, kegan, sotomayor, and breyer all voting the same on every single case is not politicized. Also don't forget it is the votes of republican appointees roberts and kennedy that allowed recent decisions on same sex marriage and other issues.
1
At yet whenever women's right to choose has ever been explicitly tested in a referendum, even in some conservative leaning rocky mountain states, there have comfortable pro choice majorities. The supreme court is never going to reverse Roe because it would cause an uproar which is why Republicans in states they control have resorted to salami tactics but if these ever reach a point where they become seriously restrictive there is going to be a backlash.
60
One more vote and Roe would have fallen/will fall. Rocky Mountain states are libertarian, not religious. I would agree if you'd said there will never be a human life amendment to the Constitution. Nobody wants a womb-police-state. But significant restrictions on abortions have been implemented around the country and this will continue. The article is substantially correct.
Until 1990, West Germany's constitution defined a fetus as a human being, limiting abortions in most cases. They changed this to enable reunification as in East Germany is was not only a right but the most common method of birth control. POINT: Movement goes in both directions and for lots of different reasons.
Until 1990, West Germany's constitution defined a fetus as a human being, limiting abortions in most cases. They changed this to enable reunification as in East Germany is was not only a right but the most common method of birth control. POINT: Movement goes in both directions and for lots of different reasons.
3
@ Bill U
Libertarian equals conservative which is what the Rocky mountain states generally are. The restrictions are all happening in Republican controlled states and tend to happen below the radar until they assume critical mass and provoke a backlash. West Germany is irrelevant to the mores of the US.
Libertarian equals conservative which is what the Rocky mountain states generally are. The restrictions are all happening in Republican controlled states and tend to happen below the radar until they assume critical mass and provoke a backlash. West Germany is irrelevant to the mores of the US.
5
According to gallups most recent polling, 51% favor legal abortion only in certain circumstances, 29% are pro-choice and 19% favor banning abortion in all circumstances. So there is no pro-choice majority.
Similarly with guns a huge portion of the population owns guns as is their right.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Similarly with guns a huge portion of the population owns guns as is their right.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
2
Guns, abortions, smoking weed, ect are all "what you do".
Being a women, being disabled, being black, being gay are all "who you are".
Ultimately most people in America believe in the idea that ANYONE can go from poor to successful with enough hard work. As such everyone should be provided the legal protections needed so they are allowed to work as hard as they can to achieve success.
"What you do" is a category of behavior that restricting doesn't directly affect your ability to achieve success. These decisions also have a larger effect on society. So society feels more comfortable restricting them.