Perhaps I didn’t communicate the idea clearly, but what I meant was that for Californians, their gun laws are “about as bad” as they’ve ever been in California. I understand that Washington DC and Chicago outright banned handgun ownership for a number of years (I’d put both of those in areas where gun laws have seen marked improvement over the last few decades), and California hasn’t quite done that yet. Has there ever been time in California’s history where Californians’ gun rights were, overall, more restricted than they are right now? I can’t readily think of one, but I’d welcome anyone who would like to propose a time period for comparison.
I think our views are compatible, but I’ll have to probe to make sure. What do you mean by “a level playing field”? Are you referring to a “field” of college applicants, or a “field” of college admissions policies? If the latter, what does it mean for a college admission policy to be “level”? Fair? Fair in respect to what?
A simple search on ‘Sullivan’s Act’ shows a history in New York State where active ‘may issue’ licenses were required for any firearm small enough to be concealable. It worked out to a partial ban on handgun ownership at the discretion of local government. Enacted in 1911 it was a misdemeanor to possess and a felony to carry such weapons.
Ditka, you mentioned now that you were discussing Cali but that’s not the plain text. Fine. But also untrue at the local level. In the history of the Old West many, many towns made private carrying of firearms illegal within town limits and required those with them to turn them over to local law enforcement upon entering city borders. Fun fact: The gunfight at the OK Corral - admittedly, Arizona and not Cali - was over whether the Clantons and associates would peacefully disarm at the request - by law - of the Earps.
The above Smithsonian article also points out that many states in the South began enacting weapons bans in the early 1800s. Such bans included all weapons down to knives and other cutting implements such as swords.
Heck, here’s a history of gun laws in California as a whole:
At some points waiting periods on gun purchases exceeded two weeks. I believe it’s now 10 days? Carrying loaded guns in public was banned in 1967. In 1996 requiring a license was overturned by state law implying - it’s in the record - that several cities in California did require registration and licensure - with implied ability to forbid - of firearms going back before the 1950s.
To say it’s worse in California now is to believe some hype.
The baby is not the same as the mother. Plenty of situations where the baby dies and the mother lives and vice versa. The baby has its own dna, heart, brains, etc.
Your logic problem makes no sense. If a woman isn’t free to kill her babies in the womb then how can she make any other choice? That is completely false. Your only evidence for the supposed slavery of women is that some people (half of them women) want to outlaw abortions.
Slaves had to obey their masters, couldn’t move as they wished, couldn’t vote, couldn’t go to school, couldn’t change jobs, etc. None of these apply to women. Either you are delusional or you have no idea what slavery actually is.
11 state legislatures have voted to restrict abortions this year alone. 36 states wrote laws against recognizing gay marriage. 1 state lowered its corporate income tax rate this year, Indiana from 5.75 to 5.5%.
The problem is that our rulers on the Supreme Court have not found a way to declare tax cuts unconstitutional, so it is easier for economic issues to be addressed. Not because of a lack of effort.
If you don’t like the word “slavery”, how about the term “a profound interference with a woman’s body against her will”? Yanno, sort of like they could do with slaves, because they had no rights? Does that strike you as OK, just perfectly fine?
Because those are virtually the same words used in a 1988 ruling in which the Supreme Court of Canada overturned all abortion laws as unconstitutional because they violated the Constitutional right of security of the person. Probably the most important single sentence in the ruling being the following: “Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman’s body and thus an infringement of security of the person.” Cite.
If we’re going to talk about the plain text, the Sullivan Act was not an outright ban, AZ was not a state at the time of the OK Corral (hence not part of the United States), and the Smithsonian article does not mention any outright bans.
It is not about what word to like. The defining feature of slavery has never been the banning of abortions. Thus it is stupid to compare women to slaves on the basis of not allowing abortions.
The poutine eating savages on the Canadian supreme court are no better at euphemisms than the pro-abortion people in America are.
But there are millions of conservative, pro-life women who are arguing for just that - greater governmental regulation over what women can and cannot do with their uteri.
So? They are talking about other women’s uteri, not theirs, as they do not plan on ever needing an abortion. Or if they ever do have one, then theirs was the justified one. That’s a common theme among that segment “the only acceptable abortion is my abortion”.
That doesn’t make them right. Nor you. And it doesn’t answer the question.
If the government started passing all kinds of laws restricting your, Velocity’s, right to make decisions about your own body. Would you be ok with that? No issue with that at all?
Don’t use conservative women as human shields, answer for yourself please.
The way you have written this literally makes it a priori impossible for a person to support anti-abortion measures without talking about other people’s bodies and not their own. As such it would appear that you are begging the question.
A baby has been born. An embryo hasn’t. Do you consider an embryo to be a person under the law? Secular and biblical texts don’t support you. The US Constitution refers to “a person born”. In Genesis, “soul” means “breath” - you gain a soul with your first inhalation.
You want to insist that all pregnancies be brought to term? Doesn’t happen anyway. OK, an easy one: how many unwanted infants have you adopted? If more than zero, I’ll entertain your opinion. If zero, I’ll repeat that YOU do NOT get to tell women what to do with THEIR bodies. That’s the “me owns women” caveman mentality. Ooola hates you.
The point I’m making is that many conservatives don’t seem to have the ability to see things from the perspective of anyone else. I’m trying to get just one of you to try to imagine how you would feel if the government was to implement laws to control your decisions about your own body. Why can’t I get even one of you to entertain this question? It shouldn’t be hard, but I think I can guess why nobody will answer. Restrictive laws for thee but not for me is the conservative way it seems.
If the government restricted my freedom to preserve a human life, then yes i would be OK with a fairly significant level of interference. I think most people would be.
I’m not sure that an embryo or blastocyst is a human life that has all the moral value of a baby but it’s not a booger either.
Everyone knows that this is the debate. At what stage of embryonic development do we place enough moral value on the fetus to restrict the freedom of the mother to abort. That’s it. If the fetus is a life then tough luck. If the fetus is not a life then go in peace.
In what way are pro-life women not in favor of restrictions that affect their own bodies?
They don’t have to imagine. If your answer is that only women who are pro-choice can engage in this debate then can we have a debate about child support and restrict the debate to men who don’t want to pay child support?
Are they being forced to carry a, possibly fatally ill, fetus to term against their will?
I didn’t realize so many pro-life women are currently pregnant, and in need of or desiring an abortion.
And I really want you anti-choice men to imagine for yourselves and stop using pro-life women to avoid responsibility for the consequences of their own views.