Guns

Anti-Gun Activists Adopt Anti-Abortion Tactics

Using arbitrary regulations to restrict liberty

|

Foes of abortion and foes of guns have a similar problem: The Supreme Court, which says government cannot ban either one outright. What to do? Increasingly, the two advocacy movements are resorting to a similar solution: targeted regulation.

Abortion opponents started the trend and have it almost down to a science. Instead of trying to restrict abortion itself, they seek to impose rules that either raise barriers to individuals, such as waiting periods and mandatory ultrasounds, or crack down on clinics.

The latter tactic has spread like a fungus across the South, where states are adopting regulations, ostensibly for safety, so stringent they are forcing clinics to close. The rules include building codes like those here in Virginia, which stipulate such fine-grained details as hallway widths and parking-space counts. Another common approach requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Those sound like common-sense measures that nobody but a pro-abortion extremist could find objectionable. Shouldn't EMTs be able to wheel a gurney down a hallway if something goes wrong?

The practical effect on abortion safety, however, is immeasurably minute. As Tarina Keene of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia noted recently, the rate of complications from abortions is considerably lower than the rate for "other common outpatient surgical procedures like biopsies, colonoscopies, [and] even oral and laser eye surgeries."

As Keene and other supporters of abortion rights note, the real purpose of such rules is patently obvious: to make abortion less available. The pro-life activists who agitate for such rules often suggest otherwise, claiming—as the Family Foundation of Virginia's Victoria Cobb did recently—that their sole concern is patient safety. If that were so, then one would expect them to seek similar regulation for other outpatient facilities, but they never do.

Sometimes abortion foes will drop the pretense. Tanya Britton, a board member of Pro-Life Mississippi, did so recently when she explained the goal behind a push to pass an admitting-privilege regulation. "These incremental laws are part of a greater strategy to end abortion in our country," she said. "It's part of it, and one day, our country will be abortion free."

All of which brings us to Chicago, where Mayor Rahm Emanuel has unloaded a set of regulations meant to govern gun stores. You couldn't legally own a handgun in the Windy City until 2010, when the Supreme Court struck down Chicago's ban on handgun ownership. Chicago responded to that ruling by passing a ban on the sale of guns within the city limits. A federal judge found that unconstitutional, too. He gave the city six months to adopt a different ordinance.

The new rules—modeled on those adopted as part of a legal settlement in New York—will achieve much the same result. Gun shops could locate only in certain commercial areas, and never within 500 feet of a school or park. That effectively bans them from (yes, really) 99.5 percent of all real estate in the city. In addition, shops would have to videotape transactions. Customers would face a one-gun-a-month limit, a 72-hour waiting period for pistol purchases, and a 24-hour wait for long-gun purchases. Shops would be audited, employees subject to background checks, and more.

Proponents claim the measures are just "sensible gun-safety laws." That seems highly dubious. Before that ban, 80 percent of the guns the police recovered in criminal investigations came from nearby suburbs, or from out of state. And if the new rules take effect? Eighty percent of them will continue to come from outside the city limits. The rules promise to have about as much impact as those signs declaring certain areas "drug-free school zones."

Yet Chicago clearly wants to do through zoning and similar means what it could not do directly: make it prohibitively difficult to buy a gun legally in the city. It's doing precisely what abortion opponents are trying to do in Virginia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and other states. If Chicago succeeds, you can bet that other cities will embrace the same tactics.

But it might not succeed. As The New York Times noted recently about the targeted regulation of abortion providers, "legal experts say the legislation is raising a fundamental question: At what point is access to abortion so limited that it violates the right to the procedure" granted by the Supreme Court?

In 1992 the high court upheld certain restrictions on abortion, such as waiting periods and parental consent, but stipulated that states could not impose an "undue burden" through regulation. The proliferation of regulations governing admitting privileges, building standards, and so forth is testing precisely what that term means. No similar court ruling has forbidden states or cities to impose an undue burden on gun rights. But proposals like Chicago's could produce one.

And that would be a good thing. Regulations are problematic enough when they are written for legitimate reasons, such as preventing fraud and ensuring clean drinking water. Perverting their purpose to undermine constitutional rights is a dark, dishonest, and sinister game—no matter who plays it.

NEXT: FDA to Save Us From Scourge of Wood-Aged Artisanal Cheese

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The real irony is that in both cases the stated goal is the same – reduce the number of murders.

    1. Murders? Hyperbole is really your bailiwick, isn’t it. God damn you’re pathetic. How do you expect to be taken seriously when you can’t even approach the subject without lying?

      1. Key words – stated goal.

        This may not be the actual goal.

        1. Exactly. They may actually believe that their actions are reducing deaths, but their ideology also is based on the idea that individuals shouldn’t be able to defend themselves or control their own bodies. And, yes, I mean both sides.

      2. Return the sarcasm meter to the Secret Service…it does not work?

      3. Don’t jump the damn gun, Epi.

        We get enough abortion arguments around here without you jumping down throats.

      4. Abortion is nothing less.

    2. Not necessarily. As is often documented here the gun grabbers’ actual agenda is to disarm the citizenry; reducing the murders is only convenient window-dressing for that. Also, while the anti-abortion people certainly see abortion and certain forms of contraception as murder (trust us, the rest of us are aware of your views on that), many other people do not see things that way.

      1. Of course it isn’t gun control or banning guns, it’s victim disarmament.
        They’re fine with the military and police having guns. They’re okay with the rich having fancy guns (think burl walnut stocks).
        Wait, what? I thought the Lefties hate the rich?

      2. Which was exactly Uncivilservant’s point.

        1. Yeah. I’m like that.

    3. I was not aware that possession of a handgun conferred the right to commit murder.

      Is it a right likewise restricted to one’s progeny?

      1. “I was not aware that possession of a handgun conferred the right to commit murder.”

        Well, murder is the handgun’s fault. After carrying around a handgun everyday for the past 10 years, I can attest to the constant struggle of keeping that damn thing in its holster when it gets blood thirsty. Every time it sees kids or nuns or something, it just wants to hop right out and mow down as many precious innocents as possible… especially around those gun free zones. They really piss it off.

        1. A few days ago, I was accosted by a gun.

          It floated around the corner of the BP station just as I was about to go inside and buy a kit-kat bar.

          I screamed and ran for my car, got inside and drove away as fast as I could. All the while this fucking gun was firing at me. BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM!

          Never hit me. Must have been a cops’ gun.

          1. Good thing you didn’t have a dog with you.

    4. Well writ!

  2. The irony of socons reaping what they have sown is delicious. Thanks, Bart.

    1. The libs are also reaping what they have sown with the abortion regulations.

      Where would anyone get the idea of mandating hallway widths? Thanks ADA!

  3. 22 year old CA resident here, looking to purchase my first handgun. The glock looks like a pretty sturdy pistol, any other opinions/advice?

    1. I like wheel guns myself. I’d suggest going with a 357 Magnum. That way you can shoot 38SP for fun, yet still have the stopping power of the 357 if you ever need it.

      1. That and they just look badass.

    2. Overrated and expensive. Double action probably better choice for first popper. Research Kahr.

      1. Yes – the lack of a manual safety makes me think Glocks aren’t the best choice to start.

        1. Whatever you get, get a holster.

        2. This is my safety.

          *holds up finger*

          Seriously though, manual safeties aren’t really necessary. I carry an XD every day that I’m not Afghanistan and it has no manual safety, just a trigger safety and a grip safety. Point and click interface.

          You can train around a lack of safeties. It’s relatively harder to train someone to the point where flicking the safety off is muscle memory.

    3. I shoot a P225 Sig Sauer 9mm.

      Love it.

      1. I’m one of those heathens who don’t get the whole Sig thing.

        1. I get it, but I generally can’t afford it.

    4. Why not just buy a Corvette, like other dickless losers?

      1. If you think people shouldn’t have guns, please put two signs on your front lawn. One to announce you have no weapons in the house. One to announce you think the police and military should lead by example and disarm also.
        Or are they dickless losers too? Maybe you should have a third sign…

      2. So what year is your Corvette? My guess it’s a mid 80’s model.

      3. Holy shit another new proggie troll…fuck off and die troll.

    5. depends on your needs. I went with a revolver first- a .44mag. It is a beast, and it shoots well. However, it isn’t for everyone.

      My second handgun was a Walther PPS in .40cal. Excellent little pistol, easily concealed and very attractive.

      For a first, if I were you, I would look in smaller calibers (.22,.38,9mm, 40cal at most) and probably semi-automatic. Use YouTube user Hickok45 as a guide, he has reviewed like every gun possible.

      1. I would recommend a revolver because you don’t have to check the safety every ten minutes. A .38 revolver is probably your best bet. I would recommend purchasing a Walther P-38 nine millimeter. I purchased one while I was stationed in Germany back in the early 1980’s. It was by far and away the finest pistol I’ve every had. I regret to this day I sold it.

        1. It weighs a ton tho.There are some lighter weights in .38 that weigh 1/2 asmuch.

        2. .38 is a marginal round for self-defense though.

    6. 22 year old CA resident here, looking to purchase my first handgun.

      First, take a civilian basic gun class. (Particularly if you learned to shoot in the military.)
      Second, shoot different types of guns.
      Third, select the one that you can shoot best.

      1. Superb advice.

        I have a Glock 17. Love. IT. As does Mrs. Almanian.

        Also have a S&W 686 in .357 – stainless, 5″ barrel, 7 shots – cause they expect you only to have 6 🙂

        A speedloader helps with the revolver. Both will….do the job.

        I’ve been shooting for about 45 years, so….take a safety course, try a bunch of different guns, don’t buy a 44 Mag for your first pistol, have fun, go from there 🙂 FWIW

        1. Times two on the advice.

          I shoot a lot so get quite a few requests for advice about pistol A or rifle B. My advice is to go to the range, rent one and run a few boxes of your preferred ammo through it. If you like it and it goes bang every time, get that. Unless you live in Kalifornistan and then you get to buy the neutered version.

          I also recommend Box of Truth to help cut through some of the ammo myths.

          One other thing, if you are new to shooting double action is more difficult to shoot well than single action. That’s why I don’t necessarily recommend revolvers for new shooters and recommend against hammerless revolvers.

    7. Piling on some of the good posts above…The Glock is a hall of fame gun, and in particular, a 9mm glock 17 makes a great service gun. However, if you are talking a gun that you want to conceal-carry, I’d recommend a gun like the Kel-tec PF-9 (a.k.a. the Zimmerman special). These small-frame guns are made for conceal-carry. Are they going to shoot as well as a large-frame gun? no Have as many bullets? no Are you going to be more likely to actually carry it because it’s tiny, lightweight and doesn’t snag on things? yes You can throw one in your pocket (with a pocket-holster) and you don’t even need a cumbersome shoulder holster. Someone mentioned hickok45’s channel, I’d also recommend nutnfancy’s channel…lots of 1hr+ reviews.

  4. Uh, I don’t think anyone is “adopting” anyone else’s tactics so much as they are basically the same sort of personalities with different foci.

    They know the Truth and will never stop in their relentless efforts to use the coercive power of government to enforce it.

  5. Abortion opponents started the trend and have it almost down to a science. Instead of trying to restrict abortion itself, they seek to impose rules that either raise barriers to individuals, such as waiting periods and mandatory ultrasounds, or crack down on clinics.

    Isn’t seeking to impose rules that raise the barriers to individuals to obtain abortions a restriction on abortion itself? Because it is not like these barriers affect people getting their gall bladders removed. Perhaps you intended to say “instead of banning abortion itself, they seek to restrict it by imposing barriers to individuals…”

    All of which brings us to Chicago, where Mayor Rahm Emanuel has unloaded a set of regulations meant to govern gun stores.

    I don’t see here any justification to make the comparison between anti-abortion activists and anti-gun activist. You have a right to possess property, and a gun is a piece of property. The restrictions against owning property violate a fundamental human right which is to own property.

    Abortion is NOT a right. Nobody has a right to kill a human (outside self-defense) for mere practical reasons. Thus rules that make abortion increasingly more difficult are justified. There’s no justification to equivocate in this manner.

    1. Thus, proving the point.

      1. The point that you can’t understand how other people could make different assumptions that you do. It is not that your assumptions are necessarily wrong. It is that you have no ability to understand how anyone else could make different assumptions and come up with an equally rational but different conclusion than yours.

        Here, Old Mexican makes the assumption that abortion and murder. You make the assumption that it is not but think of Old Mexican as being somehow irrational for not sharing your assumptions.

        Old Mexican didn’t “prove” any point. He just made the rational observation that anti-abortion and anti-gun rights activists are only equivalent if you think abortion isn’t murder. That of course went right over your head.

    2. I find both sides of the abortion issue to be full of $hit.

      The desire of the pro-abortion crowd to make it completely unregulated is bizarre. And to further, the “it’s my body and I can do as I please with it” argument is getting tired. These same people are completely in favor or government regulating kidney transplants, and every other operation. Apparently the “it’s my body” thing only applies to abortion and not the rest of medical care.

      The anti-abortion crowd makes just as little sense. While I agree with them on moral grounds, I fail to see how government can regulate it. After all, the fetus is INSIDE the mother’s body. Do you want to suggest that at conception the mother ceases to have individual liberties and to have self-ownership? In effect, the mother is a slave of the government as stand-in for the fetus until birth?

      Regardless of you moral position here, there are some things (most things) that government can’t fix.

      1. Lots of people do have inconsistencies, but not everybody (and there aren’t just two crowds). I don’t support abortion because of “women’s rights” or “reproductive rights” or anythings like that. A woman obviously doesn’t have the right to kill a person. The debate should be about whether embryos and fetuses have rights to life or not.

        From my point of view, what makes us human is not simply a heartbeat, a face, or even our genetic makeup. Animals have heartbeats. Adults who become brain dead after an accident have faces and a human genetic makeup, but virtually no one thinks it’s wrong to pull the plug in those cases.

        What makes us human is our brains, and specifically higher-order thinking capabilities. The development of the portion of the brain that gives a fetus the neural networks that will be responsible for its personality and whole human identity don’t develop until about the 22-23 week mark (I believe). The embryo or fetus therefore gains the elements that make it a person at the 22-23 week mark. For me, abortion is permissible up until that point.

        1. (Cont’d) Even though an embryo or fetus before that point would reach that point if left alone naturally, the fact is that it hasn’t. You can’t be robbed of something you never had. That’s why I think it is permissible to abort a fetus/embryo while it still has not developed the neural networks that are responsible for giving it its human identity.

        2. Re: Eric Bana,

          The debate should be about whether embryos and fetuses have rights to life or not.

          If you accept that our rights are negative in nature, then you cannot argue against the right of a fetus to live. A fetus is a human. A woman does not beget a thing or something non-human.

          If you believe that our rights are positive and granted by someone, like the State, then you might as well argue that we humans possess NO rights, as we cannot really have something that is given to us on a whim, for in a whim it can me taken away from us just as easily.

          1. I would favor a negative rights view.

            I don’t see why simply having human DNA grants embryos and fetuses rights. I favor the application of rights at the point of linking cerebral neurons as stated before for two reasons. 1) Our brains (and specifically more sophisticated thinking which occurs in the cerebral cortex) are what distinguish us from other animals and forms of life rather than things like a heartbeat or facial features. 2) Our cerebral cortices give us all our different characteristics and make us who we are. Without them we are nothing despite having human DNA.

            Consider a thought experiment. A man experienced a terrible accident and lost the functioning of his cerebral cortex without the hope of regaining it. The man, however, will grow a new one beginning in a few months. He will have no memories of his previous life, and his personality will be completely different. The only thing remaining the same will be his appearance. I think it would be permissible to pull the plug before the man develops the new cerebral cortex.

            Applied to embryos and fetuses, I think it is permissible to end a pregnancy before the embryos and fetuses have experienced the development of their cerebral cortices.

          2. In short, it is impermissible to interpret the term “right to life,” to give one an enforceable claim to the action of someone else to sustain that life. In our terminology, such a claim would be an impermissible viola?tion of the other person’s right of self-ownership. Or, as Professor Thom?son cogently puts it, “having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body?even if one needs it for life itself.”

            Chapter 14

            The Right to Life does equal the Right to Inhabit a Womb

          3. // A fetus is a human

            No it isn’t. It will probably be a human eventually, but it isn’t yet. Not if by “human” you mean fully functional, separate, viable human being. You’re using a loaded word with “human”. Nobody thinks that anything that can be classed broadly under “human” has to have rights (at the very least, there are children and the mentally incompetent, whom we accept have limited rights to freedom)

        3. If you believe that a fetus has a moral status that must be respected before birth, then you are a pro-life radical.

          1. Ad hominem.

            Google it.

    3. Isn’t seeking to impose rules that raise the barriers to individuals to obtain abortions a restriction on abortion itself?

      I think Hinkle meant to further highlight that the laws are purported to increase safety, but their effect (and hidden purpose) is to restrict abortions. He draws a similarity between the abortion and gun “safety” laws because their actual purpose is to restrict access to both while falsely purporting only to improve safety. Whether one thinks the laws are justified is a different matter.

    4. In short, it is impermissible to interpret the term “right to life,” to give one an enforceable claim to the action of someone else to sustain that life. In our terminology, such a claim would be an impermissible viola?tion of the other person’s right of self-ownership. Or, as Professor Thom?son cogently puts it, “having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body?even if one needs it for life itself.”

      Chapter 14

  6. It makes sense that the anti-gun activists would also be anti-abortion. Or does it?

    Usually, the people who are anti-abortion tend to be pro-gun rights. The same people also support any war that the U.S. fights as being patriotic. That must mean that they really believe that people should make more babies, so they can grow up and be slaughtered on the battlefield of some stink hole, arm pit country.

    However, human beings can believe in one thing one day and in something entirely different the day after that. They might, for example, protest against social security, but get social security checks in the mail.

    Which all goes to show that most people can juggle from three to five totally contradictory ideas and ideologies around in whatever passes for their brains, and believe in all of them simultaneously.

    Finally, many people who yap about The Constitution all of the time have a copy on the altar of their mantlepiece at home but could not tell you much about it, because they have never really read it.

    This reminds me of the Tea Party types who show up at rallies wearing Continental Army Uniforms but can’t tell you the date when the American Revolution ended, or much else about American History.

    1. Ad hominem FTW!

    2. “They might, for example, protest against social security, but get social security checks in the mail.”

      Why can’t someone believe that social security is unsustainable and should be phased out while also realizing that they are only hurting themselves by not getting at least SOME of the money back from the system that has been taking a chunk of their paycheck since they entered the workforce?

      1. For the same reason libertarians are hypocrites every time they use public roads. If you bitch about anything government does, you’re supposed to stop using it while you continue pay for it anyway.

        1. If we’re forced to pay for it. why the hell won’t we use them.

          Plus with a government monopoly on our road system. we don’t have a choice.

          1. If we’re forced to pay for it. why the hell won’t we use them.

            Because libertarians are supposed to be all principled and shit. That means they can’t use anything that they oppose. If they do then they’re hypocrites. Since it is impossible to avoid public roads, it is impossible to be a libertarian and not be a hypocrite. So all libertarians are hypocrites. That makes them bad people, which means all their ideas are bad because ideas from bad people are all bad.

            Ad hominem FTW!

        2. Why are libertarians not hypocrites for taking a Social Security check? Why don ‘t you donate it to charity?

          I registered as a conscientious objector despite threats from the federal government and a mountain of paperwork because I hated the military and didn’t care about whether my country continued on or not. If you hate the government so much, why not refuse its biggest program– even if “you paid into it”

          1. Re: American Stolid,

            Why are libertarians not hypocrites for taking a Social Security check?

            I don’t receive Social Security checks.

            If you hate the government so much, why not refuse its biggest program– even if “you paid into it”

            Why do you keep asking the same asinine question?

            1. I suspect slaves were hypocrites for eating the food given to them by their masters while being angry about being a slave. At least that is what your line of “reasoning” implies.

          2. American Socialist:

            Why are libertarians not hypocrites for taking a Social Security check?…I registered as a conscientious objector despite threats from the federal government and a mountain of paperwork because I hated the military and didn’t care about whether my country continued on or not. If you hate the government so much, why not refuse its biggest program– even if “you paid into it”

            Hello, American Socialist, this is the CEO for False Equivalency Inc.calling. You are hereby informed that the company has evidence that you are engaging in office pilfering of our product, Spurious Analogy, hitherto. Your prompt firing is immediate.

            I’m pretty sure that refusing social security because you disagree, because you’re forced to pay into it against your will, isn’t equivalent to avoiding the draft because you’re a coward, and probably a liar. After all, how pacifist can you be while you shove the rest of what the state wants down people’s throats? Why don’t you conscientiously object to compulsory programs?

            You talk about hypocrisy. I’m sure you’re up for making “conscientious objection” status available for everyone on that, right? Oh, wait, no. Socialists are expected to be hypocrites.

            1. “I’m pretty sure that refusing social security because you disagree, because you’re forced to pay into it against your will, isn’t equivalent to avoiding the draft because you’re a coward, and probably a liar”

              Wanna bet? Working around civil service laws is notoriously difficult. It didn’t come close to it, fortunately, but I certainly would have gone to prison before I picked up a gun and shot Iraqis. A rich guy like you is left quibbling over social security checks? Sad. If you don’t like social security so much then the least a rich libertarian like you can do is give us poor slobs a hand out? I’ll give you my paypal account number if you are up for it.

              “After all, how pacifist can you be while you shove the rest of what the state wants down people’s throats? Why don’t you conscientiously object to compulsory programs?”

              Yes, there I go again. I keep confusing having a b-52 drop cluster bombs on someone’s head with filling out my 1040s. Geeesch, when am I going to see that a land invasion in the Middle East is really the same as providing documentation of my income?

              1. Cluster bombs on babies heads flash bang grenade in the crib. Tomatoe tomato.

              2. american socialist:

                If you don’t like social security so much then the least a rich libertarian like you can do is give us poor slobs a hand out?

                I plan on donating my SS to charity. I don’t need it, and it’s obscene that younger, poorer working people need to pay taxes so that I can collect a check in a stupid, pay-as-you-go system that everyone is forced to fund, regardless of their conscience.

                Geeesch, when am I going to see that a land invasion in the Middle East is really the same as providing documentation of my income?

                When are you going to stop using spurious analogies?

                You like having the choice to declare yourself a conscientious objector, but you don’t want people to be able to opt out of SS. How is that consistent? If they try to opt out themselves, the government destroys the financial livelihood of their families, and you know this. Pretending that the only offense is being forced to declare income is an admission that you can’t see the coercion for what it actually is. Because it’s psychotic and offensive, and blatantly inconsistent.

                You’ll whine if libertarians don’t fully embrace whatever strawman anarchy purity test you set up for them. However, you want choice where you like it, you don’t care whether or not any consistency is involved, believing that not caring about consistency makes hypocrisy impossible. Actually, it makes you a hypocrite, always.

          3. “I registered as a conscientious objector despite threats from the federal government”

            #shitthatneverhappened

            No one from the federal government threatened you for being a conscientious objector, lying sack of shit. How, precisely, did you do that anyway? Since there is no draft, there is no formal process for becoming a conscientious objector. Do you mean that you didn’t register with the Selective Service? What mountain of paperwork?

  7. I believe the FYTW clause of the constitution will allow for any amount of restrictions on guns, uteruses, food carts, sex toys, homeschooling and respiration.

    1. List not exhaustive, obviously.

  8. “Perverting their purpose to undermine constitutional right”

    Hey now, the second amendment says well regulated. It’s clear the founders wanted all Americans to have a cherished right to arms that the government could obliterate with a stroke of a pen. Cause rights are only granted by government, it’s not like it really matters if government takes it away.

    / Anti-derp

  9. You sputtering gun-nutters are having your little day in the sun. Mass murders piling up while you parade around – a bunch of pathetic, jobless white guys, ex-military, and other dickless wonders, panicking about King George coming ashore to take your arsenals. Enjoy your time in Peak Retard. The rest of America has just about had enough of your Dirty Harry fantasies.

    1. B- trolling.

      1. I wasn’t even fooled. no one is this fucking stupid. D- trolling

        1. You’re too generous.

    2. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    3. I would be concerned if King George came over here, I mean Zombies, shit. Always double tap.

      1. I for one would welcome King George and his majesty’s army as liberators.

    4. It’s Dirty Hairy. Oh, wait…

    5. would you share your home address? Please!

    6. Mass murders piling up while you parade around

      Q: When do mass murderers stop?
      A: When other people with guns show up.

  10. Oh no! Citizens can’t get everything they want so they try to get a smaller version!!! What a shock! Compromise has been around a lot longer than abortion or guns…

  11. Well there was a time when the Catholic church took care of unwed mothers. And their children wound up in a septic tank.

    http://classicalvalues.com/201…..-disgrace/

    1. “…A Catholic church…”

      FTFY (Fixed that for you)

      1. All the Catholic homes for unwed mothers haven’t been examined yet. This one closed in ’61. The news is just getting out. That is about 53 years later. Give it time.

  12. Here’s the thing about protecting women vs. protecting unborn children – to the choicer, it’s either/or and if you do one you can’t do the other.

    And choicers seem to assume that pro-lifers operate under the same framework. “You’re trying to protect pregnant women, so obviously you’re craftily hiding your agenda of protecting their children!”

    It’s both/and.

    Also, the Supreme Court gives its solemn assurance that there’s a right to abortion, *but* that right can sometimes be restricted. So the same folks who say “OMG the Supreme Court decisions is the Supreme Law of the Land” seem to ignore the part of the Supreme Court decisions which allow restrictions. Live by the Supreme Court, die by the Supreme Court.

  13. The title of this article is the first problem; the anti-gun folks have been doing this long before there even were abortions. The more correct title would be “Anti-Abortion Activists adopt Anti-Gun Tactics”.

    Go read some history!

  14. 1 question for the “pro-choicers”.

    Is it ok for the woman to mutilate the “non-person” in her womb?

    1. In your opinion, how do rights apply to people in various levels of vegetative states?

      I’m not trying to make a point with that question; it would be helpful to know what you think.

  15. Oh, and here’s what happens when the clinic hallways aren’t wide enough for EMTs to bring in a gurney:

    http://www.jillstanek.com/2012…..ey-access/

  16. I think a two pronged approach of 1) shooting the anti-abortionists, and 2) aborting the anti-gun crowd, would quickly solve both problems.

  17. Hello Reason Magazine, this is the lawyer for False Equivalency Inc.calling. You are hereby informed that the company I represent orders you to cease and desist the utilization of our product, Spurious Analogy, hitherto. Your prompt attention is appreciated.

    Let me know when anti-gun activists start murdering members of the NRA as fellow travelers of Operation Rescue and the Army of God have done. I’ll name you ten pro-gun nuts who have shot unarmed civilians or blown up nurseries to further their ideology.

    I’m enjoying the debate about how far abortions should be regulated. It’s hard figuring out who is a right-wing autocrat and who is a libertarian autocrat. Do the people that write for glennbeck.com and breitbart.com go to the same bar as the writers for reason?

    1. I’ll name you ten anti-gun nuts who have shot unarmed civilians or blown up nurseries to further their ideology.

      1. Mao

      2. Stalin

      3. (He who shall not be named)

      …Need I go on?

    2. Trolls gotta troll.

    3. Re: American Stolid,

      Let me know when anti-gun activists start murdering members of the NRA as fellow travelers of Operation Rescue and the Army of God have done.

      Did Operation Rescue murder someone? News to me.

      1. Sure. Check out Scott roeder’s connections with operation rescue. Did I say “member of”?

  18. The latter tactic has spread like a fungus across the South, where states are adopting regulations, ostensibly for safety, so stringent they are forcing clinics to close.

    I might say “spread like St. Augustine grass.” But really, I don’t get the whole “abortion is now cool” thing, and how liberty-loving folk have to go out of their way to express how down they are with it. There is so much at stake in the destruction of a human life before it’s born and has a chance to speak up for itself, that the callousness of the way abortion is discussed in these here parts is, for lack of a better word, grotesque.

    1. I think women should be able to have an abortion for any reason up until the time of birth. Why is this grotesque? You certainly don’t get the right to liberty or the right to the pursuit of happiness when you are born so why do you have this obsession with the rights to life of a third trimester fetus?

      1. Re: American Stolid,

        I think women should be able to have an abortion for any reason up until the time of birth. Why is this grotesque?

        Are you asking if people think it is grotesque to kill a baby that’s close to term, or if it is grotesque that you would think this is a good thing?

        1. I think its grotesque when nanny-staters make decisions about a women’s body. I say leave that up to them– “libertarians” say otherwise. Some might call them hypocrites

          1. american socialist:

            I think its grotesque when nanny-staters make decisions about a women’s body. I say leave that up to them– “libertarians” say otherwise. Some might call them hypocrites

            Well, suppose someone conscientiously objects to violence except in self-defense. And, this person believes that abortion is murder. This person could, with complete consistency, favor laws against murder and rape as a form of self-defense on other’s behalf, along with abortion, but conscientiously object to military service, and other government programs. You can agree or disagree, but it’s not hypocrisy.

            OK, now let’s take a socialist who thinks that people should be forced by the state to do pretty much whatever comes out of the system, and pay for whatever government programs he sees fit, regardless of whether they agree or not, or whether or not any self-defense is involved. This person whines about tax loop holes and people “not doing their fair share.” Yet, when it comes time to sign up for the draft and do his civic duty, he lies, pretending to conscientiously object to war, when, really, he just “hated the military and didn’t care about whether my country continued on or not.” But he gets really butt-hurt when people don’t want to fund his favorite programs, and he loves it when the state coerces them.

            Some might call him a hypocrite.

            1. I would feel safe calling a person who a.) proclaims themselves a libertarian and b.) says that socialists favor “that people should be forced by the state to do pretty much whatever comes out of the system” and c.) want to outlaw abortion a hypocrite. You certainly could not call them consistent.

              Brian, I’m a garden variety Scandanavian 70s style Welfare state socialist who doesn’t like the Military and is suspicious of U.S. hegemony. Have I been inconsistent in making this point? Yes, I think the economic and political system in the U.S. Is a racket and I wouldn’t mind it being partitioned, but I’d want it replaced by something like they have in Oslo or Copenhagen. You may not like that, but does this make me a hypocrite?

              1. Yeah, it does because the Scandinavian countries are walking back from there ’70s style welfare state because they have enough evidence that it’s not working given their not so successful absorbtion of a lot of immigrants that don’t share the values of these countries.

                Given this, your 40 year old model no longer works. At least these countries realize it and are reacting to it. 60’s utopians like you have been an epic fail, the EU is a perfect example, but true believers like you won’t change.

                You do realize that dreamers like you often got a bullet in the back of the head when Trotsky or Stalin called the shots.

                1. Denmark is giving up socialized health care and free post-secondary education? When did they do that?

              2. american socialist:

                I would feel safe calling a person who a.) proclaims themselves a libertarian and b.) says that socialists favor “that people should be forced by the state to do pretty much whatever comes out of the system” and c.) want to outlaw abortion a hypocrite. You certainly could not call them consistent.

                You can, but it’s based on the assumption that said libertarian wants abortion outlawed because he thinks people should do pretty much whatever comes out of the system, whatever it is, because democracy. Which captures practically no libertarian.

                1. I’d want it replaced by something like they have in Oslo or Copenhagen. You may not like that, but does this make me a hypocrite?

                  Kind of. The nordic model is essentially “capitalism + welfare state.” So, when you say you’re a welfare stat socialist, you’re really a welfare state capitalist. Either that, or you don’t really want Scandinavian social democracy.

                  See, socialism has been redefined. It used to mean social ownership of the means of production. In the 20th century, socialist took it mainly in the Marxist/Leninist Soviet-Cuban-Chinese-style, and spent most of the century proving how stupid an economic model it is. It sits on the trash heap of history.

                  In response, socialist have drastically lowered their desire to socially own the means of production. They agree that the primary driver of the economy should be capitalism; you know, the economic model that actually produces rising standards of living and avoids starving and lines to buy toilet paper.

                  Nowadays, the socialist embrace capitalism. Socialism only goes as far left as opinions on what welfare programs to have with your capitalism. In many ways, it’s hard to distinguish from some republicans.

                  In other words, socialists have conceded the economic efficiency debate to capitalists.

                  I had no idea the alternative to capitalism involved so much capitalism.

                  1. american socialist:

                    I’m a garden variety Scandanavian 70s style Welfare state socialist You may not like that, but does this make me a hypocrite?

                    Actually, this also makes you a hypocrite in terms of abortion.

                    Socialism is the social ownership of the means of production. Human reproduction is the ultimate form of production. This implies that, taken to its logical conclusion, socialism requires social ownership of women’s bodies, and regulation thereof.

                    Of course, socialists don’t really want to take socialism that far. After all, it’s not fun going to hip social events and explaining that you want to centrally manage every woman’s body based on what society wants, along with denying women their right to self-ownership.

                    This immediately presents socialism with contradictions and hypocrisy. If self-ownership exists, and women have a right to own their own reproduction, then this implies that society shouldn’t own the means of production, or deny people their private property rights, which are derived from self-ownership. But, socialists love doing that. So, they embrace the contradiction and hypocrisy by giving it lip service: they’re too busy maximizing human well-being to be consistent or avoid hypocrisy. Or, when you’re consistently maximizing that, there can be no hypocrisy. Which is pure question begging.

                    1. I get it Brian. Libertarians think that socialists must want to regulate abortion because they want to raise taxes on rich people. And, If you favor abortion than how can you object when your neighbor erects a lead smelter on their property without hypocrisy.

                    2. american socialist:

                      I get it Brian. Libertarians think that socialists must want to regulate abortion because they want to raise taxes on rich people.

                      No, socialists are completely inconsistent in their concepts, in that abortion can’t be regulated because of self-ownership, but the drugs one can and cannot take, and the surgeries one can and cannot have, and the food one can and cannot have, and the jobs one can and cannot have, and the wages one can and cannot have, are all up for regulation. Somehow, “it’s my body” only applies when socialists say it does. Which, in another way, is saying how it really never applies. If it’s only my body when socialists give permission, then it’s really their body, not my own.

                      And, If you favor abortion than how can you object when your neighbor erects a lead smelter on their property without hypocrisy.

                      Oh, you’re free to have any subjective preference you want (as if libertarians demand you like everything people do with their property).

                      That’s the great thing socialists have discovered about externalities: they’re everywhere. Everything effects everyone else. So, why shouldn’t you be able to control your neighbors lead smelter (truly a common problem, since people love lowering their own property values). Having children produces externalities. Single motherhood has externalities, especially thanks to the state. So, why shouldn’t people be able to object to the ways women reproduce?

    2. “…, where states are adopting regulations, ostensibly for safety, so stringent they are forcing clinics to close.”

      Regulations that are so stringent, yet oddly, similar to the ones every other outpatient surgery clinic already has to adhere to. Abortion is about the regulated “medical” procedure out there.

  19. Your comment brings this saying to mind: “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.”

  20. Am I the only one who thinks Roe v. Wade is actually pretty shaky, since it was only argued from the government- has- a- right- to- intervene- into- doctor- patient- relationship issue?
    If the anti-abortion side had argued quite simply that the state has the right to define murder under police powers, then that’s how they can legally regulate (or ban) abortion?

    I’d actually be for that, so we could actually start being consistent and honest. Then maybe people would actually question the government having such broad “police powers”.

  21. The U.S virgin Islands, Gun control so strict that an antique firearm must be certified inoperable(useless), can be for show only. population 110,000, FBI stats for 2012, 52 murders, 42 with guns. They have the highest per capita murder rate and the strictest gun controls. Hawaii had 13 murders, 3 with guns, 10 people simply found other ways to kill. Chicago had 500 murders and there is not one gun shop in that city, all the surrounding suburbs have at least one gun shop and have only a fraction of the crime. guns saves lives.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.