No woman has ever been forced to keep a child she give birth to. The baby can be adopted. And, yes, Bonnie, my husband and I regularly provide food to food banks, I give clothing to the schools and other places such as Samaritan House to give to those who need them. We buy most of the clothing and regularly give clothing and food when needed to an un married mother who has three children. I am not defending my prolife position, I am just responding to concerns that I have not stood and walked beside those who are in difficult positions, supported them with love and compassion with my words, my arms and my pocketbook. Our church has numerous foster and adoptive parents. We have a closet filled with high chairs, strollers, formula, diapers, clothing, etc for those who are fostering, adopting or raising children as single parents in difficult situations. I don't own a gun, never have and don't want one. I wish I could stop deranged persons from killing children, adults and anyone else. I also wish I could stop drunk drivers, drug users, pedophiles, but I can't police the world, not even the small city I live in.
But, just as slavery was legal, but morally wrong, we had to pass legislation and then fight a war to end it. I don't want a war, but until all life is valued, then no life is safe.

Posted by: justanArkansan

March 3, 2013 at 11:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

In response to the Evers letter,:
Since 1968, "more Americans have died from gunfire than died in … all the wars of this country's history."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...

Posted by: Coralie

March 3, 2013 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

>>Ms. McDonald says she has never met a woman who had an abortion and wasn’t haunted by it. <

Bonnie Davis knocked down that old religionist's myth.

Posted by: cdawg

March 3, 2013 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

PVT Buck, are you really Freeby when he is on Magic Mushrooms?

Posted by: Moneymyst

March 3, 2013 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Cdawg: " FFT has amassed a good library of gun crime stats.">>

Posted publicly here for everyone's benefit: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

One is not always in the mood to roast gun nuts. Terry's stuff is just the same warmed over regurgitate. But here is an interesting point:

Terry: "2003 study by the [CDC] examined [studies and] was unable to show any crime reduction associated with gun control.">>

That's not exactly right, as has been debunked here before, but to the extent it is true and they gave a wishy washy review, we know why. The NRA made it illegal not to. See how the gun nut lobby was able to stifle government research on violent gun death in the US:

"How the Government Stifled Gun Research"
http://www.livescience.com/26253-gove...

Terry: "Ensure... individuals adjudicated unfit to possess firearms into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System database.">>

This is naive. We have 5,000 gun shows in the US each year and about 60% of the guns cycling through them are sold with no record, no receipt, no checks, no limits, cash and carry off you go. The gunshow loophole makes a complete mockery of any serious attempt at gun control anywhere in the US. It's days are numbered.

Terry: "Since the ban expired in 2004, the nation’s violent crime rate has continued to drop...">>

This is misleading. Crime goes up and down independently of guns, and gun crime (which is obviously more relevant). The violent crime rate has been going down since the early '90's. Our rates of gun death and destruction are still off the charts and quite extraordinary (and bad) when compared with peer nations.

Ter: "despite the rise of gun ownership to an all-time high.">>

No one has a foggy idea of how many are actually floating around out there, but aside from the latest batch of nuts hoarding them in the basement and backyard, gun ownership, and hunting is very much in a long term decline. Hence the panic of the NRA. See:

"The Myth Of NRA Dominance Part IV: The Declining Role Of Guns In American Society"
http://tinyurl.com/78pom84

The writing is on the wall and they know it. As they become more and more of a fringe minority group full of kooks (see GHW Bush's resignation letter), they will lose their already exaggerated power. And I will very much enjoy watching the process.

The NRA actually called me last week. It was a person and he played a short clip of Wayne LaPierre saying something stupid and false about Obama taking my guns. After the clip he asked what I thought of it. I said I thought Wayne was a buffoon and an embarrassment to the organization.

D.
------------
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/b...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 3, 2013 at 6:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

According to my much older (and much more liberal) sisters, our very Christian and Republican parents stated, while I was still in utero, that they'd abort me were it only legal to do so. The only thing stopping them was that at the time it would've occasioned a trip to Mexico. And, well . . . you know how good Christian Republicans felt about Mexicans, back in the day.

I first heard that story from my sisters (much older sisters, mind you) when Roe v. Wade was being first argued before the Supreme Court. It's no more than hearsay; Mom never owned her statements, despite my use of enhanced interrogation techniques while she was in hospice (i.e., extra morphine and Jack Daniels suckers.)

I remember asking Mom about it when I first heard the tale - I was nine or ten at the time. "Well, if you didn't want me, couldn't you have given me to someone else to raise?" She said that no, that wasn't an option; real Christian Republicans own up to their mistakes and suffer the consequences as individuals. We call it personal responsibility.

As an adult, I've concluded that if we, as good Christian Republicans, can reduce the negative impact to our nation caused by the mistakes made by those among us who're unable to employ good sense and personal responsibility by nipping same in the bud . . . . Well, it'll save us all a lot in the long run, particularly in terms of tax money. And, aborting those fetuses does a lot more to teach personal responsibility than does making the rest of us, collectively, raise a mistake.

I'd like to hear from you five years after you've taken personal responsibility for - just make it a round number and say five - million dollar mistakes that other people made. That's around what it costs to raise a good Christian Republican to 18 years, give or take.

Personally, I couldn't care less. If I'd been aborted as a fetus, I wouldn't even know about it, now would I? Since I'm here (through no fault of my own, mind you) I have, however, figured out that it's in fact more economically sensible to not have six billion plus other humans here with me.

Adoption is not the answer - the numbers just won't work. Ask any good neo-con Christian Republican.

Posted by: GenBuckTurgidson

March 3, 2013 at 6:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Gen, Perhaps if your older sisters hadn't been so cruel as to tell you how unwanted you were, you might have more compassion and a sense of the worth of your life. By the way you are assuming that I am a republican. How very wrong, since I am not registered to any political party and vote for the person and not the party. I am unashamedly a Christian. You got that part right.

Posted by: justanArkansan

March 3, 2013 at 7:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

I must correct myself - again. Sigh. I see that abortion was a topic under the gun law article.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 4, 2013 at 8:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

How like mycentworth to take the General's comment literally, as if it were the Bible. Of course, she also fails to understand it-- just as if it were the Bible. For one thing, he does not equate Christians and Republicans; she would note if she read for comprehension the the General specifies Republican and Christian a separate characteristics. For another, his account of his interactions with his mother and siblings is clearly not intended to be taken literally, even if it has any basis in truth.

RE "I must correct myself - again."
Unfortunately for mycentworth and the rest of us, there are corrections that she will never approach.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 4, 2013 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

RE "Not sure how alpha cat knows Gen is not speaking about facts of his life literally"
You're not sure of a lot of things, but you never let that stop you. For example, you could take me to be correct because this is part of your personal experience, and you form important opinions based on your personal experience instead of real evidence.

The General's mention of plying his mother with Jack Daniels suckers was my first clue: hard candy cooks at too high a temperature for any alcohol to remain.

RE "he only once separates Christian and Republican."
Every time he writes one of the two words, he also writes the other, and they are, with one exception, immediately adjacent to each other. In other words, he is not using either of the words to mean both things, which means that he is not equating the two. He could just as well have written about Buddhist Republicans (Ha!) or Christian Libertarians, but he was writing about people who are both Christian and Republican-- that is, people who have two separate traits, which he carefully avoids equating. The General is damned near always very careful in his writing, as his education and profession demand-- even when he is applying a tensional force to your pedal appendage.

Stick to nursing-- you're probably better at it. And develop a sense of humor, so you can see humor when you read it.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 4, 2013 at 10:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Alpha, I don't read something and try to decipher if it is an allegory. Allegories should be easily recognized, which most are. I was responding to the element of truth, which there probably was.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 5, 2013 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

RE "Seems the Kitty, who has no sense of humor"
Oh, now. You and I have shared a few jokes here, and I seem to recall that you have even complimented my sense of humor. How soon you forget-- when it suits you.

RE "Your defense of the indefensible just to make a personal attack on mycentworth is indefensible."
Says the potty-obsessed troll who constantly makes personal attacks and little else. But note that I didn't defend anything the General said. I merely pointed out that he tends to compose his posts very carefully, and that it is clear that mycentworth didn't understand the one she responded to. As for making a personal attack, you should note that my analysis of her understanding is based on her own words in her own posts, and is neither an attack nor personal. If mycentworth does not wish to be understood in a certain way, she should not post in a way that fosters such an understanding. It's nice of you to leap to her defense, misguided though you are; however,. I should think your run-in with the feds would have taught you something about misplaced chivalry undertaken across state lines. (mycentworth lives in Missouri.)

RE "Since you warn us not to take Buckbored in a literial way"
I pointed out only that one particular post should not be taken literally-- not his entire oeuvre.

RE "Seems to me that the underlying meaning is that we must never take you literial either."
That's an interesting extrapolation. Please explain how you came up with it.

RE "Which, by the way is good advice, to be taken to the heart with a grain of salt, which is the way we always take you anyway."
It is true that I do not let my dependable correctness prevent my indulging in a bit of levity from time to time. Just be careful of your electrolyte balance.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 5, 2013 at 2:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

RE "The only jokes we have ever shared were all on you."
Wrong again. Were that the case, I would not have mentioned them.

RE "Personal attacks are something I use to pay back when I am personally attacked."
You are more prone to use them preemptively.

RE "To my knowledge mycentworth has never personally attacked you, but you degrade her at every opportunity."
As the proud Christian contributors to these threads go, mycentworth is far more moderate-- well, passive-aggressive, actually-- than, say, hbcark and kinggeorge are. In fact, I have in the past complimented mycentworth on her relatively moderate tone. However, she has admitted on a couple of occasions to contemplating some insult against me, despite the warning of Ephesians 4:31: "Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice." And of course she holds me to be wrong-- to my eternal detriment!-- on things she only believes to be true, while I simply show her that she is verifiably wrong on, or unversed in, factual matters, and I have never said anything about her that could be taken as derogatory (other than that she lives in Missouri) that does not arise from her own words. She makes me out to be immoral because my beliefs are different than hers, while I have made no moral judgement about her at all. Who attacks whom? I do acknowledge that she says she prays for me; of course, this is both a weapon and an empty gesture, but at least she has good intentions (and the road that goes with them).

RE "Any run-in with the Feds I have ever had was to graduate from the FBI Academy..."
If all-- or much at all, or any-- of this were true, then there was really no point at all in your reacting as you did to that mugshot link.

RE "I don't know how you got so misinformed"
While I don't know nearly everything about you, I am quite sure that what I do know about you is true. And that's not just faith talking.

RE "but it takes a real case of stupid to do so in such a large degree."
That, or believing much of what you post.

RE "I think you may be as mentally challenged as PVT Buck."
Which would be to say, not much.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 5, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

My giving your initials doesn't prove or disprove anything in and of itself, as even if you acknowledge that these are your initials-- which doesn't seem likely-- I might have made an extraordinarily lucky guess. However, you have revealed your first name (and birth year), and I know your full name from other corroborating sources. I suppose it is possible that I have been misled by an unusual set of coincidences, but I discount that possibility.

However, I will say that your initials may be found in the Police Department, the put-down, the paranormal dilettante, and the public discussion.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 5, 2013 at 8:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Thats good you sorry piece of cat dump. Lets meet in the office of a local bondsmand, say Spencer Bonding at 9:00 Saturday March 9. I will have all my credentials available for you or your representatives inspection at that time. Plenty of witnessess and bodyguards to keep the peace will be there. If that is not satisfactury, then name you time and place and I will be there, you sorry sack of cat litter. Put up or shut up!

Posted by: Moneymyst

March 5, 2013 at 11:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

RE "Thats good you sorry piece of cat dump....I will be there, you sorry sack of cat litter."
And of course a fine, decent Christian woman like mycentworth would stand up for the posts of a potty-obsessed troll like this.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 6, 2013 at 12:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Do you see now how easily the conversation is steered from gun control to abortion? Especially when the only folk engaging in the conversation are idiots.

Grow up and get off the internet, all of you.

Posted by: GenBuckTurgidson

March 6, 2013 at 3:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

When PVT Buck is one of the folk (idiots) engaging in the conversation. Now back to gun control.

"We should restore the practice of dueling. It might improve manners around here."---Edward Abbey

Posted by: Moneymyst

March 6, 2013 at 8:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Because criminals don't obey gun laws or much of any other laws, that is why we call them criminals, Coralie

Posted by: Moneymyst

March 6, 2013 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Can't wait MM to see your answer to this one. However, I think you will be wasting your time. The "DUH" at the end could not have been more appropriate.

Posted by: woodw

March 6, 2013 at 7:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

RE "Can't wait MM to see your answer to this one."
No surprise here: another fine, decent Christian encouraging abusive behavior from the potty-obsessed troll.

With impressive public examples like these, it's no wonder that more and more people are declining the opportunity to declare that they have a religious preference.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 7, 2013 at 1:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Money says "We must do a better job of keeping criminals in prison."
This nation already has the highest rate of incarceration of any similar country.
Also, many crimes of violence are committed by ordinary-seeming individuals against family members, neighbors, and companions rather than in the course of committing crimes such as robbery. Alcohol and other drugs are often involved.
Until the person commits a crime, he (or she) is not a criminal..

Posted by: Coralie

March 7, 2013 at 11:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Truly, sometimes Money's posts rise above the troll label. But what is most irritating is that he feels compelled to say something about everything.
BTW, there actually exist professional trolls, that is, people who are paid to disrupt advocacy sites. I'm pretty sure that is not the case here.

Posted by: Coralie

March 7, 2013 at 12:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Cor: "This nation already has the highest rate of incarceration of any similar country.">>

You don't need the qualifier of "any similar country" in there Coralie. The US has the highest incarceration rate period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...

We have about 5% of the world's population, and about 25% of the world's prison inmates. It's quite an astonishing achievement and a big flag that a society is not functioning well.

If only we would get tough on crime!

D.
--------------
And clearly more religion too:

"The United States is an extreme outlier, being both exceedingly dysfunctional and exceedingly religious. We scored a rating of three on the 0-to-10 SSS scale while all 16 other nations scored between five and nine,... The correlation between religiosity and dysfunctionality is quite strong throughout all 17 nations, with the most religious nations (the United States, followed distantly by Ireland, Italy and Austria) being the most socially dysfunctional and the most secular nations (Sweden, Japan, Denmark and France) being the most socially successful.

"...the highly religious United States scores the most dysfunctional in per capita homicide, incarceration, juvenile mortality, gonorrhea and syphilis infections, teenage abortions, adolescent pregnancies, marriage duration, income disparity, poverty, work hours, overexploitation of resources, and income inequality. In nearly all these cases, the gap between the United States and the other 16 nations is large."

All laid out nicely here in this article: http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/NWAT/0...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 7, 2013 at 2:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

IR never responds to points that refute him, and for good reason: he can't.

IR: "attempt to explain why the Constitution needs to be suspended.">>

The Constitution has always been interpreted, since day one, that guns can be regulated and that the right referred to in the 2nd, is limited. This includes the most lenient and recent (2008) interpretation in the District of Col. v. Heller. Let's cite Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited," he stated. "The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." http://tinyurl.com/7qv3w2l

Is Scalia referring to "suspending the Constitution?" More likely, IR just doesn't know what he's talking about.

IR: "current gun laws can not prevent every shooting...">

Reasonable people know that gun laws wouldn't have to "prevent every shooting" in order to prevent *some* shootings. You know, like they consistently do in all of our peer countries. For instance, 270 people are shot each day in the US. We wouldn't have to "prevent every shooting" to prevent some of those shootings.

Again: “…the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined..." http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrh...

We wouldn't have to "prevent every shooting" in order to prevent some of those shootings.

Again: "The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20...

We wouldn't have to "prevent every shooting" to prevent some of those shootings.

IR: [somebody] "intereste(sic) in pushing his atheism...">>

See how it's always the Christians bringing up atheism? It's like they are a little obsessed with it. Bugs 'em. Good. Doesn't have anything to do with guns.

IR: "obvious factors that can explain the U.S. murder rate vis-a-vis other nations...">>

Notice IR is careful not to explain what murder rate has to do with his point, whatever that point may be. The US has consistently higher murder rates than comparable countries but it's the daily gun death and destruction stats that are off the charts.

IR: "anti-scientific methods and anti-facts.">>

I know IR can't bring any gun facts to the table, because will quickly be "shot down," but he will especially want avoid anything to do with "scientific methods." His beliefs on such matters are strictly and purely, faithbased.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 7, 2013 at 10:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

It's funny how every time I try to restart the discussion brought up by original letter by Terry Evers--his idea to enforce existing gun laws--I get labeled with Evers" argument.
By such as Money and Irish.
Evers himself is pro-gun rights and, from other letters he has written, I know that he is a strong conservative.
I have simply asked why, if what Evers says is the answer, these laws have not been enforced before?.
First, read the original letter, will ya?
Second, if you guys are that quick on the trigger, you don't belong anywhere near a gun.
.

Posted by: Coralie

March 8, 2013 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Alpha: "RE "Since you warn us not to take Buckbored in a literial way"
I pointed out only that one particular post should not be taken literally-- not his entire oeuvre."

Alpha, what're you doing here, using them foreign words? Please stop with the implications that I'm some sorta French socialist communist.

Money, it's real nice that you're a certified police officer, licensed private investigator, and may even be otherwise credentialed. I thank you for your service, whatever it may have been.

Posted by: GenBuckTurgidson

March 9, 2013 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

(And to you, Alpha - you scat, like Money says, and let the real men talk... .)

Jeez, I love being a troll!

Posted by: GenBuckTurgidson

March 9, 2013 at 8:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Is that really a fond farewell, Money?
Somehow I doubt it.

Posted by: Coralie

March 11, 2013 at 12:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

The same article did note regional differences.
As I had claimed, the South and West had the highest gun-ownership rate, but even so the rate dropped from 65% in the 1970s to less than 40% this decade.
The highly urbanized Northeast has the lowest rate of gun ownership, only 22% this decade.
...
Another interesting finding is that "While household ownership of guns among elderly Americans remained virtually unchanged from the 1970s to this decade at about 43%, ownership among young Americans plummeted."

Posted by: Coralie

March 11, 2013 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

RE "And not Buckster has just dismissed Kitty."
You have allowed your wishful thinking to overcome your ability to detect and understand humor.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 11, 2013 at 2:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )