10 Comments

  1. stevegreer1 on January 7, 2016 at 11:11 am

    More Obama hypocrisy. Liberals still turning a blind eye.

  2. Clare Flourish on January 10, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    How many “pro life” people are against gun control, for war and bombing of foreigners, in favour of the death penalty, against public health care so that those who cannot afford insurance die-

    Not really very pro-life, are they?

    Anyway, reverse the platforms and put any conservative. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

    • lburleso on January 11, 2016 at 2:42 pm

      It’s true that many who hold pro-life views can be inconsistent about the other issues you mentioned. But how does that justify the direct killing of human life through abortion?

      • Clare Flourish on January 12, 2016 at 2:01 am

        Why would someone want an assault rifle, anyway? Hardly to defend a house; and in hunting, do you need an enlarged magazine and the ability to fire more than one round a second? In Britain, we hunt with shotguns.

        • quinersdiner on January 12, 2016 at 8:12 am

          Some people like the ease of use, even though they are not as powerful as other rifles used for hunting.

          • Clare Flourish on January 12, 2016 at 8:17 am

            They are particularly useful for hunting large crowds of University students or school-children, though, and (from my British perspective) a great deal of State restriction is justified to save those lives. We had one school shooting, then a great deal of State regulation: no more school shootings.

            On abortion: yes, of course the foetus- or even blastocyst- matters; what weight do you give to the hurt or fear of the woman who can’t have a child, in her circumstances? Is your response merely, “Suck it up: you should not have sex if you can’t have children”?



          • quinersdiner on January 12, 2016 at 4:41 pm

            My response is that the pre born have equal dignity to the born. Violence is immoral towards persons just because they are inconvenient. If someone desires to engage in sexual intercourse, he and she have a moral obligation to be responsible for the outcome. If they don’t want to raise their son or daughter, then adoption is the answer.



      • lburleso on January 12, 2016 at 9:23 am

        Unless illegally modified, “assault rifles” are semi-automatic only. Full auto and 3-round burst are for military uses only. They tend to be easier to use, lighter, more accurate, and recoil less than shotguns and many standard-type rifles.

        What are your thoughts about my question?

  3. Clare Flourish on January 13, 2016 at 1:24 am

    lburleso asked if anti-abortion campaigners’ inconsistency could justify abortion. Not by itself.

    However, a useful comparison can be made between relative losses. A hunter cannot use an assault rifle. What does he lose? Is it more than the woman forced to endure her pregnancy, rather than have an early abortion?

    Planned parenthood researches sexual health problems, treats STDs and provides birth control. Are any of these things at all objectionable?

  4. I’m right, you’re wrong | Clare Flourish on January 13, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    […] is Tom Quiner, alleging that seeking to protect children from school shootings by restricting assault weapons, […]

Leave a Comment