A MODEST PROPOSAL: HOW ABOUT WE MAKE THE RIGHT TO GET AN ABORTION TIED TO THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS?


fredschwartz1

I’ve been giving thought to a few issues here over the last few days that have to do with things more cerebral than whether the New York Jets can win the AFC East and whether Leicester City can qualify for Europe. Two of those issues are guns and abortion. Might as well tackle the two most disputed social issues in America right off the top right?

Conservatives are fearful that Progressives will have some government agency come into their homes and take their guns away by force. Worse they fear government will make rules for gun ownership so severe and complicated that only a very few could own a single firearm. I have to provide full disclosure here that were I in power in America I would do what needed to be done and there wouldn’t be a gun left outside the hands of the military in ten years.

But that’s, I’ll admit, an irrational desire. What needs to be done however is to find a happy medium that allows those who are sure the dark hoards from the inner city are coming to their rural, suburban and exurban dwellings to rape their property and steal their daughters and wives to keep their 2nd amendment protected projectile firing weapons. What I propose is this. Allow the same rules that conservatives desire and have passed into law in several states designed to “protect life” in regard to abortion.

Potential gun buyers need to have their immediate family, spouse, employer and if applicable the school district of their school age children notified of the potential purchase. Once these notifications and documentation is made then the gun buyer can proceed to be counselled about the horrors of gun violence including being shown the videos and stills of the crime scenes from Columbine to Newtown. After a three day waiting period the potential gun buyer can be brought in to meet with a psychiatrist who will review their mental health. Oh, I forgot it needs to be a requirement to allow a brain probe to be put into the mind . . . Wait that doesn’t exist yet. Alright I’ll take a good old fashioned brain scan to detect any obvious brain anomalies. And last but not least there has to be some shaming in the form of people holding signs showing what the carnage of gun violence standing a federally mandated distance away from the gun store.

KP_Guns_009
In Hindsight
I think we can do this people. And it’s important if we’re going to protect life in all its forms. If the rules above as suggested by some conservatives and implemented by several state legislatures were applied to gun ownership I think that would be fair for all people involved.

Pax Terra!

Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., CS, O.Q.H [Journ.]
Managing Editor—Research
The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork
29 2 Leviathan 3 AS

11 Responses to “A MODEST PROPOSAL: HOW ABOUT WE MAKE THE RIGHT TO GET AN ABORTION TIED TO THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS?”

  1. You created the “dark hordes” of the inner cities. You are now reaping what you sow.

    A Firearm is just a tool. What happens with that tool depends on the user. Legalized murder is just that. The result is final. There is no going back.

    Good Luck on implementing your confiscation plan. Well maybe not since the most likely outcome is that you will get them one fmj at a time.

    Once again you prove that you just have no understanding at all. My suggestion is to go back pondering your football problems.

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] Says:

      I didn’t create the “dark hordes” at all nor did Progressive policies. Bigotries created the fear of people of color and served to make changes to New Deal policies that would have allowed families to rise out of poverty. Conservatives of both political parties in state and federal government worked to assure that no male presence can be in a household receiving benefits and that is generational economic and familial genocide by my standard. If a woman cannot have the basic right to determine when she gives birth then why isn’t there a law that governs the right of men to masturbate?

  2. neocon01 Says:

    How about we follow the CONSTITUTION on BOTH,
    One is spelled out in spades, the other? a fantasy of 5 evil people in black robes who should have been tarred and feathered before being run out of town on a rail and H

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] Says:

      How about making a law that requires all white women to have at least two children? Because the real problem for you is your declining demographics. White women work now in numbers that would have been staggering fifty years ago and are delaying or foregoing having children in record numbers. While people of color especially the Latino and black middle class are having nearly 3 children per household. The problem is you’re losing your racial majority and inside your own race your beliefs are seen to be restrictive and archaic because they are simply anti-American and anti-spiritual. Face the facts man when you got into bed with Falwell in the late 70s you crawled into a box with no political exit strategy.

      • neocon01 Says:

        “when you got into bed with Falwell in the late 70s you crawled into a box with no political exit strategy.</i" says a man who is in bed with faracan, bathhouse barry, islam, sodomy, and marxist democrats.

        PS freddy; Jerry had it 100% right.

  3. neocon01 Says:

    The CONSTITUTION is NOT a “law” so your premise as usual is pure unadulterated BS

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] Says:

      As someone who has countless times stood on the fact that Liberals do not respect the Constitution I find your ignorance really alarming.
      For clarity this from Article VI of the United States Constitution:

      “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
      We report you decide.

  4. neocon01 Says:

    a Treaty is legislation passed by congress and is indeed binding on all states,
    so call “law” made up out of thin air by the judiciary is anarchy.

    • neocon01 Says:

      The Court also looks at whether the state law directly interferes or is in conflict with federal law. In all of these cases, the supremacy clause ensures that federal law takes priority over, or preempts, state law. The prioritizing of federal over state powers is known as the “doctrine of preemption.”

      Article VI also provides that both federal and state officials—including legislators and judges—must obey the U.S. Constitution (state officials have a duty to obey their own state constitutions and laws as well).

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] Says:

      The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

  5. neocon01 Says:

    so?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: