Two peas in a pod: Abortion restrictionists and gun control advocates, part deux

[friendly_iconoclast]

Both prohibitionist groups have revived the thesis of my original post- by getting up to the
same sort of dishonest horseshit that prompted the original OP:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/117235299

https://www.democraticunderground.com/117235299#post26

'True believers' of all sorts are more alike than different-not that they'll ever admit it...

It's hardly a new or original observation- it is the underlying thesis of Eric Hoffer's The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements

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

...The book analyzes and attempts to explain the motives of the various types of personalities that give rise to mass movements; why and how mass movements start, progress and end; and the similarities between them, whether religious, political, radical or reactionary. As examples, the book often refers to Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, Christianity, Protestantism, and Islam. Hoffer believes that mass movements are interchangeable, that adherents will often flip from one movement to another, and that the motivations for mass movements are interchangeable; that religious, nationalist and social movements, whether radical or reactionary, tend to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics, even when their stated goals or values differed.

First, the gun prohibition side is heard from

https://www.democraticunderground.com/126213486

Children are murded in schools because of a Constitutional Amendment that makes it easy to murder children in schools.

...And to be fair, the Second Amendment, in my view, was never intended to allow for personal, in home ownership of guns by everyone. But Antonin Scalia, that darling of the so-called originalist school, claimed to find that right hidden in the actual words of an Amendment that never mentions any such right...

Ahem. What Scalia actually said was, with added emphasis:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

And the writer of the immediately proceeding item knew Scalia wrote this-

because they also wrote post 16 below

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172208076#post7

Scalia specifically said that the 2A allows strict gun control

According to him, the only right you have is to own a handgun in your own home. That is all.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172208076#post16

True

Much of the linked thread is taken up by a persistent argument that a (so far) nonexistant court precedent is the true
and only interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Now onto the 'abortion safety' movement:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142401723

Ohio bill orders doctors to 'reimplant ectopic pregnancy' or face 'abortion murder' charges
Source: theguardian.com

A bill to ban abortion introduced in the Ohio state legislature requires doctors to “reimplant an ectopic pregnancy” into a woman’s uterus – a procedure that does not exist in medical science – or face charges of “abortion murder”.

This is the second time practising obstetricians and gynecologists have tried to tell the Ohio legislators that the idea is currently medically impossible...

Some things just never seem to change very much, do they?

[needledriver]

1. Well, of course.

Fervor for constitutional rights is entirely fluid and malleable - depending on which right excites your passion.

There are those who stridently advocate that a woman has a constitutional right to control their own body, most specifically in whether or not to choose to carry a pregnancy to term. However, the same woman, at the same time, can also stridently advocate against their own constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

There are also those who stridently advocate for their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. However, those same people, at the same time, can stridently advocate against a woman’s constitutional right to control their own body.

Gun control advocates point to 30,000 deaths a year as a justification to severely curtail the right to keep and bear arms.

Abortion control advocates point to 8-900,000 deaths a year as justification to severely curtail the right to control your own body.

That leaves constitutional rights advocates at a loss for how to explain to strident advocates that the constitution is not a buffet - you don’t get to just pick the rights you like. If you are passionate in favor of any right, you need to be passionate in favor of all of them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. Orwell, in '1984': "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears...

...It was their final, most essential command.”

Pious frauds and demagogues of all stripes hate and fear critical thinking, as see:

https://time.com/5347737/trump-quote-george-orwell-vfw-speech/

President Trump drew comparisons to George Orwell’s 1984 in an attack on the media during a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention Tuesday.

In his address to the convention in Kansas City, Trump defended his decision to slap tariffs on the U.S.’s trading partners. As Trump told the crowd that “it’s all working out,” he warned those in the audience against believing what they see in the news.

“What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening,” Trump said.