Guest Post: Gun Rights - Are There Any Peaceful Solutions Left?

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt-Market

Gun Rights: Are There Any Peaceful Solutions Left?

Throughout history, citizen disarmament generally leads to one of two inevitable outcomes:  Government tyranny and genocide, or, revolution and civil war.  Anti-gun statists would, of course, argue that countries like the UK and Australia have not suffered such a result.  My response would be – just give them time.   You may believe that gun control efforts are part and parcel of a totalitarian agenda (as they usually are), or, you may believe that gun registration and confiscation are a natural extension of the government’s concern for our “safety and well-being”.  Either way, the temptation of power that comes after a populace is made defenseless is almost always too great for any political entity to dismiss.  One way or another, for one reason or another, they WILL take advantage of the fact that the people have no leverage to determine their own cultural future beyond a twisted system of law and governance which is, in the end, easily corrupted.

The unawake and the unaware among us will also argue that revolution or extreme dissent against the establishment is not practical or necessary, because the government “is made of regular people like us, who can be elected or removed at any time”. 

This is the way a Republic is supposed to function, yes.  However, the system we have today has strayed far from the methods of a Free Republic and towards the machinations of a single party system.  Our government does NOT represent the common American anymore.  It has become a centralized and Sovietized monstrosity.  A seething hydra with two poisonous heads; one Democrat in name, one Republican in name.  Both heads feed the same bottomless stomach; the predatory and cannibalistic pit of socialized oligarchy.

On the Republican side, we are offered Neo-Con sharks like George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, who argue for “conservative” policies such as limited government interference and reduced spending, all while introducing legislation which does the exact opposite.  The recent passage of the “Safe Act” in New York with extensive Republican support proves that Republicans cannot be counted on to defend true conservative values. 

The Democrats get candidates like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, who claim to be anti-war and against government abuse of civil liberties, and yet, these same “progressive and compassionate” politicians now froth at the mouth like rabid dogs sinking their teeth into the flesh of the citizenry, expanding on every tyrannical initiative the Republicans began, and are bombing more civilian targets in more foreign countries than anyone with a conscience should be able to bear.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; the government is not our buddy.  It is not our ally or friend.  It is not a “part of us”.  It is now a separate and dangerous entity.  A parasite feeding off the masses.  It has become a clear threat to the freedoms of average Americans.  It is time for the public to grow up, snap out of its childish delusions, and accept that there is no solace or justice to be found anymore in Washington D.C.  

Once we understand this fact, a question then arises – What do we do about it?  If we cannot redress our grievances through the election process because both parties favor the same authoritarian direction, and if our street protests are utterly ignored by the mainstream media and the establishment, and if civil suits do nothing but drag on for years with little to no benefit, then what is left for us?  Is the way of the gun the only answer left for the American people at this crossroads? 

I cannot deny that we are very close to such a conclusion.  Anyone who does deny it is living in a candy coated fantasy land.  However, there are still certain options that have not been exhausted, and we should utilize them if for no other reason than to maintain the moral high ground while the power elite continue to expose their own despotic innards.

State And County Nullification

The assertion of local authority in opposition to federal tyranny is already being applied across the country.  Multiple states, counties, and municipalities are issuing declarations of defiance and passing legislation which nullifies any future federal incursions against 2nd Amendment protections.  For instance, the Gilberton Borough Council in PA in conjunction with Police Chief Mark Kessler has recently adopted a resolution defending all 2nd Amendment rights within their municipal borders up to and including the denial of operations by federal officers:

Approximately 283 county Sheriffs and multiple police officers have taken a hard stand, stating that they will either not aid federal enforcement officials with gun control related activities, or, that they will not allow such activities within their county, period:

This trend of dissent amongst law enforcement officials debunks the nihilistic view promoted by disinformation agents that “no one in law enforcement will have the guts to stand up to the government no matter how sour it turns”.   It has also shaken the Obama Administration enough that the White House is struggling to counter it by wining and dining police unions and sheriffs departments in order to form their own “coalition of the willing”.  Obama seems to believe that holding press conferences using children or police as background props will somehow earn him political capital in the battle for gun rights, but I have my doubts:

Multiple states have legislation on the table to nullify as well, and it would seem that the violent push by the establishment to extinguish the 2nd Amendment has actually sharply rekindled the public’s interest in States Rights and the 10th Amendment.

This does not mean, though, that we should rely on nullification alone.  While the gun grabbers are stumbling into severe resistance at the national level, some representatives are attempting to supplant gun rights at the state level, including New York, California, Washington State, and Missouri.  The goal here is obvious; counter states rights arguments by using anti-gun legislators to impose federal controls through the back door of state legislation.

They will claim that if we support states rights, then we have to abide by the decisions of regions like New York when they ban and confiscate firearms.  It’s sad how gun grabbers lose track of reality.  Neither federal authority, nor state authority, supplants the legal barriers of the Constitution itself, meaning, no federal or local authority has the right or power to remove our freedom of speech, our freedom of assembly, our freedom of privacy, OR our freedom to own firearms (including firearms of military utility).  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights supersede all other legal and political entities (including treaties, as ruled by the Supreme Court).  At least, that’s what the Founding Fathers intended when they established this nation.  The point is, a state is well within its rights to defy the Federal Government if it is enacting unconstitutional abuses, and the people are well within their rights to defy a state when it does the same.

Economic Nullification

There is actually a fantastic economic opportunity to be had by states and counties that nullify gun control legislation.  Many gun manufacturers and retail businesses are facing financial oblivion if the establishment has its way, and moving operations outside the U.S. is not necessarily practical for most of them (gun manufacturing is one of the last business models we still do better than the rest of the world).  Municipalities could offer safe haven to these businesses, allowing them to continue producing firearms and high capacity magazines, fulfill expanding public demand, and create a surging cash flow into their area while at the same time giving the federal government the finger.

This strategy does not come without dangers, though.  Many states and counties are addicted to federal funding, and some would go bankrupt without it.  The obvious first response by the feds to protesting local governments will be to cut off the river of cash and starve them into subservience. 

This brand of internal financial warfare can be countered by local governments by nullifying a few other unconstitutional regulations, including those issued by the EPA and the BLM.  States and counties could easily disable federal land development restrictions and begin using resource development as a means to generate supplemental income.  North Dakota is essentially doing this right now in the Bakken Oil Fields, becoming one of the few states in America that is actually creating legitimate high paying jobs (instead of part time wage slave jobs), and growing more prosperous every year.

This tactic is not limited to state governments either.  Counties also have the ability, with the right officials involved, to regain control of their economic destinies anytime they want.  All it takes is the courage to rock the establishment boat.

Refuse All Registration Schemes

National firearms registration and gun databases are almost always followed by full gun confiscation.  The process is usually done in a standardized manner:  First demand extensive registration and cataloging of gun owners.  Second, ban more effective styles of weaponry, including semi-automatics and high capacity rifles (Let the sport hunters keep their bolt actions for a time, and lure them onto your side with the promise that they will get to keep their .270 or their 30-06).  Then take all semi-auto handguns.  Then, ban high powered magnum style bolt actions by labeling them “sniper rifles”.  Then demand that the gun owners that still remain allow official “inspections” of their home by law enforcement to ensure that they are “storing their weapons properly”.  Then, force them to move those weapons to a designated “warehouse or range”, locked away for any use other than recreational shooting.  Then, when the public is thoroughly disconnected from their original right to bear arms, take everything that’s left. 

Keep in mind that the federal government and certain state governments are acting as if they would like to skip ALL of the preliminary steps and go straight to full confiscation.  I am not discounting that possibility.  But, they may feign certain concessions in the near term in order to get the one thing they really want – full registration. 

Registration must be the line in the sand for every single gun owner in this country, whether they own several semi-automatics, or one pump action shotgun.  Once you give in to being registered, fingerprinted, photographed, and tracked wherever you decide to live like a convicted sexual predator, you have shown that you have no will or spirit.  You have shown that you will submit to anything.

After a full registration has been enacted, every gun (and maybe every bullet) will be tracked.  If confiscation is utilized, they know exactly what you have and what you should not have, and exactly where you are.  Criminals will still acquire weapons illegally, as they always have.  The only people who will suffer are law abiding citizens. It’s a recipe for dictatorship and nothing more.             

Gun Barter Networks

The retail firearms and ammo markets are Sahara dry right now, and will probably remain that way in the foreseeable future.  Anything that is available for purchase is usually twice the price it was last year.  Extremely high demand is removing retail from the picture before any legislation is even passed.  Enter barter…

Cash will remain a bargaining tool for as long as the dollar remains the world reserve currency and holds at least some semblance of value (this will end sooner than most people think).  That said, as gun items become scarce, the allure of cash may be supplanted.  The signs of this are already evident.

Gun owners are now looking more to trade firearms and accessories for OTHER firearms and accessories, because they know that once they sell an item, they may never see it again, and the usefulness of cash is fleeting.  Gun Barter is not only a way for firearms enthusiasts to get what they need, it is also a way for them to move around any future gun sale restrictions that may arise.  Private gun sales are legal in some states, but do not count on this to last.  Barter leaves no paper trail, and thus, no traceable evidence of transaction.  For those who fear this idea as “legally questionable”, all I can do is remind them that an unconstitutional law is no law at all.  If it does not adhere to the guidelines of our founding principles, our founding documents, and our natural rights, then it is just a bunch of meaningless words on a meaningless piece of paper signed by a meaningless political puppet.            

3D Printing And Home Manufacturing

3D Printing is now available to the public and for those with the money, I recommend they invest quickly.  Unless the establishment wants to make the possession of these printers illegal, as well as shut down the internet, there will be no way to stop data streamers from supplying the software needed to make molds for every conceivable gun part, including high capacity mags.  This technology has been effectively promoted by the Wiki Weapons Project:

According to current ATF law, the home manufacture of gun parts is not technically illegal, as long as they are not being produced for sale.  But in a state or county where federal gun laws have been nullified, what the ATF says is irrelevant. 

Home manufacturing of gun parts and ammo would be a highly lucrative business in such safe haven areas.  And, the ability to build one’s own self defense platform is a vital skill in a sparse market environment.  The ultimate freedom is being able to supply your own needs without having to ask for materials or permission from others.  It should be the goal of every pro-gun activist to reach this independence.

Force The Establishment To Show Its True Colors

While some in the general public may be incensed by the trampling of our freedoms by government, many (including myself) would view direct action and aimless French Revolution-style violence as distasteful and disastrous.  The moral high ground is all that any dissenting movement has.  It will be hard enough to keep this ground with the constant demonization of liberty minded people that is being espoused by propaganda peddlers like the SPLC and numerous media outlets.  We do not need to help them do their jobs.

Now, to be clear, I have NO illusions that the above strategies will defuse a confrontation between those who value freedom, and those who desire power.  The hope is that enough people within our population will refuse to comply, and that this will make any future despotism impossible to construct.  However, it is far more likely that these acts of defiance will elicit a brutal response from the government.  And in a way, that is exactly what we want…

The Founding Fathers went through steps very similar to those I listed above and more to counter the tightening grip of the British Empire during the first American Revolution.  The idea is simple:

Peacefully deny the corrupt system’s authority over your life by supplying your own needs and your own security, rather than lashing out blindly.  Force them to show their true colors.  Expose their dishonor and maliciousness.  Make them come after you like the predators they are, and then, once they can no longer play the role of the “defending hero” in the eyes of the public, use your right to self defense to send them a message they won’t forget.

Skeptics will claim that physical defense is useless against a technologically advanced enemy.  They will claim that we need a "majority" we do not have in order to prevail.  These are usually people who have never fought for anything in their lives.  They do not understand that the “odds” are unimportant.  They mean nothing.  No revolution for good ever begins with "majority support".  Each is fought by a minority of strong willed and aware individuals.  When all other methods of protest have been dismantled, the system leaves us with only two options: stand and fight, or kneel and beg for mercy.  All you need to know is what YOU would do when faced with that choice.  

There is no other culture on earth that has the capacity, like Americans currently do, to defeat centralists, defend individual liberty, and end the pursuit of total global power in this lifetime.  We are the first and last line.  If freedom is undone here, it is undone everywhere for generations to come.  This is our responsibility.  This is our providence.  There can be no complacency.  There can be no compromise.  There can be no fear.  It ends on this ground.  One way, or another…

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
fattail's picture

there is only room to incarcerate two million people but there are eighty million gun owners.  we need legislation that criminalizes gun possession and ownership and let the chips fall where they may.  

worse case scenario lots of blood shed and the system suffers a full financial collapses from the expense of incarcerating such a large percentage of its population.   best case scenario lots and lots of bloodshed but real change is accomplished.  

tptb will not give up their power without destroying the system.  i say let it burn.  sooner the better.

Antifaschistische's picture

"Approximately 283 county Sheriffs and multiple police officers have taken a hard stand, stating that they will either not aid federal enforcement officials with gun control related activities, or, that they will not allow such activities within their county, period"

To solidify this position, local law enforcement agencies should initiate a deputization program.  With mass text messaging capabilities, it would be very easy to "call up" 1,000 deputized (not paid), trained and armed men to provide back-up resistance to federal forces who attempt to overwhelm local law enforcement.   And I don't mean billy-bobs that want to shoot at anything that moves.  I mean, truly disciplined individuals who know how to follow orders.

I'd volunteer for that, and pay my way through the deputization training program.

tsx500's picture

yep.     thats the way its headed in one form or another.        ultimately, secession (for starters).    hopefully sooner rather than later.  

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater's picture

The sheriff of my TX county is among those who've publicly declared against the grabbers.  Been happier and happier with each passing month that I moved here!

sunnydays's picture

A peaceful way without a revolution of taking direct action is doing what I did.  I joined the NRA for the first time in my life last month.  They are standing their ground and I believe a way of showing Obama and the D.C. gang we will not back down nor give up our rights.  We won't register our guns and we won't be sheeple.  The NRA membership is only $25.  I did it for myself, my children and my country.  I believe it was the best $25 I have ever spent, as it is for Freedom.  No matter what people think of the NRA, they are the organization that is standing between us and D.C. for us to keep the 2nd amendment uninfringed upon.

Citxmech's picture

I hope the NRA grows some balls this time.  They've been guilty of "collaboration" in the past IMHO.  In the meantime also check out the Gun Owners of America.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater's picture

Second Amendment Foundation and JPFO have gotten my donations.

CompassionateFascist's picture

It took the NRA a full week to say a word about Sandy Hook, leaving the field to the Stalinist gun-grabbers. My membership has lapsed...and I'd lay heavy odds they and the weekend target shooters/deer-hunting countryclub Republicrats will cut the usual deal. Which I plan to ignore. I'm actually looking forward to being Down by Law: SoCal is a target-rich environment. 

RockyRacoon's picture

And the line, "Nobody wants to take your guns away" just bit the dust:

Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

XenoFrog's picture

It's always the same with these people


  1. Liberals demand "common sense" measures to restrict gun ownership/access
  2. When people "compromise" and enact these measures, they of course do nothing to stem violence.
  3. Upon seeing how much of a failure their restrictions were, the liberal mind sees only justification for further restrictions
  4. Liberals demand "common sense" measures to restrict gun ownership/access
  5. ...
  6. ...
  7. ...
  8. ...

It's a horrible song that will result in the death of our republic, but it does have a rather repetative and catchy tune.

OldTrooper's picture

You left out: 

0. Oligarchs, fearful of the righteous wrath of those they have wronged and with ambitions to reduce the population to absolute, perpetual servitude, recoginize that they must completely disarm the population.

The notion that the government enacts gun control for the benefit of the population is propaganda.

Ag Tex's picture

We need to protect our children from gun violence.?.?


"Like an earthen vessel overlaid with silver dross are burning lips and a wicked heart. He who hates disguises it with his lips, but he lays up deceit in his heart. When he speaks graciously, do not believe him, for there are seven abominations in his heart. Though his hatred covers itself with guile, his wickedness will be revealed before the assembly."  Proverbs 26:23-26


How many millions of children's lives have been saved or spared by the protection of guns owned and carried by parents protecting their families from would be attatckers and tyrants?

Rustysilver's picture

We need to protect our children from politicians.


Ag Tex's picture

The politicians have been placed by global money changers.


"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6:10

brettd's picture

Isn't it time to start turning over some tables?

sunnyside's picture

A hell of a lot more than the 20 lost in CT.

FeralSerf's picture

In the American revolution, the liberals were the ones that were revolting.  The conservatives, the Tories, were the ones on King George's side.  It was a similar situation in the French, the Russian and the English revolutions.

Conservatives kiss royal ass.

nmewn's picture

Only in Obama's twisted mind can running guns to mexican gangs be termed as a prudent thing but a battered wife from Chicago has to submit to a federal background check and/or gun registration before she is allowed to protect herself and kids.

Strange days indeed.

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

+ 3000  

(rounds in stock, hey, I'm a piker!)

Rogue Trooper's picture

.308... nothing more nothng less.

Even the Cat is looking pissed... some tool in NZ recently said Cats should be eliminated.


decon's picture

Free ranging house cats are an ecological disaster just about everywhere.  We stack em up like chord wood around here.

Al Gorerhythm's picture

Insert a ruthless predator into an environment where defenceless critters live and the outcome is decimation of the indiginous population. (Tyrant/viliage dweller, wolf/sheep)

Give the prey a means of self defence and the predator learns to adopt the new rules of the jungle.


Manthong's picture

“liberals.. revolting.. similar situation in the French, the Russian and the English revolutions”

I felt compelled to rethink your contention and there are semantics at play here.

There is merit to that argument if you look at the meanings of “liberal” and “conservative”  and how the concepts have been manipulated and warped over the last handful of generations.

Government and sociology was not godless and morally relative until the French revolution and subsequent to that, Marx and Wundt.


Mike in GA's picture

But free-range cat tastes SO GOOD!

mayhem_korner's picture



You need to read up on the French Revolution and Bastille Day...was definitively a "liberal" movement, but about as noble a cause as the Salem witch trials. 

"Liberals" favor ceding power to central authority; "conservatives" put defending liberty and individual sovereignty as the highest priority.

The notion that "conservatives kiss royal a**" doesn't jibe with those towing the Obamanation line.  At all.  True conservatives do not kiss anyone's a**, they respect and support people's right to choose how to dispense of the fruits of their labor.  It's really very simple, albeit unfathomable to envious liberals.

AnAnonymous's picture

"Liberals" favor ceding power to central authority; "conservatives" put defending liberty and individual sovereignty as the highest priority.

Absolutely. Absolutely.

Well, both liberals, and conservatives are 'americans'. Maybe that explains why both have always been trying to masquerade coercion for freedom.

The GOP was so against slavery that a civil war was fought for emancipation. Hooray.

mayhem_korner's picture

Well, both liberals, and conservatives are 'americans'.



That's debatable.  Both are 'citizens', but they both don't ascribe to the American ideal. 

(and don't confuse the GOP with conservatives, AA...)




AnAnonymous's picture

'Americans' denying they are 'americans'

AH, yes, so if the GoP was not conservative, they were not against slavery.

In 'american' words, true conservatives were against slavery...


jeff montanye's picture

imo both parties have authoritarians and anti authoritarians.  

ron paul and glenn greenwald are anti authoritarians but different parties (probably).

obama and bush are authoritarians.

authoritarian republicans like drug prohibition.

authoritarian democrats like gun prohibition. 

Manthong's picture

Watch Ann’s presentation on the Vendee genocide.

That will give you an idea of the hypocrisy and evil you face with godless psychopathic liberal’/progressive megalomaniacs.

That exact same danger exists today.

Rogue Trooper's picture

Fuck off... ChiCoN!

90 million of your fellow Chinese Citizens paid the price for your Cultural Revolution. Oh the great Mao SEE Tung.

Next time your squtting on the road side for Shitizem, and the latest 'Type 99' uses your body for track lube, ponder that.



Teamtc321's picture


Congrat's, Well Said!

Future Jim's picture

Are you allowed to tell us for whom you are a paid shill?

More specifically, are those of you who write under this pseudonym allowed to tell us for whom you think are a paid shill? You are all certainly being played by someone higher up than whoever is paying you, and their agenda is probably different than what you've been told.

... but I guess you need the money pretty badly to do this kind of work ...

It is never to late to become the person you've always wanted to be and embrace the soul of your humanity.

tsx500's picture

and to make your parents proud of you instead of how they probably feel now .................

CompassionateFascist's picture

AnAnonymous ate his mom and Dad long ago. Since then, it's all puppy cutlets. 


No. A war was fought to keep the south subjugated as a source of raw materials for the mercantilist North

When the war started 7 confederate states seceded, 4 more seceded after Lincoln raised 75,000 troops following the battle at Fort Sumter

5 Border states did not secede and when Lincoln emancipated the slaves, that only applied to the states that had seceded. The slaves in the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, W Virginia, Delaware and Maryland ( Lincoln suppressed voter turnout to keep Maryland from seceding) were NOT freed. This is the fallacy that the civil war was fought specifically to end slavery and why Lincoln was supposedly virtuous.  It was fought to keep states from dissolving the United States.  It was unconstitutional to stop the secession of states that had joined.  The South was on the wrong side of history in relation to history but did in fact have the right to secede.

Fedaykinx's picture

oh a thinking man, eh.  there's a reason some southerners still call the "civil war" the "war of northern aggression."

Spacemoose's picture

"Political tags–such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth–are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."

– Robert A. Heinlein

CH1's picture

Quote of the day!

+ 100

akarc's picture

"Liberals" favor ceding power to central authority; "conservatives" put defending liberty and individual sovereignty as the highest priority."

Kinda like dictating what happens between women and a Dr. when it comes to medical issues.

Or what happens behind closed door between to consenting adults.

Ah let us kneel at the alter of Cantor and "BONER" as the last defense of civil liberties as defined by corporations and banksters. Re format you hard drive and Give me a fucking break.

Disclaimer: This should in no way constitute support of the other wall street twit, Obama 


mayhem_korner's picture

Kinda like dictating what happens between women and a Dr. when it comes to medical issues.


You fell for the meme.  You think abortion is about a woman and her doctor because it's always been marketed that way.  Nowhere in the pro-abortionist's mind does the target of the abortion enter the equation.  Let me let you in on a secret: in abortion, it's not the woman's rights that are in question.

Or what happens behind closed door between to (sic) consenting adults.

You sound like a big fan of Dr. Kavorkian.

akarc's picture

I am a fan of having the right to die with dignity as opposed to being a drain on my family and loved ones, both emotionally and economically.  I  have watched as termianlly ill relatives were used a cash cows on which to perform unessecary procedures becaue insurance covered it.  And Dr.'s and hospitals profited from it.   This after Dr's. refused to honor a living will.

It's easy for old self rightous men to take on the role of dictating what a woman should or should not do in private consultation with her physician. However I must wonder how many of those men would care to have woman dictating what  procedures they are allowed or not allowed to have  based on a womans opinion.

I am not pro abortion. I am pro choice. Educated choice made by reviewing each case and it's specific circumstances on an individual basis with out government interference and violation of fourth amendment rights.

For you to make a blanket statement that it is not  the "womans" rights that are in queston when it is the woman who must endure pregnancy and any irreparable consequences is to negate the rights of a whole segment of society. A truly totalitarian view point at best.

My suggestion would be if you condemn a womans right to make decisions that affect her body and her life then feel free not do have an abortion next time you become pregnant. I will support your choice.

My apologies for using "to" instead of "two".  As a dyslexic one fingered typist with ADD I can only do the best that I can.



mayhem_korner's picture



There is no difference between being "pro-choice" and being "pro-abortion" - calling people "pro-abortion" simply smokes them out.  "Choice" is a positive thing - a right, if you will - that one should preserve; whereas "abortion" means unequivocally terminating a life.  And no one is "pro" that, right?

I did not condemn anyone's right to make decisions that affect one's body.  That is the language that YOU use in order to attempt to frame the case for abortion.  I just stated that the subject of the abortion - the unborn one that suffers "irreparable consequences" - is not afforded any rights in the mind of the pro-abortionist.  Five paragraphs of your retort and no mention of the one being terminated as being part of the equation.  Thank you for making my point.

akarc's picture

Only in your own mind was your point made. If my wife, daughter or any other woman came to me and said they were pregnant as a result of rape or incest and didn't know what to do, my response would be, you have a choice to make. I will support you in your choice. 

mayhem_korner's picture



The choice is to keep the child or give it up for adoption, right?  Or is the choice to shoot the rapist and let the child live?  Which choice are you talking about?  Are you actually saying kill the unborn child is the "choice"?  I would only urge you to say exactly what you mean.  Because when you say it as "kill the unborn child" you now have a new subject noun in the sentence.  Two retorts from you and each time you've made my point that you cannot have the conversation if it involves an affirmation of killing the unborn child.  Because that doesn't have the same feel as "a woman's right to choose."

The reason the rape/incest is used as the crutch for abortion (even though it accounts for less than 1% of abortions) is that it eliminates the father as being a viable candidate to be involved in the decision of what to do.  In other words, 'who else but the woman should be involved in the decision?'  That, plus the heinous nature of rape, is used to universalize the acceptance of abortion.  Rape is its own issue, and is a horrible way to justify abortion.

(btw, if your daughter becomes pregnant via incest, you have another problem altogether, and I'm not sure she'd come to you for "support", mate...)

BigJim's picture

The crux of the abortion issue is that the people taking a hard or fast position on the matter - 'I'm pro-life' or 'I'm pro-choice' - are taking a black or white stance regarding something that is not a black-or-white issue.

When the egg has newly implanted to the lining of the cervix, it's laughable to call it a 'child'. It will be a child, in all probability; but it's not a child now and uprooting it is not killing a child, it's preventing a child, just as wearing a condom or abstaining from sex altogether is preventing a child.

However, in a late-term abortion, when the baby could exist outside the mother's womb, abortion isn't a 'choice' - it's infanticide.

So every case is different, and deciding whether an abortion is a just a woman's choice, or is murder, depends on how far along the continuum of development the foetus has travelled.

And this is even before we start to examine foetuses with developmental issues that might mean a short life racked in pain if they were allowed to come to term.

mayhem_korner's picture



So you are just moving the "choice" discussion to one of who gets to "choose" when in the gestation cycle to recognize life?  You are still advocating choice as to whether or not to recognize the rights of the unborn.  There has been no "late term" pregnancy in history that didn't go through the early stages.  Ever.  It's like saying you didn't get drunk until your 6th beer.  But anything to rationalize the "choice," I guess...

The notion of abstinence being equivalent with "uprooting" a fertilized egg is what is laughable.  I mean, think about what your saying...

Dangertime's picture

If it was truly about "choice", would not the father have the same right to choice as the woman?


Hell, some men just don't want to be a father, and they aren't even asking to murder the child.  Women's "choice" murders the child.  So why is it that women are afforded the choice of murder in order to keep their lifestyle, whilst men are not allowed to keep their lifestyle and they aren't even asking to murder a baby to do it?