Comments posted organically
What the American people want

By islander
May 28, 2022 4:44 am
Category: Law

(0.0 from 0 votes)
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Share
Rules of the Post
Rate this article
(5=best, 0=poor)
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars

This, however, is what Republican politicians will not support.

"The events in Uvalde have dealt a devastating blow to the theory that a good guy with a gun will prevent gun violence.

A Politico/Morning consult poll out Wednesday showed “huge support” for gun regulations. It showed that 88% of voters strongly or somewhat support background checks on all gun sales, while only 8% strongly or somewhat oppose such checks. That’s a net approval of +80.

Preventing gun sales to people who have been reported to police as dangerous by a mental health provider is supported by 84% of voters while only 9% oppose it, a net approval of +75.

Seventy-seven percent of voters support requiring guns to be stored in a safe storage unit, while only 15% oppose such a requirement, a net approval of +62.

A national database for gun sales gets 75% approval and 18% disapproval, a net approval rate of +57.

Banning assault style weapons like the AR-15 has an approval rate of 67% of voters while only 25% disapprove. That’s a net approval of +42.

And fifty-four percent of voters approve of arming teachers with concealed weapons, while only 34% oppose it, a net approval of +20.

And yet, their opposition to regulation and their embrace of cowboy individualism means Republicans have made it clear they will not entertain any measures to regulate gun ownership, except perhaps the last one, which teachers, parents, students, and the two largest teachers’ unions all overwhelmingly oppose.

* H.C.R.


Cited and related links:

  1. heathercoxrichardson.substack.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "What the American people want":

  1. by HatetheSwamp on May 28, 2022 1:58 pm

    Ironic, eh, that how abortionists lead the Dems into unpopular positions in the same way the NRA does the to the GOPs.


  2. by islander on May 29, 2022 5:08 am

    The Dems don’t support abortion, nor do we support banning guns or making owning a gun illegal (I own a shotgun and a rifle).

    What we Dems do and have been doing for years is to work hard inorder to reduce the abortion rate through education and ensuring the free and easy access of contraceptives “and” this might surprise many but Planned Parenthood offers these and adoption, and prenatal care services. We don’t try to make abortion illegal and what we have been doing works...

    Since Roe V Wade abortion rates have been steadily dropping to from 29.3. per 1,000 women of childbearing age 40 years ago to 11.2 abortions per 1,000 women today according to the CDC.

 We are trying to do the same thing with gun deaths and mass shootings, and most Americans agree with the measures we are trying to get passed without making gun ownership illegal. But the Republicans have been fighting us every step of the way.



    Why does your party not want to take sensible measures such as these:

    1. Ban military-style assault weapons.
    2. Require universal background checks for all gun sales.
    3. Close gun sale loopholes and require background checks on all commercial gun sales.
    4. Remove the prohibition on gun violence research by the CDC.
    5. Ban bump stocks and limit the size of ammunition clips.
    6. Pass an Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, a “red flag” bill, to allow relatives and law enforcement to temporarily remove firearms from an individual in crisis


    Like I said earlier, divorce destroys families, can make children have to choose one parent or the other, often results in a single parent having to raise the children...but the answer is not to make divorce illegal...None of these things are black and white. 



  3. by HatetheSwamp on May 29, 2022 5:19 am

    isle,

    Real world. Every Dem in the House save one and every Dem in the Senate save one voted for the Women's Health Protection Act that enables a woman to kill her unborn baby up to the moment of birth, with no restrictions.

    The truth is that, for Dems in Congress, with only two exceptions, the abortion issue is, exactly, black and white. Very, very black!

    You're either pretending that away or denying it...probably SUPPORTING it!

    My sense is that GOPs are inching toward sanity on guns. With the Dems and abortion? Uh uh.


  4. by islander on May 29, 2022 6:06 am

    In the real world, women don’t wait until the ninth month of their pregnancy and then decide to have their baby’s brain sucked out.

    What you want to do is make a law forbidding something that simply doesn’t happen and would cause unnecessary risk to the life of a mother. We’ve already discussed how difficult it would be for the state to step in and make a medical decision overriding the diagnosis of the attending physician. And you still have never answered my question as to “why” you think, in the states that have no legal restrictions on abortions, what you fear doesn’t happen. I gave you VT as one example.

    You also haven’t told me why you support divorce. And why you don’t want to make it illegal? You know the damage it can cause to families and children.

    

You see, in the real world, things are not always as simple and uncomplicated as you seem to believe they are.



  5. by HatetheSwamp on May 29, 2022 6:21 am

    And you still have never answered my question as to “why” you think, in the states that have no legal restrictions on abortions, what you fear doesn’t happen.

    Ahhhhhhhhhhh, good old fashioned Blue MAGA Swampcultist delusions of omniscience. It doesn't happen? You must know a lot of people.

    What I don't get is why you're so against banning something that you claim never happens anyway. You're being irrational. Illogical. I don't think you UNDERSTAND.

    You also haven’t told me why you support divorce. And why you don’t want to make it illegal.

    You're being Catholic again.

    I think that we should make divorce safe, legal and rare.

    What baffles me is how frequently you Blue MAGAs imply that we should blend government and Christianity.


  6. by islander on May 29, 2022 6:26 am

    This is the point where you can no longer carry on an intelligent discussion that you lose me.


  7. by HatetheSwamp on May 29, 2022 6:45 am

    This is the point where you can no longer carry on an intelligent discussion that you lose me...

    I have noticed that you seem to have difficulty reasoning when your presumptions are even slightly jostled.

    You claim to know what goes on, or doesn't, in the ninth month of every American woman's pregnancy to the point that you claim to know what NEVER happens.

    Since you know that, you should be able to splain toe what's wrong with outlawing something that never happens anyway. It seems to me you'd just roll your eyes, snigger and let those silly pro-lifers win, what, to you, win a meaningless victory.

    As far as the divorce thing? Outlawing it seems to be, in the US, something only a Catholic would even think about...let alone support.


  8. by Donna on May 29, 2022 7:19 am
    Islander,

    I always enjoy reading your thoughtful, well researched posts. That they're usually met and contrasted here with deflection, denial, derision, and acridy, for me only strengthens their message and the reason that we, as a nation and a species, need to hear more from clear-thinking people like yourself. In fact that is our only hope.

    Peace,

    Donna


  9. by HatetheSwamp on May 29, 2022 7:28 am

    Donna,

    I've been crystal clear about supporting a woman's right to an abortion, even up to the moment of birth...to protect her life. Can you explain isle's well researched objection to my opinion?

    And, can you explain his concern that I'd want to make divorce illegal.⁹


  10. by Donna on May 29, 2022 8:05 am
    Islander's post was 100% about gun control, not abortion.


  11. by islander on May 29, 2022 8:06 am

    "As far as the divorce thing? Outlawing it seems to be, in the US, something only a Catholic would even think about...let alone support"

    Rather then the ranting you did in the rest of your post, that’s an reasonable question.

    You seemed to have missed the relevance of the question (it has nothing to with religion).

    Not wanting to make abortion or divorce illegal does not mean I support them. However, we are often called "abortion supporters" by those the right who cannot see how it would apply to them with regard to divorce.

    Abortion results in the intentional loss of a living cell that has the potential, under the right conditions, to develop into a human person. This is why we pro-choice folks want to make it rare. But making it illegal is not the best way to do it. And we have already gone over (many times) why the consequences of doing that only introduces more problems and would do little to reduce the abortion rate. Whereas we pro-choicers have been, for over 40 years, dramatically reducing the abortion rate without making it illegal.

    Divorce results in the destruction of a family. Divorce can be the source of great deal of bitterness and hatred, it compels children to have to choose one parent over the other and brings about single parenthood. We both would like to see the divorce rates go down but neither you nor I think it should be illegal.

    As much as I’d like to see fewer and fewer divorces, I can see the consequences of making it illegal therefore I don’t think making it illegal is the way to go

    You seem to me to be more of a “rule based” thinker whereas I acknowledge being a “consequence based” thinker. I base my position on the consequences of making abortion and/or divorce illegal.

    I acknowledge that rule based decision making is easier since it can be made quicker and doesn’t require having to delve deeply into the complexities of issues, therefore I can see its allure to many.


  12. by islander on May 29, 2022 8:08 am

    Thank you Donna.


  13. by Donna on May 29, 2022 8:15 am
    Bill - As for the abortion, I admire the reasoned manner in which way islander presents his thoughts on the issue. In contrast, I find your constant acridy and avoidance of responding to specific points he makes repulsive.


  14. by HatetheSwamp on May 29, 2022 8:26 am

    Right.

    isle is the second coming of Thomas Aquinas, the perfecter of logic and reason.

    What appeals to you, as far as I can tell, is that you, generally, agree.

    Speaking of effin avoidance, you avoided explaining his problem with my advocacy of abortion to protect the life of the mother, even to the moment of birth.

    And, please, make sense of his suggestion that ANYONE would make divorce illegal.


  15. by Donna on May 29, 2022 8:36 am
    Bill - Islander didn't say that regarding divorce. He's using a rhetorical technique to illustrate a broader point.

    We all agree here that abortion should be allowed to save the life of the mother. That has been established. We aren't debating that.

    The problem is that when I read your responses to islander's posts, you come across as if you didn't understand or even try to understand or respond to anything he said. You're much more focused on making ad hominem attacks and changing the subject.


  16. by HatetheSwamp on May 29, 2022 8:59 am

    What I'm trying to do with isle is to take his arguments to their logical, well, vanishing point.

    He doesn't like that.


  17. by Donna on May 29, 2022 3:20 pm
    I think you're just being a bad debater.


  18. by Curt_Anderson on May 29, 2022 3:28 pm
    Donna,
    HtS's go to debating "strategies" are to not answer direct questions, obfuscate, strawman arguments and his favorite, start to a new thread as he has done with some of the current threads in the righthand column.

    As I said in one of those threads, his suggestions and rightwing suggestions and beliefs generally don't withstand the slightest scrutiny.


  19. by HatetheSwamp on May 30, 2022 4:43 am

    Being the only person here who is freedom loving and Swamp hating, it strikes me that Curt makes the salient point, apparently, quite accidentally.

    "HtS's go to debating "strategies" are to not answer direct questions,..."

    I'm certain that it seems that way to you.

    As you know, I inform myself across a wide ideological spectrum. One thing I've learned from that is that reds and blues don't speak the same language. They use different words. They see reality through entirely different categories.

    I absolutely do answer direct questions. Always. But, I refuse to adopt your categories. Your categories don't fit my worldview.

    As you know, barely a day goes by in which I don't accuse you Blue MAGA Swampcultists of sanctimony, at least once...and rightly so.

    One component of your sanctimony is your demand that people who are not Blue MAGA Swampcultists use your jargon, employ your categories...

    ...and, communicate antiSwamp concepts through a Swampcult lens.

    I do answer answer direct questions. I translate your Swampese into the language of the people and respond thusly.

    That you can't understand that is bad.

    That you won't?, that's your sanctimony.


  20. by islander on May 30, 2022 6:13 am

    Hate wrote: ”Speaking of effin avoidance, you avoided explaining his problem with my advocacy of abortion to protect the life of the mother, even to the moment of birth.”

    Donna never avoided your question and my position has always been in support of a woman’s right to choose abortion in order to protect her life . I don’t know anybody here doesn’t support that. 



    If a woman doesn’t have a constitutional right to choose, which Roe made clear that she does, then she no longer has the right to govern what takes place in her own body...her body then belongs to the state. The problem with taking away that constitutional right and trying to make a law in which the government has the authority to deny her that choice, is seen when a determination as to the point at which, among the huge number and variety of possible medical conditions that can put a woman’s life in danger and/or determining the degree to which it is likely to be fatal. Who makes that determination...the state...or the attending physician? Despite your denial, for you it would have to be the state.

    And remember, all pregnancies are different. Saying the state should make abortions illegal except to save the life of the mother is not enough. That’s only giving us a concept which sounds fine but cannot be done without unforeseen consequences that out weigh any perceived benefits.

    Making it a legal issue will give the constitutional right of the mother and her doctor to the state, and unfortunately these decisions sometimes have to be made immediately...and every pregnancy is different. You can “say” the woman and her doctor would still have the right to make that choice but it would be the state that has ultimate control over the woman’s right to choose since she and her doctor could only make a state approved choice.

    Roe V Wade was a very reasonable compromise but you and yours have been trying to destroy it ever since that decision was announced, and it now appears as though you might have succeeded in your endeavor to actually take away a woman’s constitutional right.

    You, who screams about the state (Big Brother) taking away your rights by requiring you to wear a mask in a public building during a pandemic, have no problem turning around and trying to use the government to take away a woman’s right to own her body, and you want to give that right and the right to decide what happens inside her body...to the state (Big Brother).

    As far as right and left using a “different language”, as I’ve said before, when the meaning of words is imprecise, so too is thought.

    Your endeavor to make the meaning words imprecise is just another deceptive tactic of your debating practices. You are not now and you never were a straight shooter.

    As much as you like to imagine yourself as a modern day Kierkegaard, a gadfly irritating the townspeople and a self described a prophet of God...you really are neither, sadly, you are, in plain clear language, a calculating phony.


  21. by HatetheSwamp on May 30, 2022 6:58 am

    The problem with taking away that constitutional right and trying to make a law in which the government has the authority...

    If Alito's opinion becomes the ruling, it will be the PEOPLE who have authority.

    And, of course, what a woman loses control over is the baby's body, not her own.

    Also, even if it weren't another life she can't control, we, for instance, regulate a woman's right to get bombed on booze or drugs and operate a vehicle. No one has full control over their body.

    Making it a legal issue will give the constitutional right of the mother and her doctor to the state...

    There's something comical that the very people who supported every mandate and shut down during the pandemic, even to the point that the Supreme Court had to stop your attempts to put your boots on the throat of the First Amendment, defending the freedom of anyone...

    ...but, again, it's not the STATE that would have the right, it's the people...

    ...and, in the end, you loath power in the hands of the people...

    ...they're so d@ng umwershed, ain't!?

    Roe V Wade was a very reasonable compromise...

    Well, it's not a compromise at all. It was foisted by the Supreme Court. You Blue MAGA Swampcultists are so silly! Compromise, yeah right.

    It's a middle ground, I'll acknowledge that.

    Two things.

    With Blue MAGA Swamp control in DC, your side had a chance actually to attempt to codify Roe but you chose to try to foist the ridiculous WHPA on us.

    And, admit it. pb's Law is far more in line with what the American people favor that the WHPA, which you support.

    As far as right and left using a “different language”, as I’ve said before, when the meaning of words is imprecise, so too is thought.

    Right.

    MY use of words is imprecise. Yours is crystal clear.

    You get to choose my paradigm and define my words. Your truth is the standard. Right. Got it. I've hung out with elites all of my life.

    Can you possibly imagine sanctimony more ridiculous than that...

    And, we all know that you were perfectly sincere.


  22. by islander on May 31, 2022 7:47 am

    The problem with taking away that constitutional right and trying to make a law in which the government has the authority to deny her that choice, is seen when a determination as to the point at which, among the huge number and variety of possible medical conditions that can put a woman’s life in danger and/or determining the degree to which it is likely to be fatal. Who makes that determination...the state...or the attending physician?

    Hate responded: ’If Alito's opinion becomes the ruling, it will be the PEOPLE who have authority.”

    It will be the PEOPLE who have authority only if you agree with a particular ruling made by the court. If you don’t agree with a Supreme Court Ruling you say the court is foisting something on the people.

    You are constantly contradicting yourself when you try to debate here.


    ”MY use of words is imprecise. Yours is crystal clear.

    You get to choose my paradigm and define my words. Your truth is the standard. Right. Got it. I've hung out with elites all of my life.”


    Wrong... “You” define your words not me. I define my words using the generally accepted meaning of the words.

    ”Your truth is the standard.”

    What you call “my truth” is this...When you or I make an assertion, it will be true if it conforms to reality. That’s clear and precise with no smoke and mirrors or obfuscation, and my assessment is that it is pretty much the standard way most of us think about the meaning of truth.

    ” “But, if pb got his way, abortion would be safe and very extremely rare.”

    That’s what Roe V Wade helps to bring about, but you think Roe was foisted on us, and you have fought to have it reversed.

    Since Roe:

    

In the past 40 years, the abortion rate has dropped from 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age to 11.4.

    Reducing unintended pregnancies is the way to reduce the rate of abortions, making them rare and safe. Making laws forbidding abortions doesn't do that.


    As far as “late term abortions” go, you do know, I hope, that only about 1.3% of abortions take place on or after 21 weeks. The vast majority, 93%, take place before the 13th week.


  23. by HatetheSwamp on May 31, 2022 9:09 am

    isle,

    Here's a near-perfect comparison.

    The Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education took away the "right of white parents to get a public school education for their children separate and equal from them dern darkies.

    If the Alito opinion becomes the Court’s decision, it will take away the right of women to kill their unborn babies.

    Neither a bad thing.


  24. by islander on May 31, 2022 11:45 am

    That's a non sequitur since it doesn't contradict anything I said.

    You simply gave two examples of the Supreme Court doing their job which is to interpret the Constitution.


Comment on: "What the American people want"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:
SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page


From our contributors:
Display Order:

Rally at Cheyenne FBI office planned for Sunday
Politics by Curt_Anderson     August 13, 2022 12:15 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [83 views]


Trump Lawyer Told Justice Dept. That Classified Material Had Been Returned
Law by Curt_Anderson     August 13, 2022 10:27 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: islander (11 comments) [224 views]


'The FBI Raid On Melania's Closet Was Justified,' Says Merrick Garland Wearing Gorgeous New Evening Gown And Sun Hat
Humor by HatetheSwamp     August 14, 2022 4:04 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: (0 comments) [5 views]


Do you recognize this dweeb?
History by Curt_Anderson     August 13, 2022 4:49 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: (0 comments) [16 views]


For those who want to know part two
News by islander     August 11, 2022 1:27 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (37 comments) [302 views]


Take your best guess: will Trump agree to unseal the warrant?
Law by Curt_Anderson     August 11, 2022 3:29 pm (Rating: 5.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (28 comments) [328 views]


Chucky actually says what he means... scary stuff
007 James Bond by oldedude     August 12, 2022 2:57 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (21 comments) [126 views]


A prosecution in a desperate search for a crime
Crime by HatetheSwamp     August 13, 2022 3:30 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (2 comments) [21 views]


An FBI story with scary parallels for Donald Trump
History by Curt_Anderson     August 12, 2022 5:40 pm (Rating: 5.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (4 comments) [92 views]


Woke-ism spreads to GOP
Humor by Donna     August 12, 2022 11:21 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: (0 comments) [28 views]


Law selectors, pages, etc.