View Single Post
 
Old 01-13-2017, 08:23 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Join Date: n/a
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Indeed this gun -related story is a tragedy. However why is it not also a continuing headline after every unborn is murdered with life-saving medical instruments? An irresponsible gun owner--an irresponsible and voluntary act by a woman.

The irony of it all , I cannot escape.

Personal Best Regards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
That is a valid point.

On the other hand, a gun is for self-defense, defense of others, hunting, sport and national defense. An unborn child has only it's mother to defend it. And therein lies the shame, because once that mother gives up the act of defending the defenseless baby, it has no one else to protect it.

But, that is another subject.
If the unborn babies had guns...they would use them in self defense. Don't let them take your guns...because without them, you're no different than those helpless babies.

Personally...I consider it a part of the mother until it is actually born and self supporting...meaning it doesn't need life support...it's a viable child. While it's inside...it's "her" and she is free to do to "herself" whatever she pleases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Over the years may Supreme Court Justices have read not only the amendment but the hundreds of papers leading up to and supporting the amendment. They have agreed, though not always unanimously, that the citizens of the country have a right to keep and bear arms.
They also have the right to organize into local...well regulated...militias...with "arms"...the same arms as soldiers. We weren't supposed to have a standing army and an empire to defend. We were supposed to be free citizens each capable of defending themselves and the nation if need be. An entire "armed" populous ready, willing, and able to fight off aggressors.

Oh how we've strayed from the original charter.