Coulter Tears Into Liberal Gun Hypocrisy: Why Can't We Publish List Of Women Who Get Abortions?

The list of those having abortions can't be given out because it's a private medical procedure.

The list of those owning handguns should not be given out for the sake of public safety.
Many handgun owners are former military or police and there are a lot of idiots out there
with grudges looking for them. The list gives names and addresses where those idiots
can find these law abiding former military and police officers. The list also tells criminals
which households are not armed and are easier targets to steal from.

What the newspaper did was IDIOTIC. Registered gun owners are law abiding citizens.
For the newspaper to list them like that is just them marching to their own moronic
anti-gun agenda.

How typical of the anti-gun lobby. They continually try to punish law abiding citizens
who are exercising their 2nd amendment rights for self protection ... all the while enabling
and encouraging the criminal elements who have guns that are not registered.

Originally posted by kthxbai
Gun permits are public information, medical records are NOT, nor is it "murder".(

Abortion is murder. It is when a human being stops another human beings heart from beating. It is done on purpose. It is murder.

Originally posted by kthxbai
Before it is born, it's a fetus, not a child.

He or she is a preborn human child. The child in the womb feels pain. The child in the womb plays with his or her toes and sucks his or her thumb. The child opens and closes his or her eyes and sleeps and wakes. This is a preborn CHILD.

There's also a limit on how far along you can be when having an abortion. .

No there isn't. Depending on where you live, you can be in labor and request an abortion and get one.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
If people were actually willing to act like adults with their firearms, then a registry is not necessary.

The registry contains the names of people who are law abiding citizens .. those that 'act like adults' with their firearms. Those who have firearms and are criminals, are not on the registry. The criminals and 'problem people' have illegal and unregistered firearms and aren't on the list. Thus we see how idiotic it was for the newspaper to publish the names and addresses of those who are 'acting like adults' with their firearms .. registered and legal firearms. The paper tried to cause problems for those who are responsible gun owners ... but those that actually cause problems with guns aren't the ones who are listed.

The paper screwed up. It was ignorant and just full out agenda on their part.
Trying to punish law abiding and responsible citizens.
When in fact the criminals are typically the ones who aren't on the list.

IGNORANCE on the part of the paper.

reply to post by FlyersFan


You won't get through to these people. They want everyone disarmed and the ability to murder their unborn children anonymously. If you don't fully agree that a woman has a right to murder her unborn child even up to 10 minutes prior to giving birth, then you hate women or you're a racist. In my opinion, It mostly comes from the women who have had abortions and have to find a way to justify it.

Originally posted by kthxbai
If you don't support abortion, don't have an abortion or agree to an abortion... .

If you don't support 2nd Amendment Constitutional Gun Rights .. then don't own a gun.

If american citizens were all disarmed would it make US a safer place? Would the % of serious crimes like bank robbery, gang violence, random gun killings drop, yes or no?

Originally posted by sconner755
The people who follow the rules will register their guns. They are not the problem.

Exactly. And yet the newspaper was punishing law abiding citizens who were exercising their 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights. It was pure ignorance on the part of the newspaper. Very childish. And the criminals out there loved it because now they know which homes will be easier to rob .. which homes will be easier to break into and rape people ... and they know where the former police and military live to exercise vendettas against ....

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
All the shootings of recent memory were done with legal purchased fire arms. Clearly something with the current system is not working if whackos can still legally buy guns and then off two dozen people in 20 minutes.

Sorry, tothetenthpower, that's just wrong.

Shootings happen every day, and the vast majority of them are in the 'hoods' and 'in the streets' and are with illegal guns. And as far as the guns in the Connecticut school shooting ... they were NOT LEGAL for the person who was doing the shooting. HE STOLE THEM. The original owner was a woman who had them legally. She was murdered and her guns were stolen.

The Connecticut school shooter would not have come up on the newspapers list of registered gun owners, because he didn't have a registered gun. He stole them.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
If american citizens were all disarmed would it make US a safer place? Would the % of serious crimes like bank robbery, gang violence, random gun killings drop, yes or no?

No. Crime would rise. Only the criminals would have guns.

If american citizens went to jail for murdering their unborn child would 1.2 million people, murdered in 2008 alone, be alive today?

reply to post by AthlonSavage

If law abiding citizens disarmed it would not make america a safer place.
It would embolden the criminals and the insane people and make their crimes easier.
The criminals will always be able to get weapons and ammo.
Law abiding citizens have a god given right to self defense.
The US government has no business taking away our god given right to self defense.

reply to post by FlyersFan

If law abiding citizens disarmed it would not make america a safer place.

if law abiding citizens are disarmed under a new law then doesnt that mean the Cops have much more power under the law to go and disarm the criminals?

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Just because they put the words God Given Right in on the paper doesn't mean God gave you those rights.

There are man made laws and then there are higher laws. I have a 'god given' right to defend myself. For you athiests out there I'll say it like this - that means I have a NATURAL RIGHT to defend myself and no human law (anti-gun law) should counter that natural right.

Why people still cling to piece of legislation written 200 years ago is still beyond me,

Because it is a document that still works and is better than anything that a bunch of partisan yahoos in Washington could come up with now. Can you see it if they tried to come up with a new Constitution? They'd all be freak'n politicians wanting their own names and their own agenda immortalized. The people would suffer for it.

But the US is a different ball game.

Yes .. something foreigners can't seem to understand. They all want us acting like Europe .. and we are NOT Europe. We don't want to be Europe. We are Americans with our own culture and our own way of life. Foreigners should respect that ... but they don't. **

** Not pointing at you ... tothetenthpower ... just saying 'foreigners' in general ...

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
if law abiding citizens are disarmed under a new law then doesnt that mean the Cops have much more power under the law to go and disarm the criminals?

How on earth do you come up with that??
It makes no difference to the cops arresting criminals if law abiding citizens are disarmed.
That wouldn't even enter into their equation for arresting people.
Law abiding citizens aren't going around shooting at cops who are arresting criminals.

What would happen if law abiding citizens were disarmed would be that the criminals would be emboldened and MORE crimes against law abiding citizens would happen. This would increase the workload for police ... obviously that would NOT be helpful for them.

reply to post by FlyersFan

How on earth do you come up with that??

Its simple logical deduction my dear. The US is a democracy still inst it? Therefore for the Government to apply a new law to remove guns from the people who are or most likely to be involved in criminal activity it has to apply the law across the complete populus (including law abiding ciitzens), as in a democracy the criminals are also citizens to with rights until the point comes they are caught, convicted and thrown in the can.

reply to post by AthlonSavage

That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The vast majority of legal gun owners are not engaged in anything criminal. The fact that they have self defense weapons is a deterant to criminals and crime. Therefore, it would be MORE WORK for the cops if law abiding citizens were disarmed. More crime would happen .. not less.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


The United States is a Republic with an inalienable God given right to bear arms. The Constitution trumps both Federal and State law. The only constitutional way to ban guns would be to amend the Constitution.

reply to post by FlyersFan

That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The vast majority of legal gun owners are not engaged in anything criminal. The fact that they have self defense weapons is a deterant to criminals and crime. Therefore, it would be MORE WORK for the cops if law abiding citizens were disarmed. More crime would happen .. not less.

You didnt get my point yes the laws would disarm citizens AND also the criminals. The work for the Cops would diminish over time because they are dealing with with less gun related crimes. If citizens could show a legitimate need to have a gun then they could undergo a pyscological evaluation and be registered for allowing use of the gun, and on conditions that they redo their psycological test every year, and also join a gun club. This done they maintain their registration for owning a gun.

When the paper created the list of gun owners, it did 2 things.

It highlighted who had guns.

AND, who didn't.

So not only were the gun owners exposed, but the folks that don't own guns were also exposed.

Now if a criminal breaks into a home where it was illustrated that they didn't have weapons, would the paper be libel?

reply to post by AthlonSavage


So you're saying that American citizens should turn in their guns to the Government that orchestrated Fast and Furious in hopes that eventually the criminals won't have guns?

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
You didnt get my point

It's the internet .. sometimes points don't get across easily.

The work for the Cops would diminish over time because they are dealing with with less gun related crimes.

They would NOT be dealing with less gun related crimes. Like I said, the vast majority of registered gun owners are not engaged in criminal behaviors. Taking their guns away wouldn't lower crime at all. The criminals would still be getting their illegal guns. And the law abiding citizens would have no way to protect themselves. The criminals would know this and therefore be more emboldened.

Taking away the right for law abiding citizens to have guns would INCREASE crime .. not decrease it.

If citizens could show a legitimate need to have a gun ...

All law abiding citizens have a 'legitimate' right to have a gun. It's self defense and everyone has a right to self defense. Self defense = legitimate need.

reply to post by Vidpci

So you're saying that American citizens should turn in their guns to the Government that orchestrated Fast and Furious in hopes that eventually the criminals won't have guns?

No im not saying that. Im just debating with Flyers logic as it doesnt appear to be a robust argument being made for why americans should be allowed to carry guns. I recognise that the US has a large beaucratic government and a shadow govenrment sitting behind whose track records suggest the citizens should maintain their arms just in case they try and turn the US into 1984. That is the only logical argument i can see for supporting US citizens maintaining their rights to bear arms.