Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

54
CDFingers wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 2:03 pm I don't think I can adequately compare gun rights and abortion. Yes, we have laws in California where I can't have certain guns, but I can have others. There is no comparison. A woman can't be just a little pregnant. I think it's a rat fink comparison from a privileged gender. Sorry.

CDFingers
CDFingers,

I want to circle back to this comment after a discussion I had with a female colleague and California gun owner. Her opinion is that Dems gun control efforts are forcing a woman into a choice of voting for a party that either 1) takes away a woman's control of her body or 2) takes away a woman's ability to protect her body. She's mighty pissed about it.

While I am a privileged gender, gun control negatively impact women's choice in a very similar way to abortion control. More broadly, both "controls" are put in place by men with 1) more political power and 2) more physical power. In other words, both seek to subjugate women.

Just thought it might be useful to think about in both our cases since women gun owners are very underrepresented in the discussion.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

55
Political parties are like plate lunches where you get to choose from pre-determined menus. No substitutions. The combination of foods is decided for you by someone else. There's the beef-potatoes-broccoli plate, or the chicken-rice-spinach plate. And they ask for menu preferences in advance, but everyone is served the same meal, depending on the majority preference.

Oh, what's that, you're vegetarian? Sorry, no matter which lunch plate you get, it's got meat on it. Eat up.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

56
featureless wrote: Fri Aug 26, 2022 1:41 pm
CDFingers wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 2:03 pm I don't think I can adequately compare gun rights and abortion. Yes, we have laws in California where I can't have certain guns, but I can have others. There is no comparison. A woman can't be just a little pregnant. I think it's a rat fink comparison from a privileged gender. Sorry.

CDFingers
CDFingers,

I want to circle back to this comment after a discussion I had with a female colleague and California gun owner. Her opinion is that Dems gun control efforts are forcing a woman into a choice of voting for a party that either 1) takes away a woman's control of her body or 2) takes away a woman's ability to protect her body. She's mighty pissed about it.

While I am a privileged gender, gun control negatively impact women's choice in a very similar way to abortion control. More broadly, both "controls" are put in place by men with 1) more political power and 2) more physical power. In other words, both seek to subjugate women.

Just thought it might be useful to think about in both our cases since women gun owners are very underrepresented in the discussion.
There has never been a proposal to ban all guns. To compare with abortion is sketchy at best. If I can't have a certain .40 Glock in California, I can get a revolver, for example, to protect myself--whether I'm a man or woman. There is no comparison for a man with respect to abortion.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

57
CDFingers wrote: Fri Aug 26, 2022 6:15 pm
featureless wrote: Fri Aug 26, 2022 1:41 pm
CDFingers wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 2:03 pm I don't think I can adequately compare gun rights and abortion. Yes, we have laws in California where I can't have certain guns, but I can have others. There is no comparison. A woman can't be just a little pregnant. I think it's a rat fink comparison from a privileged gender. Sorry.

CDFingers
CDFingers,

I want to circle back to this comment after a discussion I had with a female colleague and California gun owner. Her opinion is that Dems gun control efforts are forcing a woman into a choice of voting for a party that either 1) takes away a woman's control of her body or 2) takes away a woman's ability to protect her body. She's mighty pissed about it.

While I am a privileged gender, gun control negatively impact women's choice in a very similar way to abortion control. More broadly, both "controls" are put in place by men with 1) more political power and 2) more physical power. In other words, both seek to subjugate women.

Just thought it might be useful to think about in both our cases since women gun owners are very underrepresented in the discussion.
There has never been a proposal to ban all guns. To compare with abortion is sketchy at best. If I can't have a certain .40 Glock in California, I can get a revolver, for example, to protect myself--whether I'm a man or woman. There is no comparison for a man with respect to abortion.

CDFingers
With due respect, the only reason there has not been a proposal to ban all guns is the assholes know only an incremental approach will work.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

59
CDFingers wrote: Fri Aug 26, 2022 6:15 pm
featureless wrote: Fri Aug 26, 2022 1:41 pm
CDFingers wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 2:03 pm I don't think I can adequately compare gun rights and abortion. Yes, we have laws in California where I can't have certain guns, but I can have others. There is no comparison. A woman can't be just a little pregnant. I think it's a rat fink comparison from a privileged gender. Sorry.

CDFingers
CDFingers,

I want to circle back to this comment after a discussion I had with a female colleague and California gun owner. Her opinion is that Dems gun control efforts are forcing a woman into a choice of voting for a party that either 1) takes away a woman's control of her body or 2) takes away a woman's ability to protect her body. She's mighty pissed about it.

While I am a privileged gender, gun control negatively impact women's choice in a very similar way to abortion control. More broadly, both "controls" are put in place by men with 1) more political power and 2) more physical power. In other words, both seek to subjugate women.

Just thought it might be useful to think about in both our cases since women gun owners are very underrepresented in the discussion.
There has never been a proposal to ban all guns. To compare with abortion is sketchy at best. If I can't have a certain .40 Glock in California, I can get a revolver, for example, to protect myself--whether I'm a man or woman. There is no comparison for a man with respect to abortion.

CDFingers
Your focus is on "keep." But to "bear" outside the home (where a woman would most likely need protection) she must either go through CA's arduous permit process (which is about to become much worse and eliminate the ability to carry virtually everywhere) or bear illegally. So it is very much like abortion in a red state - something she should have access to as a personal choice of her body/safety that is precluded by government policy.

Don't take that to mean I find abortion prohibition to be anything but wrong or that guns and bodies are on the same plane, but the effect is not dissimilar. To exercise your choice, you must (most likely) break the law. That's a fucked position to have to vote for.

It's pretty easy for us big men to say "meh, bear ain't such a big deal." But we're not generally the ones getting stalked, domestically abused or raped.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

60
California has an arduous permit process, yes. Not banned, except for open carry, which is the responsibility of St. Ronnie. The comparison between the two is flaccid. I can't even understand how such a comparison would even be attempted. Let's say I carry illegally and pull my piece and scare off a bad guy. Show me the comparison with abortion.

I used to eat anti's for lunch, shit out their bones then pee on them. My wife is badder.

On edit, I may have been unclear: you can't scare away a pregnancy by lifting your shirt.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

61
CDFingers wrote: Fri Aug 26, 2022 8:26 pm California has an arduous permit process, yes. Not banned, except for open carry, which is the responsibility of St. Ronnie. The comparison between the two is flaccid. I can't even understand how such a comparison would even be attempted. Let's say I carry illegally and pull my piece and scare off a bad guy. Show me the comparison with abortion.

I used to eat anti's for lunch, shit out their bones then pee on them. My wife is badder.

CDFingers
I know you used to eat antis for lunch, and I thank you for your service. Sincerely. :)

I think we're missing each other here. Let's say you're a woman carrying illegal to defend yourself from the asshole you kicked out a year ago who still stalks you. You get nailed by the popo for illegally carrying. Let's say you're a woman who's asshole abusive boyfriend knocks her up. You get busted by the popo for attempting to leave the state for an abortion. In either situation, you may still access the right, illegally.

I'm not saying the things are the same. I'm saying the restrictions on rights are the same in that the woman (you in drag?) must make a choice to break the law or deal with the consequences. As a woman, you get to vote for a party who will deny you one or the other. That was my colleague's point, I thought it interesting and relevant to the discussion. Choose bodily autonomy and waive you're right to protect your body or choose the ability to protect it and lose your bodily autonomy.

Also on edit, depending where a woman lives, CCW is entirely unavailable.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

63
The two circles do intersect. The area of intersection is quite small when we look at what is lost when laws are made against abortion. A pregnancy is not something one can carry concealed for very long. If you're forced to give birth, that's much worse than anything an illegal carrier can suffer. I've never had to escort any person through a phalanx of evangelicals to buy a gun. Hundreds of women, yes. I've never had to drive a person wearing a bullet proof vest to go buy a gun. Several abortion doctors, yes. The intersection is small. Similarities exist, like with baseball and basketball. Very different games.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

64
CDFingers wrote: Fri Aug 26, 2022 9:44 pm The two circles do intersect. The area of intersection is quite small when we look at what is lost when laws are made against abortion. A pregnancy is not something one can carry concealed for very long. If you're forced to give birth, that's much worse than anything an illegal carrier can suffer. I've never had to escort any person through a phalanx of evangelicals to buy a gun. Hundreds of women, yes. I've never had to drive a person wearing a bullet proof vest to go buy a gun. Several abortion doctors, yes. The intersection is small. Similarities exist, like with baseball and basketball. Very different games.

CDFingers
Agree, very different games. My focus was on the similarities with regard to control of others and denial of rights. Then they most certainly diverge.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

67
CDFingers wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 11:05 am In the cool light of morning, I see I have not matured yet out of my absolutist position on a woman's right to choose. Sometimes it'll be that way, so I apologize for any offense I may have inflicted upon readers and members. A man's got to know his limitations.

CDFingers
I’m absolutely in a woman’s corner on this, it’s her decision.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

68
CDFingers wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 11:05 am In the cool light of morning, I see I have not matured yet out of my absolutist position on a woman's right to choose. Sometimes it'll be that way, so I apologize for any offense I may have inflicted upon readers and members. A man's got to know his limitations.

CDFingers
I too believe in a woman's absolute right. No feathers ruffled here. I aim for better personal understanding, you help along that path.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

69
I grew up with the idea that I probably never would own a Thompson sub, that regulating firearms was an acceptable thing. I remember when the GCA68 was passed when I was in high school while still remembering JFK being shot five years before. So I accept some regulations. Not so with a woman's right to choose--in danger because enough old white men don't like it. That frosts my patootie. I find it arbitrary and tremendously unfair, whereas regulations about mail order guns, and even up to background checks seem OK as far as regulations go.

The person who fears a background check probably should not have guns. Oh, but 2A, eh? And there's where it gets sketchy. No right to an abortion, merely a "right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects." Lawyers who specialize in verbalsnabble love that ambiguous shit where they can make pots of money off special interests. Apparently fascism has deeper pockets so far. But we can haz some guns even in California, a sanctuary state for abortion but not so much for guns.

Yep: democracy is a messy business, so we all have to get out the vote so we can make laws that are consistent. And every kid gets a pony.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

70
The issue of abortion shouldn’t be about framing the wording as a right to an abortion. It’s the right of any individual to control their own body and determine their own future. At least every adult should have that type of right without having someone determine what they can or cannot do.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

72
Yes, a woman's bodily control is absolute in my mind. I admit to personal issues with abortion in the third trimester. But those are my issue and do not alter my absolute support of a woman's choice. And I don't need it written on a page to believe it to be a Truth. And just like a responsible gun owner, even as a teen I kept my, uh, gun in proper condition so as to never contribute to a woman having to make that decision. There is the one area of the debate men have a meaningful say. Don't fucking get her pregnant.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

73
featureless wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 3:12 pm Yes, a woman's bodily control is absolute in my mind. I admit to personal issues with abortion in the third trimester. But those are my issue and do not alter my absolute support of a woman's choice. And I don't need it written on a page to believe it to be a Truth. And just like a responsible gun owner, even as a teen I kept my, uh, gun in proper condition so as to never contribute to a woman having to make that decision. There is the one area of the debate men have a meaningful say. Don't fucking get her pregnant.
Agree. I didn’t even date till I was in college. By my junior year in high school I was 18 years old. Not that I had any intention of having sex, but the disparity in age due to legal statutes in Texas made me very uneasy. You don’t need penetration or anything close to it to be considered taking advantage of a minor.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: California AG emphasizes state's existing “good moral character” requirement

74
Little update. SB 918 still hasn't passed out of Assembly. It must pass by the end of the month. Yesterday, the California State Sheriff's Association issued a letter to the floor opposing it. Huge win for us CCW people even if it passes. They actually said control the criminal use of guns, not the law abiding citizens. They also said existing CCW holders are not a source of crime or violence. In California, the sheriffs are the ones who administer the CCW laws, so hopefully this adds some weight to the position.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests