Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire For All the Planned Parenthood Haters

Nope.
You're the one talking about property rights
I'm talking about freedom of choice as to how to live ones life without someone else choosing for them.

That's the whole thing, and hasn't changed no matter how many rabbit trails you want to circle.

The father's "financial risk" doesn't override the physical health risks, which is why the decision is up to the woman alone.

The child isn't "risking" anything since it's not a viable entity at the age of 99% of abortions, and that's just an emotional argument anyway.

You aren't going to change my mind, and I'm not trying to change yours. I'm just telling you it's really none of your business unless it's your child

Nobody's offered to pay my time, as I said above. I also said above that it has a Leupold Vari X III, 1.75x-6x, in some kind of fancy rings, like Talley or something. It's a 375 H&H, which Taylor said is "Undoubtedly one of the deadliest weapons in existence." I killed a mule deer with that caliber in a Ruger #1 once. Dropped at the shot and no real meat damage.

I do have some photos of other guns, though. Here's a Browning 1886 SRC High Grade with some of the most perfectly quarter sawn wood you'll ever see on a factory gun. Note how the two sides are nearly identical:











The Caprivi really isn't anything special, so don't worry about it. Nowhere near as good as my original Argentine 1909. One of the finest military rifles ever made. I bought it new in 1979, in the original factory cosmoline.

If you think that's what I said, you're the one that's either insane or illiterate

Go back and read it again because I'm not repeating it

That is what laws are.Think things through.

To resort to a mere legality argument will not work. We've been over that road before. Many things have been legal that have been unjust, unethical, immoral, and wrong. To simply say "well, it's legal" was no defense at Nuremberg, nor was it an adequate defense of slavery or of the subjugation of women, or any number of other "legal" atrocities. Neither is it an adequate defense of abortion now.

A newborn isn't viable immediately after delivery either. In fact, viability to live independently isn't possible for several years after delivery. The viability argument fails, unless you're willing to start expanding infanticide beyond the womb. There can also be no denial of the child's risk involved as the child is, in fact, alive and a distinct, individual human being.

No one said the father's financial risk exceeded the mother's health risk, though in many cases it may. However, it is a risk and at this point is discredited completely based solely upon gender. Gender discrimination is a rather interesting twist to make to substantiate an argument.

Property rights is the only philosophical positions possible that allows one person to dispose of anything of "theirs" without consideration for anyone else. That is the basis of your argument. A person may arbitrarily and for any reason at all, including mere convenience, dispose of their property as they see fit without the input of any others. You are asserting that the baby is merely the property of the mother in the way that her hair is; as an extension of her body and therefore her own self to do with as she chooses. Unfortunately, that defies both biology and logic. The child has different DNA from the mother and therefore is a different person. Once that biological fact is accepted, you then have no other position other than property rights via ownership of another human, I.e., slavery. One person may not simply dispose of (kill) another distinct, individual human arbitrarily or for any reason at all, including and especially not mere convenience. Once the biological and logical fact is accepted that the child is human and has it's own distinct, individual DNA, this is where you are left with the "choice" property rights argument, and it fails.

It's odd that you bring up "freedom", when discussing the ability of one human to: 1) arbitrarily take the life of another human without being in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury but only for mere convenience; and, 2) subject another human to involuntary financial servitude for almost two decades when both parties are equally responsible for the situation and the subjugated party has no rights in the decision. That is an extraordinarily odd definition of "freedom", one without precedent in history or, in fact, in logic. Further, the "freedom" to live their life as they choose is completely denied to the child. The mother may have to endure several months of pregnancy, a natural state for human females, and one that she entered into by her choice of actions (actions at this point that include the choice to actively and intentionally avoid a myriad layers of contraceptives that are nearly foolproof at preventing pregnancies). However, your assertion of "freedom" for her completely destroys every choice of life possible for the child. This inequity in the burden of life when contemplating "freedom" fails on every level of logic or morality.

The summation is the positions is accurate and it is no surprise that you have no rebuttal. There is none, at least none that has been presented cogently, logically, and rationally. I realize that this will fall, at least now, on deaf ears (yours). However, if you are intellectually honest with yourself, you owe yourself the contemplation of these arguments as they are (not as you wish they were).

a guy with a rifle like that is probably impressed with the person who'd put 24 inch rims with Spinners on a Jeep....

you know, there is another site called Accurate Reloading... they'd LOVE a guy like you over there....ask for Saeed and Walter...you're their kind a guy....

Church and State..Seperate.

You obviously pay no attention at all.

Post pics of the Caprivi.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Wrong answer!

We DO get to dictate the morals and ethics of others through the courts. That's how we wound up with abortion on demand. We have so many laws telling us what can and cannot do, even to ourselves, that they defy the ability to count them. The USSC dictated the morals and ethics of an entire nation when they declared abortion on demand was a "right" all women had; those who had a moral and ethical argument against abortion were told too bad so sad. Don't tell me I have no right to question the morals and ethics of others. We live together, under a societal contract wherein we agree to certain laws governing our behavior which is guided by our morals and ethics. In exchange we get the protection afforded the group. What's moral and ethical is decided by the majority of people living together in a functional society. The issue of slavery and women's rights are clearly spot on examples of one group dictating to the other group that these are now your morals and ethics. If you don't follow them then we'll lock you away for a while so you're not a problem for those of us who hold opposing points of view.

Coupla points. I have too many guns and don't take requests for photos. If you're not sure what a Caprivi looks like, Crosnoe has one listed for sale online for something like $2850 without a scope. Mine has much nicer wood, which is why I bought it. I could send photos to interested buyers with or without the Leupold. If I ever get around to cataloging my guns maybe I'll post photos of the more interesting ones. Just a bit of a history lesson, here's a photo of my Argentine:



One hundred seventy thousand of these were built by DWM in 1909-1910:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Waffen_und_Munitionsfabriken

They are the epitome of bolt action military rifles:

http://www.gunscollecting.com/english/long-guns/1909-argentine-mauser/

Mine was shipped in a crate from Berlin to Argentina, but was never used. Interarms imported these guns to Alexandria, VA in the 70's. From there, it made it's way to Pachmayr Gun Works in downtown LA, which has since closed. I bought it in the original factory cosmoline in 1979. I removed the cosmoline, loaded for it, and once shot a 1.25" five shot group at 100 yards with iron sights with Sierra's 150 gr bullet at 3003FPS. Here's the only photo I have of it, but it's near mint and in much better condition than the one shown in the link above:

I don't really know how much it's worth, but I'd guess ~$1500, maybe more. Many of these were cannabalized for their actions, many were used by the Argentine army, etc, so very few survived in high condition. Bob Milek used one as a basis for a custom rifle and wrote a three part article about it in the late 70's. It's superior to the highly regarded Model 70 in many ways. But enough about that.

4ager, please shorten your posts. I can only wade through so much of your crap at a time. So, if you really want people to read your stuff, limit it to three sentences.

What a load of BS!

Here's my Winchester M 70 .375 H&H SS.

Sorry, Kenny. There's nothing at all classic about SS and plastic. Nice try. Here's the link to Crosnoe's Caprivi:

http://www.gunsinternational.com/gu...400-caprivi-375-h-h.cfm?gun_id=100650409

As I said, mine has nicer wood.

Why don't you just tag along behind your PH with your nose up his butt for a while with the rest of your mighty SCI pals and shoot what and when you're told? That's doing it the hard way. For sure.

PS. Didn't you have me on Ignore? Why are you talking to me?

Jesus, how far did you have to chase the pimp to get that away from him ?

GTC

Just for you, Doctor Megele,....

Once again you parrot the same tired lines and arbitrarily declare your position the only logical one, just like "common sense gun control"

I told you before we started this would be the outcome.

You just want to control others and force your beliefs on them when it's none of your business

It's not your decision

Wonder if Piddler has gold teeth?

Considering that every post of yours on this subject is essentially a regurgitation of one prior, can you honestly complain about anyone else restating their position with a straight face?

And, you continue to avoid the logical progression of your own arguments, and their basis. That is an exceedingly poor foundation for a moral or philosophical position on any subject.

Amazing that you are whining about others being forced under the control of another, yet you espouse a position that can only be supported if you also support slavery and the subjugation of women.

Paddler can't even begin to refute the argument, so he complains about an argument being laid out in full. One wonders how much attention the already known pervert pays to medical literature and analysis.

Yes you're on ignore. I'm asking you questions,otherwise I wouldn't bother with your dribble.

Oh,you want classic and nice wood.

Dakota M 76 7mm Dakota.






Here's Winchester M 70 Featherweight .270 Win.

He's just defending himself defending the indefensible.

You can't enter into a match of wits with an un-armed opponent.

I don't particularly dislike the guy, but we VERY rarely, if ever, see things eye to eye. For that I'm grateful, and it renews my barometer that my sense of what's right and wrong is not broken, and alive and well. For that I am thankful and encouraged.

Ken, you too are entered into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.