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

Yes,I know.

Yeah - I've never been a "brand" worshipper and they made some good ones along the way. If it is clear, shoots tight and is dependable it's usually good enough for my tired old eyes. The dead game seems not to care - neither do the targets.

Maybe you are different in real life, but you come across as one sick, screwed-up person. So - to you some determination of "viable" is the pivotal criterion for moral/legal killing of a child. And whom do you identify as the all-knowing power that decides such viability in life??

That inability on your part makes the posed question regarding murder after birth even more cogent. How and why would/could you hold reponsible a parent who murdered a post-partum child whom the parent had decided was not sufficiently viable?

If you would hold it legal/moral/ethical murder such a questionable child before birth, why would you not murder one after birth? See - there it is again - your dilemma - and it has nothing to do with another person attempting to force morals or ethics upon you.

Tried a Tasco way back in the late 1980s on a .338 win mag,first time I ever got "bit" by a scope. Never bought another one again.

You obviously have me confused with someone who cares what you think.

I already answered you, so any "inability" is yours, in not understanding it's really none of your business

You come across as an arrogant, holier-than-thou legend in your own mind. But that's another topic altoghether

You just keep spouting the same tired rhetoric

Snyper read the highlighted part and please tell the audience how laws against theft, murder, rape, etc are not dictating ethics and morality for others. I'm just a dumb hillbilly, but it sure seems like those laws are dictating morality and ethics to others.

So, you don't care what others think, and you cannot - or are, in fact, unable to - logically, rationally, morally, or philosophically support or defend your own arguments. You continue to spout unsupported and unsupportable - and quite tired - rhetoric, in fact the same rhetoric. The arrogant, holier-than-thou position at this point is yours, and it is unsupported and indefensible in logic, morality, or philosophy. One has to wonder why you think, given all that, that anyone would or should care what you think.

BTW - the "none of your business" argument has already been destroyed and holds no water. You can keep trying that same tired line, but it fails miserably.

I've always liked Dakotas. I think they're better than the Kimbers, at least as far as I know. A real classic would have been the original 7mm, the 7X57. I wouldn't mind trading my Caprivi in on a 375 H&H in a Classic Deluxe, Safari, etc. I don't hunt big game with a rifle anymore, so it doesn't make much sense to sink a lot of money into them. Like I said about my Caprivi, it's not really worth worrying about it. Nothing really special.

The higher grade Winchesters are a solid value, too. I have a standard grade Featherweight in 257 Roberts I could turn into something else.

I have a riddle for you. What is the difference in extraction between the Mauser 98 and the Model 70? Why is the 98 better?

There's no reason to think my reply would change when yours remains identical. I told you this is how it would be from the beginning.

You're not going to change my mind, and I don't care if you change yours. You still don't get to decide what is right for anyone else, and no one has to justify anything to you.

You just continue to imply your views are somehow superior when really they are not. They are simply dfferent

You're comparing illegal acts to something which is legal.
That was addressed several pages back. If you don't agree with abortions, don't get one. Just don't tell anyone else what to do as long as it's legal

Not simply different. Asinine is closer to the mark. Easy call. Called Roe v Wade, look it up.

Please, feel free to continue. Roe v Wade is a legal argument, and frankly a decision made of whole cloth. If you wish to go down that road, you'll need to go back to the arguments laid out before and the Constitution (which you are known to hate) and start your positions there. You won't, because you can't.

I cannot change your mind because your refuse to think and to even begin to logically, morally, or philosophically defend your indefensible position.

I can, and have, defended my opinions on all those fronts. You, have not, cannot, and will not. Therein lies the difference. You've been granted ample opportunity to do so, and have failed or refused ( or been incapable) of doing so.

I offered you a debate on the merits of the differing positions. Regrettably, you were incapable of rising to the task. You may try again, but this time please do try. The arguments and positions remain the same.

The question was do laws dictate ethics and morality?
If so, whose? Taken to a logical extreme you are saying that if shooting people for giggles was legal it would be perfectly fine and we would be wrong for saying it wasn't and trying to pass laws against it.

Or, owning them. That was legal once as well. Was it then also moral?

How about genital mutilation? That's legal in some places; is it therefore moral?

Legality does not mean morality, any more so than the reverse is true.

You never seem to tire of pounding sand. Continue, Governor.

And if we get enough real Conservative Justices on the USSC, abortion will be ILLEGAL. That will be the will of the people enforced via the courts. You're cherry picking everything you choose to defend, which in this case has been nothing but abortion. You are tricked into admitting it's legal when the offenses of burglary, theft, murder, etc., are ILLEGAL. How were they determined to be ILLEGAL. Many times just as laws passed by the legislative body and other times case law handed down by the courts. You are wrong. We can, and DO, enforce our own morals and ethical codes on other people. Prove that to be wrong.

Then if someone CHOOSES to live their life by stealing your property, or breaking every bone in your face, you have no right to tell them they can not do that. That's how they choose to live their lives.

I've been waiting for you to tell us when a child in the womb is or is not viable. I can tell you this; unless you say at the point of inception, or age 21, every other age in between is subjective and will NEVER be agreed upon. So, we have to default to the objective answer. A child is viable at the point of inception.

Bud you can take that statement to Hell with you and you will. Hope you find comfort in it. I don't care what your response might be from that statement I know all I need to.

Believe You started this lil diatribe about "azz getting handed to them". You seem to have both your hands full of yours. Go figure you're not only a puzzy physically, but mentally as well. No surprises there

Typical liberal