Shopping at Wal-Mart makes you a murderer!

[NIFT]

Folks - I'm not defending this article, but if she had posted it here, her comments about "give them a sad look and call them a murderer" would have been in purple. She's making a sarcastic comparison to people calling the patients at Planned Parenthood clinics "murderers." In a strange way, she's promoting gun rights, notwithstanding her comment about not liking guns. She's saying that the right to have an abortion is constitutionally protected (Roe v. Wade) - just like keeping and bearing arms - yet politics have allowed the funding to Planned Parenthood to be cut. So, by comparison, we should all stop shopping at Wal-Mart, to stop the "funding" of guns and ammo to American citizens - even though the right to keep and bear arms is also constitutionally protected.

IOW, people who don't like abortions (like she doesn't like guns) shouldn't have the ability to deprive other citizens of their constitional rights. Thus the sarcasm.

Interesting take on the letter, Guy. Not sure I share it, but it does "widen the blinders." If your position holds, either the author did a poor job of communicating her point, or the JG did a great job butchering the editing, or both.

Regardless, if the letter is worthy of the "golden pen" award, all the other letters in June must have been some kind of putrid!

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Just leafed therough my pocket constitution. Still didn't find the part where abortion is OK. Damn the SCOTUS whackos!

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Birth control is one thing, I can be for that. My, my wife's, yours and others tax dollars paying for an abortion because of the persons lack of responsibility to properly protect themselves or abstinence from sex is not the answer.

PPH should not be in the business of abortions.

We are going to have to pay for it one way or the other. We waste far more money on far more frivolous things than funding planned parenthood.

 

[IndySSD]

Folks - I'm not defending this article, but if she had posted it here, her comments about "give them a sad look and call them a murderer" would have been in purple. She's making a sarcastic comparison to people calling the patients at Planned Parenthood clinics "murderers." In a strange way, she's promoting gun rights, notwithstanding her comment about not liking guns. She's saying that the right to have an abortion is constitutionally protected (Roe v. Wade) - just like keeping and bearing arms - yet politics have allowed the funding to Planned Parenthood to be cut. So, by comparison, we should all stop shopping at Wal-Mart, to stop the "funding" of guns and ammo to American citizens - even though the right to keep and bear arms is also constitutionally protected.

IOW, people who don't like abortions (like she doesn't like guns) shouldn't have the ability to deprive other citizens of their constitutional rights. Thus the sarcasm.

Exactly...




I was going to put in a derogatory comment about the reading comprehension of some people but then it occurred to me that we as a gun society are reacting the exact same way as the anti-gunners we condemn for jumping on "Gun Violence" stories like the gun is the bad guy.

I would encourage everyone who has read this story and thread to please, re-read the story and attempt to keep an open mind. I think some of you may want to edit your posts afterward. At least hoot and holler about her being "pro abortion" instead of focusing on the story about guns and Walmart that she is using to provide a parallel to her real point.

 

[ViperJock]

Sounds like she is just bitter and looking for a "conservative" right to take away since she will no longer be able to get a taxpayer funded abortion. Tit for tat. Lets eye for an eye all of our constitutional ammendments away one at a time! That'll show those fascists!

I would encourage everyone who has read this story and thread to please, re-read the story and attempt to keep an open mind. I think some of you may want to edit your posts afterward.

Correct, she is pointing out that if the government wouldn't let people use food stamps at walmart, people would be upset since Walmart sells guns? I see that she is not necessarily saying you shouldn't be able to buy guns at walmart, but I am having trouble seeing how the governement failing to fund abortions connects to buying guns other than in her perception both are constitutional rights.

the problem with her argument is two-fold IMO. First, there is no right to an abortion. Second, the federal government does not buy me guns with taxpayer money. Though, I think gun purchases should be tax deductible

 

[justjoe]

if I had submitted a paper with such a totally illogical premise as espoused here in my college lit class it would have merited an instant "f". She compares her right to not own a gun, or shop at wal-mart because they sell guns, a personal choice as a consumer, to the government of Indiana passing a law to force a public entity, planned parenthood, from violating a federal mandate on use of public funds. Yet this women is allowed to educate our children, and receives accolades from a newspaper for the best letter of the month. this is a sad commentary on the education system, the liberal media and the total disregard of the left-of-center for logic and actual facts when espousing any of their positions

 

[jblomenberg16]

Folks - I'm not defending this article, but if she had posted it here, her comments about "give them a sad look and call them a murderer" would have been in purple. She's making a sarcastic comparison to people calling the patients at Planned Parenthood clinics "murderers." In a strange way, she's promoting gun rights, notwithstanding her comment about not liking guns. She's saying that the right to have an abortion is constitutionally protected (Roe v. Wade) - just like keeping and bearing arms - yet politics have allowed the funding to Planned Parenthood to be cut. So, by comparison, we should all stop shopping at Wal-Mart, to stop the "funding" of guns and ammo to American citizens - even though the right to keep and bear arms is also constitutionally protected.

IOW, people who don't like abortions (like she doesn't like guns) shouldn't have the ability to deprive other citizens of their constitutional rights. Thus the sarcasm.

I think if she would have written it as clearly as you did, than we might have been able to come to that conclusion. Her letter was so fragmented it was tough to really tell what point she was trying to make, other than "She doesn't like guns."

Exactly...

I would encourage everyone who has read this story and thread to please, re-read the story and attempt to keep an open mind. I think some of you may want to edit your posts afterward. At least hoot and holler about her being "pro abortion" instead of focusing on the story about guns and Walmart that she is using to provide a parallel to her real point.

I think many of us had read it several times, and had a hard time understanding her writing style well enough to make the analogy she was trying to make.

 

[GuyRelford]

I think the primary problem is that she is using sarcasm to make her point, and we know how difficult it can be to pick up sarcasm in print. Which, of course, is why some wise soul blended blue and red together to make the color purple.

 

[BarryJaxon]

Why is it,they always interview or print something from the biggest dumbass they can find?

 

[Walt_Jabsco]

Indy SSD said he was going to write a derogatory comment about people's writing comprehension, but opted not to after TFT's comment.

I'm still going to make that comment. If that letter wasn't clear, you're an idiot, plain and simple. While it may have been edited oddly, the writing was succinct, direct and easily understandable. Whether you disagree with her point or not, it can't be argued that the writing is sound. It's a juvenile attack response to your inability to understand what you're looking at.

Moreover, I'm reasonably certain that had you understood what the letter was saying you'd probably agree with it. The author is anti-gun, yes, but she is not endorsing boycotting Wal-Mart or any other retailer based on their sale of guns. Nor does she say implicitly that she supports abortion. In fact, she implies she doesn't necessarily, but considers the benefits Planned Parenthood provides far more important than the miniscule amount of funding that goes towards abortions.

Seriously, head back to a middle school-level reading comprehension course. It's not that hard.

 

[NIFT]

Indy SSD said he was going to write a derogatory comment about people's writing comprehension, but opted not to after TFT's comment.

I'm still going to make that comment. If that letter wasn't clear, you're an idiot, plain and simple. While it may have been edited oddly, the writing was succinct, direct and easily understandable. Whether you disagree with her point or not, it can't be argued that the writing is sound. It's a juvenile attack response to your inability to understand what you're looking at.

Moreover, I'm reasonably certain that had you understood what the letter was saying you'd probably agree with it. The author is anti-gun, yes, but she is not endorsing boycotting Wal-Mart or any other retailer based on their sale of guns. Nor does she says implicitly that she supports abortion. In fact, she implies she doesn't necessarily, but considers the benefits Planned Parenthood provides far more important than the miniscule amount of funding that goes towards abortions.

Seriously, head back to a middle school-level reading comprehension course. It's not that hard.

We better shape up, or Attilla The Hun English Comprehension Academy's Headmaster Jabsco will really lay down the law!

We are all idiots. We are all idiots. We are all idiots....500 times at the chalkboard!

Wait a minute...Headmaster Jabsco said, "...it can't be argued that the writing is sound." I'm having comprehension problems.

 

[thumperdogg]

It has always been the same, guns don't kill people, people kill people!! If someone has it in their mind to do it, it will happen, gun or no gun. Ever hear of fatal beatings or fatal stabbings? Why aren't knives banned?? C'mon get a reality check!!

 

[zibby43]

Nowhere in that incoherent rambling did she come anywhere close to a rational thought. She is awarded no points, and may God have mercy on her soul.

Great reference.

 

[JR50]

At most she would get a C- for the letter. One problem is that it appears she didn’t consider her audience. No one should need to read a letter to the editor twice to get the message. And no, I’m not an idiot. I teach Critical Thinking. The content is more troubling, however. Her attempt at providing parallels failed because a premise is false. 1) Not providing money to PPH will impact its abortion program. True! 2) Not being able to use food stamps to buy baby food from Wal-Mart has a relationship to gun sales. False!

In addition to being inaccurate and irrelevant, the letter falls into the ‘inconvenient to read and snarky’ category.

 

[IndySSD]

At most she would get a C- for the letter. One problem is that it appears she didn’t consider her audience. No one should need to read a letter to the editor twice to get the message. And no, I’m not an idiot. I teach Critical Thinking. The content is more troubling, however. Her attempt at providing parallels failed because a premise is false. 1) Not providing money to PPH will impact its abortion program. True! 2) Not being able to use food stamps to buy baby food from Wal-Mart has a relationship to gun sales. False!

In addition to being inaccurate and irrelevant, the letter falls into the ‘inconvenient to read and snarky’ category.

So by your logic withholding funds from one company for the political purpose of stopping the company from providing a certain service is not a valid parallel to boycotting (withholding funds from) another company based on a political stance in hopes that they will stop selling that product.


It would appear as though with a little critical thinking that the parallel is quite similar.

 

[JR50]

INDYSSD,
You're talking about political actions. And of course, you're correct.
I'm talking about conveying a message.
Take the time to actually read what I wrote. You'll get it...sooner or later.

 

[96firephoenix]

Just leafed therough my pocket constitution. Still didn't find the part where abortion is OK. Damn the SCOTUS whackos!

why is this in Purple? it is not a protected right in the constitution. If you try to say that abortion is a protected right, let a mother to kill her 6month old child and call it a "post-term abortion" and see if it gets upheld.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

why is this in Purple? it is not a protected right in the constitution. If you try to say that abortion is a protected right, let a mother to kill her 6month old child and call it a "post-term abortion" and see if it gets upheld.

It was to follow an earlier post but I didn't get it in there in time.

 

[zspeed130]

I would be pissed if we lost the last cheap convienent place to buy ammo. I was ticked enough when I could no longer walk in and get a great deal on a new 10/22 or 870.

Z

 

[MuncieKat]

you people need to read more

It is so terribly sad and disheartening to read through these comments.
Those of you that attacked the author of that letter just "didn't get it". And still don't, it seems.