Will "abortion rights" kill our fight for the Second Amendment?

[HoughMade]

They can also choose via the referendum process. And I'm good with that.

Other places, not in Indiana.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

No children being killed there.

It's literally photos of children being killed and your response is

 

[bwframe]

Let's please save the abortion argument for the politics section, OK?

This discussion is about how our 2A fight can survive the "abortion rights" voter numbers. Can it?

A lotta folks do not realize that the reason the "red wave," expected to win us the Senate and House in 2020, did not happen was due to the SCOTUS decision on abortion.

The dems successfully played their "women's health" card again in 2020. Will it be successfully again in 2024, leaving the 2A in the wake of the liberal victory?

.

 

[Twangbanger]

Other places, not in Indiana.

By Thanksgiving, Indiana will be completely surrounded by those "other places."

Not even a full tank of gas away.

Let's please save the abortion argument for the politics section, OK?
This discussion is about how our 2A fight can survive the "abortion rights" voter numbers. Can it?

A lotta folks do not realize that the reason the "red wave," expected to win us the Senate and House in 2020, did not happen was due to the SCOTUS decision on abortion.

The dems successfully played their "women's health" card again in 2020. Will it be successfully again in 2024, leaving the 2A in the wake of the liberal victory?

.

Getting back to topic, I suppose it really depends whether you believe Republican election victories are essential to protecting the 2A. And that is by no means a settled point. "Republican Election Chances" and "The 2A" are not exactly one in the same. The Jefferson Shreve Mayoral bid is an unpleasant reminder how easy it is for the GOP to slip comfortably back into being useless as t!ts on a boar on the 2A.

Does RvW repeal spell doom for the 2A in America? Probably not enough to conclude that at this point. Americans don't like giving up rights they think they've "earned." It's a hard sell, no matter the issue. That's why Republicans win on the 2A. It's the one true thing where their Libertarian heart is in the right place.

Does it spell doom for GOP election chances? Probably. Not enough by itself, but with everything else in play, yeah, they're probably finished. If Joe Biden is so terrible, if inflation is soooo bad, I'd expect the tide to turn pretty soon, and start seeing some pro-GOP outcomes from it. Doesn't seem to be happening. No way this stupid SOB should have a job. If Reagan were this addled in the brain, he'd have been hounded out of town by now, probably with a few emissaries from the Northeastern sector of his own party supplying the pitchforks and torches.

Looking at the Ohio data from yesterday, this issue seems to be turbo-charging the Democratic women vote.

The Harpies have been awakened. I am @RealKaren; hear me roar.

 

[DadSmith]

Voters in Ohio reject GOP-backed proposal that would have made it tougher to protect abortion rights

While abortion was not directly on the special election ballot, the result marks the latest setback for Republicans in a conservative-leaning state who favor imposing tough restrictions on the procedure.

apnews.com

Ohio voters reject ballot measure in win for abortion rights advocates

Ohio voters on Tuesday rejected a Republican-backed measure that would have made it harder to amend the state constitution, an initiative aimed at helping defeat a November referendum that would protect abortion access in the state.

www.reuters.com

This doesn't sound like a leftist crowd to me.

Abortion rights opponents have called the November referendum extreme, claiming its vague language would allow minors to get abortions and gender-affirming surgery without parental consent.

 

[bwframe]

...Looking at the Ohio data from yesterday, this issue seems to be turbo-charging the Democratic women vote.

The Harpies have been awakened. I am @RealKaren; hear me roar.

You could say the same thing about the 2020 mid-terms.

 

[tude]

What children are being killed? Show your work.

That has to be the dumbest question I have seen.

 

[Twangbanger]

You could say the same thing about the 2020 mid-terms.

The Harpies, Bernies, and General-Low-Lifes have always been around in great quantities. The rest of us have been outnumbered since the day the Dead White Men walked out of Constitution Hall in Philadelphia.

The key has always been keeping this massive Democrat constituency un-engaged and not voting. No matter how bad things ever got in America, it rarely interfered with people walking down to King-Kwik to buy beer and lottery tickets. Things have been relatively easy in this country for a long time. All of which keeps the marginal democrat voter home, happy as a pig in slop, and most importantly, not voting. We always knew if the Democrats could get those people to show up on Election Day, with some hot burning issue in their hearts, the Republic was finished. The strength of America lay in maintaining general prosperity, and not giving people that burning platform to be mad about.

Now, with mail ballots, Trump, and the repeal of RvW and Affirmative Action, the hornet's nest has been whacked. And we can't seem to keep wealthy Pro-Life Republican donors from whacking it, again and again.

We have to hope that enough people see the value in the 2A, because Republican governing majorities will be shaky ground from now on. Once Republicans start turning against the 2A, and getting away with it, that will be the beginning of the end. People like Jefferson Shreve have to be melted into a blob right where they stand.

 

[Creedmoor]

That has to be the dumbest question I have seen.

So you can't show your work either...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Folks, BW has asked that the conversation be confined to any possible effects this will have on 2A rights. Let’s do that instead of another useless abortion thread. If we’re only interested in discussing abortion, I’ll gladly lock this one down and you can start one in the political section.

 

[LeftyGunner]

There is no gentle way to put this…yes, will effect the 2A.

Republicans have adopted an increasingly abhorrent social agenda, while abandoning the high ground on fiscal responsibility and government accountability.

Republicans are losing the culture wars…bigly…and having guns ties so closely to their brand isn’t doing the 2A any favors.

People want Steve Irwin, not Teddy Roosevelt.

 

[Twangbanger]

There is no gentle way to put this…yes, will effect the 2A.

Republicans have adopted an increasingly abhorrent social agenda, while abandoning the high ground on fiscal responsibility and government accountability.

Republicans are losing the culture wars…bigly…and having guns ties so closely to their brand isn’t doing the 2A any favors.

People want Steve Irwin, not Teddy Roosevelt.

They both have about as much chance as any Republican now...

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Republicans have adopted an increasingly abhorrent social agenda,

Hopefully I'm not dragging this off-topic again, mods, please delete this post if I am.

If I understand correctly from your other posts, I think the two of us are probably about perfectly mirror opposites in our ideas, in that you are someone who tends to be left-leaning socially, but breaks out of the mold by being pro-2A. I tend to be the opposite, being what most would call extremely conservative on social issues (excepting a few things like immigration) but only recently coming around to being really pro-2A rights, and still probably being a little bit left of the average on a site like this.

So I'm curious about your perspective; especially when I read a line like the one I quoted above, it honestly feels like (no offense intended) the two of us must be living on different planets.

Are you saying that from your perspective it seems like Republicans have moved further to the right on social issues in last few decades? Or do you just mean that as society becomes more and more liberal on social issues the Republican's agenda becomes more and more abhorrent?

I'd be hard pressed to think of any social issue that Republicans in general have moved further to the right on over the past couple decades; the abortion debate doesn't seem to have re-ignited due to a change in the position taken by Republican politicians, but merely by the fact that their position was, up until recently, mostly irrelevant because of Roe v. Wade.

Also, it really seems hard for me to believe that there are any significant number of folks out there who would've been swayed to the Republican side and become 2A, but are now instead going to the polls to vote Democrat because of the abortion issue. I can definitely see there being an issue with folks who would've stayed home now being galvanized to get out and go to the polls, but I can't imagine people flipping sides over it. Politics is like the free market; when there's a demand, someone will jump in the gap to supply the product. If there were really much of a demand for politicians who were both pro-2A and pro-abortion, I think we would've seen more start to pop up, instead of the maybe one or two that exist in total at the national level.

At least, that's the way it looks from my perspective. I'm curious to hear more about how you see it?

 

[two70]

I swear stupid S like this is why we can't have nice things. And no, I'm not talking about ending abortion or this referendum.

I'm talking about accepting a rather tenuous premise that only thinly veils the true purpose of these articles. The purpose of these articles is clearly to drive a wedge a between pro-life and pro-2a people and so many just take the premise hook, line, and sinker. If one media source is pushing a "story" it should be standard operating procedure to be highly skeptical, if two or more are pushing the same "story" you can be pretty confident that they are pushing an agenda, not a story.

"This issue is never the issue, the issue is always control." R. Limbaugh

The abortion issue is not about women's rights and it certainly isn't about healthcare. It is about encouraging people to abdicate personal responsibility so that they must rely on the government to take care of them. It is also about population control and eugenics. Gun control is not about public safety, it is about reducing the ability of citizens to resist government control as we all know.

These people, the people writing these articles, not only want to murder unborn children for fun and profit, they also want to use and abuse children that are born, and they certainly don't want you, I, or anyone else that doesn't agree with them to be armed. Don't give in to their agendas.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Hopefully I'm not dragging this off-topic again, mods, please delete this post if I am.

If I understand correctly from your other posts, I think the two of us are probably about perfectly mirror opposites in our ideas, in that you are someone who tends to be left-leaning socially, but breaks out of the mold by being pro-2A. I tend to be the opposite, being what most would call extremely conservative on social issues (excepting a few things like immigration) but only recently coming around to being really pro-2A rights, and still probably being a little bit left of the average on a site like this.

So I'm curious about your perspective; especially when I read a line like the one I quoted above, it honestly feels like (no offense intended) the two of us must be living on different planets.

Are you saying that from your perspective it seems like Republicans have moved further to the right on social issues in last few decades? Or do you just mean that as society becomes more and more liberal on social issues the Republican's agenda becomes more and more abhorrent?

Honestly, I think both are true to varying degrees.

I grew up in the 80s, and I thought Reagen would be president forever, so my view of what it means to be a Republican was forged in that time.

More responsible government, more fiscal transparency, and less legislative bloat…those are the values that attracted me to the Republican Party all those years ago.

Guns didn’t factor into it at all for me until 1994, when Clinton put the Democrats solidly in the anti-gun camp once and for all, in my view.

Before 2004 I would never have considered voting for the Democrats, but the Neocons changed all that.

I'd be hard pressed to think of any social issue that Republicans in general have moved further to the right on over the past couple decades; the abortion debate doesn't seem to have re-ignited due to a change in the position taken by Republican politicians, but merely by the fact that their position was, up until recently, mostly irrelevant because of Roe v. Wade.

I agree with you about the Republican position and RvW…that wasn’t a change of ideology, it was a change of landscape.

However, the Republican position on abortion flies in the face of their supposed stance on individual liberty.

The fall of RvW exposes the realities of the Republican position and, while political support for abortion services is strongly one-sided, actual utilization of abortion services does not vary widely across the political divide.

I think the party of individual liberty would be better served by taking an Individual liberty stance on this topic…If a woman wishes to end her pregnancy and a doctor agrees to perform the procedure, I see no reason for the government…especially the federal government…to argue.

As far as going farther right…some of that perception comes from the messaging.

In the 1980’s and 1990’s Republican messaging was that Democrats were wrong. Wrong about governance, wromg about social issues, wrong about financial issues.

By the 2000s and 2010s Republican messaging had changed its focus. Democrats were no longer just wrong, now they were literally evil…you can see reflections of these attitudes here on INGO with certain commenters.

Also, it really seems hard for me to believe that there are any significant number of folks out there who would've been swayed to the Republican side and become 2A, but are now instead going to the polls to vote Democrat because of the abortion issue. I can definitely see there being an issue with folks who would've stayed home now being galvanized to get out and go to the polls, but I can't imagine people flipping sides over it. Politics is like the free market; when there's a demand, someone will jump in the gap to supply the product. If there were really much of a demand for politicians who were both pro-2A and pro-abortion, I think we would've seen more start to pop up, instead of the maybe one or two that exist in total at the national level.

At least, that's the way it looks from my perspective. I'm curious to hear more about how you see it?

Well, that really brings me to the Republican position on guns...it is my opinion that it has moved to the right…sharply, and within my lifetime.

When I was growing up my grandfather was a founding member of our communities conservation club, and we spent a lot of time there. He was a member of the NRA, and was active in community outreach.

In those days, being a gun enthusiast was about gun safety, hunting, and precision target shooting…not personal defense, and definitely not para-military or militia-oriented in the least…that has all changed dramatically In the current era, from my perspective.

Look…I expect this to go over like a fart in an elevator here, but Republicans need to understand the damage that Parkland did to the public image of “Gun Enthusiasts” in the broader population.

Its legitimate to ask why school shootings happen here so often…we have to have a better answer than “there’s just no way to stop it” when we are the only place on Earth where it routinely happens.

The “groomer” hysteria, coupled with right-wing messsging on LGB issues, amd especially those of Trans identity issues are entirely out of touch with where the younger generations stands, and where the Overton window is actually moving…

…I honestly think we will be lucky in this highly-polarized e vironment if we can limit new infringements to just FFL transfers required on every transfer. I think it’s e possible that magazine-fed semi-auto rifles will end up on the NFA.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Hopefully I'm not dragging this off-topic again, mods, please delete this post if I am.

If I understand correctly from your other posts, I think the two of us are probably about perfectly mirror opposites in our ideas, in that you are someone who tends to be left-leaning socially, but breaks out of the mold by being pro-2A. I tend to be the opposite, being what most would call extremely conservative on social issues (excepting a few things like immigration) but only recently coming around to being really pro-2A rights, and still probably being a little bit left of the average on a site like this.

So I'm curious about your perspective; especially when I read a line like the one I quoted above, it honestly feels like (no offense intended) the two of us must be living on different planets.

Are you saying that from your perspective it seems like Republicans have moved further to the right on social issues in last few decades? Or do you just mean that as society becomes more and more liberal on social issues the Republican's agenda becomes more and more abhorrent?

I'd be hard pressed to think of any social issue that Republicans in general have moved further to the right on over the past couple decades; the abortion debate doesn't seem to have re-ignited due to a change in the position taken by Republican politicians, but merely by the fact that their position was, up until recently, mostly irrelevant because of Roe v. Wade.

Also, it really seems hard for me to believe that there are any significant number of folks out there who would've been swayed to the Republican side and become 2A, but are now instead going to the polls to vote Democrat because of the abortion issue. I can definitely see there being an issue with folks who would've stayed home now being galvanized to get out and go to the polls, but I can't imagine people flipping sides over it. Politics is like the free market; when there's a demand, someone will jump in the gap to supply the product. If there were really much of a demand for politicians who were both pro-2A and pro-abortion, I think we would've seen more start to pop up, instead of the maybe one or two that exist in total at the national level.

At least, that's the way it looks from my perspective. I'm curious to hear more about how you see it?

Great post. I wish I could do more than give you a thumbs-up for it!

 

[Ingomike]

Honestly, I think both are true to varying degrees.

I grew up in the 80s, and I thought Reagen would be president forever, so my view of what it means to be a Republican was forged in that time.

More responsible government, more fiscal transparency, and less legislative bloat…those are the values that attracted me to the Republican Party all those years ago.

Guns didn’t factor into it at all for me until 1994, when Clinton put the Democrats solidly in the anti-gun camp once and for all, in my view.

Before 2004 I would never have considered voting for the Democrats, but the Neocons changed all that.




I agree with you about the Republican position and RvW…that wasn’t a change of ideology, it was a change of landscape.

However, the Republican position on abortion flies in the face of their supposed stance on individual liberty.

The fall of RvW exposes the realities of the Republican position and, while political support for abortion services is strongly one-sided, actual utilization of abortion services does not vary widely across the political divide.

I think the party of individual liberty would be better served by taking an Individual liberty stance on this topic…If a woman wishes to end her pregnancy and a doctor agrees to perform the procedure, I see no reason for the government…especially the federal government…to argue.

As far as going farther right…some of that perception comes from the messaging.

In the 1980’s and 1990’s Republican messaging was that Democrats were wrong. Wrong about governance, wromg about social issues, wrong about financial issues.

By the 2000s and 2010s Republican messaging had changed its focus. Democrats were no longer just wrong, now they were literally evil…you can see reflections of these attitudes here on INGO with certain commenters.



Well, that really brings me to the Republican position on guns...it is my opinion that it has moved to the right…sharply, and within my lifetime.

When I was growing up my grandfather was a founding member of our communities conservation club, and we spent a lot of time there. He was a member of the NRA, and was active in community outreach.

In those days, being a gun enthusiast was about gun safety, hunting, and precision target shooting…not personal defense, and definitely not para-military or militia-oriented in the least…that has all changed dramatically In the current era, from my perspective.

Look…I expect this to go over like a fart in an elevator here, but Republicans need to understand the damage that Parkland did to the public image of “Gun Enthusiasts” in the broader population.

Its legitimate to ask why school shootings happen here so often…we have to have a better answer than “there’s just no way to stop it” when we are the only place on Earth where it routinely happens.

The “groomer” hysteria, coupled with right-wing messsging on LGB issues, amd especially those of Trans identity issues are entirely out of touch with where the younger generations stands, and where the Overton window is actually moving…

…I honestly think we will be lucky in this highly-polarized e vironment if we can limit new infringements to just FFL transfers required on every transfer. I think it’s e possible that magazine-fed semi-auto rifles will end up on the NFA.

Lenin would describe this post as “useful”…

 

[Amishman44]

They have already "vilified" all republicans.

Yes...the Left's goal is to silence any Conservative / Constitutionalist / Republican sided opinion or voice...by whatever means possible!
Keeping mind that the Left's interpretation of 'tolerance' only makes allowance for what they think is the right way to do things, no matter how ethically, morally, or spiritually corrupt it might be?

 

[Twangbanger]

...Gun control is not about public safety, it is about reducing the ability of citizens to resist government control as we all know...

Gun control may be about government control to the politicians supporting it. But the problem is, it really _is_ about public safety, in the minds of people like my wife's Aunt. They want a society where people don't get shot. And they really think countries like Japan are examples of where somebody "got it right," and figured out how to legislate peace and safety and pacifism into real-world existence...by technocrats simply passing the right laws with the right language.

...I grew up in the 80s, and I thought Reagen would be president forever, so my view of what it means to be a Republican was forged in that time.

More responsible government, more fiscal transparency, and less legislative bloat…those are the values that attracted me to the Republican Party all those years ago.

Guns didn’t factor into it at all for me until 1994, when Clinton put the Democrats solidly in the anti-gun camp once and for all, in my view.

Before 2004 I would never have considered voting for the Democrats, but the Neocons changed all that.




I agree with you about the Republican position and RvW…that wasn’t a change of ideology, it was a change of landscape.

However, the Republican position on abortion flies in the face of their supposed stance on individual liberty.

The fall of RvW exposes the realities of the Republican position and, while political support for abortion services is strongly one-sided, actual utilization of abortion services does not vary widely across the political divide.

I think the party of individual liberty would be better served by taking an Individual liberty stance on this topic…If a woman wishes to end her pregnancy and a doctor agrees to perform the procedure, I see no reason for the government…especially the federal government…to argue.

As far as going farther right…some of that perception comes from the messaging.

In the 1980’s and 1990’s Republican messaging was that Democrats were wrong. Wrong about governance, wromg about social issues, wrong about financial issues.

By the 2000s and 2010s Republican messaging had changed its focus. Democrats were no longer just wrong, now they were literally evil…you can see reflections of these attitudes here on INGO with certain commenters.



Well, that really brings me to the Republican position on guns...it is my opinion that it has moved to the right…sharply, and within my lifetime.

When I was growing up my grandfather was a founding member of our communities conservation club, and we spent a lot of time there. He was a member of the NRA, and was active in community outreach.

In those days, being a gun enthusiast was about gun safety, hunting, and precision target shooting…not personal defense, and definitely not para-military or militia-oriented in the least…that has all changed dramatically In the current era, from my perspective.

Look…I expect this to go over like a fart in an elevator here, but Republicans need to understand the damage that Parkland did to the public image of “Gun Enthusiasts” in the broader population.

Its legitimate to ask why school shootings happen here so often…we have to have a better answer than “there’s just no way to stop it” when we are the only place on Earth where it routinely happens.

The “groomer” hysteria, coupled with right-wing messsging on LGB issues, amd especially those of Trans identity issues are entirely out of touch with where the younger generations stands, and where the Overton window is actually moving…

…I honestly think we will be lucky in this highly-polarized e vironment if we can limit new infringements to just FFL transfers required on every transfer. I think it’s e possible that magazine-fed semi-auto rifles will end up on the NFA.

Good post. Without being overly deep, I grew up in the 70s and 80s, and followed the opposite path of you. I was not a gigantic Reagan fan. My family came from coal miners who spent much of their lives in "company towns" being paid with scrip books (until the post-WW2 "factory economy" of the North gave them an escape route). Until WW2, the Republican party of Warren Harding was interested in things like sticking up for coal companies and crushing miner strikes. WW2 changed the Republican party and turned it into a Big Government party, which just had different "big government priorities" (eg. foreign policy intervention) than Democrats. Ronald Reagan put a different face on the party, and attracted "New Deal Democrats" into the fold*. The illusion was that Reagan was small government personified. But the Party of Reagan was not a small goverment party. It combined the interests of Big Government New Deal Democrats with those of Big Government "I like Ike" Military Foreign Policy Interventionists, and tried to "fake" a small government facade onto the front of that. In reality, we have to understand the "Reagan Revolution" would never have been possible without the New Deal Democrats he attracted to the party. Reagan cobbled together a lot of Big Government enthusiasts from both sides to create his winning coalition, and without those people on board, you're right back to the Harding/Coolidge/Hoover GOP of the 1930s. And that idea-set is not able to win elections in the post-WW2 era, which (I think) is a big part of the Republican Party's problem right now. It's trying to put a Calvin Coolidge policy-set in front of Republican voters who were raised on the big government aims of the New Deal and The Cold War. It's dusting off a type of Republicanism that has been locked in the basement since the 1930s - crushing coal miner strikes and keeping corporations firmly in control of common people's economic lives - and putting a modern "spin"on that with regard to Free Trade and Immigration - and selling it to people against a Democrat Party who is offering people all the Free Sh.t in the world. And they're losing. People don't want to go back to a George Will pre-WW2 1930s vision of America where less than 40% owned their own home, most people paid rent to a landlord until they were too old to work and had to move in with relatives, and the majority of Americans died penniless. And widespread dissatisfaction with the Iraq War then peeled even more Republicans off the coalition Reagan put together.

Ronald Reagan Republicans believe World War 2 made America great.

Calvin Coolidge Republicans believe World War 2, and the social changes it brought about, destroyed most of what was previously great about America.

See the difference?

There is a real rift there. And it is coming back into view clearly, after being hidden for most of our lifetimes. I would bet many so-called "conservatives" are not even aware of this factor, or the historical underpinnings of it.

I say all this, to say - the Republican Party is not a party of individual liberty. At least not since WW2. It is a party that believed on putting Big Government spending behind the "right" priorities - which were simply the opposite of what Democrats wanted to spend it on. As such, the Republican Party is not in any way aligned with Pro-Choice ideals on abortion...never was, never could be. Its Libertarianism is limited to the Milton Friedman type that benefits corporations - not individuals. They will let you keep your guns, up to a point, as long as it doesn't hurt their donors' pocketbooks too bad. But their real game is crushing miner strikes (old school), or importing a low-wage immigrant underclass to undercut wages of those already here, and offshoring good factory jobs to hell-hole countries with cheap labor (new school).

On social issues, they very much want to impose their values on others. The Ohio Referendum is the perfect example. Outside of guns, there really is no "individual liberty" basis in the Republican Party, which would not be better described as a platform of letting corporations do whatever they want...with some trickledown benefits to ordinary people (until and unless the Oligarchy figures out how to undercut those if it affects their bottom line too much).

On guns, specifically the Parkland incident you mention - what do you believe is wrong with the Republican position as regards school shootings? What should they change? Should they be more open to AW restrictions? There is another thread right now, about a 2018 Noblesville school shooter who is up for release to his parents' supervision, which perfectly summarizes (I think) the differences in the Republican and Democrat positions on school shootings. Here is an individual who is probably going to end up shooting people again, if released. But our compassionate society likes the idea of rehabilitating people. So I'm just wondering about your thoughts on that.

(*Yes, I realize he fired the Air Traffic Controllers early in his presidency, to pay homage to the Milton Friedman wing of his party. I think this is properly viewed as a one-off event designed to shore up his credibility with the Libertarian Economic Wing of the GOP).

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Honestly, I think both are true to varying degrees.

I grew up in the 80s, and I thought Reagen would be president forever, so my view of what it means to be a Republican was forged in that time.

More responsible government, more fiscal transparency, and less legislative bloat…those are the values that attracted me to the Republican Party all those years ago.

Guns didn’t factor into it at all for me until 1994, when Clinton put the Democrats solidly in the anti-gun camp once and for all, in my view.

Before 2004 I would never have considered voting for the Democrats, but the Neocons changed all that.




I agree with you about the Republican position and RvW…that wasn’t a change of ideology, it was a change of landscape.

However, the Republican position on abortion flies in the face of their supposed stance on individual liberty.

The fall of RvW exposes the realities of the Republican position and, while political support for abortion services is strongly one-sided, actual utilization of abortion services does not vary widely across the political divide.

I think the party of individual liberty would be better served by taking an Individual liberty stance on this topic…If a woman wishes to end her pregnancy and a doctor agrees to perform the procedure, I see no reason for the government…especially the federal government…to argue.

As far as going farther right…some of that perception comes from the messaging.

In the 1980’s and 1990’s Republican messaging was that Democrats were wrong. Wrong about governance, wromg about social issues, wrong about financial issues.

By the 2000s and 2010s Republican messaging had changed its focus. Democrats were no longer just wrong, now they were literally evil…you can see reflections of these attitudes here on INGO with certain commenters.



Well, that really brings me to the Republican position on guns...it is my opinion that it has moved to the right…sharply, and within my lifetime.

When I was growing up my grandfather was a founding member of our communities conservation club, and we spent a lot of time there. He was a member of the NRA, and was active in community outreach.

In those days, being a gun enthusiast was about gun safety, hunting, and precision target shooting…not personal defense, and definitely not para-military or militia-oriented in the least…that has all changed dramatically In the current era, from my perspective.

Look…I expect this to go over like a fart in an elevator here, but Republicans need to understand the damage that Parkland did to the public image of “Gun Enthusiasts” in the broader population.

Its legitimate to ask why school shootings happen here so often…we have to have a better answer than “there’s just no way to stop it” when we are the only place on Earth where it routinely happens.

The “groomer” hysteria, coupled with right-wing messsging on LGB issues, amd especially those of Trans identity issues are entirely out of touch with where the younger generations stands, and where the Overton window is actually moving…

…I honestly think we will be lucky in this highly-polarized e vironment if we can limit new infringements to just FFL transfers required on every transfer. I think it’s e possible that magazine-fed semi-auto rifles will end up on the NFA.

Lots of thoughts there; thanks for the insight into you thinking. I'm afraid I don't have time right now to give a good response to everything, but if you don't mind, I do have just a couple more questions.

First, what was/were the main issue/issues that made you decide to vote Democrat in 2004? Reading between the lines, it sounded at first to me like it had to do with the whole war in Iraq, and the trampling on individual rights with things like the patriot act, etc. But that would confuse me a bit, because it seems like you see Republicans as moving further away from your ideals in more recent times, whereas it looks to me like Republicans (or at least the younger ones, or those newer to politics) have, in general, started to move more towards denouncing foreign wars like the Iraq war, etc, and come more towards a support of individual liberty over state security. Does that line up with your perception, or am I off-base here?

Also, I agree that it seems Republicans have, in general, moved to the right on 2A issues over the past couple of decades. I think you're right about their messaging seeing a big shift in that time frame, too. However, while I don't want to sound like a toddler playing the "he started it" game, I seems to me like this shift happened on the left, first, and is now pretty much a hallmark of any political debate, no matter which side you look at.

But laying aside issues of messaging, it seems that we would agree that the issue facing Republicans, and by extension our fight for 2A rights, is not so much that they've moved further to the right on abortion, but that society has moved further left, correct?

Finally, more of a side note, but I guess I just fundamentally don't understand the idea of pro-abortion being an "individual liberty" stance. It seems to me that it comes down to one simple question: do you believe that a child in the womb is a human being with rights, or a blob of tissue with no rights? If you believe the former, well, I don't think anyone believes that killing another human being falls within the purview of "individual liberty." That it is the government's job to stop people from killing other, innocent people, is one thing we can all agree on, I think? But if you believe the latter (that a fetus in the womb has no human right to life) then of course it makes logical sense to say that the government shouldn't interfere.

I don't think I know of anyone who thinks that a an unborn child is a human with a right to life, but still thinks abortion should be up to individual choice. Conversely, I don't know of anyone who thinks a fetus in the womb is just a clump of cells with no right, but still thinks the government should outlaw abortion.

So, to get to my question; if I started from the premise that a fetus in the womb is not a human being in the sense of having human rights, then I would grant as a logical conclusion that abortion should be 100% legal with no government interference. So I'm curious to know: IF you granted the premise of a fetus in the womb having the same right to life as any other human being, would you still believe that the government shouldn't outlaw abortion?

Sorry, that last question may have gotten a little off the rails again for this thread, so feel free to just ignore it if you feel that's better.