On one hand we have a bunch of gun nuts fighting tooth and nail to thwart any simple, common sense laws to provide gun safety. They fight these new regulations shouting that the Second Amendment is the law and we shouldn’t tread on the law.
On the other hand we have a bunch of anti choice nuts fighting tooth and nail to create ridiculous laws and restrictions to make legal abortion impossible. They claim to fight for the life of the unborn. I’ve often wondered how far you can take that. I mean, defending the unborn, are you eventually going to defend sperm and eggs as they all represent an unborn?
But the really odd thing is that on one hand people are using the law to prevent restrictions, and on the other hand people are using restrictions to circumvent the law. A very twisted sort of thing if you ask me.
I wonder how many anti choice folk are also pro-gun folk. They must exist. The person who shot and killed Dr. Tiller must be pro-gun and also anti choice. How does such a person reconcile the duality? Defend this law because it is a law, but sidestepping that law because it is a law. To be defending the flow of killing weapons while fighting to defend the unborn seems unreconcilable to me. To feel that it is okay to shoot a person, but it is not okay to remove a cluster of cells.
Protecting something that may not become a human while protecting devices designed to kill humans, what a mess. Law versus law.