Rep. Steve Stockman, who bills himself as the most conservative congressman in Texas, is promoting a new campaign bumper sticker that suggests fetuses should employ their Second Amendment rights.
The outspoken House Republican has threatened to “blue-slip,” or procedurally kill any gun-control measure that comes over from the Senate. On Friday, he upped the ante by promoting a bumper sticker that reads: “If babies had guns, they wouldn’t be aborted. Vote Pro-Life.”
On Twitter, Mr. Stockman repeatedly promoted the simple blue sticker with white lettering, deeming it “the sticker liberals hate!” His official account says donors can get a sticker for every $10 they dole out at his campaign website.
“Liberals will criticize an abortion bumper sticker, but refuse to criticize an abortionist who killed seven live infants. Exposed hypocrisy,” he tweeted, a reference to the trial of a Philadelphia-area doctor that has become a rallying cry for conservatives because of a perceived lack of coverage in the mainstream media.
Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) posted his new campaign slogan on his Twitter account on Thursday. It read: “Our campaign bumper sticker: If babies had guns, they wouldn’t be aborted.”
An image of a bumper sticker with the same message and the phrase “Vote Pro-Life!” was also included, reports the Dallas Observer.
Rep. Stockman stated on his website that a gun background check is somehow a tax:
“A requirement to make citizens submit to a background check imposes a tax. Such legislation cannot originate in the Senate. The bill is automatically unconstitutional,” said Stockman.
“Constitutional rights don’t require permission slips. If you infringe upon the Second Amendment’s absolute protections, you will be removed from office,” said Stockman. “The language of the Second Amendment is perhaps the starkest and most absolute in the Constitution. ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ That means any obstacle whatsoever is strictly prohibited. The right to keep and bear arms cannot even be approached.”
Rep. Stockman also made false claims about Senators Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey, claiming they "wanted to give the federal government the name and adress of everyone who wants to buy a gun."
The Texas congressman has a reputation for outrageous tweets. Back in March, he tweeted an insult against President Obama: “If Obama gets any more bitter they’ll bottle his sweat as tonic water.”
Rep. Stockman also once shared his unique view of science on Twitter: “The best thing about the Earth is if you poke holes in it oil and gas come out."
Off-Topic:
"Mother of God, you've doomed us all! This thread has the ingredients required to create the Internet-rage singularity!!"
On-Topic:
Fine.
He can do that if he wants.
Hopefully people will see quite how stupid and ridiculous a message it is, but he can still say it if he wants to.
azazel the cat wrote: Statistically speaking, if fetuses had guns they'd be twice as likely to abort themselves.
Maybe we could improve that if we instituted mandatory fetal gun licensing programs, and required all fetuses to have a gun safe or trigger lock while in the womb. It wouldn't have any effect on criminal fetuses, of course.
What we need is a way to track the illegal sale of gun to fetuses. I suggest that the ATF get involved and allow the sale of firearms to illegal straw buyers in Arizona who would then put the guns in the hands of fetuses. We could code name it… The Fast and the Fetuses.
azazel the cat wrote: Statistically speaking, if fetuses had guns they'd be twice as likely to abort themselves.
Maybe we could improve that if we instituted mandatory fetal gun licensing programs, and required all fetuses to have a gun safe or trigger lock while in the womb. It wouldn't have any effect on criminal fetuses, of course.
If one of these criminal fetuses was convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to death, would that be an abortion or an execution?
Laugh all you want, but I see a business opportunity! Once we successfully reduce the minimum age to own a gun to -9 months I'll make a fortune selling fetus-sized guns!
RatBot wrote:If one of these criminal fetuses was convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to death, would that be an abortion or an execution?
I believe the State of Texas would then carry out the sentence of abortion on the fetus. The fetus obviously doesn't have the mental competencies to understand it all, but that's never stopped a Texas execution before.
EDIT: have we completely ruined this thread, or saved it?
Lordhat wrote: I'm Pro Choice, and pro 2nd amendment. I fething hate the two party system; we need more middle ground candidates.
This is why I'm kind-of in favor of the parliamentary system. I don't know enough of the details to say that I'm behind it 100%, but the idea of representation being based on percentage of vote instead of "Vote Democrat or Republican, otherwise you might as well not vote" is appealing to me.
Lordhat wrote: I'm Pro Choice, and pro 2nd amendment. I fething hate the two party system; we need more middle ground candidates.
Sorry dude, that's not allowed. You have to pick one or the other, you can't have both. I mean who ever heard of a Demopublican? Or a Republicrat for that matter! If you don't fit neatly into one of the two categories how are others going to be able to decide how they feel about you?
Hordini wrote: Maybe we could improve that if we instituted mandatory fetal gun licensing programs, and required all fetuses to have a gun safe or trigger lock while in the womb. It wouldn't have any effect on criminal fetuses, of course.
Institute a 9 month waiting period for all infant gun ownership?
azazel the cat wrote: Statistically speaking, if fetuses had guns they'd be twice as likely to abort themselves.
Maybe we could improve that if we instituted mandatory fetal gun licensing programs, and required all fetuses to have a gun safe or trigger lock while in the womb. It wouldn't have any effect on criminal fetuses, of course.
This thread is everything I thought it wasn't going to be.
I love this.
EDIT FOR RELEVANCE: I mean the guy's obviously just trying to appeal for votes. It's pretty transparently a case of "Hey, I'm a politician and I support the things you support!"
H.B.M.C. wrote: Now all we need to do is bring religion into this some how. Hmm... ah-hah!
"If baby Jesus had a gun, you wouldn't abort him!"
There.
Relgion? Check.
Abortion? Check.
Gun Control? Check.
Boom! Trifecta Bumper Sticker.
Shall we go for Superfecta and add Godwin's Law?
"If Baby Jesus had been born around 1920 with a gun, he would not have been aborted and would have been old enough to assassinate Hitler with it before his invasion of France!"
RatBot wrote:If one of these criminal fetuses was convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to death, would that be an abortion or an execution?
I believe the State of Texas would then carry out the sentence of abortion on the fetus. The fetus obviously doesn't have the mental competencies to understand it all, but that's never stopped a Texas execution before.
I'm a Republican that grew up in Louisiana and lived in Texas for the last 15 years, so let me chime in.
My Pro-Gun sides says that all fetuses should be allowed the right to a gun.
My Anti-Crime side says that all criminal fetuses convicted of murder should be killed.
My Fiscal Conservatism tells me that profiling fetuses that have convicted crimes is a waste of tax payer money.
My religious upbringing tells me that this is what happens when you have out of wedlock pregnancies. No couple should be allowed to couple before wedlock.
My small government side says that welfare has led to the entitlement of babies, making them more prone to rash actions before birth, like murder.
My Louisiana education tells me that you can become pregnant from kissing, so if kissing abstinence was taught in schools, we would have fewer babies that would become criminals.
Finally, my adopted Texan side says that our recently repealed "needed killing" laws were adequate. Perhaps some of these fetuses went after people that "needed killing".
I'm going to take a nap now. Too much conflict for one day!
The defendant need not be aware of the deceased's violent character if the evidence is offered to prove that the deceased was, in fact, the aggressor
So the victim of homicide/manslaughter is a bad, violent person. But the killer is unaware of this fact. But the information can be used after the fact as part of a justifiable homicide defense?
I'm pretty sure that's literally the definition of "shoot first and ask questions later".
Albatross wrote:Wait, this guy's been elected to public office?! Holy sh...
What is going ON over there?
Honestly? This doesn't even seem all that outlandish for some states.
I know, but even so...
I'm...
Seriously. Let's just stop for a second. That's fething crazy.
No. The American political landscape isn't about stopping for a second. It's about immediate, knee-jerk polarized responses. The appropriate response would be to outlaw babies.
The trouble with that, is then only criminals will have babies.
Albatross wrote: Wait, this guy's been elected to public office?! Holy sh...
What is going ON over there?
State politics.
If you have a spectrum with Presidential politics at one end and local elections at another, what you find is that responsiveness to popular desire increases as you move towards local elections because, ultimately, you only need to appeal to the people who have the power to elect you. When that group is relatively small you gain the ability to annoy the national electorate by doing things that are deliberately outlandish (trolling), and you will bolster your own electoral bid as a result.
azazel the cat wrote: No. The American political landscape isn't about stopping for a second. It's about immediate, knee-jerk polarized responses. The appropriate response would be to outlaw babies.
The trouble with that, is then only criminals will have babies.
The American political landscape isn't about stopping for a second. It's about immediate, knee-jerk polarized responses. The appropriate response would be to outlaw babies.
The trouble with that, is then only criminals will have babies.
D'you know what? I was reading a book last night in which it was demonstrated that abortion was good for the US crime rate. Seriously. Think about it - children born into poor and unstable families are massively more likely to eventually become criminals, therefore if you make abortion legal, safe and widely available at a relatively low cost (or free) the number of abortions go up, and as abortions are disproportionately obtained by the young and poor, less potential criminals are born, which means that the crime rate eventually begins to decline. Since Roe vs. Wade, that's what's happened in the US.
Interesting, and a bit of a mind-bender for Republicans. Wanna be really tough on crime? Be soft on abortion.
I'd just like to ask , how does a baby aim from inside a womb ? Do we have to limit babies to smaller magazine sizes so they can fit them in? "Oh is that your baby kicking? No he's just reloading his 30 round clip"
Bullockist wrote: I'd just like to ask , how does a baby aim from inside a womb ? Do we have to limit babies to smaller magazine sizes so they can fit them in? "Oh is that your baby kicking? No he's just reloading his 30 round clip"
Limiting the magazine size accessible to fetuses is clearly an infringement on their constitutional rights; otherwise, how will they fight the agents of Satan when the Antichrist ushers in Armageddon and/or the guvmint when (insert president here) sends the ATF to take their guns away?
If a baby tries to shoot an abortion doctor chances are they will kill their mother committing murder as well as suicide, I'm so confused by the whole idea, but i'm sure jesus supports it.
Is they guy that made the initial statement a member of greensboro church?
Apparently I have the recall ability of a alcohol syndrome goldfish.
hahaha no.
The First Church of Attention Whores is almost exclusively comprised of a single -though quite large- family. One of them being elected to any level of government would honestly be a stretch, even in places like Florida or Alabama, who have knowingly elected the dead in the past.
Apparently I have the recall ability of a alcohol syndrome goldfish.
hahaha no.
The First Church of Attention Whores is almost exclusively comprised of a single -though quite large- family. One of them being elected to any level of government would honestly be a stretch, even in places like Florida or Alabama, who have knowingly elected the dead in the past.
Electing the dead is a great idea IMHO, not like the dead guy or gal is gonna feth things up any more then they are already... though investing in some airfreshner for their office might be a good idea.
kronk wrote: I believe that he was born in the US, but what would happen if it was proved that he wasn't?
UN invasion
If was the US military, I would seriously consider sending an armed foetus in the womb into battle, because depending on how developed they were, there is every chance they could grow back lost body parts
Get back to your tea. It works fine. We just gotta fix the people who keep trying to abuse it.
Word.
You've got your own problems... try not to throw that brick in your glass house bucko.
Not really.
We have far less gun murders over here, abd we also have much tighter gun control laws. Maybe if you banned easily concealable handguns you might have less repeats of such tragedies as the Columbine High School shooting.
Get back to your tea. It works fine. We just gotta fix the people who keep trying to abuse it.
Word.
You've got your own problems... try not to throw that brick in your glass house bucko.
Not really.
We have far less gun murders over here, abd we also have much tighter gun control laws. Maybe if you banned easily concealable handguns you might have less repeats of such tragedies as the Columbine High School shooting.
In the words of the immortal bard: Get behind me Satan!
Get back to your tea. It works fine. We just gotta fix the people who keep trying to abuse it.
Word.
You've got your own problems... try not to throw that brick in your glass house bucko.
Not really.
We have far less gun murders over here, abd we also have much tighter gun control laws. Maybe if you banned easily concealable handguns you might have less repeats of such tragedies as the Columbine High School shooting.
There's about 500 threads in the last 50 pages arguing this already. I for one am getting a little bored with this two-step.
Get back to your tea. It works fine. We just gotta fix the people who keep trying to abuse it.
Word.
You've got your own problems... try not to throw that brick in your glass house bucko.
Not really.
We have far less gun murders over here, abd we also have much tighter gun control laws. Maybe if you banned easily concealable handguns you might have less repeats of such tragedies as the Columbine High School shooting.
Don't be a dick, mate. They don't want to hear it.
Oh, and America, fix your constitution! It's broken!
At least America actually has a codified constitution...
We do have one, it's comprised of more than one document. Like the USAs.
More than one is a bit of an understatement, when you factor in common law and stare decisis there is so much to the constitution that its pretty damn difficult to actually know. There is something to be said for the US Constitution in the way it provides a set of inalienable rights, we have something similar in the European Convention on Human Rights, but that could be taken away from us.
d-usa wrote: You guys hate Europe, you can't have their rights!
I like Europe, they have good rights, and food, and women.
Europe is a really great place to visit... but, I have no desire to live there.
'Murrica is fething awesome!
Plus... we're next door to Canada... they're cool and haz Maple Syrup!
No offense, but out of all the developed nations the US would probably be the one I would least want to live once you universal healthcare there's no going back that gak's thoroughly good, but it does seem like a wonderful place to live though.
d-usa wrote: You guys hate Europe, you can't have their rights!
I like Europe, they have good rights, and food, and women.
Europe is a really great place to visit... but, I have no desire to live there.
'Murrica is fething awesome!
Plus... we're next door to Canada... they're cool and haz Maple Syrup!
No offense, but out of all the developed nations the US would probably be the one I would least want to live once you universal healthcare there's no going back that gak's thoroughly good, but it does seem like a wonderful place to live though.
Once we have Universal Healthcare? That remains to be seen...
Actually, I've been on record to go ahead to do it... but, alas, it may take years to get there.
d-usa wrote: You guys hate Europe, you can't have their rights!
I like Europe, they have good rights, and food, and women.
Europe is a really great place to visit... but, I have no desire to live there.
'Murrica is fething awesome!
Plus... we're next door to Canada... they're cool and haz Maple Syrup!
No offense, but out of all the developed nations the US would probably be the one I would least want to live once you universal healthcare there's no going back that gak's thoroughly good, but it does seem like a wonderful place to live though.
Thats ok. Once Texas gets bored enough, we'll just take over your country. Now I know there is a large French portion and you'll have the urge to surrender by 8.30AM, but could you make a go of it to at least the afternoon?
kronk wrote: Why Canada, Frazz? Australia has miles of topless beaches. Canada has cold, ice, and hockey. feth that!
1. Texas is hot. Canada is cold. Australia is also hot. Who wants more hot? 2. Canada is in driving distance. Its way farther to drive your pickup to Australia.
Otherwise, yea, Aussie town would be cool, but they have unstoppable killing beasts in Australia, creatures that are the stuff of nightmares. And thats just their kids. Texans aren't idiots (yea I don't believe that either). We know how to schedule our away games appropriately though and not take on too many top ten teams in the schedule.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I'd settle for one or both hands on a national level. The ignorant feth heads we have now couldn't do the job with a plasma cutter and a map.
We should give them Plasma Cutters and a map! That would clear up some seats...
abbicory wrote: If babies had guns they wouldn’t be aborted. Stockman tweeted the sticker gun safety proposals are an existential threat to this nation.” Stockman also previously claimed that Obama’s support for gun safety demonstrates the least of which shooting people with guns doesn’t sound very “pro-life” to me. Perhaps in his own well-documented twisted mind Stockman thinks that owning guns means you’re just protecting yourself.
Wow, Dakka is so obsessed with guns that even the spam bots are marketing firearms here.
