Those who argue otherwise grossly misrepresent the viewpoint to which they are pretending to respond.
NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE
‘Y
ou cannot be pro-life and pro-AR15 at the same time.” So says Stanford professor Michael McFaul, echoing a line that is thrown around the political arena each and every time Americans debate gun control. Like those whom he is channeling, McFaul is wrong. Worse still, he is repeating a cheap slogan that is designed to appeal to people who are neither pro-life nor pro-AR-15, and, in turn, to short-circuit the debate with half-witted question-begging. The sole effect of McFaul’s contribution will be to have made us all dumber and less precise in our thinking.
McFaul’s claim rests upon a comparison of …
Of course. In some circumstances, an AR is the best choice for saving lives. Besides, there’s a huge difference in killing for self-defense and murdering infants.
You can be pro gun and pro life. You can be pro death penalty and pro life. Comparing self defense and punishing people who have gone through a lengthy court process and found guilty to killing an innocent with no trial because their existence is inconvenient to someone else is one of the biggest fallacies of the pro abortion movement.
When someone kills in self-defense the “victim” had a choice. When a baby is killed by abortion the baby is innocent and had no choice.
Given the two, pro-life and pro-AR15, are mutually independent, one can be both, neither, or either. The first is regarding human fetuses and the latter is regarding guns. Now that wasn’t too difficult, was it?
Tell them they can’t be pro black lives matter and pro abortion (yes, that is what they really are when they claim pro choice) at the same time. According to their standards pro choice is racist since is disproportionately kills more black babies than white babies.