Nobody cares about murder, really. Nobody. Cares

That is very true, in general. They only care about statistics.

The idea of reducing the number of ROUNDS FIRED is the idea of reducing the nmumber of victims killed at one time.

The problem is that you can’t create a logical, authoritative, historical, or accurate argument for the right to keep arms being a collective right instead of an individual right no matter how many times you keep claiming it as unsupported fact.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/04/how_to_build_an_army_in_your_basement?page=full

Th could be used to argue:

1) Something like a right to have arms is unnecessary, since weapons can be built anyway.

2) Something like a right to have arms is useless, as rebels can only hope to challenge a government through outside help or defections, combined with maybe a threat of outside intervention by a superior military power if the government goes too far, since the arms (and air force!) a government can have is so much beyond superior to what ordinary people can hope to possess.

If Mz Fluke hadn’t pushed herself onto the public stage, and made herself subject to Sullivan, she would have legal recourse.
Now, people are just making reasonable, logical, interpretations of the words that came our of her own mouth.
Absent Malice, she has no case; therefore (as we have seen) no case has been filed, nor will it.
I imagine the last thing she, and her fiance, wish to undergo, would be an extensive discovery process.

Steve57 – You are indeed correct. I was more focused the honesty of the debate.

The NRA has bracketed its target, and is beginning to Fire-for-Effect, or we would not be seeing such scurrilousness.

Michael – You would be right if that is what Rev. Morlino asserted, but as you know, he only asserted that abortion is always wrong. If you stick to the quotes and facts instead of fabricating things you want to hear, you will make better arguments.

The argument that abortion is wrong wholly springs from the fact that a baby is dead as a result.

Completely wrong. You have no idea what the catechism of the RCC consists of. Relevant is the principle of double effect. An act can have more than one effect. What matters is the intended effect.

You can not, for instance, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy surgically remove the implanted pre-born child from the fallopian tube. That is a direct abortion and always wrong. A Catholic doctor can treat the emergency by removing a portion of the fallopian tube at the site of implantation. Or the entire tube.

In both cases the pre-born child is killed. But if the intended effect is to treat the mothers condition, and the death of the child is the unintended but foreseeable result, it’s permitted. But abortion, the direct assault on the pre-born child’s life, can not be the treatment. Because abortion is an intrinsic evil. Treating the mother’s condition that would result in both the mother and child dying is not.

Just war doctrine relies on the same principle. What matters is the intent. A war of aggression is an intrinsic evil as that is a direct assault on innocent life.

A war against an aggressor intended to a stop to an intrinsic evil is permitted, as long as it meets the conditions for the use of force (i.e. it can’t result in an evil greater than the evil to be opposed). That’s true even though it will result in dead babies. That’s just a fact of life; it is a predictable, foreseeable, but unintended secondary effect of the decision to go to war.