Quote of the Day: Is That A Trick Question Edition


“I’m not advocating for no guns. I like mine and am not about to give them up. But in this country, my uterus is more regulated than my guns. Birth control and reproductive health services are harder to get than bullets. What is that about? Guns don’t kill people — vaginas do?” Shannyn Moore, My Guns Are Less Regulated Than My Uterus [via huffingtonpost.com]


  1. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    Clearly, this woman is from some alternate universe.

    1. avatar SD3 says:

      ZOMG!11!! Stop talking about her vagina! You gun nutz are soooo sexist!

      What is wrong with you?!? You’re thinking about her vagina again, aren’t you?


  2. avatar CA says:

    Guns are LESS regulated? You mean your uterus has a serial number? You can’t get a new uterus without a background check? Legislators argue over whether you can keep your uterus? A “high capcity” uterus is regulated in some states?

    1. avatar Culpeper Kid says:

      Her face regulates her whole body, it says Do Not Touch.

      1. avatar William says:

        YAY! C’peper born and rizzed!

      2. avatar William says:

        She’s ready and willing to give BOTH up, no questions asked!

        1. avatar Larry says:

          Mint. +1000

    2. avatar In Memphis says:

      Id say what I can do with a uterus without a background chek but Id probably be banned from here

    3. avatar Brother Bear says:

      And you there’s a waiting period before you can get access to said uterus… and it’s way longer than three days.

      1. avatar Larry says:

        Both require some lubrication to work well. Sorry, that’s as creative as I get.

    4. avatar Aharon says:

      Great comment!

    5. avatar Sanchanim says:

      According to octimom high capacity uterus’s are not regulated!

  3. avatar Tim McNabb says:

    Now that is really stupid.

  4. avatar SCS says:

    I am an OB/GYN and hear it all. I don’t have a response for that statement, and I am RARELY caught without a response.

  5. avatar blinkypete says:

    That’s a popular logical fallacy. “Guns are easier to get than xyz” or “guns are less regulated than abc”. Deregulate whatever it is you’re complaining about, don’t duplicate needless and unsuccessful regulation with something else.

  6. avatar DHSGuy says:

    Well, let’s see. One child per lifetime limit and a 10 day waiting period before you can take possession of the baby. Must answer all the questions on the ATB form and pass NIBS check. No baby under 16″ allowed, unless you go through the NBA process. Baby must be registered and comply with local and state laws where applicable. Pacifier/Suppressor must also be in compliance with NBA and legal to possess in state of residence. Baby may not leave location of residence without prior ATB notification per NBA.

    1. avatar joe says:

      and should said baby grow up and commit a crime you are responsible

    2. avatar Low Budget Dave says:

      Next time you go to get rid of a gun, ask the guy behind the counter if he is required by law to show you a video, or stick anything inside your body.

      1. avatar Thomas Paine says:

        so we agree that regulations are net-negative? Correct?

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        Dave: You don’t have to agree with every stupid statement your side puts out.

        1. avatar John says:

          Apparently, yes, he does.

      3. avatar SCS says:

        Dave, what the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING? Please, remove your head from your rectum prior to posting.

  7. avatar Keith says:

    It does make one wonder about the interwebz supplanting the traditional news and editorial media. The troubling issue is that huffpo has run the numbers and found this poison appeals to a significant portion of its readership.

    Many Americans have taken to bitter complaining about fairness. I have an idea, try to be DESERVING first. Many among us are lucky beyond measure that we are not turned to smoldering ashes right where we stand. Sheesh!

    1. avatar Larry says:

      The problem with the internet is confirmation bias. We aren’t going to change any minds over on their website. Fortunately for us, they believe the rest of the world agrees with them.

      Just let them spout their ideas to their already confused readership. These are the same folks that think they are the smartest people at the party. Meanwhile everyone is just laughing at them.

  8. avatar JPD says:

    In all fairness, some of her comments were dead on. This one is hilarious and mostly accurate:

    “Oh, that’s right, it’s about the “well-regulated militia.” The Second Amendment was written by men who had fought alongside men who didn’t survive their revolt against tyranny. They had the assistance of the French government. They used muskets. If you think it is your right or duty to overthrow the government at this point in time, you’re going to need more than a few guns and monster clips. You’ll need weapons-grade uranium, a few tanks, a submarine and an army of your own to go up against our 3 million strong military. You very well may need the aid of another country. Good luck with that, and I think your three-cornered hat may be on a little too tight. The same founders who thought a militia was a good idea would never have expanded gun ownership to blacks. The whole slavery situation could have gotten awkward quickly.”

    Then this also shows how over-regulated we already are:

    “When the cottonwood is flying and Alaskans are all lined up for Sudafed, we have to get it from a pharmacist, give them our identification, and the state keeps track of how much we’re consuming just so they’re sure we’re not running a meth lab. I get it, meth is bad, but I can buy bullets right off the shelf.”

    Lastly, I think many of us are missing the point she is making. The emotions on all sides, the over reaction, again on all sides, is not helping.

    We all agree that more regulations will not help. Enforcement of the rules on the books, effective mental health services, plus active participation by the gun ownership group in supporting responsible gun ownership will further our cause.

    One more comment. If we TRULY want to guard our rights, we, as a group had better be active in helping to find ways to keep guns OUT OF THE HANDS of criminals and nutcases.

    If we do not, and keep screaming about our RIGHTS. We will look like the red neck nutcases the gun grabbers call us. Half the comments I have read over the last 10 days are giving them ammunition to use against us.

    If more regulations are passed, by our own actions and words, we will be partly to blame.

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      Compromise is when two groups fighting walk in and both walk out a little unhappy with the result but the fight stop there. The issue with the anti-gun crowd which then excites the pro-gun crowd is that the anti-gun crowd once finished with taking one thing away regroups and asks “what can we take away next” There agenda is less about public safety or the right of self defense but how to get a complete ban enacted.

      So, one side pushes and the other side pushes harder and since no compromise is possible, the dance goes on. Since one group cannot win, it uses govt to fight what it does not like — and the fight goes on.

      it does not stop with the anti-gun crowd so the pro-gun crowd cannot stop either so it becomes a competition of will and who has the political wind.

      Case in point:

      An anti-gun paper hell bent on making public policy used the FOIA in NY to publish the names and addresses of all legal gun owners in their county.

      How does one respond to this? Simple, you do not compromise because the otherside will not either. The govt of NY cannot even be expected to keep the privacy of the rights of its residents and has kept is mouth shut. The paper in turn has given criminals a map on where to find guns.

      This is why pro-gun groups cannot back down and it is crap like this that the other side does not understand stand is in the way of something that maybe could be agreed to.

    2. avatar Patrick says:

      One needs nukes to fight the state? At what point will the state start nuking cities or rural areas? That sounds like bad PR. Warfare is a tricky thing.

      1. avatar WhilemyTZgentlyweeps says:

        Was the Taliban using high yield 10 megaton nukes or Mosin Nagants in Afghanistan? And the myriad of resistance groups that bogged us down in Iraq?

        The book to read is Col. Hammes’ the “Sling and The Stone.”

        All revolutions are not the same. The assertion that resistance to a tyrannical government in the U.S. would manifest as First Generation Warfare (1GW), fails to grasp how an armed conflict would work. It wouldn’t be guys with “super high capacity ammunition magazine clips” marching in formation. It would be Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW).

        Then, you need to take in to account there are what? 26 or 30 petitions for succession with various levels of support at the our state government level? Some of those states do possess tanks, nuclear missile silos, and various other accoutrements of modern warfare.

        How would it play out? The bigger red states secede, e.g., Texas or Arizona, bolstered by extensive and bloody 4GW in the occupied states. The red states could hold and provide support in terms of more advanced armament, playing out the role of, heh, France.

        Moreover, we have an all volunteer military of LESS that 1 million. How many of those volunteers would actively participate in war against their fellow citizens, many of whom would be civillians? Some maybe, but not all. In addition, a large percentage of the US military would be from the areas in active resistance.

        Really, I don’t like thinking about this crap. I like my quiet little life, but the assertion that the development of modern armaments negate the effectiveness of the 2A is false.

        1. avatar Patrick says:

          Wow! Nice writeup. It’s like you did the work for me. I was lazy, just trying to ask a question, provoke thought, etc., but you put it all out there, and actually included facts. lol You did see the “?” at the end of my first sentence, right? I hope I wasn’t too unclear. Well anyway, thanks again.

    3. avatar John says:

      I’m sorry, but I doubt the firearms knowledge and expertise of anyone who says ‘monster clips’ and says ‘bullets’ when she means ‘ammunition.’ Clearly, this person has no real standing in the field on which she pontificates, and her sarcastic hyperbole (weapons-grade uranium, a submarine, three-cornered hats) betrays her bias. For these reasons, I can dismiss her out of hand, as she is a mere poseur who ‘supports the 2nd amendment BUT. . .’

    4. avatar William says:

      Thank you SO MUCH for volunteering your expertise as the Arbiter of Fairness.

      1. avatar John says:

        And your point? If one reveals ignorance of a subject in print, one’s opinion on that subject is automatically suspect. It has nothing to do with ‘fairness,’ whatever THAT is, and everything to do with competence.

  9. avatar Mark says:

    Yes Shannyn, vaginas kill people because their owners outlaw the means for the victims to defend themselves against violent criminals. How’s that working out for you these days?

  10. avatar Accur81 says:

    I get the impression that the vagina in question has very little regulation.

  11. avatar jkp says:

    “OB/GYN services are over-regulated” is an argument to de-regulate those services, not to regulate some other sector of the economy.

  12. avatar TDavis1338 says:

    “Vaginas don’t kill people, people with vaginas kill people.”/s

    1. avatar JPD says:

      Sadly, that is too true……..How about an “AVWB”. A new movement is under way to call for a “Assault Vagina Weapon Ban”.

  13. avatar GaryinVT says:

    I wonder if she is a proponent of open carry.

  14. avatar Rambeast says:

    I don’t even want to think of what kind of damage those “assault uterus'” are capable of.

  15. avatar O.E says:

    Oh look, a women from Alaska, that features with (as standard) a vagina.

    The talk about costs associated with securing school facilities made an eyebrow creep upwards but then she began to talk about the underlying threat to world peace, those armed resistance groups that have featured in news media for over two years (ex. Free Syrian Army). And what badly behaved boys and girls they have been!

    You see when these people try to firmly place 2nd amendment exercisers into that already closely watched pigeon hole the fun and games starts because they are fully aware of the collectivization that has been going on for the last few decades within law enforcement and by the designs of homeland security risk assessors. Having now refused independence by a default self determination in order to preach to the heathens (that is you and me) they (she) have played a role in the campaign to see property ownership rites reversed and finally vetted by the already exceedingly incompetent alphabet societies & spac-ops MacGyver types.

    And then I am left with this bitter taste, on the one side of the plate there’s the wannabe revolutionaries salty and full of piss and vinegar, then on the other side there are the Fort Hood shooters like Agent Nidal Hasan, so sickly sweet and arranged with a liberal precision all to induce apatite despite the diners dietary needs….

    I will defer to placing blame upon feminism and affirmative action instigated by workshy liberal academics as reason for so much heart ache these days, I know this is not in vogue but blue jeans (despite the crap they make nowadays called jeans) have remained a firm favorite amongst my peers and they should still work as they did years ago.

    1. avatar John says:

      I need to explain a little about Homer, Alaska. Long, long ago, when the World was young, Homer was largely a fishing community populated with rugged individualists, with a healthy homesteading ethic in the outlying areas. It was a close-knit, small town community with small-town values. Of late, however, it’s been overrun with transplants from various artsy-fartsy areas of the country, and every other building in town is a hummus shop, a crafts outfit, a pyramid-power/crystal-energy/pixie-dust emporium with dream catchers, and maybe a gluten-free croissant bakery. There is a hardware store for the normal people.
      It also has tourists. Hordes of them. Some of them never leave, and end up writing sarcastic articles on gun control for the Huffington Post.

      1. avatar William says:

        Hey, it happens. Everyone wants to think they are the last real (insert town name here)-er to move into town.

      2. avatar O.E says:

        Yurp, the Muffington Boast is a repulsive hive of activity. I had been warned once before. Thankyou for the protips and short history walkthough, John.

      3. avatar Aharon says:

        That was a really funny comment.

  16. avatar Doug says:

    Hmmm… About 1.2 million (1,200,000) abortions in the US every year. About 10,000 gun homicides every year. Tell me which one is responsible for more deaths and should be regulated more. BTW, one of them is an explicit constitutional right and one is not.

    For the record, I’m slightly pro-life, and I think there is a legit need for some abortions. But 1.2 million per year? Why do people have no problem killing 1.2 million unborn babies annually (who have never wronged anyone) but freak out about 10,000 firearms related deaths (which arguably include a lot of scumbags who HAVE harmed others)?

    1. avatar Casey T says:

      I believe in pro life but I believe the women must make the choice. If that 1.2 million is really accurate, I think we need to harp on that argument because it’s so much higher than gun deaths.

    2. avatar Patrick says:

      Ah, you beat me to it. You would probably think I’m TOO against abortion, but I guess your giving the middle of the road the benefit of the doubt is useful; half of 1.2 million still drowns gun deaths. My comment was that it is not her body that is regulated as much as the baby living in her (or someone else’s) body. If I’m carrying a weapon in public, I expect that there would be great regulation on what I do with my hand grip and my trigger finger, even though they are a part of my own body.

  17. avatar Doug says:

    Hmmm… About 1.2 million (1,200,000) abortions in the US every year. About 10,000 gun homicides every year. Tell me which one is responsible for more deaths and should be regulated more. BTW, one of them is an explicit constitutional right and one is not.

    For the record, I’m slightly pro-life, and I think there is a legit need for some abortions. But 1.2 million per year? Why do people have no problem killing 1.2 million unborn babies annually (who have never wronged anyone) but freak out about 10,000 firearms related deaths (which arguably include a lot of scumbags who HAVE harmed others)?

  18. avatar NWGlocker says:

    I was wondering when this subject was going to come up.

  19. avatar In Memphis says:

    Does the uterus have an entire federal agency of presidential storm troopers, dedicated to erradicating it?

  20. avatar MikeP says:

    “hard[er] to get” – adjective phrase, meaning “nobody is forced to pay for them on my behalf, so I’m forced to shell out the scratch from my own funds”.

    By that rationing, birth control and reproductive services are just as “hard to get” as ammunition.

  21. avatar Aharon says:

    False and misleading attempt to create a metaphor or analogy between two unrelated subjects while trying to push her political agendas. Only a female political opinion-head would discuss her sexual issues and guns in the same breath. The amount of available money in my wallet is regulated through taxation more than her sexual power of choice to give birth or have an abortion. Gun owners have to spend money to buy guns and ammo while there are many regs and services providing free health care especially for women only. What is that about?

    1. avatar Bruce says:

      Don’t forget upkeep. Compare the cost of keeping a gun for 20 years verses a kid for 20 years.

  22. avatar Aharon says:

    Where is my comment?

    1. avatar Aharon says:

      It was a good comment.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        What did your comment say?

        1. avatar Aharon says:

          It finally posted above this set of comments.

        2. avatar CarlosT says:

          Whatever it was, I’m sure it was epic.

  23. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Yet another example of why the 19th Amendment was a mistake.

    1. avatar Aharon says:

      My thoughts too. I’m glad that I’m not the only one at this blog who recognizes the impact the nineteenth amendment has had on America.

  24. avatar Sammy says:

    I think we should regulate this chick’s guns. Sounds unstable and irrational to me. But on a side note, this type of woman criticize men for thinking with their “guns” (think “Full Metal Jacket”) while they do considerable thinking with their targets. Just sayin’.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Well-played, Sammy.

  25. avatar Ralph says:

    “Guns don’t kill people — vaginas do?”

    Actually, that’s probably true. There are three main reasons for murder: sex, money and revenge. I’m betting that sex is number one on the hit parade, and revenge about sex is number two. And most of that sex involves, yes, vaginas. So maybe what this country needs is a good five cent vagina vagina control.

    1. avatar Sammy says:

      I”ll bet the holy-est of holy-ies has caused more deaths either directly or indirectly than cars, gun free zones, or communists. Abortion could probably be more fatal than anything, oh yea I forgot, it’s a choice not a child. Anyone find irony in the fact that pro-choice types are soooo concerned about the welfare of children when it comes to guns?

  26. avatar Aharon says:

    from her blog site:

    Painting a Red State BLUE, one stroke at a time… ”

    Shannyn Moore. Born Alaskan. Patriot. Constitutionalist. Lover of Freedom. Giving hell to the establishment. Standing up to fascists and tyranny…both foreign and domestic. Radio. Active. Truth.”

    — Shannyn appears to be a legend in her own mind.

    1. avatar Sammy says:

      She’s a stoker? HOT!

  27. avatar Leo338 says:

    Vaginas can legally murder (abort) as many fetus’s as it wants without having to go to court and prove its innocence. I don’t think the same can be said for any gun or its owner.

  28. avatar Ensitu says:

    I’d like to discuss my ureatha now

  29. avatar David-p says:

    Is this woman advocating for her uterus to be listed as a NFA item? I would have to say I could support that just for the simple fact I would love to see the face of my chief law enforcement officer when women are lined up to get his signature so they could register. Luckily for women that should fall under an “any other weapon” and only be a $5 tax stamp. The 6 plus month waiting period could be a bear though.

  30. avatar Cyrano says:

    There has been a few uteruses I have run into that should have had a background check. It would have been good to know who had been their previous owners.

    Side comment: Guns are just as happy to see you after you put them in a safe and retrieve them a week later.

  31. avatar Wacky Hermit says:

    I am an owner of both a uterus and a firearm. I have walked into Wal-Mart and there on the shelf for anyone to buy are contraceptive devices, but the ammo is behind the counter and you have to show proof of age. Except for a self-imposed waiting period before my marriage, I have never had to wait to use my uterus. I don’t even have to take it in for a pap smear if I don’t want to. And unlike my gun, it pretty much cleans itself.

  32. avatar pat says:

    She does not know what the 2nd amendment is for.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email