Gun control vs abortion

[Anonymous]

I'm pro choice and a gun owner. Had know idea these two were intertwined!

[Anonymous]

A fetus is a not a person. It's a bunch of cells. When you find a way to grow it without using a human being as the incubator, you'll have an argument. Until then, it's life is the mother's to continue or to end until the point of viability.

Guns kill real, actual, living people, almost always without due process. Which means a civilized society puts guns only in the hands of law enforcement.

The odds that you will shoot a criminal in your lifetime are far lower than the odds that you'll shoot yourself, a family member or some other innocent bystander.

[Anonymous]

Seriously, you can have my mifepristone when you pry it from my cold dead fingers. And my SIG Sauer...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A fetus is a not a person. It's a bunch of cells. When you find a way to grow it without using a human being as the incubator, you'll have an argument. Until then, it's life is the mother's to continue or to end until the point of viability.

Guns kill real, actual, living people, almost always without due process. Which means a civilized society puts guns only in the hands of law enforcement.

The odds that you will shoot a criminal in your lifetime are far lower than the odds that you'll shoot yourself, a family member or some other innocent bystander.

All true. All true. And yet...unfortunately we've got the Second Amendment, which while a case could be made does not apply to private handgun ownership, if you care about protecting constitutional rights, you've got to err on the side of freedom. Hey, look at it this way: at least those who *do* decide to buy and keep handguns are largely shooting themselves and their family members.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Please explain to me how someone can be so pro choice and believe that adults have the right to terminate a "life" yet so anti gun to protect your home and family. Please explain the logic to me. I'll just read responses on RSS. Thanks.

You know the answer in your heart, OP. This hypothetical person - let's call him/her "every single stinking heathen commie liberal" - hates both freedom and Jesus. It's not that there's a contradiction between these policies; it's that the depth of the evil is hard to contemplate.

Be brave enough to keep looking for the truth, and speaking it!

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please explain to me how someone can be so pro choice and believe that adults have the right to terminate a "life" yet so anti gun to protect your home and family. Please explain the logic to me. I'll just read responses on RSS. Thanks.

You know the answer in your heart, OP. This hypothetical person - let's call him/her "every single stinking heathen commie liberal" - hates both freedom and Jesus. It's not that there's a contradiction between these policies; it's that the depth of the evil is hard to contemplate.

Be brave enough to keep looking for the truth, and speaking it!

Best answer ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please explain to me how someone can be so pro choice and believe that adults have the right to terminate a "life" yet so anti gun to protect your home and family. Please explain the logic to me. I'll just read responses on RSS. Thanks.

If you're talking about home protection, buy yourself a shotgun, they're far more effective (and safer) than a handgun for defending your castle. I'm not aware of anyone who wants to ban shotguns, or all guns, and I imagine I'd view them the same way you view the loonies on the right - exasperation that the extreme positions make it harder for rational people to espouse logical positions. (However, one of your loonies just came in third in Iowa, so who the fuck knows - and that's not even mentioning the loonie who came in second . . . but I digress.)

Anyhoo, not many want to ban guns. If you want one to protect your home, knock yourself out. For me, I have stout locks, an alarm system, and the realization that home invasions are a vanishingly small percentage of violent crime, especially given my setup, but hey, to each his or her own. However, you've demonstrated in this thread that you aren't susceptible to rational argument, and so I'd prefer if you didn;t carry a handgun around my city. Ever. And I support laws that make it illegal for you, or anyone else, to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please explain to me how someone can be so pro choice and believe that adults have the right to terminate a "life" yet so anti gun to protect your home and family. Please explain the logic to me. I'll just read responses on RSS. Thanks.

If you're talking about home protection, buy yourself a shotgun, they're far more effective (and safer) than a handgun for defending your castle. I'm not aware of anyone who wants to ban shotguns, or all guns, and I imagine I'd view them the same way you view the loonies on the right - exasperation that the extreme positions make it harder for rational people to espouse logical positions. (However, one of your loonies just came in third in Iowa, so who the fuck knows - and that's not even mentioning the loonie who came in second . . . but I digress.)

Anyhoo, not many want to ban guns. If you want one to protect your home, knock yourself out. For me, I have stout locks, an alarm system, and the realization that home invasions are a vanishingly small percentage of violent crime, especially given my setup, but hey, to each his or her own. However, you've demonstrated in this thread that you aren't susceptible to rational argument, and so I'd prefer if you didn;t carry a handgun around my city. Ever. And I support laws that make it illegal for you, or anyone else, to do so.

Yes you are very rational. You just called Ron Paul a loony. I bet you believe that the Occupy protestors an their Guy Fawkes masks are so representative of America. So is Ralph Nader and alien looking Kucinich. After all only republicans are crazy. The fact that DC is a much less safer place than say Houston or Dallas where conceal carry is common means nothing to you. I bet you also believe DCa gun ban worked. You fashion yourself as a tolerant liberal but you know you're really an intolerant, self-absorbed, entitled jerk. Your so called big tent is only open to people that think like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please explain to me how someone can be so pro choice and believe that adults have the right to terminate a "life" yet so anti gun to protect your home and family. Please explain the logic to me. I'll just read responses on RSS. Thanks.

If you're talking about home protection, buy yourself a shotgun, they're far more effective (and safer) than a handgun for defending your castle. I'm not aware of anyone who wants to ban shotguns, or all guns, and I imagine I'd view them the same way you view the loonies on the right - exasperation that the extreme positions make it harder for rational people to espouse logical positions. (However, one of your loonies just came in third in Iowa, so who the fuck knows - and that's not even mentioning the loonie who came in second . . . but I digress.)

Anyhoo, not many want to ban guns. If you want one to protect your home, knock yourself out. For me, I have stout locks, an alarm system, and the realization that home invasions are a vanishingly small percentage of violent crime, especially given my setup, but hey, to each his or her own. However, you've demonstrated in this thread that you aren't susceptible to rational argument, and so I'd prefer if you didn;t carry a handgun around my city. Ever. And I support laws that make it illegal for you, or anyone else, to do so.

Yes you are very rational. You just called Ron Paul a loony. I bet you believe that the Occupy protestors an their Guy Fawkes masks are so representative of America. So is Ralph Nader and alien looking Kucinich. After all only republicans are crazy. The fact that DC is a much less safer place than say Houston or Dallas where conceal carry is common means nothing to you. I bet you also believe DCa gun ban worked. You fashion yourself as a tolerant liberal but you know you're really an intolerant, self-absorbed, entitled jerk. Your so called big tent is only open to people that think like you.

Actually that is wrong. Houston has a slightly lower violent crime rate and a much higher property crime rate. And since Houston includes what is the equivalent of Nova and MoCo, that's really pretty bad. Houston is a pretty dangerous place by any standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes you are very rational. You just called Ron Paul a loony. I bet you believe that the Occupy protestors an their Guy Fawkes masks are so representative of America. So is Ralph Nader and alien looking Kucinich.

Evil America-hating liberal here. Just want to note that Ralph Nader is, in fact, somewhat unhinged. And while Paul has laughable discredited ideas about monetary policy, the real sad part is that he's either a racist, or a con-man happy to exploit racists to make a quick buck. Abolish the Fed! Gold, baby, gold!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please explain to me how someone can be so pro choice and believe that adults have the right to terminate a "life" yet so anti gun to protect your home and family. Please explain the logic to me. I'll just read responses on RSS. Thanks.

If you're talking about home protection, buy yourself a shotgun, they're far more effective (and safer) than a handgun for defending your castle. I'm not aware of anyone who wants to ban shotguns, or all guns, and I imagine I'd view them the same way you view the loonies on the right - exasperation that the extreme positions make it harder for rational people to espouse logical positions. (However, one of your loonies just came in third in Iowa, so who the fuck knows - and that's not even mentioning the loonie who came in second . . . but I digress.)

Anyhoo, not many want to ban guns. If you want one to protect your home, knock yourself out. For me, I have stout locks, an alarm system, and the realization that home invasions are a vanishingly small percentage of violent crime, especially given my setup, but hey, to each his or her own. However, you've demonstrated in this thread that you aren't susceptible to rational argument, and so I'd prefer if you didn;t carry a handgun around my city. Ever. And I support laws that make it illegal for you, or anyone else, to do so.

Yes you are very rational. You just called Ron Paul a loony. I bet you believe that the Occupy protestors an their Guy Fawkes masks are so representative of America. So is Ralph Nader and alien looking Kucinich. After all only republicans are crazy. The fact that DC is a much less safer place than say Houston or Dallas where conceal carry is common means nothing to you. I bet you also believe DCa gun ban worked. You fashion yourself as a tolerant liberal but you know you're really an intolerant, self-absorbed, entitled jerk. Your so called big tent is only open to people that think like you.

Actually that is wrong. Houston has a slightly lower violent crime rate and a much higher property crime rate. And since Houston includes what is the equivalent of Nova and MoCo, that's really pretty bad. Houston is a pretty dangerous place by any standard.

Also, too, Richmond is perennially in the shitter when it comes to murder and mayhem. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that Gunny McBang-Bang didn't know this. That info must've been left out of the latest issue of the NRA's "Journal of American Freedom and Flag-Waving" which is apparently the only media outlet PP has access to.

[Anonymous]

Yes you are very rational. You just called Ron Paul a loony. I bet you believe that the Occupy protestors an their Guy Fawkes masks are so representative of America. So is Ralph Nader and alien looking Kucinich. After all only republicans are crazy. The fact that DC is a much less safer place than say Houston or Dallas where conceal carry is common means nothing to you. I bet you also believe DCa gun ban worked. You fashion yourself as a tolerant liberal but you know you're really an intolerant, self-absorbed, entitled jerk. Your so called big tent is only open to people that think like you.

That's a somewhat startling interpretation of my post. First, you started off talking about defending your home, and are now discussing concealed carry, which are not the same things at all. Second, yes, I did say Ron Paul is a loon. This is a fairly non-controversial statement. Are you familiar with his platform? End the Fed, the Gold Standard . . . recipes for economic collapse. That's not even mentioning the newsletters . . .

For what it's worth, while I'm more sympathetic to OWS, Nader, Kucinich, I do recognize that they're just as loony, on the other side of the spectrum, as Paul, his supporters, and the Tea Party. You apparently don't have the same capacity for mature reflection.

Finally, I may in fact be, as you so kindly put it, an intolerant, self-absorbed, entitled jerk - I don't think so, but who knows? However, you arrived at that conclusion based on the fact that I believe Ron Paul is a loon (which puts me in the same boat as most of the country, including most Republicans), and that I support restrictions on people carrying concealed weapons. Is that really the product of a rational thought process? Everyone who disagrees with you is an entitled jerk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes you are very rational. You just called Ron Paul a loony. I bet you believe that the Occupy protestors an their Guy Fawkes masks are so representative of America. So is Ralph Nader and alien looking Kucinich. After all only republicans are crazy. The fact that DC is a much less safer place than say Houston or Dallas where conceal carry is common means nothing to you. I bet you also believe DCa gun ban worked. You fashion yourself as a tolerant liberal but you know you're really an intolerant, self-absorbed, entitled jerk. Your so called big tent is only open to people that think like you.

That's a somewhat startling interpretation of my post. First, you started off talking about defending your home, and are now discussing concealed carry, which are not the same things at all. Second, yes, I did say Ron Paul is a loon. This is a fairly non-controversial statement. Are you familiar with his platform? End the Fed, the Gold Standard . . . recipes for economic collapse. That's not even mentioning the newsletters . . .

For what it's worth, while I'm more sympathetic to OWS, Nader, Kucinich, I do recognize that they're just as loony, on the other side of the spectrum, as Paul, his supporters, and the Tea Party. You apparently don't have the same capacity for mature reflection.

Finally, I may in fact be, as you so kindly put it, an intolerant, self-absorbed, entitled jerk - I don't think so, but who knows? However, you arrived at that conclusion based on the fact that I believe Ron Paul is a loon (which puts me in the same boat as most of the country, including most Republicans), and that I support restrictions on people carrying concealed weapons. Is that really the product of a rational thought process? Everyone who disagrees with you is an entitled jerk?

Just because you forgot to mention it, I'll just add that when Dennis Kucinich is in a three-way tie for the Dem presidential nomination, then we'll talk. This is a pretty common rhetorical trick that folks on the right make: One of the two frontrunners for the GOP nomination came out and explicitly said we need welfare reform to stop giving "black people" money? What about Al Sharpton? Or that pastor from the church that Obama went to for a while?

It's hilarious: they can't understand the difference between the leaders of a political party and some random dude who's famous for saying controversial things. Either that or they don't want to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes you are very rational. You just called Ron Paul a loony. I bet you believe that the Occupy protestors an their Guy Fawkes masks are so representative of America. So is Ralph Nader and alien looking Kucinich.

Evil America-hating liberal here. Just want to note that Ralph Nader is, in fact, somewhat unhinged. And while Paul has laughable discredited ideas about monetary policy, the real sad part is that he's either a racist, or a con-man happy to exploit racists to make a quick buck. Abolish the Fed! Gold, baby, gold!

No one on the left likes Ralph Nader anymore. He gave the White House to George Bush. Conservatives should be funding the guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please explain to me how someone can be so pro choice and believe that adults have the right to terminate a "life" yet so anti gun to protect your home and family. Please explain the logic to me. I'll just read responses on RSS. Thanks.

How do people who are screaming about abortion and killing babies is also for the state-sponsored death penalty? That is the paradox between the two sides. As for me, I am militantly pro-abortion and militantly anti-death penalty. A woman has a right to choose what is best for her, her body, and her life. The death penalty does nothing to stop murder, in fact, it may encourage it with the thought that you can't be given a lethal cocktail more than once, so you might as well murder.