NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi everyone,
Just reading another abortion thread and I started wondering about everyone's views on gun control, so I decided to start this thread. If I mess up I'm sorry, I've never started a thread before.

I think it would be interesting to find out what people think....

Bump :d

Although I am pro-choice and pro gun rights, I would never condone using a gun to abort a fetus - Unless it was in Florida and the fetus was clearly threatening me.

This poll raises an interesting point: most conservatives are in favor of goverment intervention on social issues (abortion, gay-marriage, pornography), while most liberals are opposed to government intervention in such issues. Gun control is a social issue, yet conservatives are usually opposed to it and liberals in favor of it. Very strange.

Although I am pro-choice and pro gun rights, I would never condone using a gun to abort a fetus - Unless it was in Florida and the fetus was clearly threatening me.


LOL!!

I am also pro-choice and pro-gun control. Wow the liberals are taking over! :eek:

I fail to see the relation between the two?

There need not be a relation. :)

I'm strongly pro-life, and moderately pro-gun control.

I fail to see the relation between the two?
It’s simple.
As somebody has in their sig.
“I’m not pro-gun, I’m pro-choice, on everything.

Alot of people see guns as beggining to infringe on other peoples' rights, which is where most people, conservative and liber, draw the line on personal freedoms.

I fail to see the relation between the two?

It's about the Duality of Man, Dude.

No... It's about limiting governmental intrusiveness.

No wait... It's about shotgun weddings.

This poll raises an interesting point: most conservatives are in favor of goverment intervention on social issues (abortion, gay-marriage, pornography), while most liberals are opposed to government intervention in such issues. Gun control is a social issue, yet conservatives are usually opposed to it and liberals in favor of it. Very strange.

I was trying to see what people thought - there is a stereotype of right-wingers being pro-life ("against murdering babies") and yet pro gun rights (which are used to murder people). I was just wondering if the stereotype was true and what people thought about the issues.... :)

These seem popular topics... Are these things very important to Americans, then? Other peoples? Why is this - surely people can, more or less, be left to make their own decisions?

They don't seem to be considered worth much discussion over here (GB). If you don't want an abortion you don't have one... If you want a handgun then tough. (Blanket banning handguns was possibly OTT, but meh.)

I am quite fanatically pro choice. To everybody who wants to dictate what other people can or can't do with their own body I have only one response. :mp5: Being a porn star, watching porn, having an abortion, and being gay are all things that are no business of the government or church. To all people who want their religious beliefs to be forced on everyone else, I have only one response. :mp5:

As for guns, I think anybody without a criminal record should be able to keep pistols for the purpose of, *ahem* dealing with people who break into their house. Your right to protect your self and family takes priority over their right to keep robbing houses. Also, if guns are totally banned, only criminals will have them.

Assault weapons, however, belong on military bases and nowhere else. Sure, and M-16 will make one of those burglars I mentioned start running like hell, but where will we be if street gangs start to stock up on them to use against the cops?

I was trying to see what people thought - there is a stereotype of right-wingers being pro-life ("against murdering babies") and yet pro gun rights (which are used to murder people). I was just wondering if the stereotype was true and what people thought about the issues.... :)

There's also a stereotype that liberals think its okay to kill innocent pre-born babies but don't like the idea of people purchasing firearms to protect themselves.

(Notice that my post is all but the same as Legislation's, except for the fact that mine will cause liberals to post angry responses. I love the power of words!)

There's also a stereotype that liberals think its okay to kill innocent pre-born babies but don't like the idea of people purchasing firearms to protect themselves.

(Notice that my post is all but the same as Legislation's, except for the fact that mine will cause liberals to post angry responses. I love the power of words!)

But what would you do if a pack of ravenous Feti was trying to break into your house?

If a liberal broke into my house I'd shoot them.

If a conservative broke into my house I'd crucify them.

But what would you do if a pack of ravenous Feti was trying to break into your house?

Make feti cheese.

Make feti cheese.

Amen, Brother. Pass the curd and praise the ammunition.

Very American comparisson, that's why I didn't get it at first...
There's not much point in dicussing guns in Europe, really

It’s simple.
As somebody has in their sig.
“I’m not pro-gun, I’m pro-choice, on everything.

That would be Syniks.

And I'm in the same boat. Pro-gun, pro-choice.

Very American comparisson, that's why I didn't get it at first...
There's not much point in dicussing guns in Europe, really

Probably why we keep bringing it up here. When the UN wants to take your guns away, you get kind of itchy, and feel the need to bring the issue to light.

Probably why we keep bringing it up here. When the UN wants to take your guns away, you get kind of itchy, and feel the need to bring the issue to light.

Huh? UN? Gun control? Wtf... :confused:

We ARE talking about that UN that can't even make the USA adhere to the Human Rights?

Sorry, my bad for hitting ya sideways. The reason we continue to bring up the gun topic in the US is because there have been several attempts by the UN to hamper the gun industry and our rights in the US--not crime related to guns, but the guns themselves, and our ability to use self-defense.

Because guns are mostly a non-issue in Europe, there is not much in the way of awareness that this even going on.



You'd be surprised how much influence the UN actually has on, and in, the US. Too many people here think that a single world government is a good idea. And the anti-gunners are using everything they can to stop citizens from being able to defend themselves--so they're using the anti-gun culture of the UN to try to get their agenda through. And it's been working entirely too well in places.


Sorry, I keep forgetting about the general "THEY are after us"-paranoia in the States... :)

Huh? UN? Gun control? Wtf... :confused:


Sorry, my bad for hitting ya sideways. The reason we continue to bring up the gun topic in the US is because there have been several attempts by the UN to hamper the gun industry and our rights in the US--not crime related to guns, but the guns themselves, and our ability to use self-defense.

Because guns are mostly a non-issue in Europe, there is not much in the way of awareness that this even going on.


We ARE talking about that UN that can't even make the USA adhere to the Human Rights?

You'd be surprised how much influence the UN actually has on, and in, the US. Too many people here think that a single world government is a good idea. And the anti-gunners are using everything they can to stop citizens from being able to defend themselves--so they're using the anti-gun culture of the UN to try to get their agenda through. And it's been working entirely too well in places.

Is it still paranoia when it's true? <shrugs>

It is a bit tough to let down one's guard when one's right to defend oneself is being erroded. Yup, I carry a gun for the odd chance that I am attacked. I hope I never need it (and I don't expect to), but I'll improve my odds to protect the things that are near and dear to me--family, friends, self....'cause they're worth it.

In any case, back to I'm pro-choice on everything. :D (Syniks has a great tag line)

"Just because you're schizophrenic doesn't mean that they're not after you" :p

Sorry, I keep forgetting about the general "THEY are after us"-paranoia in the States... :)

Is it still paranoia when it's true? <shrugs>

It is a bit tough to let down one's guard when one's right to defend oneself is being erroded. Yup, I carry a gun for the odd chance that I am attacked. I hope I never need it (and I don't expect to), but I'll improve my odds to protect the things that are near and dear to me--family, friends, self....'cause they're worth it.

In any case, back to I'm pro-choice on everything. :D (Syniks has a great tag line)

Wow...you must have some nifty powers--'cause your posts keep responding to mine BEFORE they happen!

EEEK! :eek:

Be afraid, be VERY afraid - booh!

;)

See, that's why I don't need guns, I can do stuff like that

Wow...you must have some nifty powers--'cause your posts keep responding to mine BEFORE they happen!

EEEK! :eek:

Be afraid, be VERY afraid - booh!

;)

See, that's why I don't need guns, I can do stuff like that

If I could do that, I'd feel the same way--about me. I'd still have no problems with others having them, though, due to the fact that the police don't have to protect us in the US--and aren't omnipresent.

Hey, here's a question: Do you know for certain (IE is it in your laws) that your police have to protect the citizenry--or is it just assumed? I'd really like to know. We all thought that the police had to protect us in the US, but the Supreme Court threw that one down (quite an eye-opener).

Basically, the murderer can perform the act in front of the cops, and they don't have to stop the guy--just as long as they take him in eventually for the crime.

Hey, here's a question: Do you know for certain (IE is it in your laws) that your police have to protect the citizenry--or is it just assumed? I'd really like to know. We all thought that the police had to protect us in the US, but the Supreme Court threw that one down (quite an eye-opener).

Basically, the murderer can perform the act in front of the cops, and they don't have to stop the guy--just as long as they take him in eventually for the crime.

It is in our laws. Read here (http://www.garda.ie/angarda/pub/interculturalguide.pdf)

I am decisively left-wing, and pro-choice on abortion and pro-gun rights. Abortion is a civil right in which society has no interest in infringing, and widespread gun availibility with make the revolution easier!

There's also a stereotype that liberals think its okay to kill innocent pre-born babies but don't like the idea of people purchasing firearms to protect themselves.

(Notice that my post is all but the same as Legislation's, except for the fact that mine will cause liberals to post angry responses. I love the power of words!)
You take a bizarre pleasure in flamebaiting?

Sorry, my bad for hitting ya sideways. The reason we continue to bring up the gun topic in the US is because there have been several attempts by the UN to hamper the gun industry and our rights in the US--not crime related to guns, but the guns themselves, and our ability to use self-defense.

Because guns are mostly a non-issue in Europe, there is not much in the way of awareness that this even going on.

Can you give me proof? Not that I am about to fanatically defend the UN, but I've never heard anything about this. Surely the UN's only gun-related business should be in regard to international gun smuggling/crime?

You'd be surprised how much influence the UN actually has on, and in, the US. Too many people here think that a single world government is a good idea. And the anti-gunners are using everything they can to stop citizens from being able to defend themselves--so they're using the anti-gun culture of the UN to try to get their agenda through. And it's been working entirely too well in places.
Are you sure? The idea of a world government peaked in popularity shortly after WW2 as a reaction to the devastation of the war, with people from socialists like Einstein to conservatives like Churchill coming out in favour of it.

I can't imagine how world government would be any more popular in America than Europe.

Wow...you must have some nifty powers--'cause your posts keep responding to mine BEFORE they happen!

EEEK! :eek:
The forum does that sometimes. Sorry guys, you're not witnessing the breakdown of physics.

It is in our laws. Read here (http://www.garda.ie/angarda/pub/interculturalguide.pdf)

Cool. At least SOMEONE has it right....

I am decisively left-wing, and pro-choice on abortion and pro-gun rights. Abortion is a civil right in which society has no interest in infringing, and widespread gun availibility with make the revolution easier!


Wait, you're PRO-gun rights? Did I completely misread previous posts by you on the topic? I know it's possible, but damn. Where did I miss it?

This poll raises an interesting point: most conservatives are in favor of goverment intervention on social issues (abortion, gay-marriage, pornography), while most liberals are opposed to government intervention in such issues. Gun control is a social issue, yet conservatives are usually opposed to it and liberals in favor of it. Very strange.



Why does the poll not reflect your opinion ? I'm a social libertarian and to me gun cotroll laws are idiotic because they do not effect criminals . WTF is the sense of a law against law abiding people ?

Cool. At least SOMEONE has it right....
Thanks for the affirmation Cabra West! (I live in the same city) Yeah, the idea that the police are not there to protect the citizens is seriously messed up.

Wait, you're PRO-gun rights? Did I completely misread previous posts by you on the topic? I know it's possible, but damn. Where did I miss it?
Yes, I don't remember but it is possible that I have advocated numerous positions on the gun issue. The reason is because guns are an issue I rarely think about, so I was likely writing just whatever half-baked thoughts came into my head. But due to my recently being a victim of crime and having once again swung to the Left in my politics, I come to the conclusion that allowing guns for self-defence is the right position.

(*edit: As Zaxon and others have said*) Read my sig. :D

You cannot simultaneously be "Pro Choice" and "Pro Gun Control"

You can either be Pro Government Control or Pro Choice. Anyting else is Hypocritical.

And geez. Sorry to hear that 'Pool. :( But as the US cliche' goes, "A Liberal is just a Conservative who hasn't been mugged yet."

Yes, I don't remember but it is possible that I have advocated numerous positions on the gun issue. The reason is because guns are an issue I rarely think about, so I was likely writing just whatever half-baked thoughts came into my head. But due to my recently being a victim of crime and having once again swung to the Left in my politics, I come to the conclusion that allowing guns for self-defence is the right position.

Wow. Okay then. I'm sorry it took being victimized for that to occur, however. No one should have to go through that.

The forum does that sometimes. Sorry guys, you're not witnessing the breakdown of physics.

Dammit! I wanted to see a temporal rift!

Just curious on how you could vote other???

Just curious on how you could vote other???
No-one can answer your question. *evil laugh*

Just curious on how you could vote other???
Quite easily actually, My view on guns is a simplistic gun-rights view, however my view on abortion is somewhat complicated and not fully pro-choice since unlimited choice in the matter is a bad idea. I have no problem with abortions through the first 2 trimesters, although I do believe that the need for abortion should be avoided if possible which means those involved taking responsible contraceptive measures. However, unless it is to save the life of the mother(a quite rare occasion for a 3 trimester abortion) I do not support abortions in the third trimester. Of course, as soon as someone invents a uterine replicator the point will be rather irrelevant, especially as one can assume birth control methods as well will have advanced quite far by then too.

I have no problem with abortions through the first 2 trimesters, although I do believe that the need for abortion should be avoided if possible which means those involved taking responsible contraceptive measures. However, unless it is to save the life of the mother(a quite rare occasion for a 3 trimester abortion) I do not support abortions in the third trimester.
Just to clarify something for everybody, in the United States it has been ILLEGAL to perform elective third trimester abortions for many years. The ONLY reasons these procedures are performed is 1) when the mother is in serious medical danger, 2) when the fetus is catastrophically malformed, and 3) when the fetus is already dead. To say that it is "quite rare for a 3 trimester abortion" to be performed to save the mother's life is flatly false, because that is actually the most common reason for such abortions.

Hi everyone,
Just reading another abortion thread and I started wondering about everyone's views on gun control, so I decided to start this thread. If I mess up I'm sorry, I've never started a thread before.

I think it would be interesting to find out what people think....

It really wonders what you consider "pro-gun rights".

If you mean, "Complete access to guns for everyone and anyone for any reason with no regulation whatsoever," then I am not pro-gun rights. I support graded licensing for guns beyond a simple hunting rifle, with licenses being more difficult to obtain for more dangerous weapons. I support mandatory gun safety and use classes for anyone seeking such a license.

Of course, pro-choice doesn't mean "Complete access to abortions for everyone and anyone for any reason with no regulation whatsoever." I am pro-chioce, and I support the regulations of Roe v. Wade - namely that elective abortions are allowed int he first trimester, medical reasons must be given for those in the second trimester, and a woman's life or health must be in extreme danger to obtain one in the third trimester. I support laws stating that a woman must receive information on all of her options before getting an abortion.

So I guess I'm fairly consistent here.

Bump.

I think the results show that there is no relationship between people's beliefs on these two issues.

I think the results show that there is no relationship between people's beliefs on these two issues.Which is unfortunate, since both are essentially arguments about whether one will have the Right to Choose to do or have something.

Which is unfortunate, since both are essentially arguments about whether one will have the Right to Choose to do or have something.

Actually now that you say that, I think that is the rational for the people who are pro-choice and oppose gun bans. But for the rest of the groups I am not really sure what their reasoning would be.

Actually now that you say that, I think that is the rational for the people who are pro-choice and oppose gun bans. But for the rest of the groups I am not really sure what their reasoning would be.Well, the only non-hypocritical position they cold hold would be in favor of the Government being allowed to controll the Rights of the People.

Pro Rights Control vs. Pro-Choice.

A consistant position would be where an Anti Abortion Choice advocate also held that people shouldnot be allowed the Choice of effective methods of Self Defense or the Choice to Hunt.

Government Government Uber Alles.

Now, a caviat: It is entirely possible to be "anti-abortion" or "anti-gun" while still being "Pro-Choice". The difference is one is a private opinion and the other is a Political Platform. You can dislike abortion or guns, all you want, but as soon as you start thinking the Government should interfere in the personal lives of the People, you become Anti-Choice... and effectively, Anti-Rights.

It really wonders what you consider "pro-gun rights".

If you mean, "Complete access to guns for everyone and anyone for any reason with no regulation whatsoever," then I am not pro-gun rights. I support graded licensing for guns beyond a simple hunting rifle, with licenses being more difficult to obtain for more dangerous weapons. I support mandatory gun safety and use classes for anyone seeking such a license.

Of course, pro-choice doesn't mean "Complete access to abortions for everyone and anyone for any reason with no regulation whatsoever." I am pro-chioce, and I support the regulations of Roe v. Wade - namely that elective abortions are allowed int he first trimester, medical reasons must be given for those in the second trimester, and a woman's life or health must be in extreme danger to obtain one in the third trimester. I support laws stating that a woman must receive information on all of her options before getting an abortion.

So I guess I'm fairly consistent here. Fairly, though there are a couple of disconnects that are based on the realities of the difference between rules against possession and rules against action.

Abortion is an action, and a fairly definitive one. You either have (action) a no abortion or you don't.

Possession of firearms, however, is not so clear cut. No individual firearm is particularly more lethal than another in any real practical anti-personnel sense. I can kill you just as dead, just as rapidly (though less messily) with a .22 rifle as with a .50BMG - or a .410 shotgun. (If you want to get "technical" the "simple hunting rifle" you mention is "more deadly" (at range) than any pistol...) The problem with laws against possession is that they are open to subjective interpretation of what is "good" possession (to possess) and what is "bad". That's somthing you don't have to deal with (as much) with abortion.

Concomitant with that "good/bad" thing argument, which is fallacious on its face, comes the necessity of Government Intrusion far and beyond even the simple "here are your real options" Abortion counseling.

Licensing is a fine idea as long as the license is for an action, not possession. A license for possession implies a means of verifying compliance, which means necessairly allowing the Government unrestricted access to wherever they think you might be possessing a firearm... again, something no anti-abortion law ever had the capacity to do.

License me to shoot in public (vs my private land), not own a thing.

(I'm sure you saw my article on licensing firearms DMV style... if you didn't, Email Syniks and I'll send it to you.)

We have not hat the Unrestricted Choice in firearms since 1936 - and since then it has NEVER meant access to genuine Military hardware - just personal firearms. Even as Pro Choice as I am, I'm willing to cede the validity of the 1936 NFA prohibiting the unlicensed possesion of fully automatic firearms, mainly because I consider fully automatic fire a useless (if fun) option that one should be willing to pay extra for... like buying a Lamborghini. (the comparison sort of fails because it really doesn't cost any more to MAKE a full auto firearm than its semi auto sibling, unlike the difference in production costs between a Ford Focus and a Lamborghini, but the IMO restriction does provide an artificial price constraint that might not otherwise be there...)

Bump

They are those people that believe abortion is necessary if genetic pre-screening shows a disposition towards abnormal thread-bumping.

Others prefer to handle the issue with legally licensed handguns.

I think both of those options are unduly harsh and advocate the use of smart-assery.

It’s simple.
As somebody has in their sig.
“I’m not pro-gun, I’m pro-choice, on everything.

Yep. That's liberal libertarianism.

I still hate those stupid gun smilies though.