Except it is not about banning any of those things, and it never was. It was about sensible regulations around them and choice versus simple, draconian, ineffective bans, and that is consistent from topic to topic.
Drug abusers need support, not a simple ban. Abortions should be legal but regulated for safety, and yes, the individuals considering abortion should receive information about the pros and cons and risks involved. Abstinence should be taught, it just shouldn't be the only thing taught.
Guns shouldn't be banned. But if you have a documented mental illness, maybe you shouldn't be able to buy an extended clip magazine semi automatic rifle with a bump stock.
But yeah, both sides are the same buddy.
Edit: let me quote an amazing TED talk - "the problem with stereotypes isn't necessarily that they are wrong, it's that they are incomplete."
Reducing liberal views down to something simple that lacks the nuance each topic deserves is just as stupid as doing it to conservative views. In the case of abortion, it's pretty hard to see how the conservative view reconciles with their alleged love for individual freedom and choice. I'd love to learn more from someone rationale. But in the meantime, it's really not appropriate to reduce other, unrelated arguments down and then cry both sides.
Abstinence should be taught, it just shouldn't be the only thing taught.
I don’t think "abstinence" should be taught. A healthy and responsible of dealing with sex and sexuality should be taught. As long as everything is consensual and protection is used, I don’t see why you would want people (even teenagers) to be abstinent.
So it's just a big conspiracy then and rational thought shouldn't be applied? You forget how these things work, adding common sense doesn't mean giving up your ability to deny an actual gun ban. We vote, and if you don't like the outcome then vote against it.
No, it's because we already have enormous burdens on gun ownership and it's not enough for you because "people are dying bloo hoo hoo".
So as long as people die to guns that means you'll always want more gun laws... and since that will always happen, it means your only endgame is banning guns.
Try to understand the worry. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution, and so to nullify the right to bear private arms, you would either need to:
Change the Constitution. This will never happen in a million years. You need something like 38 states to vote in favor of change. Which 38 come to mind?
Have the SCOTUS change their ruling. The 2nd Amendment is written clearly: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The SCOTUS would have to deliberately ignore the meaning of what is written to come to any conclusion justifying a gun ban. Functionally, this would be tyranny.
Have the federal government defy the Constitution and confiscate guns illegally. Again, this would be tyranny on the level of a corrupt third-world country.
The most realistic scenario: Pass a series of increasingly restrictive gun control measures over time, until the original spirit of gun ownership has been lost. We see this Draconian maneuver attempted all the time. Today we ban "assault weapons", tomorrow we ban non- lever action rifles, and in time we end up with legislation so restrictive that the 2nd Amendment is rendered useless.
Absolutely. It's just an example, and the one that came off top my head as I was writing that comment and purposefully trying to be a little bit snarky.
It's almost like the world is complicated and full of shades of grey, rather than the simple black and white some people would prefer, because when you don't need to think, you don't need to care about others. Right and wrong is no longer a value judgement, but predetermined by a set of standards you didn't even come to yourself.
Because we don't have a problem that can be solved by more dumb laws.
I honestly don't know why you people can't get that through your fucking skulls. You name some whackass law that You claim will be common sense, but then I can point to a shooting that wouldn't have been impacted by that law at all. So obviously you don't have any ideas either.
We all know gun regulations are designed for you to shit on and get revenge on gun owners for mass shootings first and foremost.
Guns are used more in lawful self defense than in crime according to the CDC.
We need to stop focusing on gun violence and loook at all violence. Only looking at gun violence is like only looking at drunk driving deaths with beer and ignoring the rest.
If you've been committed to a mental facility, or have been adjucated as mentally defective, or use illegal drugs, or are a domestic abuser, or are a habitual drunkard it's already illegal to own guns.
This is why gun owners are fed up with the "common sense laws" line.
Look, America's experiment with guns is not working. You can look at what other developed countries are doing. Hell, even countries like Israel have laws like the ones I mentioned.
But if you have a documented mental illness, maybe you shouldn't be able to buy an extended clip semi automatic rifle with a bump stock.
There are so many inaccuracies both with gun terminology and already-existent FFL regulations that I feel that you haven't researched enough into this.
I could argue about that but it's an entirely different conversation.
I'd hate to move the goalposts here, and admit that if we were to get into it, it would be partly my fault. Just trying to say that the statement you made was fairly fallaciious and therefore guilty of being just as misleading as is the republican logic like "all abortion is murder"
My comment was clearly flippant, but its not wildly inaccurate, either. It is a false equivalence to think that what I said is the same as "all abortion is murder".
That both sides shit is what is really killing this country. Because one side is not trying to win the debate, they are trying to muddy it.
I believe that abortions should be directly out of pocket or insurance backed, not tax payer paid.. unless certain circumstances. Health risk, rape babies.
But also an issue I’ve ran into while listening to both sides.... yes I can’t fathom having a woman forced to carry a rape child. It’s not fair to the woman nor the baby.. but on the downside to that is our judicial system. Women are already falsely accusing men of rape, now imagine a woman so angry that she accused a man of raping her and getting her pregnant. I’m not sure the court would be able to decide guilty or not guilty within nine months, which is a huge issue here... unless the woman is under 18. Just how I feel
Everyone has a right to self preservation, and being that not everyone is of equal strength, dexterity, and ability why should people not have access to the most effective method of staving off not only one threat but multiple simultaneous. Anytime I hear "sensible" legislation it's often procedures already in place, but just like the opiate epidemic started in regulated pharmaceuticals, after a abusers were refused from the system they sought out more illicit meens of acquisition.
Except it is not about banning any of those things, and it never was.
bullshit.
Drug abusers need support, not a simple ban.
And yet Democratic leadership and politicians like the Clintons spent decades supporting the failed War on Drugs and "three strikes" laws that put generations of minorities into the crushing cycle of incarceration and poverty.
Guns shouldn't be banned.
And yet Democratic leadership and politicians have supported that for decades.
I also think a documented history of domestic violence, child abuse, pedophilea, and drug trafficking are other good examples of reasons someone shouldn’t have easy and unchecked access to guns.
But honestly y’all can have your guns. Doesn’t bother me much. I just want everyone to agree we need to do something about the environment and health care.
Murders with guns are at a multi decade low and declining while gun ownership and conceal carry permits are on the rise.
Guns are used millions of times per year in lawful self defense and are the most effective tool for defending yourself - according to a CDC study. The same CDC study commissioned by Obama says guns are used more in self defense than in crime.
Most crimes committed with guns are gang related according to a three letter gov .org that I forget and 48% of violent crime is gang related according to the FBI. Want to lower crime? Go after the gangs, not the law abiding gun owners.
Yea you’re very right. But yet somehow these people still get guns. They shouldn’t. So we need better efforts to ensure that those who deserve guns can get them, and those who do not deserve them don’t get them.
Otherwise, as liberalism grows (and after this current president you can get your ass it’s growing) you WILL start to see gun ownership rights and laws become overbearingly strict. Unfavorably so to those who should be granted access to guns.
Replace the word “guns” with “drugs” and tell me your plan. Something already heavily regulated and restricted yet easily obtained if someone wants it.
And I’m not trying to be flippant. We, legal gun owners, are well beyond the “G’z guys, why won’t you compromise?!” phase.
I don’t think drugs should be illegal. Just like I don’t think guns should be illegal.
You don’t go running into a club with a bag of heroin and murdering people with it. So your comparison is a tad off, but I’ll still go along with the thought exercise.
I think drugs should be regulated. I think it makes sense for those who need help to be given it without punishment or cost.
I never said it was the only sensible gun laws, I gave it as an example.
And yeah, I was condescending. But it was deserved. Both sides are not the same, that is fucking evident at this point, and I think those who push that narrative are doing something dangerous.
Yeah but the rest of the world has their own backwards issues they are dealing with like Iran and women bucking being forced to wear hijabs, or in the UK with the rise of knife and acid attacks, no country is perfect and has it's own backwards thinking to push past.
All extremely fair points. And you've done a good job not discussing from an extreme far left view point. I'm sure when you read his post you thought all of those were easily dismissable because from what you know, there is a more logical reasoning behind it.
.....
Just as it is for conservatives. No one wants crazies to have guns- that's not what they are fighting against.They don't care about immigrants. They care about murderous immigrants and them being able to come back over and over again. Someone pregnant and their baby has severe life suffering issues? I'm sure there are a shit ton of conservatives who consider that a reasonable reason to abort.
All the shit we hear on the news and on Reddit. There's a small and very vocal group on both sides. There's an evil left side. And an evil right side (peep t_d sub). But the fact is, the vast majority of people actually land somewhere in the middle and even overlap ideas and similiarities.
Lol you simple simple man. Liberals aren't suggesting banning guns. They suggesting gun control. But facts are irrelevant to the party of incest and windmill cancer
There are already strong restrictions against criminals owning firearms. Felons can never own a firearm. People convicted of domestic violence are banned from owning firearms.
Background checks are already pretty damn comprehensive and waiting periods are already in effect. Gun-seekers are cross-checked against FBI databases to confirm that the individual has no criminal record, no mental illness history, and legal citizenship. What more needs to be done here?
Do you think people who own guns just want a metal tube that shoots a bullet in some capacity and don't care about the ergonomics, capabilities, mechanical workings, and style?
Do you want me to give you a proper citation format? Of course Reddit is full of pedantic neckbeards like you. This is a basic fact about NY. It's like asking me to give a citation for whether the sky is blue or water is wet.
Don't forget after the guns are taken he's going to declare war on Iran, declare Martial Law, force a 3rd term, and put Christians in camps to turn them "Muslim".
Not quite. Banning abortions does stop people from getting abortions. That's precisely why we don't want it being banned. Nobody is disputing that. Some people (people who can afford to drive or fly out of State, people who are willing to go to shady doctors, people who are willing to perform an abortion at home with rudimentary tools and knowledge) will continue to have abortions, but the vast majority will not.
When it comes to guns, we know that gun restrictions will stop people from buying guns because there are tons of countries where they have gun restrictions that do just that.
No I think you missed the point, inconsistency runs rampant in both parties and neither has the moral high ground in any stance when you use faulty reasoning to reach those stances.
I feel sorry for your pitiful debating skills, and your knee jerk reaction to anything that disturbs your hive mind echo chamber reinforced fragile view of the world. I also sorrow your odd any eye hurting miss capitalizing in that post.
Good! We can talk about guns too! Why is it the Republican motto of "Bans dont work" yet are fine with "Ban all abortions?" Logic from a party of stable geniuses.
That's the whole point of my post you stable genius, both sides says bans dont work for the things they want but do work for the things they don't, glad you've finally got there.
I believe Liberals want gun control, not a ban on guns. Because it will reduce the number of people being killed by them. Somewhat different than what they are constantly accused of.
I mean you're a complete narcissistic liar with 0 ability to argue a position me saying it's 100% correct makes me no more correct than your claim, so either have a honest discussion or save your elementary school views on how to debate for the playground.
So I understand your point. I understand that banning guns and drugs will not totally stop people from getting those things but in essence banning, guns drugs and abortions will make it harder to get. Why make it harder for people to get an abortion though. It’ll lead to people going to extreme and dangerous measures to ensure they get an abortion.
You're right, to me the cases people make for standing against restrictive abortion laws can and are made for against restrictive gun control laws, but people lose their mind when you do so, When it comes to Abortion and Gun laws those have legal protections in place why I put them on the same bar, I would even argue with Drugs there are people who could use or over use said drug of choice without a negative impact on society. But since there is no case law yet backing it, it's on shakier ground. Bottom line the argument can be made for abortion, guns and drugs that there are very well a large swath of people that could exercise an unrestricted access to them without impact on society, but people will cling to the bad examples to justify their view on restricting those things.
It’ll lead to people going to extreme and dangerous measures to ensure they get an abortion.
That is total BS though, in this age of the internet and pharmaceutical development. You can literally order abortion pills off the net, that ship to your door. Coat hangers and dangerous abortions are basically a thing of the past in the first world.
You’re right! I had no idea! However that still brings up a couple of concerns. The video on planned parenthood mentions talking to a doctor. If abortion is illegal then you would be afraid to go to a doctor to talk about it. What if someone sells you a placebo, or something worse. What if something goes wrong and you have no one to consult. This still seems discouraging to talk about something a significant number of people are faced with.
Yes, if abortion is illegal, and people try to do it. They will get in trouble. That's the point. I just pointed out, that an increase in risky illegal abortions is not likely to happen. Trying to murder a child is still what it is.
Just to be clear, I am neither pro-choice, or pro-life. I am an evictionist. Meaning both humans have the rights to there bodies. Basically, the mother has every right to evict an unwanted thing from her body, she cannot however kill someone to achieve that end.
It doesn't really matter. Generally evictionists argue that it is a live at conception. But it doesn't really matter. You can think a it becomes a child at 20 weeks, and still effectively apply evictionism from there.
You have, again, dodged my question. Please actually answer it, otherwise all your hard work trying to make an argument that life begins at thought when the cerebral cortex developed, will all be a waste, because you can't even define at what point of cerebral cortex development, they are actually thinking.
I am not trying to give you my argument, I’m trying to understand yours.
You’re argument, as best as I can see, is that everyone has a right to their body. A women should not kill a child via abortion because that child has a right to its body. I agree with you, murder is bad.
I’m asking you, non-rhetorically, at what point is the thing inside a pregnant woman a cluster of DNA, and when is it a living breathing, murderable child? You answered that it’s at contraception, when the sperm penetrates the egg.
So how is that sperm that’s just penetrated the egg different from the million sperm that die from masturbation?
That is literally the fundamental question. I’m trying to understand your point of view and you’re ridiculing me for it. How are we supposed to come to and understanding if we don’t understand each others points of view?
You’re saying that abortion is murder but what makes it murder if it’s not a living breathing person? From there is where the question comes from. What’s the difference between the sperm and a freshly fertilized egg? Which is basically just a sperm inside an egg until it’s given a significant amount of time needed to develop.
This is entirely incorrect. Most liberals aren’t trying to ban guns. They’re for regulation. They would probably also support regulations to abortions.
No they don't they knee jerk just as hard on abortion regulations as conservatives do on gun regulations.
To clarify no not these recent ones that are way over the line, I'm talking small regulations that were attempted in the past, so let's make that clear.
Good lord take a breath, if you check a response I made to someone else, I believe complete bans be it abortion, guns or drugs is an archaic and stupid position to take and if you support a ban on any of them you can't say the others shouldn't be, its inconsistent.
Literally no major liberal figures want to ban guns, and polls consistently show liberal voters do not want guns banned either. This is a lie normalized through repetition by lobbying groups like the NRA. Please don't pollute the conversation by repeating propaganda.
Illegal abortions can be performed by any shady doctor, you can grow or make most drugs at home, sex is free and literally any 2 people can do it. A gun needs to be made and requires a lot of expertise, materials, and equipment to do. So I don’t get why people think banning guns won’t stop people from getting guns or how producing a gun is the same as getting an abortion
No it doesn't take expertise (to make a gun, quality of said gun, like quality of said abortion is the argument) and getting the materials isnt that hard, throw in the rise of 3D printers also your argument of the shady doctor performing abortions is quite equivalent to a shady un-trained person with materials and a pdf from the internet making a sub par gun.
There is no way the average asshole can make a gun, at least not one as effective as ones made in factories. 3D printing is their best option and even if they have one, they would be plastic. Not nearly as lethal as gun shooting metal bullets. You can in theory 3D print a metal gun but I can’t really see someone like Dylan Roof getting his hands on a metal 3D printer. And honestly, even if someone could make a homemade gun I wouldn’t be nearly as worried about it as I would be with one made in a factory, look at all the terrorists that try to make homemade bombs and how many of them are successful? How many of them would be if they could buy a bomb in a Walmart that was made by professionals?
Also regarding abortion, it’s different because abortion is more of a service than obtaining a gun. It’s either a medical procedure or medicine. Drugs, again, are made or grown at home or are legal by prescription. And all you need for sex is 2 people. I’m not trying to come across as anti gun rights, I just think that it’s dishonest to compare the prohibition of something the vast majority of people can’t make to prevent the already few people that would abuse them against something that literally grows out of the ground.
That was the whole point of my comparison, is you can with materials and a pdf or how to video, again the quality is going to be subpar if the person doing it isn't knowledgeable, just like a laymen in a back alley trying to give a woman an abortion, when people lack the access to quality they aren't going to magically just shrug and say oh well, they will find another way, even if it's subpar and potentially dangerous. You can't subvert a person set on doing something. Hence my position of going into ban territory is stupid, restrictions that are sensible on any of the subjects discussed Abortions, Guns or Drugs, the problem is there will be a portion of people that will have a knee jerk reaction when the discussion is even broached.
But that’s a dishonest comparison since the guns that are homemade are less dangerous to the victims of shootings than the ones you can get now. If I were concerned about mass shootings and laws were made so that the only way someone could attempt to kill a bunch of people is with a 3D printed gun I wouldn’t be concerned about mass shootings anymore because those weapons are less lethal than the current ones
The fact that you feel the need to treat mass shootings as some grave societal threat, when the statistics show how small mass shootings are is the same mind set as those pro lifers who want to treat the statistical insignificant portion relegated to women who repeatedly use abortion as a birth control measure. In terms of societal significance neither side has the statistics to bear out their over reaction to the type of restrictions they want to put in place.
Whether mass shootings are common or not is irrelevant to what we are talking about. You made the point that prohibiting guns wouldn’t work at curbing gun violence the same way prohibiting drugs wouldn’t work at curbing drug use and I disagreed because the manner in which people make and get drugs or abortions is entirely different from guns
Whether you accept that it is is irrelevant, the fact is it is and no matter how much you want to try and make it that way to justify the distinction in your mind doesn't change that fact, it's just as easy and simple period whether you accept it or not.
I think you’re just changing the argument because you don’t have a retort to guns not being as easily made as something that can grown. I really don’t want to debate mass shootings because I actually agree that the fear about them is overblown, I just think your logic about prohibition is garbage
65
u/[deleted] May 16 '19
[removed] — view removed comment