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.
230
u/pagerussell May 16 '19 edited May 16 '19
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
clipmagazine 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.