A good question about liberal and conservative politics re: Constitutional rights

[Raoul Duke]

Why do conservatives seem to believe that outlawing guns won't prevent gun violence, but outlawing abortion will prevent abortion and why do liberals seem to believe that outlawing abortion won't prevent abortion, but outlawing guns will prevent gun violence?

 

[vvvvvvv]

It's because both camps are composed of anti-liberty statists who believe that government should control any aspect of your life that they do not personally agree with. Both are unwilling to apply logic and reason while falsely claiming that they are applying logic and reason. In reality, the only time they come close to applying logic and reason is if it deals with an issue that they agree that you should be "free" to do.

A shining example of the gross ignorance could be Conservatives' worshiping of Ronald Reagan even though many of his positions were contrary to what current Conservatives claim that he stood for. For example, a popular meme that I've seen on Facebook passed around by Conservative groups shows a photo of Reagan and says something the lines of "was a victim of assassination attempts. never came for your guns", when in reality he supported quite a bit of anti-gun legislation both while in and out of office. Then there's the issue of the size of government under each administration...

On the other side, you have the shining example of Liberals' worshiping of Barack Obama even though he has gone against nearly every promise he has made on the campaign trail, both from 2008 and 2012. Take, for example, the pseudo-War on Terror - he's simply continued in the footsteps of Bush II, and in many cases has amplified Bush II's policies. Yet liberals who were anti war and pro civil rights before 2008 not take pro war and anti civil rights positions in support of their fearless leader. It doesn't matter that it's Bush III.

There is the sheep mentality in both camps, too. You're either Republican or Democrat. You either support the entire platform, or you're a [RD]INO. If you're not with us, you're against us. If you're an American citizen who thinks you have rights that our party doesn't think you should have, you're an enemy of the state and should promptly be destroyed. If a member of the "other party" is President, we'd better change our so-called principles and values because we cannot be seen agreeing with them. Every politician is corrupt, except mine.

Neither of those camps contain an ounce of principles or moral values in politics. It's about self-righteous benefit over freedom. It's about taking or renouncing claim of policies depending based on who will get the credit for implementation. Neither sees you as a citizen, they see you as a subject that must be controlled by the state. The only thing they disagree on is what must be controlled, and even then they trade on some areas depending on who it benefits most politically.

 

[dugby]

It's because both camps are composed of anti-liberty statists who believe that government should control any aspect of your life that they do not personally agree with. Both are unwilling to apply logic and reason while falsely claiming that they are applying logic and reason. In reality, the only time they come close to applying logic and reason is if it deals with an issue that they agree that you should be "free" to do.

A shining example of the gross ignorance could be Conservatives' worshiping of Ronald Reagan even though many of his positions were contrary to what current Conservatives claim that he stood for. For example, a popular meme that I've seen on Facebook passed around by Conservative groups shows a photo of Reagan and says something the lines of "was a victim of assassination attempts. never came for your guns", when in reality he supported quite a bit of anti-gun legislation both while in and out of office. Then there's the issue of the size of government under each administration...

On the other side, you have the shining example of Liberals' worshiping of Barack Obama even though he has gone against nearly every promise he has made on the campaign trail, both from 2008 and 2012. Take, for example, the pseudo-War on Terror - he's simply continued in the footsteps of Bush II, and in many cases has amplified Bush II's policies. Yet liberals who were anti war and pro civil rights before 2008 not take pro war and anti civil rights positions in support of their fearless leader. It doesn't matter that it's Bush III.

There is the sheep mentality in both camps, too. You're either Republican or Democrat. You either support the entire platform, or you're a [RD]INO. If you're not with us, you're against us. If you're an American citizen who thinks you have rights that our party doesn't think you should have, you're an enemy of the state and should promptly be destroyed. If a member of the "other party" is President, we'd better change our so-called principles and values because we cannot be seen agreeing with them. Every politician is corrupt, except mine.

Neither of those camps contain an ounce of principles or moral values in politics. It's about self-righteous benefit over freedom. It's about taking or renouncing claim of policies depending based on who will get the credit for implementation. Neither sees you as a citizen, they see you as a subject that must be controlled by the state. The only thing they disagree on is what must be controlled, and even then they trade on some areas depending on who it benefits most politically.

I will second this !!!! It is the statists at every level that are destroying our nation and sqaundering our freedoms. This program, that program, this agency, that agency, way way too much government. A thousand new laws every day that make us all criminals if someone wants you bad enough. Fire half the people that work for the government and abolish 2/3rds of the agencies. People that draw a government check should not be allowed to vote. Conflict of interest plain and simple.

 

[CoachR64]

No one is foolish enough to believe outlawing anything will prevent 100% of what you are going after. For me, it's about choice and rights. With guns, it is my right and my choice. With abortion, you have one person choosing life or death for another, taking away that other persons rights and choices. To me, abortion is like gun control, dictating choices and rights for others.

 

[n2sooners]

The problem I see with this analogy is that in one case you have people who want to save lives by outlawing one of the tools that can be used to kill with total disregard to how many lives that tool saves or the fact that other tools exist to kill.

In the other case, you have people who want to outlaw the act of killing, not the tools which are used to do that killing which are also used to save lives.

 

[CoachR64]

Veggie, just because one does not agree with you does not make one stupid or incapable of applying logic and reason. It is an extremely negative view of the human mind and spirit. The reason I do not support abortion is grounded in logic, facts, and reasoning. I actually look at it from the science and human perspective, as well as my Christian beliefs.

Now where I think you have a point is looking at the extremists n each side, such as the protestors that used to blow up abortion clinics. They were killing to protest killing. Makes no sense. The anti gun extremists are calling for the killing of NRA leaders. You will always have extremes on both ends. But jumping on and labeling everyone in between is silly.

 

[farmerbyron]

Maybe a better form for the question is "Why does the conservative side think banning gay marriage is going to stop homosexuality." As others have stated, abortion is making the choice of life or death for someone else.

I don't want people telling others how to live or if they should live so long as they aren't hurting anyone else, period, end of story.

 

[CoachR64]

Again, no conservatives think it will stop homosexuality. No one is that naive. It is about the sanctity of marriage between a man and a women. That is where I stand n the biblical definition of marriage. That being said, I do think it is a shame and flat wrong that homosexual couples can not receive the same benefits as a married couple when it comes to insurance, taxes, etc... I do believe they deserve those rights, but I am strongly opposed to it being called a marriage as that is between man and woman.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Veggie, just because one does not agree with you does not make one stupid or incapable of applying logic and reason.

I never said such a thing.

But jumping on and labeling everyone in between is silly.

Nor did I label "everyone in between [the extremists]".

By definition, those who are elected to hold representative office hold views (at least on the campaign trail) that appeal to the average person that cast their vote for them. If they are re-elected, especially by a large margin, then it can be concluded that the views they have expressed while in office are either representative of their average voter or their average voter finds such things inconsequential enough to themselves to be ignored.

Most voters don't vote for freedom - most voters vote for their own self-benefit.

If I'm not homosexual, why should I vote for someone who supports LGBT equality? If I'm not Muslim, why should I not vote to re-elect someone who voted to label all Americans as terrorists? If I don't carry a gun, why should I vote for someone who supports the right to keep and bear arms in addition to my right to hunt game? If I'm Christian, why should I vote against someone who wants to convert America to a Christian theocracy?

The bankruptcy of principles and values I see from elected officials make me wonder about the average voter who elected them.

 

[CoachR64]

Look at your first sentence. You most definitely labeled both sides and said they are incapable of using logic.

And yes, I agree with you totally that many voters vote out of selfish motives. As a teacher, I see the sense of entitlement in our society on a daily basis. Lots of people care more about their next handout than they do the true politics and direction of the country.