ABORTION and GUNS poll \ stacker news ~culture

ABORTION and GUNS poll

2779 sats \ 126 comments \ @joda 13 Feb culture

zaps forwarded to @OpenSats (100%)

There is a lot of nuance, but pick which one you most strongly identify with.

Pro-Life, Pro-Gun29.2%

Pro-Life, Anti-Gun7.7%

Pro-Choice, Pro-Gun46.2%

Pro-Choice, Anti-Gun16.9%

65 votes \ poll ended

view all related items

345 sats \ 24 replies \ @riberet19 13 Feb

PRO-LIFE, PRO-GUN

74 sats \ 23 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb

Just to engage in an little debate, how is that not an oxymoron. Guns objectively take lives. I don't understand how pro-life and pro-gun match up? I'm not trying to say your view is wrong just to clarify, I'm genuinely asking what your standpoint is and how you came to that decision.

31 sats \ 10 replies \ @SimpleStacker 13 Feb

I'm strongly pro-life, weakly pro-gun, and somewhat pro-death-penalty.

Pro-life and pro-death-penalty are consistent because in one case the life is innocent and in the other case it is not. Arguments about how birth affects the life of the mother are not convincing. Disabilities also deeply affect the lives of those around them, but we don't allow the mercykilling of the disabled, especially when consent was not voluntarily given. Arguments about the economic condition of the baby are also not convincing: who gets to decide the level of economic prosperity one has to achieve before having the right to live? Ironically, I find the absolutist position that it's the mother's choice what they do to with their body to be the most convincing pro-choice argument. But personally, I would rather support policies that help make giving birth less of a burden than allow for babies to be killed in the womb.
Pro-life and pro-gun are also consistent if you believe that guns act as a deterrence against criminal behavior. To the extent that the anti-2A movement is motivated by the prevalence of school shootings, I'd argue that they've misdiagnosed the problem. School shootings speak more to deteriorating mental health conditions than lax gun laws. In most instances, school shooters broke one or more laws, or agencies missed one or more red flags that they should have responded to, in order to get the guns. So the problem isn't that we lack laws, it's that the laws are shoddily enforced and that mental health in teens is being overlooked.

295 sats \ 8 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb

You make some really excellent points and I'll do my best to address them as best I can. You mentioned death penalty. I am also pro this, if the punishment is not to be feared then the crime will probably get commited anyway. And unfortunately the drain on resources that a life sentence in jail is on law abiding citizens is, at least in my book, too high. The killer, forfeited their rights to be treated any better than an animal when they behaved like one and took an innocent life.

It's about here where I feel we're going to differ, and it's on the definition of innocent life. Im really fuzzy on where I personally draw the line on the difference between life as an embryo and not life as an embryo, I'm not a "at the point of conception person". I do feel however that the needs of the mother should outweigh the needs of the featus where the two do not align. Babys are born still born all the time and some mothers still die in child birth. It wouldn't sit right with me if a mother was harmed or killed whilst in labour or even before only for child to be born a still born. To me the risk there to the undisputed living person (as we're not disputing the mothers alive) is too high. And however unfortunate for the unborn child, that's kinda just is what it is. (Awful choice of words I apologise but I couldn't think of any others). I do agree with you on the mother's body is her own point. But I also think that within reason the mothers wants/needs for her body should come first. I don't think it's responsible to enforce a 16yr old to see to term a child they cannot themselves be responsible for because they foolishly had unprotected sex.

The other thing to consider is rape victims, although a small portion of sample size they still need to be accountable. I'd hate for my sister as an eg to have to carry and raise the offspring of whatever vile person chose her to be his victim in that time. I know I could never love a neice/nephew born under those circumstances (but I'm not exactly a shining example of a compassionate human being).

Euthanasia is a difficult one as youd always struggle to be able to nail down exactly when someone is actually cognitively incapable of making that choice themselves and if it's one they'd want, and I feel that more often than not, it's selfishly motivated from people who stand to gain financially (via a will) or because they're fed up of long drawn out diseases and would rather it was over and convince themselves that their dependent would prefer death.

I absolutely agree as you pointed out about gun laws and mental health. Guns are the symptom not the cause. A mentally unstable person with means to kill will do so. (Sweeping statement but you get my point). What I'm saying is that readily available military grade weapons shouldn't be readily available. There is no scenario in which a civilian needs military style weaponry. I really think you hit the nail on the head there about lack of enforcement. But I still find it hard to deny the relevance of how unnecessary top end military weapons is to any civilian. I also don't see them as deterrents. You see for me, I have been trained in military weaponry. Someone else having one to me (perhaps this is arrogance) is an opportunity, because I'd bet on my ability to disarm them and take control of the weapon over their ability to actually use it. Which would ultimately give me the advantage over them, without ever having had a weapon of my own. That's my issue, is they become available to people who you didn't intend to originally have them. Such as kids.

Thanks for your great points and I hope I've addressed some of them adequately.

31 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 13 Feb

Thanks, always appreciate civil discussion with someone with opposing views!

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb

You and me both. In learning a lot about the other side of the arguement all the time.

Knowledge is power, understanding your views allows me to better understand the whole very complex issue.

Disregarding your view as just wrong without working to understand your individual perspective is just ignorant really.

I can't expect civil debate/discussion without giving it. Respect works both ways, gotta give a little to get a little.

10 sats \ 5 replies \ @Voldemort 13 Feb

There is no scenario in which a civilian needs military style weaponry.

Do you think is true across in all scenarios, or just in countries with minimally corrupt governments?

As a recent example, public opinion polls show that Ukrainians have become far more in favor of liberalizing gun laws since the war with Russia. I bet the Ukrainians with changing views wish they had more liberal gun laws prior to the invasion.

And in case someone responds with "citizens will never be able to defend themselves against a military," I would point out that terrorist groups with minimal technology in Afghanistan held their own against the US military over a ~15 year invasion. But even more fundamental, not being able to succeed in self defense does not imply one does not have the right to try.

What if the US government continually gets more and more corrupt over the next 50-100 years? Or what if down the road China and Russia team up and we go to war with them? Should we force future generations to be victims of corruption or other bad actors because we want a false sense of safety?

Finally, and this is my last point, since when does necessity govern civil rights? I am not sure a single thing in the bill of rights would be considered a need. Nay, rights are required for the things we do not need.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb

That's a more complicated situation as Ukraine Vs the US. I was specifically talking about the US. But you bring up a really valid scenario. Ukraine boarders a known threat, the US has no enemies with the capability to cause problems inside the US on land in situations where civilians with assault rifles would be of benefit. Civilians in Ukraine having weapons wouldn't have helped because they remain untrained... NATO let Ukraine down by not sending troops rapidly enough. Trained and qualified personnel will always be of more benefit than some untrained civilian.

Those same terror groups, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qa'ida, etc etc were trained by the west, funded by the west with the intention of fighting Russia. They did that, then the Russians funded and supplied and trained them to fight us. They aren't civilian militia, they're a funded military with training they're just funded and trained by whoevers interests they currently align with.

As for the corruption of the US is that not what a democracy is supposed to do? Vote it's corruption away? If the corruption in the US gets so bad would it not be of benefit for any force (even Russia/china) to overthrow that govt? Like the US has done in multiple middle eastern countries? Or should the rest of NATO step in and remove the in power US govt and establish a less corrupt one? Surely that aligns with the overthrowing a tyrannical govt that the militia are there for? But also, is that not an invasion of a foreign power, whereby the militia are meant to be fighting in collaboration with the govt against foreign invaders? So which one would be preferable? Attempting to overthrow a tyrannical govt out manned and out gunned by the resources of that govt... Or defending against foreign aggressors who are trying to remove that very same tyrannical govt?

Necessity has always governed civil rights. It is illegal to kill right? That's due to civil necessity and the need to collaborate as a population for the overall betterment of the collective. Without necessity governing civil rights you just have chaotic nonsensical laws with no real place. Like as an example the illegality of recreational drugs, that's not done out of necessity, it's done out of someone's displeasure at someone else's choice.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Voldemort 15 Feb

the US has no enemies with the capability to cause problems inside the US on land in situations where civilians with assault rifles would be of benefit.

Currently.

I fail to see how geography and/or time ought to govern whether something is a human right.

Civilians in Ukraine having weapons wouldn't have helped because they remain untrained... NATO

How can one become trained in a thing without a right to the thing?

Since when is training a requirement for a right?

What does it mean to help? Further, you have no evidence that it wouldn't have helped in some way. I could just as easily say it would have been harder to invade had Ukraine citizens been armed with military grade weapons. Maybe it would have even altered Russia's calculation as to whether an invasion was feasible.

Even if most are untrained, how can you be certain that former members of Ukraine military wouldn't have been able to work with their community to slow down the invasion?

Your entire point about terrorist organizations is ignoring that they had weapons to be trained with. Would the terrorist groups been able to defend themselves as successfully had the only had hand guns?

As for the corruption of the US is that not what a democracy is supposed to do? Vote it's corruption away?

This paragraph has no bearing on my view. I only provided a hypothetical situation in which US citizens might need to protect themselves against a corrupt or foreign government.

It is illegal to kill right? That's due to civil necessity and the need to collaborate as a population for the overall betterment of the collective

Unless I am severely misunderstanding you, this paragraph is mixing individual rights with how to best govern a society. One does not have a need to use recreational drugs. Recreational is in the name. Though I would argue it would be a better governing principle to de-criminalize drugs.

Yes, free speech is the best way to govern a free society. One does not have a need for free speech. Though maybe we mean different things when we say need. When I say need, I mean required to survive (as such, I take your point about murder but only as it is a right to life, not about civil necessity). Under my definition, the only things I need are food, water, shelter. None of which I have a right to beyond the pursuit thereof.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 15 Feb

Currently. Cmon the US is THE world superpower, sure Russia and china are external threats but they're not internal threats. I really struggle to see a likely scenario where civilians in the US would need to be armed to fight against a foreign power.

I fail to see how geography and/or time ought to govern whether something is a human right.

And yet they do, in the UAE a women doesn't have a right to many things. In Europe you don't have a right to guns, so yes geography clearly does dictate what a right is as it depends geographically which "rights" apply to you. That to me tells me it's not a basic human right at all, it's just an ability to have something legally.

How can one become trained in a thing without a right to the thing?

And yet here I am. I live in a place where there's no right to weapons and yet I have training. So it's very possible. That training comes by necessity of the job. There is no necessity on a daily basis for a civilian to own a weapon. Hell even military personnel don't own the military grade weapons. They're not personal issue.

Since when is training a requirement for a right?

This might be the fundamental disagreement, I don't believe it's a right at all. Besides are you saying you don't need training to be able to have something? Yet you need to have trained in a discipline like medicine as an example to conduct surgery on someone you can't just automatically go and do something you don't know what you're doing and claim you have access to it because you believe you should.

What does it mean to help? Further, you have no evidence that it wouldn't have helped in some way. I could just as easily say it would have been harder to invade had Ukraine citizens been armed with military grade weapons. Maybe it would have even altered Russia's calculation as to whether an invasion was feasible.

I doubt it would have made a blind bit of difference in Russia's mindset. But I do understand your point. For example the UK is currently talking about the possibility of conscription should it need to defend itself from Russia. But that wouldn't arm the general populace that would train a larger army to a higher standard than someone without training.

Even if most are untrained, how can you be certain that former members of Ukraine military wouldn't have been able to work with their community to slow down the invasion?

I'm fairly certain former members of the Ukrainian military were asked to re-enlist and did. It is the job of the military to protect their nation under these circumstances. Not the general populace exercising a "right" that can decide to choose violence against an invading aggressor.

Your entire point about terrorist organizations is ignoring that they had weapons to be trained with. Would the terrorist groups been able to defend themselves as successfully had the only had hand guns?

They had weapons to be trained with because we gave them to them. They didn't have the weapons until we armed them and then trained them.

This paragraph has no bearing on my view. I only provided a hypothetical situation in which US citizens might need to protect themselves against a corrupt or foreign government.

What your scenario was/is is justification for a military not for armament of civilians. You've so far only used war time or warfare examples. Because fundamentally there is no reason that a civilian needs a weapon (whether their laws allow them to have one or not) of that grade in their day to day peace time activities.

Unless I am severely misunderstanding you, this paragraph is mixing individual rights with how to best govern a society. One does not have a need to use recreational drugs. Recreational is in the name. Though I would argue it would be a better governing principle to de-criminalize drugs.

I don't know if I'm mixing them up as they're extremely intertwined. One does not have a right to kill a person, if one also has a right to life. Those two things can't exist without infringing upon someone else's right. You're right one does not need to use recreational drugs, but do they not have a right to choose whatever they wish to inhale? It can't be freedom sometimes when it suits and not others. Either you're free to choose how to live your life and own what you want, say what you want, smoke what you want and do what you want with your body (including remove what you don't want in your body) or you don't have freedom. If you're probably gun you'd have to be pro choice, and pro recreational drugs and pro gay. If you believe in freedom claiming you have a right to guns whilst a women doesn't have autonomy over her body then I'd argue you're not pro freedom.

Yes, free speech is the best way to govern a free society. One does not have a need for free speech. Though maybe we mean different things when we say need. When I say need, I mean required to survive (as such, I take your point about murder but only as it is a right to life, not about civil necessity). Under my definition, the only things I need are food, water, shelter. None of which I have a right to beyond the pursuit thereof.

I'm very much aligned with this as I personally do not believe that a "right" actually exists, a set of rules enforced by fear of consequences is the closest thing to rights. But they're not truly a right. The idea that someone has a right to something is just plain false to me especially if that thing can be removed from that person by force. Sure you need food, water and shelter and that's it, but you don't have a right to them, you want them you need to take them... Nowadays the way we take them is transactional and of mutual benefit. But to claim that someone has something that cannot be removed by a more powerful entity tells me that the "right" is a false sense of security. You don't have a right to life if someone can take it. You don't have a right to education if no one will provide it. And you certainly don't have ant kind of freedom of speech when there are laws protecting religious groups and sexuality, gender, etc. if you can be punished lawfully for saying something against a protected group, then you don't have freedom of speech you have things you are allowed and things you are not allowed.

Slight tangent but to wrap it all up. Thus far all of your points about the necessity for allowing civilians to have weapons of military grades have only really been justifications for military grade weaponry and a military. Not a reason why non military persons not currently engaged in military operations would need tools for that specific job. You wouldn't use a chainsaw on a piece of paper just because they're both technically wood, you'd use scissors. Your not in a warzone, you don't need warzone tools.

The problem with almost (as yes there are some restrictions on who can own, some eligibility criteria) almost everyone having access to that chainsaw to cut the paper is that had they only been allowed scissors, then they wouldn't have caused so much damage in schools...

Infact now I think about it by the definition of a right, does the fact that eligibility criteria for guns demonstrate that it isn't a right? If felons can't own, or those deemed cognitively disabled can't own... Then it isn't open to everyone and thus isn't a right. You need background checks to own right? Then you're being told by a different authority whether or not you can own one... So that's not a right, that's an allowance.

view replies

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @TNStacker 13 Feb

We shouldn't have the death penalty without public executions. What's the point otherwise?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 13 Feb

Anti abortion, pro gun ownership.

0 sats \ 10 replies \ @Bell_curve 13 Feb

Self defense is pro life

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb

I hear what you're saying but I do struggle to see in what situation you'd ever require such a huge advantage. Where a normal pistol wouldn't suffice. And although the usual usage of the words pro life usually infers anti abortion. I'm with you in the vein that I'm pro my life for sure, if I require to neutralise a threat to my life which results in the loss of theirs... Sorry bro, me you or you I ain't choosing your survival over mine. So I do see where you come from there for sure.

100 sats \ 8 replies \ @Bell_curve 13 Feb

What type of weapon or firearm an individual wants or needs should be up to that individual and his circumstances.

Do you live or work in a safe neighborhood?

Are police responsive?

Does your district attorney prosecute criminals?

Does your county have a zero bail policy?

There are other considerations I have not mentioned

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 13 Feb

The medical care of a pregnant woman should be up to that individual and her circumstances.

Was it conceived with the full consent of the mother? Does the family have a history of congenital disorders? Does the mother have the means to support another mouth?

There are other considerations I have not mentioned

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 14 Feb

In most countries including Europe the cutoff is 13 weeks

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @Bell_curve 14 Feb

Very funny

How many forms of birth control are available to women?

How many weeks does a fetus count as life?

I know people who say there is no difference between week 5 and week 35

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 14 Feb freebie

The weeks game sucks, its a trap that forced birthers use, I refuse to play. It doesn't count for a long time, maybe years.

"You're not a human till you're in my phone book.", Bill Hicks

40 sats \ 5 replies \ @0xIlmari 13 Feb

I am full of contradictions.

I am pro-life in the sense that, if asked for opinion, I would try to persuade a woman that unborn life is sacred and dissuade her from going through with an abortion.

But I will absolutely vote pro-choice because I don't belive this is a matter that the state has any business of deciding. I would only prefer this be done in private clinics only, and not with my tax money. (Then again, all state medicare should be abolished.)

I will vote pro-gun, because again, it's none the state's business. In fact the state monopoly on violence must end. (Abolish state police.)

Simultaneously, I like that I live in a mostly gun-less society, and would be just sad about the state of humanity if the constant and covert threat of ultimate violence (i.e. widespread concealed carry) was the only way to keep crime in check. In an unrestricted-guns society I probably wouldn't want to own one anyway, at least not carry.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @joda OP 13 Feb

That last point is very good. Your mental state changes when you are carrying a gun. I think it's true for everyone. The combination of that and the handful of confrontational young jocks in crowded places doesn't lead to good outcomes.

We should revive the idea of the duel though... 😂

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Enemy_of_the_state 13 Feb

Carrying a gun makes you far less confrontational, not more. The mental change is positive, not negative, as you imply. That goes for everyone I know who does, in personal life and professional.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 13 Feb

If you look at cities or towns with high rates of crime, they also have strict gun control laws

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 13 Feb

really appreciate the nuance and depth of your opinion regardless of it we agree, I think its very pro-American values to say I want government laws and personal decisions to remain totally separate. Laws do not exactly equal personal values when you are generally pro-freedom - there are lots of things I don't do that I think should be legal

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb

With ya here. Is it illegal where I'm from to smoke a joint? Yes. Should it be, nah do what you will with your body, you wanna inhale that stuff, on your head be it. But banning something with govt authority and claiming it's to keep people safe? Nah that's about control and in my opinion is an overstep of govt.

42 sats \ 3 replies \ @Turdinthepunchbowl 13 Feb

I'm in the pro choice, limited guns. Hunting and personal protection, with background checks. If a crime is committed with a gun I own (ie my child gets a hold of my gun and commits a crime, I am also partly responsible for giving them access to a weapon, just as I'd be in trouble if they got into my drugs).

There is no practical use for an assault style rifle in civilian hands. You and your friendly militia aren't going to fight off a tyrannical government with assault rifles... You wouldn't even get the chance to hold it when the drone drops through your roof.

I am biased as I know people that volunteer and donate to this charity, and meet with survivors of mass shootings, but reading the stories of survivors or people impacted I am not sure how you can view what's happening as normal.

https://ouraftermath.org/consider-the-aftermath

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb

Thank you for the work you do. Supporting these victims. You eloquently echo the sentiment I've been (butchering) trying to say in my responses to others.

If you need an assault rifle as a civilian, you're in over your head. You're not beating back the US Army. Believing you can is going to get you killed, chose a much more survivable option.

I do believe in the right to own weaponry should you chose to have them with much much much more stringent checks on a person's suitability (and even then some weapons are entirely unnecessary for civilians), but believing you're going up against the US Army and stand a chance... Yikes, no thanks.

31 sats \ 1 reply \ @Enemy_of_the_state 13 Feb

I don't think the next revolution in the US will be fought with guns. However, in the years leading up to some kind of revolution, the guns are needed to prevent innocent people from becoming the prey of violent criminals, which the government is unwilling to, or unable to prosecute. Governments are encouraging anti-social and violent acts against innocent people, if it serves their agenda, and purposely not punishing violent criminals.

Only a fool would argue to go up against a modern military with only rifles. A modern civilian uprising would need to be asymmetric.

One way it could happen is the people and their state governments vs the federal government. Then there would be a much bigger cost to the federal government to put down the uprising. Large, wealthy states like Texas could conceivably, go on a Bitcoin standard, and be free of the only leverage the federal government has, which is the money printer. The only option left to the federal government would be kinetic.

In this case I think it would be important for individual states, or a coalition, were capable of deploying nuclear weapons if needed. Because, I agree with you on how brutal the US government could get -- nukes are going to be the only deterrent to an increasingly desperate government.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb

I truly hope I don't see the usage of nukes in my lifetime. If we're there... We are beyond F'd.

It's very difficult to imagine the separation of govt and state when it came to military. One way or another that militia is going up against the US Army. There is no Texas Army or California Corps there is only the US military and they swore oaths to enact the will of the US govt as directed by the US govt.

Though I hope factions may splinter off and help the people Vs the govt. I'm not convinced they really would. Not if the well funded govt convinces them that quelling an uprising was in the national interest over and above the local interest.

Like you mentioned civil unrest is being encouraged in places the capitol riots for one. Whatever side you take, that's an uprising caused by the instruction of one political figure. That political figure can say all they like. The footage doesn't lie they said if the election did not go their way then their supporters would march on capitol hill. That's not hyperbole that was an instruction that many acted upon.

My issue with claiming that guns keep people safe from violent criminals is that... If you need military grade weaponry to handle some thugs... You're in over your head and need to be getting out. If a single shot from a 9mm pistol doesn't give you escape time, then it's too late for assault rifles. Having access to that type of equipment for civilians in my view is counter intuitive... Because those same violent criminals have access to them too and they're probably far more willing to use them than innocent people. I wouldn't say that access to that tier of weaponry protects anyone, all it does is increase the likelihood of those weapons being used for bad things. Increasing the death toll dramatically in the event of an incident. They're not protecting people's lives they're being used to take them.

As I mentioned further down in my responses "Military grade weaponry isn't a deterrent that's intent. That weapon is designed for one thing only, you own that weapon and have intent to use it then you absolutely 100% have premeditated intent to kill. A pistol isn't designed to kill. Infact 9mm is designed to stop not kill. 5.56 rounds are designed to fragment and cause maximum damage, they're designed to maim and to kill. That's not reasonable or proportional force when it comes to deterring looters." Those weapons don't protect innocents they escalate situations.

43 sats \ 2 replies \ @gd 13 Feb

Oh man, “PRO/ANTI-“ is really wild America speak to a non-American. Makes me shiver

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @joda OP 13 Feb

Fair. We are not known for nuance; We vote for people who yell opinions.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 13 Feb

I would respectfully push back. I think in real everyday life most people are pretty respectful. Its just the angriest 0.01% that get attention on TV and social media. I had a gun rights conversation with my "lefty" friend just last week and it was very reasonable and respectful despite no one agreeing on anything. You just need to surround yourself with reasonable people who are open to learning, new data, and informing their opinion.

45 sats \ 8 replies \ @grayruby 13 Feb

Are we talking ideologically or legislatively?

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb

Ideologically, it'd be great if we lived in a world where none of it was necessary. Pregnancies were all planned. And there was never a need to have to defend yourself with weapons of any kind.

Legislatively, I don't believe the govt should be allowed to dictate a persons autonomy over their own body or their belongings.

But I recognise that what we're discussing is the nuance between the perfect and the practical.

10 sats \ 6 replies \ @joda OP 13 Feb

Just whatever you gravitate toward. Gut reaction.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @grayruby 13 Feb

My gut reaction is ideologically I don't like abortion or guns. Although I see the necessity for both in certain cases. I have no problem with and support the right of a gun to protect your home but I don't like gun obsession and gun culture. By the same token I support the right for a woman to have an abortion even though I despise the idea outside of very rare cases (let's be honest the incest, rape, danger to the mother's life, edge cases really are a very small fraction of the cases).

Legislatively, I think there is no way for the government to get either issue correct and both issues are totally corrupted by special interest groups so should probably for the most part stay out of it other than baseline legislation almost all of us can agree on. (i.e my 5 year old probably shouldn't be permitted to own a gun and a woman probably shouldn't be able to say "off with it's head" as the baby is being born).

10 sats \ 4 replies \ @Enemy_of_the_state 13 Feb

From your response about "gun culture" and "gun obsession", I know that you have never handled, let alone used, a firearm before. If you have an open mind and were humble enough to accept Bitcoin, I think you will have a change of heart about guns if you study enough...go down the gun rabbit hole.

A gun is a tool of liberation, and of freedom, for many people, in the same way that Bitcoin is. Non-violent people are no longer at the mercy of the violent.

Security is not much concern in homogenous, high trust societies like Switzerland and Japan, but many places, including the USA, have many "cultures" and have a huge underclass, that has been programmed to prey on "the others", including physical violence.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @grayruby 13 Feb

I used to go skeet shooting with my grandfather in Florida when he was alive. I have many friends who are part of gun clubs here in Canada who I have gone to those clubs with. I have pics on my camera roll on my phone of me shooting an AR-15 before they were banned in Canada with one of my buddies who competes in target shooting. My father in law is a Vietnam vet and I have gone to the range with him multiple times while in Texas but please go on about how "I have never handled, let alone used a firearm".

You might have made some good points in your comment but I ignored the rest of it after you decided to make presumptions about me.

30 sats \ 0 replies \ @Enemy_of_the_state 13 Feb

I'm a free speech absolutist and a property absolutist. The government shouldn't decide what I own.

30 sats \ 1 reply \ @Enemy_of_the_state 13 Feb

OK, I am surprised, its hard for me to understand how you can say "gun obsession" like its a bad thing. Almost everyone I've met has done a full 180 on guns once they are introduced to actually using them. Sorry for presumptions.

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 14 Feb

I recognized after the fact that using terminology like “gun culture” and “gun obsessed” made sound like my crazy liberal neighbors who thought I should be scared walking around Texas because everyone had guns. Probably not the best way to describe the difference between my respect for the right to bare arms and my wife’s family and some of my friends who are gun aficionado’s and have houses full of firearms. If that’s your thing, it’s your thing.

105 sats \ 0 replies \ @030e0dca83 13 Feb

Only women have should should decide what to do with their bodies, and if they don't want to give birth they shouldn't

What about guns, I things in the world of live we don't need guns at all

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Krv 14 Feb

Pro-choice, Pro-Gun

I'd like to live in a world with the following standards:

Abortion: choice to abort a child in the womb should be considered a very serious one. If a woman is well informed about the consequences of the decision (emotional, ethical, alternative options, etc), but still decides to make that choice it ought to be allowed. She is essentially deciding to discontinue her genes, and the genes of the father, on some level, which would reduce the prevalence of this behavior in the future and I'm not sure is negative thing for the future.

Guns: Gun control is a contradiction. To prevent people from having guns you need to use guns. So, gun-control advocates aren't really against guns. They are pro guns for certain people (i.e. usually people they trust in government). Consistent principles needs to allow people to have guns to defend themselves from other people who may use guns, and other weapons against them. However, for people who use guns to initiate violations of other's property, it is reasonable to prohibit them from using guns. Ideally, I think this should be decided on community levels. This just expands property rights to the community level. Communities can decide their policies and how to deal with gun usage in them. People can live in communities that suit their preferences.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Krv 14 Feb

On abortion: my take was very pragmatic, which is not intended to minimize the absolute tragedy of the situation. The truth is abortion has an enormous negative emotional toll on any woman, except perhaps for psychopathic women. Any truthful analysis would present this reality to a woman considering this. Contrary to the pro-abortion advocates who seem to care nothing about these woman and/or are so deluded as to not express it.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Signal312 14 Feb

I used to be pro-choice. Then with the covid insanity a few years back, it turns out the pro-choice people hated me, and the pro-life people didn't.

That made me think seriously. Now I incline a lot more to pro-life.

110 sats \ 1 reply \ @Krv 14 Feb

You need guns to take away people's guns. So nobody is anti-gun. They just want guns in the hands of a select few.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Enemy_of_the_state 14 Feb

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

110 sats \ 6 replies \ @anon 13 Feb

Pro freedom on all sides. Totally respect everyone's opinion, in America you get freedom of speech, vote, and thought. I think one point that all sides lose is that the Founders specifically wanted citizens to have guns as a bulwark against a tyrannical government - not for fun, sporting, hunting, etc. So you are free to be of the opinion that people should only have "small" guns for "fun activities" but that is definitely not the spirit or letter of the 2nd amendment. It specifically calls out having a civilian militia, not people hunting or target shooting. Text copied here, "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." I think its always helpful to go back to first principles, in this case what does the constitution actually say. What we think the law should be is completely different from what it actually is today.

Appreciate the respectful discussion on such divisive topics.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Enemy_of_the_state 13 Feb

In modern speak: "Because government armed forces are necessary, the people will have the right to arm themselves any way they see fit, to deter any tyrannical fantasies by a future government."

It didn't say: "Since muskets are modern weapons of war, the people will be allowed to use recurve bows and spears, so they don't hurt each other too much."

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb

Being not American I'm not hugely familiar with the second amendment, so I'm grateful you out it down there in black and white.

My thoughts on that was that it was written in a very very different era. And in my view was written with the intent to protect the right to defend yourself with weapons against a tyrannical state or even foreign invader as you mentioned.

But I do feel it was written with the weapons of the time in mind. Muskets, single bolt action rifles. Not AR15s.

If you require, as a civilian, a weapon of that calibre, you sir are in way over your head. Although I believe you should be able to defend yourself against aggressors like tyrannical state. You're going up against a well funded and well trained military. No local militia is taking on the US army. You don't stand a chance. The best you could hope for is those highly trained persons side with you against the state. But don't delude yourself into a false sense of security that if the state wanted you gone, an AR15 or other military grade weapon isn't going to help you.

I don't mean to sound disrespectful with that last statement. But truly if you're fighting your own tyrannical govt. You're in over your head, find a way out, engaging isn't going to be a good or survivable option.

10 sats \ 3 replies \ @Enemy_of_the_state 13 Feb

Hopefully, some states, like Texas, would form a coalition with nuclear armed states like North Dakota. That I'm afraid will be the only deterrent from a tyrannical "United States"

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb

I truly don't believe they would. Their military isn't beholden to the state it's beholden to the govt. North Dakota isn't a nuclear armed state. The US is a nuclear state. Those aren't north Dakota's nukes they're the US Govts ain't no way they're letting some coalition of militia get anywhere close to having control over those nukes.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Enemy_of_the_state 13 Feb

Ukraine had nukes after USSR collapse. Then Obama took them, then what happened?

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 14 Feb

Victoria Nuland

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @026180d3a3 13 Feb

Pro gun owning rights, anti abortion in most instances. I've yet to meet a fetus who wanted to break in my house, or wanted to rob me. Later on down the road though....

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 13 Feb

Wow, a lot of trash people among the bitcoiners. I mean it was always kinda that way.

Abortion by default or gtfo

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @KeynesianClowns 13 Feb

Personally, pro-life in any case that doesn't put the mother's life at risk. Legislatively, if leaving it up to choice gets the state and state funding out of it, so be it.

Guns on the other hand are not up for discussion. If a means of self-defense exists, it should not be regulated and everyone should have equal opportunities in the marketplace to obtain it.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @JuanMiguel 14 Feb

Concerning to see so many people voting "Pro-choice, Anti-gun" on a Bitcoin forum. Only statists fiatcoiners would vote that.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 11 Apr

https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/a-perspective-on-abortion-from-today/4553/4

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Feb

https://thepostmillennial.com/60-of-firearm-homicides-each-year-involve-black-americans

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 13 Feb

There is no pro or anti choice, this is a false dichotomy. There is only “medical care”. It’s none of your business what others decide to do with their bodies, anything else is unacceptable. People must be protected from religious delusions of the hateful.

My opinion is that one don’t even get to have an opinion on it this issue until you can give birth. The only person that can make the call is the one who would give birth, it is their body. Unborn babies are just growing mother flesh until disconnected.

I don’t care strongly about guns, other than people will have them regardless of the law. It’s probably easier just to allow them, as 3D printing will eventually render any controls moot.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 13 Feb

Glad to see most are pro second amendment

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @fred 13 Feb

This is just a hard one that everyone have to choose from but it all matter in the situation you might be in

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lumor 13 Feb

Yup, my answer would depend on the number of weeks into the pregnancy.

Pro-gun though.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @03cd260bf0 13 Feb freebie

murdering babies is good because "choice" durr durr

42 sats \ 54 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb

Can I be pro choice and pro gun but anti moron?

you don't need a gun, but there's no reason to ban them completely.

What you really don't need is military grade equipment. They're not toys and they're not collectors items.

The lack of respect I see people have with a weapon is astounding... Never point the barrel at anything you're unwilling to kill.

Civilians don't need military grade weaponry.

Pistols and hunting rifles/shotguns sure, those are sporting goods, but you can't convince me that the majority of military grade weapons owners have ever had the rigorous and thorough training required to adequately handle that weapon.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @joda OP 13 Feb

It doesn't matter if it's the majority. It only takes one psycho to shoot up some innocent people.

Besides, plenty of mass shootings are carried out by people with training and experience.

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb

Those people required help long before they began shooting up people.

When trained personnel who's primary mission has always been to protect go on shootings like that. I'm sorry but the here the state has let them down. Their service is probably what has left them with those difficulties and the state discarded them. They should have had the proper care for the very real demons they were fighting long before they ever got to the point of shooting up schools.

For me that's not about gun control that's about the state you sacrificed for abandoning you and you deserved better from them. They let those people down and some of the blame falls at their feet. But sure you could also say less access less likely to occur. But let's use the UK as an example, guns (outside of sporting) are illegal to own to carry to whatever... And yet although very rare, shootings do happen, but are so rare because access to guns is difficult. And the shootings are done by sporting pistols/rifles/shotguns. So I'd argue that because those shooters didn't have access to military grade equipment the death toll was much much lower than it could have been.

Stabbings however, more or less the same as the US. People are going to break and do these things but the impact is lessened (from a quantity of lives lost perspective) when the access to higher capability weaponry isn't there.

0 sats \ 51 replies \ @Bell_curve 13 Feb

Military grade guns can help during a riot, if a mob tries to burn down your home or business or both

10 sats \ 50 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb

I addressed this point slightly in another reply further up but to summarise. I'd have to say that if you require military grade guns to keep yourself safe, you are in over your head and need to reassess if it's a good idea for you to be where that kinda if heat is.

I'm going to go out on a limb here a little and suggest that you don't have the necessary training to combat that situation and for your own safety you'd be much better off finding somewhere else to be rather than engaging in that situation. From a purely survivability point of view.

I would like to provide context. I have had extensive training/experience for those types of combat situations and I can promise you... I'd rather find myself in a different situation every time.

You inferred in a previous reply that you were pro life. So I'd ask are you're truly willing to take another person's life to protect material possessions (which are likely insured) in riot scenarios like a business? Coming for your home, slightly different you can bet id be putting down surpressive fire whilst I got my family out. But I'm not defending a building. It's not (to me) worth the risk to my life that even with the protection of a weapon that someone else doesn't start shooting back and gets me.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Enemy_of_the_state 13 Feb

"Coming for your home, slightly different you can bet id be putting down surpressive fire whilst I got my family out. But I'm not defending a building. "

You would leave a highly defensible position, exposing yourself and your family to who knows? Don't know your MOS but hopefully it was non-combat.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb

That wasn't explained particularly well. I'm not leaving a defensible position I'm withdrawing to a safer one. The context above from the original poster talked about burning down your home. I'm not staying in a building on fire. I'm exiting and withdrawing to a safer one. The inference was that violent people were in your home already. That's not defensible with your family there, your not acting correctly you're worried about them. if it's burning or they're in it, then it's not defensible it's compromised. All you're doing is backing yourself into a corner. Get out and get somewhere else that's safe. This notion that one person can defend their home from 5,6,10,20 violent rioters/looters or other armed people is Hollywood fantasy. Be smart and actually keep yourself and your dependants alive.

Don't know your MOS but hopefully it was non-combat.

So far the tone of this whole thread has been decent and respectful, don't change that. Your inference that because you disagree makes me incompetent at my job didn't go unnoticed and was not appreciated.

0 sats \ 47 replies \ @Bell_curve 13 Feb

I don’t have material training.

A business is livelihood not just material things.

Yes I would shoot rioters and looters.

0 sats \ 46 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb

Then I'd propose that you're not pro life, if you're willing to take theirs or lose yours over something covered by insurance.

But don't get me wrong or feel as though I am undermining the importance of that business to you, I am just suggesting that in a riot scenario the threat to your life (in my view) takes priority over the threat to your business. Businesses can be rebuilt, you can't be. Should you find yourself in that situation, I hope you come out ok. And I am sorry you have to live in an environment where those situations are not just theoretical debate but real expected situations.

What I am saying is sort of about what I feel is worth dying for. That building, will be taken over by another business owner and it'll last, it'll see new days, you may not. Prioritise you as best you can. (I'm not advocating for not defending your livelihood, I'm ex military, I know what it means to want to defend your way of life.)

10 sats \ 3 replies \ @Enemy_of_the_state 13 Feb

Once a sufficient level of violence or violent intent has been shown, I am not leaving the decision to them on whether I live or die. The fact is, if you have an armed response, you are MUCH more likely to survive a violent encounter.

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb

I agree, on the the principle. You can attempt to de escalate. Or you can hope that you're more capable than they are. As someone with training, (as I mentioned earlier) I can guarantee you I have been taught to disarm an opponent and make their weapon mine. Do you want to run the risk that your aggressor can't do the same thing to you?

I'm with you on the them or me stance. It's going to be them everytime. But if you try to de escalate and become less of a threat, you are more likely to survive than if you gambled on if you could shoot first. You also stand a shot as you try to de escalate for them to get comfortable, theyll come in close and you now have your shot to strike and disarm.

If you're in a stand off. They're not going to shoot you, they'd have already done so. De escalate and you stand to make them believe they're in control and you're not a threat whilst what you've done is taken full control of the situation. If they were going to shoot they'd have shot the moment they saw you had a weapon. Be unthreatening and you live long enough to actually come out on top.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Enemy_of_the_state 13 Feb

I guess you misinterpreted my meaning, I was not advocating for drawing from the drop (though there are situations where that might be the only choice).

Yes, if there is already a gun drawn on you, feign compliance and hopefully disarm or draw and shoot as appropriate.

Its always good to de-escalate social situations, but if a gun is in play, that is my red line where action is required. That is when a person has shown that they don't care if you live or die.

view replies

0 sats \ 41 replies \ @Bell_curve 13 Feb

Imagine you are a small business owner who has lost his business due to arson and riot.

How do you pay the bills while your business is being rebuilt?

Better to deter rioters than rebuild.

Better to defend your property than watch it burn down

0 sats \ 40 replies \ @Public_N_M_E 13 Feb

Don't get me wrong. I do understand. Replace business with job or any livelihood and I've been there. After leaving the military, I found myself entirely out on my ass. But I did rebuild. Granted I didn't have bills to pay, not really and I was able to sleep on friends sofas for a while. So I was fortunate I had support to allow me to rebuild.

There are other deterrents for rioters than the threat of getting shot and ones that don't put you in a position to also get shot.

Yes those can be expensive, but from my viewpoint, can you really put a price on your life? Because that's what could happen. You could start shooting at the wrong bunch of rioters and find yourself in a situation you really didn't need to be in.

But I do sympathise with where you're coming from about the practicalities of survival whilst that business gets rebuilt and those insurance thieves actually pay you your money.

0 sats \ 39 replies \ @Bell_curve 13 Feb

Regarding the price of my life I know it’s not infinite.

Most economists value life at around 10 to 20 million usd.

view replies