I PROPOSE A COMPROMISE

We'll let you have gun rights if you let us have abortion rights.

>>1
Then vote for the libertarian party if you actually mean it, since they are the only party moving for the legalization of both, as well as many other things... =)

http://www.lp.org/

>>1
Hmm, so we get the right to own some property, in particular, constitutionally protected property, and the right to self-defense (something we should have as a natural, inalienable right), all of which we were supposed to have from the start, and in exchange, you get the right to destroy innocent fetuses. 

The right to own guns and weaponry is something constitutionally protected.  It's not really a negotiable issue.  Self defense is a natural and inalienable right all humans are born with.  Its not something for a government to bestow upon you. 

>>2
I agree, libertarians are the only real party of freedom and respect for all these human rights. 

>>5
I agree with you, but it doesn't mean that abortion shouldn't be legalized. 

fetus <> human:

- potentiality is no excuse, that would logically make sperm and eggs as separate entites equvialent to humans.  not every cell in the human body can be considered on equal standing to a human being as a whole.
- responsiblity is no excuse, if there is a way out of a situation where no one (one as in 100% full and actual human being with all requisite biological structure) gets hurt there is no reason not to do it.
- morality is no excuse, people will have sex without regard to reproductive consequences as long as humans exist.  females are fertile one or days of the month but horny all 28-31 days.  sex is not just for procreation even according to our biology and this ancient christian tactic of exacting sin taxes from everyone needs to be buried deep.  jealous and mysoginistic motherfuckers who do not want their woman to have a sex drive out of fear of them cheating need to go to iraq.  (at the very least, the pro-lifers on the board could inclulde the man who got the female pregnant along with the female herself when they talk about responsibility! Notice not too much of that comes up though.)
- compassion is no excuse, the people wanting the girl who accidently got pregnant to "do the right thing" and go through with it will not be there to pay the bills.  forcing the father to pay is usually an endeavor not worth its while in the end.
- religion is no excuse.  man's hand is all over the bible, we cannot be sure what is god's will and what is man's will as long as the channel of communication is dependent on a work of man.
- law is no excuse.  inalienable human rights mean you must be a human.  perhaps in 6 months the clump of cells becomes human, but there is a time in the womb where the fetus is not human.
- aesthetics is no excuse.  birth is just as ugly as abortion.  however with abortion you get to have sex with the female sooner.

- tl;dr is no excuse.  i have a long argument for this but it seems better not to put anything here for this one.

- put yourself in the same situation pimple-faced fat 4channers as no doubt you are: hypothetical - you actually get laid (zomg liek it could happen with you being on 4chan and LOL NO GIRLZ ON INTERBUTT) once in your life and get a girl pregnant.  wouldn't you like the option?  no one forces you to get an abortion.

>>7
If the girl was being responsible, she'd have used birth control.

>>7
"(at the very least, the pro-lifers on the board could inclulde the man who got the female pregnant along with the female herself when they talk about responsibility! Notice not too much of that comes up though.)"

I'll start a separate thread just for this question, as we don't want to clutter up this one.

>>1
I've got a better idea, why don't we just do everything 100% logically and crush all the dumbasses and extremists in rational debate for all the good reposnsible people of the US to see, ie. people who don't vote because their pastor tells them to or because they think FIdel Castro is a god and want to bring the US closer to socialism and then to communism.

If the fetus is sentient, you are not allowed to abort. Hearing the baby you are aborting cry when it leaves the womb will scar you for life.
If it is not sentient, abort if you want.
People should be able to possess arms which can be used to defend themselves and form a militia to overthrow mischievous governments.
People should not be able to possess arms which have little use for self defense, such as chemical weapons, large amounts of explosives etc etc..

>>10
Chemical weapons and large amounts of explosives would help in overthrowing the mischievous government though.  Why let the government have the advantage of superior firepower?

>>11
They're always going to have superior firepower and the army and police won't be behind a totalitarian government 100%. If you have a large segment of the civilian population armed and unwilling to obey the totalitarian government's rules, the police and military are less likely to want to obey their superiors and many lieutenants will see how difficult it is to implement totalitarianist policies and just give up. Chemical weapons also tend to affect civilian populations more and explosives are widespread throughout many industries, so in the event of a totalitarianist outbreak in the government there will be enough explosives lying around to cause damage to the military, but not to terrorise the civilian population.

It only takes 1 bullet to prevent a totalitarianism from happenning in the first place.

>>10
>>12
Why even have a professional army? Militia FTW right? Everybody gets basic firearms/combat training at a certain age. you'll never have an unpopular war.

>>13
So the entire population is part of the militiary?

>>10
That sounds entirely reasonable, and I fucking agree and second it.

I hate how they pretend that the national guard is the militia, when it is under the thumb of the commander in cheif.

>>16
Yeah really.  It isn't a militia, and doesn't serve the purpose clearly enumerated in the 2nd amendment if it is still under the control of the feds. 

>>10
winn4r is u

>>10 for president

>>1
"We'll let you have gun rights if you let us have abortion rights."

I have found the solution to this problem.  The solution is Howard Dean.  He's a democrat from Vermont, and supports both abortion 'rights' and opposes any further federal level gun control.

He is a presidential hopeful for 2008.

>>20 "Yeeeeeeargh!". Vote for him.

>>20
>>21
"opposes any *further* federal level gun control."
Why compromise?

Vote Libertarian.

>>22
Because political concepts that didn't last in the 1800s will certainly work now!!!

>>23
Most of the gun control we have was only recently enacted, aside from the gun control act back in the 30's, and the gun control act of 68.  The gun control act of 68 was based on a Nazi weapons law, and gun control is, imo, one of the legacies Hitler left us with.  It is a Nazi cancer and needs to be stalled, then removed.  A shift within the democratic party to oppose any further federal level gun control would be a damn nice thing to see - since the conservatives are already pro-gun.  What does this mean? It means if the democrats change, there won't be a single anti-gun main party with a chance of winning in the near future left.  Furthermore, many of the smaller 3rd parties are pro-gun as well.  If the dems change, the future for gun owners and their freedoms is very likely very bright.  Since Howard Dean is pushing to bring about this change, he more than deserves my vote in 08, if he runs.

>>22
Certainly your choice, and I agree the libertarians are a superior party.  The reason I would cross party lines to support Dean is because then dems might see that there are votes to be had in the area of -gun rights-, and the significance of this is that gun control would be pretty much dead as an issue, since after this, no major party would support it.  I strongly sympathize with the libertarian party, though it is necessary for the sake of the 2nd amendment and constitution to show the dems that there is strong support of pro-gun candidates so that they will change in the future.

I'm getting largely fed up with the American left, but if you can give them the thumbs up for running Dean, I think you should take that chance. Beats sucking up to the christianists and neo-jacobins in order to keep your right to arms.

>>23
But they did last and work, especially for libertarian blacks during the 50s and 60s.

>>24
Voting is just doing your bit, it would be more prudent to persuade others to vote for the party you want. Democracy isn't just about voting it's about creating an arena for ideas to be debated and judged by the people the ideas will affect.

Yeah.. and again, its not that I'm happy with Dean's position on guns - its that I'm happy with them -for now-.  My goal is firstly to stop the advance of the anti-gun, anti-2nd amendment groups, and then following that to have the anti-gun laws in place repealed.  But none of this can begin if we have a powerful enemy of the 2nd amendment like the anti-gun dems in place.  This is why a massive party shift within the dems to be more 'pro-gun' is so favorable, and why I'd then support them on principle.  With both parties being pro-gun, there's nowhere for gun rights to go but forward, so to speak. 

>>27
Why not vote libertarian in secret, but pretend to be a democrat and argue for the preservation of the right to bear arms?

>>28
Who says I'm not? If it was a secret, you wouldn't have known about it since .. it would have been a secret.  o_O

>>1
Sounds fair to me since I'm for both of the anyway.