PDA

View Full Version : Political question for Democrats


Rivers
08-24-2007, 2:46 PM
Please bear with me as I lay the foundation.

The Democratic party platform is pro-choice and for gun control.

Pro-choice means they believe women should have the choice to determine whether to terminate a pregnancy. Obviously this means that (by any definition) what would be a human life in just weeks or months would be terminated at the will of the pregnant woman, and that many would exercise that option.

The Demo position on gun control is because "gun control saves lives" by (take your pick) keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, banning evil black guns that can kill too easily, etc.

So how can a Democrat who supports both of those positions balance that equation?

The only way I can see it is if "gun control saves lives" is NOT the real reason for pushing that agenda. If the motive is to keep the power in the hands of the government and out of the control of the people, it would make it easier to force restrictive legislation on the masses. I know I might be misquoting the Communist leader Mao Tse-tung but it follows the saying, "Better for the Party to control the guns than for the guns to control the Party" and "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

I'd like to hear the rationalization for these apparently contradictory positions.

rkt88edmo
08-24-2007, 3:17 PM
Well, I think your question presupposes that the life of a fetus is equivalent to that of a child or adult, which is the main point of contention I think.

For some reason, I don't think trying to follow the lines of logic for gun control and abortion are going to get you very far , well, even just trying to follow the logic of gun control won't get you very far ;)

ETD1010
08-24-2007, 3:25 PM
Well, I think your question presupposes that the life of a fetus is equivalent to that of a child or adult, which is the main point of contention I think.)


I think that's the point the pro-choice people try to make. Maybe they dont' consider a fetus of 3 weeks to be a "person" in the respect of a child or adult. Either way, the logic is flawed on the gun control issue, since only law abiding citizens follow the laws... as long as there is a black market and criminals, there will be criminals with guns. . .

Rivers
08-24-2007, 3:30 PM
I'm not intending on making the a pro-choice debate. Depending upon how conservative or liberal you are, the fetus may or may not "yet" be considered a "human being." But both sides must admit that such designation is only a matter of a short time. THAT is my point regarding the pro-choice platform.

So how does one support a platform that facilitates a deliberate loss of (what is or will be) human life with a platform that justifies itself by claiming it saves human lives?

And yes, I agree that most gun control does not make sense.

VegasND
08-24-2007, 3:42 PM
Logic and politics dont mix very well, but I think a better comparison is the pro-choice, but anti-death -penalty comparison.

political parties are large umbrella groups and arent obligated to remain philosophically consistent.

WINNAR!


When parties (here in the US, 3rd parties, which remain small until co-opted by the D & R machine) try to be philosophically consistent they get criticized greatly for that. Ron Paul is getting a lot of attention here because he is running as a Republican. His stance has not changed materially since he ran for President as a Libertarian and was ignored. Most Republicans who criticize him do so because he wants to remove government from more parts of society than just guns and taxes. Look at his pro states-rights stand on abortion and read the Republican criticism that the Federal government should take precedence here.

Look at US politics with an open mind and it just appears nuttier and nuttier.

ItsPhipps
08-24-2007, 3:48 PM
There is no rationalization...

I wouldn't make it a Democrat vs. Republican though because that is just their party. It's better to separate it with liberal views vs. conservative views with Democrats generally leaning toward liberal views and Republicans leaning towards conservative views. There are exceptions to each party of course.

Besides that you are absolutely right. The liberal way is pushing for more government control over the people which in turn gives them power and security because the people become dependant on them. For example:

Gun control- Dependant on protection from government
Welfare- Dependant on the government to eat and live
Universal health care- Dependant on government for medical care
Higher taxes- Dependant on government to spend their money
Church and holidays out of school- Dependant on government to say what's best for their kids
seat belt laws...
cigarette laws...
trans fats in food...

It goes on forever and everything that arises makes people more dependant on the government for that aspect of their lives, most of which should be taught to you by your parents or just be common courtesy and common sense. The more these things are allowed to go on the closer our country gets to being a communist one and the people are completely controlled by the government. If the government officials really believed in the laws and restrictions they make then they would follow them but that's not the case. Even the biggest gun grabber Nancy Pelosi thinks it's ok for her to have concealed carry but not anybody else in Cali.

So why do these things keep happening you ask? It is basically a feeling of security. People like to feel secure knowing that they will have all these things that the government promises them. In turn the Government keeps doing their part because when people are dependant on government, it gives them power and security and the viscious cycle goes on. The reality of it all is that it turns out bad for both sides because in the end the people have no freedoms and the government created such a lazy and dependant society that it can barely keep up its economy.

On the other hand, the conservative view follows the tried and true Free Enterprise System, the Constitution, and God above all. You can look at the Constitution like the liberals as an outdated couple hundred years old piece of paper or respect it for being proven for more than two hundred years by the most powerful and successful country the world has ever known. Our founding fathers and founding members of this country were all self dependant, God fearing, men who took their problems and the world by the balls and did something about it. They didn't need a govenrment to be a nanny over every aspect of their lives telling them what's best for them. No, they controlled the government and the government respected the people. Government was small and God along with freedom and self-reliance were big. That's the true conservative view. Now I know I Just gave a long preach to the choir but I feel better now that that's out there.

DrjonesUSA
08-24-2007, 3:51 PM
Please bear with me as I lay the foundation.

The Democratic party platform is pro-choice and for gun control.

Pro-choice means they believe women should have the choice to determine whether to terminate a pregnancy. Obviously this means that (by any definition) what would be a human life in just weeks or months would be terminated at the will of the pregnant woman, and that many would exercise that option.

The Demo position on gun control is because "gun control saves lives" by (take your pick) keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, banning evil black guns that can kill too easily, etc.

So how can a Democrat who supports both of those positions balance that equation?

The only way I can see it is if "gun control saves lives" is NOT the real reason for pushing that agenda. If the motive is to keep the power in the hands of the government and out of the control of the people, it would make it easier to force restrictive legislation on the masses. I know I might be misquoting the Communist leader Mao Tse-tung but it follows the saying, "Better for the Party to control the guns than for the guns to control the Party" and "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

I'd like to hear the rationalization for these apparently contradictory positions.


These things never go anywhere, but here's my 2 cents.......

The "pro-choicers" will:

a) Never talk about the woman's CHOICE to NOT HAVE SEX in the first place.

b) Never admit that a human fetus is a human life. Until they accept that fact (which they won't) then all discussions are futile.


As far as gun control, they just don't want the people to have guns.

Look at all the hypocrite leftists who have armed guards or have been caught with guns themselves (some illegally): Sean Penn (illegal CCW, left a gun in his car & it got stolen) , Sarah Brady (straw purchase of a rifle for her son), Rosie O'Donnell (has armed bodyguards), Don Perata (Has a CCW), Dianne Feinstein (Has one of like 3 CCW permits in the city of SF), etc, etc, etc.

The list goes on and on and on. Not to mention that ALL of the elected "officials" who are anti-gun benefit from pretty heavy taxpayer-funded security, courtesy of various government agencies.

99% of all democrats are communists, by definition. And communists, by definition, lie, cheat, steal and do anything necessary to further their agenda.

I do not throw the term "communist" lightly.

That's it in a nutshell.

Crazed_SS
08-24-2007, 4:01 PM
I dont see where you're going with the whole abortion thing.. but I think I can shed some light on the anti's thought process.

Their goal is to stop the supply of guns. Since all "illegal" guns pretty much start as "legal" guns, they're goal is to restrict/limit/ban legal guns to kill the supply of illegal guns. They're also hoping all once the supply has been halted, then eventually the illegal guns in circulation will dry up as they're confiscated by police.

The issue with their thinking is even if all guns sales were halted tommorow, someone would quickly step in and begin supplying the bad guys. Wherever a market for something exists, a supplier will soon appear.

Drugs like cocaine, marijuana, heroin, etc are pretty much totally illegal, yet tons of the stuff comes into the country every month. It wouldnt be hard for foreign gun runners to start smuggling in crates full of guns with their drug shipments.

Wulf
08-24-2007, 4:01 PM
You're misunderstanding the nature of the modern Democratic party. They are _not_ an organization drawn together and united by a set of core liberal philosophies regarding the proper role of government or a viewpoint on "the way the world works". At this point they are just a conglomeration of special interest groups that have formed a mutual aid/non aggression pact under the auspices of the Democrat Party.

The logical conundrum you describe is one of the obvious seams in the party. There are other seams in Democratic party politics that are largely glossed over.

Taxation. In our current economic situation, LOWERING taxes creates greater revenues to the treasure. But Democrats favor higher taxes, because one of their special interests are the people with socialist leanings, and increased taxation is golden incremental road to socialism.

Freedom of Speech. Everyone who loves freedom should be in favor of FoS; particularly true for a party of artists, writers, media figures, etc. But the democrat party practically invented concepts like Political Correctness and Hate Crimes which are bones they throw to the minorities that they need to win elections.

Immigration. Democrats have owned the union vote for generations. Given the nature of much of the union work, democrats should be solidly anti immigration...illegal or otherwise. Problem is the Democrat party special interest groups also include consumers of social service programs and the poor, which include many immigrants or pro-immigration sympathizers.

For sure the Republican party is not free of similar conflicts. But the core principals of conservatism, smaller less intrusive government and lower taxation, are far more obvious in the real politik of the Republican party than are the true liberal philosophies expressed by Democrats.

Crazed_SS
08-24-2007, 4:05 PM
These things never go anywhere, but here's my 2 cents.......

99% of all democrats are communists, by definition. And communists, by definition, lie, cheat, steal and do anything necessary to further their agenda.



:rolleyes:
Generalize much?

JohnJW
08-24-2007, 4:20 PM
I don't know what being a Democrat or a Republican has anything to do with this. . . . My take is that the two parties tries to categorize social issue for their own gains.

I'm a registered Republican but I am pro-choice and anti-death penalty. For me, forcing someone to carry an unwanted fetus for 9 month is akin to slavery but aborting the fetus a couple days before the due date is murder. There's a middle line somewhere but as usual the issue gets muddled in politics and ended being milked for support by both parties.

The same goes for the death penalty. I'm surprised by how many gun owners support the death penalty. I have no problem shooting anyone who tries to cause great physically harm to me or others, but once that threat is gone I no longer have the legal justification to shoot. The funny thing is that most gun owners do no trust the government with their guns but are quite willing to trust the government with human lives. Anyway, I have no problem with the guards shooting escaping inmates, but it's kind of hard to justify executing prisoners who are locked up?

Rivers
08-24-2007, 4:23 PM
You know, I was somewhat wary about posting my question because I didn't want it to spiral out of control and fly off topic. But I also wanted to learn about other aspects that I could have missed. I'm happy that those who responded have stayed on topic and offered their opinions.

I think that most people on CalGuns are pretty open-minded and willing to at least entertain others' ideas. I know that when I hear something valid but contrary to what I "want" to hear, as long as I learn, it's good. Why? Because as I become aware of another's arguments, I now have a chance to logically debate that position.

Thanks again!

bwiese
08-24-2007, 4:33 PM
As Anthony wrote, poltics ain't about consistency of logic.

Also, anti-'pro-choice' is now a losing debate in CA. It's why most Republicans (except for Arnie-types) can't win *statewide* elections in CA for forseeable future, by a fairly large margin. Period (except in a complete throw-the-Demos-out type election or possibly in a recall situation much worse than that of Gray Davis).

Whether you like it or not is simply immaterial, it's just the way things are and will be given demographics in CA.

This ain't South Carolina. Certain populations (example: urban Latino) who consistently vote for 'pro choice' politicians in spite of personal/religious convictions don't and won't care enough about the issue it can never be used as a wedge to move them to anti-choice politicians, since the pro-choice party is the Party Of Free Cookies. Die-hard fundamentally conservative Irish Catholic union labor types still vote Democrat nationwide despite this.

'Choice' (note that I used the word in quotes, OK?) consistently ranks in the top 2-3 key issues in swing voter, 'middle of road' voter, centrist and Democrat surveys in a variety of polling styles.

'Gun control' - when broken out in surveys as separate issue from crime matters - ranks far below 'choice' and consistently places 7th to 9th in concerns of these voters. Even for voters who are truly antigun, many things are higher on their radar (like 'choice').

The combination of the above relative lack of concern for gun control, plus gunnies' activities and sensitivites to such, effectively is a force multiplier for us if we just know how to use it.

DrjonesUSA
08-26-2007, 2:41 PM
:rolleyes:
Generalize much?


Ok, prove me wrong.

DrjonesUSA
08-26-2007, 2:53 PM
FWIW, I am NOT a Republican nor am I happy with most of the ones we have in office.

When it comes down to it, pretty much ALL electeds from BOTH parties are in it to gain ever more power and line their pockets and their friends.

But the dems are significantly and objectively worse than the Repubs.

Best way it's been said is that both parties are cars travelling down the same road to the same fascist/statist destination - but the dems are going much faster than the republicans.

DedEye
08-26-2007, 3:06 PM
*Walks away from this thread.*

And for what it's worth, human life begins at ejaculation :p.

trashman
08-26-2007, 3:27 PM
99% of all democrats are communists, by definition. And communists, by definition, lie, cheat, steal and do anything necessary to further their agenda.

I do not throw the term "communist" lightly.

That's it in a nutshell.

:rolleyes:
Generalize much?

Ok, prove me wrong.

Ah, ok. Let me preface this by saying your mind is clearly made up on the issue, so I wouldn't presume to try and change it. However, your method of argument begs counterpoint...


Best way it's been said is that both parties are cars travelling down the same road to the same fascist/statist destination - but the dems are going much faster than the republicans.

Funny you would mention this. See, let me gently point out that making a polemic argument (for example, "all white Southern Conservatives are rascist bigots" ...I'm from the South, and white, for that matter, so please hold your fire...) and then insisting that your polemic argument is an inherent truth demanding disproval, rather than examining the facts and engaging in a dialectical examination, is itself slightly authoritarian, even slightly fascist.

Look - it's (at least still so far..) a free country -- we're free to opine however we like about whatever issue we want. Just remember that sweeping and emotional/hysterical generalizations are what got the modern gun control movement started in the first place and made it politically incorrect to own guns. Best to stick with the statistics, facts, and let the conclusions stand on their own merit.

If you've got the facts handy to back up your claim, lay 'em out. The claim will either make itself, or chances are you'll have to resort to polemics & name-calling. Oh wait....too late! :D

cheers,
--Neill

dfletcher
08-26-2007, 9:03 PM
You're misunderstanding the nature of the modern Democratic party. They are _not_ an organization drawn together and united by a set of core liberal philosophies regarding the proper role of government or a viewpoint on "the way the world works". At this point they are just a conglomeration of special interest groups that have formed a mutual aid/non aggression pact under the auspices of the Democrat Party.

The logical conundrum you describe is one of the obvious seams in the party. There are other seams in Democratic party politics that are largely glossed over.

Taxation. In our current economic situation, LOWERING taxes creates greater revenues to the treasure. But Democrats favor higher taxes, because one of their special interests are the people with socialist leanings, and increased taxation is golden incremental road to socialism.

Freedom of Speech. Everyone who loves freedom should be in favor of FoS; particularly true for a party of artists, writers, media figures, etc. But the democrat party practically invented concepts like Political Correctness and Hate Crimes which are bones they throw to the minorities that they need to win elections.

Immigration. Democrats have owned the union vote for generations. Given the nature of much of the union work, democrats should be solidly anti immigration...illegal or otherwise. Problem is the Democrat party special interest groups also include consumers of social service programs and the poor, which include many immigrants or pro-immigration sympathizers.

For sure the Republican party is not free of similar conflicts. But the core principals of conservatism, smaller less intrusive government and lower taxation, are far more obvious in the real politik of the Republican party than are the true liberal philosophies expressed by Democrats.

It's all about the votes - union membership is down and immigration, legal and otherwise, is up. So the Dems 2nd tier the old union ally in favor of what they hope is the voter rich immigrant community. It's not like the unions are going to go Republican.

adamsreeftank
08-26-2007, 9:31 PM
Banning guns isn't only a Democratic thing.



The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), Franklin D. Roosevelt - Democrat

Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), Lyndon B. Johnson - Democrat

Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Act (CA), 1989. George Deukmejian - Republican

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Bill Clinton - Democrat

SB 23 (CA), 1999. Gray Davis - Democrat

.50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004 (AB50) (CA) Arnold Schwarzenegger - Republican

dfletcher
08-26-2007, 10:06 PM
Banning guns isn't only a Democratic thing.



The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), Franklin D. Roosevelt - Democrat

Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), Lyndon B. Johnson - Democrat

Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Act (CA), 1989. George Deukmejian - Republican

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Bill Clinton - Democrat

SB 23 (CA), 1999. Gray Davis - Democrat

.50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004 (AB50) (CA) Arnold Schwarzenegger - Republican

True, I don't think anyone, whether a Dem or California RINO, gets off the hook. But in each instance with repect to national legislation, the Democrats were overwhelmingly in control of Congress - the 73rd in 1934, the 90th in 1968 and the 103rd in 1994. The Democratic Party is a common factor in promoting national gun control and the three major pieces of legislation were passed with a Dem Congress and as you pointed out, a Dem Chief Executive.

I haven't looked it up, but I presume Dukmejian & Arnold were dealing with a Dem legislature.