?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Schrödinger's Pussy
Observing a box has never been this much fun
Stay out of my home and out of my body...you were NOT invited. 
28th-Oct-2008 08:33 am
Armed
I've been doing pretty well at looking at both sides of the political debate, but I'm getting short on tolerance about the abortion/gun issues.

Here's my stance, and honestly, I don't give a rats ass what anyone else thinks. I vow that I will give financial support to organizations that are fighting for the rights I believe should inherently be ours.

I am pro-gun and pro-choice. I do not believe that -all- life is sacred.

I'm pissed that McCain wants to take away the right to decide to keep a pregnancy. I do not believe in abortion as common birth control, and I do believe in reasonable regulations, but taking away my right to decide is NOT an option I'm willing to vote for. Our system does not work on so many levels when it comes to sex education and the ability to get and use protection. Sex is not going away. Abstinence is a fallacy. Crimes happen. Serious medical conditions exist. Abortion is a medical necessity. Illegal trade will rise if our rights are denied. With all the poor, the destitute, and those suffering due to no medical coverage, I think the priorities here are majorly fucked up.

I'm pissed that Obama wants to disarm me. I have no problem, again, with reasonable regulations, but the crap logic being used is beyond ridiculous. I use my guns for target shooting. I enjoy it like others enjoy golfing or bowling. I would no sooner use my .22 as a weapon than a golfer would used a club or a bowler would use a bowling ball. I do have a weapon I use for personal defense. I have no problem abiding by the laws on where I can and can't take this weapon. Mostly, it will never leave the house. I keep it because I live in the woods and am home by myself a lot. I like to know that I have the ability to defend myself against anyone attempting to deprive me of my property or personal safety. I am not a criminal. I follow the rules for legal acquisition. I am furious that Obama wants me to accept the role of victim by not being able to protect myself. His rules will not take the weapons away from criminals who do not follow the legal avenues. So the criminals will be the ones in charge by power of might. Unacceptable.

Now I have to decide which of these issues I want to vote for/against.

I am just disgusted because the emotional arguments are winning over the logical ones.
Comments 
28th-Oct-2008 01:40 pm (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're getting that Obama's position is that he wants to take guns away from people who want to use them for sport. He's said repeatedly that he favors common sense regulations, and that his interest in gun restriction is keeping them, especially assault weapons, away from inner city criminals. Only once, over a decade ago, did he appear to support a broader ban, and his campaign has insisted that he didn't fill that particular questionnaire out personally (source).

McCain, meanwhile, has said repeatedly and unequivocally that he thinks Roe v Wade should be overturned, and Palin has said the only time that abortion should be legal is if the mother will die otherwise (not in the case of rape, incest, or seriously damage to health -- McCain even mocked the concept of "the mother's health" in one of the debates).

I just don't see how the candidates' positions on these issues is parallel. Obama probably wants more restrictions than you do, but he doesn't want a ban. McCain wants a ban.

Edited at 2008-10-28 01:44 pm (UTC)
28th-Oct-2008 02:10 pm (UTC)
Truth is, his "common sense" regulations, while it sounds good on the surface, is a matter definition and I don't agree that banning clips with more than 6 rounds is common sense (my .22's take 10), or that we should ban semi-automatic weapons (again, any of our .22 target pistols).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/29/obamas-gun-ban-rhetoric/

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

http://pagenine.typepad.com/page_nine/2008/10/gun-law-update-brady-backs-barack.html

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/

You may feel that the abortion issue rates higher on your priorities, I'm not convinced it's higher on mine.
28th-Oct-2008 02:34 pm (UTC)
It's not an issue of which is higher on priorities, it's an issue of degree of scale.

Obama wants more regulations than you do on guns, but he doesn't want a total ban. He's willing to discuss finding a middle ground between what sportspeople like yourself want and keeping guns away from criminals. Personally, I don't like his implication that mental illness, in itself, should be a criterion; the mentally ill aren't by definition a higher risk for gun violence. Maybe Obama's policies would take away the specific gun you own right now, but he wouldn't take away your right to own a different gun.

McCain doesn't want to talk about it, and he doesn't want a compromise. He doesn't want to find a middle ground, because as Biden pointed out in the VP debate, we're already at a middle ground, and McCain/Palin aren't even close to content. McCain wants to nullify a Supreme Court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and in doing so not just roll back abortion rights, but any other rights that came out of that decision (such as Lawrence v Texas, which affirmed the rights of consenting adults to have sex in the privacy of their own homes, based on the "right to privacy" established in Roe). If it were just a matter of McCain wanting more restrictions than there are right now (say, he wanted to ban all third-trimester abortions unless the mother was in mortal danger, but leave first-trimester abortions as a personal choice), I'd agree with you, it's a matter of whether guns or abortion are a priority. That's not what he wants, though.
28th-Oct-2008 02:41 pm (UTC)
If I was in your shoes, I'd be more concerned about McCain's pro-life stance. I'm a huge pro-choice advocate and view any attempt to take away a woman's right to choose as wholly unaceeptable and immensely damaging to society as a whole.
28th-Oct-2008 02:46 pm (UTC)
I guess it comes down to this. Do I care more about what's right for women, or what's going to keep me safe?

Chances are high that I will cast my vote for preserving women's rights and help finance the NRA to fight for my gun rights.

But the thing is...the personal protection issue is relevant to me personally right now and it does mean as much to me as women's rights. It's a conflict no matter how you cut it.
28th-Oct-2008 04:57 pm (UTC) - just my opinions... just my thoughts... nothing more.
The best personal protection weapon that I know of, and the one sure fire way to scare the piss out of an intruder, simply by the sound of it, is a 12g shotgun. Everyone knows the sound of that shell jacking into the chamber. You have a better chance of hitting the target with the scatter of shot than you do with a handgun. The chances of the government saying you can't own a shotgun are pretty slim. In a panic situation, with someone coming after you hitting the target with a handgun is a lot harder than it seems. On the other hand, a shotgun is a point and shoot that will most likely hit some part of an intruder. It can always be shortened to the legal limit, or shorter for that matter. Having grown up in a very rural town this was the 'protection' weapon of choice by most of the people I knew.

Your ability to protect yourself will not be an issue. You can still own a weapon, and still use it in the unlikely event of an intruder for protection. You might even get into skeet shooting! A favorite sport of my first wife Chris who was a great shot.

It seems to me, and this is just my probably flawed opinion, but it seems to me what is really the issue is your ability to choose what type of weapon you choose to own. I don't think that the protection argument really works.

On the other hand having Roe V. Wade overturned is a serious matter, and not just for women's rights. Allowing the government to tell us what we do with our bodies would be a serious hit to personal rights, far more than the issue of being able to have a handgun with more than six rounds in it. Once the government starts telling us, no abortion... what will come next? What medical procedure will be deemed "wrong" by the government next? Do we want to see the government start with a program of eugenics? Not as far fetched as it sounds.

Ok.. well, that's the only political commenting I've made this year.
28th-Oct-2008 08:00 pm (UTC) - Re: just my opinions... just my thoughts... nothing more.
Also, a shotgun can be used like a ballbat once you run out of ammo. Just clock the intruder across the skull with the shotgun, and sing TAKE ME OUT TO THE BALLGAME, FUCKER!
28th-Oct-2008 08:33 pm (UTC) - Re: just my opinions... just my thoughts... nothing more.
a typical pump action 12 gauge riot gun holds something like eight rounds. If you are not able to stop someone by the time you have unloaded half of these, you are screwed because the attacker is the HULK, or maybe a girl scout trying to collect for the cookies you bought and still haven't paid for.

as for musical choice, I prefer Singing In The Rain. It's a classic song and dance number, proven to add that little bit of whimsy to any violent attack.
28th-Oct-2008 09:52 pm (UTC) - Re: just my opinions... just my thoughts... nothing more.
Perhaps my definition of a "shotgun" is different from yours, because my only real experience with guns are hunting rifles. When I say "shotgun", that is what I'm visualizing in my brain. My grandpa and dad both were avid hunters, and their shotguns only held 2 shotgun shells...which my grandpa made in his basement. I just know that these rifles would be able to be used like a club, if the shells didn't stop/slowdown the other person.
28th-Oct-2008 10:59 pm (UTC) - Re: just my opinions... just my thoughts... nothing more.
double barrel shotguns, side by side, or over and under. Yes, i know what you mean. I had an antique 16gauge when I was a kid. a pump action still uses the same kind of shell, just has a tube that holds more, and you 'pump' the shell into the chamber, which makes a sound everyone knows.
http://www.tacticalshotgun.ca/pics/shotguns/870_pair.jpg
these are pump action shotguns

shotguns aren't rifles though. A rifle has rifling, shotguns don't. :)
28th-Oct-2008 04:49 pm (UTC)
i *try* to look at it from this view (bearing in mind that i have studied Roe v. Wade much more extensively than I have the 2nd Amendment):


  • the right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment. there are various interpretations of how far that right extends, and there may be limitations/rules/laws that vary from state to state. my gut is that no matter what rules there are, the right will *always* be there, even if the rules change over time.

  • a woman's right to choose is the result of Roe v. Wade, a 1973 Supreme Court decision that was based on the premise that a woman's right to privacy was violated (14th Amendment). in subsequent cases, Supreme Court justices have said that the right to choose is NOT a liberty protected by the Constitution, because the Constitution does not mention abortion specifically.


our next president will likely be appointing at least one, possibly more, Supreme Court justices. McCain has specifically vowed to appoint justices that would overturn Roe, and Sarah Palin's stance on abortion is well-known.

no candidate has *ever* threatened to appoint justices that would consider overturning the Second Amendment, or amending it so that it becomes a bastardization of what was intended by the Founding Fathers.

my gut, honestly, is that if Obama gets elected, he'll have other issues to deal with before he ever gets to the gun issues. he's been quoted as saying that even if he, as a Senator, wanted to change gun laws, he didn't have the support in Congress. i don't imagine that will change with the election.
28th-Oct-2008 05:01 pm (UTC)
I think you are right. Obama will have his hands full just dealing with the shit left over from the Bush dynasty. Hell, have you seen that ugly wall paper that is still left over from when Barbra was there? Not to mention all the poop that Barny left around, which still hasn't been cleaned up!
28th-Oct-2008 11:21 pm (UTC)
I fully understand the woman's rights issue and because of that will lean in that direction. But with that said the 2nd amendment and the right to own firearms is one that I will fight for in my own way. I see some talking about shot guns and although they have their use I still prefer my Browning Hi-Power handgun over any. Although the cocking of a pump shotgun makes a noise that could make a intruder think twice is is much harder to handle and inside a home.

The thing that really pisses me off is the way particular guns have and I'm sure will be again targeted. Their reasoning is meaningless and serve absolutely NO purpose in disarming criminals. They sell the laws on the fact that they want to control assault weapons. What noobody understands that that it is simply a label and has nothing to do with the ability of a gun. Most hunters rifles are many more times powerful and accurate then anything considered a assult weapon. The term is based on cosmetic looks and not functionality. Its all just BS to get people to buy in.

Its my hope that all that will happen is a law will be passed sooner or later giving the states the ability to control more. I guess its a good thing we live in Michigan were gun & ammo sales are up over 10% along with a record number of CCW licenses being given. Since 2002 Michigan has issued around 40,000 permits a year and this year is expected to be way over that. The CCW classes are constantly sold out.

As a matter of fact the Michigan reports show that arming the citizen has just the opposite effect reducing gun crime. Most criminals are not interested in confronting a person that might be armed.

I'll stop ranting now. Basically gun laws are just a waist of our tax dollars. They do not work. Criminals are NOT law abiding people that purchase their guns legally. The ways they get their guns will always be there.

29th-Oct-2008 07:30 pm (UTC) - A matter of bullets
Having the discussion with my father on best gun, the issue of potential future legal ramifications did come up.

The gist:
"If you cannot take your attacker out with 6 bullets, you have only made them angry and the rest won't help."

There are quick loaders for revolvers. Not the same as a clip but you can get pretty damn quick.

On the other topic:
Better some choice than no choice. It is a decision between a woman, her doctor, and her God/s.
29th-Oct-2008 09:15 pm (UTC)
I live in the UK and am not moving back to the US, so I'm not voting, but I always voted independent because I always have issues with both major parties.
This page was loaded Nov 22nd 2017, 10:24 pm GMT.