Leftists/Atheists:

Leftists/Atheists:

Please explain why we should ban guns and not abortions.

Careful answers only, please.

As someone who identifies as an atheist/agnostic (I don’t really care) and tends to side more on a democratic viewpoint, here’s my thought.

I don’t think guns should be banned, I think the gun laws should be properly inforced and possibly do more to limit what an average American can legally have in their home. I’m all for self defense but there is a limit to what you need to satisfy those terms. You don’t need an AR-15 or an AK to defend your home. As for abortions, I feel it should be someone’s choice and the government should not have any say in the matter. If there is, and should be as it was stated by the founding fathers, a separation of church and state this falls under a religious debate and has no place in politics nor should a man have any say in what a woman does with her body.
Inb4 no I am not a woman

Nice answer user. Couple of questions.

You said, "I’m all for self defense but there is a limit to what you need to satisfy those terms. You don’t need an AR-15 or an AK to defend your home."

What if we need guns for more that self protection of our home? Then could we have more powerful guns? Who get's to define that we should only have a gun for self defence?

You said: " I feel it should be someone’s choice and the government should not have any say in the matter."

Should the government be allowed to pay for such things?

You said: "falls under a religious debate"

Is it a religious debate whether or not we can shoot people? How is abortion different?

Not for banning guns. Though I do think it should be treated more like having a drivers license. People should be properly trained, and retrained if needed. On abortion, I think the debate should be on whether the government funds it or not, not on if they can have it. The cost of the kid born into a low income family can be very costly on the taxpayers, when you include chip, food stamps, medicaid, home heating credits, (possible federal housing)and the $8000/year schooling for 12 years. I think we should be teaching more safe methods to prevent the point of abortion, but in the end cell phone use and disconnect from the world will be the downfall of the next generation.

Atheist here.

I carry a concealed handgun every day in condition zero, holstered.

I am also pro-choice.

Abortions do not affect me or my daily life, so why should I vote to regulate or ban them?

I don't think there should be any laws restricting gun rights or abortion rights. All drugs should be legalized too. That's how it would be if we actually lived in a free society

>Leftists/Atheists
Please explain why you're conflating these two?

No intelligent person wants guns banned, they want tighter restrictions on who can obtain them.

You can't walk into Wallmart and get an abortion

Need to give out more guns and weed out the shit skins

>pic related

Less guns and less kids means less school shootings

It's math

>You don’t need an AR-15 or an AK to defend your home
But what if (((Le deep state))) decided to invade my home and steal my bottles of piss collection?

There are plenty of "educated" people out there who think we (Americans) live in a utopia where guns are not needed by Civilians.

this is not tomatoe tomato guy

Not really. Pretty sure most people ridicule your need for guns

I like your thinking. Couple of questions.

From the point of view of society, and we base a person's value on how much they are worth monetarily. Would we as a society be better off if we can produce people how can earn money and pay tax? Shouldn't we be promoting ideals that contribute to wage-earning and therefore tax contributions?

what is reading comprehension.

>>Leftists/Atheists
>Please explain why you're conflating these two?

No conflation. I'm interested in the POV of people with these two values. There is no claim that they are the same.

I'm atheist and I dont care.

Exactly. You seem to have misread my comment.

>I am also pro-choice.
>Abortions do not affect me or my daily life, so why should I vote to regulate or ban them?

Well, I think you don't have to vote either way as long as you can accept any law that comes from it.

Literally no one is trying to ban guns. Stop reading infowards.

Yes, but to be frank overcrowding at schools is lowering everyone's ability to learn. Switching to for-profit schooling is the wrong way. We need to adapt, allow more skills based jobs to be taught in highschool so people are able to start working at 18-19, as well as college for higher learning. I believe We need to really re-invest back into america with infrastructure and education, because they are the actual future of the country.

>Yes, but to be frank overcrowding at schools is lowering everyone's ability to learn. Switching to for-profit schooling is the wrong way. We need to adapt, allow more skills based jobs to be taught in highschool so people are able to start working at 18-19, as well as college for higher learning. I believe We need to really re-invest back into america with infrastructure and education, because they are the actual future of the country.

You are a smart guy.

No-one cares if you think there is a moral conflict between two separate issues.

>Literally no one is trying to ban guns. Stop reading infowards.

No one is making the claim that they are. It's hypothetical.

u shouldnt ban either. U need better gun laws, dipshit

You need to invest more in vocational education to adapt to the rapid paced future work environment

Shut up socialist scum. We need that money so we can free Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria

>No-one cares if you think there is a moral conflict between two separate issues.

If by that you mean, no person. Why would you even make the comment if you don't care?

I suppose you think that everything is meaningless too?

Yeah, thanks for summing it up in those big fancy city boy words.
>so we can free Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria
Idk, why not just take their oil/opium/nervegas?

My favorite thing in the Military is the "Patriot Missle". Spreading freedom for four square blocks.

early term abortions aren't killing anything that can feel or probably even be conscious so not an issue.

As for guns, people who look for them will probably find them easily even if they were banned so its probably a pointless idea to try to take them away to defeat shootings.

>hypothetically if someone suggested we should ban guns that would hypothetically be bad hypothetically
Do you even read what you type?

>u shouldnt ban either. U need better gun laws, dipshit

I suppose we should protect those kids that didn't get killed off in the abortions, right?

You need a gun to stop tyrannical governments enforcing Orwellian rules onto their "subjects". People who complain about guns suck dick. I live in the UK, I can't have a gun unless for hunting on farmland that's it. Maybe an actual rifle range but that's it. Americans are lucky

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. They just have an efficient weapon for killing now.

In regards to abortion, it should never be denied to any woman. If that's what they truly want. But to make a child takes two and doing the soul decision isn't fair. I feel abortion laws are more in favour of women than men, if a man wants the child and she doesn't tough luck. If you want the child and she doesn't, tough luck.

I'm a firm believer in people shouldn't have to pay child support if they don't want that kid. This coming from someone without a father but who paid, I still find it highly unreasonable.

Government policies are out of date and need a refresh

what kids?

>Please explain why we should ban guns

Only a few far-left crazies want to "ban guns."
Most people just want more sensible gun control laws - like, 80% of the population.

I just think people shouldnt be allowed to own high capacity magazines, or anything automatic. i dont have a problem with guns, i have a problem with all the different goodies people can get for them. imo a home defense shotgun, a bolt action rifle and a pistol is all anyone should need when it comes to self defense.

>early term abortions aren't killing anything that can feel or probably even be conscious so not an issue.

I see. So people less than 37 weeks old aren't humans?

>pointless idea to try to take them away to defeat shootings

Why would you even want to protect kids anyway? They don't earn money or contribute to society. Their brains aren't fully developed either, so they don't think very well.

I'm a leftist-anarchist and atheist, and I shoot guns because it's fun and a skill I enjoy improving. And because squirrels. And abortion should be available to any woman/girl who feels that she is not ready to become a parent or basically for any decent reason. Education and counselling need to be more readily available, obviously, but suggesting that abortion shouldn't be allowed is sexist and ignorant. Saying guns shouldn't be available is just silly - guns will always be available to anyone who really wants one, even if it means building for themselves.

Question; how are these two related? Are you suggesting that guns kill kids exclusively? If so, obviously bullshit. Are you suggesting that abortion is just a method of birth control? Again, bullshit. Grow up and learn a bit, kid.

Gun control and pro choice have nothing to do with each other. I don't care that you're trying to point there can be a conflict of morality between the two.

My personal opinion is that people who are willingly and thoughtfully planning crimes will inevitably find ways to aquire firearms. However, I do not support banning guns for that reason in particular. At a basic level if all the bad guys have weapons and you don't you are ignorantly putting yourself in danger. I have no real answers for this. It's a tough question that people way smarter than me are having problems with. I'm curious to see what happens in light of the recent news.

Right-Wing/Christians:

Please explain why we should ban abortion but not the death penalty?

What is it, time & place? Luck of the draw? Older you are the less you matter?

Or how about they're two completely separate issues.You see how easy it is to conflate two different ideals? Conservatives love this tactic along with a multitude of other logical fallacies.

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should. It's like silverspooned reality TV goof billionaire Trump using tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes for decades ("Hey I'm smart, it's not illegal!" Shrug, shrug). In the same vein, these gun nuts have to own as many guns as possible, of every description, because they can, when at most a pistol & a 12 gauge is all they need for home defense. But hey, the government is coming for muh guns so I better get a safe full to protect muh rights. It's assholes like that who buy enough assault weapons & ammo for them that gun manufacturers can't make enough of them. And they end up in closets, under beds or on walls next to rebel flags making it extremely easy for idiot bastards like this fuck in Florida who have access & a deranged mind to kill innocent people.

Right wing dumbfucks who misinterpret the obsolete 2nd Amendment are also the first to shout "fake news" from their dicklicker at ANY criticism of their Führer Trump, gladly contributing to the end of the free press. But muh guns!!! Fucking soulless ghouls.

>Question; how are these two related? Are you suggesting that guns kill kids exclusively? If so, obviously bullshit. Are you suggesting that abortion is just a method of birth control? Again, bullshit. Grow up and learn a bit, kid.

Hello kid, if you read the post in context with the graphic you could logically deduce that the OP is drawing a connection between the killing of kids in school shootings and the killing of kids in abortions.

There may be some deeper point other cognitive dissonance that the OP is trying to draw out.

leftist and atheist here

a mass of cells that has not yet even developed a function brain is not a human and only religioustards care about abortion while at the same time telling everyone condoms are bad knowing that people are going to have sex anyway.

also I don't want to ban guns, I want to leave the 2nd amendment alone and instead have universal healthcare that covers mental health. You can keep your guns and see a doctor whenever you get shot.

...or the OP could just be a clueless dumbfuck mashing together two completely separate issues because he heard Hannity do it on a podcast. I'm going with he's a dumbfuck.

>abortions
If we'd had more abortions we wouldn't have to deal with you right now.

I think we should allow both. Knee-jerk legislation is never the answer, especially not when protected rights are in play. It's not the answer for shootings, it wasn't the answer with the Patriot Act, it wasn't the answer with Japanese internment, it just isn't the answer.

What we really need to do is we need to do a more thorough job of educating people about guns, how they operate, what they're capable of, how to safely handle them. We need to do a better job of opening up the flow of communication between merchants, various police departments, and government agencies that might have skin in the game so that it's easier to properly vet purchasers. I've lost track of how many shootings there have been in the last year or two where the gunman had a weapon that they could not acquire legally or should have been barred from owning but for an administrative failure somewhere along the line.

Basically, we need to shore up our vetting process and make a substantial effort to enforce the laws already on the books. What we don't need is knee-jerk feel good legislation like capping ammo purchases or putting limits on magazine size or banning wide swaths of arms such as "assault weapons" which, for all intents and purposes, are functionally identical to their straight-stock counterparts; "assault weapons" are mostly just standard rifles with cosmetic or ergonomic differences such as pistol grips or collapsible stocks. While an AR-15 looks like an M16, functionally it's exponentially closer to a little .223 hunting rifle.

Stop trying to get Americans to ban guns ffs, it's thinning out the heard and making the world a better place

do you believe your taxes should pay for Stacys 14th abortion because she cant keep her stupid fucking legs shut? or pay for her birth control?

I'm an Athiest libertarian and I say all drugs and abortions should be just as easy to get as guns.

yes, as opposed to my taxes going towards invading a new country every year or so.

After the 14th abortion Stacy doesn't seem like she should be reproducing at all anyway.

Not the person you're responding to, but...

First, there's already a ban on government funding for abortion. Facilities that perform abortions can get funding, but the funds have to go elsewhere. It's like how religious schools can still get federal funds despite the Establishment Clause as long as the money goes toward a secular purpose. If you pull funding for places like Planned Parenthood, where some 95% of their services are completely unrelated to abortions, they probably would turn into the "abortion factories" they're accused of being because that's what brings in money apart from the federal funding. Pulling their funding to fight abortion would be a sort of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

As far as contraception goes, I don't really care. I'd prefer the government not be involved in insurance issues, but if you're going to be there providing free birth control or condoms is a hell of a lot less financial burden on the government than providing something like welfare funds for a teen mom.

Interesting comments you posted.

>Please explain why we should ban abortion but not the death penalty?
One word: justice

>Or how about they're two completely separate issues
They are the same issue if we are talking about life and death. No conflation at all. Is that a new word you learned?

>Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should
Who says?

>Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should
Nice red herring.

>Right wing dumbfucks who misinterpret the obsolete 2nd Amendment

2nd Amendment seems to still be in the Constitution, which is our standard of law. So it must not be obsolete. What standard are you using?

>contributing to the end of the free press
Please explain how criticizing the press is causing the lack of a free press.

>a mass of cells that has not yet even developed a function brain is not a human and only religioustards care about abortion while at the same time telling everyone condoms are bad knowing that people are going to have sex anyway.

Interesting comment? Do you know when the brain has activity in a fetus? Or do we just take a guess.

>care about abortion while at the same time telling everyone condoms are bad

Can you provide statistics as evidence of your claim. Or any evidence at all?

>If we'd had more abortions we wouldn't have to deal with you right now.

Or you can click off and look at chicks with dicks.

Simple fag, the baby didn't kill anyone (yet)
If the baby kills the mom, kill the baby too, sounds ok to me.

Also, I'm all for everyone having guns or whatever weapons they want, up to and including missles.

Wanna know how to end school shootings? End schools. They are a waste of everyone's time anyway.

I think the condom comment is mostly a shot at the Catholic Church. They're pretty notorious in their opposition to contraception in general. I think the only birth control method that's officially approved by the Church is the rhythm method (old joke: What do you call couples who use the rhythm method? Parents); in recent years they've drawn criticism for even refusing to relax their opposition to using condoms in areas such as sub-Saharan Africa where the AIDS epidemic has reached the point of 1 in 4 adults being HIV positive in some countries.

Planned Parenhood via CNN: 323,999 abortions were performed in 2014, according to the organization.

so used the word 'and' instead of a fucking slash, you dunce.

Political faggots

>so used the word 'and' instead of a fucking slash, you dunce.
Strange. Only one person didn't understand.

>like, 80% of the population.

[citation needed]

Im a leftist: They should ban abortions. The only times acceptable are in case of rape, or if it puts the mother's live in danger.

Obviously strict gun control. it should be harder to get a gun than to get a licence to drive. own only handguns as well.

How can you not see that more guns in the nation lead to more gun shootings? I don't want the UK to have shootings daily like our cousins in the US, god bless them.

I agree that abortions should be available, publicly, to those that need them. However, I still think that socially, on a non-legal level, abortions should be frowned upon. Especially if they didn't use contraception.

And the same article also states the following:
1. Planned Parenthood's services are used by over 5 million people each year.
2. None of their funding can legally be used for abortions
3. Over 40% of their services pertain to testing and treating STIs, with 4.2 million tests and/or treatments administered.
4. They perform twice as many cancer screenings as abortions.
5. They prevent almost twice as many pregnancies as they terminate.
6. They administer over a million pregnancy tests per year.

Based on those numbers, only about 6% of all people who use Planned Parenthood's services do so for abortions and they only account for about 3% of all services performed. They primarily deal with STI treatment, providing contraception/pregnancy testing, and cancer screenings. All of which depend on government funding to some extent; the one service that does not is abortion. And if you pull all funding, guess which service is the one that won't be affected by it.

Trump indeed loves the uneducated, this is why. You fucking worthless nincompoop.

Sweet. It might be time for them stop killing people.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "self-refutation"?

They don't kill people lol

>They don't kill people lol

Define person (singular of people), please.

If a person is a big enough piece of shit to get an abortion. Do you really want them to raise a child?

I know you're not an idiot...or are you? The President calling every news outlet that reports facts & is critical of him is in two syllables delegitimized in the eyes of his zealots. That's dangerous, a President should not undermine the free press, up to excluding certain journalists from press events, which he's done several times!

Republicans are so transparently duplicitous & hypocritical! If fucking Obama, the Clinton's, etc did or said ANY of the outrageous shit Trump does they'd RIGHTFULLY be calling for their heads. But with Trump they never accept ANY criticism of him or capitulate that he fucked something up. It makes debating a Conservative Republican a complete waste of time, they're disingenuous to the Nth degree.

Wow, you don't know what a person is, bro (shortened form of brother)? I guess you think an egg is a chicken too lol

Why should you ban guns?

What baby?

I'm sure you aren't an idiot...or are you? The President does use "fake news" as a rhetorical device. That is not to undermine the concept that many media outlets use "leading" headlines and content that projects their underlying POV. To criticize the President for using his free speech to undermine the free speech of another seems a bit self-refuting.

I'm not a Republican so I would not pretend to defend them.

>Wow, you don't know what a person is, bro (shortened form of brother)? I guess you think an egg is a chicken too lol

Interesting. You don't think a chicken egg has a baby chicken in it at some point. Did you have biology class in school yet?

Why would an atheist want guns banned?

I'm an Atheist, not a Leftist faggot, and think abortions should depend on the situation, and do not support a gun ban at all.

Where do you get this idea that Atheist are all Is that what the retarded on the other side of the leftist retarded want you to believe?

At least those faggots aren't trying to bring down the west an replace it with communism. What do you mean "President should not undermine the free press", where does it say that? The he can, it's called an opinion and or restriction where he's legally allowed to apply. You may not like it faggot, but that's his right. I don't give a shit about Trump, or Obama, left or right, but you're an idiot who obviously picked a side and therefore is biased. I really hope you family dies in a fire, the world needs less people like you, or the minority of Republicans you're just like.

If you do reply to this you're mother will die in her sleep. If you don't have a mother, and you sound like you don't, it gets passed to whoever you love the most, including yourself. Yes, this is a test.

Pistols? That's fine.
Shotgun? Sure.
Hunting Rifle? My Dad use to hunt Elk, whatever.
Semi-Auto Rifle? WHAT THE FUCK ELSE ARE YA GONNA USE THAT FOR? OH IDK. SHOOTING PEOPLE. LIKE IN EVERY OTHER FUCKING GOD DAMN SHOOTING.

It's always AR-15! AR-15? AR-15. What normal fucking application is there for a civilian to have one of those? Shooting range? If that's your answer then I'm sorry but you just have insecurities about your small dick or something. Not my problem. Go get therapy instead of shooting shit to get a caveman like thrill out of it.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills...

Exactly.

Wow, that's fascinating. It's almost like there's a process that changes an egg into a chicken, right? Fucking Americans, man.

fucking trackpad, drives me nuts. The words are all jumbled up due to this thing jumping around.

Also, to OP, you should clarify what you mean. Otherwise it looks like you're lumping people together as if one necessitate the other. I saw your clarification below.

Nice observations. Couple of questions.

>abortions should depend on the situation
As an atheist, why would you care?

>Where do you get this idea that Atheist are all Is that what the retarded on the other side of the leftist retarded want you to believe?

More leftists are atheists. Atheism is not the only "retarded" idea that leftist have. Not all atheist are leftist. Not all leftist are atheist.

There's nothing retarded about atheism

I love it when some people use red herring tactics to draw attention from the real issue at hand. I'm sure your mind isn't organized enough to do it purposefully.

Can you kindly define what a person is.

I know, Americans. Some of them actually like their country and are not giving it away to Asian and African Muslims who still enslave an estimated combined 40+ million men, woman and children. Imagine that, in 2018, a people that still love their own. Unlike over the pond where the vast majority are emasculated and have simply given up on themselves, deciding to choose leaders that to give away their lands to a far more masculine invader. You're going to be begging the last free nation for help when the people you've given your land to have you and yours in shackles, like they do in their countries.

There's nothing red herring about it. Do you, or do you not, agree that an egg is not a chicken?

what if im right handed but left footed??

No you're a good lot. I respect Americans far more than many others here, you're active and dynamic which are qualities not seen in Europe since WW2. However, you have the wrong ideas about us.

>There's nothing retarded about atheism
Really? Do you believe that? Can you trust the mind of a monkey? How do you know that belief is not just a mechanism so you can survive? How do you know that it is true?

I don't, but the person facing such a question might, and they should have the right to choose within reason, (a considerably long subject with many factors at play, almost all of them subjective, I do not have time for right now) just as I should have it, simply because I want it.

And to answer your question, a person is a person soonest when they are a developed human child. We already have laws against aborting babies.

Sorry, I don't fully understand the question? How can I trust the mind of humans? I do think that belief makes people more extreme versions of what they would be, either incredibly kind like Dr Barnardo or crazed like Phillip II of Spain.

How can you trust the mind of a monkey yourself? If not for the monkey and it's mind and words, you would not know God. Was it not a monkey who taught you what you know about whatever "God" you anyone believes in? It absolutely was, this monkey is sure of this assumption. So why do you trust a monkey, who learned from other moneys, that there is a monkey God that no monkey can show you? Faith, a blind monkeys compromise.

>There's nothing red herring about it. Do you, or do you not, agree that an egg is not a chicken?

Not only is it a red herring, it's also a category error. An egg contains a chicken under normal circumstances.

Kindly define person.

>an egg contains a chicken
So why doesn't a chicken come out of the egg when I crack it open?

Nigga, ain't never heard of Balut?
Of course the chicken comes out of the egg, are you fucking retarded?

That's what you think, faggot.

>How can you trust the mind of a monkey yourself?

I don't trust the mind of a monkey at all.

>Faith, a blind monkeys compromise.

We all have faith. The question is: is your faith in your monkey's mind reasonable. Or is it just chemical reactions producing the best "truth" that it can muster so the fit will survive?