• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which Would You Choose: A Pro-Choice Dem. or a Pro-2nd Amend Rep. Pres. in 2016?

Which Would You Choose: A Pro-Choice Dem. or a Pro-2nd Amend Rep. Pres. in 2016?

  • Total voters
    65
Captain Adverse said:
NO! The poll is about whether the members consider Pro-Choice more important than Pro-2nd Amendment, or vice versa. That they would choose one over the other in the upcoming election knowing that the face of SCOTUS will be affected by their choice of President for the next couple of decades.

If you don't understand the poll, don't vote. Sheesh. :doh
Click to expand...

I understood it just fine. But, I haven't been drinking tonight... yet.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Not really. There are Democrats here that are pro-2nd Amendment, and there are Republicans (like me) that are pro-choice.
Click to expand...

It's a minority position in either eventuality.

As a general rule, the establishment and platform of both parties tends to be fairly set with regards to both issues.
 
Gathomas88 said:
It's a minority position in either eventuality.

As a general rule, the establishment and platform of both parties tends to be fairly set with regards to both issues.
Click to expand...

True, but he asked the membership here what we would pick as our deciding factor for President, and I chose the 2nd Amendment because I feel that the right to choose is pretty safe and the 2nd is under a direct assault in court and by state and local governments.
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
How do you know what the candidates are for before they've been declared? Is it a given that the Democrat will be opposed to the Second Amendment and the Republican will oppose abortion?
Seriously. Is politics in your country so polarized that those are taken for granted?
Click to expand...

in a word...YES

It is much akin to latin America with a SI or NO.

50/50 is what it all basically boils down to.
 
Gathomas88 said:
It's a minority position in either eventuality.

As a general rule, the establishment and platform of both parties tends to be fairly set with regards to both issues.
Click to expand...

Not true. While the Democratic and Republican parties dominate elections, and many members vote the party line, there remain members in both parties that often cross the lines if critical issues are identified.

Furthermore, there are a significant number of Americans who are "Independent" (42% per a 2013 Gallup Poll)

Record-High 42% of Americans Identify as Independents

They are often motivated to vote for either party if an issue of importance arises during an election.

Add to that the low estimate of 75 million adult Americans who own firearms...and who typically vote for that ideal.... I think the question is reasonable.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Now to start this off I will tell you MY position.

I am a supporter of both Pro-Choice, and Gun Rights. I typically vote against any candidate that is opposed to both these issues, which means I almost never vote Democrat or Republican.

However, knowing that the next President is likely to appoint one or more Justices to the Supreme Court, I feel the need to add my small vote to the issue I consider of greater importance, at least in this situation.

I will vote for the Gun Rights candidate.

My simple rationale? As long as I have the right to keep and bear arms, then I remain capable of the full range of actions in defense of all other rights.

Therefore, any changes by the government which affect OTHER rights, including Pro-Choice, can still be opposed by "any means necessary."
Click to expand...

...and this is the reason our wise forefathers made it the very 2ND amendment behind FREE SPEECH.

I am a single issue voter (GUNS) because it lets me know what the candidate thinks about me.

a) am I someone to be feared and controlled

or

b) am I someone to be trusted with a deadly weapon

That alone tells me the ones for gun control think I am someone to be feared, controlled, and beat down.
 
Redress said:
Your premise is fatally flawed in multiple ways. First off, the two are not mutually exclusive. Second off, there is a broad range within both categories. To illustrate: would a candidate who supports abortion rights virtually unregulated in the first trimester, heavily regulated in the second and banned outright for the third in all cases be pro-choice of pro-life? Neither group will be real happy with them. How about a candidate who supports expanded background checks, but virtually no regulation on the type of firearm owned? Again, both the gun nuts and anti-gun nuts are going to ostracize the poor candidate. And yet both the positions I described are not uncommon to people.
Click to expand...

Redress...I fear your red-eyed bunny with the butcher knives.
(running off to my safe room and putting in an Enya CD)
 
Jesse Booth said:
I doubt either the second amendment or Roe v. Wade will be in any real danger any time soon, so I'm not particularly for one option or another. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Forgive me, but I think in regards to the Second Amendment you are wrong.

We already had that Illinois "assault weapon" ordinance which the current SCOTUS elected not to review, despite the objections of Scalia and Thomas. It remains law as a result. Nor was it the only restriction currently working it's way up the appeals pipeline.

I would prefer a SCOTUS with sufficient Justices to insure the right is clearly protected, even more preferably with a larger margin than 5:4.
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
Thanks for the reminder. I forgot to put my bait bucket in the truck for tomorrow.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say. Captain Adverse pretty clearly implied that he would shoot a police officer who tried to enforce a law against abortion. If that wasn't what he meant, he should say so directly.
 
I'm disappointed in the OP; I was hoping that it would ask whether we would support a candidate that is both pro-choice and pro-gun, vs. one who is neither. And given that choice, I'd go with the pro-choice candidate in a heartbeat.

Captain Adverse said:
Now to start this off I will tell you MY position.

I am a supporter of both Pro-Choice, and Gun Rights. I typically vote against any candidate that is opposed to both these issues, which means I almost never vote Democrat or Republican.

However, knowing that the next President is likely to appoint one or more Justices to the Supreme Court, I feel the need to add my small vote to the issue I consider of greater importance, at least in this situation.

I will vote for the Gun Rights candidate.

My simple rationale? As long as I have the right to keep and bear arms, then I remain capable of the full range of actions in defense of all other rights.

Therefore, any changes by the government which affect OTHER rights, including Pro-Choice, can still be opposed by "any means necessary."
Click to expand...

Enforcing rights down the barrel of a gun instead of at the ballot box? That's not a civilized society. That's ****ing anarchy or a war zone.
 
Phys251 said:
I'm disappointed in the OP; I was hoping that it would ask whether we would support a candidate that is both pro-choice and pro-gun, vs. one who is neither. And given that choice, I'd go with the pro-choice candidate in a heartbeat.



Enforcing rights down the barrel of a gun instead of at the ballot box? That's not a civilized society. That's ****ing anarchy or a war zone.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

The 2nd was made to ensure if a despot takes over the government, the citizens have the RIGHT and the MEANS to throw their butt out on the street and hang em'.

The war zone part was brought on by the despot, NOT the lawful citizens.

Few countries in the world give their citizens the RIGHT and the OBLIGATION plus the MEANS to overthrow despots.

WE DO!

and....only potential despots have a problem with it.
 
RESOLVE gets rid of DE SPOTS on my shirts

the 2nd Amendment gets rid of DESPOTS in the United States.

only control freaks and despots can't deal with citizens having that power.
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
RESOLVE gets rid of DE SPOTS on my shirts

the 2nd Amendment gets rid of DESPOTS in the United States.

only control freaks and despots can't deal with citizens having that power.
Click to expand...

If the purpose of the second amendment was to prevent mass murder, or other atrocities, it's failed.
 
Paleocon said:
If the purpose of the second amendment was to prevent mass murder, or other atrocities, it's failed.
Click to expand...

It is NOT. The 2nd has NOTHING TO DO with crime. It has to do with the citizenry overthrowing a tryanical government, if one exists.

...and guess what....WE are also REQUIRED to use military small arms of the current age.

CRIME is not even in the equation.

Not one place in the 2nd does it mention the militia is supposed to be a police force and deal with crime. CRIME has ZERO tyo do with it, but is only a red herring by control freaks and despots to DISARM the citizenry so they can continue with their plans.

Mr 32oz Bloomberg, and his type deep down want to rule the whole country and be made King-For-Life.

If you want to talk about CRIME, then talk to the COPS.

This armed citizen is not a cop.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
I'm disappointed in the OP; I was hoping that it would ask whether we would support a candidate that is both pro-choice and pro-gun, vs. one who is neither. And given that choice, I'd go with the pro-choice candidate in a heartbeat.



Enforcing rights down the barrel of a gun instead of at the ballot box? That's not a civilized society. That's ****ing anarchy or a war zone.
Click to expand...

Well then, why don't you use your time-phone and contact the leaders of the Revolution. Explain to them that all they had to do was wait until Parliament granted them voting rights instead of acting to enforce rights "down the barrel of a gun." Then we would all still be loyal subjects of England, or at the least ex-members of the Commonwealth.

So many people seem to forget that England itself was a Constitutional Monarchy back in 1776, with Parliament having all the financial control of our current Congress. It's lower house was made up of elected members, and one of the earliest "rebel" demands was the right to elect members from the Colonies. Meantime, depending on the Colony, there was local representation like the Virginia House of Burgesses and the elected Executive Council of Massachusetts (until Parliament passed the Massachusetts Government Act in 1774.)

The point is that at any time united segments of the People have the right to revolt, even against a "Democracy," if that group of people feels oppressed by the tyranny of the majority. There is no guarantee of success, just the right to make the attempt.

The fact that you don't agree is fine with me. Free expression is, after all, everyone's right too. ;)
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
It is NOT. The 2nd has NOTHING TO DO with crime. It has to do with the citizenry overthrowing a tryanical government, if one exists.

...and guess what....WE arel also REQUIRED to use military small arms of the current age.

CRIME is not even in the equation.
Click to expand...

That's what I mean. We've had an overtly tyrannical government for over forty years now. If ensuring the overthrow of tyranny was the purpose of the second amendment, it's failed.
 
Paleocon said:
That's what I mean. We've had an overtly tyrannical government for over forty years now. If ensuring the overthrow of tyranny was the purpose of the second amendment, it's failed.
Click to expand...

First, the right merely guarantees the ability to attempt a revolution. There is no guarantee of success.

Second, check your history, there have been many armed rebellions over the course of US history. They just all failed.

Third, who are you to say there are no efforts in the offing? Perhaps people, like myself, still have hope the system will work. That we haven't completely lost faith?

That doesn't mean I am going to sit idly by and allow fools to disarm the rest of us. :naughty
 
Last edited:
Paleocon said:
That's what I mean. We've had an overtly tyrannical government for over forty years now. If ensuring the overthrow of tyranny was the purpose of the second amendment, it's failed.
Click to expand...

I can completely agree with you on certain points, YES. But in most other means, NO.

I can still order 500 rounds of military ammunition on-line and have it delivered to my front door.

Not many tyrannical governments will allow that.

ALL tyrannical STATE governments hate it, but that is the beauty of this great country. They elect the people who have the same ideas as they do. That is the way they want it in their state.

There are 49 more to choose from.

I hang my hat in Texas.
 
Captain Adverse said:
First, the right merely guarantees the ability to attempt a revolution. There is no guarantee of success.

Second, check your history, there have been many armed rebellions over the course of US history. They just all failed.

Third, who are you to say there are no efforts in the offing? Perhaps people, like myself, still have hope the system will work. That we haven't completely lost faith?

That doesn't mean I am going to sit idly by and allow fools to disarm the rest of us.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this is a response to my point. Whatever the arguments for and against, if the purpose of the second was what Smith says, then it's failed. One can speculate on why that may be or what should be done about it, but I'm just pointing out the fact of the matter.

And you didn't answer my earlier question about the meaning of your OP.
 
Paleocon said:
I'm not sure how this is a response to my point. Whatever the arguments for and against, if the purpose of the second was what Smith says, then it's failed. One can speculate on why that may be or what should be done about it, but I'm just pointing out the fact of the matter.
Click to expand...

Too the point? NO...it has not "failed." It simply has not succeed YET. You know the old adage, if at first you don't succeed...try, try again.

Just about every failed revolt in American history led to some change in our society, often positive.

Paleocon said:
And you didn't answer my earlier question about the meaning of your OP.
Click to expand...

True. I did not because it is a red herring. Clearly "bait" as was pointed out by another member. :shrug:
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
I can completely agree with you on certain points, YES. But in most other means, NO.

I can still order 500 rounds of military ammunition on-line and have it delivered to my front door.

Not many tyrannical governments will allow that.

ALL tyrannical STATE governments hate it, but that is the beauty of this great country. They elect the people who have the same ideas as they do. That is the way they want it in their state.

There are 49 more to choose from.

I hang my hat in Texas.
Click to expand...

Is your assertion that gun rights are good because they provide a means of preventing gun rights from being removed (circular reasoning), or that gun rights are good because they allow the citizenry to resist other tyranny.

If the latter, I think it's pretty clear its failed. The government allows gun rights because it knows gun rights aren't a real threat to its tyranny. That isn't an argument for or against gun rights, it's just a factual observation.
 
I had a screaming liberal friend of mine in Florida said Pres BUSH was " just like Hitler ". They tend to made absurd statements like that on occasion. Comparing NAZIs to anything they do not like.

I asked him how many Black & Jewish friends he knew that still had jobs and he could still contact. After he told me I told him his point was MOOT.

Tyranny is a relative thing.

My measure is the 500 rounds of ordered military ammo at my front door
 
Captain Adverse said:
Too the point? NO...it has not "failed." It simply has not succeed YET. You know the old adage, if at first you don't succeed...try, try again.

Just about every failed revolt in American history led to some change in our society, often positive.
Click to expand...

There hasn't been a serious armed revolt in America in about one hundred and fifty years, and that was led by government entities. At some point, you have to accept that the really large lady who's singing is in fact fat.
 
Paleocon said:
Is your assertion that gun rights are good because they provide a means of preventing gun rights from being removed (circular reasoning), or that gun rights are good because they allow the citizenry to resist other tyranny.

If the latter, I think it's pretty clear its failed. The government allows gun rights because it knows gun rights aren't a real threat to its tyranny. That isn't an argument for or against gun rights, it's just a factual observation.
Click to expand...

I have been to 27 other countries. YOUR definition of TRYANNY and mine are vastly different.

Just a few miles south of me, ONE ROUND of military ammo will get me in prison.

Here in Texas I have over 30,000...just me.

My friends have much, much more.

I see no TRYANNY here.

I can also travel from county to county & state to state without a special pass

I can list other examples till the cows come home, but I cannot change what you think.

IF you feel you are living under TRYANNY, then that is your belief, and I will NOT try and dissuade you.

Just YOU don't try and dissuade me, either...OK?

Matters not...guns or no guns, my greatest weapon is my brain. The hardware is easy to obtain anywhere. It is the SKILLS that make a man dangerous.

I saw Serbian militiaman shoot one of his compatriots in the foot with an 8mm Mauser as they were about to get in a truck. Morons.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom