Again, one can be a governmental conservative and view that the government can still function in its specifically authorized tasks, which protecting individuals from another individual killing them is one such thing. Its not against governmental conservatism to be in favor of a government program that attempts to curtail murder by making it more difficult for the person who has the specific stated intent to kill.
I have talked to Conservatives who don't think law enforcement plays a role is protecting society... They enforce the law.
The supreme court says the government isn't liable for protecting the citizens...
Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I just feel it's necessary to bring this up... I also don't feel that this is the social contract held between the people and the government.
I'd prefer that too. What you'd PREFER doesn't mean its the ONLY thing that that fits. And no, you're thinking like a conservative whose primary concern is social but is respectful to what the governments role is. If not being conservative in EVERY facet of conservatism equally makes someone "somewhat" conservative there are a **** TON of libertarians on this board that need to stop considering themselves to be conservative.
It would help your attempts to dismiss my arguments if your dismissals make sense. Pro-Life people are to Gun Control people as Pro-choice people are to Gun Rights people. Yes, abortion activists don't consider abortion murder, but what an abortion activist thinks is 1) irrelevant to the discussion of what CONSERVATIVEs think and 2) doesn't change the fact that a conservative viewing abortion as murder does not have to equally agree with Gun Control folks based off singularly the notion of "rights".
Your dismissal is illogical and irrelevant to what I'm arguing. Its like dismissing me by saying "Yeah! Well the cow is brown.
I think my point has been lost atm... However, when we define the purpose of the government as "protecting people" or
protecting people for each other, and protecting from themselves then it's a slippery slope to bigger and bigger government. All somebody has to do is argue the citizens can't be trusted or people are unknowingly hurting themselves... a gun activist can argue people need to be protected from guns, then we get gun regulations... people need to be protected from drugs, then we get the war on drugs...
You're justifying this law, the same way a gun activist can justify gun restrictions... It's just a different side of the same coin.
In the gun example I'd dare say the majority on BOTH sides do not consider owning a gun means you're going to kill someone. In the abortion debate, the majority of both sides do not have a similar understanding.
Or, I ask again, are you suggesting that most pro-gun control individuals think owning a gun means you're going to kill someone?
I think the extreme one's believe guns, in general, are bad for society... They don't want there to be guns in society. They don't want people to have access to guns at all... To them, guns will eventually lead to death and murder.
Are approaching this from the POV that all abortion is wrong... rape, incest, health, etc? Is abortion ever acceptable? If abortion is OK in some situations, then why make EVERY female undergo mandatory counseling?
To a gun activist, not EVERY gun is bad... It's not that black and white in either situation. However, you'll find extremes in both groups.
Yes, people can absolutely argue that. Where did I say that they couldn't? Again, you've failed to give me a clear reason why you can't come to this conclussion from a conservative view point. All you've told me is how you disagree with it or you think there's BETTER ways.
I have told you why it's not very small government to push this law, and I told you why.
1. Abortion is legal
2. The government is
forcing a free agent in society to sit down with an activist and get preached to about why they shouldn't practice their rights.
The government is forcing a private citizen to listen to a special interest group...
Why the hell is the government giving one group of activists a microphone and platform, and no other group of activists?
Yes, the people pushing this law, if they had their way, absolutely would like to see abortion illegal. Where have I denied that? Where have I argued in any way that that's not the case? I think I've said routinely through this thread they view the act similar to murder. That's not the "extreme" activists in the group, that's the majority of pro-lifers. Most pro-lifers would like to see abortion illegal.
Yes, EXTREME anti-gun activists want to see guns taken away. Your average, run of the mill, majority of anti-gun advocates generally want stiffer controls and not all out bans. Even then, as I said, are you SERIOUSLY ... I'm asking YOU to stop dancing as you accuse me of doing ... suggesting that the majority of anti-gun activists believe that OWNING a gun will automatically lead to killing someone?
I have answered this question... and obviously, I was talking about the radical elements of gun activists. It's really all just a matter of subjectivity, since I feel MOST lifers don't think ALL abortion is murder either. Yes, I was comparing apples to apples...
And I laugh every time you give the rape exampe, because you again completely miss the point and show you have no desire to actually even ATTEMPT to understand what I'm saying.
No.. actually I am bringing up rape to make sure we on the same page. Some lifers make exceptions for rape.
I am making an attempt to understand you, and making an attempt to be clear myself. I am also making an attempt to be respect... which you are obviously not doing.
If a woman is raped, gets pregnant, has the child, and then determines everytime she see's the child she thinks of the rapist and thus kills the child....would that be okay to you? Because to the people who view the fetus as a child, that is zero% different than a woman who is raped, gets pregnant, determines everytime she will see the child she'll think of the rapist and chooses to abort the child. You may think that's ridiculous, but again...you're worthless addition of it into the debate again and again is based not on logic, not on reason, not on good debate, and purely on emotion of going "Rape! They're mean to rape people! THEY'RE BAD!!!!!! RAPPPPE!
I haven't talked about rape as much as you in this thread... Rape is significant in this debate. I don't feel bad at all for bringing it up, and I never will. Talk to rape survivors and survivors of sexual assault... This aspect is very important to some people and honestly at the forefront of some people's minds as they have lived it. I am not sitting here telling them what they should so. I have only mentioned their experience...
I am not being emotional by bringing it up. It's as valid to bring up rape as it is to bring up incest, life and health threatening pregnancies in this debate. Rape shouldn't be a taboo in this discussion. It obviously gets you bend out of shape.
You appear uncomfortable with this side of the debate, but that's your problem... However, you really don't have sh*t to complain about when you're not the one being told to show proof of your assault. But that's ok, because you're laughing when I mention rape. I never knew lifers laughed at rape in this debate..
Are you done talking and laughing about rape now or what?
Someone who is JUST a small government conservative is no more or less conservative then someone who is JUST a social conservative. If you're suggesting someone that's just a social conservative (which I don't agree with you in this case that this type of person would be) is someone that is "somewhat conservative" then you'd have to suggest the same to someone that is just a small government conservative. Yet I don't see you or rough ever advocating that notion.
I am suggesting that there are two different types of conservatives... social and small government. Some can be both, however, I'd expect them to tackle the social issues while keeping the government small, and I have said over and over again how that can be accomplished.
