<p>...I'm not necessarily for gun control, I believe in fewer borders to free trade, and I don't really agree with affirmative action as it's realized in the US today.</p>
<p>I find it almost funny (it would be funny if it weren't irritating) that people will decide that someone is a tree-hugging hippie if they so much as say "I'm not sure I agree with the GOP on such-and-such." Just because I think that the GOP has handled Medicare issues poorly recently doesn't mean that I hate America. </p>
<p>Just because I think that Bush's handling of certain issues with the Iraq war was poor doesn't mean I loved Saddam Hussein. In fact, under slightly different circumstances, I would've supported the invasion of Iraq without reservations.</p>
<p>Just because I don't like abortion regulations doesn't mean that I hate babies. In fact, I'm generally opposed to abortions under most circumstances. I just don't like government interference with personal matters. </p>
<p>I'm not for abolishing guns. I find most gun laws to be stupid and counterproductive. That doesn't mean I don't think that regulations are perfectly reasonable.</p>
<p>No, I'm not Japanese. Please read my profile.</p>
<p>So, the moral of the story? Stop jumping to stupid conclusions based on ONE post by a person. Supposedly, most of the posters on this site should be reasonably intelligent and capable of understanding how absurd it is to scream "conservative!" or "liberal!" based on one post.</p>
<p>So start acting like it. (No, I'm not perfect. But I'm not afraid to point it out.)</p>
<p>Not seeing the point of this. It doesn't matter what other people think of you, or what they automatically assume your political posistions are, as long as you are clear on where you stand. Then **** everyone else.</p>
<p>Ad hominems always degrade the quality of the discussion. Plus, when people jump to conclusions without really having all the evidence at hand it doesn't help either. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It doesn't matter what other people think of you, or what they automatically assume your political posistions are, as long as you are clear on where you stand. Then **** everyone else.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm just as interested in seeing my own positions tested as I am in testing others. But when people are more concerned with labels than with positions, this doesn't happen.</p>
<p>See, I'm not sure I am a libertarian, either. I find that I'm by no means made deathly ill by the notion of taxation, and I do believe in a certain amount of socialized welfare and healthcare.</p>
<p>I just wish that people would realize that you can be much more complex than just "liberal" or "conservative."</p>
<p>I do find it fun though to be the evil conservative in one thread and then the evil liberal in the other. I think it makes me feel warm and fuzzy on the inside to know that I'm complex and think about issues one-by-one.</p>
<p>I happen to agree with you on every one of those issues you mentioned, the only one I'd add tot he list would be reguarding the war on drugs. Just because I don't believe in mandatory minimums and harsh crimes for users doesn't mean I'm for giving heroin to kids in the lunch program.</p>
<p>Socially I'm quite liberal, but on economic policies I would be quite conservative. Hell if the GOP could just stick to their party line and not become distorted by the religious right I'd probably be a republican.</p>
<p>Gun control transcends political parties, actually. The right to bare arms is NOT GRANTED to the people by the constitution. Rather, it is a right that the people of a free nation already possess. It is a palladium to the usurpation of citizen's rights at the hands of a tyrannical government. The constitution recognized this and guarantees not to take this right away. Therefore, to me, liberals, conservatives, Whigs, Libertarians, socialists, EVERYONE should reject this notion of gun controll. Sorry for the rant, I just find these topics very interesting.</p>
<p>You are right. 2nd amendmen is irrevelant. The right to life implies a right to protect life-ie, guns. It wouldn't make a damn bit of difference if the 2nd amendment was there or not. Abolishing or restricting gun ownership would still be immoral and anti freedom.</p>
<p>I dont understand why you think that owning a weapon is a necessity of freedom...look at Great Britain, they have a fairly free nation and they have amazingly strict gun control laws...which have correlated to averaging 60-70 firearm related death per year. Are there other factors? obviously, but the correlation is definitely there. im not advocating going as far as britain, but if there are stricter gun control laws coupled with stricter trafficing measures, guns on the street can be decreased.</p>
<p>Look at Brazil and Russia. Strict gun control, high crime rate. You cannot decrease guns on streets by passing legislation. The failed 1994 AWB bears testament to this.</p>
<p>You don't even need a gun to commit crimes anymore in britain! You can rob somebody with a baseball bat or a knife, knowing that nobody has the legal right to protect themself anymore. </p>
<p>When criminals are interviewed, they often say that what they fear most is encountering an armed potential victim....</p>
<p>Britains gun control project, like all the other countries', is a failure.</p>