Would you trade

  • Thread starter Thread starter TULIPed
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TULIPed

Guest
Setting aside for the moment the legal, constitutional and legislative gymnastics involved:

Would you trade increasing levels of gun control for increasing levels of restrictions on abortion? If so - what levels, e.g. no more guns for no more abortions?

And for the record - I know they are unrelated matters. The point of this thread is NOT to debate or note that these are “apples and oranges”. The point is to answer the question as posed. Politics - especially American politics - involves trading apples for oranges all the time (I’ll vote for your bridge, if you vote for my white collar crime law…)

So - would you? I would.
 
Sure! If abortion would end tomorrow, you could have my guns today. Easy choice.
 
Since we’re talking about trading fundamental rights, why stop at the 2nd amendment? Would you trade the right to vote for an end to abortions? Free speech? Free press? Jury trials? How about giving Congress the authority to end abortion, but only if you also give them the authority to pass bills of attainder or “ex post facto” laws? Who wants to take those trades? Anybody?

It seems to me this post rests on the premise that the OP doesn’t value the 2nd amendment, so giving it up isn’t a burden. It sets up a situation where people who don’t value the right to bear arms get to signal their superior virtue to those hypocrites who “fetishize” guns. Propose giving up something you do value, and then we can see how morally superior you really are.
 
Last edited:
Quite a few of them actually. I’d consider it a sacrifice for the good of others.
 
Too vague; can’t answer without seeing the actual legislative bill, deal proposed, arguments for and against actual legal wording, and likely effects if law is passed.

I negotiate contracts all day for a living. There’s no way I could ever make a horse-trading decision based on something as vague as your first post, unless it was a case of asking my client to give up something he had no interest in whatsoever. As someone else said, many people don’t own guns, don’t like guns and don’t see any use for guns so they are happy to give up guns just like my employer would happily give up the right to patent corn oil because the company doesn’t make corn oil or any food product and has zero interest in corn oil. However, when one makes decisions on behalf of a constituency, one must consider the whole constituency. And when one makes decisions on behalf of a whole country (as the Supreme Court does, not being elected), one must consider the whole country, the underlying history, the way our rights system works.
 
TULIPed said:
Would you trade increasing levels of gun control for increasing levels of restrictions on abortion? If so - what levels, e.g. no more guns for no more abortions?
Click to expand...
where do you stand on both issues?

why ask a question that will not happen in reality?
 
upant said:
why ask a question that will not happen in reality?
Click to expand...
I’m just speculating, but I’d guess it was for the opportunity to signal moral superiority over 2nd amendment supporters.
 
Last edited:
Born and raised shooting and hunting. Right now - conservatively - own probably (at least) 50 firearms.

If you came to me today and said if I gave up my guns the Supreme Court would overturn Roe vs. Wade and let the states decide on abortion, I’d do it without thinking twice.
 
TULIPed said:
Would you trade increasing levels of gun control for increasing levels of restrictions on abortion?
Click to expand...
Without knowing exactly what type of gun control measures and exactly what abortion restrictions, it is difficult to say.
 
Pretend for the moment that this has nothing to do with “moral superiority”. To your point - substitute any right you want (guns are just topical at the moment).

The point is to ask ourselves how serious we really are about something like abortion. What are we willing to sacrifice - personally. For that matter - how much of our gross income do we give to anti-abortion causes? How much time do we spend on it?

I think fundamentally these are all stewardship questions - stewardship of our time, talent, treasure and hearts. The question posed is this - to what extent do we actually put our money where our mouth is on something like abortion.
 
Guinness,

Spot on! I think it is also worth noting that owning a gun does not result in the loss of life. Using a gun irresponsibly or with malice does. Guns can also be used to defend life.

Abortions on the other hand always, by definition, end with the loss of an innocent life.

So back to your point…equivocating the owning of an inanimate object with an intrinsic evil seems to be an attempt at virtue signaling.
 
TULIPed said:
The point is to ask ourselves how serious we really are about something like abortion. What are we willing to sacrifice - personally.
Click to expand...
And I’m asking how serious you are. You don’t value abortion or the right to bear arms, so giving up both is no sacrifice, but we have a lot of other rights. The right to freely exercise our religion, for example, or the right to free speech and free association. The right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment is another big one. Which of those would you be unwilling to give up in trade for ending abortion? What extent are you willing to “put your money where your mouth is”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top