Why don't conservatives apply their logic about guns to other areas of public life?

[Buddha Dharma]

I'm pretty sure we've all heard someone say that there's no point in trying to stop people from obtaining guns, because if they want them they'll get them.

My question is, why don't conservatives apply this logic across the board on other social issues?

One could ask the same about marijuana use, abortion, and just about anything else.

Why try to stop people from doing it? They'll just do it anyhow...

Besides the glaringly obvious double standard- this is a seriously flawed line on logic. Let's try it in another sentence:

Why try to stop anyone from driving a car? They'll do it anyway if they really want to...

Now is this the position conservatives take on all issues, or only this one? If only this one- why?

 

[Terese]

Most likely it is due to being in the Constitution. If they can't have guns it riles their patriotism up.

 

[Mindmaster]

I'm pretty sure we've all heard someone say that there's no point in trying to stop people from obtaining guns, because if they want them they'll get them.

My question is, why don't conservatives apply this logic across the board on other social issues?

One could ask the same about marijuana use, abortion, and just about anything else.

Why try to stop people from doing it? They'll just do it anyhow...

Besides the glaringly obvious double standard- this is a seriously flawed line on logic. Let's try it in another sentence:

Why try to stop anyone from driving a car? They'll do it anyway if they really want to...

Now is this the position conservatives take on all issues, or only this one? If only this one- why?

Actually, it is the conservative far right/Christians that engage in this behavior. (a minority of that group) The conservative position is - I have any right you don't take from me and I want you to stop taking them from me. We have no "right" to abortion, drugs, or anything of that nature though we have liberty defended in the constitution but to interpret that as the right to self-harm or harm others is a stretch. The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to provide security and protection to all citizens, nothing more, nothing less. It was never a license to do use such arms to hurt others, only to protect loved ones and country.

I'm generally more concerned with the lefts ideas that everything must be government controlled or allowed by the government specifically. You have all of those rights already unless someone places a control law into existence. I don't believe we need government involvement on guns, drugs, or anything else of this nature mostly because you won't stop the crazies by making those laws just make life difficult for citizens who aren't intending to harm anyone. I still support background checks (even though apparently they do not work, because reporting agencies do not do _their_ job), age restrictions, and other common sense firearm restrictions. (Who really needs a fully automatic? Even our military doesn't issue them as the basic arm.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They certainly don't apply it to border walls.

 

[Sunstone]

Most likely it is due to being in the Declaration of Independence. If they can't have guns it riles their patriotism up.

I think you must mean the Constitution, rather than the Declaration. The Second Amendment to the Constitution establishes the "right to bear arms". Until then, everyone was forced by law to wear long sleeved shirts, dresses, and blouses. No bare arms at all.

Remember, Dear, you can always trust your Uncle Sunstone to steer you true on American History.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm pretty sure we've all heard someone say that there's no point in trying to stop people from obtaining guns, because if they want them they'll get them.

My question is, why don't conservatives apply this logic across the board on other social issues?

One could ask the same about marijuana use, abortion, and just about anything else.

Why try to stop people from doing it? They'll just do it anyhow...

Besides the glaringly obvious double standard- this is a seriously flawed line on logic. Let's try it in another sentence:

Why try to stop anyone from driving a car? They'll do it anyway if they really want to...

Now is this the position conservatives take on all issues, or only this one? If only this one- why?

First of all, it's not a strict conservative issue. There are gun fetishists on the Left, just as there are gun control advocates on the Right. It would be nice if people could stop forcing this into a partisan paradigm.

Second, They don't apply the same "logic" to other issues because at root, their position is not based on logic. Pretty much every argument for maintaining the status quo on firearm law in the US is an ad hoc justification. They aren't really arguments, not in the sense they're meant to convince anyone else, but rather justifications that the gun proliferation types can tell themselves so they don't have to deal with any cognitive dissonance. So rather than a logical position, they decide "I need my gun" and then work backwards to a justification from that.

(written by a firearm owning, right wing, gun control proponent)

 

[Mister Emu]

My question is, why don't conservatives apply this logic across the board on other social issues?

One could ask the same about marijuana use, abortion, and just about anything else.

I'd offer that there is a significant difference in that there is an argument for a tie between the rate of illegal procurement and the benefits of legality.

You're never going to be in a situation where you need to legally own marijuana because someone else has illegally gotten it. You're not going to fend off some negative impact of illegal abortions with a legal one.

 

[Mindmaster]

They certainly don't apply it to border walls.

I'd have preferred laser turrets, shark filled trenches, and flesh eating robots.

No, honestly the wall is practical, realistic, and humanitarian solution.

 

[tytlyf]

Why try to stop anyone from driving a car? They'll do it anyway if they really want to...

Exactly, traffic deaths and accidents were much higher before traffic lights, speed limits, seat belts and other regulations. Do deaths still occur? Yes. Fewer deaths, yes.

Doing nothing is not the answer. Don't let the NRA and it's low membership fool you into thinking new laws banning certain firearms would lead to confiscation.

 

[idav]

I'm pretty sure we've all heard someone say that there's no point in trying to stop people from obtaining guns, because if they want them they'll get them.

My question is, why don't conservatives apply this logic across the board on other social issues?

One could ask the same about marijuana use, abortion, and just about anything else.

Why try to stop people from doing it? They'll just do it anyhow...

Besides the glaringly obvious double standard- this is a seriously flawed line on logic. Let's try it in another sentence:

Why try to stop anyone from driving a car? They'll do it anyway if they really want to...

Now is this the position conservatives take on all issues, or only this one? If only this one- why?

Because to some people’s impeccable logic, human inalienable rights only fit into certain demographics, religions genders sexual orientations races nationalities etc.

 

[Quiddity]

By stop........you understand what exactly?

I can stop someone with my own gun.

We can try to stop them from getting their hands on a gun.

 

[metis]

In regards to the OP, let me just say that my experience has long been that most self-named "conservatives" should really be called "pseudo-conservatives' and this includes many members of Congress. IOW, they "conservative" only if a conservative position fits their fancy, but they will abandon those principles in a split-second if they obtain power by demanding everyone must go lock-step with them.

Barry Goldwater lamented this same thing, especially feeling that all too many "conservatives" only really care about avoiding taxes and regulations-- iow, being self-centered. "Right-Libertarians" are especially prone to that, thus only being "libertarian" for themselves, not so much for anyone else. "Left-Libertarians", otoh, tend to include others, such as what Gandhi was.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm pretty sure we've all heard someone say that there's no point in trying to stop people from obtaining guns, because if they want them they'll get them.

What I've heard is that gun control laws only work for those who abide by the law.

My question is, why don't conservatives apply this logic across the board on other social issues?

One could ask the same about marijuana use, abortion, and just about anything else.

Sure, if a person is already willing to ignore the law then more laws are not going to stop them.

Why try to stop people from doing it? They'll just do it anyhow...

The point is to not try to stop people. The point is to have a law in place so that a person breaking the law can be prosecuted. Also so that law abiding folks can be accountable for their actions.

Besides the glaringly obvious double standard- this is a seriously flawed line on logic. Let's try it in another sentence:

Why try to stop anyone from driving a car? They'll do it anyway if they really want to...

Now is this the position conservatives take on all issues, or only this one? If only this one- why?

Why would you want to stop someone from driving a car? What you want to do is regulate the right to drive. You want to ensure as much as possible people driving have a reasonable ability to follow traffic laws and can operate the vehicle safely. This makes licensed folks accountable and allows prosecution of those willing to break the law.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm pretty sure we've all heard someone say that there's no point in trying to stop people from obtaining guns, because if they want them they'll get them.

My question is, why don't conservatives apply this logic across the board on other social issues?

One could ask the same about marijuana use, abortion, and just about anything else.

Why try to stop people from doing it? They'll just do it anyhow...

Besides the glaringly obvious double standard- this is a seriously flawed line on logic. Let's try it in another sentence:

Why try to stop anyone from driving a car? They'll do it anyway if they really want to...

Now is this the position conservatives take on all issues, or only this one? If only this one- why?

I can't speak for conservatives, but I notice that many of them do support
marijuana legalization. Even they see the War On Drugs as going poorly,
& in need of outside the box solutions.

But I wonder about your OP....conservatives (like liberals) are defined by
parcelling out liberty in some areas, but not others. I don't think they're
being inherently hypocritical by eschewing broad libertarian approaches.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Most likely it is due to being in the Constitution. If they can't have guns it riles their patriotism up.

Yes I understand that. The Constitution doesn't say what they think it does.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

The conservative position is - I have any right you don't take from me and I want you to stop taking them from me.

That is the conservative position? I wouldn't have to try very hard to bring cases suggesting otherwise.

We have no "right" to abortion, drugs, or anything of that nature though we have liberty defended in the constitution but to interpret that as the right to self-harm or harm others is a stretch.

This would seem to contradict your previous statement to some degree, but maybe I am not interpreting you correctly. I could be misunderstanding...

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to provide security and protection to all citizens, nothing more, nothing less. It was never a license to do use such arms to hurt others, only to protect loved ones and country.

The second amendment does not say that's what it's intent was.

It clarifies that it is for the purposes of a well-regulated militia. That's what the military grew out of as the nation evolved.

I'm generally more concerned with the lefts ideas that everything must be government controlled or allowed by the government specifically.

Well what do you suppose the purpose of a government is? First of all.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution establishes the "right to bear arms".

In a certain context...

First of all, it's not a strict conservative issue. There are gun fetishists on the Left, just as there are gun control advocates on the Right. It would be nice if people could stop forcing this into a partisan paradigm.

Be that as it may- my specific point was about this line of argumentation. People force things into a partisan paradigm where it seems to be accurate.

Second, They don't apply the same "logic" to other issues because at root, their position is not based on logic. Pretty much every argument for maintaining the status quo on firearm law in the US is an ad hoc justification. They aren't really arguments, not in the sense they're meant to convince anyone else, but rather justifications that the gun proliferation types can tell themselves so they don't have to deal with any cognitive dissonance.

I agree...

You're never going to be in a situation where you need to legally own marijuana because someone else has illegally gotten it. You're not going to fend off some negative impact of illegal abortions with a legal one.

I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in Texas. The line of argumentation doesn't say anything about what one might 'need'. It's a very simplistic rationalization of why they should be able to get any guns they wish and stockpile them.

In regards to the OP, let me just say that my experience has long been that most self-named "conservatives" should really be called "pseudo-conservatives' and this includes many members of Congress. IOW, they "conservative" only if a conservative position fits their fancy, but they will abandon those principles in a split-second if they obtain power by demanding everyone must go lock-step with them.

Truth. Old Mitch has to be one of the best examples of flip-flopping DC has seen it's many years.

I don't think they're
being inherently hypocritical by eschewing broad libertarian approaches.

 

[Mindmaster]

That is the conservative position? I wouldn't have to try very hard to bring cases suggesting otherwise.

This would seem to contradict your previous statement to some degree, but maybe I am not interpreting you correctly. I could be misunderstanding...

The second amendment does not say that's what it's intent was.

It clarifies that it is for the purposes of a well-regulated militia. That's what the military grew out of as the nation evolved.

Well what do you suppose the purpose of a government is? First of all.

I quantified my position on the basis of conservatism with the exception of the far right Christian wing that wants to put their religion into the government.

The 2nd Amendment has many comments written on it by the founding fathers, while not much is written in the constitution itself, those comments clarify the issue perfectly. When the colonial Americans started to resist the British confiscating all of their weapons was a thing, so they wrote that bit into our founding document specifically to prohibit that occurrence. At this time all protection of the country was basically coming from the people themselves, there were "official armies" who were not militias at all times before and after it so it is obvious what the intent was. When there was the first Congress there wasn't even a constitution, but there was an official army and miltia (who were not conscripted). The milita was always considered to be all willing able bodied men at the time, hence the current interpretation of the 2A.

If the government ran the way I'd like it, it'd focus on infrastructure and defending our borders and leave us the hell alone. I don't need a virtual daddy telling me what I need to do. In reality, I realize governments can be useful in setting health standards, food standards, or setting other safety issues as well. It's just a double-edged sword though, the more they do the less you have the right to do yourself. We should focus on promoting healthy living rather than making it the governments job to police every single thing we do. In the current system, organizations like the EPA, FDA, and etc are just bought out by donors. You can get away with anything you want, as long as you have enough money. The rules really are there just to keep little guys from ever being able to grow enough to be competition. That's the effect of too many laws/rules - they stymie the natural growth and development rather than act as quality control. I'm uncertain of whether government agencies can actually even do this job, based on past performance.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, honestly the wall is practical, realistic, and humanitarian solution.

You do know the Berlin Wall wasn't even leak proof, right?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

The 2nd Amendment has many comments written on it by the founding fathers, while not much is written in the constitution itself, those comments clarify the issue perfectly.

They clarify how a particular founder felt about the issue...

The founders often disagreed. I doubt Jefferson shared the sentiment of Adams about America's king being Jesus, as an immediate example.

When the colonial Americans started to resist the British confiscating all of their weapons was a thing, so they wrote that bit into our founding document specifically to prohibit that occurrence.

That only speaks to the historical occurrence of the Brits confiscating weapons, doesn't it? The Constitution has been amended time to time where a good argument of historical expediency can be made.

At this time all protection of the country was basically coming from the people themselves, there were "official armies" who were not militias at all times before and after it so it is obvious what the intent was.

Right, but what became of militias? Proceed onward through history.

If the government ran the way I'd like it

The way you or I would like government to run says nothing about the actual purpose of having a government.

it'd focus on infrastructure and defending our borders and leave us the hell alone

That's impossible. The world is together now due to technology and internet. It is impossible for a nation to be 'left alone'.

I don't need a virtual daddy telling me what I need to do.

I think this is a gross over-simplification of a government's role.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

(written by a firearm owning, right wing, gun control proponent)

Be careful, lest they start thinking you are anti-gun Liberal and wanting to ban them outright.
--Pro-gun, pro-gun regulation Far Leftist.