What motivates you to debate others?

[Syne]

Before I answer, do you believe that the liberal side and conservatives both support the second amendment? From what I've read about the liberal viewpoint on gun control, it seems that they are just seeking background checks, waiting periods before purchasing a gun, ban on assault rifles, and ban on concealed weapons. The only thing that I disagree with on the liberal side, is a banning on concealed weapons. Having said this, I don't own a gun. But, why is the conservative side ''known'' for ''supporting'' the 2nd Amendment? There seems to be an implication that liberals are not supportive of it at all, but really, it just sounds like they want to have some protective measures in place. How do you make sense of the two sides on this issue?

Liberals are not seen as supporting the Second Amendment because in every liberal-run city and state Second Amendment rights are the most restricted. In many, whether you can get a carry permit, concealed or not, is up to the whim of the local sheriff's office, with many approving fewer than a handful each year. They may at least provide lip-service for keeping arms (in the home), but they seek to infringe upon the right to bear (carry) arms. The Second Amendment protects the human right to both keep and bear arms.

We already have a nation-wide ban on assault rifles. We already have nation-wide background checks for out of state transfers, gun/pawn shop purchases, and gun show vender sales. None of the further restrictions on law-abiding people, in liberal-run localities, have proven effective in reducing crime or homicide.

And liberals rarely stop once they've achieved their "current goals".

[Leigha]

Before I answer, do you believe that the liberal side and conservatives both support the second amendment? From what I've read about the liberal viewpoint on gun control, it seems that they are just seeking background checks, waiting periods before purchasing a gun, ban on assault rifles, and ban on concealed weapons. The only thing that I disagree with on the liberal side, is a banning on concealed weapons. Having said this, I don't own a gun. But, why is the conservative side ''known'' for ''supporting'' the 2nd Amendment? There seems to be an implication that liberals are not supportive of it at all, but really, it just sounds like they want to have some protective measures in place. How do you make sense of the two sides on this issue?

Liberals are not seen as supporting the Second Amendment because in every liberal-run city and state Second Amendment rights are the most restricted. In many, whether you can get a carry permit, concealed or not, is up to the whim of the local sheriff's office, with many approving fewer than a handful each year. They may at least provide lip-service for keeping arms (in the home), but they seek to infringe upon the right to bear (carry) arms. The Second Amendment protects the human right to both keep and bear arms.

We already have a nation-wide ban on assault rifles. We already have nation-wide background checks for out of state transfers, gun/pawn shop purchases, and gun show vender sales. None of the further restrictions on law-abiding people, in liberal-run localities, have proven effective in reducing crime or homicide.

And liberals rarely stop once they've achieved their "current goals".

Thank you for explaining your view, appreciate it. Upon reading this, I'd say to answer your question from earlier, that my stance with gun control is centrist, and not that I don't care, in terms of neutrality. I actually think that both sides bring some relevant ideas to the table.

I'll have to think about why I'm neutral on the other fronts.

[Syne]

Before I answer, do you believe that the liberal side and conservatives both support the second amendment? From what I've read about the liberal viewpoint on gun control, it seems that they are just seeking background checks, waiting periods before purchasing a gun, ban on assault rifles, and ban on concealed weapons. The only thing that I disagree with on the liberal side, is a banning on concealed weapons. Having said this, I don't own a gun. But, why is the conservative side ''known'' for ''supporting'' the 2nd Amendment? There seems to be an implication that liberals are not supportive of it at all, but really, it just sounds like they want to have some protective measures in place. How do you make sense of the two sides on this issue?

Liberals are not seen as supporting the Second Amendment because in every liberal-run city and state Second Amendment rights are the most restricted. In many, whether you can get a carry permit, concealed or not, is up to the whim of the local sheriff's office, with many approving fewer than a handful each year. They may at least provide lip-service for keeping arms (in the home), but they seek to infringe upon the right to bear (carry) arms. The Second Amendment protects the human right to both keep and bear arms.

We already have a nation-wide ban on assault rifles. We already have nation-wide background checks for out of state transfers, gun/pawn shop purchases, and gun show vender sales. None of the further restrictions on law-abiding people, in liberal-run localities, have proven effective in reducing crime or homicide.

And liberals rarely stop once they've achieved their "current goals".

Thank you for explaining your view, appreciate it. Upon reading this, I'd say to answer your question from earlier, that my stance with gun control is centrist, and not that I don't care, in terms of neutrality. I actually think that both sides bring some relevant ideas to the table.

I'll have to think about why I'm neutral on the other fronts.

If you have to think about why you're neutral...you don't really care enough to have already made an effort to take a real stance. This seems apparent in your position on gun control as well. With very little research, it should be clear that banning carry permits is a liberal goal...accomplished by chipping away with the "protective measures" you mention (which have never proven to work to stop crime where implemented, but do work to keep law-abiding people unarmed).

* I'm pro-life, in that I believe life begins at conception, but don't believe abortion should be banned. I just would like to see it be utilized less.
...
* I'm against the death penalty (always) - How can I be pro life, but only pro life of a baby?

How do you reconcile wanting to "always" protect criminal life, but "don't believe abortion should be banned"? Is the person found guilty more deserving of protection than innocent "life [that] begins at conception"? Would you want to ban the death penalty? That seems to be what "always" implies. Or should the death penalty just be "utilized less"?

Most pro-lifers are effectively pro-innocent-life. One might ask whether newborn babies deserve to be locked away for life. Why is this okay for convicted felons but not babies?

[Leigha]

The thread isn't about my political opinions. If you'd like to start a thread about these issues, I'll answer your questions there.

[Syne]

I figured the developing discussion could well serve as illustration of the topic, since there doesn't seem to be much more input. The way we arrive at the positions we debate may help illuminate the motivations for debate.

[Leigha]

Why don't you go first, and then I'll join the discussion. lol

Are you pro-life? Are you against the death penalty? Why, for both?

[scheherazade]

Are you pro-life? Are you against the death penalty? Why, for both?

I believe in the right to choose. Nature also elects to terminate many pregnancies before term. For the record, I am not in favor of fertility enhancing drugs. Artificial insemination is perhaps a better option but why not adopt if one cannot conceive? Pregnancy is a small part of raising a child in my observation.

The death penalty should be retained but only for those cases where there is not a shadow of a doubt. Wherever doubt remains, mercy must ever prevail. For a small minority who are born without a conscience and demonstrate violence against humanity, there is nothing to be gained by imposing incarceration upon the individual and the expense of such incarceration upon the community.

[Syne]

Why don't you go first, and then I'll join the discussion. lol

Are you pro-life? Are you against the death penalty? Why, for both?

I am pro-life and for the death penalty, though both have possible exceptions. I am pro-life because it is human life (even by scientific definition), responsible adults know what the risks of sex are and have no excuse for taking out their regrets on the innocent. Those on death row are generally not innocent, we now have things like DNA evidence that reduce mistakes, and caring for these people for life is an undue and unbeneficial burden on society. I do have qualms over assigning someone the responsibility for an execution or even letting the family carry out their vengeance, but these are about the relatively innocent lives...not the guilty.

Pro-abortion and anti-death penalty is completely indefensible to me. I mean, how are the guilty more deserving of protection? Similarly, advocating no executions at all, but allowing some abortions, leans in the same direction. I could understand allowing none of either...at least that would be consistent. And at least being in favor of abortion and executions is also consistent, even if not justifiable.

[Leigha]

Why don't you go first, and then I'll join the discussion. lol

Are you pro-life? Are you against the death penalty? Why, for both?

I am pro-life and for the death penalty, though both have possible exceptions. I'd agree with this, except that  I am pro-life because it is human life (even by scientific definition), responsible adults know what the risks of sex are and have no excuse for taking out their regrets on the innocent. Those on death row are generally not innocent, we now have things like DNA evidence that reduce mistakes, and caring for these people for life is an undue and unbeneficial burden on society. I do have qualms over assigning someone the responsibility for an execution or even letting the family carry out their vengeance, but these are about the relatively innocent lives...not the guilty.

Pro-abortion and anti-death penalty is completely indefensible to me. I mean, how are the guilty more deserving of protection? Similarly, advocating no executions at all, but allowing some abortions, leans in the same direction. I could understand allowing none of either...at least that would be consistent. And at least being in favor of abortion and executions is also consistent, even if not justifiable.

I'm pro-life but don't believe abortion should be banned/illegal, because there could be cases where a woman's life is in danger, and an abortion might be the only way to save her. I don't believe in using abortion as another form of birth control. The challenge with this debate is wrapped up in the question ''when does life begin?'' I believe in begins at conception, even after just 18 days, a heartbeat can be detected. So, I'm against abortion, except in extreme cases. 

I'm against the death penalty because it's often doled out, indiscriminately. It doesn't serve as a deterrent to violent crime in the community, and it seems like an act of revenge. What did Gandhi say? ''An eye for an eye ends up making the whole world blind.'' A person's actions don't dictate their worth, in my eyes. Everyone has value, even criminals. Even the worst of criminals. It isn't for any of us to take a life, to judge such a thing. Then we are no better than the criminal sitting on death row.

Unless one's life is truly in danger, then it's instinctive to protect it...self defense, or protecting one's loved ones, friends, etc if their lives are in imminent danger, is a case for taking of another's life.

The US prison system however, is deplorable. In some cases, inhumane. I'm for the rehabilitation of criminals, not merely housing and ''punishing'' them. The prison system is a business, and keeping criminals coming back, keeps them in business. There's no ''incentive'' for prisons to rehabilitate their inmates, because keeping prisons full, is lucrative. So, that's a big problem, and one that needs to be corrected.

[Syne]

I'm pro-life but don't believe abortion should be banned/illegal, because there could be cases where a woman's life is in danger, and an abortion might be the only way to save her. I don't believe in using abortion as another form of birth control. The challenge with this debate is wrapped up in the question ''when does life begin?'' I believe in begins at conception, even after just 18 days, a heartbeat can be detected. So, I'm against abortion, except in extreme cases. 

I agree 100%. I don't think anyone is proposing a ban without an exception for risk to the mother's life, since a fetus usually relies on the mother, and it makes no sense to lose both. So I would count what you describe as pro-ban, which does make it consistent with no executions.

I'm against the death penalty because it's often doled out, indiscriminately. It doesn't serve as a deterrent to violent crime in the community, and it seems like an act of revenge. What did Gandhi say? ''An eye for an eye ends up making the whole world blind.'' A person's actions don't dictate their worth, in my eyes. Everyone has value, even criminals. Even the worst of criminals. It isn't for any of us to take a life, to judge such a thing. Then we are no better than the criminal sitting on death row.

Unless one's life is truly in danger, then it's instinctive to protect it...self defense, or protecting one's loved ones, friends, etc if their lives are in imminent danger, is a case for taking of another's life.

Not sure I'd completely trust Gandhi. What did Mahatma Gandhi think of black people? An eye for an eye also keeps eye-pokers from finding more eyes.

Do you have any recent facts/statistics to support the death penalty being indiscriminate?

I would agree that all life has intrinsic value, but once proven a threat to others, it is the potential victims that take precedence. As far as deterrent:

"_Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

_ The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.

_ Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor."
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...406_2.html

When in doubt, I have to side with even just the possibility that it deters further murder. If it does, then it is equivalent to defending lives...and that does ease my qualms over the executioner.

The US prison system however, is deplorable. In some cases, inhumane. I'm for the rehabilitation of criminals, not merely housing and ''punishing'' them. The prison system is a business, and keeping criminals coming back, keeps them in business. There's no ''incentive'' for prisons to rehabilitate their inmates, because keeping prisons full, is lucrative. So, that's a big problem, and one that needs to be corrected.

I'm just not sure what rehabilitation could hope to accomplish for those sentenced to a life in prison, since they will never have the opportunity to be a productive member of society. I'm all for rehabilitation for lesser crimes, but capital crimes are evidence of a potential ongoing danger to society. I would have to see evidence that such criminals can consistently be made safe to society before the risk would be tolerable. Otherwise, I'd feel that I am gambling with the lives of any potential victims, and I don't have any right to do that.

But I do agree that we spend way too much to just "store" criminals, especially when they often come out worse than they went it. IMO, the problems with prison are just another reason not to house criminals for life, where they can "educate" lesser criminals.