… mostly, because many of the points I wanted to address are actually quite global.

Some of you may have read my last post, which was supposed to be a bit more flippant than it may have come across. By this, I mean it was:
1. An indictment on the so-called “liberal media” for censoring some pretty choice quotes; and
2. Pointing out a fallacy in logic – something which is unsettling (though not surprising) in a presidential candidate.

I had an interesting response to this post, which I think read a little too far into my flippant nature. I can’t say as I blame him, as he probably didn’t go back and read archives as some of you had; he hasn’t known me for years and known my manner of writing/speaking as others of you. However, what he had to say was thought provoking nonetheless, and therefore warrants it’s own post.

The first point I would like to address: I am not anti-gun. I don’t LIKE guns. I don’t particularly like violence, period, and I am very strongly anti-death penalty (but, yes, I am pro-choice – I’m getting to that, hold on), however I am not “anti-gun.” In the same way that I don’t like abortions (there it is!), but I am – as you all know – decidedly NOT anti-abortion.

I do think that there is an extent that the government should REGULATE guns, just as they do alcohol, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, driving, tobacco, etc. This is because all of the above, when not used properly, can be extremely dangerous, and not only to the user himself. I also find it disturbing that in some places it’s easier for a teenager to get his hands on a gun than it is for him to get his hands on beer. Or, to put it in perspective, it’s easier for a felon to get a hold of a firearm than it is for him to win back his right to vote.

Of course, that would be an illegal firearm. Of course gun ownership should be legal, actually, for the SAME reasons abortion should be: because in both cases, regardless of whether it’s illegal, people are going to do it anyway. If it’s legal and regulated, than people can do it safely.

The question then becomes, how much regulation is too much regulation? And, it seems in today’s political climate, NO ONE can agree on this. People cannot even necessarily agree to decentralizing it to the States – there are pros and cons to both sides, though it’s true that you can’t please everyone, and it is a lot easier to please a smaller group of people.

However, I will say this: the person writing lost a LOT of credibility when he referred to abortion as “murdering babies” and fetuses as “humans.” This isn’t accurate, it’s political semantics, meant to get people angry on both sides of the issue. You call it “murdering babies,” I call it a “forced pregnancy.” You call it a “human,” I could just as easily call it a “parasite.” While neither one of us is technically wrong, it is those kinds of inflammatory statements that polarize the issue and exacerbate an already tenuous-at-best issue. It’s also statements like that which make me think that no matter how much your “pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, and pro-family values” candidate says he won’t force said beliefs on everyone, when he gets into office that tune will change. However, it’s probably unfair to judge a candidate by his supporters. I do find it interesting, however, that Ron Paul and my commenter share a lot of political viewpoints separate from a decentralized administration – that probably has a lot more to do with your choice than you realize.

On a final note, perhaps this is also misleading, but I also never said I would vote for Giuliani – what I meant was, he was the only GOP candidate that didn’t make me want to completely disregard the Republican ticket entirely. In other words, he’s the only one that wouldn’t make me say, “Anybody but HIM.” But that doesn’t mean I WOULD vote for him.

Advertisements