To the people who are pro guns and against abortion, isn't it contradictory?

[justEric]

Most people who have one of these ideals also have the other one. The main argument against abortion is that a life is being taken. But at the same time, the purpose of a gun is to kill, so isn't that like defending opposing points of view? If you have a saying about it to dismiss what I just wrote or want to add something to the discussion, let me hear your thoughts, please. The question is general, not related to any country

[HighValue]

The difference is that the kid is innocent. The adults that made the choice to have unprotected sex can deal with the consequences of their decisions. They knew the possibility, that is why people shouldn't have casual sex. They should only have sex with someone that they think is likely to be a good partner for them long term.

A gun is used to stop someone that is trying to harm you or someone that you care about. The criminal made the choice to break into someone's home or attack someone/rob them. Now the criminal has to deal with the consequences of their decision.

by the way, me and most pro-life people are supportive of abortion when it comes to rape or the mother's health risk.

[Filthy_Immigrant]

your argument is flawed and flooding with nothing but generalization buddy.

have you ever heard that saying "guns dont kill people, people kill people." you can own 100s of guns yet that still doesn't mean you're bound to kill anyone, you can just own one (s) for protection and self defense. hell you can own one and probably never have the need to use it; just like a fire extinguisher

now abortion in the other hand no what you do it with will always be done by something called "decision"

[Anonymous]

Yeah it it’s weird how the prolife people are not against assault rifles especially when they’ve been used in mass shootings, sometimes of children. Not only that but many of them are against strict legislation on them.

[DizzyDesii]

I agree. Im not a fan of abortion nor death penalty nor guns (which are meant to kill not wound)

[Guy13]

You are trying to link apples and oranges. The gaping hole that you are forgetting is a life is different from a gun (object). The fact you see babies as an object, like a gun, is an error in your judgment.

The child is defenseless and without choice. This is an unrighteous kill as was Putin’s actions an unrighteous or unprovoked Kill. Abortionist are Genocidal premeditated murders who attacked and kill a separate life that is usable to protect itself. Hitler Stalin Mao Abortionists etc…

[Guy13]

The gun is used to defend oneself and it does indeed kill. Those who use a gun have the ABILITY to choose or choose not the gun 🔫. A baby does not.
When one is unwarrantedly attacked then a gun is a tool that both defends and righteously kills. Like 9/11 in NYC provocations brought forth righteous kill in Defense. A baby in womb can not defend himself

[joeldalton]

How is it contradictory? Even though guns are RARELY used to kill people, The goal is to have them for self defense against someone who wishes to harm you. And we’ve made murder illegal as well. Abortions, on the other hand, are ALWAYS used to kill people, and people who aren’t trying to harm you.

[NamerOfStars]

Not really- a gun has value as a deterrent as well as as a weapon, and a person who provokes a gun being fired at them has (well, hopefully has) done more than just be somewhere they're not wanted.

[SmokinAces2000]

Not necessarily contradictory to just be pro guns but if they are saying that they would kill someone for having different views then yeah that’s contradictory

[BeMuse]

Are you trying to argue that tyrannical Democrat governments are a bunch of babies?

[justEric]

Haha no, I don't know how my question is related to yours

[BeMuse]

The second amendment exists to prevent tyrannical governments like the current Democrats from abusing people's freedoms. Those guns are there if they need to be used in defense to kill said tyrants. You're making an argument that killing babies in the act of abortion is equivalent to killing tyrannical governments in self defense. So since you do not think tyrannical democrats are babies, I guess you answered your own question and now you understand that it is not a contradiction.

[BeMuse]

The specific reason Democrats attack the ownership of AR-15 style rifles, is because a patriotic resistance to a tyrannical government can start with a semi automatic rifle platform and salvage weapon components like the rifle lower, suppressors, optics, etc. and ammo from defeated members of said tyrannical government in the event that a tyrannical government fields soldiers armed with those rifles to march on the citizenry. Those salvaged materials can then be turned against the government that tried to use them on the people. That is why they don't care about AK-47s or the.30-06 and so on. It has nothing to do with the power or operation of the rifle. They just do not want to supply the resistance when they attempt to use military force against civilians. It is the primary deterrent to tyrannical governments.

[BeMuse]

Anyone who actually understands warfare would know this. Infantry tactics focus a lot on the ambush. After an ambush is successfully executed, materials such as weapons, ammo, intelligence, etc. are taken from the fallen enemy. If you use the same weapon system as your adversary there is a constant resupply in the field which allows rapid advance. They don't like that idea. If they were able to ban AR-15 style rifles and get average Americans on a different weapon system, then they could stop manufacturing of ammo for opposing weapon systems while they continue to manufacture their own. The only reason you would want to do such a thing is if you plan to kill your own civilians. If you are on the side of your civilians, then the common man having the same weapon system as the government becomes a strength to defend against outside invasion.

[BeMuse]

Now you know what Democrats really have planned for you and why they play the politics they do. You are assisting them in their plot to kill you.

[justEric]

I'm not American

[BeMuse]

Yet your profile says United States and you bicker over the abortion/gun rights issue... Regardless of where you are from, when disarmament is implemented the principle is always the same. The point is to concentrate the power in the hands of the few, so that militant force can be used to oppress the many. When the many are on an even footing, the few are outnumbered and can not oppress a larger force.

[justEric]

I don't know where it says USA, but I understand your point of view

[BeMuse]

All governments that care about their own people would want their people to have the same rifles as their law enforcement and military. All governments that hate their own people and plan to kill their own people would want to restrict those weapons so that the citizens are not trained on the same weapons system. When the citizen is trained on the same weapon system, there is a lot of outward pointing power. If a foreign invader were to attack, as military fell, citizens could reinforce them and be capable. A militia could be levied to duty to strengthen the defense. When the citizen is stripped of that right and armament, the power is pointed inward against the people and they become vulnerable and enslaved.

[BeMuse]

[justEric]

It's not applicable in every government, but the image is a mistake of the app

[BeMuse]

You can not get away with atrocities without a monopoly on the use of force. Every time that is how it plays out. There are plenty of examples… The slaughter of Armenians by the Ottomans, tens of millions murdered and starved to death under the Soviets, tens of millions killed by the Chinese, 11 million killed in the Holocaust by the German Nazis, the killing fields of the Cambodian by the Khmere Rouge, over a hundred thousand killed in Cuba by Castro, over a hundred thousand Mayans killed by the Guatemalans, three hundred thousand Christians killed in Uganda, ethnic cleansing of the Tutsi in Rwabda, Venezuelan death squads and orchestrated economic collapse and starvation. The same game is played over and over starting first with the disarmament. They restrict who can and can’t own guns. They stop producing ammunition for sale to the public. They use gun registration lists and so on. They’ve done it over and over and over again. Then they follow that up with propaganda to get one group to fear and hate the other. Economic manipulation is used via debasement of the currency and restriction of energy and engineered starvation to cause suffering and enrage the people. The propaganda always blames the other party for taking all the resources. They say they don’t belong here, they have no right to be hear and so on. All of these assaults are currently happening on many nations around the globe. Some of those nations have already been disarmed. The mass killings do not happen immediately after the disarmament. Sometimes they take a decade to get started with the genocide, but it comes eventually. If your nation has been disarmed, you need to wake the fuck up because the world is being starved of energy, food supply chains are being cut, and currencies are being debased as we speak. There is massive waves of divisive propaganda that is already turning groups against each other. They will come for you. You better arm yourself if you want a chance at surviving...

[Jenny-Marie]

Unfortunately the pro-gun anti-abortion lobbies are only a big issue in the US. As far as I know, no other country supports a pro-gun culture and no other western country has such a vociferous anti abortion lobby.

[Paul_in_Indy]

Umm…? The purpose of being armed is to save a life.

[Anonymous]

Because shooting a crack head breaking into your house is the same as killing a baby. 🙄

[justEric]

You're saying, not me haha

[Opinion Owner]

You’re the one saying it is contradictory, fool.

[justEric]

Ok, darling

[Anonymous]

How? What does the right to bear arms have to do with murder? Self defense is not murder. How bout this. The first baby that tries to murder his/her mom then the mom has my blessing to kill that baby in self defense.

[loveslongnails]

Gun ownership and abortions are not comparable. Bad analogy.

[exitseven]

Sometimes you have to take life to give life. Sometimes it is contradictory but it is often true.

[msc545]

This is a false equivalence. I can, without conflict, be for making guns available, and be against killing babies.

[MrTaboo]

No both are to protect life. Good guy with gun kills bad guy trying to kill multiple people. Same with banning abortion. Saving a child's life.

[Pterodon]

My guns are to kill for food so fuck your definition

[Anonymous]

Republicans just cherry pick what's right or wrong to suit their agendas.

[spartan55]

You are really going apples and oranges here.