Is it a fair compromise if we link equal levels of regulation from abortion to guns?

[Agape93]

After all, the "pro life" crowd should be all for it, as the main causes of death for minors and pregnant women is murder, usually causes by firearms.

Want a total abortion ban? No guns.
Want a partial ban with exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother? You get no guns unless you can prove those have or will occur.
Want a ban after X amount of weeks? Cool, but if you don't get your background checked and approved in that time frame, you don't get a gun.
Want no restrictions? No gun restrictions!

[lightbulb27]

I see the idea, create "respective suffering", limit freedom in one area, limit it in the other.

not gonna fly. it's just not easy making people be responsible adults when their emotions are screwed up.

Republicans are nuts sometimes. we'll meaning and intended, it will work in a few caess and fail in way too many.

I'm really a closet bleeding heart liberal disguised as a republican, that tries to function as an Independent.

They have to keep their guns for if they are taken away, those bank accounts will be robbed fast by the government, and all is lost.

[Twalli]

They don't really want people to live. Most are in favor of the death penalty

[Sixgunsound]

No, it is not a fair compromise, for the following reasons. Though political horse trading is common, it tends to work better when the issues are on a level playing field. A constitutional right vs a struck down court ruling are unlikely to be treated the same legislatively. I must also respectfully disagree that they are even related issues; do you have data to support your claim? I have data from UNICEF, not historically a right wing organization, which disagrees, and they have a statistically significant sample size. According to UNICEF, the leading cause of childhood mortality is disease, followed by deprivation. According to the US CDC, also not exactly a right wing supporter, motor vehicle accidents outweigh firearm deaths by a huge margin, and if we remove suicides, the most common firearm death, the disparity gets even more extreme. According to the FBI, bare hands account for more deaths than firearms. The issues are neither related nor on the same level, thus it is not a fair trade.

[Sixgunsound]

Would you accept tying your ability to unconditionalky speak publicly to the ability to own guns unconditionally?

[DudeDiligence]

Not really. As a pro choice guy myself, I think that idea would never fly, for several reasons.

Murder is always wrong and illegal, no matter what weapon is used, because it always results in taking a human life. Pro lifers will argue that abortion is wrong and should be illegal for the same reason.

But the vast majority of guns never hurt anyone, let alone take a life, and the right to own them is guaranteed by the Constitution. Not so with abortion.

[BarryLiverstone]

Creative idea but depending on whom you ask it’s not fair. Does seem deceitful that both parties are using these topics to rally their bases before the primaries; yet they have been in Washington for half a century and haven’t solved the problems.

[SaltyBeaches]

No, there is no correlation between the two.

[DizzyDesii]

I dont support abortion nor guns nor death penalty so makes me no difference

[OddBeMe]

I’d say car regulations to both. Abortion is medical so it should fall under Hippa.

[Agape93]

Not applicable. It's a yes or a no.

[Agape93]

Well?

[OddBeMe]

Oh sorry yes, I guess. I really don’t want either. But if magically we could get rid of all guns, that would solve a helluva a lot of problems. Then in our new utopias we can reintroduce abortion rights.

That’s why I never like these false dichotomies plus absolutism. We should, as logical humans, see that bodily autonomy is best. As well as more safety regs on guns.

[Andres77]

The attitude about murder is already linked.

[TallAnon]

You assume people use logic, this is a mistake.