I like this very much. I share views with all political affiliations, even communists. There is something to learn from every party. As a former service member, I was told I was fighting for everyone's freedom, something I later found out was an outright lie, I was in Afghanistan to kill poor people so US corporations could exploit their resources. A mistake I will live with for the rest of my life. But, at the time, I told myself I did it so people could have the right to stand or sit for the anthem, freedom of choice. That I was doing it so people could believe or disbelieve however, or whatever they wanted, also freedom of choice. The beautiful thing about freedom of choice, is also the freedom not to choose, if you feel abstention is in your best interest.

@SoullessHeathen I agree with your assessment and conclusion.

human nature though.. likely not going to change..

@hippydog No, not likely to change. However, I was just answering the question being posed. Wasn't even making a value judgment, just an observation.

Most Christians identify as Conservatives. Notice Praying Mike Pense who believes jesus communicates with him, or how evangelical pastors pray in the oval office with Trump. 2/3 of the US' population of 322 million identifies as Christian. Meaning the larger portion associates as christian.

Good points. I guess just look at election time, everyone coins catchy phrases, simple, that even the dumb can understand. "Change", "hope", "MAGA", "bring them home", etc. Except, they hardly elaborate on their stances. But, we, the ruled, or rulees if you will, are at fault. We will get behind a candidate based on a few catchy phrases that seem to suit us, and never ask the questions and make them elaborate. We bend over, we relax, and we take it with pride, because in a few short words, we whole heartedly support someone based on a phrase on their campaign banner. Sickening.

@WhereAtAtheist Hold on you’re not!?!?
Well damn I thought that that was a requirement for living there!? Well I’ll be??

See everyone that’s what it looks like when we allow stereotypes to exist.

Thank you WhereAtAtheist for setting that up for me.

@SoullessHeathen Well sadly there’s people who get paid tons of money to develop those catch phrases those hooks that are used to snare us.

Which is why I’ve told so many people that the I’m with Her election campaign slogan was actually insulting to some people.
Even trump’s was a message was that of an I’m doing this for you while hers was that you’re doing this for me.

So hopefully those that follow will have the sense to communicate that they’re doing this for America and not themselves.

I agree completely.

You are pulling two unlike subjects into the same topic. No man ought be ruled over by another, has nothing to do with my stance on abortion, as it remains constant that I abstain as I am not affected. If someone wants an abortion, they may have one, if someone doesnt, they wont. I know liberal media has coined a phrase for this that is catchy, "pro-choice" to further their agenda, but why stop at abortion? Why can't "pro-choice" also include other recent hot topics such as assisted suicide, gun ownership, etc. If we are wrapping unlike topics like ruling over one another with abortion stances, or lack thereof, why not do the same with everything?

@SoullessHeathen So you do have a stance on abortion. You're pro-choice but you just couldn't bear to say it. The problem with being pro-choice in regard to firearms is that it facilitates one person to permanently and irreversibly deny another person's exercise of the very rights you want to protect, so you need to figure out a way to ensure that doesn't happen. That's what liberals call "regulation".

@SoullessHeathen Yes, I think we should treat every subject the same. This is called consistency. If you are against one person ruling over another you also have to see how this applies to other topics.
I think someone who is pro choice because they value bodily autonomy they also have to be for assisted suicide. Gun ownership has nothing to do with bodily autonomy though, so it's a bit of a different subject. I think people should be allowed to have guns, but they have to prove that they use it responsibly and are not crazy or criminal. Otherwise it might have an effect on the bodily autonomy of other people, right?

@Dietl the gun control, or regulation if you will, already exists. Research requirements to purchase a firearm, and disqualifications.

@Dietl Since you agree that the body is owned solely by the individual, and you agree that bodily autonomy ought be treated the same under all subjects like abortion and assisted suicide, do you also believe that a person has the right to harm themselves or mutilate themselves if they are so inclined to do so? Based on what you agreed with, would that not also fall under bodily autonomy? Since we are lumping things together

@Dietl, @Gareth no, I don't have a stance on abortion, and to insinuate that I do, based on your own liberal agenda, is quite fucked, to be completely honest. I DO NOT CARE. I'm not sure that I could clarify anymore. Forcing me to have a stance, based on your own criteria of the issue, false criteria I might add, makes you quite the loyalist when it comes to policy. I'm sure our government is proud to have you, ensuring everyone is one side or the other, based on it's own criteria. I care not for our system of governance, and I care not about abortion, since it never has, nor never will affect my body. Abortion needs to be sorted out by women, not men who will never experience one.

@SoullessHeathen
For your first question. In countries and states where the regulations are reasonable I see no problem with the guns themselves. The question is if the regulations are reasonable. Do you think every state in the US has reasonable regulations?
Second question: Yes, I think everybody should have the right to mutilate themselves. In some sense people already do this in another more extreme sense it might be a sensitive topic to discuss but I still have this opinion. But for the bodily autonomy argument to apply the person must be sane in a certain sense. If a person with a severe mental disorder hurts themself it would be our duty to intervene because it is not in the best interest of the person even if they are not capable to see it that way.
Third comment: I did not say that you have to have a stance on abortion. It's fine if you don't or even if you don't want to talk about it. But you should be conistent with your views, that's my criterium, you can call it false if you want. Again it's fine if you are not, but if you don't care about consistency then it's not worth talking with you because you only talk without any thought behind your words.
So if you do care about consitency then you can't have it both ways, as I described in my other comment. Otherwise, you could change your principle in the following way: "No man should rule over another, except when it comes to abortion, then I don't care" Does this describe your position? Fine. I think it's a weird one, but if that's your opinion, so be it.

@Dietl Federal gun regulations supersede state regulations. This has been ruled in favor of by the supreme court. The NICS background and verification system is a federal system used by all states for gun sales. Even myself, have been put on a 5 day hold for further investigation, even though I have a clean record, still maintain a DoD Secret clearance, and have already purchased 13 guns. Yes. I'm a collector. I don't fault you for not knowing a federal background check has been in place for 40 years, the media makes it sound like toddlers who say their first word are now eligible to buy any, and as many, firearms as they want. However, those convincing the masses of liberals that gun laws don't exist, are ignorant. Just purely ignorant. Those in Congress who speak of gun control know nothing of them. You can hear it when they speak, the ignorance and lack of knowledge on the subject. I too am for reasonable gun laws, and perhaps more strict than what is, and has been in place for 40 years. The only addition I feel needs to be made is a mandatory 2 week waiting period after filling out background information. If you have a sense of urgency to buy a firearm, and need it now, it may be for malicious reasons. That "cooldown" period would likely save lives. I have no problem waiting 2 weeks for a firearm. I also have a Concealed Pistol License, and do indeed carry my firearm legally everywhere I am legally able to which is basically anywhere besides establishments that serve alcohol, schools, and sporting events that seat over 500 people. Criminals won't care about new laws anymore than they care about the old ones. Legally abiding citizens are who it harms, as it makes them unable to defend themselves from criminals. You can't rely on police either, because 90% of the time, they arrive after a crime has been committed.

@SoullessHeathen What you seem not to understand is that "not having a stance" on something is itself a stance. The only way you could truly not have a stance on whether you think something should be legal or illegal is if you had never heard of it, or did not understand what it was - which I am increasingly coming to believe is the case.

@Gareth so you are implying that just because someone is aware of something, that they, by nature, must take time to formulate an opinion on it? Wow, didnt know we were going down that road....

@Gareth abstention, is by very definition, not having a stance, not taking part, refraining from entertaining that ideology. I abstain.

@Gareth It is only by your own personal construct that everyone around you must take a side on every issue. Not everyone shares your same virtues. I am aware that gravel is comprised mostly of rocks, but I don't have an opinion on rocks. You would truly like that everyone categorically fit into your own structure of thinking, but that's not how it works. One is not inclined to side one way or the other, nor formulate an opinion, or even entertain the validity of an argument, if it is of no concern, or of no interest to them.

@SoullessHeathen It's nothing to do with what I'd like. It's called the Law of the Excluded Middle.
[And please try to consolidate your replies into one post - you're spamming up my alerts]

@Gareth The Principle of Excluded Middle states that for any proposition, that proposition is either true, or its negation is true. I agree that this principle does indeed exist, and that in politics, it is most useful to coerce people into forced narratives. But, for those who willfully reject participation in the subject matter, or abstain, the Principle of Excluded Middle need not apply.

@SoullessHeathen
I guess you know more about gun laws in the US than me. Do you think the laws are good as they are? What about the gunshow loophole? What do you think about the law concerning automatic weapons? They are clearly not for self-defence. Do you think there is no problem with people having those weapons?
"Criminals won't care about new laws anymore than they care about the old ones." This is not a good argument against a certain law. Because you could likewise argue that there shouldn't be a law against murder, because criminals won't care about that either.

@SoullessHeathen You don't accept that your position is logically contradictory but let me put this to you:
You state "I believe no man ought be ruled by another" (I'm taking "man" in its broadest sense to include all people here - correct me if that's not your meaning) and yet when asked the question "should one person be able to determine the outcome of another's pregnancy?" you claim to have no position. That indicates to me that you haven't really thought the more general proposition through.

@Dietl read up a few replies to see my view on the gun laws as they stand. Gun show loophole does not exist, it has been debunked time and time again. Hell, I've been to gunshows and still had to fill out paperwork to purchase. But. I guess your mind and opinion are formed by media speculation instead of fact, since your talking points are verbatim what the Democratic parties' are... lol

@Dietl, @Gareth No need to clarify man vs woman as an all-inclusive anti-sensitivity stint, I said what I said, and let's go off of that. And for further clarity, on the question of, as you put, "should one person be able to determine the outcome of another's pregnancy", you are simply rephrasing a question already asked, and already received a response. I will repeat once more, in case you missed it. It is of no concern to me, because it does not, and will not affect my life personally. If, and when it does, then that is my opportunity to take a stance, but until the arrival of such time, I abstain, as it is not my place to determine for others, one way or another, what legislation, or what modern socially accepted stance, should exist. It really is quite cut and dry.

@SoullessHeathen
On the gun issue: You are not really reading my comments, do you? You assume I have some kind of opinion just because I asked some questions. I just wanted to know what you have to say regarding the loopholes. This is not an issue that is debateable. Either they exist or they don't. When you say they don't I have to accept that for now because I'm not well versed in US law. But I see that this is a very sensitive issue for you when you can't help bringing it up all the time as if it was the most important thing in the world.
On the abortion issue: Let's stop beating around the bush. You don't take a stance because you are afraid to. I don't really care, but you have to see that living in a representative democracy means voting for people who do take a stance and influence legislation based on their stance. When you vote republican you are indirectly supporting the anti-abortion side, when you vote Democrat you are indirectly supporting the abortion side of the debate. You have to take into consideration what legislation your vote (or your abstaining from voting) supports. In your naive little world you can shut your eyes and ears and pretend that your actions have no influence but if you want to be a grown up and live responsibly you have to decide and take a stand for what you belief in. So do you care about your principle enough to follow it through or do you want to make exception whenever a controversial issue comes up?

@Dietl Quite the personal assessment, I commend your efforts, however misguided they may be.
First, if you are not a citizen of the US, and are not affected by its laws and legislation, then perhaps do some unbiased research on the subject before engaging in argument about it.
Second, my "naive" little world that consists of me taking care of myself and abstaining from the collective is not a bad thing. You have just been uniformly shaped to think that since you believe a certain way, others must also in some way, shape, or form conform to the same principles as yourself. Quite narrow-minded to think in such a way, some may even say.... naive(?).
Third, i don't shut my eyes and ears and wish the problems away. I have served two tours in Afghanistan, have in face taken aggressive action against others, have seen dead children laying in the filthy streets of Kabul, have seen a collective of "logical, like-minded" nations swarm a poor nation, killit's people, its economy, its culture, so that we may exploit their resources for our own corporate gain. The same system that sent me to commit atrocities against a sovereign nation, is the same system that you speak of with high regard, elected representation (honor system). So you see, I don't close my eyes, nor shut my ears. My eyes are wide open, and I have heard things in my life that I wish no other to ever hear. I must live with my part in those wars which I consider to be no less than genocidal. 700,000 dead in Afghanistan and Iraq (ethnic cleansing??).
So before you sit there on your logical high-horse, know that my eyes and ears are open, more so than yours I would project, because your "experience" is a gathered collective you've read in an online article, heard on the radio, or watched on television. My experience is lived experience. I do my best to detach emotion from argument, as it is the "logical" thing to do, but ones logic, if only learned, not lived, is just someone else's argument projected from another, regurgitation if you will.
So, before you analyze my character or personal opinion, know I can do the same. Supporting a system that allows genocide in the middle-east is morally wrong. But, we may have difference in morality, and I accept that. You are entitled to support such a regime, as I once did. But, no longer. In a true democracy, every citizen shall have one vote for every issue. Elected representation is as flawed a system as has ever existed. "Trusting" that another man will act on your best interests, while behind closed doors they are offered millions to gladly say "fuck you" to your wishes, is more flawed than even communism, as with communism, it is at least predictable.

@Dietl cannot wait to hear what bits and pieces you choose to respond to.

@SoullessHeathen
It's a bit tedious to talk with someone who doesn't listen to what I'm actually saying and who makes baseless assumptions. So let's adress each "bit and piece" one by one.

• Yes, I'm not a US citizen but that doesn't mean that your laws and legislation have no consequences for the rest of the world.
• I did some basic research and either came upon some wrong things or you are wrong now concerning the loophole. Either way I don't really care about having a detailed gun debate right now, else I would check out the issue more deeply.
• Yes "abstaining from the collective" is a naive view. You can't just abstain. Right now you are using a device that uses materials which were probably produced by (child) slave labor from other countries. That's just a tiny example. Every action you take has consequences even doing nothing against it can indirectly support thing and we at the very least have to be aware of that.
• No, I have not seen those things you mentioned by myself but I am aware of the atrocities commited by this system. Do you really think that you can escape all this just by "abstaining from the collective"? Can't you see that this is a flawed view. You have to try to change the system at least in some way and I bet you already do. I bet you talk to other people and also tell them about what is being done, which is a good thing. But in order to really have change more needs to be done.
• You mentioned "logical-minded" nations. I'd like to point out that that's not what I mean when I talk about logic. You put it under quotation marks but still I have to point out that drawing this connection to what I'm saying is wrong. There are no "logical-minded" nations and there probably never will be.
• I don't and didn't speak of this system in "high regard". My real feelings are quite the opposite. Please don't put words in my mouth.
• I don't sit on a logical high horse but I can see flawed arguments when I see them. Your experiences as horrible as they might have been are not relevant in this regard. And they especially are not relevant when it comes to other subjects like abortion. You bringing this up at all is rhetoric trickery. I hope you don't fool yourself with it because you surely don't fool me.
• Your experiences make you an authority about the things you have seen, nothing else. Again, you don't have a more informed opinion on other subjects just because you have "lived experience".
• When I use logic I usually talk about the structure of an argument not the premises or information that is given in the argument. When a sentence implies another message it has nothing to do with experience. I already told you the flaws with your principles and you chose to not respond directly to it but to bring up your experiences. Are really so sure that you are able to "detach emotion from argument"? I seems to me like you still struggle with what you experienced.
• The difference between me analysing your view and you analysing mine is that I listen to what you say and you don't. I try to come to my conclusions based on what you say. When I said that you are afraid to have an opinion on abortion I inferred that from you avoiding the question. Just to be clear I didn't try to "analyze your character" or say that you are a coward in general, just on this subject. I guess that was the reason you brought up your experiences, right? Because as I've said I see no other reason why they would be relevant to the subjects at hand.
• I agree that this system is flawed and that representative democracies should eventually be abolished. But for that to happen we have to do something and not "abstain from the collective". Voting for the right people can be a step in the right direction, while not voting or doing nothing leads to the status quo. If you what to organize a protest and topple the regime, that of course would be even more effective, but I don't think this is a realistic option right now.
  I hope that clears up a few things. If you ignore all else at least stop putting words in my mouth that'd be quite nice

Liberals are more open minded unless to topic is guns, then (generally) they parrot the standard anti-gun rhetoric.

@dahermit No, we're open-minded to understand that gun control is necessary, despite the general belief that gun ownership is a right. It's all perspective.

@dahermit "Liberals are more open minded unless to topic is guns, then (generally) they parrot the standard anti-gun rhetoric."

i don't think thats completely true.. i know many liberals who have no problems with guns (the canadian version mind you).. i think the lines more closely follow the city bred vs rural bred then left or right.. (anecdotal evidence only though as I have not seen a study that outright proved this)

@dahermit Nope.

@NoMagicCookie Just as belief in God is the establishment, so is the thinking that gun ownership is a constitutional rights the establishment. In the case of religion, it takes someone open-minded to consider there is no god, and it also takes an open-mind to consider that there have been too many needless deaths for unlimited gun rights to continue to exist. You are the one who's close-minded @dahermit, because you can't handle, not rhetoric, but the truth.

@dahermit Liberal here - who believes in gun ownership - for those who meet certain criteria - so the rest of us aren't victims.

Reasonable gun laws.

@godef As a strong atheist, In my instance, "Nope" fully applies. To assert otherwise as "truth" is in error.

@RavenCT reasonable gun laws already exist. Do your research. No felons may own or possess firearms, nor can those with known mental illnesses, or those with violent misdemeanors like domestic assault. Unfortunately, if someone wants a gun who isnt suppose to own one, they will find a way of getting one. Just as someone who wants cocaine, will seek out and find cocaine. Disarming people from protecting themselves against those who mean them harm is quite interesting...

@godef If it is not a "right" then none of the other things listed in the "Bill of Rights" are not rights either. It may be viewed by Liberals as too inconvenient, but it is a right nevertheless.

@hippydog That is why I put "generally" in parenthesis.

@OwlInASack If you examine the statistics you will see that the "problem" is not with guns per sa, but with suicides and gang violence. So, it would be more accurate to say we have a suicide problem and a gang problem (almost always in economically depressed urban areas).

@godef Read your Constitution. If you cannot abide the Second Amendment, Amend the Constitution to eliminate it just as the framers intended.

@dahermit That is exactly what we'd like to do. But then we start getting called commies, liars, socialists, evil, etc etc. The GOP can be such whiny babies.

@dahermit I'll tell you what's really inconvenient. All the empty thoughts and prayers we hear every time there's a mass shooting. And then they go back to spewing nonsense about how gun control won't stop the killings. Australia proves you wrong.

@SoullessHeathen Erm they can't but they do. So the laws don't work. We need to do better and make them enforceable.

They obviously aren't enforceable now.

@RavenCT they are enforceable, but the people are not. Those committing crimes with guns won't care about new laws any more than they care about the current laws. Just words on paper to them.

@godef All "Australian proves" is that when you have a country that does not have a Constitutional right to own guns and that there is not culture of having guns, that restricting them further may be a factor in shootings. On the other hand, unless you are suggesting a complete ban on Americans having guns and willing to enforce it in a draconian fashion, the 315 million plus guns already in American hands will continue to plenty enough to enable the shootings despite "common sense" gun laws.

I understand what you are saying. But there are some Invalid statements you have made which need clarity. Hitler was socialist, Stalin was communist. Hitler rose to power because he felt the communists (Jewish Bolsheviks of Russia) would further economically rape his nation, beyond what the Treaty of Versailles had already done to Germany post World War I. You cannot compare the political beliefs of Hitler and Stalin, as they both had completely different systems of rule. You also incorrect about both killing and enslaving their own people. Stalin most definitely killed and starved his own Russian people, whereas Hitler did not. Hitler loved his race and his countrymen dearly. He did not like how the Jews plundered the German economy post WW1, like vultures on the carcass of a dead raccoon. Also, the Jews made up 5% of the german population, and yet they had 70% of the seats in government. No proper representation. No one denies what Hitler did to the Jews in the end, but, I think a reasonable person can realize that something had to be done about the unequal representation, Jewish stronghold on German economy and culture. Hitler went too far, but he was not unjust in taking back the government. Had he stopped there, he would be viewed much differently. Unfortunately, that's not the case. We forget his genius, how he was able to take the most downtrodden westernized nation, and be the first out of the great depression. He was an economic genius. Stalin was not.

@SoullessHeathen Nazi means, "National Socialist German Workers' Party." USSR is the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." Both were socialist states. There were differences, but nothing I stated was invalid. The Jews in Germany were citizens that were enslaved and killed, as were Jehovah's Witnesses, and anyone else who didn't follow the party line. An "economic genius?" I beg to differ. Germany used deficit spending, they moved away from free trade, they used slave labor and military buildup to decrease unemployment. The plan was to pay the deficit down by conquering nations. I don't call that genius in economics.

@OwlInASack I agree.

Only 69% ? On this website it is about 95%