Abortion,Guns, & Homosexuals Why Are Conservatives So "Obsessed"

I notice a constantly reoccurring theme in conservative circles is Abortion, Guns, and Same Sex Marriage

Now I am Just "Curious" why these 3 specific topics mean SO MUCH that it can become the identity of an entire political party.

The way I see it is Abortion is less failures to have to support later as well as preventative breeding

On Guns sure I own firearms but I do not identify with my guns and it has probably been ten years since I last went hunting but I do keep my 38 and my shotgun loaded as home defense just incase anybody ever decides to rob me

Gay marriage well if two guys or two gals wanna fight and bicker like an old married couple well it's No Skin Off of my back and why should it bother you

Well I would appreciate some feedback on this

 

I would mostly agree with the first two. I'd add an addendum to the second one that the right to bear arms is not as much about self-defense as it is a defense against an oppressive government.

As far as the gay marriage thing... it's not just that two gay guys want to argue with each other. You have to support their behavior through your taxes. It costs AT LEAST $430M a year to provide homosexuals marriage benefits. That's money YOU are paying out. And you're paying it out for what reason? What the hell are homosexuals doing in a marriage that justifies them receiving that amount of money every year?

 

Well the answer to that is to remove benefits and tax subsides from ALL MARRIAGES then the financial aspect wouldn't be a non-Issue

 

I would agree. I'm a capitalist. I don't believe ANYBODY should receive marriage benefits. With that being said, at least heterosexuals have a justifiable reason for those benefits.

 

This never fails to crack me up. Don't get me wrong, I'm a 2A supporter with a pistol on me at all times but if the feds decide to "oppress" with the military you and Bubba with your ARs will find out just how "immortal" you aren't really fast.

 

We are not obsessed with these issues but the left are.

You'll notice it is a leftist making this thread talking about it, not a conservative.

 

That's only because the Federal Government restricts our rights to purchase other weapons unconstitutionally.

Regardless, WHEN the federal government attempts oppression (not if, but when as history has shown it is inevitable) I'd much rather have my SKS than a pitchfork.

 

Yep, me and my FiveSeven, you with your SKS, the feds with a Bradley AFV mounting twin 25mm Bushmasters, 3 crew and 6 infantry with m16s or worse. That will end well.

 

Then why is it the only things they talk about!!

 

It isn't.

We talk about issues that are currently happening such as the liberals trying to pass unconstitutional gun laws. So yes, we are going to talk about it then.

Same-sex marriage has been in the news so we are talking about it.

We don't discuss abortion more than any other subject like the economy or immigration or foreign policy so that one is irrelevant also.

 

It'll end better than me and you with pitchforks and baseball bats.

Not to mention if the government were to attempt those acts, some military members, including generals would refuse to attack their own people. And in doing so many of them would appropriate weapons and facilities that could be used to fight back.

Regardless, I'm damn sure not giving up my guns for a baseball bat.

 

WHERE did you get that figure

 

From the CBO.

"On the expense side, gay men and lesbians would get access to Social Security benefits based on spousal income. This would raise benefits for some couples, particularly those in which one spouse had much higher career earnings than the other. The CBO estimated these added benefits would cost $350 million a year by 2014.

The other main area of added expense would be benefits for the same-sex spouses of federal employees and retirees. The CBO estimated that covering same-sex spouses in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program would cost about $80 million a year."

And that was in 2004 and only considering NINE states with gay marriage laws and only a FEW of the benefits that marriage were considered. That's only considering SS benefits and the Fed Employee Health Benefits program. It's not even considering the MANY other benefits paid for both directly and indirectly by the taxpayer.

 

personally I think the outcome will be the same either way, but I'm not giving up my guns either.

 

A lot of people make this kind of criticism, and often, but it's entirely misplaced. The concept of an armed citizenry isn't about one supposedly oppressed man against the government. One man is one man. It's about a deterrent to oppressive action as a whole.

If there were a truly oppressive government, one man would be easy for the government to take down. But if millions were armed that'd be a different story. Skip the heavy weapons stuff, which isn't practical for the government to use in most cases. Imagine how the Holocaust would have went down if every Jew carried a concealed pistol, and they resisted.

 

Just imagine how many less failures we'd be burdened with if we merely declared open season on drug addicts, people with IQ's under 80 and so on.

But we repeal 2A you'll be OK with it. Right?

Because I'm not under the illusion that America becomes irrelevant the day I die, after which, if the pervert contingent has its way, the ability of homosexual parents to play mommy and daddy to the detriment of the children under their charge will be considered as natural a right as freedom of speech was in 1791. You're welcome.

I doubt it.

 

Less of them would have died in gas chambers, but the outcome (they would still have dies) would have been the same IMHO.

 

I'm not so sure. If you assume that none of the women and children were armed, but only the men were, and that only one in ten men who resisted were able to kill even one of their oppressors, that's still roughly 200,000 Germans killed in their attempts to oppress the Jews. The crippling loss to the German Army was when they lost 300,000 men at the eastern front. This 200,000 is a super-low figure, and I can almost guarantee you the Germans wouldn't have just kept doing what they were doing with the Jews. IF they did, the war would have been over a lot sooner.

 

Anti gun, pro drugs, pro homosexuals, big government, wanting to dictate everything about peoples lives, and high taxes, why are liberals so obsessed?????

 

After the first few casualties the Nazis would have just started shooting on site.

 

Liberals have never met a tax or a vice they dont like.

 

mhmmm. Because people can tell the difference between Jews and Germans on sight.

 

You are perhaps under the impression that the Nazis were less visible to the Jews than the Jews were to the Nazis?

 

They made them wear a yellow star of david badge and painted it on the windows of jewish owned business. Plus there were plenty of terrified citizens to point out the jews so the nazis would leave them and their families alone.

 

^_- and there's no way people resisting tyranny could, you know, take of the piece of cloth on their sleeve?