• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Newt's newest insane NRA bating idea [W:21]

PW4000 said:
In the YouTube video posted above, Anna, makes an enormously poignant statement when she calls onto the carpet, this annoying double-standard of hypocrisy that all NRA Members, including people like Newt Gingrich, never fail to demonstrate.

The absolute total hypocrisy behind our foreign policy with respect to countries like North Korea, and Iran, is the very flip-side of the circular logic that Newt Gingrich and NRA Members assert as their cause for wanting to arm the world. Anna, makes it abundantly clear. She says that Newt Gingrich, is a total hypocrite for wanting to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, while at the exact same time, claiming that he would sponsor a United Nations platform for arming the entire planet.

If you give an irrational human being enough rope and a tall enough pole, they will eventually hoist their own ignorance in shinning glory for all to see high above the earth.

Sure, Newt. Let's conduct surgical air strikes against alleged Iranian nuclear facilities and then rail against that same country for wanting to protect itself from hostile aggression, while at the same time we arm ourselves to the teeth with nuclear weapons AND we arm every Man, Woman and Child across the entire planet.

Yep. That makes a lot of sense, Newt.
Click to expand...

you are equating a nation to an individual... do you think that's a good idea?
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
For the same reason that nations have put a lot of effort into exterminating their ethnic minorities should be forced to stop. Self-defense is a human right. Keeping and bearing the weapons necessary to defend yourself from criminals and tyrants is a human right. Governments which deny their citizens these human rights are by definition oppressive and engaged in crimes against humanity.
Click to expand...

Some would argue that keeping guns to a minimum aids everyone in their effort to defend themselves. Even pro-gun people would argue that there is no correlation between gun laws and homicide rates.
 
AdamT said:
Some would argue that keeping guns to a minimum aids everyone in their effort to defend themselves. Even pro-gun people would argue that there is no correlation between gun laws and homicide rates.
Click to expand...

The most usual effect of “keeping guns to a minimum” is to assure that those who are most likely to abuse them will be the ones to have guns, and those most likely to be the targets of such abuse will not.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The most usual effect of “keeping guns to a minimum” is to assure that those who are most likely to abuse them will be the ones to have guns, and those most likely to be the targets of such abuse will not.
Click to expand...

If that was the case then you would expect to see higher murder rates in countries with strict gun laws -- but you don't. In fact the U.S. has one of the highest murder rates of all advanced countries. And among the weakest gun laws....
 
AdamT said:
If that was the case then you would expect to see higher murder rates in countries with strict gun laws -- but you don't. In fact the U.S. has one of the highest murder rates of all advanced countries. And among the weakest gun laws....
Click to expand...

is murder the only crime you can commit with a gun?
 
PW4000 said:
In the YouTube video posted above, Anna, makes an enormously poignant statement when she calls onto the carpet, this annoying double-standard of hypocrisy that all NRA Members, including people like Newt Gingrich, never fail to demonstrate.

The absolute total hypocrisy behind our foreign policy with respect to countries like North Korea, and Iran, is the very flip-side of the circular logic that Newt Gingrich and NRA Members assert as their cause for wanting to arm the world. Anna, makes it abundantly clear. She says that Newt Gingrich, is a total hypocrite for wanting to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, while at the exact same time, claiming that he would sponsor a United Nations platform for arming the entire planet.

If you give an irrational human being enough rope and a tall enough pole, they will eventually hoist their own ignorance in shinning glory for all to see high above the earth.

Sure, Newt. Let's conduct surgical air strikes against alleged Iranian nuclear facilities and then rail against that same country for wanting to protect itself from hostile aggression, while at the same time we arm ourselves to the teeth with nuclear weapons AND we arm every Man, Woman and Child across the entire planet.

Yep. That makes a lot of sense, Newt.
Click to expand...
Citizens and countries are two different things.Like apples and oranges.
 
We should not be working with the UN to force "world rights" onto people, and frankly we should reject attempts of the U.N. to force such onto us.

The Right to Bare Arms being protected works for our social contract, and I'm all for it. It should not be something forced upon soveriegn nations by the UN anymore than idiotic things like "The Right to Internet" should be forced onto us.
 
MKULTRABOY said:
The right to instruments of murder is freedom, the right to food or work is communism apparently. =\
Click to expand...


You seem to have a rather thin understanding of rights based on that post.
 
Deuce said:
And only a sociopath would see something wrong with the idea that people have a right to basic health care.

How come when a "European" idea is considered for introduction to the US the cry is "OUR SOVEREIGNTY RAARRR" but American values should be pushed on the whole world?
Click to expand...

Let me explain rights to you

1) you should have the right to buy the weapon of your choice

2) you have the right to buy the healthcare of your choice

3) I don't have a duty to buy you a weapon unless you are in the federal service or a state LEO

4) I don't have the duty to buy you healthcare unless you are a public employee
 
I firmly believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right that ought to belong to every person on the planet, and that being able to arm oneself equivalently to likely threats is fundamental to being ABLE to actually EXERCISE that right to self-defense.... so I agree with Newt, but I think he's barking up the wrong tree taking it to the UN.
 
Goshin said:
I firmly believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right that ought to belong to every person on the planet, and that being able to arm oneself equivalently to likely threats is fundamental to being ABLE to actually EXERCISE that right to self-defense.... so I agree with Newt, but I think he's barking up the wrong tree taking it to the UN.
Click to expand...


yup........
 
Such rights like self defense are not easily defined or regulated, and yes they are regulated in that you can't over react to a 'threat'.

Allowing easy access to weapons doesn't ensure self defense and a polite safe society. Look at Afghanistan, been weapons in damn near every male's hands since Alexander the Great and not a whole lot of polite or safe in those hills. Somalia comes to mind as well. The slaughter in Africa isn't due to tight gun laws but rather the cost of even an AK is far above what the common folks can afford, so the rifles are in the hands of bandits in and out of uniform. Even if armed, a dozen villagers against a platoon of even half-assed trained troops with heavier crew served in support don't stand a great chance and tomorrow just brings another more wary troop to finish the job.

Well armed doesn't mean safe unless the culture/society is capable of functioning WITHOUT firearms so shoot outs to decide elections are kept to a minimum. I own several incredibly effective firearms but I don't kid myself into thinking the fact we have so many weapons in private hands is what keeps the tyrants out of the White House. Most rifle owners wouldn't even make good cannon fodder if we had to fight to 'take our country back' so lets try and be a bit more honest on why and how we in the civilized world maintain democracy.

Where Newt and his admirers miss the bull'seye is in our hubris we think our way is superior and should be everybody's way as well.
 
Goshin said:
I firmly believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right that ought to belong to every person on the planet, and that being able to arm oneself equivalently to likely threats is fundamental to being ABLE to actually EXERCISE that right to self-defense.... so I agree with Newt, but I think he's barking up the wrong tree taking it to the UN.
Click to expand...

I guess my issue is how I see human rights.

I agree with you entirely, people have a fundamental right to self defense.

However, IF a person wants to give that right up through their social contract in exchange for something from society...such as safety (even if its simply perceived safety)...I don't think we, as Americans, have any right or need to interfere with that.
 
Newt's a pandering ass.
 
Thrilla said:
that evil bastard.... how dare he believe that ever person on the planet has a right to self defense....that right is for Americans only, because
we are a special sort of human, better than all other humans. :cool:


the chick commentator in the video is just a ignorant as some people here are.... Newt said nothing of arming everybody else... he is speaking on recognizing the right to self defense .
now if he said " hey , we should give everybody guns'.. well, in that case , he can go to hell.... but he didn't.


there is a huge difference in saying " you have the right to keep and bear arms" and saying " we are going to arm everyone"... the former leaves the decision in the hands of the individual as to arm themselves or not... the latter does not
the right to bear arms, as is the right to healthcare, is intimately connected to the overall right to life.... everybody should have those rights protected..... but we venture into a new arena when we say we must provide them with the tools to exercise those rights...we are no longer talking about rights at that point.



so yeah, good on Newt... his stance here is perfectly admirable.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but Newt should keep his comments about guns to the US. I do not want a US government/NRA/Gingrich mandated right to bear arms civil right all over the world.

The US has every right to decide about what rules they want to have in the US regarding guns but should not interfere in the gun-laws in other countries as this is none of their business.
 
Peter King said:
I am sorry, but Newt should keep his comments about guns to the US. I do not want a US government/NRA/Gingrich mandated right to bear arms civil right all over the world.

The US has every right to decide about what rules they want to have in the US regarding guns but should not interfere in the gun-laws in other countries as this is none of their business.
Click to expand...


and we tire of anti gun nuts here and abroad whining about our rights.
 
jamesrage said:
Something I can agree with Newt on. Only someone who is a hoplophobe and anti-2nd amendment would see something wrong with idea that people should be allowed to have firearms.
Click to expand...

I could care less how the NRA and it's supporters see people who disagree with the 2nd amendment inside of the US, and if people dislike guns and people who have them than that is up to them. But Newt should butt out of the gun-laws or gun-rights outside of the US.
 
TurtleDude said:
and we tire of anti gun nuts here and abroad whining about our rights.
Click to expand...

You have the right to bear arms...It doesn't mean fingerprints can not be taken. And stored on file.
 
Only three countries in the entire world recognize a constitutional right to bear arms: the United States, Mexico, and Guatemala. This is a parochial issue that seems just as irrelevant to most of the world as British debates over fox-hunting do to Americans. So Newt wants to make this a "global right" at the UN, with only 3 countries (at most) voting in favor and 190 voting against? Yeah...good luck with that.
:lamo
 
Last edited:
Peter King said:
I could care less how the NRA and it's supporters see people who disagree with the 2nd amendment inside of the US, and if people dislike guns and people who have them than that is up to them. But Newt should butt out of the gun-laws or gun-rights outside of the US.
Click to expand...

Really, the USA has no right to author other nations constitution.

I just think (imho) that Newt was watching the television of Romney's recent turn on his heels and sucking up to the NRA and so Newt felt the need to showboat and amplify the issue and try to set himself apart.

The NRA could help stop the flow of weapons to Mexican cartels and border enemies of our country and abroad they do not.

I support the second Amendment rights of our citizens and I do not support the NRA ... they are far too corrupt and willing to throw American citizens under the bus for cold hard cash.

In fact ... look at poll on Florida's law on concealed weapons. One choice was against the second amendment and last I checked no one wanted to take those rights away ... so that creates havoc for money lobbyist groups like the NRA. They need more "feigned" opposition and they are not getting it and it weakens their worth and position.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom