• 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!

Changing Hearts & Minds

Reed95 said:
I'm amazed that different types of people, libertarian-left, libertarian-right, conservative, ..., unite here under the love to their guns. They firmly reject anything that even remotely has to do with controlling gun violence.

With all those individual killings and massive killings by guns, they defend guns, and assault weapons. Understand you love your guns. But for all the deadly consequences out there, for many many lives lost, "... guns don't kill people", "... man was killed by a knife"... Give me a break
Click to expand...

Well first off we are sensible enough not to get caught up in gun controls blatant and easily exposed lies. There is no way we are going to abandon our concern for the public's safety by ignoring all other crime to go on some mindless crusade against rocks, sticks, bows arrows, lances, swords, knives, bats, axes, pillows, rope, hands, feet or guns. That is just idiotic. We would like our efforts to contribute to reducing crime and we therefore insist the police do not spin their wheels wasting our money by chasing girls, boys, knives, bats, pillows, sheets, rope, sticks, rocks, swords...... and any other implement of crime. We want crime solved as quickly as possible and not wasted keeping track of objects that have not been used in crime.

Please tell us why you want the police doing all these time, effort, manpower and resource wasting things instead of solving crime and arresting criminals.
 
Last edited:
Reed95 said:
I'm amazed that different types of people, libertarian-left, libertarian-right, conservative, ..., unite here under the love to their guns. They firmly reject anything that even remotely has to do with controlling gun violence.

With all those individual killings and massive killings by guns, they defend guns, and assault weapons. Understand you love your guns. But for all the deadly consequences out there, for many many lives lost, "... guns don't kill people", "... man was killed by a knife"... Give me a break
Click to expand...

great, more bannerrhoid anti logic. Most lives lost to firearms are from suicides

then from felons (people who cannot own firearms legally) killing other felons

law abiding people using legally possessed (at the time of a crime) firearms to kill in violation of the law

very very rare
 
TurtleDude said:
great, more bannerrhoid anti logic. Most lives lost to firearms are from suicides

then from felons (people who cannot own firearms legally) killing other felons

law abiding people using legally possessed (at the time of a crime) firearms to kill in violation of the law

very very rare
Click to expand...

It is most disconcerting these people bleating about guns just disappear into the woodwork any time they are asked a serious question. Instead of being proud of the good they are supposed to be doing for the public as normal people would be, they run and hide. I can only guess they know exactly what they are proposing and are ashamed of that. Change their minds no, avoidance allows them to deny even seeing the questions asked of them. Classic cognitive dissonance. Still they will not accept what they propose is going to get people hurt and killed.
 
blaxshep said:
OMFG ... :screwy
Click to expand...
Renae said:
You mean silly laws banning guns aren't preventing criminals from using guns?
Click to expand...
American said:
:lamo :lamo Hahaha, you'll have to prove that.
Click to expand...
Chicago's gun laws have nearly been scrapped by interest groups. However we've still managed to nearly prevent all gun sales within the city limits. Today it's still difficult to get a gun in the city limits of Chicago.

Which would be perfect for us, except for the fact that Chicago's completely surround by gobs of suburbs and Indiana where there are little-to-no gun control laws. Meaning the only accomplishment that Chicago's gun laws have had is moved the legal/illegal acquisition of guns from within the city-limits into the burgled home of suburbanites and the shops of crooked gun dealers.

Consequently meaning that Chicago, as a densely-populated area with areas of high concentrations of poverty, ends up paying for gun rights in death counts. There's nothing that we can do to stop it, because we have no jurisdiction in the suburbs and rural areas that refuse to pass any sort of gun control laws. Any why would they? They don't suffer the consequences of freely available guns, or really give a damn that their stolen guns are trafficked into poor communities they don't live in.

It's the cities with gun rights that harm Chicago.

Where 50,000 Guns Recovered in Chicago Came From
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html
 
Last edited:
brothern said:
Chicago's gun laws have nearly been scrapped by interest groups. However we've still managed to nearly prevent all gun sales within the city limits. Today it's still difficult to get a gun in the city limits of Chicago.

Which would be perfect for us, except for the fact that Chicago's completely surround by gobs of suburbs and Indiana where there are little-to-no gun control laws. Meaning the only accomplishment that Chicago's gun laws have had is moved the legal/illegal acquisition of guns from within the city-limits into the burgled home of suburbanites and the shops of crooked gun dealers.

Consequently meaning that Chicago, as a densely-populated area with areas of high concentrations of poverty, ends up paying for gun rights in death counts. There's nothing that we can do to stop it, because we have no jurisdiction in the suburbs and rural areas that refuse to pass any sort of gun control laws. Any why would they? They don't suffer the consequences of freely available guns, or really give a damn that their stolen guns are trafficked into poor communities they don't live in.

It's the cities with gun rights that harm Chicago.

Where 50,000 Guns Recovered in Chicago Came From
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html
Click to expand...

Always it is, others to blame not the progressive madness...
 
brothern said:
Chicago's gun laws have nearly been scrapped by interest groups. However we've still managed to nearly prevent all gun sales within the city limits. Today it's still difficult to get a gun in the city limits of Chicago.

Which would be perfect for us, except for the fact that Chicago's completely surround by gobs of suburbs and Indiana where there are little-to-no gun control laws. Meaning the only accomplishment that Chicago's gun laws have had is moved the legal/illegal acquisition of guns from within the city-limits into the burgled home of suburbanites and the shops of crooked gun dealers.

Consequently meaning that Chicago, as a densely-populated area with areas of high concentrations of poverty, ends up paying for gun rights in death counts. There's nothing that we can do to stop it, because we have no jurisdiction in the suburbs and rural areas that refuse to pass any sort of gun control laws. Any why would they? They don't suffer the consequences of freely available guns, or really give a damn that their stolen guns are trafficked into poor communities they don't live in.

It's the cities with gun rights that harm Chicago.

Where 50,000 Guns Recovered in Chicago Came From
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html
Click to expand...

Tough ****, er uh it's too bad.
 
brothern said:
Chicago's gun laws have nearly been scrapped by interest groups. However we've still managed to nearly prevent all gun sales within the city limits. Today it's still difficult to get a gun in the city limits of Chicago.

Which would be perfect for us, except for the fact that Chicago's completely surround by gobs of suburbs and Indiana where there are little-to-no gun control laws. Meaning the only accomplishment that Chicago's gun laws have had is moved the legal/illegal acquisition of guns from within the city-limits into the burgled home of suburbanites and the shops of crooked gun dealers.

Consequently meaning that Chicago, as a densely-populated area with areas of high concentrations of poverty, ends up paying for gun rights in death counts. There's nothing that we can do to stop it, because we have no jurisdiction in the suburbs and rural areas that refuse to pass any sort of gun control laws. Any why would they? They don't suffer the consequences of freely available guns, or really give a damn that their stolen guns are trafficked into poor communities they don't live in.

It's the cities with gun rights that harm Chicago.

Where 50,000 Guns Recovered in Chicago Came From
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html
Click to expand...

Why don't those other cities have the same problems? Weird. Could it be a cultural thing ??
 
brothern said:
Your message is incredibly alienating for me - unfortunately.

I want to be a free citizen. That's what I love about America. I don't want to fear subjection, or have my choices, life or rights constrained or limited in any unfair manner.
Which is the threat that your guns pose to me. There's no protection or comfort radiating from you to me - I have no idea of your mental health, your intentions or thoughts. For all I know, you're a loony toon here to shoot up a school.

An armed citizenry is a citizenry that is fully empowered to destroy or harm the lives of their fellow citizens. I reject that. I don't need to live my life in a hyper-militaristic state, having my freedoms constrained by the threats of others, where my or my family's safety is staked on how well I can handle weapons.

Heck no.

For me a life free of violence and of threat > tyranny of guns.
Click to expand...

An armed citizenry is a citizenry that is fully empowered to protect themselves, their families and their friends and neighbors, if the need arises. Police protection is an oxymoron. However, if you chose to be unarmed and defenseless, I hope your family understands their deficiency.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Don't you have the right to bear arms as part of a government organized militia only?

If so what militia do you belong to?

What is the chance that you will be in a situation where having guns all over you will be a good thing and the chance of accidentally shooting your own balls off or shooting one of your kids?

Any chance at all that one of your kids gets drunk when he, or she, is 15 and plays with the assault rifles and kills somebody?

Any chance at all that a bad man will work out where your house is and know that there are lots of easily salable guns in it and break in when you are out?

Any chance that that bad man will do it when you are asleep and come into your bedroom with your guns?
Click to expand...

Any chance that a bad guy will rape and murder your entire family and burn down your house?
 
Jesse Booth said:
First off, that interpretation of the second amendment is not supported by this, or any other set of Supreme Court Justices in American history, so your argument is flawed from the start. Second, I don't need any other reason to explain why your argument doesn't work besides that.
Click to expand...

Ditto!

Jesse Booth said:
You would be better off in a city with more gun rights, given how staggering Chicago's gun violence is compared to how difficult it is to legally purchase a gun there.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed.

brothern said:
It's the cities with gun rights that harm Chicago.
Click to expand...

No, it's liberal Democrats and liberalism, that harms Chicago.

chuckiechan said:
2016 Stats | Chicago Murder, Crime & Mayhem | HeyJackass!

Yes. Blame guns, not the gunner.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The "tool" did it.
 
brothern said:
Being oppressed, is being oppressed, regardless of the source. Guns are tools that more efficiently transform the intent to kill or harm into action than most other accessible tools. If the citizenry HAD to be armed for whatever reason, I'd prefer them to have less efficient tools - like knives.

Just as I'd prefer government defense forces to be limited to conventional tools, rather than let's say, chemical or biological weapons.
If there's ever a threat from a despotic government, I don't want it to come barreling at me in the form of nerve gas or bombs filled with smallpox.
Click to expand...

And yet, you have little to say about either. If I were living in Chicago, I'd get out of Chicago.......then again, I wouldn't be dumb enough to be there in the first place..;)
 
Reed95 said:
I'm amazed that different types of people, libertarian-left, libertarian-right, conservative, ..., unite here under the love to their guns. They firmly reject anything that even remotely has to do with controlling gun violence.

With all those individual killings and massive killings by guns, they defend guns, and assault weapons. Understand you love your guns. But for all the deadly consequences out there, for many many lives lost, "... guns don't kill people", "... man was killed by a knife"... Give me a break
Click to expand...

I'm amazed that anyone could be this ignorant.
 
brothern said:
Chicago's gun laws have nearly been scrapped by interest groups. However we've still managed to nearly prevent all gun sales within the city limits. Today it's still difficult to get a gun in the city limits of Chicago.

Which would be perfect for us, except for the fact that Chicago's completely surround by gobs of suburbs and Indiana where there are little-to-no gun control laws. Meaning the only accomplishment that Chicago's gun laws have had is moved the legal/illegal acquisition of guns from within the city-limits into the burgled home of suburbanites and the shops of crooked gun dealers.

Consequently meaning that Chicago, as a densely-populated area with areas of high concentrations of poverty, ends up paying for gun rights in death counts. There's nothing that we can do to stop it, because we have no jurisdiction in the suburbs and rural areas that refuse to pass any sort of gun control laws. Any why would they? They don't suffer the consequences of freely available guns, or really give a damn that their stolen guns are trafficked into poor communities they don't live in.

It's the cities with gun rights that harm Chicago.

Where 50,000 Guns Recovered in Chicago Came From
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html
Click to expand...

Blame everyone else but yourselves. That's the liberal way by golly! :screwy:screwy

What you really need to do is scrape your liberal ways and clean up your cess pool of a town.
 
Renae said:
Always it is, others to blame not the progressive madness...
Click to expand...

And madness it is. This year, the last gun dealer in SF closed his doors. The Loony Left ran him out, via restrictive stupid ordinances. That of course, doesn't reduce any crime in SF or keep anyone safer.
 
TurtleDude said:
the right is one the founders believed existed from the dawn of man and before government. SO to claim the right requires membership in a government organized body is idiotic. . You appear afraid of guns and ignorant of how they are used.
Click to expand...

I notice it's become a habit for collectivists to reiterate the opinions expressed by our dear, departed Justice John Paul Stevens in Heller as if they were the law. They sure as hell are NOT. This looks a lot like Goebbels' tactic of the "big lie"--repeat falsehoods so often that people who challenge and debunk them can't keep up, and they come to be accepted as truth. I believe most of these sorry specimens are too dim to figure that out on their own, so I assume some leftist propaganda source coached them to do it. Leftists see lying as a virtue as long as it advances their cause, just as Lenin did.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
Don't you have the right to bear arms as part of a government organized militia only?

If so what militia do you belong to?

What is the chance that you will be in a situation where having guns all over you will be a good thing and the chance of accidentally shooting your own balls off or shooting one of your kids?

Any chance at all that one of your kids gets drunk when he, or she, is 15 and plays with the assault rifles and kills somebody?

Any chance at all that a bad man will work out where your house is and know that there are lots of easily salable guns in it and break in when you are out?

Any chance that that bad man will do it when you are asleep and come into your bedroom with your guns?
Click to expand...

MickeyW said:
Any chance that a bad guy will rape and murder your entire family and burn down your house?
Click to expand...

Yes.

But the thing about dealing with the real world intelligently is that you have to understand that there is never a perfect answer and you will just have to make the best possible choices where you can.

If you have guns about the place you are likely to killed by one of them to a far higher risk level than any other guns.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yes.

But the thing about dealing with the real world intelligently is that you have to understand that there is never a perfect answer and you will just have to make the best possible choices where you can.

If you have guns about the place you are likely to killed by one of them to a far higher risk level than any other guns.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are babbling about and the facts from ALL 23 studies of armed self defence show the overwhelming success of armed defence. If you think they are all wrong go right ahead and refute them all.

How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?

Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun

How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?

Exede Satellite Internet | Internet Service Provider | NCJRS
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Crimefree said:
I have no idea what you are babbling about and the facts from ALL 23 studies of armed self defence show the overwhelming success of armed defence. If you think they are all wrong go right ahead and refute them all.

How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?

Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun

How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?

Exede Satellite Internet | Internet Service Provider | NCJRS
Click to expand...

How often are guns used on a family member?

How often are the home owner's guns used on them?

How often do accidental injuries happen with guns?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tim the plumber said:
Yes.

But the thing about dealing with the real world intelligently is that you have to understand that there is never a perfect answer and you will just have to make the best possible choices where you can.

If you have guns about the place you are likely to killed by one of them to a far higher risk level than any other guns.
Click to expand...

Then you shouldn't have guns, and BTW, stay out of my house. And BTW2, guns don't just crawl out of a drawer and slither down the stairs and shoot someone. This is a part of physics the left is too dumb to understand.
 
Tim the plumber said:
How often are guns used on a family member?

How often are the home owner's guns used on them?

How often do accidental injuries happen with guns?
Click to expand...
Why don't you tell us?

Let's see.....if we take all gun deaths including suicides and divide that by, the number of legal gun owners, you are looking at .00025. so that is how often it happens per gun owner. If you subtract the suicides, you are looking at about .000075. It's actually alot less as most are committed by folks who are not legally allowed to own firearms and I erred on your side and assumed they were legally owned. I also erred on your side in assuming all the homicides were the situations you suggested. In reality, these numbers would be far, far less.

So are those numbers compelling enough to warrant telling 120,000,000 gun owners that they need to give up their rights?

Secondly, should other rights be equally restricted if they were to cause a greater number of deaths/rapes/child abuse?
 
chuckiechan said:
Then you shouldn't have guns, and BTW, stay out of my house. And BTW2, guns don't just crawl out of a drawer and slither down the stairs and shoot someone. This is a part of physics the left is too dumb to understand.
Click to expand...


With the delusional as in dreams anything is possible and physics does not exist.

Fear is a powerful motivator of delusion and gun control advocates have no shortage of fear,
 
Tim the plumber said:
How often are guns used on a family member?
Click to expand...

Do you mean like a dildo?

How often are the home owner's guns used on them?
Click to expand...

For what purpose? I know people use their guns up to +3million times a year to prevent crime

How often do accidental injuries happen with guns?
Click to expand...

Accidental deaths from gunshot are about 500 from about 120 million owners. Would you like that as a percentage or can you work it out yourself.

Why don't you tell us, Do some research and find out.

You going to address my claims or not?
 
Last edited:
MickeyW said:
An armed citizenry is a citizenry that is fully empowered to protect themselves, their families and their friends and neighbors, if the need arises. Police protection is an oxymoron. However, if you chose to be unarmed and defenseless, I hope your family understands their deficiency.
Click to expand...
BretJ said:
Why don't those other cities have the same problems? Weird. Could it be a cultural thing ??
Click to expand...

Challenges like mental illness, criminality and risky/unsafe handling of weapons are always going to be an issue no matter the city. However there's a difference between a nutter standing on his porch in the suburbs taking potshots into the sky - and a nutter doing the same in Chicago. The suburbanite is a danger to himself, whereas in Chicago he will be hitting someone's front door, or bedroom window or parked car.

Dwyane Wade's cousin was just fatality shot in Chicago taking her baby out for a stroll. Why? Because we live in a dense city where hundreds of people are in the vicinity of any single point. If it wasn't Nykea who was shot, it'd have just been the person standing behind her.

Secondly @MickeyW, what exactly does an "armed citizenry" do to protect a mother from a stray bullet? Is it going to magically alter the physics of the universe? Is it going to stop the mentally ill person from taking the shot in the first place? No. You're point is utter garbage. I desire to live in a country where I don't have to fear subjugation, fear that my rights, life or happiness will be stolen by the gun nut oppressionists who puts us all in danger.
 
Last edited:
brothern said:
It's the cities with gun rights that harm Chicago.
Click to expand...

:roll: No, what harms Chicago is Chicago. If people weren't violent little retards in Chicago they would have less crime, obviously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom