• 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!

Guns

What do you think gun control should be like?

  • Let everyone have a gun

    Votes: 19 22.4%

  • Quick background check to purchase and carry

    Votes: 25 29.4%

  • Quick background check to purchase, but more difficult to carry

    Votes: 11 12.9%

  • Background check, waiting period for purchase and carrying.

    Votes: 17 20.0%

  • Background check, waiting period, no carrying

    Votes: 5 5.9%

  • No guns at all

    Votes: 8 9.4%
  • Total voters
    85
Status
Not open for further replies.
cthomp said:
It's easier said than done to avoid a dangerous situation. What if you go into a convenient store and a man comes in with a gun attempting to rob that store. You do not know what that person is capable of. They could easily have the thought of leaving no witnesses. If I have a gun, I stand a chance. If I am unarmed I stand no chance. Having a gun could save mine as well as other's lives.
Click to expand...

Again, more of a risk in some areas than others. How many have you been party to?

And if can't defend yourself without a gun, you can't with one. It is false to say you have no chance without a gun. The greatest weapon is always the mind.
 
Chiefgator said:
The French government was the government and Vietnam. The Dutch Government was the government in Indonesia. The French government was the government in Algeria. Granted the world was different then, after the second world war. France and the Netherlands were not economically stable. However, those are examples of uprisings from within that dominated the standing governments with out access to modern weaponry.
Click to expand...

They did not do it with hunting rifles or without support. Frankly, what you speak of is a nightmare situaiton for this country. Nothing like the founding fathers had in mind. No, today is a different world. If you want to overthrow this government, to combat our government, I recommend some other plan.
 
cthomp said:
It's easier said than done to avoid a dangerous situation. What if you go into a convenient store and a man comes in with a gun attempting to rob that store. You do not know what that person is capable of. They could easily have the thought of leaving no witnesses. If I have a gun, I stand a chance. If I am unarmed I stand no chance. Having a gun could save mine as well as other's lives.
Click to expand...
Cemetaries are full of people who thought the crook "only wanted the cash".
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, more of a risk in some areas than others. How many have you been party to?

And if can't defend yourself without a gun, you can't with one. It is false to say you have no chance without a gun. The greatest weapon is always the mind.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean in being party to. As far as if you can't defend yourself without a gun, you can't with one is not true. Just showing you have a gun can prevent being harmed. Why are you against law abiding citizens having the right to carry concealed firearms?
 
LaMidRighter said:
Cemetaries are full of people who thought the crook "only wanted the cash".
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. If someone is willing to use a gun to force someone to give them something who is to say that same criminal will not use that gun to ensure there are no witnesses in an effort to get away with their crime.
 
cthomp said:
I don't know what you mean in being party to. As far as if you can't defend yourself without a gun, you can't with one is not true. Just showing you have a gun can prevent being harmed. Why are you against law abiding citizens having the right to carry concealed firearms?
Click to expand...

Don't even have to show one. Again, the mind is the greatest wepaon, and if you can't defend yourself without a weapon, you can't with one.

As for what I meant, how many robbies have you been present at?

And no one said I was against it. I merely said the fear is overplayed. And that we have some religuious attachment to weapons.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Cemetaries are full of people who thought the crook "only wanted the cash".
Click to expand...

Nice sound bite, but little more than that. They are also full of people who were armed, but not safe. How do we decide which one means something?
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't even have to show one. Again, the mind is the greatest wepaon, and if you can't defend yourself without a weapon, you can't with one.

As for what I meant, how many robbies have you been present at?

And no one said I was against it. I merely said the fear is overplayed. And that we have some religuious attachment to weapons.
Click to expand...

Why do you say if you can't defend yourself without a weapon, you can't with one? I have never been present at a robbery. However, I am still young. Anyone in the safest of places could find themselves in the middle of a robbery or a violent attack.
 
Regardless of my views on gun control (which are fairly loose) I will probably never carry one. I've lived over 50 years, been in some pretty nasty parts of town a little, been and lived in iffy parts of town a lot, and I've never seen someone pull a gun in public. I know from crime statistics that it's getting more prevalent, much more so than when I was younger - and that leads me to wonder why. Guns were here long before I was born so why are they so common now? Seems like a more productive line of social research would be to answer that question then start to work a way around or through that issue.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Using this description I would be suggesting required service in an organized militia with continuing participation optional. Exact structure at the top would probably need to vary from State to State but should tend to be local units. Firearms required for militia duty would be exempt from any (civilian) requirements for ownership but would still be privately owned.
Click to expand...

But the melitia hasn't been called up in over 100 years. There's nothing to do today for anyone to be legaly required to activly participate.

MoSurveyor said:
If you leave the militia and still want to retain ownership of a fully automatic rifle you would need to meet common sense standards for civilian ownership.
Click to expand...

A military issued M16/M4 is not fully automatic, fyi. It has a 3-round-burst setting, and it's that setting which is illegal. You would need to posses a machine gun (which is not a rifle) in order to get into the full-auto range of weapons, and then those are not classified as "personal weapons", so the 2nd doesn't protect private ownership of them anyway. The only possible exception might be the M249 'saw', but I doubt it.

MoSurveyor said:
I am certainly not qualified - and I doubt anybody here is, either - to determine what those standards might be in detail.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS already outlined them in detail. I can give you a link later tonight.

MoSurveyor said:
I think gun related or violent felonies should probably disqualify you, though there could be exceptions. Mental illnesses of certain types should disqualify you. Excessively violent behavior coupled with alcohol or drug abuse (not use, abuse) might disqualify you. In short, if you're a fairly well-behaved, common kinda' guy you're good to go but, again, we're talking about a fully automatic firearm, not a hunting rifle; there should be stricter standards.
Click to expand...

Open-bolt weapon systems like the M249 light machine gun and the M240B medium machine gun are actually safer to store, carry, and manipulate then any semi-auto pistol or rifle. Also, most hunting rifles fire more lethal rounds then either stated machine gun.
 
Jerry said:
Also, most hunting rifles fire more lethal rounds then either stated machine gun.
Click to expand...
I guess you're under-valuing the machine gun in some effort to make it seem less destructive than it is but we both know better. At 725 (alt 1000) rounds per minute it really doesn't matter much that a single round is less destructive. The question is, are 12 rounds less destructive than the one from a 30-30 or other hunting rifle? I'd bet the answer is no. More to the point, 12 rounds can hit more people. The single shot, even if it's some exotic monster like TD was talking about earlier, can still only hit one person per second at best.
 
Boo Radley said:
The average citizen simply cannot match their fire power. It can't be done. We don't live in the world that is depicted in the Patriot.
Click to expand...

Cannot match the firepower of the average infantry soldier or police officer? I can buy a .300 Win Mag rifle...plenty of ammo...a great scope...and I have more firepower than the average military or police rifle.

I can buy the exact same weapons they use.

I can buy the same ammo.

We still live in a world where people die by 1 bullet. That is all that matters. What politicians don't understand is that ammo restriction simply means I gotta make the 1st one count.
 
Boo Radley said:
They did not do it with hunting rifles or without support. Frankly, what you speak of is a nightmare situaiton for this country. Nothing like the founding fathers had in mind. No, today is a different world. If you want to overthrow this government, to combat our government, I recommend some other plan.
Click to expand...

Sukarno had no support from anyone. The Dutch had vastly superior weapons. True, the Indonesians had captured Japanise weapons, but little ammo and no real framework for resupply.

I agree that it has a very low chance of success, but with no means to resist there is zero chance.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, more of a risk in some areas than others. How many have you been party to?

And if can't defend yourself without a gun, you can't with one. It is false to say you have no chance without a gun. The greatest weapon is always the mind.
Click to expand...
Again I say this, the soldiers at Fort hood felt they were in the safest place on the planet. Every single one of them had training in hand-to-hand combat. I guarantee they could all "defend themselves without a gun".
I do 100% agree that the best weapon is the mind. If you lose your cool when the excrement reaches the oscillating wind generator... No matter what type of firearm you have you are probably done.
 
Chiefgator said:
I have never heard ".308 NATO" either. I am not a "gun guy" but after 26 years of active duty, I have been around my safe of them.

My post was a fact/knowledge post that was not directed at any specific person.
Click to expand...

308 nato AKA 762 NATO. 308 IS THE inch pattern 762 is metric. 308 Winchester is seen as interchangeable with the NATO caliber by SAAMI though there is some difference

its like 223 vs 5.56 MM. YOu can shoot 223 in a NATO chamber with a minute loss in accuracy but NATO Spec in a 223 can cause problems. of course you can also use a "wylde" chamber which shoots both well
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't even have to show one. Again, the mind is the greatest wepaon, and if you can't defend yourself without a weapon, you can't with one.

As for what I meant, how many robbies have you been present at?

And no one said I was against it. I merely said the fear is overplayed. And that we have some religuious attachment to weapons.
Click to expand...

what exactly is your agenda on these gun threads. You show up and pretend that people really don't need guns. WTF cares? If you don't want a gun don't carry one or own one but your constant litany about "fear" etc is silly. and claiming people have religious attachments to weapons is just left wing psychobable
 
Boo Radley said:
The average citizen simply cannot match their fire power. It can't be done. We don't live in the world that is depicted in the Patriot.
Click to expand...


a well placed bullet can kill anyone who has ever lived. If the government becomes oppressive you kill those who run it. That is the way to deal with that problem

you apparently watched this movie scene too many times

 
Boo Radley said:
Again, not the same situation, time, place or likely to work here. You first have to have a country invaded, without our army fighting, and with only your hunting rifles. Do you really see that?
Click to expand...

In the unlikely event that our country was invaded, fighting back with small arms and improvised explosive devices might make them go away eventually---it worked for the Iraqis.
 
I think I need to dig out Red Dawn ...
 
Porchev said:
In the unlikely event that our country was invaded, fighting back with small arms and improvised explosive devices might make them go away eventually---it worked for the Iraqis.
Click to expand...

Japan's greatest military mind in WWII advised against invading the USA because "there would be behind every blade of grass a rifle"
 
Chiefgator said:
Sukarno had no support from anyone. The Dutch had vastly superior weapons. True, the Indonesians had captured Japanise weapons, but little ammo and no real framework for resupply.

I agree that it has a very low chance of success, but with no means to resist there is zero chance.
Click to expand...

Low chance? Constant armed resistance is not low chance of success. It worked in Algeirs. Who says it wouldn't work here?
 
stonewall50 said:
Low chance? Constant armed resistance is not low chance of success. It worked in Algeirs. Who says it wouldn't work here?
Click to expand...


After two insurgent/asymetrical wars for experience, I have e feeling the US military would put up a bit more resistence than Algiers.... let's hope it never comes to that.
 
Chiefgator said:
After two insurgent/asymetrical wars for experience, I have e feeling the US military would put up a bit more resistence than Algiers.... let's hope it never comes to that.
Click to expand...
I've seen it postulated before that many in the military would refuse the orders to shoot citizens simply because they are sworn to uphold the constitution. Don't know how true that is and hope we never find out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom