• 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.
haymarket said:
No. I never claimed that either. Perhaps you can quote where I said that.

If somebody feels guilt or not is not for me to say.
Click to expand...

stop the nonsense.

Your longwinded post suggests because of the second amendment there are lots of guns and some get misused and thus the second amendment is partially the reason for murders

and yes you are trying to lay a guilt trip on those of us who exercise our second amendment right

dead children--stop the silliness
 
ecofarm said:
Slander is being irresponsible with a right. That is, to infringe excessively on the right of another in the exercise of ones own. All rights are subject to limitation resulting from other rights. The point you missed is that limiting a right due to the chance that someone might irresponsibly use it... does not work. You lost the context of "limiting rights because someone might abuse it" and went to "all rights have limitations". The point is, we cannot limit the rights of some because others are/might be irresponsible.
Click to expand...

But we do just that. And examples have been given and you accept those as true.
 
haymarket said:
And that is not me. I support the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear and use arms.

It is sad that instead of debating the issue, you have to resort to demonizing people who disagree with you and lying about their beliefs.
Click to expand...



You are not debating the issue

You are appealing to emotion by trying to blame the second amendment
 
TurtleDude said:
stop the nonsense.

Your longwinded post suggests because of the second amendment there are lots of guns and some get misused and thus the second amendment is partially the reason for murders

and yes you are trying to lay a guilt trip on those of us who exercise our second amendment right

dead children--stop the silliness
Click to expand...

NO. You are putting words there that I did not write. Why do you do this? Not just once but over and over again.

The intended use of the gun is to fire a projectile at a target. A gun used in a crime is not misuse.
 
TurtleDude said:
You are not debating the issue

You are appealing to emotion by trying to blame the second amendment
Click to expand...

I am not blaming anything. I am trying to get you to see reality that there is a good side and a negative side to the right. You, take the position of the extremist zealot who is blinded by their advocacy and calls the right a mitzvah - a Pure Good - from which nothing bad can happen. That is an absurd position and denies reality.
 
haymarket said:
But we do just that. And examples have been given and you accept those as true.
Click to expand...

I edtied to: limit the legitimate rights of some due to others possibly being irresponsible. We must keep the context of legitimate rights being limited, and not lose context to 'all rights have limits'. 'All rights have limits' is obvious. Wtf would that be debating? Do you honestly think you need to explain how rights are limited to people? Are you being intentionally obtuse?
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I edtied to: limit the legitimate rights of some due to others possible being irresponsible.
Click to expand...

I imagine you and I could discuss for hours what is a legitimate right and what constitutes irresponsibility. The fact is a simple one: we limit rights that are presented to us as without limits in the Bill of Rights. Examples have already been provided and accepted.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But we have repeated examples of Congress making laws which abridge the freedom of speech and press and we accept them as necessary and proper.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I imagine you and I could discuss for hours what is a legitimate right and what constitutes irresponsibility.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, because of this:

haymarket said:
The intended use of the gun is to fire a projectile at a target. A gun used in a crime is not misuse.
Click to expand...

That's disconnected from reality. Good day.
 
ecofarm said:
I don't think so, because of this:



That's disconnected from reality. Good day.
Click to expand...

No it is not disconnected from reality. The purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile. One could also say the purpose is to use the gun to get what you want short of actual firing of the projectile as a threat to do so.

The very purpose of a gun is to shoot at others. It was invented for that purpose. That is its intended usage. You need not shy away from that reality. It is what it is.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
My job pays pretty good, but the guns weren't that expensive. The Springfield had the highest price-tag at $950 with 100 rounds of target load and 20 rounds of silver-tipped hollow point for my carry load (I don't carry extra ammo normally). If the store had the laser site I wanted they could have separated me from even more money.

The cheapest was the .22 rifle at $190, and a box of 500 rounds was pretty cheap.



The Glock just feels like a chunk of plastic carved out to resemble a 2x4, and the angle of the grip is awkward.
Click to expand...

Still more coin than I got lol.

But yea the Glocks are blocky for sure. I carry an XD SC, but I have no issue with a Glock. Sometimes a 2x4 is a good thing to have because it is as tough as nails and won't jam lol. But i reckon it all comes down to preference.
 
haymarket said:
Goshin
the other day you admitted that I was correct in stating that the Second Amendment is not a pure good. That was the simple point in this exercise. Go back and read the exchange. Captain America sees it clearly.
Click to expand...

Hardly anything is an unmitigated, unmodified, unadulterated pure good. Cars aren't. Electricity isn't. Most medicines are not. Government certainly isn't. Yet most of us would not wish to do without these things, no?

There is no sense in talking about an America with ZERO guns unless you have a viable plan how to get there. Hint: there isn't one. There are more guns in the USA today than there are people, and many of them pre-date records-keeping laws (are unregistered in any way). To get rid of 80% would require draconian laws and totalitarian enforcement.... to get rid of 100% would require the magic of the One Ring. :roll:

It is a fantasy and a pointless discussion.


But EVEN IF we stipulated such a thing.... people were killing people long before guns. Before guns, if you were old, or female, or physically weak, or lacked the free time to study the intense disciplines of fighting with edged weapons and bows, you were at a grave disadvantage compared to those who could. This is why knights dominated peasants for so long. Guns are a major good in that they levelled the playing field of violence.... "all men were created equal, Sam Colt made them that way."
 
Goshin said:
Hardly anything is an unmitigated, unmodified, unadulterated pure good. Cars aren't. Electricity isn't. Most medicines are not. Government certainly isn't. Yet most of us would not wish to do without these things, no?

There is no sense in talking about an America with ZERO guns unless you have a viable plan how to get there. Hint: there isn't one. There are more guns in the USA today than there are people, and many of them pre-date records-keeping laws (are unregistered in any way). To get rid of 80% would require draconian laws and totalitarian enforcement.... to get rid of 100% would require the magic of the One Ring. :roll:

It is a fantasy and a pointless discussion.


But EVEN IF we stipulated such a thing.... people were killing people long before guns. Before guns, if you were old, or female, or physically weak, or lacked the free time to study the intense disciplines of fighting with edged weapons and bows, you were at a grave disadvantage compared to those who could. This is why knights dominated peasants for so long. Guns are a major good in that they levelled the playing field of violence.... "all men were created equal, Sam Colt made them that way."
Click to expand...

glad we agree. :)
 
Captain America said:
Thunder, one would think so, hey? But honestly, and trust me on this, an honest man can get a gun easier illegally than he can legally. That holds true for the criminal. Ii would venture to say that even if the criminal COULD obtain a gun legally, they would opt for the illegal purchase because it's just much easier to do. And getting one legally ain't THAT hard. But illegal guns are still easier to obtain.

That's the irony. The guy who wants to do it right has to go through the line. The guys who don't give a **** about rules and regulations goes to the streets. No line in the street and it's usually cheaper. Sad but true bro.
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like the immigration problem. It's pretty easy to jump the boarder, but if you want in legitimately then you'll be waiting in line, up to your neck in paperwork for years.
 
It's a beautiful, warm, clear day today....I wonder how many anti-gun nuts I'll be carrying my .45 around, when my boys and I go to the park here in a little bit. Wouldn't it be great if I happened across a few anti-gunners talking about how 'dangerous' it is to carry a firearm 'around all those children'.....never realizing that the guy chasing his kids on the slide is packing heat.
 
Captain America said:
I have only purchased 4 new guns in the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

then this law in Va would not have effected you one bit.

however, if your occupation is buying lots o' guns in Virginia and selling them to pimps & thieves in NYC, your occupation just got a lot easier.
 
Jerry said:
It's a beautiful, warm, clear day today....I wonder how many anti-gun nuts I'll be carrying my .45 around, when my boys and I go to the park here in a little bit. Wouldn't it be great if I happened across a few anti-gunners talking about how 'dangerous' it is to carry a firearm 'around all those children'.....never realizing that the guy chasing his kids on the slide is packing heat.
Click to expand...

Make sure its not a state or federal park dude. You'll be in trooooouuubbbbllleee lol.
 
haymarket said:
glad we agree. :)
Click to expand...

Eh, perhaps we agree on certain general principles, but the devil is in the details.

A lot of your argument has been about straw purchase of multiple guns for sale illegally in states/cities where guns are heavily restricted.

My point is that those cities and states often have very high crime rates. Not all, NYC is an exception in recent years, but most (Chicago, DC, etc) do. Those are the places a law-abiding citizen needs the right to carry a gun the most, and is most often denied that right.

Turtle has already said that if someone buys multiple guns from a legal dealer, the ATF is informed of the purchase.

So why isn't the ATF arresting a lot more of these gun-runners that make the straw purchases and transport the guns to another state? There was a study done back in the 90's that revealed that of hundreds of thousands of NICs rejections of felons trying to buy guns from a dealer, there were only a few dozen charges filed and I think SEVEN convictions.

One has to wonder if the problem isn't the laws on legal purchasing, but rather a lack of competent enforcement when there is evidence of wrongdoing?

Studies have shown that shall-issue CCW DOES reduce certain types of crimes. In states where shall-issue CCW is implemented, criminals tend to shift away from crimes that involve confronting potentially-armed citizens directly, to crimes-of-property that avoid such confrontation... such as stealing unattended cars rather than carjacking a vehicle that is occupied. I'd think anyone would see this as a positive, if it reduces your chances of being directly confronted by a violent criminal (not to mention making it easier to level the playing field with your own weapon IF you are confronted anyway).

Personally I think THAT is the single most important change that needs to be made to aid in the safety of folks who live in Chicago, Detroit, DC and other high-crime urban areas. That, and competent enforcement of existing laws that are intended to convict black-market straw purchasers.

To impede on a Constitutional RIGHT, a law must meet certain requirements. An overwhelming necessity for it to serve the public safety is one, and the utility should be proven and not merely assumed.... that it will impede the evildoer vastly more than the honest citizen is another.

If we as a society want to tighten up on straw purchase and black-market guns, we need to do so in a way that will truly make things VERY difficult for the criminal while at the same time impeding the honest citizen very little if at all.
 
Thunder said:
what are you talking about?

I'm talking about international data regarding murder rates. what you're talking about? who knows.
Click to expand...



International data on murder rates reveals some interesting things.

It reveals quite plainly that those nations with the highest murder rates, FAR beyond the USA's rate, are typically
Very poor
Have corrupt or ineffective gov't
Are beset with tribalism, factional violence or drug cartels.

Gun control doesn't appear to be a decisive factor at all in international crime rates. The three items I listed above make the difference between civilization and hell-on-earth.
 
LaMidRighter said:
If by "provided evidence to the contrary" you mean found the first agreeable data to your argument even though it's not a totally legit source and you **** out a premise from there. Sure, why not.:roll:...
Click to expand...

the United Nations isn't a good source of data for international crime rates?

how's that work?
 
Thunder said:
then this law in Va would not have effected you one bit.

however, if your occupation is buying lots o' guns in Virginia and selling them to pimps & thieves in NYC, your occupation just got a lot easier.
Click to expand...

i just dont think you get it,a pimp is not going to spend around $500-$1000 dollars to buy a pistol plus pay a man to smuggle it and the smuggler would still have it on record he purchased that gun,most gun shops keep those records.


austria is the firearm counterfeit capitol of the world,they make guns there that you could never tell were fake except the fact that they dont have any distinct stamps or markings a legal gun would.brazil comes in at a number 2 and brazillian guns can easily be smuggled in the same ways drugs are.when i was in cali the skinhead kkk guys would make their own ak-47s by hand and quite often they sell them for cheap,since they were made of old pipes and stamped metal and pretty much good for a couple of magazines before they would jam up but they were going to throw them out anyways,why would any criminal hang on to evidence of a crime?
 
Thunder said:
South Dakota has special Federal laws..just for them?
Click to expand...

dont know about sd but in texas our state parks and national forests are by park to park basis on rules.i know the one in houston allows hunting and target shooting so not allowing to carry would be pointless.
 
Thunder said:
South Dakota has special Federal laws..just for them?
Click to expand...

A quick Google...

New law allows loaded guns in national parks - US news - Life - msnbc.com

Basically, the Fed allows loaded firearms in national parks. However, you have to also be able to carry in that state where the Federal park is located.

I have both in SD, and so I can carry a loaded firearm to Mount Rushmore, for example.

However, the park I mentioned earlier is just a city park, tho it's quite large and popular.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom