• 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!

Gun Control

Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 39.9%
  • No

    Votes: 74 50.0%
  • Others

    Votes: 15 10.1%

  • Total voters
    148
How does you repeating the same nonsense provide substance to the same nonsense?

You asked your question. I answered it. What about that do you not comprehend?

My position is clear and unmistakable: The Second Amendment says what it says and no more and no less.
Except that is not what you said. Nor is it what you implied. Your opinion is not found in any of the debates or arguments about the Bill of Rights in the states nor in any of the collected papers of any of the participants.

Are you of the opinion that the Framers who had just defeated a nation that had tyrannized them with a standing army would wish to see their antidote to tyranny be less capably armed than the troops that tyrannized them?

If so can you show me any evidence?

For you or anybody else to pretend to tell me or anyone else what some individuals may have believed about their personal intent is irrelevant compared to the actual language which they gave us. They would not be the first people who wrote language which later came back to bite them in the ass because they failed to write it the way they thought they intended to.

Blather. Admit that you do not know what you are talking about. And then move on.

Your problem is NOT with me. Your problem is with the language of the Second Amendment and it DOES NOT say what you want it to say.
No. It is with you and all others who facilitate tyranny as long as it comes a little bit at a time.
 
Are you suggesting the numbers were comparable BEFORE the ban? :lamo

Nah...all it proves is that like your idiotic efforts, it doesn't stop mass killings. People find a way. Whether its Dunblane Scotland or China.

They reduced the number of intentional homicides with firearms, yes! They also reduced the number of mass killings with fireams.

Like I said, you guys get your own plans implemented to reduce the numbers or we will implement our own plans.
 
They reduced the number of intentional homicides with firearms, yes! They also reduced the number of mass killings with fireams.

Like I said, you guys get your own plans implemented to reduce the numbers or we will implement our own plans.
No no...that's pretty much a chicken **** dodge. Not at all the question that was asked so lets try again and see if you can be honest this time. ARE you suggesting the numbers were comparable before the ban? Its a simple question. You made it...you get to defend it. Were the murder rates in the UK comparable to the US pre ban?
 
No no...that's pretty much a chicken **** dodge. Not at all the question that was asked so lets try again and see if you can be honest this time. ARE you suggesting the numbers were comparable before the ban? Its a simple question. You made it...you get to defend it. Were the murder rates in the UK comparable to the US pre ban?


I am suggesting what actually happened, they decided the numbers were unacceptable so they acted to lower them. And I'm not suggesting here that we go the same route at this time. I think our society is probably a couple hundred years of evolution behind the UK in banning all guns.

Most reasonable gun owners like myself are going to support the banning of guns and mags that are designed primarily for large kills between reloads, along with all the other measures like closing the private sales loophole, hopefully further mental background checks, and of course all the plans the gun clubs get passed to help reduce the numbers.
 
Except that is not what you said. Nor is it what you implied.

Implications are supplied by your own mind. What is it you believe that I said that you dispute?
 
Implications are supplied by your own mind. What is it you believe that I said that you dispute?
"I could also have said that the tri-cornerd hat was quite the rage when some people believed that quaint relic of ancient history."

You know what you did. You too, cannot be trusted. I regret to say it but it is obvious.

Have a nice day.
 
"I could also have said that the tri-cornerd hat was quite the rage when some people believed that quaint relic of ancient history."

You know what you did. You too, cannot be trusted. I regret to say it but it is obvious.

Have a nice day.

You still have not made clear what facts I presented that are in dispute.
 
You still have not made clear what facts I presented that are in dispute.

Perhaps because you claim to support the SA, but it is really quite obvious to everyone that you actually do not.
 
Perhaps because you claim to support the SA, but it is really quite obvious to everyone that you actually do not.


Far too many confuse two very different things
1- support for the right to keep and bear arms as worded in the Second Amendment
2- slavish devotion to the gun lobby and their extremist positions

I support the first and not the second. There is a huge difference in the two.
 
Far too many confuse two very different things
1- support for the right to keep and bear arms as worded in the Second Amendment
2- slavish devotion to the gun lobby and their extremist positions

I support the first and not the second. There is a huge difference in the two.

Hmmm. As worded in the Second Amendment, huh? So that means you support the right to bear arms, AND you believe that government cannot infringe upon that right?
 
Hmmm. As worded in the Second Amendment, huh? So that means you support the right to bear arms, AND you believe that government cannot infringe upon that right?

The key word being INFRINGED as you and I have so thoroughly previously discussed.
 
The key word being INFRINGED as you and I have so thoroughly previously discussed.

Yes, infringed meaning that the government cannot make laws or otherwise restrict a law-abiding citizen's access to firearms. It IS a right afterall.
 
Yes, infringed meaning that the government cannot make laws or otherwise restrict a law-abiding citizen's access to firearms. It IS a right afterall.

Not according to the definition we agreed to. The one that you found.
 
Perhaps because you claim to support the SA, but it is really quite obvious to everyone that you actually do not.

exactly right-perfect summary
 
Not according to the definition we agreed to. The one that you found.

Oh really? What was the definition that we agreed to? I really don't remember EVER agreeing with you. :lol:
 
I appreciate you walking back your comment on "strictness."

Wasnt much of a "walk back". I dont think people should have to turn their guns in, i think there should be more restrictions on how easy it is to purchase a firearms.
 
Wasnt much of a "walk back". I dont think people should have to turn their guns in, i think there should be more restrictions on how easy it is to purchase a firearms.

why do you talk about easy purchasing when in this case the killer engaged in capital or LWOP murder to obtain a gun

Purchase had nothing to do with this crime
 
why do you talk about easy purchasing when in this case the killer engaged in capital or LWOP murder to obtain a gun

Purchase had nothing to do with this crime

If its easy as going to a walmart to purchase a weapon.. Then i think it kinda does...
 
Wasnt much of a "walk back". I dont think people should have to turn their guns in, i think there should be more restrictions on how easy it is to purchase a firearms.
Now we are back to where this started. Like most tyrants you want everyone else's rights restricted. I hoped too much. For one post you seemed actually reasonable.
 
Now we are back to where this started. Like most tyrants you want everyone else's rights restricted. I hoped too much. For one post you seemed actually reasonable.


Uhhhh no i dont... Why do you always bring up this petty argument back up?
 
The problem is people... the problem IS NOT guns.
 
If its easy as going to a walmart to purchase a weapon.. Then i think it kinda does...

All depends on the state. But, a criminal background check is made on every gun purchased whether at walmart or a gun shop. Not so much some sales at gun shows, between private individuals, but then, I could advertise in the paper and sell to another private individual without a background check also. Gun shows are not the place to go looking if you are not legal to buy a gun in the first place. Legal gun owners hate illegal guns and gun sells, probably more than the left does. If you are on the felon list or the mental diagnosed list, denied comes back, no purchase. You also have to meet the age/residency requirement for the gun you are purchasing. I have heard some states still have a waiting period, but I cannot confirm that.

If you cannot pass the background check, are not of legal age, don't want it registered to you and you don't care where it came from, go ask a few high school students, they probably know several local guys in your city that are selling out of their trunk or van. These are the people we need to shut down, not the ones doing it legally. Just look for the dope heads, their dealers are probably packing, if they trust you, they will let you know where to pick one up or get you one upon request.
 
Now we are back to where this started. Like most tyrants you want everyone else's rights restricted. I hoped too much. For one post you seemed actually reasonable.

Psst. Check his lean, socialist, that should give a clue before reading anything he posts about guns.
 
Back
Top Bottom