• 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
Cephus said:
For a specific reason, yes. That's the problem, you ignore the reason *WHY* they wanted it done. You entirely ignore the whole first half of the second amendment because it doesn't make any sense anymore, you just take the second half out of context and thing you've made an intelligent point.
You're wrong.
Click to expand...
Except in historical, legal and constitutional terms.
In that, he is correct.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I don't know why you keep on not understanding that the AR-15 was the basis for the M-16....and if you are going to say that developed variations of the weapon make it a Ford and not a Chevy, you are just relying far too much on feelings and not on knowledge.
Click to expand...

Yes it was. I am fully aware of this. My point is that the guts make the gun. You don't see it that way? So ALL AR15s are exactly the same? That certainly isnt true.

The differences are minor...but they differ. I mean m16s differ between generation and that alone has to be stated (a2, a3, a4). Another comparison; .223 vs 5.56. Same round? Or minor difference?
 
H. Lee White said:
Except in historical, legal and constitutional terms.
In that, he is correct.
Click to expand...

No, you've just got the Supreme Court, whose sole job is to decide what the Constitution means in relation to modern events, but who can't just say that the 2nd amendment has no application today, it has to find some way to shoehorn 240 year old words into a world that the founding fathers couldn't have foreseen in their wildest dreams.

Color me impressed.
 
Cephus said:
For a specific reason, yes. That's the problem, you ignore the reason *WHY* they wanted it done. You entirely ignore the whole first half of the second amendment because it doesn't make any sense anymore, you just take the second half out of context and thing you've made an intelligent point.

You're wrong.
Click to expand...

It's pretty clear why they wanted it done, but, what do you think the reason is?
 
stonewall50 said:
Yes it was. I am fully aware of this. My point is that the guts make the gun. You don't see it that way? So ALL AR15s are exactly the same? That certainly isnt true.

The differences are minor...but they differ. I mean m16s differ between generation and that alone has to be stated (a2, a3, a4). Another comparison; .223 vs 5.56. Same round? Or minor difference?
Click to expand...
Keep digging your hole, you just can't accept that the AR-15 was the first version of the M-16, all this noise about development making them "not EXACTLY the same" is funny to watch....especially coming from someone complaining about credibility.

Once again with the feeling...please.
 
Cephus said:
For a specific reason, yes. That's the problem, you ignore the reason *WHY* they wanted it done. You entirely ignore the whole first half of the second amendment because it doesn't make any sense anymore, you just take the second half out of context and thing you've made an intelligent point.

You're wrong.
Click to expand...

So the ONLY reason the founding fathers wanted guns was so they could have a military force? That is stupid. You ar quite wrong and you can look up quotes from what the founding fathers have said...that they also considered crime as a reason for defense.

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

Come on Cepheus. Aren't you supposed to like...have basis for statements?
 
stonewall50 said:
So the ONLY reason the founding fathers wanted guns was so they could have a military force? That is stupid. You ar quite wrong and you can look up quotes from what the founding fathers have said...that they also considered crime as a reason for defense.

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

Come on Cepheus. Aren't you supposed to like...have basis for statements?
Click to expand...

Not really a military force but to be ready and available for the militia should it be needed... yes.
 
mac said:
No, I'm not. I've never argued for the general population to be able to have select fire weapons, regardless of the founders intent.
Click to expand...
Funny...looks like you were:

haymarket said:
Baloney. Worse. Yesterdays digested baloney now going down the porcelain swirl.

Comparing the daily life of a regular civilian to that of a cop and the tools they need to do their job is simply the height of absurdity. I cannot think of one single time in my entire life where I needed a firearm to do my job and I am 63 years old. Not a one. To pretend otherwise that you or anybody else is some crime busting superhero is just a sad joke.

Why can't you be truthful here? You and I both know the reason why so many on the right keep insisting that they need comparable weaponry as the police or military have. And you also know the reason you insist on it rings rather hollow with most Americans who sympathize not in the least with the paranoia that fuels it.
Click to expand...
mac said:
Actually, when it comes to that last part....it's specifically said in the Constitution that the citizens right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's not the right saying it, it's the founding fathers. :shrug:

"well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Funny...looks like you were:
Click to expand...

Well, you've misunderstood. That was not the point of my post. The point is that it is not "the right" saying it, but rather the founders. I made no remark concerning gun ownership limitation since the writings of the founders.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Not really a military force but to be ready and available for the militia should it be needed... yes.
Click to expand...

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
 
mac said:
Well, you've misunderstood. That was not the point of my post. The point is that it is not "the right" saying it, but rather the founders. I made no remark concerning gun ownership limitation since the writings of the founders.
Click to expand...
"Some" founders saying "it" is not the relevant point, the point still is that the courts have determined that the 2nd amendment does not grant a right to a citizen to possess military weaponry. Further, if the founders could see the weaponry available NOW, they would agree with the court findings.

PS...the 2nd amendment was a compromise between the Congress and the 13 states, there were many competing and conflicting views.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Good quote.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
"Some" founders saying "it" is not the relevant point, the point still is that the courts have determined that the 2nd amendment does not grant a right to a citizen to possess military weaponry. Further, if the founders could see the weaponry available NOW, they would agree with the court findings.

PS...the 2nd amendment was a compromise between the Congress and the 13 states, there were many competing and conflicting views.
Click to expand...

Provide a quote of the founders discussing how they would agree or apologize for taken their name in vain.

And citizens already have many military weapons...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Not really a military force but to be ready and available for the militia should it be needed... yes.
Click to expand...

Would that mean that we should all have arms like that of the military and train as such? Seems like that means more military training. At least if are going to follow the founding fathers' intent only.

But the fact is that they DID intend for home front defense as well. That website I provided included quotes from Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, and Washington, and Jefferson on arms for defense against criminals. I would call that intent greater than militia.
 
stonewall50 said:
Would that mean that we should all have arms like that of the military and train as such? Seems like that means more military training. At least if are going to follow the founding fathers' intent only.

But the fact is that they DID intend for home front defense as well. That website I provided included quotes from Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, and Washington, and Jefferson on arms for defense against criminals. I would call that intent greater than militia.
Click to expand...

Right. Armed defense against criminals as well as being availiable for defense of the country in the form of the militia...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Keep digging your hole, you just can't accept that the AR-15 was the first version of the M-16, all this noise about development making them "not EXACTLY the same" is funny to watch....especially coming from someone complaining about credibility.

Once again with the feeling...please.
Click to expand...

Dude? Really? The Colt AR-15 is a semi automatic ONLY rifle. Read what you quoted. The M16 is a selective fire rifle. They are Different. Technically speaking...the only rifle that can be called an AR15 is the colt product because they own the rights. Anyway.

The ORIGINAL AR15 fired the .223 while the M16 used the 5.56 and because you know guns so well...you know those are different. I am not saying that the M16 and the AR 15 are not almost the same gun. They are. One is built for military specification, and the other for civilian specs.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
"Some" founders saying "it" is not the relevant point, the point still is that the courts have determined that the 2nd amendment does not grant a right to a citizen to possess military weaponry. Further, if the founders could see the weaponry available NOW, they would agree with the court findings.

PS...the 2nd amendment was a compromise between the Congress and the 13 states, there were many competing and conflicting views.
Click to expand...
Bodhisattva said:
Provide a quote of the founders discussing how they would agree or apologize for taken their name in vain.

And citizens already have many military weapons...
Click to expand...
In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.

District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
Right. Armed defense against criminals as well as being availiable for defense of the country in the form of the militia...
Click to expand...

An armed militia is not the proper response against all criminals. The founding fathers would understand the need to be ready at a moments notice...minutemen...and to be able to fight a threat to the homestead.

Certainly you do not believe that you or I do not have the right to bear arms against and armed criminal threat?
 
stonewall50 said:
Dude? Really? The Colt AR-15 is a semi automatic ONLY rifle. Read what you quoted. The M16 is a selective fire rifle. They are Different. Technically speaking...the only rifle that can be called an AR15 is the colt product because they own the rights. Anyway.

The ORIGINAL AR15 fired the .223 while the M16 used the 5.56 and because you know guns so well...you know those are different. I am not saying that the M16 and the AR 15 are not almost the same gun. They are. One is built for military specification, and the other for civilian specs.
Click to expand...
The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963
 
Last edited:
dirtpoorchris said:
So police officers are a class of prestige above non-cops and you want to see people become youtube sensations instead of defending themselves. Im not a cop and I have been shot at once and had a someone brandish a gun on me twice. So your personal experience really doesn't count for everyone's. (thankfully I didn't need a gun to get out of the situation in all these cases but that's not the point.)
Click to expand...

I have no idea what happened in your life to give you a feeling of inferiority against cops that you have to over compensate for. Its just not my problem.

All I am saying is that they need certain tools to do their job.

And since you don't do it, don't pretend that you do.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
You sorta ignored that word HINDER.
Click to expand...

Did not ignore it. If you are exercising your right - it has not been hindered.

But go ahead on focus on one word and ignore the other half dozen if it reenforces your own ideological belief system. Look at one damn tree instead of the whole forest if it makes you feel secure in your own self imposed belief system.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That being said, just what is (we all know, quite well, what is not) your desired public policy on civilian gun ownership and carrying procedures/rules/laws?
Click to expand...

I am strongly supportive of a citizens right to keep and bear arms as the Second Amendment states.
 
mac said:
#2 kinda renders your take on this inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Not at all. here is 2

2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
Click to expand...

If the law permits you a firearm - your right has NOT been broken.
If the law permits you a firearm - your right has NOT been transgressed.
If the law permits you a firearm - your right has NOT been neglected or disobeyed.

And lets consider the complete definition please. Do not focus on a single tree when the entire forest is before you. Unless of course the rest of the forest causes that single tree to appear otherwise than what you want it to be.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
"Some" founders saying "it" is not the relevant point, the point still is that the courts have determined that the 2nd amendment does not grant a right to a citizen to possess military weaponry. Further, if the founders could see the weaponry available NOW, they would agree with the court findings.
Click to expand...

Actually, all of them that made any statement concerning it were clearly stating that it is an armed populace that keeps their govt in check. Indisputable fact.

PS...the 2nd amendment was a compromise between the Congress and the 13 states, there were many competing and conflicting views.
Click to expand...

And the right to bear arms was ratified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom