• 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
What is it do you suppose that has changed? Do you think that over 200 years the government has deemed itself MORE trustworthy? LESS intrusive into ones personal business? Do you believe that we as a people are less qualified and competent to provide for our selves, our defense? Are there other specifically enumerated int he bill of rights that you feel are quaint and outdated and should thus be eliminated?

Jingoistic rhetoric...do you mean private citizens should NOT have the right to self defense? Private citizens should NOT be included in the US Code definitions of the 'unorganized' militia? That government today is trustworthy, that local and state governments are secure and can be counted on to not only to NOT deny individuals their rights but to protect and defend them from others? If you are advocating for change, the burden of proof lies with you to prove why the constitution and rights deemed so sacred by the founders so as to specifically be listed in the Bill of Rights should now be sacrificed. The Constitution. CAN be changed...and all you would have to do is follow the procedure. Pass the amendment in both the house and senate, find a way for it to not get shot down by the Supreme Court, have the president sign it, and then have 3/4 of the states vote for the passage of said amendment. Should be a simple enough task if you have the justification.

I would hope that society (Western liberal, not societies per se) are definitely more stable, thus, have changed a great deal. Have you not enough checks and balances within the political infrastructure to feel safe from government aggression? Who would it be that attacked your citizens? Who and what would you be defending yourself against?

Paul
 
I would hope that society (Western liberal, not societies per se) are definitely more stable, thus, have changed a great deal. Have you not enough checks and balances within the political infrastructure to feel safe from government aggression? Who would it be that attacked your citizens? Who and what would you be defending yourself against?

Paul
Well...I certainly guess that depends on which side of the fence you are viewing things and on what day. I would imagine here are more than a few people that were very supportive of the 99% for example and saw the police action as oppressive and violent aggression against free speech. Certainly we have had several threads here questioning police action and the use of violent force. And then there is our government...that wonderful collection of party and partisan driven politicians. Do you see them as trustworthy? Reliable?

I truly believe if our founding fathers saw what we are on our way to becoming they would have written in even more and greater protections of personal freedoms.
 
Well...I certainly guess that depends on which side of the fence you are viewing things and on what day. I would imagine here are more than a few people that were very supportive of the 99% for example and saw the police action as oppressive and violent aggression against free speech. Certainly we have had several threads here questioning police action and the use of violent force. And then there is our government...that wonderful collection of party and partisan driven politicians. Do you see them as trustworthy? Reliable?

Do you really feel (although they may well be guilty of being over zealous in their duties, and guilty of some atrocious brutality) that the Police have the ability to turn against the citizenry? I say again, surely there are the 'checks and balances' (voting-legislation-court system) in place to counter abuse of government power. If we follow your logic, are you suggesting the only thing that keeps your goverment in check, is the fear that the electorate will rise up if need be? Is America really that unstable?


I truly believe if our founding fathers saw what we are on our way to becoming they would have written in even more and greater protections of personal freedoms
.

Personal freedoms are certainly to be treasured. I view things slightly less apocalyptic.

Paul
 
Last edited:
Do you really feel (although they may well be guilty of being over zealous in their duties, and guilty of some atrocious brutality) that the Police have the ability to turn against the citizenry? I say again, surely there are the 'checks and balances' (voting-legislation-court system) in place for abuse of government power. If we follow your logic, are you suggesting the only thing that keeps your goverment in check, is the fear that the electorate will rise up if need be? Is America really that unstable?


.

Personal freedoms are certainly to be treasured. I view things slightly less apocalyptic.

Paul
Probably not. Yet. But then...a year ago I dont think people in London would have expected Tottenham to burn. Or Greece. I doubt people would have expected riots at UC Davis or the streets of California or clashes in Denver. And a year ago I wouldnt have thought people int his country would be so stupid as to advocate for gun bans. Who knows where we will be in a year or two.
 
So, in other words, your gun is not meant for protection?

We can both agree that, in the split second moment you might ever need to protect yourself with a gun, 60 seconds is about 56 seconds to long. Study long, study wrong.

Is it for recreation? Do you plan to use it someday to go after someone? Help me to understand it's purpose and value to you.

PS... Ironically, the little boy that shot his friend with his momma's gun, I mentioned earlier was named Chris also.
For self defense. Why the awkward and stupid questions? "Do you plan to use it to go after someone." Common man... A minute may not be good enough for you but at least its something. I could get it unlocked and loaded in under 20 seconds if I rushed but id rather be silent about it as intruders searched through the house. I dont have a gun because I think Ill ever need to use it. I have one just in case.

Say a natural disaster happens and people go bonkers. I want self defense. Say the economy collapses and I need to make it safely home with some food. I want self defense. Say some foreign country sneaks attack us and tries taking over cities. I want the gun for self defense so I have a higher chance of making it to the woods.

Just because it takes longer to access a locked gun doesnt make it not meant for protection.
 
For self defense. Why the awkward and stupid questions? "Do you plan to use it to go after someone." Common man... A minute may not be good enough for you but at least its something. I could get it unlocked and loaded in under 20 seconds if I rushed but id rather be silent about it as intruders searched through the house. I dont have a gun because I think Ill ever need to use it. I have one just in case.

Say a natural disaster happens and people go bonkers. I want self defense. Say the economy collapses and I need to make it safely home with some food. I want self defense. Say some foreign country sneaks attack us and tries taking over cities. I want the gun for self defense so I have a higher chance of making it to the woods.

Just because it takes longer to access a locked gun doesnt make it not meant for protection.

Understood. Good reasons. My goofy questions were merely to make a point. I'm sorry if they came across as offensive. Not my intention.

You gotta keep in mind, I go almost everywhere with Roscoe. Always prepared.

I carry Roscoe like a carpenter carries a hammer. It is a tool of my trade.

Merry Christmas!
 
Not all at once, no. They'd start with much smaller steps, such as the Brady Bill and the fraudulent “assault weapon” ban.

Apparently it takes century's to accomplish. Isn't more likely that some just see conspiracies everywhere.
 
I have already posted one thread in regards to the mass shootings, trying to bring together ideas on the most effective way to slow gun related violence and try to eliminate these mass shootings.

This poll is more black and white because I am simply wondering would you be in favor of more gun control if it had the potential to reduce violence.

It does not. So no. It just changes who the victims are.
 
I don't think our government is going to come around collecting our guns for the hell of it and am not afraid our government is going to suddenly go bananas. If it did? Our little piddly arsenals would mean nothing anyway.
If the goal is to make it easy for the government to seize weapons then registering everyone's weapons make a great first step. If guns are going to be registered let us make sure all of the politicians have their guns registered. But not the citizens.

How is the war in Afghanistan going? What are they doing with their piddly arsenals?
 
First you'd have to convince me that gun control actually has the potential to reduce violence in the USA. I do not believe this is the case. There is no evidence that any existing gun control legislation has had any siginficant impact on violent crime.
Actually it does. It allows the criminals to attack a better class of citizen. They are the ones who obey the law and disarm.
 
I prefer to call it what it is. Some people are evil. Calling them sick implies then can be healed.
Not all illnesses can be cured. That's true physically and mentally.
 
We are all already members of militias. It is automatic.

I don't this qualifies as a well regulated militia:

912-teaparty-dc-we-came-unarmed-this-time.jpg
 
Wow. This link is interesting.

“For all the attention given to America’s culture of guns, ownership of firearms is at or near all-time lows,” writes political scientist Patrick Egan. The decline is most evident on the General Social Survey, though it also shows up on polling from Gallup, as you can see on this graph:

Six facts about guns, violence, and gun control

LOL. "MisterVeritis, How many weapons do you own?"

None Sir. Absolutely none. I don't have any rifles. I don't have any pistols, I don't have any shotguns. I don't own any bullets.

Why would anyone tell a pollster whether or not they have guns? I would not tell them over the phone nor in a door-to-door "interview."
 
I pretty much agree with this. The problem isn't guns. The problem is mental illness.

Not only mental illness, we're seeing a frightening link between violent outbreaks of this sort and anti-depression and similar medicines. When we drug the crap out of our kids, this is what happens.
 
Actually the Supreme Court has already ruled the 2nd amendment is a personal or individual right just like the many other amendments. It does not require one to be in a militia.

Actually, the original intent of the 2nd amendment was not for personal rights. It was written before the advent of a standing army, when every able-bodied man (okay, let's be honest, every able-bodied white land-owning man) was expected to maintain a firearm and come forward in times of crisis to protect their homes, towns and nation. Every man was, by definition, part of the militia and had to provide their own weapons. That was the purpose of the 2nd amendment. However, times change and today, we have a standing military and an active police force, two things not forseen by the founding fathers. The modern-day Supreme Court's sole job is to interpret the Constitution in light of modern events, yet the farther we get from the days of the founding fathers, the less impact the founding documents can have on modern life because they just had no clue about the modern world. Given a modern army and police force, it's unlikely that the founding fathers would have taken the positions they did with the 2nd amendment.

I think we can make some good, logical reasons for personal gun ownership, but this mindless clinging to the 2nd amendment really is pretty pathetic.
 
Actually, the original intent of the 2nd amendment was not for personal rights. It was written before the advent of a standing army, when every able-bodied man (okay, let's be honest, every able-bodied white land-owning man) was expected to maintain a firearm and come forward in times of crisis to protect their homes, towns and nation. Every man was, by definition, part of the militia and had to provide their own weapons. That was the purpose of the 2nd amendment. However, times change and today, we have a standing military and an active police force, two things not forseen by the founding fathers. The modern-day Supreme Court's sole job is to interpret the Constitution in light of modern events, yet the farther we get from the days of the founding fathers, the less impact the founding documents can have on modern life because they just had no clue about the modern world. Given a modern army and police force, it's unlikely that the founding fathers would have taken the positions they did with the 2nd amendment.

I think we can make some good, logical reasons for personal gun ownership, but this mindless clinging to the 2nd amendment really is pretty pathetic.

I do not totally agree. We have always had a standing Army, Navy and Marine Corp (a sub division of the Navy). The militia intent, I believe, was that all able bodied men would be a reserve for that standing military. Had the intent been to only have militias and no standing military, then, since they were still in control, they would of disbanded the standing military after peace was established with England. Standing militaries cost a lot. So instead of a large standing force, we would have a small standing force backed up by the citizens in time of need.

After the Civil War, in which a lot of the "militia" went off and fought with the rebels, and some other problems. Congress passed the Militia Act of 1903. This established the National Guard to replace the militia concept and instead of personal arms, the government then furnished them. Prior to this, all men (ok, be honest, there was some prejudices running around back then, so some may have been "exempted") were required to have personal arms so they could be called up. Most households had guns.

After the requirement to own a personal gun, a possible side affect of this act was that crime, specifically murder (I assume other violent crimes also, but I admit I cannot at this time prove it) shot up to tremendous levels. Since this act was passed, our murder rate has not gotten any where near as low (admittedly the rate then was probably higher as prejudices caused some murders not to get into the statistics). I said possible side affect simply because it cannot be definitively proven, other than comparing rates before and rates after. I also do not know of any other major social change at the time that might account for this affect.

While this might lead one to believe returning to mandatory ownership might be a solution to the problem of violent crime, it should be noted that our society today is drastically different than that prior to 1903. I still believe it is a much better solution than the abolishment of guns in America, a desired prospect for some but, at this point, unachievable. It would, in my opinion, cause some immediate upheaval, but after a few years it would settle down and while we might not see 1902s murder/violent crime rates, they would, with in 5 years or less reach lower levels than we have seen since adoption of the Militia Act of 1903. And we can still keep the Guard and Reserves to counter act faults in the militia system.

And no, I don't believe it is pathetic to cling to the second amendment, it still acts a check upon the government acquiring too much power.
 
Actually, the original intent of the 2nd amendment was not for personal rights. It was written before the advent of a standing army, when every able-bodied man (okay, let's be honest, every able-bodied white land-owning man) was expected to maintain a firearm and come forward in times of crisis to protect their homes, towns and nation. Every man was, by definition, part of the militia and had to provide their own weapons. That was the purpose of the 2nd amendment. However, times change and today, we have a standing military and an active police force, two things not forseen by the founding fathers. The modern-day Supreme Court's sole job is to interpret the Constitution in light of modern events, yet the farther we get from the days of the founding fathers, the less impact the founding documents can have on modern life because they just had no clue about the modern world. Given a modern army and police force, it's unlikely that the founding fathers would have taken the positions they did with the 2nd amendment.

I think we can make some good, logical reasons for personal gun ownership, but this mindless clinging to the 2nd amendment really is pretty pathetic.

It absolutely is not the Supreme Court's place to decide that part of the Constitution is outdated, and no longer needs to be fully obeyed. The only legitimate way for this determination to be made and put into effect is by ratifying a new amendment to the Constitution, to supersede that which is deemed to be outdated.

Until such an amendment is ratified, to supersede the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment remains the law of the land, and any part of government that refuses to obey it does so illegitimately. There is nothing the least bit “pathetic” about insisting that the Constitution be obeyed. If there is anything pathetic in this discussion, it is the sort of excuses that you are making to disobey the Constitution. If you don't agree with any part of the Constitution, write your elected representatives, and ask them to begin the process of Amending it to supersede that part with which you do not agree.
 
Your premise is nonsense. You might as well argue about a “What if…?” scenario in which it is absolutely proven that painting pigs in different colors has a substantial effect on safety.

This whole thread is an example of the GIGO principle at work. If you want to have a rational discussion, you need to start it based on a rational premise, and not some disproven left-wing statist fairy tale.

I don't disagree... - the premise is nonsense, but the premise was not mine. I chose to participate. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that gun control could cause a reduction in violence. I accept that there is ZERO evidence for it currently, but if the left-wingers want to know the hypothetical 'what-if' so that they know if it's worth attempting to find a causal relationship between gun control and reduced violence - if that makes the world a truly safer place - then I'll give them the green light by telling them that I'll at least listen to what they have to say.
 
It absolutely is not the Supreme Court's place to decide that part of the Constitution is outdated, and no longer needs to be fully obeyed. The only legitimate way for this determination to be made and put into effect is by ratifying a new amendment to the Constitution, to supersede that which is deemed to be outdated.

But you're missing the whole point. In many of these cases, the Supreme Court is basically inventing new application out of whole cloth because what came before simply does not apply in any way, shape or form to new technologies, new ideas, etc. It's not a matter of deciding what the founding fathers intended, they didn't intend anything, they couldn't have imagined these things in their wildest dreams, it's just making up new ideas and trying to shoehorn them into the writings of people who died almost 250 years ago. I seriously doubt they intended their ideas to be the only driving force for the nation for centuries to come, nor could they have foreseen the kind of polarization that's come to pass that makes ratifying any new ideas into the Constitution basically impossible.
 
Back
Top Bottom