• 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
Capster78 said:
According to the poster I directed my comments to, he believe these weapons are needed to protect himself against the US military and the government. If that is the case, then the society he thinks he is living in is not a free society, it is a dictatorship.
Click to expand...
Dictatorship is a kind of government, not a kind of society. The society is higher than the government it's sent into place. The society needs to remain stronger than the government so that the government doesn't turn against it's master and oppress the society. Should it try, the society removes the government and replaces it.

Owning a gun is a mark of being a member of that society, not a member of the government.
 
When I was a kid, a local judge got in all sorts of hot water after he shot a cop. Ironically, it wasn't the fact he shot a cop that got him in trouble but the appearance of impropriety for a Judge to be fraternizing with a cop who appeared in his Court. The old Judge was unfamiliar with 9mm's as they were becoming more frequent in his cases and wanted to learn about them and shoot one and the cop was trying to teach him when he got winged by the Judge. Maybe Congress should be required to go out and shoot a gun before they can decide if it should be banned (mainly I just wanted to tell my Judge story but that last part is just my tie-in to the thread)
 
Jerry said:
Dictatorship is a kind of government, not a kind of society. The society is higher than the government it's sent into place. The society needs to remain stronger than the government so that the government doesn't turn against it's master and oppress the society. Should it try, the society removes the government and replaces it.
Click to expand...

I don't have any idea what your talking about..... You refer to dictatorship as a type of government which is mostly correct, and not a kind of society. Not really sure where the confusion occurred after reading my post but you are pretty much saying exactly what he was saying. That the public must protect itself from the government and if the government gets out of line, it needs to have the ability to overthrow it. A society in fear of the government that feels it has to be armed to fight against it, is not a free society. That was my point.
 
Capster78 said:
In danger of heading in that direction, what indications support this? Or perhaps is it only supported in the minds of the overly paranoid?
Click to expand...

Not at all.

Over the past several years there has been an absolutely massive expansion of the federal government and the trend has definitely been continuing in that direction. We already have a nation that has become largely reliant on the government for retirement funding and old age medical care. The scope of Obamacare is expanding that dependency as is the treatment of "too big to fail" institutions. We are looking at the very realistic prospect of the nationalization of many core industries and the further prospect of effectively disarming the general public. More than that we are moving away from the principles of Republican governance and toward a direct Democracy which would be HIGHLY likely to result in some form of dictatorship in relatively short order.
 
Capster78 said:
I don't have any idea what your talking about..... You refer to dictatorship as a type of government which is mostly correct, and not a kind of society. Not really sure where the confusion occurred after reading my post but you are pretty much saying exactly what he was saying. That the public must protect itself from the government and if the government gets out of line, it needs to have the ability to overthrow it. A society in fear of the government that feels it has to be armed to fight against it, is not a free society. That was my point.
Click to expand...


I am still wondering what has caused you to engage in such a virulent hatred of firearms ownership by your neighbors and other citizens and why you only want cops and criminals to be armed
 
My confusion with these types of people is where are they seeing this need to protect themselves from the goverment with guns? Gay marriage is being legalized in many states, gays have been let into the military, free speech is protected more often now than any other time in US history. Even that crazy baptist church is allowed to protest outside military funerals holding signs that say "thank god for dead soldiers". Women are increasingly becoming a vital part of the workforce... Legalization of marijuana is close at hand....Where is this impending oppression? I just don't see any trends that would support it at all. In fact, most trends are the complete opposite.
 
Lutherf said:
Not at all.

Over the past several years there has been an absolutely massive expansion of the federal government and the trend has definitely been continuing in that direction. We already have a nation that has become largely reliant on the government for retirement funding and old age medical care. The scope of Obamacare is expanding that dependency as is the treatment of "too big to fail" institutions. We are looking at the very realistic prospect of the nationalization of many core industries and the further prospect of effectively disarming the general public. More than that we are moving away from the principles of Republican governance and toward a direct Democracy which would be HIGHLY likely to result in some form of dictatorship in relatively short order.
Click to expand...

But the government is not growing to oppress society, it is growing to offer more to society. No one is forcing anyone to go to the doctor at gunpoint.. no one is forcing large businesses to accept government assistence.. I don't see oppression being a factor in any of these things. Are they things many of us disagree with, sure. They are not oppressive measures that we need to free ourselves from by use of force.
 
Capster78 said:
I don't have any idea what your talking about..... You refer to dictatorship as a type of government which is mostly correct, and not a kind of society. Not really sure where the confusion occurred after reading my post but you are pretty much saying exactly what he was saying. That the public must protect itself from the government and if the government gets out of line, it needs to have the ability to overthrow it.
Click to expand...
You said such a society was a dictatorship. That was not an accurate statement.

Capster78 said:
A society in fear of the government that feels it has to be armed to fight against it, is not a free society.
Click to expand...
A government can only reason with an armed society, because the government cannot force an armed society to do anything that society doesn't want to do. Being armed takes the use of force against you off the table, you can only be dealt with through reason and persuasion.
 
Capster78 said:
My confusion with these types of people is where are they seeing this need to protect themselves from the goverment with guns? Gay marriage is being legalized in many states, gays have been let into the military, free speech is protected more often now than any other time in US history. Even that crazy baptist church is allowed to protest outside military funerals holding signs that say "thank god for dead soldiers". Women are increasingly becoming a vital part of the workforce... Legalization of marijuana is close at hand....Where is this impending oppression? I just don't see any trends that would support it at all. In fact, most trends are the complete opposite.
Click to expand...
So you're not aware of the private banking system, how most of the countries the US invades are countries who've tried to use a non-us currency to base oil on.

ObamaCare is not about providing poor people with heath care. The people of the US are going to be charged a hell of a lot more than ObamaCare requires to operate and the extra money used to prop up this private banking pinzie scheme.

The bottom line is: the government is mismanaging our money, the government knows we will kick it's ass, that's why they're trying to distract us with meaningless social policy on gay marriage and abortion, trying to buy us off with various hand-outs from food stamps to 180 day unemployment benefits.

The government knows this bubble won't last forever, non-gold-backed currency never does, though it's never lasted this long before. The bubble will pop, the people will riot, and the government wants us disarmed before this happens.
 
Jerry said:
You said such a society was a dictatorship. That was not an accurate statement.
Click to expand...

It is not a sole factor, but it is a product of a society that is governed by a dictatorship. If you look at many dictatorships, you will find an underlying group of people who continually arm themselves and fight against the government oppression. This is called a "coup" or a revolution. We did have one of these several hundred years ago, but the landscape is completely different from then. There is no fear the government is going to impose any legislation on the US by armed force. That has nothing to do with the US being armed either, as the majority of Americans are not armed at all.


A government can only reason with an armed society, because the government cannot force an armed society to do anything that society doesn't want to do. Being armed takes the use of force against you off the table, you can only be dealt with through reason and persuasion.
Click to expand...

Sure it can, you think civilian weapons are a deterent if the government really wanted to oppress people here? With the most advanced Air Force and the most expirience and trained Army / Marine force in the world, you think they are scared of armed civilians? You can't win a war with guns against a force that has had much more training and also is much fitter to fight than you. You also can not defeat a force that is much more heavily armed and has a large technology advantage on you.
 
Jerry said:
So you're not aware of the private banking system, how most of the countries the US invades are countries who've tried to use a non-us currency to base oil on.

ObamaCare is not about providing poor people with heath care. The people of the US are going to be charged a hell of a lot more than ObamaCare requires to operate and the extra money used to prop up this private banking pinzie scheme.

The bottom line is: the government is mismanaging our money, the government knows we will kick it's ass, that's why they're trying to distract us with meaningless social policy on gay marriage and abortion, trying to buy us off with various hand-outs from food stamps to 180 day unemployment benefits.

The government knows this bubble won't last forever, non-gold-backed currency never does, though it's never lasted this long before. The bubble will pop, the people will riot, and the government wants us disarmed before this happens.
Click to expand...

I understand your issues completely. But none of them equal government oppression that we need an armed confrontation to solve.
 
Capster78 said:
But the government is not growing to oppress society, it is growing to offer more to society. No one is forcing anyone to go to the doctor at gunpoint.. no one is forcing large businesses to accept government assistence.. I don't see oppression being a factor in any of these things. Are they things many of us disagree with, sure. They are not oppressive measures that we need to free ourselves from by use of force.
Click to expand...

When government steps in to "offer more" to society it inevitably cuts out private sector options which ends up limiting choices and making people more reliant on the government. The health care exchanges are a prime example. They mandate the type of coverage that has to be offered to the public and assess penalties on those who do not provide that coverage. That actually takes away options from the public who might well benefit from a different level of coverage.

Why, for example, should I be required to purchase health insurance that covers gynecological exams and maternity care? I certainly have a relatively low risk of ovarian cancer and I highly doubt that I'll need to get an abortion but I now have to purchase insurance that covers that stuff because the government says that I do. If you think that certain financial institutions weren't forced into accepting "assistance" under TARP you are mistaken and there was pressure applied to companies such as Countrywide to provide financing to unqualified borrowers through threats to have their immunity from CRA requirements revoked.

You might well see it as government coming in to make things better but the truth of the matter is, as has been mentioned above, that we are being put in a pot and the heat is being turned up.
 
Lutherf said:
When government steps in to "offer more" to society it inevitably cuts out private sector options which ends up limiting choices and making people more reliant on the government. The health care exchanges are a prime example. They mandate the type of coverage that has to be offered to the public and assess penalties on those who do not provide that coverage. That actually takes away options from the public who might well benefit from a different level of coverage.

Why, for example, should I be required to purchase health insurance that covers gynecological exams and maternity care? I certainly have a relatively low risk of ovarian cancer and I highly doubt that I'll need to get an abortion but I now have to purchase insurance that covers that stuff because the government says that I do. If you think that certain financial institutions weren't forced into accepting "assistance" under TARP you are mistaken and there was pressure applied to companies such as Countrywide to provide financing to unqualified borrowers through threats to have their immunity from CRA requirements revoked.

You might well see it as government coming in to make things better but the truth of the matter is, as has been mentioned above, that we are being put in a pot and the heat is being turned up.
Click to expand...

So your going to arm yourself and overthrow the government because you have to pay for some poor chicks gynecology appointment?
 
Capster78 said:
Sure it can, you think civilian weapons are a deterrent if the government really wanted to oppress people here? With the most advanced Air Force and the most experience and trained Army / Marine force in the world, you think they are scared of armed civilians? You can't win a war with guns against a force that has had much more training and also is much fitter to fight than you. You also can not defeat a force that is much more heavily armed and has a large technology advantage on you.
Click to expand...
I spent a year in Afghanistan, I'm intimately acquainted with how effective a low-tech 3rd-world militia can be against a modern 1st-world high-tech Army and Air-Force.

Iraqi veterans can tell you the same.
 
Jerry said:
I spent a year in Afghanistan, I'm intimately acquainted with how effective a low-tech 3rd-world militia can be against a modern 1st-world high-tech Army and Air-Force.
Click to expand...


we know your background and why we respect your positions. I am still waiting for Capster78 to tell us what has created such a seething hatred of private gun ownership in him. THis sort of extremism doesn't just appear in people
 
Jerry said:
I spent a year in Afghanistan, I'm intimately acquainted with how effective a low-tech 3rd-world militia can be against a modern 1st-world high-tech Army and Air-Force.

Iraqi veterans can tell you the same.
Click to expand...

And you are also acquainted with the limited use of our own force to fight them over there. The only reason they are effective is because we allow them to be.
 
Capster78 said:
So your going to arm yourself and overthrow the government because you have to pay for some poor chicks gynecology appointment?
Click to expand...

I get the impression that you have chosen not to "get it".

I will NEVER be a subject of the State as long as I have the means to prevent that from happening. I am wholly unwilling to cede my liberty to a "benefactor" and especially unwilling to cede that liberty to a State which has "benefactored" the native Americans on to reservations and imprisoned its own citizens based on nothing other than race. The precedent is there and I am loathe to allow it to happen again.
 
Lutherf said:
I get the impression that you have chosen not to "get it".

I will NEVER be a subject of the State as long as I have the means to prevent that from happening. I am wholly unwilling to cede my liberty to a "benefactor" and especially unwilling to cede that liberty to a State which has "benefactored" the native Americans on to reservations and imprisoned its own citizens based on nothing other than race. The precedent is there and I am loathe to allow it to happen again.
Click to expand...

Get what?? Caught up into some of the crazy things people say on the internet. No, I don't get it. I think there are people out there that need serious medical and psychological assistance and the internet is a good example of that.
 
Capster78 said:
Get what?? Caught up into some of the crazy things people say on the internet. No, I don't get it. I think there are people out there that need serious medical and psychological assistance and the internet is a good example of that.
Click to expand...

perhaps exhibit one being someone wanting to ban all guns for honest people creating a society where the cops and the criminals having a monopoly on firepower
 
notquiteright said:
My daughter used to declare herself the 'victor' much the same way you do now...
Click to expand...
Good for her, benig able to recognize when she is talking to someone that cannot directly address the issues put to him and not letting him spin away from questions/issue he cannot directly address.

And, I again thank you for your concession of the points.
 
notquiteright said:
Commissioned Law Enforcement Officers ARE different in the eyes of the law
Click to expand...
You're right -- if anything, they are more restricted on when they can use deadly force as a civilian has no duty to try to do everything he can to peacefully apprehend the person threatening him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom