• 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
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.

Correct, as we are determined not to engage in the wholesale slaughter of entire villages simply to ensure that any enemy within them is destroyed.
 
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.
The militia exists, in part, to assist and, when necessary, resist, the standing army.
:shrug:
 
But the government is not growing to oppress society, it is growing to offer more to society.
A clear indication of your acute - and likely, willful - ignorance.

Everything that the government gives to someone, it has taken from someone else.
The more it gives, the more it has to take.

Don't worry - I'm sure I'll have to explain this to you.
 
The militia exists, in part, to assist and, when necessary, resist, the standing army.
:shrug:
Have you seen these "melitia". I have seen videos and I doubt the could protect themselves from anything more than a pack of rabid squirrel. Most of them look like if they ran 100 feet they would die from a heart attack.

American militia = grabbin a gun and firing at stuff while drinking a 12 pack.
 
A clear indication of your acute - and likely, willful - ignorance.

Everything that the government gives to someone, it has taken from someone else.
The more it gives, the more it has to take.

Don't worry - I'm sure I'll have to explain this to you.

That system has been in effect since the country was founded. Just because we can't agree on who deserves tax money, does not mean we need to overthrow the government.
 
NOt in the eyes of the constitution.

what if there are 5-6 bad guys

how many home invasion robberies have you investigated?

indeed fill me in on your CIVILIAN law enforcement expertise where the rules of engagement are a bit different than that for a grunt or a jarhead. that is what we are talking about-CIVILIAN environments, civilian self defense parameters etc

Still waiting on the example you cite where the LE used #4 buck. I doubt you have any investigations under your belt, or done any study on them. No matter the number coming at you it is the ability to put fatal rounds on target, so a 20 round mag does just fine, mostly because if it is a confrontation at the front door, you with your M4orgery, you won't get off more than 10 rounds tops.

Again you dance around the fact the Policeman is a Commissioned Officer and runs TO danger while the never been puffies run the other way. The World Trade Center is a point in sharp contrast, as the 3K suits ran away the cops climbed the stairs to face certain death.

But again you dodge my point because it knocks your soapbox over.

I'd restrict both Civilians and Law Enforcement to 20 round mags in semi-only weapons. You are too busy peddling your wares to listen.

Oh don't count on 'dicta' to do diddly for you. Justice Scalia tipped his hole card and the NRA would be wise to heed the message. Let us not forget back in '94 the NRA quailed away from fighting the AWB and let a decade of 'tyranny, socialism and patriot persecution'

Either the NRA saw a profit motive in just baiting the rabble or knew a full contest of restrictions would not go well.
 
Still waiting on the example you cite where the LE used #4 buck. I doubt you have any investigations under your belt, or done any study on them. No matter the number coming at you it is the ability to put fatal rounds on target, so a 20 round mag does just fine, mostly because if it is a confrontation at the front door, you with your M4orgery, you won't get off more than 10 rounds tops.

Again you dance around the fact the Policeman is a Commissioned Officer and runs TO danger while the never been puffies run the other way. The World Trade Center is a point in sharp contrast, as the 3K suits ran away the cops climbed the stairs to face certain death.

But again you dodge my point because it knocks your soapbox over.

I'd restrict both Civilians and Law Enforcement to 20 round mags in semi-only weapons. You are too busy peddling your wares to listen.

Oh don't count on 'dicta' to do diddly for you. Justice Scalia tipped his hole card and the NRA would be wise to heed the message. Let us not forget back in '94 the NRA quailed away from fighting the AWB and let a decade of 'tyranny, socialism and patriot persecution'

Either the NRA saw a profit motive in just baiting the rabble or knew a full contest of restrictions would not go well.

Unless you are a millionaire, why would 5 or 6 people be trying to rob your house? Most middle class americans do not have enough money in the house or valueables for that matter to divide up between 5-6 people to make it worth the risk of getting caught.
 
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.

Like I said, the precedent is there, ignore it at your own peril.
 
That system has been in effect since the country was founded.
Irrelevant to what I said.
I applaud your ability to rrespond to posts that you cannot meaningfully counter with willful ignorance, irrelevance, or both.

Thank you for so clearly indicating there's no need for me, or anyone else, to waste any more time on you.
 
That's my queue:


In order to be a protected, a weapon must be "in common use at the time", and may not be "dangerous and unusual". If a given weapon fails one or both of these qualifications, it is not protected for civilian ownership. So, let's go down the list:
  • Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.

  • Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Nuclear weapon: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.



  • ICBMs: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.


Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Criminals generally want easy targets. Having a gun makes you a harder target. When you're in a population which carries, you are safer even if you don't carry a gun yourself, because a criminal has no way of knowing if you're carrying concealed or not and doesn't want to risk finding out the hard way.

*****

Here we had to link to this law yeat again. We have to keep repeating ourselves, so rather than write it out manually over and over and over, a lot of us just save it to a word doc.

You keep copying and pasting the same post or portions of posts over and over again, its nothing better than spam. And what's worse is that its affecting your own ability to think as well, instead of addressing points as the questions arise you just copy and paste the same answer again. I understand that you feel the same answer works well in so many occasions, but you can't expect people to take your posts seriously if you aren't even writing them yourself it doesn't exactly show you understand your own argument if you don't even make it.
 
What peril is this?

I suppose that "peril" is kind of subjective.

Where I would find it to be a great infringement on my liberty to be subjected to a life where the government is the primary provider of all that I require some folks would seem to see that as a utopia. They might get a little bit upset when the day comes that government can no longer satisfy their needs but, being the sheep that they are, I'm sure they would adapt.

Personally, I LIKE struggle. I like using my ingenuity to overcome adversity. I sincerely believe that it makes me a stronger person and, conversely, I also believe that taking the consequences out of life makes me weaker.

Oh, one other thing I totally, wholeheartedly and vehemently resent anyone who tries to take that away from me in the interests of making their own existence "better" and if they choose to use the force of government to do that then I consider that to be a hostile act.
 
Oh, one other thing I totally, wholeheartedly and vehemently resent anyone who tries to take that away from me in the interests of making their own existence "better" and if they choose to use the force of government to do that then I consider that to be a hostile act.
Oh - oh - oh -- but that's not "oppression".
:roll:
 
I suppose that "peril" is kind of subjective.

Where I would find it to be a great infringement on my liberty to be subjected to a life where the government is the primary provider of all that I require some folks would seem to see that as a utopia. They might get a little bit upset when the day comes that government can no longer satisfy their needs but, being the sheep that they are, I'm sure they would adapt.

Personally, I LIKE struggle. I like using my ingenuity to overcome adversity. I sincerely believe that it makes me a stronger person and, conversely, I also believe that taking the consequences out of life makes me weaker.

Oh, one other thing I totally, wholeheartedly and vehemently resent anyone who tries to take that away from me in the interests of making their own existence "better" and if they choose to use the force of government to do that then I consider that to be a hostile act.

So paying for a woman's gynecology exam is infringing on your liberty and is indicative of a government that is oppressing its people?
 
So paying for a woman's gynecology exam is infringing on your liberty and is indicative of a government that is oppressing its people?

If it's not my choice then it's the very definition of oppression.
 
If it's not my choice then it's the very definition of oppression.
You are forced top pay for goods and services you do not receive.
-That- is involuntary servitude.
"Oppression" is a broad term; it is impossible to argue that involuntary servitude does not fall under it.
 
You are forced top pay for goods and services you do not receive.
-That- is involuntary servitude.
"Oppression" is a broad term; it is impossible to argue that involuntary servitude does not fall under it.

Yet so many in this nation, including "dear leader", feel that not only is it justified but it's our duty. There is NOTHING in this world more dangerous than a tyrant who seeks to expand his power based on what he considers to be "best" for the masses.
 
If it's not my choice then it's the very definition of oppression.
So you want to live in a society free from government completely? That type of society is even more dangerous and open to corruption then the society we currently have. Just look at societies that have existed like this in the past such as Japan and China, where warlords, not governments imposed on the people. You basically replace entities with individuals.. An entity can be controlled because it is not headed by one person, where as an individual can not. A government, paid for by the people to represent the people and carry out services for the people is currently the best solution we have.
 
So you want to live in a society free from government completely? That type of society is even more dangerous and open to corruption then the society we currently have. Just look at societies that have existed like this in the past such as Japan and China, where warlords, not governments imposed on the people.

More obfuscation.

Government has a purpose and is required for civil society but when the government is used as cudgel with which one faction of that society beats another into submission it's utility has come to an end.
 
More obfuscation.

Government has a purpose and is required for civil society but when the government is used as cudgel with which one faction of that society beats another into submission it's utility has come to an end.

beats another into submission, is there some kind of ethnic cleansing going on that we don't know about? Is there a new Slobodan Milošević or Saddam Hussein here in the US?
 
beats another into submission, is there some kind of ethnic cleansing going on that we don't know about? Is there a new Slobodan Milošević or Saddam Hussein here in the US?

Perhaps. We really don't know and I'd certainly prefer to exercise whatever options I have so as not to find out.
 
Perhaps. We really don't know and I'd certainly prefer to exercise whatever options I have so as not to find out.

I would like to know what you believe is going on. The more you post, the more ridiculous you sound so I was wondering how much more ridiculous things you would say. I have found that many die hard gun owners hold some pretty ridiculous thoughts on why we need guns. I thought it would be important for everyone to see them.
 
Back
Top Bottom