• 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!

Would You Give Up Your Guns?

Would you comply with a gun ban?

  • Yes, I would.

    Votes: 11 16.7%
  • No, I would not.

    Votes: 55 83.3%

  • Total voters
    66
Yes. If its democratically brought forth and gone through the proper legislative process, and the only way they would do that is repeal the 2nd amendment, but that will never happen.


you cannot repeal any of the BOR...rights are unalienable..

John Adams--[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed<----- or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great .... of the Bill of Rights as its point of departure in interpreting and enforcing that Bill of Rights
 
well what would they say? the M16 was far more conceivable in 1790 than the internet or tv or radio was
When the founders wrote the 1st Amendment they meant telegrams and pidgins, not military grade high-capacity assault internetz.
 
well what would they say? the M16 was far more conceivable in 1790 than the internet or tv or radio was

Still, neither were conceivable. Not was the scope of an army that would have such a massive build up. They never conceived of any of it. And if they void see this, it would be interesting, and I suspect disappointing to everyone what hey would say.
 
you cannot repeal any of the BOR...rights are unalienable..

John Adams--[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed<----- or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great .... of the Bill of Rights as its point of departure in interpreting and enforcing that Bill of Rights


In the Cruikshank decision (mid 1870s) the USSC noted that the RKBA was not CREATED by the USSC and would exist even if the document were to disappear. dishonest racist and bigoted federal judges used that language to claim that the second amendment did not create (true it recognized) an individual RKBA

senile Justice Stevens whined about Heller overturning crappy CoA decisions-claiming that they should be respected despite being unable to argue that they were based on proper interpretations of Cruikshank
 
Still, neither were conceivable. Not was the scope of an army that would have such a massive build up. They never conceived of any of it. And if they void see this, it would be interesting, and I suspect disappointing to everyone what hey would say.

you are incorrect

the concept of a rapid firing firearm already existed.
 
Repeal the Gun Control Act of 1987.

you mean the Hughes Amendment of 1986 that banned anyone other than servants of the state from possessing machine guns made after may 19, 1986
 
you are incorrect

the concept of a rapid firing firearm already existed.

Not for mass consumption. Not individually. Not with the violence we see today. No, I don't think I'm off much at all.
 
In the Cruikshank decision (mid 1870s) the USSC noted that the RKBA was not CREATED by the USSC and would exist even if the document were to disappear. dishonest racist and bigoted federal judges used that language to claim that the second amendment did not create (true it recognized) an individual RKBA

senile Justice Stevens whined about Heller overturning crappy CoA decisions-claiming that they should be respected despite being unable to argue that they were based on proper interpretations of Cruikshank

anyone who would try to repeal one or all of the BOR......WOULD BE A TRAITOR TO THE NATION, BECAUSE ALL ELECTED / APPOINTED OFFICIAL MUST SWEAR, TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BOR.

to try and repeal would be to violate their very oath
 
Not for mass consumption. Not individually. Not with the violence we see today. No, I don't think I'm off much at all.

You are just making stuff up now. less people are killed with the crap your side calls "military grade rifles" than with baseball bats, knives and hammers
 
When the founders wrote the 1st Amendment they meant telegrams and pidgins, not military grade high-capacity assault internetz.

True. And that is why we have to constantly revisit these things. The foundering fathers never expected us to stop thinking.
 
Not for mass consumption. Not individually. Not with the violence we see today. No, I don't think I'm off much at all.

the public can own fully automatic weapons, they must pay a tax stamp, and undergo a more intense background check.......but who has $15,000 for an automatic weapon?
 
you mean the Hughes Amendment of 1986 that banned anyone other than servants of the state from possessing machine guns made after may 19, 1986
I'm not certain that amendment was ever properly ratified. There seems to be a cloud of confusion around it. But anyway, I'd like the whole thing taken down. No NICS. No FFLs. Buy whatever you want, from or to whomever you want. No registration, no permits, don't even bother stamping the gun with a serial number, it won't be needed.

That said, if you **** up with a firearm, you should have a devastating prison sentence, and prison should go back to being a horrible miserable place.
 
Last edited:
You are just making stuff up now. less people are killed with the crap your side calls "military grade rifles" than with baseball bats, knives and hammers

That doesn't matter. It's only excuse making on your part.

Btw, you might check with the CDC. I think I saw death by firearms the fifth leading cause of death (might be related to an age group). Any, only if you're curious.
 
the public can own fully automatic weapons, they must pay a tax stamp, and undergo a more intense background check.......but who has $15,000 for an automatic weapon?

I'm sure there are people, but most of us have no need for one.
 
Last edited:
over 12,000 people were murdered last year, 49 % were killed with hands guns.

2.5 % were killed with rifles.

6% were killed by fist from a physical beating.

4% from things like bats and hammers.
 
over 12,000 people were murdered last year, 49 % were killed with hands guns.

2.5 % were killed with rifles.

6% were killed by fist from a physical beating.

4% from things like bats and hammers.
84.63% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
 
True. And that is why we have to constantly revisit these things. The foundering fathers never expected us to stop thinking.

No seriously, why don't stories of online bullying spur a call to limit braod-band connections? "You don't need 30rnds to hunt" = "you don't need a 15/25 connection to check your e-mail"

And then we'll get into the debate about broad-band, and morons will mix up the terms and call "megabytes-per-second" "WiFi's per-second" and tell you to get a criminal backround check for a D-link.

****ing retarded.
 
Last edited:
That doesn't matter. It's only excuse making on your part.

Btw, you might check with the CDC. I think I saw death by firearms the fifth leading cause of death (might be related to an age group). Any, only if you're curious.

rights of honest people are not held hostage by the actions of criminals
 
No seriously, why don't stories of online bullying spur a call to limit braod-band connections? "You don't need 30rnds to hunt" = "you don't need a 15/25 connection to check your e-mail"

Online bullying actually spur a lot of calls for change, so you might want to pick another example. I am not sure we need too much done differently on gun laws, but I'd be more on the side of gun proponents f they didn't go silly, resend that there isn't a problem, and tried harder to be a voice of reason. A case can be made from your IDE without all hat nonsense. The CDC which puts out some of those statistics do a better job with your argument that your side does.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom