• 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
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...
Where's our "internet-free zones" hmm?

And don't post a pic of the forest because I have Verizon and can probably still get a signal out there on my Droid.
 
Jerry said:
Where's our "internet-free zones" hmm?

And don't post a pic of the forest because I have Verizon and can probably still get a signal out there on my Droid.
Click to expand...

You may want to investigate that more.
 
Jerry said:
Where's our "internet-free zones" hmm?

And don't post a pic of the forest because I have Verizon and can probably still get a signal out there on my Droid.
Click to expand...

lol You obviously dont leave the confines of a city much do you?
 
Jerry said:
I may want to start ignoring your stupid posts too.
Click to expand...

Boo's posts on gun issues tend to be passive-aggressive attempts to not state his real positions which would quickly be destroyed by empirical evidence. His current argument-that misuse of guns by people who violate the law by merely possessing them would cause the founders to change the parameters of the NATURAL RIGHT they presumed existed without the government is incredibly ignorant of the assumptions upon which this nation's supreme law was based
 
Jerry said:
I may want to start ignoring your stupid posts too.
Click to expand...

Your choice, you've misquoted them enough. But you're missing point. Internet bullying has in fact spurred calls for change. You thought you were clever, but your response was more edge than anything else.
 
TurtleDude said:
Boo's posts on gun issues tend to be passive-aggressive attempts to not state his real positions which would quickly be destroyed by empirical evidence. His current argument-that misuse of guns by people who violate the law by merely possessing them would cause the founders to change the parameters of the NATURAL RIGHT they presumed existed without the government is incredibly ignorant of the assumptions upon which this nation's supreme law was based
Click to expand...

You're still just making excuses for not being able to form a coherent rebuttal.
 
TurtleDude said:
so you think rights change due to the actions of criminals?
Click to expand...

No. I think you mistake the right as absolute when it isn't. Regulations or limitations have long since been deemed acceptable, and much of the original rational for the amendment no longer applies. We no longer need a citizen militia need to call on for time f war. Add to the advancement in technology, the modern army, and it s unlikely they wood have rotten that amendment today.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're still just making excuses for not being able to form a coherent rebuttal.
Click to expand...

your posts are blatantly dishonest on this subject and no matter what is presented you would say the same nonsense. You are making up what you think the founders would say NOW while ignoring what they said clearly when they were alive

i have their words and letters-you basically make up stuff because what they actually said supports my position-that people like me have the same weapons that infantry soldiers have
 
boo radley said:
no. I think you mistake the right as absolute when it isn't. Regulations or limitations have long since been deemed acceptable, and much of the original rational for the amendment no longer applies. We no longer need a citizen militia need to call on for time f war. Add to the advancement in technology, the modern army, and it s unlikely they wood have rotten that amendment today.
Click to expand...

wth?????????????
 
TurtleDude said:
your posts are blatantly dishonest on this subject and no matter what is presented you would say the same nonsense. You are making up what you think the founders would say NOW while ignoring what they said clearly when they were alive

i have their words and letters-you basically make up stuff because what they actually said supports my position-that people like me have the same weapons that infantry soldiers have
Click to expand...

I properly noted that it is what I think they would say. And I explained why. There is nothing dishonest about that. You often leave the logical discussion to rant. I have assumed hat must be your tactic for a week argument on your art.
 
Boo Radley said:
I properly noted that it is what I think they would say. And I explained why. There is nothing dishonest about that. You often leave the logical discussion to rant. I have assumed hat must be your tactic for a week argument on your art.
Click to expand...

LOL that is just priceless from a guy whose main tactic on guns in insinuating gun owners are silly and don't need guns and refuses to take solid stands on the issues
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL that is just priceless from a guy whose main tactic on guns in insinuating gun owners are silly and don't need guns and refuses to take solid stands on the issues
Click to expand...

Live never done that. I have said that on this forum silly arguments have been presented and some seem to be over scared. I can only react to the arguments your side makes. And I have made my position clear. At don't support a ban on all guns, but have no problem with. Semi automatic ban. What don't you understand?
 
Boo Radley said:
Live never done that. I have said that on this forum silly arguments have been presented and some seem to be over scared. I can only react to the arguments your side makes. And I have made my position clear. At don't support a ban on all guns, but have no problem with. Semi automatic ban. What don't you understand?
Click to expand...

that's a cowardly position-to say you don't have a problem with a major infringement on rights but you refuse to support it
 
TurtleDude said:
that's a cowardly position-to say you don't have a problem with a major infringement on rights but you refuse to support it
Click to expand...

You described ambivalence, not cowardice.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's a cowardly position-to say you don't have a problem with a major infringement on rights but you refuse to support it
Click to expand...

I don't consider it a major infringement. Just because you do doesn't make it one. I consider it so minor as to not warrant either support nor protest.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. I think you mistake the right as absolute when it isn't. Regulations or limitations have long since been deemed acceptable, and much of the original rational for the amendment no longer applies. We no longer need a citizen militia need to call on for time f war. Add to the advancement in technology, the modern army, and it s unlikely they wood have rotten that amendment today.
Click to expand...

Two problems with your "I doubt" or "you mistake" theory of Constitutional law.

The reason for an armed citizenry was to be free of enslavement by ANY gov't run amok, not simply a foreign one. Many were afraid of even our own fledgling federal gov't, and that was what sprked the notion of adding a bill of rights, to limit the federal (and state) gov't to grow too powerful. These amendments are all limits on gov't power; that was their entire purpose.

Regulations and limitations to our Constitutional, individual rights must pass the "strict scutiny" test as being the least restrictive method of enforcing a "compelling state interest". They are not simply anything goes powers, up to restricting the right of thea last "qualified" priavet citizen. To assert that simply because something is abused by criminals, means that it should be regulated or banned for all is insane. With more people killed by hammers than any rifle (much less only the evil, short, black, scary ones) it makes no sense to ban or greatly restrict their sale or transport (over that of hammers).
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Uhhh amendments in the constitution and the BOR can be repealed.. This has been done before..
Click to expand...


no... the BOR has never been amended, the BOR, was written and passed after the u.s. Constitution, in 1789 and ratified in 1791.

rights are unalienable.....they cannot be repealed.

a Constitution amendment to the Constitution is only in the hands of governments because they cast the votes, rights are not in the hands of government, because they do not grants rights...they only secure rights
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Two problems with your "I doubt" theory of Constitutional law.

The reason for an armed citizenry was to be free of enslavement by ANY gov't run amok, not simply a foreign one. Many were afraid of even our own fledgling federal gov't, and that was what sprked the notion of adding a bill of rights, to limit the federal (and state) gov't to grow too powerful. These amendments are all limits on gov't power; that was their entire purpose.

Regulations and limitations to our Constitutional, individual rights must pass the "strict scutiny" test as being the least restrictive method of enforcing a "compelling state interest". They are not simply anything goes powers, up to restricting the right of thea last "qualified" priavet citizen. To assert that simply because something is abused by criminals, means that it should be regulated or banned for all is insane. With more people killed by hammers than any rifle (much less only the evil, short, black, scary ones) it makes no sense to ban or greatly restrict their sale or transport (over that of hammers).
Click to expand...

While I think you have a lot of the thought essentially correct, the amendment itself was not meant to oppose us government.

Nor would I frame the state interest argument as you do. But you are doing the better job of arguing.

If I would take the state side of the interest argument, I would focus on the problem with too many semi automatics available and the danger to both officials and citizens. The LA shoot out some years ago comes to mind as an example of the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom