• 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
ernst barkmann said:
no... the BOR has never been amended,
Click to expand...
I mean the consitution has

the BOR, was written and passed after the u.s. Constitution, in 1789 and ratified in 1791.
Click to expand...
Ok...


rights are unalienable.....they cannot be repealed.
Click to expand...
No they are not. The only unalienable rights are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The bill of rights can be amended.. It very much can. Where does it say we cannot?
It will take 2/3 both of the house and senate.
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

those were fully automatic weapons
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I mean the consitution has


Ok...



No they are not. The only unalienable rights are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The bill of rights can be amended.. It very much can. Where does it say we cannot?
It will take 2/3 both of the house and senate.
Click to expand...


what does ----->unalienable<------- mean to you?

the BOR was not in existence when the constitution was written or passed.

rights do not come from government, we have natural rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which translates into property----from constitutional teachers

how can government take rights away when they are not the giver of them?
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

The LA shootout, of many years ago, pointed out that criminals could easily out gun "conventional" police units, thus we have SWAT and "tactical response" teams in place for these rare, yet nasty, situations. The use of body armor and "heavy" guns by criminals is still quite rare, it took no such thing to salughter little school children herded into a gym.

The law changes now sought have NOTHING to do with a specific crime, and have EVERYTHING to do with increasing gov't control and reducing individual rights. To assert that our federal gov't can declare itself in charge based upon the failure of a state/local gov't to adequately perform a police function is INSANE.

Just what federal law/power do you assert is involved in private sales of guns WITHIN the boundaries of a state? Federal law states that one may not sell/transfer a firearm OUTSIDE of your state or to a person known (or that may be reasonably expected) to be felon or insane. That does not mean that the federal gov't can now mandate that ALL sales of guns/ammo are under complete federal control or that they can impose a $50 tax on a gun/ammo "transfer".

At some point that "reasonable restriction" clearly becomes an "infringement"; note that for voting that "point" is said (by many liberals) to be simply requiring a valid, state issued, photo ID (one time cost of about $25, or less, every 4 to 6 years).
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
what does ----->unalienable<------- mean to you?
Click to expand...
Where does it say that the bill of rights are unalienable?


the BOR was not in existence when the constitution was written or passed.
Click to expand...
Its still considered part of the constitution.


rights do not come from government, we have natural rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,
Click to expand...
THOSE ARE THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS!

which translates into property----from constitutional teachers
Click to expand...
Huge debate over this but ok


how can government take rights away when they are not the giver of them?
Click to expand...
Read the constitution can amend the constitution! Its in the freaking constitution in which the BOR is apart of, they didnt say "oh and you can amend everything here, oh except the BOR".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The LA shootout, of many years ago, pointed out that criminals could easily out gun "conventional" police units, thus we have SWAT and "tactical response" teams in place for these rare, yet nasty, situations. The use of body armor and "heavy" guns by criminals is still quite rare, it took no such thing to salughter little school children herded into a gym.

The law changes now sought have NOTHING to do with a specific crime, and have EVERYTHING to do with increasing gov't control and reducing individual rights. To assert that our federal gov't can declare itself in charge based upon the failure of a state/local gov't to adequately perform a police function is INSANE.

Just what federal law/power do you assert is involved in private sales of guns WITHIN the boundaries of a state? Federal law states that one may not sell/transfer a firearm OUTSIDE of your state or to a person known (or that may be reasonably expected) to be felon or insane. That does not mean that the federal gov't can now mandate that ALL sales of guns/ammo are under complete federal control or that they can impose a $50 tax on a gun/ammo "transfer".

At some point that "reasonable restriction" clearly becomes an "infringement"; note that for voting that "point" is said (by many liberals) to be simply requiring a valid, state issued, photo ID (one time cost of about $25, or less, every 4 to 6 years).
Click to expand...

I ute disagree. I don't think it is that well thoughtful. By and large, police support UHC bans because of the risks they present. Most of the public neither as nor desires such weapons. So, when such tragedies happen, going back to a previous, largely accepted ban s politically expedient. Has wide spread support. And does help lessen the risk for police officers(not do away with it).
 
Boo Radley said:
I ute disagree. I don't think it is that well thoughtful. By and large, police support UHC bans because of the risks they present. Most of the public neither as nor desires such weapons. So, when such tragedies happen, going back to a previous, largely accepted ban s politically expedient. Has wide spread support. And does help lessen the risk for police officers(not do away with it).
Click to expand...

There are more murders committed with hammers than all rifles. Widespread support or not, you have a Constitutional right to keep and bear a hammer, yet we are not seeking hammer control (since too many "good guys" like them) only trying to limit the type (cosmetically) of a rifle that may be (made new) after some future date. The ban does not address any caliber, firing rate or any balistic property of the "AW", only the number of rounds in a single (exchangable) magazine, which is silly at best. It also made a magazine capacity law that is unenforcable, since nobody can discern when a magazine was made (or extended) to hold more than 10 rounds. Limitting the "new sale" of anything is useless, as we have seen with cocaine, heroin, meth and marijuana. Almost any moron with a welding rig, sheet metal and a spring can make a 30 round magazine, and I doubt that even CSI can tell you when it was made, or by whom. Get real!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
There are more murders committed with hammers than all rifles. Widespread support or not, you have a Constitutional right to keep and bear a hammer, yet we are not seeking hammer control (since too many "good guys" like them) only trying to limit the type (cosmetically) of a rifle that may be (made new) after some future date. The ban does not address any caliber, firing rate or any balistic property of the "AW", only the number of rounds in a single (exchangable) magazine, which is silly at best. It also made a magazine capacity law that is unenforcable, since nobody can discern when a magazine was made (or extended) to hold more than 10 rounds. Limitting the "new sale" of anything is useless, as we have seen with cocaine, heroin, meth and marijuana. Almost any moron with a welding rig, sheet metal and a spring can make a 30 round magazine, and I doubt that even CSI can tell you when it was made, or by whom. Get real!
Click to expand...

I don't believe that. And they'd have stopped a hammer wielder at the school, in LA they would have ended that quick, so in the context of the argument I laid out, hammer murderers are not a concern. An there I zero commitment in the country to make the sale of everything imaginable legal. We have and will continue to have restrictions.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't believe that. And they'd have stopped a hammer wielder at the school, in LA they would have ended that quick, so in the context of the argument I laid out, hammer murderers are not a concern. An there I zero commitment in the country to make the sale of everything imaginable legal. We have and will continue to have restrictions.
Click to expand...

Suppose the the CT shooter had access to only 10, 10-round magazines (along with the other two guns he had), he still could have herded plenty of little kids into a school gym and executed them. An elementary school kid, or even an unarmed teacher, is not going to disarm/disable a maniac with ANY type of gun in the seconds it takes to drop/swap a magazine. Even less likely if they have a backup gun as well.

Having an added federal gun ban violation charge to a mass murder is not going to make ANY difference. Placing a no stealing allowed sign does not deter burglars. Placing a gun free zone sign on a school does not stop mass murderers and selling no more scary black rifles is not going to either. Criminals do not obey laws, its just not in their nature. Do you seriously think that federally baning recreational drugs made them less available? I don't believe that!
 
Last edited:
earthworm said:
I'd say that there is a one in a hundred thousand chance that any sane man would "give up" his gun ownership.
And this is the last thing that "non-gun lovers" want....
All we want is decent control and no more assault weapons for the man on the street....period.....
We, like the conservatives , do have our fringers, our extremists....they merit being ignored.
Click to expand...

And much more, on your side, you have flat-out ignorance and lies.

Since you advocate “no more assault weapons for the man on the street”, can you tell us what an “assault weapon” is, and what make sit any more dangerous, any more suited to criminal use, and any less suited to legitimate use, than some comparable gun that is not an “assault weapon”?

I didn't think so.
 
Jerry said:
You don't own your home. That's something you'll find out when America defaults on it's debt and the government seizes personal assets to pay for it. You may have some pretty paper with your name on it, but you don't own a damn thing.
Click to expand...

That's how government primarily funds most of its activities now, and how it always has—by seizing people's assets. It's called “taxation”. And when it reaches the extreme that you've described, that what they will still call it.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Yeah more tough-talk. You're full of it. You won't pull the trigger. You know it, I know it. You won't do it. When the cop is there in the flesh, you'll puss out. When the NG shows up, you won't pull the trigger because if you do your whole family will die by the .50cal parked in the street. You won't do it. You'll hand in your guns to save them.

And no, it won't be me on the .50cal. I'll refuse the order and be in Fort Leavenworth with some buddies, but others will obey the order.

You won't do it.
Click to expand...

At this point, you're describing a scenario in which the government is openly making war on its own citizens, and in which the citizens will be too cowardly to fight back. I hope you're not right about the general cowardice of the people; if you are, then this nation is truly lost. I have to think that if it really gets down to the scenario that you describe, that a great many people will fight back, and a great many of the government's soldiers will recognize what is going on, and will choose to fulfill their true duties to the Constitution and to the people. Perhaps there will be a few relative cowards among them, who will choose to rot in prison rather than take part in the war, but hopefully, there will be many more who will seize what weapons and materials they can, and use them to defend the people that their duties and their oath obligate them to defend, against the corrupt, treasonous soldiers who choose to make war against their own countrymen.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the people are denied militarily effective firearms, how could they possible form a militia, which is necessary for the security of a free state?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Suppose the the CT shooter had access to only 10, 10-round magazines (along with the other two guns he had), he still could have herded plenty of little kids into a school gym and executed them. An elementary school kid, or even an unarmed teacher, is not going to disarm/disable a maniac with ANY type of gun in the seconds it takes to drop/swap a magazine. Even less likely if they have a backup gun as well.

Having an added federal gun ban violation charge to a mass murder is not going to make ANY difference. Placing a no stealing allowed sign does not deter burglars. Placing a gun free zone sign on a school does not stop mass murderers and selling no more scary black rifles is not going to either. Criminals do not obey laws, its just not in their nature. Do you seriously think that federally baning recreational drugs made them less available? I don't believe that!
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But Ive never said it would cure all ills. I believe I used the phrase a little safer for police. Nor did I say banning drugs ended all drug problems. Likely doing so helps in some areas and makes other areas worse, largely a wash. I also think I said that as a country we were not going to stop limiting access to some things. This is true no matter what you or I think about it.
 
Federalist said:
If the people are denied militarily effective firearms, how could they possible form a militia, which is necessary for the security of a free state?
Click to expand...

That was true once. Not today. We have an effective military. If we had to resort to armed violence today, kiss it all good bye. The world is very different, and it would end badly for all of us. We need to rely on things other than weapons.
 
Jerry said:
I'm tossing the bull**** flag on everyone who says they wouldn't comply.
Click to expand...

I won't comply. Toss whatever dumbass flag you want.
 
Jerry said:
I'm tossing the bull**** flag on everyone who says they wouldn't comply. No shots were fired in 1987, they were registered, people complied, and so will you. I've seen how civilians react when there's a couple gun trucks with .50cal machine guns parked outside their house. When offered the hand-out or the bullet, civilians take the hand-out every time. You're all full of ****. America has already lost because America has accepted the government hand-out. So have the States. Internet tough-guys :lol: you will cave to the almighty hand-out in the end.
Click to expand...

Toss all you want, Jerry. You are assuming (and you know what they say when someone assumes!) that all people are ignorant and spineless. That is a huge mistake. I believe our government would probably agree with you... that will be their downfall if it comes to blows.

I'm also confused about what 'internet tough guys' is supposed to mean, since it seems you are playing that card yourself... since you're pretty certain people will roll over and give what is rightfully theirs to the big daddy government.

You underestimate people - and that is dangerous.
 
Boo Radley said:
Perhaps. But Ive never said it would cure all ills. I believe I used the phrase a little safer for police. Nor did I say banning drugs ended all drug problems. Likely doing so helps in some areas and makes other areas worse, largely a wash. I also think I said that as a country we were not going to stop limiting access to some things. This is true no matter what you or I think about it.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Now you will assert that restricting the Constitutional rights of the entrie civilian popualtion is justified by perhaps making a few local gov't employees a little safer? That is clearly neither a federal responsibility nor a federal power granted by the Constitution. Making local LEOs "a little safer" is a local or, at best, a state issue; even so, local and state laws cannot "bend" the Constitutional protections afforded to all citizens in the bill of rights.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
I'm also confused about what 'internet tough guys' is supposed to mean, since it seems you are playing that card yourself... since you're pretty certain people will roll over and give what is rightfully theirs to the big daddy government.

You underestimate people - and that is dangerous.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it's much of an underestimation. Many people willingly cede their personal power to the government, in exchange for monetary security. It's the same premise I see people use regularly, to justify pouring billions of dollars into welfare programs. When someone proposes cutting off the money flow, what is a typical response?- expectations that if we did so, people would become essentially marauding thieves, creating mayhem in the streets.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you kidding me? Now you will assert that restricting the Constitutional rights of the entrie civilian popualtion is justified by perhaps making a few local gov't employees a little safer? That is clearly neither a federal responsibility nor a federal power granted by the Constitution. Making local LEOs "a little safer" is a local or, at best, a state issue; even so, local and state laws cannot "bend" the Constitutional protections afforded to all citizens in the bill of rights.
Click to expand...

I do not believe Constitutional rights are being infringed. That's the first thing. Secondly, such minor restrictions for a relatively small effect is reasonable. Again, being as there is no pressing need, nor even a huge desire, such a minor restriction is hardly troublesome. It effects a small number, and has a small effect. Again, reasonable.
 
Boo Radley said:
I do not believe Constitutional rights are being infringed. That's the first thing. Secondly, such minor restrictions for a relatively small effect is reasonable. Again, being as there is no pressing need, nor even a huge desire, such a minor restriction is hardly troublesome. It effects a small number, and has a small effect. Again, reasonable.
Click to expand...

All of the above, is incorrect.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not convinced. In what circumstance?
Click to expand...

How about in circumstances like this one, where the Government is ussurping the Rights of The People.

Boo Radley said:
I do not believe Constitutional rights are being infringed. That's the first thing. Secondly, such minor restrictions for a relatively small effect is reasonable. Again, being as there is no pressing need, nor even a huge desire, such a minor restriction is hardly troublesome. It effects a small number, and has a small effect. Again, reasonable.
Click to expand...

Didn't Ben Franklin say something about Liberty and Safety? These "minor restrictions" (which I don't believe are minor at all) are the first steps down a road that it will be almost impossible to backtrack from. Once you allow this sort of thing to start with "reasonable" restrictions (as we did in 1934), it only gets worse. It never gets better.

The "small" effect.... I know at least a half dozen individuals in the State of New York who are now actively seeking to move out of that State and into Pennsylvania as quickly as they possibly can. Including one who took today off from work as a nurse to begin moving her firearms out of the State before the new law takes effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom