• 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
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.

Exactly. Action to repeal a law, which is unconstitutional in nature, rarely gets done in Congress, and typically requires SCOTUS action. Power and authority are tightly gripped by those in possession of it, and the impulse to gain more power and authority always exists, as it's the very nature of government. To expect congress to retract a former legislative decision, is to expect them to admit they were wrong, and that isn't likely to happen.
 
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.

How is banning the production and sale of a product, legal to be kept and born by some (that now own them, or work for the state), not infringement? Rights are not based on "need", or based on how many actually exercise them, that is some mighty twisted logic. You have no "need" to vote, you have no "need" to petition/protest the gov't yet you certainly retain the right to do so (whether you chose to do so in the past or not) in the future, just as all other citzens do. To say that all that now own a scary black rifle (SBR) are free to do so (forever), yet no citizen not so "blessed" will no longer have that right is hardly "equal protection under the law". If I now own a SBR how is it "fair" that I may freely keep or sell it, yet you may not buy a SBR that was not made before an arbitrary gov't defned date? Can you give me any example of another individual Constitutional right that was "phased" in or out for some, yet not applied equally to all?
 
Exactly. Action to repeal a law, which is unconstitutional in nature, rarely gets done in Congress, and typically requires SCOTUS action. Power and authority are tightly gripped by those in possession of it, and the impulse to gain more power and authority always exists, as it's the very nature of government. To expect congress to retract a former legislative decision, is to expect them to admit they were wrong, and that isn't likely to happen.

True. The even more unfortunate problem is that the SCOTUS has only been right about half the time that they've ruled on Second Amendment issues, and in fact they are the ones who started us down this road back in 1934.
 
I'm not convinced. In what circumstance?

In order to maintain a Free State. A well organized militia is a necessity to keeping a Free State.
 
Where does it say that the bill of rights are unalienable?

the DOI states:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...........((it also states)).."That to ---->secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

saying government mission duty..... its primary function..----------->is to PROTECT rights.

you are born with your rights, they come from our humanity, not from government, our natural rights exist before the u.s. government was ever created.

what is natural?

the right:

to speech
to pray
to assemble
defend yourself in the physical sense or against those who would accuse you.
be secure in your person
be secure in your property
these are just a few of the things which you had before the u.s. government.

the people came first, then the constitution, and last the federal government.


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".

since rights are unalienable, meaning they cant be taken from you, ...how can an amendments be used to take them away........since government does not grant rights............that is basics of understanding the constitution.

if government was the granter of rights, then the people would be the servants, and the government the master..america would have been created as an Oligarchy ..........their would be no government of the people.
 
How about in circumstances like this one, where the Government is ussurping the Rights of The People.

There are not enough guns to confront the US military, nor is there the outrage to even suggest it would happen. Sorry.

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.

Franklin's comment was much more appropriate to the abuses we did during the Afghan and Iraq wars than here. And anyone is free to move anytime they want. I've lived inner city and never need a gun. If I did, I would have already moved.
 
How is banning the production and sale of a product, legal to be kept and born by some (that now own them, or work for the state), not infringement? Rights are not based on "need", or based on how many actually exercise them, that is some mighty twisted logic. You have no "need" to vote, you have no "need" to petition/protest the gov't yet you certainly retain the right to do so (whether you chose to do so in the past or not) in the future, just as all other citzens do. To say that all that now own a scary black rifle (SBR) are free to do so (forever), yet no citizen not so "blessed" will no longer have that right is hardly "equal protection under the law". If I now own a SBR how is it "fair" that I may freely keep or sell it, yet you may not buy a SBR that was not made before an arbitrary gov't defned date? Can you give me any example of another individual Constitutional right that was "phased" in or out for some, yet not applied equally to all?

when banned, not really legal. That said, you mentioned state interest, and I gave you a state interest. "Need" was mentioned in the context of why there won't be much backlash. There are not enough who care. and they don't care because they have no need. Nor is there a constitutional right to own whatever weapon you want. The courts have repeatedly ruled that guns may be regulated, which includes what type you may own.
 
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.

Excuse me, whether or not YOU believe MY rights are not being infringed is inmaterial to ME. I believe they are and for me, MY opinion is the one that counts.
 
In order to maintain a Free State. A well organized militia is a necessity to keeping a Free State.

I know the words:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

However, we're discussing this comment:

Maybe not, but we still need a citizen militia in general.

So, I want a more specific response to the issue we're discussing.
 
Excuse me, whether or not YOU believe MY rights are not being infringed is inmaterial to ME. I believe they are and for me, MY opinion is the one that counts.

Yes, I know a fellow who thinks it's his right to marry another fellow. I know another person who thinks it's is right to have crack. And there is even a fellow who thinks his free right to stand naked and pee at any local eating establishment. But, we have restrictions all the same. Some with better reasons than others. Some I too would stand up and fight to change. You're free to argue this is one of them. But, it is just a fact you won't get much support.
 
Yes, I know a fellow who thinks it's his right to marry another fellow. I know another person who thinks it's is right to have crack. And there is even a fellow who thinks his free right to stand naked and pee at any local eating establishment. But, we have restrictions all the same. Some with better reasons than others. Some I too would stand up and fight to change. You're free to argue this is one of them. But, it is just a fact you won't get much support.

Your right about that in regards to support. To be honest though, I dont really need it.
 
I know the words:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

However, we're discussing this comment:

Maybe not, but we still need a citizen militia in general.

So, I want a more specific response to the issue we're discussing.

It's rather obvious, is it not? The militia is a necessity to keep a free state. It may be that in our current age the necessity of the militia to fight foreign invaders has waned quite a bit; but that doesn't mean that it is absolved of all duty. The militia represents the ultimate check on the Government by the People and it's health and continuation is an important aspect in keeping a Free State.
 
First, I don't think is a realistic outcome of the current gun control debate. But I have seen many claim that if the day did come, that gun owners would overwhelmingly comply and hand in their guns. I request that only people who either currently own a firearm or have in the past vote in the poll, but obviously all are welcome to post and discuss it.

Where is ANYONE asking you to turn in your handguns, rifles, pistols?

Why is it so unreasonable to require EVERY sale of a gun, etc to be registered?

Where outside of Iraq and Afghanistan do semi-automatic, automatic and repeating rifles belong?
 
Why is it so unreasonable to require EVERY sale of a gun, etc to be registered?

Because full registration makes confiscation oh so much easier. Do you really not understand that it's not the government's business if you own a gun, assuming that you are not a violent felon or criminally insane?
 
Where is ANYONE asking you to turn in your handguns, rifles, pistols?

Why is it so unreasonable to require EVERY sale of a gun, etc to be registered?

There are mass graves all over the world that filled with the bodies of people who became all too familiar with the government three-step:

1. Registration 2. Confiscation 3. Extermination.

Step 3 cannot be accomplished without step 2. And step 2 cannot be completed without step 1.

Where outside of Iraq and Afghanistan do semi-automatic, automatic and repeating rifles belong?

In the hands of the American people, so that if necessary they can organized into a well-regulated militia, which is necessary to the security of a free state.
 
It's rather obvious, is it not? The militia is a necessity to keep a free state. It may be that in our current age the necessity of the militia to fight foreign invaders has waned quite a bit; but that doesn't mean that it is absolved of all duty. The militia represents the ultimate check on the Government by the People and it's health and continuation is an important aspect in keeping a Free State.

I quite disagree. The problems of the modern state are not effectively dealt with by use of arms. The state overwhelmingly out arms the citizentery. I can't think of a single possible event where an armed militia would really matter or take the place of the National Guard or police.
 
Your right about that in regards to support. To be honest though, I dont really need it.

You may not, but stopping passage of a law you don't like largely depends on it. The courts have supported many restrictions in the past.
 
There are mass graves all over the world that filled with the bodies of people who became all too familiar with the government three-step:

1. Registration 2. Confiscation 3. Extermination.

Step 3 cannot be accomplished without step 2. And step 2 cannot be completed without step 1.



In the hands of the American people, so that if necessary they can organized into a well-regulated militia, which is necessary to the security of a free state.

I'd like proof of that. how about a link of information on this?

And I bet there are more dead children from the US due to guns than ALL those others you allege.
 
I'd like proof of that. how about a link of information on this?

And I bet there are more dead children from the US due to guns than ALL those others you allege.

that's just plain moronic. and many of those Children killed in gun violence are gang bangers killed by other gang bangers-the brady turds count people up to age 25 as "children" in their statistics. You might as well count all the 18-22 year old infantrymen killed in vietnam as "victims of gun violence" too
 
I quite disagree. The problems of the modern state are not effectively dealt with by use of arms. The state overwhelmingly out arms the citizentery. I can't think of a single possible event where an armed militia would really matter or take the place of the National Guard or police.

Revolution would be the event where armed militia really mattered.

You may disagree all you want. Truth is that revolution is not a dynamic you engage in willy nilly, it's a serious effort to free yourself from an oppressive government. And you're never 100% sure what you're going to get on the other side, revolt is rather chaotic. All government is prone to corruption, and all men have right to defend their life, liberty, and property. The militia plays an important role in the servo of government. It's the trump card, the ace in the hole, it remains proper tool and duty of the People should the government err too long against our liberty and rights. It's necessary, else government has nothing to keep it in check and will grow and balloon and steal everything we had fought for.

The State overwhelmingly out arms the citizenry because they have long engaged in tactic to destroy the militia. Once that's gone, nothing stops them. Even in the old aristocracies of Europe, the peasants got to lop the heads off Lords and Kings should they oppress the people too gravely for too long. Government's desires have not changed so much since then.

This is something we all need to acknowledge and accept and perform. A well regulated militia is a necessity to a free state. It is our right, it is our duty.
 
Where is ANYONE asking you to turn in your handguns, rifles, pistols?

Why is it so unreasonable to require EVERY sale of a gun, etc to be registered?

Where outside of Iraq and Afghanistan do semi-automatic, automatic and repeating rifles belong?

I never said anyone was trying to, and I made it clear that I don't think this will happen in the near future. This is just a hypothetical based on claims made in various gun control threads. Do you understand the term semi automatic? Nearly all rifles are semi automatic, you seems to have it confused with the scary black assault weapons.
 
I'd like proof of that. how about a link of information on this?

And I bet there are more dead children from the US due to guns than ALL those others you allege.

"I bet" implies that you have done no research on the matter and are just guessing. Why should anyone take your opinion on this matter seriously if you haven't bothered to look into it yourself?
 
I agree with Jerry. Most people are pushovers because they were not raised with the militia traditon that Ikari described. Children are not even taught in schools from an early age what is necessary to protect a free State, it's up to the parents and local communities to do that.

The public does not have military grade weapons anymore. Even if only 30% of the military stays loyal to the government, that still poses a huge problem.

If gun controls are put into place, there might be some initial resistance but most people will roll over, especially if guns are aimed at their families. The government has been eroding militas for years now, so unless they have some super secret cache of pre-1987 military weapons in their arsenal, it's going to be mostly individuals challenging gun laws and individuals don't stand a chance.

If this economic system lasts, then the 21st century is going to see slavery of the likes this world has never known. The first step will be removing guns from the only modern Democratic Republic who has fairly free access to them. The U.S. is already teetering on fascism but once the process is complete then the rest of the democratic world will follow. EVERYONE is watching what we do right now. The coming years are going to matter on a global scale.

Follow the money and you will know the real reasons why this is all happening.
 
Back
Top Bottom