• 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!

Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 13.2%
  • No

    Votes: 33 86.8%

  • Total voters
    38
Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number of people killed by guns each year equals more than 10 9/11's. More than 2/3's are suicides.

Several times a year a massacre like the ones perpetuated at Aurora and Newtown kill more people than the Boston Marathon Bombing.

The threat of violence has made large parts of many cities off-limits to outsiders.

Four US presidents have been assassinated by an assassin's bullet. Attempts have been made on 11 presidents in all.

The NRA suggests the solution is arming more people with more guns. In a war this would be known as "escalation."

Terrorism is an ideological threat to the US, but domestic gun violence is as much or more pressing a concern that inevitably results in more loss of life.

Should Gun Violence be re-prioritized as a Homeland Security issue?

Absolutely not, it's one of our rights. Just because some abuse their rights doesn't mean we all should suffer. How about showing some concern about WHY people want to kill one another instead of the tools they use to accomplish it.
 
Yep, "wields."



You can't debate something when your position is it's not debatable. You're just shutting down the discussion.



More guns, less gun owners (by %).

that is not a claim that can be proven. Many people aren't admitting to gun ownership. ask any firearms trainer or a big dealer-tons of new people buying guns
 
You can't debate something when your position is it's not debatable. You're just shutting down the discussion.

I am debating my position but I am not "compromising" on the issue. I say no to losing our rights on the installment plan.
 
anonymous polls suck, I want to see who the three fans of more government are
 
I would vote for you for King, but Homeland Security does work with local law enforcement now anyway.

The DHS has a pointless existence. It was created out fear.
 
Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number of people killed by guns each year equals more than 10 9/11's. More than 2/3's are suicides.

Several times a year a massacre like the ones perpetuated at Aurora and Newtown kill more people than the Boston Marathon Bombing.

The threat of violence has made large parts of many cities off-limits to outsiders.

Four US presidents have been assassinated by an assassin's bullet. Attempts have been made on 11 presidents in all.

The NRA suggests the solution is arming more people with more guns. In a war this would be known as "escalation."

Terrorism is an ideological threat to the US, but domestic gun violence is as much or more pressing a concern that inevitably results in more loss of life.

Should Gun Violence be re-prioritized as a Homeland Security issue?

Sorry but we don't need a new version of the Gestapo in the United States. Your argument is disingenuous. It has already been shown that violent crime is reduced in locales where citizens are known to carry personal firearms. The dangers in "many cities" you speak of seem to occur in those cities where criminals know they are the only ones aside from law enforcment who are carrying guns.

Besides, a person bent on violence will use any means necessary to complete that act, from homemade bombs to bows and arrows. There are literally dozens of common household items I can use to kill or main someone if I chose to. Of course your argument will be the same old refrain used by gun control advocates; "Why make it easier when eliminating guns from the equation will make us safer?"

Make us safer? Not from criminals and terrorists who don't obey the laws we already have anyway! Not from government agencies who already trample all over individual rights in their zeal to justify their salaries and mission objectives. Simply labeling a person a "terrorist" currently strips a citizen of all civil rights as if they were already convicted in a court of law; and you want to increase the power and authority of Homeland Security? LOL

I think not.
 
Last edited:
Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number of people killed by guns each year equals more than 10 9/11's. More than 2/3's are suicides.

Several times a year a massacre like the ones perpetuated at Aurora and Newtown kill more people than the Boston Marathon Bombing.

The threat of violence has made large parts of many cities off-limits to outsiders.

Four US presidents have been assassinated by an assassin's bullet. Attempts have been made on 11 presidents in all.

The NRA suggests the solution is arming more people with more guns. In a war this would be known as "escalation."

Terrorism is an ideological threat to the US, but domestic gun violence is as much or more pressing a concern that inevitably results in more loss of life.

Should Gun Violence be re-prioritized as a Homeland Security issue?
Not only no, but hell no.
The number of people killed by guns each year equals more than 10 9/11's. More than 2/3's are suicides.
If the majority of gun deaths are suicide, how is suicide a "Homeland Security" issue? Besides, people kill people; guns are but one of the many tools people use to kill people. Put a gun on a table, with a magazine next to it and bullets next to that and guess what happens? Nothing. They just sit there...
Several times a year a massacre like the ones perpetuated at Aurora and Newtown kill more people than the Boston Marathon Bombing.
Four people were killed in the Boston bombing and massacres like the ones perpetuated at Aurora (15 dead) and Newtown (28 dead) are, while horrifically tragic, still quite rare. Indeed classifying ALL "massacres" in the U.S. where over 4 people were killed and the rate is about 1 every 2 years (62/30). But restrict it to comparisons with Aurora or worse, and we're talking 7 in 30 years, or 1 every 4 years.
The threat of violence has made large parts of many cities off-limits to outsiders.
City issue, not federal government issue.
Four US presidents have been assassinated by an assassin's bullet. Attempts have been made on 11 presidents in all.
What in the world does THAT have to do with terrorism, or mass shootings, or even homeland security??? Moreover, this is probably the WORST argument for gun violence possible, going to the very bottom of statistical probabilities to "make" a case.
The NRA suggests the solution is arming more people with more guns. In a war this would be known as "escalation."
No, "escalation" in war involves the increase, expansion, or intensification of hostilities. Allowing law abiding people to own guns is not a hostile act, let alone an act that would increase hostilities. Indeed, studies show just the opposite is the truth. Crime rises when the fewer law abiding citizens are allowed guns.
Terrorism is an ideological threat to the US, but domestic gun violence is as much or more pressing a concern that inevitably results in more loss of life.
Wait a minute, "domestic gun violence.... inevitably results in 'more' loss of life" --- than terrorism? Ergo, that's a Homeland Security issue???

How about this - Liberalism is an ideological threat to the US, and a demonstrably far deadlier and destructive one than either terrorism or domestic gun violence ever could be, and having wreaked far greater damage than all the shootings and terrorist acts combined. But homeland security issue? No. That's be a basic common sense issue.
 
How about this - Liberalism is an ideological threat to the US, and a demonstrably far deadlier and destructive one than either terrorism or domestic gun violence ever could be, and having wreaked far greater damage than all the shootings and terrorist acts combined. But homeland security issue? No. That's be a basic common sense issue.

Make us safer? Not from criminals and terrorists who don't obey the laws we already have anyway! Not from government agencies who already trample all over individual rights in their zeal to justify their salaries and mission objectives. Simply labeling a person a "terrorist" currently strips a citizen of all civil rights as if they were already convicted in a court of law; and you want to increase the power and authority of Homeland Security? LOL

I think not.

Do yourselves a favor and listen to an argument from pragmatist Dan Carlin, who's more libertarian than liberal.

Dan Carlin - Podcasts, Merchandise, Blog, and Community Website

What gun nuts have to understand is that every time a horrible event like Newtown comes along, however disproportionately that happens, the people that refuse to budge ground about their gun rights turn public favor against them. It's not liberals like me you need to worry about, it's Wayne LaPierre and the heads of the NRA that you should be worried about. After 1 or 2 more tragic incidents, if LaPierre continues to argue for more guns, you are going to see a new wave of gun control laws after the public outrage.

If you really want to protect your rights, you and the NRA have to lead the way, first by making an effort to decrease violence by concentrating on the people that commit the crimes, and by stigmatizing those that use guns illegally the way drunk drivers are stigmatized for abusing their right to drink.

Some of Dan Carlins ideas:

-No ban on a class of weapons, but
-Impose draconian penalties on those who use guns in a crime (automatic 30 years)
-Enact serious mental health reform to identify troubled people for medication and treatment
-The NRA should recommend a tax on new guns and ammo
-Taxes would go towards imprisonment for gun offenders and towards mental health services
-Free up space in prisons by releasing non-violent drug offenders
-Make a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the budget of Homeland Security for every tax dollar raised by gun and ammo sales (his reasoning is that violence in the US is more pressing than terrorist threats)

I think these are all sensible ways to maintain rights for responsible gun owners, deter gun violence, and care for the mentally ill, like the guy who was stopped just before shooting up another school last month.

Gun owners, you need to step up and take accountability for the misuse of guns if you REALLY want to protect the 2nd Amendment.
 
Do yourselves a favor and listen to an argument from pragmatist Dan Carlin, who's more libertarian than liberal.

Dan Carlin - Podcasts, Merchandise, Blog, and Community Website

What gun nuts have to understand is that every time a horrible event like Newtown comes along, however disproportionately that happens, the people that refuse to budge ground about their gun rights turn public favor against them. It's not liberals like me you need to worry about, it's Wayne LaPierre and the heads of the NRA that you should be worried about. After 1 or 2 more tragic incidents, if LaPierre continues to argue for more guns, you are going to see a new wave of gun control laws after the public outrage.

If you really want to protect your rights, you and the NRA have to lead the way, first by making an effort to decrease violence by concentrating on the people that commit the crimes, and by stigmatizing those that use guns illegally the way drunk drivers are stigmatized for abusing their right to drink.

Some of Dan Carlins ideas:

-No ban on a class of weapons, but
-Impose draconian penalties on those who use guns in a crime (automatic 30 years)
-Enact serious mental health reform to identify troubled people for medication and treatment
-The NRA should recommend a tax on new guns and ammo
-Taxes would go towards imprisonment for gun offenders and towards mental health services
-Free up space in prisons by releasing non-violent drug offenders
-Make a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the budget of Homeland Security for every tax dollar raised by gun and ammo sales (his reasoning is that violence in the US is more pressing than terrorist threats)

I think these are all sensible ways to maintain rights for responsible gun owners, deter gun violence, and care for the mentally ill, like the guy who was stopped just before shooting up another school last month.

Gun owners, you need to step up and take accountability for the misuse of guns if you REALLY want to protect the 2nd Amendment.

For one thing, we shouldn't have to "protect" the 2nd Amendment. It's a right whether you like it or not.

It seems to me like a lot of liberals are not really pro tougher penalties for criminals or making time in prison more unpleasant for those prisoners.

Another point is that you cannot always tell beforehand who is mentally ill. Treating someone AFTER they have already done something terrible is not preventing the massacres from happening.

All of the things you list are not failures of law-abiding citizens who happen to own guns. It is the fault of our justice system and those who think that prison for adults should be like a stay at a spa. I think most adult habitual criminals are not capable of rehabilitation, and if you think about it, it's actually gang warfare in the inner cities that kills the MOST people.

Another thing is I don't know of ONE person who makes excuses for people who commit actual crimes with guns.
 
Do yourselves a favor and listen to an argument from pragmatist Dan Carlin, who's more libertarian than liberal.

Dan Carlin - Podcasts, Merchandise, Blog, and Community Website

What gun nuts have to understand is that every time a horrible event like Newtown comes along, however disproportionately that happens, the people that refuse to budge ground about their gun rights turn public favor against them. It's not liberals like me you need to worry about, it's Wayne LaPierre and the heads of the NRA that you should be worried about. After 1 or 2 more tragic incidents, if LaPierre continues to argue for more guns, you are going to see a new wave of gun control laws after the public outrage.

If you really want to protect your rights, you and the NRA have to lead the way, first by making an effort to decrease violence by concentrating on the people that commit the crimes, and by stigmatizing those that use guns illegally the way drunk drivers are stigmatized for abusing their right to drink.

Some of Dan Carlins ideas:

-No ban on a class of weapons, but
-Impose draconian penalties on those who use guns in a crime (automatic 30 years)
-Enact serious mental health reform to identify troubled people for medication and treatment
-The NRA should recommend a tax on new guns and ammo
-Taxes would go towards imprisonment for gun offenders and towards mental health services
-Free up space in prisons by releasing non-violent drug offenders
-Make a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the budget of Homeland Security for every tax dollar raised by gun and ammo sales (his reasoning is that violence in the US is more pressing than terrorist threats)

I think these are all sensible ways to maintain rights for responsible gun owners, deter gun violence, and care for the mentally ill, like the guy who was stopped just before shooting up another school last month.

Gun owners, you need to step up and take accountability for the misuse of guns if you REALLY want to protect the 2nd Amendment.
What gun control advocates need to understand is the utter irrationality of their own arguments for gun control - some of which we've already pointed out. Not only are they irrational, they are wholly disproportionate in magnitude to many, MANY other causes of death we routinely face - tragedies gun control advocates simply ignore in favor of more sensational topics like "guns."

While it gets old having to constantly remind gun control advocates that their arguments simply don't hold water or worse, that their actions when implemented actually have the OPPOSITE effect of that which [they say] is intended, this is a topic rational people who value their freedom and liberty will not allow to go unanswered or unopposed. Moreover, I'm tired of the lame, irresponsible accusations that attempt to put the blame and onus on responsible gun owners for the tragic incidents that have happened in the past - or the veiled threats that would have us be the ones who assume responsibility for the "misuse of guns" - or the asinine innuendos "if we REALLY want to protect the 2nd Amendment."

If you want to start a dialog and establish even some semblance of credibility on this issue, you need to start addressing OUR data, OUR statistics, OUR concerns. It's ridiculously easy to refute arguments made by gun control advocates - so I understand why you don't take our offer up and respond to the refutations we make - like the ones we made in the posts above. I think you realize you can't. But not to be dissuaded from your purpose, you push on regardless, despite the overwhelmingly logical and reasonable arguments against your ideology.

The only side that needs to "step up and take accountability for the misuse" of anything... is the gun control side, which misuses statistics, which confuses emotions with reason, which takes absurdly disproportionate stances on topics they largely have no knowledge of whatsoever.

For instance, you mentioned "suicide" earlier. Do you know where suicide ranks in the list of all deaths in the US? 27. And that's ALL suicides. Did you know there are more people killed in car accidents than who kill themselves? Rank: 22.

Or how about homicide? It ranks 35th. And that's for all homicides, not just those committed with a gun.

Your argument for gun control included the snippet about threats of violence making parts of large cities off-limits to outsiders. Ever thought about why that is? Ever imagine that it might not be in part because those are cities who have banned guns? Two of the largest cities in this nation (Chicago and Wash, D.C.) have banned handguns and yet lead the pack in gun violence.

Speaking of massively disproportionate "concern:"
Wanna know where abortion - the "darling" plank of the liberal platform ranks? It ranks a firm, solid #1
Wanna know why? Because we abort more babies annually than the next top 4 causes of death combined, more than coronary heart disease, stroke, lung cancers, and lung diseases combined.
Yep - abortion, right there at the top of the liberal agenda. Er, the "woman's right to choose."

Well you're so enamored with giving women the right to choose, how about law abiding citizens? How about letting us decide whether we want to own a gun or not? Or is a little hypocrisy ok?
 
What gun control advocates need to understand is the utter irrationality of their own arguments for gun control - some of which we've already pointed out. Not only are they irrational, they are wholly disproportionate in magnitude to many, MANY other causes of death we routinely face - tragedies gun control advocates simply ignore in favor of more sensational topics like "guns."

While it gets old having to constantly remind gun control advocates that their arguments simply don't hold water or worse, that their actions when implemented actually have the OPPOSITE effect of that which [they say] is intended, this is a topic rational people who value their freedom and liberty will not allow to go unanswered or unopposed. Moreover, I'm tired of the lame, irresponsible accusations that attempt to put the blame and onus on responsible gun owners for the tragic incidents that have happened in the past - or the veiled threats that would have us be the ones who assume responsibility for the "misuse of guns" - or the asinine innuendos "if we REALLY want to protect the 2nd Amendment."

If you want to start a dialog and establish even some semblance of credibility on this issue, you need to start addressing OUR data, OUR statistics, OUR concerns. It's ridiculously easy to refute arguments made by gun control advocates - so I understand why you don't take our offer up and respond to the refutations we make - like the ones we made in the posts above. I think you realize you can't. But not to be dissuaded from your purpose, you push on regardless, despite the overwhelmingly logical and reasonable arguments against your ideology.

The only side that needs to "step up and take accountability for the misuse" of anything... is the gun control side, which misuses statistics, which confuses emotions with reason, which takes absurdly disproportionate stances on topics they largely have no knowledge of whatsoever.

For instance, you mentioned "suicide" earlier. Do you know where suicide ranks in the list of all deaths in the US? 27. And that's ALL suicides. Did you know there are more people killed in car accidents than who kill themselves? Rank: 22.

Or how about homicide? It ranks 35th. And that's for all homicides, not just those committed with a gun.

Your argument for gun control included the snippet about threats of violence making parts of large cities off-limits to outsiders. Ever thought about why that is? Ever imagine that it might not be in part because those are cities who have banned guns? Two of the largest cities in this nation (Chicago and Wash, D.C.) have banned handguns and yet lead the pack in gun violence.

Speaking of massively disproportionate "concern:"
Wanna know where abortion - the "darling" plank of the liberal platform ranks? It ranks a firm, solid #1
Wanna know why? Because we abort more babies annually than the next top 4 causes of death combined, more than coronary heart disease, stroke, lung cancers, and lung diseases combined.
Yep - abortion, right there at the top of the liberal agenda. Er, the "woman's right to choose."

Well you're so enamored with giving women the right to choose, how about law abiding citizens? How about letting us decide whether we want to own a gun or not? Or is a little hypocrisy ok?

You have not even recognized some of the suggestions for compromise in my post. Please tell me why they cannot be considered. You should listen to the linked podcast, you would hear valid opinions that seldom get attention from either side of the issue and it's a pretty good in any case.

First what you get wrong about my argument:

-I don't want your gun taken away from you, and I don't blame you and other responsible gun owners for our problem.
-I don't refute that violence is steadily declining, including gun violence
-I have listened to the arguments and I know why people choose to carry guns
-Liberals do not want gun control. Normal people want to see the problems surrounding guns addressed.

But yes, people are irrational! They are irrational when they want to ban a thing that human nature says is impossible to ban, whether that's pot, liquor, or guns. They are also irrational when they refuse to compromise on anything because it's a free country and we can't make you.

You know the thing about liberty? It is not the same for everyone. In fact, your liberty can come at the cost of my liberty, and vice versa. So when you decry your liberties being threatened, others consider their liberties being held hostage by you. That is why you cannot be an absolutist and live in a civilization. There is a trade-off with sharing society with other people.

By the way, if gun-control freaks are guilty of forgetting statistics, so are gun nuts. You think that because gun violence is declining in the US that there is no problem? Of all the countries in the world, it is the developed country with the worst record on gun violence. That's the same whether it's ranked by suicide, homicide, unintentional, or total. You might be safer in Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador, but that's nothing to write home about.

And that is just per capita. We are also the 3rd most populous country in the world. That is a lot of bodies. If you cannot see that there is a problem, then you cannot begin to address a solution.

How about another sadly forgotten statistic? If you have a gun in your house for your own defense? It's unfortunate, then, that those who do and their families are statistically more likely to die from a gun in their home. I'm not denying that they might be careful and responsible. By having a gun in their house they are statistically more likely to die from one. A person might have a gun to protect their wife or girlfriend, but the sad fact is that by living in that house, women are statistically much more likely to die from it than men are.

Yes, women are more likely to die in the home by a gun, a fact you should remember when you derail the topic by shooting back with "liberals kill more babies than guns kill people." I am not going to argue with you about the morality, or realities, or science of abortion. I'm fine with just letting you know that it's pretty misogynistic to accuse women of worse atrocities than mass-murderers. At the very least, you're probably just not going to be that popular with the ladies if you share that opinion with them.

And when you rank deaths by causes, satisfied that heart attacks and strokes and cancer and car accidents kill more people, you are ignoring the obvious. Only violent acts and suicides are the direct result of a person wanting to hurt another person, for which we as a society are entitled to demand justice, in the individual act and at large. Hiding behind a list of hundreds of thousands of sick, injured, and diseased people to satisfy that a lesser cause of death is unimportant in the cosmic sense is pathetic.

By the way, if you want to see where guns from places like NYC come from, look at places like Virginia. The reason gun violence cannot simply be a state and local matter is because people don't have to stay on one side of the country.

It used to be that the US thought of gun owners as normal people, hunters, defenders of their lives and property, and willing to fight for their country when the time called.

Unfortunately now those earnest people are overshadowed by a vocal few militant absolutists who are more likely to threaten revolt against their country at the slightest provocation, dismiss any discussion as offensive to liberty, and would rather see dozens of kids killed in cold blood before they consider any compromise. They are like SUV drivers that everyone on the road can't stand, willing to pose a danger to others if it offers them the slightest degree of protection, because it's their kids, g*d d****t. That means no taxes, no limits on ammo, no waiting periods, no background checks at gun shows. They are going to piss off so many people that eventually they will completely turn public opinion against them.

You can keep your guns and your rights, but please tell the people that will never listen to reason to let up before they ruin it for everyone.
 
For one thing, we shouldn't have to "protect" the 2nd Amendment. It's a right whether you like it or not.

It seems to me like a lot of liberals are not really pro tougher penalties for criminals or making time in prison more unpleasant for those prisoners.

Another point is that you cannot always tell beforehand who is mentally ill. Treating someone AFTER they have already done something terrible is not preventing the massacres from happening.

All of the things you list are not failures of law-abiding citizens who happen to own guns. It is the fault of our justice system and those who think that prison for adults should be like a stay at a spa. I think most adult habitual criminals are not capable of rehabilitation, and if you think about it, it's actually gang warfare in the inner cities that kills the MOST people.

Another thing is I don't know of ONE person who makes excuses for people who commit actual crimes with guns.

I basically agree with everything you said. Common ground.
 
You have not even recognized some of the suggestions for compromise in my post. Please tell me why they cannot be considered. You should listen to the linked podcast, you would hear valid opinions that seldom get attention from either side of the issue and it's a pretty good in any case.

First what you get wrong about my argument:

-I don't want your gun taken away from you, and I don't blame you and other responsible gun owners for our problem.
-I don't refute that violence is steadily declining, including gun violence
-I have listened to the arguments and I know why people choose to carry guns
-Liberals do not want gun control. Normal people want to see the problems surrounding guns addressed.

But yes, people are irrational! They are irrational when they want to ban a thing that human nature says is impossible to ban, whether that's pot, liquor, or guns. They are also irrational when they refuse to compromise on anything because it's a free country and we can't make you.

You know the thing about liberty? It is not the same for everyone. In fact, your liberty can come at the cost of my liberty, and vice versa. So when you decry your liberties being threatened, others consider their liberties being held hostage by you. That is why you cannot be an absolutist and live in a civilization. There is a trade-off with sharing society with other people.

By the way, if gun-control freaks are guilty of forgetting statistics, so are gun nuts. You think that because gun violence is declining in the US that there is no problem? Of all the countries in the world, it is the developed country with the worst record on gun violence. That's the same whether it's ranked by suicide, homicide, unintentional, or total. You might be safer in Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador, but that's nothing to write home about.

And that is just per capita. We are also the 3rd most populous country in the world. That is a lot of bodies. If you cannot see that there is a problem, then you cannot begin to address a solution.

How about another sadly forgotten statistic? If you have a gun in your house for your own defense? It's unfortunate, then, that those who do and their families are statistically more likely to die from a gun in their home. I'm not denying that they might be careful and responsible. By having a gun in their house they are statistically more likely to die from one. A person might have a gun to protect their wife or girlfriend, but the sad fact is that by living in that house, women are statistically much more likely to die from it than men are.

Yes, women are more likely to die in the home by a gun, a fact you should remember when you derail the topic by shooting back with "liberals kill more babies than guns kill people." I am not going to argue with you about the morality, or realities, or science of abortion. I'm fine with just letting you know that it's pretty misogynistic to accuse women of worse atrocities than mass-murderers. At the very least, you're probably just not going to be that popular with the ladies if you share that opinion with them.

And when you rank deaths by causes, satisfied that heart attacks and strokes and cancer and car accidents kill more people, you are ignoring the obvious. Only violent acts and suicides are the direct result of a person wanting to hurt another person, for which we as a society are entitled to demand justice, in the individual act and at large. Hiding behind a list of hundreds of thousands of sick, injured, and diseased people to satisfy that a lesser cause of death is unimportant in the cosmic sense is pathetic.

By the way, if you want to see where guns from places like NYC come from, look at places like Virginia. The reason gun violence cannot simply be a state and local matter is because people don't have to stay on one side of the country.

It used to be that the US thought of gun owners as normal people, hunters, defenders of their lives and property, and willing to fight for their country when the time called.

Unfortunately now those earnest people are overshadowed by a vocal few militant absolutists who are more likely to threaten revolt against their country at the slightest provocation, dismiss any discussion as offensive to liberty, and would rather see dozens of kids killed in cold blood before they consider any compromise. They are like SUV drivers that everyone on the road can't stand, willing to pose a danger to others if it offers them the slightest degree of protection, because it's their kids, g*d d****t. That means no taxes, no limits on ammo, no waiting periods, no background checks at gun shows. They are going to piss off so many people that eventually they will completely turn public opinion against them.

You can keep your guns and your rights, but please tell the people that will never listen to reason to let up before they ruin it for everyone.

1) why should there be limits on ammo? why should there be waiting periods when there is absolutely no evidence such waiting periods deter gun violence. YOur concept of reasonable controls demonstrate you really don't know much about this issue and that is why we who do oppose your schemes.

2) the silly statistic was drawn from a study where of the 436 or so cases of GUNS IN THE HOME-in 430 or so of the person doing the violence BROUGHT THE GUN TO THE HOME--it was not kept at the home prior to the violence

a bit dishonest
 
What gun nuts have to understand is that every time a horrible event like Newtown comes along, however disproportionately that happens, the people that refuse to budge ground about their gun rights turn public favor against them. It's not liberals like me you need to worry about, it's Wayne LaPierre and the heads of the NRA that you should be worried about. After 1 or 2 more tragic incidents, if LaPierre continues to argue for more guns, you are going to see a new wave of gun control laws after the public outrage.

Shamefully, there are a few on our side who have fallen for this nonsense as well. It's bull****, of course.

You do not protect any of your rights, by surrendering a bit more of them every time the opposing side thinks they have an excuse to deprive you of them. To be deprived of essential liberty in small, incremental steps, is no better than being deprived of that same liberty all at once. In the end, the result is the same.

In fact, those on your side know that you're never going to be able to completely eliminate the right to keep and bear arms in one big step, or even in a few big steps. You know that you will only be able to do so, one little step at a time. get us to concede now and again to one or two small, “reasonable” new restrictions on this right at a time, then, a few years later, when those fail to produce any benefit, get us to conceded a few more; and continue this cycle until we have no freedom left to concede.

That's the strategy that your side has pursued for many years, now; and so far, it has mostly been successful. But the American public is waking up, it seems. The last cycle, the President and his allies in Congress, in spite of outright lies claiming the support of 90% of the public, could not even get the few “reasonable” new restrictions past Congress that they were seeking. If you cannot even get that, how much fear do you think you're going to be able to instill with your threats of greater violations of our rights? Your side is losing, now. You're no longer fooling enough of us to continue making any further progress toward depriving us of our Second Amendment rights, and God willing, perhaps in a few years, you'll see us taking back the rights that your side has already illegally taken from us.
 
Last edited:
One wonders what sort of person would demand that others, complete strangers, have no way to defend themselves against evil.

That is an incredibly elitist Liberal invasion of the freedom and security of decent Americans that will NEVER come to pass. Good men will die on the front porches of their homes first. The psyche of Liberals renders them incapable of understanding such bedrock passion for self reliance and freedom.
 
Last edited:
You have not even recognized some of the suggestions for compromise in my post. Please tell me why they cannot be considered.

Every “compromise” that has been made by our side, on this issue, has served no purpose except to set us up for the next such “compromise”, and it is in this way that we have already lost far too much with regard to our basic right to keep and bear arms. There is no rational reason to expect that any further compromise will be any different.

“Compromise”, in this context, means nothing other than that my side loses a bit more freedom that never ought to have been on the table in the first place; and gets nothing in return except an empty, false promise that your side will stop there and not extract another such “compromise” later, in which we lose a bit more. And that promise only lasts until your side thinks it can get another such “compromise” from us.

We've “compromised” far too much already. It's time for us to start taking what what your side has illegitimately taken from us.
 
Last edited:
why should there be limits on ammo? why should there be waiting periods when there is absolutely no evidence such waiting periods deter gun violence. YOur concept of reasonable controls demonstrate you really don't know much about this issue and that is why we who do oppose your schemes.

Or, more likely, that he knows very well that his proposals will do nothing to reduce violence, and is proposing them for reasons that have nothing to do with his claimed motives; which is the case with most gun control advocates, who are willfully on the side of criminals and tyrants and against that of honest citizens.
 
Or, more likely, that he knows very well that his proposals will do nothing to reduce violence, and is proposing them for reasons that have nothing to do with his claimed motives; which is the case with most gun control advocates, who are willfully on the side of criminals and tyrants and against that of honest citizens.

I get your point of view, and the slippery slope argument is a powerful one. I don't know if there is any way to test it though. In the gay marriage debate there is almost always a slippery slope argument too.

On your last point, though, your dead wrong. If it weren't for criminals we would have no motivation in the gun debate.
 
I get your point of view, and the slippery slope argument is a powerful one. I don't know if there is any way to test it though. In the gay marriage debate there is almost always a slippery slope argument too.

On your last point, though, your [sic] dead wrong. If it weren't for criminals we would have no motivation in the gun debate.

For too long, your side was successful at fooling enough of the public to get your agenda implemented, piece by piece. No more.

Gun control is not, and never was, about fighting violent crime, and the public is finally waking up to this fact.

Those of you who support gun control do so for a very different motive than that which you claim.

Spare me your lies, please. Save them for the shrinking populace of fools who are still ignorant enough to believe them.
 
Last edited:
I basically agree with everything you said. Common ground.

I don't know if you do. :lol: I am against a LOT of gun control measures because it violates our 2nd Amendment rights and wrongfully punishes law-abiding citizens who want to practice their 2nd Amendment right unobstructed by the government. Also, I think it's nuts to give the government the power to "control" our rights. Still agree with me? :)
 
You have not even recognized some of the suggestions for compromise in my post. Please tell me why they cannot be considered. You should listen to the linked podcast, you would hear valid opinions that seldom get attention from either side of the issue and it's a pretty good in any case.
Compromise is fine if there's a reason to compromise. In this case, there isn't. Frankly, we've compromised enough - and most of the problem we face now on this issue is the ongoing call to "compromise." I've recognized your suggestions. I reject them all as patently unnecessary and more of the same, albeit a tad watered down from the normal gun control advocate's proposals.

First what you get wrong about my argument:
I perfectly understood your argument - I've heard it and the gross generalizations which attend it repeated far too often.

-I don't want your gun taken away from you, and I don't blame you and other responsible gun owners for our problem.
-I don't refute that violence is steadily declining, including gun violence
-I have listened to the arguments and I know why people choose to carry guns
-Liberals do not want gun control. Normal people want to see the problems surrounding guns addressed.
Liberals most certainly do want gun control. They've voiced it ad-nauseum. The leaders of this charge have voiced their desire to ban guns altogether. I don't see how it's possible to be unaware of that.

But yes, people are irrational! They are irrational when they want to ban a thing that human nature says is impossible to ban, whether that's pot, liquor, or guns. They are also irrational when they refuse to compromise on anything because it's a free country and we can't make you.
I'm saying the gun control arguments are irrational. They aren't logical. They aren't even based on facts, but instead are largely ideological and emotionally based.

You know the thing about liberty? It is not the same for everyone. In fact, your liberty can come at the cost of my liberty, and vice versa. So when you decry your liberties being threatened, others consider their liberties being held hostage by you. That is why you cannot be an absolutist and live in a civilization. There is a trade-off with sharing society with other people.
One man's right is another man's obligation. I recognize that. Do you?

By the way, if gun-control freaks are guilty of forgetting statistics, so are gun nuts. You think that because gun violence is declining in the US that there is no problem? Of all the countries in the world, it is the developed country with the worst record on gun violence. That's the same whether it's ranked by suicide, homicide, unintentional, or total. You might be safer in Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador, but that's nothing to write home about.

And that is just per capita. We are also the 3rd most populous country in the world. That is a lot of bodies. If you cannot see that there is a problem, then you cannot begin to address a solution.
I never said; neither did I ever infer there was no problem. But let's go with your statistic here. What is the cause of all that "gun violence?" If the solution be - as you suggest - the existence of guns, then the banning of guns would curtail the violence - by extension. That *is* your premise, isn't it, that guns are the problem?

How about another sadly forgotten statistic? If you have a gun in your house for your own defense? It's unfortunate, then, that those who do and their families are statistically more likely to die from a gun in their home. I'm not denying that they might be careful and responsible. By having a gun in their house they are statistically more likely to die from one. A person might have a gun to protect their wife or girlfriend, but the sad fact is that by living in that house, women are statistically much more likely to die from it than men are.
Well let's think about this a tad. The existence of guns in homes increases the likelihood of dying by gun. Couldn't the same be said of ladders?

Yes, women are more likely to die in the home by a gun, a fact you should remember when you derail the topic by shooting back with "liberals kill more babies than guns kill people." I am not going to argue with you about the morality, or realities, or science of abortion. I'm fine with just letting you know that it's pretty misogynistic to accuse women of worse atrocities than mass-murderers. At the very least, you're probably just not going to be that popular with the ladies if you share that opinion with them.
Bringing up abortion was no derail. I made a perfectly valid point and in the process exposed the gross hypocrisy behind all the feigned "concern" over the lives of innocent others. Moreover, there's nothing misogynistic about despising infanticide. And FWIW, it's this sort of illogical comeback that destroys what little credibility the anti-gun lobby thinks they enjoy.

And when you rank deaths by causes, satisfied that heart attacks and strokes and cancer and car accidents kill more people, you are ignoring the obvious. Only violent acts and suicides are the direct result of a person wanting to hurt another person, for which we as a society are entitled to demand justice, in the individual act and at large. Hiding behind a list of hundreds of thousands of sick, injured, and diseased people to satisfy that a lesser cause of death is unimportant in the cosmic sense is pathetic.
Well I'll give you the point about sickness and disease not being the same as violent and accidental deaths. But answer me this - does it matter *that* a person dies, or merely *how* they die before human compassion be permitted to kick in?

By the way, if you want to see where guns from places like NYC come from, look at places like Virginia. The reason gun violence cannot simply be a state and local matter is because people don't have to stay on one side of the country.

It used to be that the US thought of gun owners as normal people, hunters, defenders of their lives and property, and willing to fight for their country when the time called.

Unfortunately now those earnest people are overshadowed by a vocal few militant absolutists who are more likely to threaten revolt against their country at the slightest provocation, dismiss any discussion as offensive to liberty, and would rather see dozens of kids killed in cold blood before they consider any compromise. They are like SUV drivers that everyone on the road can't stand, willing to pose a danger to others if it offers them the slightest degree of protection, because it's their kids, g*d d****t. That means no taxes, no limits on ammo, no waiting periods, no background checks at gun shows. They are going to piss off so many people that eventually they will completely turn public opinion against them.

You can keep your guns and your rights, but please tell the people that will never listen to reason to let up before they ruin it for everyone.
:doh The gun-control lobby routinely and repeatedly vilifies, demonizes, disparages, and ridicules gun owners and you have the gall to say it's our own fault we're no longer thought of as "normal?"
 
Yes and no. Yes, insofar as Homeland takes action outside of legislation banning guns. No in that our country is a violent one and the problem is with the people. We have a responsibility to end it.
 
Back
Top Bottom