• 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!

Who Is More Afraid? The One Who Feels He Needs a Gun? Or the One Who Doesn't?

Who is more afraid? The one who feels he needs a gun, or the one who doesn't?

  • The person who feels he needs a gun is the one who's more afraid.

    Votes: 28 77.8%

  • The person who does NOT feel he needs a gun is the one who's more afraid.

    Votes: 8 22.2%
  • Total voters
    36
CRUE CAB said:
What is the matter with teaching your children about guns and gun safety?
Click to expand...

There is nothing at all wrong with teaching kids about guns and gun safety if you are going to own guns and have them in the home. I encourage it. When I taught government for 33 years I would make it part of the course on the Second Amendment to make a pitch for kids to take classes offered by the NRA if they wanted to use a gun or there were guns in the home.

My comment was about people who do not have guns in the home and was regarding others telling those people what they should be teaching their children about guns.
 
TurtleDude said:
no you don't

if you did we wouldn't get claims that Article I Sec 8 intended federal gun control or the incredibly pathetic argument that "shall not be infringed" was intended to allow infringement

you like the fact FDR just made a federal power up

AND I NOTE you have never even attempted to establish that the words of the commerce clause actually said firearms regulation in light of the 2A and the 10A more than 130 YEARS after that Clause was written


The best you did was allude TO OTHER PARTS Of Sec 8 to justify gun control but that is specious since it was the CC that FDR used


and come on-claiming you follow the actual language is a gut buster.

t
Click to expand...

My so called "pathetic argument" that the Constitution allows power over guns has been accepted by every legislator who ever voted yes on a piece of gun control legislation.
My "pathetic argument" has been accepted by every president who advocated for gun laws or signed them. And that includes Ronald Reagan.
And my "pathetic argument" has been accepted by every judge and justice who upheld such laws in trials and appeals.

Apparently they did not find it "pathetic" in any way shape or form. Your argument - on the other hand - that Congress does NOT have those powers seems to have been found wanting.
 
haymarket said:
There is nothing at all wrong with teaching kids about guns and gun safety if you are going to own guns and have them in the home. I encourage it. When I taught government for 33 years I would make it part of the course on the Second Amendment to make a pitch for kids to take classes offered by the NRA if they wanted to use a gun or there were guns in the home.

My comment was about people who do not have guns in the home and was regarding others telling those people what they should be teaching their children about guns.
Click to expand...

Every one should know gun safety, you never know when your child may go to a friends home where a gun is present.
 
TurtleDude said:
only someone completely unaware of laws knows that registration doesn't apply to such people and we already have an instant BGC in place.

registration only harasses honest people. the USSC ruled those who cannot legally own guns cannot be forced to incriminate themselves by registration

so why do you support a law that cannot be used against criminals and is championed by every group that wants to ban or confiscate guns.

You are parroting all the anti gun arguments and you wonder why some think you are anti gun?
Click to expand...

So you support protecting the ability of gun-runners to continue to run guns, huh? Y'see, guy, when guns can't be tracked back to who illegally sold them, the ATF can't stop the gun-runners. Your fear of gun registration is completely irrational. Y'all like to point to Switzerland and Israel as bastions of freedom for gun owners - but 100% of gun are registered there, and as a result they have FAR less of a problem with people illegally selling guns. What you're not getting is that the gun manufacturers know that as long as there's no gun registration, there's more gun-running (which means they sell more guns) and more crime and fear (which means they sell more guns). You're being USED by the gun manufacturers to protect their revenue stream. It was never about 2A rights to them - it's always been about money.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
The question's easy - there's many people out there who feel that they need a gun (or guns), usually for self-defense, but sometimes because they believe the government just might come knocking to confiscate their guns.

On the other hand, there's people out there (like myself) who simply don't want a gun, who doesn't have a need for one.

So who, really, is the one who's more afraid? The one who feels he needs a gun for self-defense, or the one who doesn't feel he needs a gun for self-defense?
Click to expand...

Based on the parameters you set it is impossible to say. Gun ownership isn't really an indication of being scared or not scared. Neither is not owning one. The only thing owning/not owning a gun can tell you is whether or not a person owns a gun.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What? I don't want convicted criminals to be free to prey on folks at all. Why should everyone else have to play the high user fee game to buy/carry guns so that known extremely dangerous folks can roam about freely? Does registering cars keep criminals from using them?
Click to expand...

What does registering cars do? Perhaps you should go ask a detective about whether it helps them to be able to be able to look at a VIN and be able to tell who bought it, who owned it, who sold it. Not only that, but without vehicle registration, if someone steals a car, how can a cop tell if that car's stolen? Unless there's some kind of visual evidence that the guy stole the car, he'll be able to stand up in court and say, "that's my car - prove I stole it!" And in most cases, without other hard evidence that that car was the victim's car, the perp will walk since his guilt won't be able to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Which btw is what they can pretty much do now with guns.
 
ernst barkmann said:
no... i would say you are just foolish.
Click to expand...

Some might say that....the reality is, I am quite comfortable, have never had an issue with my house in the 25 years that I have lived in Los Angeles. The reality is.....most people are good people. The odds on a person being a victim of crime are actually quite low. I see no need to hide behind bars and locks. If someone "breaks" into my house....the most they are going to get is maybe a computer or a TV. I don't have a lot of jewelry and other expensive things. Maybe if I did....I might feel differently.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
What does registering cars do? Perhaps you should go ask a detective about whether it helps them to be able to be able to look at a VIN and be able to tell who bought it, who owned it, who sold it. Not only that, but without vehicle registration, if someone steals a car, how can a cop tell if that car's stolen? Unless there's some kind of visual evidence that the guy stole the car, he'll be able to stand up in court and say, "that's my car - prove I stole it!" And in most cases, without other hard evidence that that car was the victim's car, the perp will walk since his guilt won't be able to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Which btw is what they can pretty much do now with guns.
Click to expand...

You are confusing a registration violation with a moving violation. If one is caught breaking a traffic law then it matters not who owns the car, the one operating the car illegally is charged. A notable exception is for camera generated tickets, but rarely is the gun found (or identified) at the scene. The person committing the (violent) gun crime is at fault, not the person that loaned or sold them the gun - just as the person illegally driving the car is at fault, not the registered car owner (or prior seller).
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Guy, it does not matter how many of what kind of firearms you have, nor does it matter how skilled you are at using them - if the other guy gets the drop on you, you're done. And you know it.
Click to expand...

Absolute hogwash.
 
haymarket said:
There is nothing at all wrong with teaching kids about guns and gun safety if you are going to own guns and have them in the home. I encourage it. When I taught government for 33 years I would make it part of the course on the Second Amendment to make a pitch for kids to take classes offered by the NRA if they wanted to use a gun or there were guns in the home.

My comment was about people who do not have guns in the home and was regarding others telling those people what they should be teaching their children about guns.
Click to expand...

I had my first rifle @ age 13, but only allowed to handle it with parental supervision, it was hidden from me any other time.
 
Kreton said:
Based on the parameters you set it is impossible to say. Gun ownership isn't really an indication of being scared or not scared. Neither is not owning one. The only thing owning/not owning a gun can tell you is whether or not a person owns a gun.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as I admitted to others, mine was a poorly-worded question.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You are confusing a registration violation with a moving violation. If one is caught breaking a traffic law then it matters not who owns the car, the one operating the car illegally is charged. A notable exception is for camera generated tickets, but rarely is the gun found (or identified) at the scene. The person committing the (violent) gun crime is at fault, not the person that loaned or sold them the gun - just as the person illegally driving the car is at fault, not the registered car owner (or prior seller).
Click to expand...

No, you're missing the point. I'm addressing theft of property, not what is done with that property. To use your example, if there's no car registration, then the person who committed a crime with a car is charged with that crime...but he won't be charged with auto theft because law enforcement can't prove that's not his car.

Likewise, if a person commits a crime with a gun, he'll be charged with that crime...but if there's no gun registration, then (unless he's already on some database saying he can't own a gun), we cannot know if that's his gun or not, and we cannot know if that gun was stolen. Most importantly, if that gun was bought from a gun-runner, we can't track that back to the gun-runners. That's the big benefit of gun registration - the more guns that are registered, the harder it is for gun-runners to get away with what they do.

And one more thing - if you lend someone your car and they have an accident in your car, you can be held responsible. It sorta sucks...but that's one thing that makes one think twice before lending out cars to one's friend.
 
Black Dog said:
Absolute hogwash.
Click to expand...

Really? A guy decides to point a gun at you and you didn't expect it - your gun is still in its holster and he's pointing one at you. He's got the drop on you. If he decides to shoot, you're done. There's nothing you can do about it.

Likewise, if you really, truly wanted to kill someone, do you think the other person would be able to stop you? Probably not. Would you even need a gun to do so? Probably not.

In other words, your gun is only good if in an emergency, you've got the opportunity to draw before you're shot. Likewise, if you've decided to kill someone, that someone is a dead man walking whether you've got a gun or not.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
No, you're missing the point. I'm addressing theft of property, not what is done with that property. To use your example, if there's no car registration, then the person who committed a crime with a car is charged with that crime...but he won't be charged with auto theft because law enforcement can't prove that's not his car.

Likewise, if a person commits a crime with a gun, he'll be charged with that crime...but if there's no gun registration, then (unless he's already on some database saying he can't own a gun), we cannot know if that's his gun or not, and we cannot know if that gun was stolen. Most importantly, if that gun was bought from a gun-runner, we can't track that back to the gun-runners. That's the big benefit of gun registration - the more guns that are registered, the harder it is for gun-runners to get away with what they do.

And one more thing - if you lend someone your car and they have an accident in your car, you can be held responsible. It sorta sucks...but that's one thing that makes one think twice before lending out cars to one's friend.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? The addition of a petty theft charge for increasing the sentence given a violent criminal is not worth the added expense to the general public for justifying national gun registration- why not just add a year to all violent gun crime sentences? You can now report the serial number of a stolen gun free of charge to law enforcement which puts that stolen gun "on the record". As far as gun runners go, can you show that they are any more likely to be prosecuted than those that now lie on form 4473? Of the many "gun runners" found in operation fast & fuzzy how many were ever charged and convicted?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you kidding me? The addition of a petty theft charge for increasing the sentence given a violent criminal is not worth the added expense to the general public for justifying national gun registration- why not just add a year to all violent gun crime sentences? You can now report the serial number of a stolen gun free of charge to law enforcement which puts that stolen gun "on the record". As far as gun runners go, can you show that they are any more likely to be prosecuted than those that now lie on form 4473? Of the many "gun runners" found in operation fast & fuzzy how many were ever charged and convicted?
Click to expand...

Adding to the sentence of the violent criminal is not the point. What is the point is keeping the guns out of the hands of the violent felon in the first place. This requires going after the people who are selling guns illegally to people who really shouldn't have guns. It doesn't matter if the guns are stolen - the gun-runners will still sell them as long as those guns can't be tracked back to the gun-runners. On the other hand, if all sales - public or private - are tracked with registration numbers, you will see a significant drop in gun-running...because as soon as they see the transactions can be tracked back to them, they'll either get out of the business or they'll take a much greater chance of getting caught. THAT is how to minimize illegal gun sales.

And would this make a difference? Yes, it would. Here's what NYC has found (from the conservative New York Post):

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives traced 8,793 guns seized in New York in 2011 and found that just 1,595 were bought in the state.

The rest came from places with less restrictive gun laws — primarily Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida.
...
His criminal-justice coordinator, John Feinblatt, said the ATF’s numbers presented only a partial picture — since 85 percent of the guns used in New York City crimes come from upstate or other states.
And in the rest of the state, 68 percent of criminally used guns come from elsewhere, he said
“[In] the rest of the country, the overwhelming majority — 70 percent — come from inside the state, the opposite of our pattern,” Feinblatt said. “The lesson is pretty simple: Gun laws matter. States with strong gun laws tend to receive [illegal] guns; states with weak gun laws tend to export [them].”

Bear in mind, now, that NYC - almost certainly thanks to it's strict gun laws - is now by most measures the safest major city in America.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Really? A guy decides to point a gun at you and you didn't expect it - your gun is still in its holster and he's pointing one at you. He's got the drop on you. If he decides to shoot, you're done. There's nothing you can do about it.

Likewise, if you really, truly wanted to kill someone, do you think the other person would be able to stop you? Probably not. Would you even need a gun to do so? Probably not.

In other words, your gun is only good if in an emergency, you've got the opportunity to draw before you're shot. Likewise, if you've decided to kill someone, that someone is a dead man walking whether you've got a gun or not.
Click to expand...

Rubbish.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Adding to the sentence of the violent criminal is not the point. What is the point is keeping the guns out of the hands of the violent felon in the first place. This requires going after the people who are selling guns illegally to people who really shouldn't have guns. It doesn't matter if the guns are stolen - the gun-runners will still sell them as long as those guns can't be tracked back to the gun-runners. On the other hand, if all sales - public or private - are tracked with registration numbers, you will see a significant drop in gun-running...because as soon as they see the transactions can be tracked back to them, they'll either get out of the business or they'll take a much greater chance of getting caught. THAT is how to minimize illegal gun sales.

And would this make a difference? Yes, it would. Here's what NYC has found (from the conservative New York Post):

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives traced 8,793 guns seized in New York in 2011 and found that just 1,595 were bought in the state.

The rest came from places with less restrictive gun laws — primarily Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida.
...
His criminal-justice coordinator, John Feinblatt, said the ATF’s numbers presented only a partial picture — since 85 percent of the guns used in New York City crimes come from upstate or other states.
And in the rest of the state, 68 percent of criminally used guns come from elsewhere, he said
“[In] the rest of the country, the overwhelming majority — 70 percent — come from inside the state, the opposite of our pattern,” Feinblatt said. “The lesson is pretty simple: Gun laws matter. States with strong gun laws tend to receive [illegal] guns; states with weak gun laws tend to export [them].”

Bear in mind, now, that NYC - almost certainly thanks to it's strict gun laws - is now by most measures the safest major city in America.
Click to expand...


We simply have to agree to disagree on this matter; I want more violent felon control via due process and you want more gun control via user fees placed on law abiiding gun owners. Which are there more of - violent felons or guns?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
We simply have to agree to disagree on this matter; I want more violent felon control via due process and you want more gun control via user fees placed on law abiiding gun owners. Which are there more of - violent felons or guns?
Click to expand...

Then fine - let's get rid of the user fees. Those fees aren't what's needed - the registration itself can be free.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
So you support protecting the ability of gun-runners to continue to run guns, huh? Y'see, guy, when guns can't be tracked back to who illegally sold them, the ATF can't stop the gun-runners. Your fear of gun registration is completely irrational. Y'all like to point to Switzerland and Israel as bastions of freedom for gun owners - but 100% of gun are registered there, and as a result they have FAR less of a problem with people illegally selling guns. What you're not getting is that the gun manufacturers know that as long as there's no gun registration, there's more gun-running (which means they sell more guns) and more crime and fear (which means they sell more guns). You're being USED by the gun manufacturers to protect their revenue stream. It was never about 2A rights to them - it's always been about money.
Click to expand...

1) what moronic straw man idiocy.

2) its already illegal to do the stuff you whine about

3) REGISTRATION HAS BEEN USED TO CONFISCATE GUNS THAT WERE LATER DECLARED "ILLEGAL" England, NYC, NJ, CT, California

only gun grabbers support registration. why don't you tell us how the war on drugs has worked.

WHY WOULD REGISTRATION HURT GUN MAKERS

see-this is why I see you as a hard core gun hater

you support moronic harassment of gun owners and your arguments about why it is good are PATHETIC
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Then fine - let's get rid of the user fees. Those fees aren't what's needed - the registration itself can be free.
Click to expand...

Registration, if free to the user, is OK provided it is voluntary for existing guns and mandatory only for new guns and includes the full right to carry nationwide.
 
haymarket said:
My so called "pathetic argument" that the Constitution allows power over guns has been accepted by every legislator who ever voted yes on a piece of gun control legislation.
My "pathetic argument" has been accepted by every president who advocated for gun laws or signed them. And that includes Ronald Reagan.
And my "pathetic argument" has been accepted by every judge and justice who upheld such laws in trials and appeals.

Apparently they did not find it "pathetic" in any way shape or form. Your argument - on the other hand - that Congress does NOT have those powers seems to have been found wanting.
Click to expand...

claiming a bunch of politicians accepted that they had more power means nothing to me

can you even fashion a reasonable argument for what FDR did USING THE LANGUAGE OF THE CC

of course you cannot. FDR couldn't do it
 
disneydude said:
Why would they be threatened by me?

April 29th,1992....I was living in Redondo Beach. What is your point? That the riots 20 years ago is evidence that LA is a "gang infected city under foreign occupation"? LOL.....still being a drama queen I see.
Click to expand...

Well we know that what businesses that weren't looted and burned to the ground were the businesses who's owners were armed with firearms.

We also know, that blacks were responsible for almost all of the violence, arson and murders but the majority of the looting was done by Hispanic illegal aliens.

If you looked at East L.A. where the Americans of Mexican decent live, there was no rioting, looting or arson. They aren't stupid. They aren't going to loot Latino owned businesses or burn their own neighborhoods to the ground.



BTW: There are very few people in Redondo Beach who are dependent on government so there was little rioting in Redondo Beach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom