• 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!

Do firearms empower people?

Do firearms empower people?


  • Total voters
    52
By what rational are you allowed to judge marxism by its implementation, but when anti-gun folk judge guns by their implementation we get the argument that they are inanimate tools? You simply cannot judge one by its implementation and the other as an inanimate object, no matter how incomparable they are. Either:

a) Guns kill people and marxism kills people.

or

b) Guns don't kill people, people who use abuse them do and marxism doesn't kill people, people who abuse it do.

At least be consistent. (Your lawnmower/atheism comparisons are a complete straw man because you seem to be uncomfortable with admitting this)



Not that I agree with his statement, but if he needs to prove his point by saying that without the 2A there would be no murders, then surely in order to prove your accusation that communism/marxism caused all these murders then you'd have to prove that without communism there would be no murders. That's clearly not the case. Using your own logic here.

Totally get what you're saying but I don't think you can compare an ideology to an object. Your point is fair if you say the same about, say, the implementation of the 2nd Amendment and, really, who could deny that there are more deaths by gun in the US simply because there are more guns? However, I do not believe the overall murder rates are any worse because people will use what's available.
 
Economically, true. However, Stalin went far further than Lenin did and basically abandoned communism from a political standpoint into authoritarianism.

If it wasn't for Lenin accepting people into his ranks that he knew were less than great people Stalin would have never had a path to gain power in the first place. Sure Stalin still needed to kill a lot of people to obtain power, but without the position that Lenin gave him it would have never even been possible for him to obtain it in the first place.

What communists might not realize is that you have to do some pretty awful things to put their system in place and that means you need some pretty awful people to do it. Lenin however knew this and it's why he gave people like Stalin a position in his government.
 
Last edited:
By what rational are you allowed to judge marxism by its implementation, but when anti-gun folk judge guns by their implementation we get the argument that they are inanimate tools? You simply cannot judge one by its implementation and the other as an inanimate object, no matter how incomparable they are. Either:

a) Guns kill people and marxism kills people.

or

b) Guns don't kill people, people who use abuse them do and marxism doesn't kill people, people who abuse it do.

At least be consistent. (Your lawnmower/atheism comparisons are a complete straw man because you seem to be uncomfortable with admitting this)



Not that I agree with his statement, but if he needs to prove his point by saying that without the 2A there would be no murders, then surely in order to prove your accusation that communism/marxism caused all these murders then you'd have to prove that without communism there would be no murders. That's clearly not the case. Using your own logic here.

that really doesn't track because at best, the 2A meant that there were arms the killers wouldn't have had, which of course is not true. Communism motivated the killers and their application of that hateful philosophy created a mechanism where massive genocide could take place
 
Marxism is the same thing as the second amendment?

No, but it is a concept (using concept/ideology loosely here).
 
Exercising one's rights. A means to prevent tyranny. Self defense. The means to hunt.


Do firearms empower people? Note that this is not pertaining specifically to the US or the 2nd amendment, but rather a general question.


600x3691.jpg

People-with-guns.jpg

tumblr_lhagptXHyu1qbi6a5o1_500.jpg

firearms_smg_sten_maquisard_1944.jpg

RKBA1.jpg

I voted Right Leaning and Yes. By "people"? I mean a gun empowers ME. In certain situations, it can be "the great equalizer." And, as one of our poster's signatures says, paraphrased, "It's so much easier to carry around than a 225# buff and brave LEO."
 
My mistake then. It's a common refrain that I hear from people who support communism.

And WHEN have you ever seen me do that. Jumping to conclusions, X?

Agreed and I'd add that, once you're the one in power, the needs of the masses seem to matter less and less compared to what you can get for yourself and, not to sound like Gordon Gekko, but that kind of greed is not always bad. Shoot, there has to be a little of that in everyone or there'd be no incentive or motive to do anything differently or, maybe, better.

Gordon Gekko was right. Greed is good. It propels us and progresses us. But it's also true that once one is in power, the farther they get from the masses, the less they understand or care about them.
 
If it wasn't for Lenin accepting people into his ranks that he knew were less than great people Stalin would have never had a path to gain power in the first place. Sure Stalin still needed to killed a lot of people to obtain power, but without the position that Lenin gave him it would have never even been possible for him to obtain it in the first place.

What communists might not realize is that you have to do some pretty awful things to put their system in place and that means you need some pretty awful people to do it. Lenin however knew this and it's why he gave people like Stalin a position in his government.

Eh, I see it as Lenin being a very poor judge of character and being more focused on ideology than the enactment of that ideology. There is nothing wrong with the ideology, but the act of putting it into place goes against human nature, so those in power MUST do terrible things for it to happen... at which point it ceases to be communism and becomes authoritarianism.
 
Yeah, I think this guy is empowered!

predator_foto_documentary_jesse_ventura_gatling_minigun_AA_01_01a.jpg
 
By what rational are you allowed to judge marxism by its implementation, but when anti-gun folk judge guns by their implementation we get the argument that they are inanimate tools? You simply cannot judge one by its implementation and the other as an inanimate object, no matter how 'incomparable' they are. Either:

a) Guns kill people and marxism kills people.

or

b) Guns don't kill people, people who use abuse them do and marxism doesn't kill people, people who abuse it do.

At least be consistent. (Your lawnmower/atheism comparisons are a complete straw man because you seem to be uncomfortable with admitting this)



Not that I agree with his statement, but if he needs to prove his point by saying that without the 2A there would be no murders, then surely in order to prove your accusation that communism/marxism caused all these murders then you'd have to prove that without communism there would be no murders. That's clearly not the case. Using your own logic here.

Again, you are presenting a false choice. Marxism fails by any measure, not just based on its implementation or history, or the core of its ideology. But thats a separate issue. Gun control is simply a common measure used by marxists to make one more dependent and unable to resist the state.
 
Eh, I see it as Lenin being a very poor judge of character and being more focused on ideology than the enactment of that ideology. There is nothing wrong with the ideology, but the act of putting it into place goes against human nature, so those in power MUST do terrible things for it to happen... at which point it ceases to be communism and becomes authoritarianism.


There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel. - Vladimir Lenin

You actually made me think of something else though. When Lenin was dying apparently he came to realize that Stalin was assuming more control over the government than what Lenin gave him and that bringing Stalin into the government might have been a mistake. Still, I'm not convinced he wasn't following his own advice when he brought Stalin on board.
 
Economically, true. However, Stalin went far further than Lenin did and basically abandoned communism from a political standpoint into authoritarianism.

Dont forget that Russia was already a backward and incredibly violent place even before communism, and its history its bloody and spectacular long before Stalin.

I read somewhere that as they were shooting up to 5 thousand a night in basements and cellars that the most commonly uttered phrase prior to being killed was long live stalin. :doh They were always just a few murders away from paradise.
 
And WHEN have you ever seen me do that. Jumping to conclusions, X?

And when have you ever seen me do that? Actually, don't answer that.

Gordon Gekko was right. Greed is good. It propels us and progresses us. But it's also true that once one is in power, the farther they get from the masses, the less they understand or care about them.

Sure and it's like anything else, some greed can be good but a lot can obviously be very bad.
 
Eh, I see it as Lenin being a very poor judge of character and being more focused on ideology than the enactment of that ideology. There is nothing wrong with the ideology, but the act of putting it into place goes against human nature, so those in power MUST do terrible things for it to happen... at which point it ceases to be communism and becomes authoritarianism.

You dont think an ideology that fundamentally opposes human nature and leads to authoritarianism has something wrong with it?
 
There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel. - Vladimir Lenin

You actually made me think of something else though. When Lenin was dying apparently he came to realize that Stalin was assuming more control over the government than what Lenin gave him and that bringing Stalin into the government might have been a mistake. Still, I'm not convinced he wasn't following his own advice when he brought Stalin on board.

He may have, but Lenin was no dummy. He probably realized that he made a serious error in bringing Stalin in, but also realized that trying to get rid of him would get him killed.
 
He may have, but Lenin was no dummy. He probably realized that he made a serious error in bringing Stalin in, but also realized that trying to get rid of him would get him killed.

where did Lenin's henchman with the ice ax go?
 
You dont think an ideology that fundamentally opposes human nature and leads to authoritarianism has something wrong with it?

The ideology in and of itself is not a problem. It promotes order, equity amongst people with free access to services, preventing poverty. Problem is, this is idealistic to the max and cannot happen because of human nature. The ideology is not the issue; it's incompatibility with how humans operate is.
 
Then how is it that the second amendment kills people? What was the purpose of the second amendment?

I never said that the second amendment kills people.

I do believe that the application of the second amendment creates a mechanism whereby gun homicide is more likely to take place (to paraphrase turtledude).

I said that IDEOLOGY IN ITS IMPLEMENTATION DOES. Last I heard, Ideas in and of themselves are just ideas.

Keep your socks on. My original point:

I'm no marxist, I just want to flip the tables on a ridiculous argument tactic abused by the pro-gun crowd.

The tactic being the obfuscation between something performing an action and something being used to perform an action. I apologize if it was derailing.


EDIT:

that really doesn't track because at best, the 2A meant that there were arms the killers wouldn't have had, which of course is not true. Communism motivated the killers and their application of that hateful philosophy created a mechanism where massive genocide could take place

Sorry if I'm being stupid but I don't follow. Could you rephrase for me (if you still think this is relevant to the thread)?
 
You dont think an ideology that fundamentally opposes human nature and leads to authoritarianism has something wrong with it?

From what I saw he completely acknowledges that it is fatally flawed precisely because it doesn't take true human nature into account. On paper though, it can look plausible and even good (nobody lacking for anything, everyone working for the "common good", etc) if you're into that kind of thing (to me, even if communism could be implemented exactly as envisioned it still sounds incredibly dull and stagnant).
 
The ideology in and of itself is not a problem. It promotes order, equity amongst people with free access to services, preventing poverty.

I agree that those notions appeal to many people (understandably) but, as I said, even if communism could be implemented exactly as intended, it still sounds like some sort of utopian nightmare to me, like you completely lose your individuality and identity and become nothing more than a worker bee completely indistinguishable from all the others.
 
I never said that the second amendment kills people.

I do believe that the application of the second amendment creates a mechanism whereby gun homicide is more likely to take place (to paraphrase turtledude).

It isn't the second amendment which creates that mechanism. It's human beings who are destructive and want to kill. The second amendment was put in place for defense of the individual and the collective, not offense. There is nothing in the second which says it's okay to kill people.

People are going to kill whether they have guns and gun rights, or not. they will kill with stones if need be, just as they did prior to humans making any significant gains using tools.
 
Back
Top Bottom