• 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
Not really. Its like the FACT that there is something about radical islam that leads people to kill innocents in horrible ways.

Its ok to note the obvious association.

No, it's a fact that those who follow radical Islam often act in horrible ways.

Remember... correlation does not equal causation.
 
Greater economic and social parity is
the goal. That's not particularly a greater unachievable notion that holding it self-evident that all men are created equal and creating a political system around that.

Talk about getting your wires crossed. PARITY is not and has not EVER been the norm, it violates human nature. Some do better than others, and the only way to equalize them is for someone to take AWAY from some, making everyone poor.

And all men being created equal is NOT the same as all men having equal wealth.

Your flawed logic has killed millions, congrats.
 
No, it's a fact that those who follow radical Islam often act in horrible ways.

Remember... correlation does not equal causation.

I never said it did, thats a man of straw. I said there is a correlation, and in this case a quite deadly one. Often, its a small minority that leads an entire group into the fire. This happened in Germany and Russia as well.
 
I never said it did, thats a man of straw. I said there is a correlation, and in this case a quite deadly one.

Yeah, you did. You said it's FACT that there is something about radical islam that leads people to kill innocents in horrible ways.

Then you used the term association. So, which is it, a fact that it leads to those things, or is it just associated with them?
 
Precisely. I understand that Marx believed that a communist "government" wasn't something that formed but something that other governments morphed into. Thing is, if he was right, why have we never seen that? They've always morphed into authoritarian dictatorships.

If I remember correctly his theory was that capitalism would lead to socialism which in time would lead to communism. On that ideal certain socialist systems designed to transition capitalism to socialism were formed.
 
If I remember correctly his theory was that capitalism would lead to socialism which in time would lead to communism. On that ideal certain socialist systems designed to transition capitalism to socialism were formed.

Yup. That is exactly what his theory stated.
 
Guns inflict pain, the ability to inflict pain is power. I've been reading 1984 again:

Sometimes positive reinforcement gets better results than suffering.
 
lol tell that to salvadorians and chileans

other than a lame attempt to defend the pernicious nature of communist regimes, what was the purpose of such silliness
 
Talk about getting your wires crossed. PARITY is not and has not EVER been the norm, it violates human nature. Some do better than others, and the only way to equalize them is for someone to take AWAY from some, making everyone poor.

And all men being created equal is NOT the same as all men having equal wealth.

Your flawed logic has killed millions, congrats.

"Peace has never been the norm, it violates human nature." Do you appreciate how absolutely ridiculous that sounds? It's conservatism for the sake of conservatism rather than a realistic appraisal of human capacity.
 
Greater economic and social parity is
the goal. That's not particularly a greater unachievable notion that holding it self-evident that all men are created equal and creating a political system around that.

The original theory, which has since long been abandoned, is that no one was to have more than anyone else, or put simply, everyone was to have equal shares. Does it make sense? Well, no. Why? For many reasons, but one such reason is that things like land are not only not of equal value but the value of land fluctuates with demand of resources and the removal of resources themselves. Meaning, that a patch of land in the desert will have less value than land with rich soil and mineral in the ground. The man that society determines will have the land with rich soil will have land of greater value than the man that society determines will have the land in the desert. Once socialists like yourself determined such a system was unrealistic they settled with getting as close to social parity as possible by using ideas as forcing the wages to be higher or profit sharing among other ideas created as time went on.
 
Exercising one's rights. A means to prevent tyranny. Self defense. The means to hunt.

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

Yes. I had a stalker while in grad school, and I will always remember the first time I held the shotgun I was shown how to use and then borrowed for several weeks. What an equalizer, and it gave me great confidence that if I had to, I could defend myself.
 
The original theory, which has since long been abandoned, is that no one was to have more than anyone else, or put simply, everyone was to have equal shares. Does it make sense? Well, no. Why? For many reasons, but one such reason is that things like land are not only not of equal value but the value of land fluctuates with demand of resources and the removal of resources themselves. Meaning, that a patch of land in the desert will have less value than land with rich soil and mineral in the ground. The man that society determines will have the land with rich soil will have land of greater value than the man that society determines will have the land in the desert. Once socialists like yourself determined such a system was unrealistic they settled with getting as close to social parity as possible by using ideas as forcing the wages to be higher or profit sharing among other ideas created as time went on.
So you're faulting them with adjusting their position to a more realistic one?
 
So you're faulting them with adjusting their position to a more realistic one?

I'm really not faulting them for anything, but simply stating some of the background and history of the ideology. What I will say on the matter is in reality they gave up on their past goals and created new goals that only move wealth around a bit and accomplish nothing.
 
I'm really not faulting them for anything, but simply stating some of the background and history of the ideology. What I will say on the matter is in reality they gave up on their past goals and created new goals that only move wealth around a bit and accomplish nothing.

I thought it killed 100 million people? Now it's being argued that it accomplishes nothing. How can it be accused of doing so much yet apparently does so little?
 
I thought it killed 100 million people? Now it's being argued that it accomplishes nothing. How can it be accused of doing so much yet apparently does so little?

I was not talking of communism nor did I say communism was responsible for killing millions of people.
 
I was not talking of communism nor did I say communism was responsible for killing millions of people.

That makes you less intellectually offensive than several other "contributors" in this thread.
 
No. They give people a false sense of power. You feel stronger, braver, more in control over any given situation when you have a gun in your hand. But sometimes, knowing that cold piece of steel either in your hand or within close proximity gives one the belief that they can do anything even if their actions are reckless.

No, guns don't empower you. They just give you the impression that you hold all the power and can control the situation better than the next guy. Now granted, in a shootout or faced with the possibility of needing a weapon to defend myself I want that gun by my side. Absolutely! But the gun doesn't empower you. Your mind does that.

"Stupid is as stupid does!"
 
No. They give people a false sense of power. You feel stronger, braver, more in control over any given situation when you have a gun in your hand. But sometimes, knowing that cold piece of steel either in your hand or within close proximity gives one the belief that they can do anything even if their actions are reckless.

No, guns don't empower you. They just give you the impression that you hold all the power and can control the situation better than the next guy. Now granted, in a shootout or faced with the possibility of needing a weapon to defend myself I want that gun by my side. Absolutely! But the gun doesn't empower you. Your mind does that.

"Stupid is as stupid does!"

Have you informed history, the military, and law enforcement about your stunning insight?
 
Have you informed history, the military, and law enforcement about your stunning insight?

There's a difference between "personal empowerment" as your OP poll eludes to and a strong local or nation defense. The question wasn't about the use of weaponry. The question centered around personal protection.

To empower someone means to enable or permit a certain act or sense of authority. Therefore, if you're suggesting that "he who has a gun holds the power" then what you're really advocating is tyranny. I will never submit to anyone's authority at the barrel of a gun. I may live to fight another day, but I will never submit.
 
No. They give people a false sense of power. You feel stronger, braver, more in control over any given situation when you have a gun in your hand. But sometimes, knowing that cold piece of steel either in your hand or within close proximity gives one the belief that they can do anything even if their actions are reckless.

No, guns don't empower you. They just give you the impression that you hold all the power and can control the situation better than the next guy. Now granted, in a shootout or faced with the possibility of needing a weapon to defend myself I want that gun by my side. Absolutely! But the gun doesn't empower you. Your mind does that.

"Stupid is as stupid does!"

Sorry; I don't agree. A gun in my hand is a great equalizer. I know what I have felt, and that was that I had the power to protect myself and stop someone bad from hurting me. Because of the pellets, you know, rather than because of my mind. ;)
 
I wrote the op and no it did not. And then I kindly provided a definition of the term "empower".

Anyone who holds a weapon over another who is defenseless holds the power. That much is clear. But that doesn't mean that the person without a weapon is powerless. It just means you have the upper hand until you no longer have it. Such clearly was the case of the German soldier who apparently believe he had the upper hand on the peasant until he didn't and the gun was turned on him.

I that sense, yes, clearly the man holding the gun is in control. But I don't see that as empowerment. I see that as control. Two separate things.
 
Anyone who holds a weapon over another who is defenseless holds the power. That much is clear. But that doesn't mean that the person without a weapon is powerless. It just means you have the upper hand until you no longer have it. Such clearly was the case of the German soldier who apparently believe he had the upper hand on the peasant until he didn't and the gun was turned on him.

I that sense, yes, clearly the man holding the gun is in control. But I don't see that as empowerment. I see that as control. Two separate things.

All of this boils down to you being unclear on the definition of empowerment.
 
Back
Top Bottom