• 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
Our government has the firepower to become tyrannical if it truly desired to do so. No tyrannical government with the kind of firepower the US has could be defeated by a ragtag group of plucky rebels simply because they have guns.

We have the second amendment and all of the amendments, however, because we have a system of government that prevents itself from becoming tyrannical. It has limited it's own power and allowed power to be retained by the people.

The second amendment doesn't prevent tyranny, it exists because of a lack of tyranny. It must be preserved because it's removal would be a sign of tyranny, not because it's removal would lead to tyranny.
 
Tucker Case said:
Our government has the firepower to become tyrannical if it truly desired to do so. No tyrannical government with the kind of firepower the US has could be defeated by a ragtag group of plucky rebels simply because they have guns.

We have the second amendment and all of the amendments, however, because we have a system of government that prevents itself from becoming tyrannical. It has limited it's own power and allowed power to be retained by the people.

The second amendment doesn't prevent tyranny, it exists because of a lack of tyranny. It must be preserved because it's removal would be a sign of tyranny, not because it's removal would lead to tyranny.
Click to expand...

I think more than a few politicians have-in the deep dark subterraneous caverns of their nefarious minds-a worry that if they get out of line, someone might given them a 7.62 NATO lobotomy.

and you know something-I like politicians having that fear even if ever so slight.
 
TurtleDude said:
I think more than a few politicians have-in the deep dark subterraneous caverns of their nefarious minds-a worry that if they get out of line, someone might given them a 7.62 NATO lobotomy.

and you know something-I like politicians having that fear even if ever so slight.
Click to expand...

The problem there is that those whackjobs who decide to assassinate politicians are detrimental toward gun rights. The ****heads who commit crimes using guns are a much bigger threat to my right to bear arms than any leftist will ever be.
 
Tucker Case said:
The problem there is that those whackjobs who decide to assassinate politicians are detrimental toward gun rights. The ****heads who commit crimes using guns are a much bigger threat to my right to bear arms than any leftist will ever be.
Click to expand...

we aren't talking about nut cases. and I disagree. its lefties who want to ban guns
 
Tucker Case said:
Our government has the firepower to become tyrannical if it truly desired to do so. No tyrannical government with the kind of firepower the US has could be defeated by a ragtag group of plucky rebels simply because they have guns.

We have the second amendment and all of the amendments, however, because we have a system of government that prevents itself from becoming tyrannical. It has limited it's own power and allowed power to be retained by the people.

The second amendment doesn't prevent tyranny, it exists because of a lack of tyranny. It must be preserved because it's removal would be a sign of tyranny, not because it's removal would lead to tyranny.
Click to expand...

So much flawed logic, where does one start?
 
US Conservative said:
So much flawed logic, where does one start?
Click to expand...
Usually I start with the first paragraph.

Optionally, I will start with whichever argument I find easiest to address.
OR the one I find most interesting.
 
TurtleDude said:
we aren't talking about nut cases.
Click to expand...

Generally, anyone who would assassinate a politician in the Us is a nutcase.

and I disagree. its lefties who want to ban guns
Click to expand...

And the reason for it is gun crime. If that were curbed through other means, it would castrate the arguments against guns.
 
Tucker Case said:
Generally, anyone who would assassinate a politician in the Us is a nutcase.



And the reason for it is gun crime. If that were curbed through other means, it would castrate the arguments against guns.
Click to expand...

really? Gun crime is going down-so are accidental shooting deaths yet Democrats continue to try to ban guns or severely limit our rights.

tell me TC-why did the Democrats ban people owning machine guns made after May 19, 1986 even though in SEVENTY YEARS there was only one case of a legally owned machine gun being used in a crime
 
The Mark said:
Usually I start with the first paragraph.

Optionally, I will start with whichever argument I find easiest to address.
OR the one I find most interesting.
Click to expand...

Or one could have nothing intelligent to say and thus respond with some idiotic drivel that only a complete retard would bother wasting the time necessary to type. For example, one could simply respond with a brain-turd along the lines of: "So much flawed logic, where does one start?"

That way the mindless idiot who chooses such a response can engage in all of the mental masturbation they see fit without actually engaging their brain in any way shape or form, thus eliminating any possibility of them harming themselves.
 
TurtleDude said:
really? Gun crime is going down-so are accidental shooting deaths yet Democrats continue to try to ban guns or severely limit our rights.
Click to expand...

And they are losing that battle. Look at the difference in the number of Concealed carry states in the last 20 years even without SC intervention.

tell me TC-why did the Democrats ban people owning machine guns made after May 19, 1986 even though in SEVENTY YEARS there was only one case of a legally owned machine gun being used in a crime
Click to expand...

Don't equivocate. The part in bold is an irrelevancy. The Dems don't bother using legally owned and illegally owned distinctions. The people they convince to support them do not bother with that info either.

They use all gun crimes as their tool in their emotion-based arguments. Most of them actually believe that they are trying to stop crime by banning guns. They actually believe the emotional arguments they present.

And I'm not talking about crimes committed with legally owned guns, I'm talking about all gun crime, regardless of the legality of ownership. A murder with a legally owned gun is just as bad as one with an illegally owned gun. In the absence of gun crimes, there are no gun laws in this country. Plain and simple. The biggest threat to gun ownership is gun crime.
 
Tucker Case said:
Or one could have nothing intelligent to say and thus respond with some idiotic drivel that only a complete retard would bother wasting the time necessary to type. For example, one could simply respond with a brain-turd along the lines of: "So much flawed logic, where does one start?"

That way the mindless idiot who chooses such a response can engage in all of the mental masturbation they see fit without actually engaging their brain in any way shape or form, thus eliminating any possibility of them harming themselves.
Click to expand...

I must have struck a nerve. :2wave:
 
Tucker Case said:
And they are losing that battle. Look at the difference in the number of Concealed carry states in the last 20 years even without SC intervention.



Don't equivocate. The part in bold is an irrelevancy. The Dems don't bother using legally owned and illegally owned distinctions. The people they convince to support them do not bother with that info either.

They use all gun crimes as their tool in their emotion-based arguments. Most of them actually believe that they are trying to stop crime by banning guns. They actually believe the emotional arguments they present.

And I'm not talking about crimes committed with legally owned guns, I'm talking about all gun crime, regardless of the legality of ownership. A murder with a legally owned gun is just as bad as one with an illegally owned gun. In the absence of gun crimes, there are no gun laws in this country. Plain and simple. The biggest threat to gun ownership is gun crime.
Click to expand...

I disagree-the biggest threat to gun ownership are politicians
 
Tucker Case said:
Or one could have nothing intelligent to say and thus respond with some idiotic drivel that only a complete retard would bother wasting the time necessary to type. For example, one could simply respond with a brain-turd along the lines of: "So much flawed logic, where does one start?"

That way the mindless idiot who chooses such a response can engage in all of the mental masturbation they see fit without actually engaging their brain in any way shape or form, thus eliminating any possibility of them harming themselves.
Click to expand...
Well, yes...

But I don't give a flying **** for the mental safety of such.
 
Tucker Case said:
True, but let's be honest, the people who vote for them probably feel the same way about guns as they do, and the reason for that...?
Click to expand...

politicians generally do two things

pander to those they think support them

try to preserve their tenure in office

in some cases, they pander to a public outcry and yes, Sandy Hook was a one of those
but we often see politicians whip up public hysteria without any visible massacre

like Obama denying private companies the ability to re-import hundreds of thousands of highly collectible MI Garands we had sold or given to our allies and are now militarily obsolete. Obama claimed that "these weapons of war could end up on our streets" even though the US GOVERNMENT through the now privatized (under clinton) Civilian Marksmanship Program sold millions of these rifles and the MI carbines to people like me and the number of them used i crimes-especially the bi and heavy Garands have an almost non-existent incidence of criminal misuse
 
TurtleDude said:
politicians generally do two things

pander to those they think support them

try to preserve their tenure in office

in some cases, they pander to a public outcry and yes, Sandy Hook was a one of those
but we often see politicians whip up public hysteria without any visible massacre

like Obama denying private companies the ability to re-import hundreds of thousands of highly collectible MI Garands we had sold or given to our allies and are now militarily obsolete. Obama claimed that "these weapons of war could end up on our streets" even though the US GOVERNMENT through the now privatized (under clinton) Civilian Marksmanship Program sold millions of these rifles and the MI carbines to people like me and the number of them used i crimes-especially the bi and heavy Garands have an almost non-existent incidence of criminal misuse
Click to expand...

The part I put in bold is key. Pandering to public outcry. The average person is generally an idiot. Let's just get that out in the open. So they aren't necessarily worried about the actual results of an action, they are merely interested in whether or not the action provides them the illusion of achieving their goals.

Many people in the public are of the misguided belief that gun restrictions can prevent gun crimes. Thus, they want to see restrictions put into place. They don't give a **** about how unlikely it is that an M1 Garand is going to be used in a crime, they don't even know what an M1 Garand is. They merely want to see "something done", no matter how useless that "something" that gets done is.

Politicians are also idiots, but their advisers are often quite smart. The advisers know that the easiest way to appease the public is to do "something" regardless of how pointless that "something" actually is. So they pass laws that have no chance of working and it appeases the public that they wish to appease.

On the flip side, the opposition politicians will wave guns around and yammer on incessantly about tyranny and using guns to defend freedom, which counts as "something done" for the idiots in the public to which they pander. It has an affect on these people despite being an equally worthless gesture as the "ban" imposed by the other douche.

Politics, when boiled down to its base form, is nothing but a game of getting idiots to think you are "doing something". It's merely a matter of picking which kind of idiot you want to pander to. The left has picked the kind of idiots who want to ban guns, the right has picked the kinds of idiots who love guns. Since both groups tend to have traits which align them with certain other views, it's a little bit more complicated than simply deciding on guns and moving on, but the incredibly strong correlations between supporting gun rights and evangelical Christianity and opposing gun rights while supporting abortion rights are indicative of the general mindset of the idiots involved.

Granted, there's a lot of group think involved that I'm downplaying. Conforming to the local social norms is a big part of why such correlations exist, but blind conformity to any specific set of social norms is often a result of incredible stupidity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom