• 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!

What is the worst NRA lie? [W:33]

What is the worst NRA lie ever?

  • You need guns for self defense (gun owners are more likely to die violently)

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • The second amendment covers person guns ( not the national guard)

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • More guns=safety (The states w. more guns have high gun deaths)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Obama wants to confiscate your guns (He doesn't)

    Votes: 7 63.6%

  • Assault rifles are good for hunting (They're designed solely to kill people)

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • The AR15 is not an assault rifle (It is)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • We can't do anything to stop gun violence (Hell yes we can)

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Total voters
    11
Tigerace117 said:
Doesn't matter. It may not be "preferred" but it's certainly possible, and criminals know it well.
Click to expand...

People kill others and themselves with knives, cars, boating accidents, baseball bats, screw drives and hammers, drugs, alcohol, poisons and just about anything you can think of. We should try to limit them all, including violence with guns.
 
Russell797 said:
People kill others and themselves with knives, cars, boating accidents, baseball bats, screw drives and hammers, drugs, alcohol, poisons and just about anything you can think of. We should try to limit them all, including violence with guns.
Click to expand...

So your going to restrict access to baseball bats and hammers? Good luck with that lol.
 
TurtleDude said:
you do understand that the people LEAST likely to obey a law that purports to make it tougher for criminals to obtain arms are the very ones who are least likely to obey laws that make robbery, rape, murder, and mayhem illegal? and the people most likely to be disarmed by a gun control law are those who do not commit substantive felony offenses?
Click to expand...

Of course. That means a meaningful set of solutions will not involve voluntary compliance with any laws. Is it possible? I don't know, but I want and expect people to be working on it. Hopefully ways can be found to limit access to unlawful ownership and use of guns by those who should not have possession of them. However, rest assured there will be no perfect solutions.

Wouldn't it be great if gun owners didn't feel like they are under attack by society for exercising their constitutional right? It won't happen as long as the current state of affairs is allowed to persist. The sides are dug in and emotions are high. I refuse to accept that we can not come to a resolution, but we must try or we won't.
 
Russell797 said:
Of course. That means a meaningful set of solutions will not involve voluntary compliance with any laws. Is it possible? I don't know, but I want and expect people to be working on it. Hopefully ways can be found to limit access to unlawful ownership and use of guns by those who should not have possession of them. However, rest assured there will be no perfect solutions.

Wouldn't it be great if gun owners didn't feel like they are under attack by society for exercising their constitutional right? It won't happen as long as the current state of affairs is allowed to persist. The sides are dug in and emotions are high. I refuse to accept that we can not come to a resolution, but we must try or we won't.
Click to expand...


yeah so here is a great idea

hammer people who use firearms to illegally harm others

hammer people who pack firearms while engaged in violent felonies such as kidnapping, armed robbery, arson, bombings etc.

Hammer people who have been proven incapable of using firearms properly such as violent criminals, fugitives from justice or narcotics addicts who are packing firearms or possessing them

stop calling for "assault weapon bans" "magazine limits" "registration" etc that attack honest peoples' rights to keep and bear arms.


the problem is-MOST of the LEADERS of the GUN RESTRICTION movement don't care about crime control. ITS ALL ABOUT political pay backs
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah so here is a great idea

hammer people who use firearms to illegally harm others

hammer people who pack firearms while engaged in violent felonies such as kidnapping, armed robbery, arson, bombings etc.

Hammer people who have been proven incapable of using firearms properly such as violent criminals, fugitives from justice or narcotics addicts who are packing firearms or possessing them

stop calling for "assault weapon bans" "magazine limits" "registration" etc that attack honest peoples' rights to keep and bear arms.


the problem is-MOST of the LEADERS of the GUN RESTRICTION movement don't care about crime control. ITS ALL ABOUT political pay backs
Click to expand...

I've said my piece. Solve the problem or expect a never ending battle on your hands. "Hammering" irresponsible people is a partial answer, one that we already employ. The prisons are full.
 
Russell797 said:
I've said my piece. Solve the problem or expect a never ending battle on your hands. "Hammering" irresponsible people is a partial answer, one that we already employ. The prisons are full.
Click to expand...

more armed victims=more dead criminals. sounds like a win win solution. but to claim gun owners need to solve the problem of crime or have our rights taken away is as stupid as saying those with chronic and severe pain who are on a pain management program need to find a solution for the diversion of opioids to the illegal markets or lose their medications

you seem to think gun owners who obey the laws are responsible for criminals

that's idiotic
 
TurtleDude said:
more armed victims=more dead criminals. sounds like a win win solution. but to claim gun owners need to solve the problem of crime or have our rights taken away is as stupid as saying those with chronic and severe pain who are on a pain management program need to find a solution for the diversion of opioids to the illegal markets or lose their medications

you seem to think gun owners who obey the laws are responsible for criminals

that's idiotic
Click to expand...

Oh come on, I'm not suggesting that gun owners solve the issue on their own. They need to be part of the search for solutions just like everyone else. It's a societal problem we are all dealing with whether we like it or not.

I am not saying gun owners who obey the laws are responsible for criminals. We as a society are complicit in making guns so available to criminals however. We enable them. Over 300,000,000 guns did not just pop up over night. They represent the collective of decades and centuries of people long dead and alive who purchased, smuggled and otherwise added guns to the total. We are stuck with them for better or worse. We did this to ourselves, and the people with bad intentions take full advantage.
 
Russell797 said:
People kill others and themselves with knives, cars, boating accidents, baseball bats, screw drives and hammers, drugs, alcohol, poisons and just about anything you can think of. We should try to limit them all, including violence with guns.
Click to expand...

You start off with people kill then list a bunch of tools/items to ban and expect that to solve anything? Ban inanimate objects and let the people continue on? That makes no sense.
 
Russell797 said:
Oh come on, I'm not suggesting that gun owners solve the issue on their own. They need to be part of the search for solutions just like everyone else. It's a societal problem we are all dealing with whether we like it or not.

I am not saying gun owners who obey the laws are responsible for criminals. We as a society are complicit in making guns so available to criminals however. We enable them. Over 300,000,000 guns did not just pop up over night. They represent the collective of decades and centuries of people long dead and alive who purchased, smuggled and otherwise added guns to the total. We are stuck with them for better or worse. We did this to ourselves, and the people with bad intentions take full advantage.
Click to expand...

and all we can do is punish those who misuse guns and make sure honest people have the best means possible to survive a violent attack upon them by criminals. and that means honest people need easy access to the firearms that our governmental units have determined are the best and most suitable tools for use by civilian employees in a civilian environment against criminals who are mainly civilian in nature
 
MACS-24 said:
You start off with people kill then list a bunch of tools/items to ban and expect that to solve anything? Ban inanimate objects and let the people continue on? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Where did I use the word ban, or even imply it? We are not going to ban any of those things and we are not going to ban all guns either. By the word "limit" I meant to reduce their misuse. Some of those things we employ the latest and greatest of technology to improve the safety of use. Hammers, screw drivers, baseball bats and knives tend to leave a lot of physical evidence behind when used to kill and there is little guarantee the attempt will be successful.

What makes sense is to limit the potential for people with bad intentions to get hold of guns. Can it be done? Is it possible there are ways which would be acceptable to the majority of gun owners?
 
Russell797 said:
Where did I use the word ban, or even imply it? We are not going to ban any of those things and we are not going to ban all guns either. By the word "limit" I meant to reduce their misuse. Some of those things we employ the latest and greatest of technology to improve the safety of use. Hammers, screw drivers, baseball bats and knives tend to leave a lot of physical evidence behind when used to kill and there is little guarantee the attempt will be successful.

What makes sense is to limit the potential for people with bad intentions to get hold of guns. Can it be done? Is it possible there are ways which would be acceptable to the majority of gun owners?
Click to expand...

seems to me (based on 40+ years of debating those who want to limit or restrict the availability of guns to citizens) you are trying to walk a thin line between being a gun banner and pretending you only want to stop criminal misuse of weapons

here is the bottom line

its already illegal for a criminal to possess any firearm

any laws that restrict the purchase, acquisition or ownership of any type or certain types of firearms are going to have a vastly disparate impact on HONEST people and very very little impact on criminals. that is what we object to
 
Russell797 said:
Oh come on, I'm not suggesting that gun owners solve the issue on their own. They need to be part of the search for solutions just like everyone else. It's a societal problem we are all dealing with whether we like it or not.

I am not saying gun owners who obey the laws are responsible for criminals. We as a society are complicit in making guns so available to criminals however. We enable them. Over 300,000,000 guns did not just pop up over night. They represent the collective of decades and centuries of people long dead and alive who purchased, smuggled and otherwise added guns to the total. We are stuck with them for better or worse. We did this to ourselves, and the people with bad intentions take full advantage.
Click to expand...

Reducng the freedom of all in hopes of also hindering those with bad intentions is a very ineffective crime fighting strategy. Even if you could grow government and reduce inndividual freedom enough to create and maintain "nerf world" you would still have those people with bad intentons and even more defenseless potential victims.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Reducng the freedom of all in hopes of also hindering those with bad intentions is a very ineffective crime fightng strategy. Even if you could grow government and reduce inndividual freedom enough to create and maintain "nerf world" you would still have those people with bad intentons and even more defenseless potential victims.
Click to expand...


that is why many of us who have been dealing with the anti gun types for years no longer believe that the leaders of that movement are well intentioned but misguided but rather actually intend that honest people be disarmed.
 
TurtleDude said:
and all we can do is punish those who misuse guns and make sure honest people have the best means possible to survive a violent attack upon them by criminals. and that means honest people need easy access to the firearms that our governmental units have determined are the best and most suitable tools for use by civilian employees in a civilian environment against criminals who are mainly civilian in nature
Click to expand...

People have and will continue to own guns. There is nothing we can do about it even if that were the goal. Access to guns for legitimate use is not the problem. People who want them have them.

I assume punishing people acts as a deterrent to others to some extent. So punishment is part of the solution. We already do that and always have. If that were good enough we wouldn’t be having this conversation though. People are not satisfied, they want and expect better. They are demanding something be done, but frankly no one knows what to do which most people would find acceptable. No point in being at each others throats over it either, although I suppose that's inevitable too.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is why many of us who have been dealing with the anti gun types for years no longer believe that the leaders of that movement are well intentioned but misguided but rather actually intend that honest people be disarmed.
Click to expand...

The idea of placing those few people with bad intentions (convicted violent offenders?) on a "no guns for life" list and then letting them roam freely among us is the problem - not the solution. Out of "fairness" (I suppose) we must then treat all free people as if they could be on that "no guns for life" list. Don't worry - if we make government big enough and reduce freedom enough then it will become safe to let those people with bad intentions roam among us. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The idea of placing those few people with bad intentions (convicted violent offenders?) on a "no guns for life" list and then letting them roam freely among us is the problem - not the solution. Out of "fairness" (I suppose) we must then treat all free people as if they could be on that "no guns for life" list. Don't worry - if we make government big enough and reduce freedom enough then it will become safe to let those people with bad intentions roam among us. ;)
Click to expand...

well my first line response is armed victims who shoot well!
 
Russell797 said:
If an elderly person or a woman thinks they would benefit from owning a gun then they should get one. The problem is that people who wish to do harm with guns have them and can easily get them. When there is a problem we usually seek a solution. This issue should be no different.
Click to expand...
And if they wish to break the law, what makes you think that more laws would stop them? I know a bullet to the brain would stop them. Laws? Those are broken many times, every single day.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The idea of placing those few people with bad intentions (convicted violent offenders?) on a "no guns for life" list and then letting them roam freely among us is the problem - not the solution. Out of "fairness" (I suppose) we must then treat all free people as if they could be on that "no guns for life" list. Don't worry - if we make government big enough and reduce freedom enough then it will become safe to let those people with bad intentions roam among us. ;)
Click to expand...
It still wouldn't be safe, because that would only restrict people who follow the law, criminals would still murder people, just with less resistance.
 
With a well armed public a Totalitarian Dictatorship is impossible to establish. Without a Totalitarian Dictatorship a Holocaust, Gulag or similar situation is impossible to achieve.
 
Ganapathy said:
Nope, I was a 12B Combat Engineer. Basically Infantry, but the difference is that we also clear minefields, do route clearance so that the rest of the Army can travel safely, and love to blow stuff up
Click to expand...

Sorry no you were not basically infantry. Adding to the list of lies I see.
 
Ganapathy said:
I qualified with an M4. The AR15 is literally an M4 without burst fire. All the other features designed to kill large numbers of people, such as the buffer tube, the pistol grip, the muzzle brake, the armor piercing 5.56 NATO round, are still there.
Click to expand...

Wow. I can't tell if you are simply clueless or just dishonest. Let's start with the easiest one. How about you look up what a muzzle break is and then look up what is on the end of an M4/16

It is very hard to believe you ever spent a day in the military.
 
Pumpkin Row said:
And if they wish to break the law, what makes you think that more laws would stop them? I know a bullet to the brain would stop them. Laws? Those are broken many times, every single day.
Click to expand...

More laws which can be broken will not stop anyone from breaking the law. DUH

Solutions will not involve voluntary compliance with laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom