• 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!

Criminals won't obey gun laws

Strucky said:
Come on now,these are the same people that want to be human by putting the Gitmo crew into the American prison system....where they will be ripped to shreds.
Click to expand...

Actually I support that idea for that reason. Terrorists vs Hard Core Murders, Rapists, and the like? It will be a spectacle, either way someone dies and less money is spent.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
Actually I support that idea for that reason. Terrorists vs Hard Core Murders, Rapists, and the like? It will be a spectacle, either way someone dies and less money is spent.
Click to expand...

Tell me why you aren't a Correctional Officer?
 
chevydriver1123 said:
Actually I support that idea for that reason. Terrorists vs Hard Core Murders, Rapists, and the like? It will be a spectacle, either way someone dies and less money is spent.
Click to expand...

I would'nt mind seeing that very same scenario played out...But I have mixed feelings about giving these guys access to the American legal system with all of it's crooked lawyers that would sooner make a buck then do whats right.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Tell me why you aren't a Correctional Officer?
Click to expand...

Dunno, I refuse to be a state ward (unless I was really desperate for work) plus Im a Retail Manager I rule with a Iron Fist elsewhere.


Strucky said:
I would'nt mind seeing that very same scenario played out...But I have mixed feelings about giving these guys access to the American legal system with all of it's crooked lawyers that would sooner make a buck then do whats right.
Click to expand...

Yes, the whole legal process would be the block in the road in order to get my deathmatches.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
Actually I support that idea for that reason. Terrorists vs Hard Core Murders, Rapists, and the like? It will be a spectacle, either way someone dies and less money is spent.
Click to expand...

We could put in on PayPerView. :mrgreen:
 
EpicDude86 said:
The point is, we can't take these for granted or as fact, because the very basic truth is OUR right to bear arms is a Man-Made concept, granted us by the State
Click to expand...

That's a pretty confounding proposition you offer there . . . Who is the "they" of the state, where did "they" come from and where did "they" get this power to mete out particular rights to the people and condition them?

How can rights, because they are a construct of the mind be subject to the whims of a structure of government . . . Also a construct of the mind?

Perhaps your theory could be said to exist in a dictatorship or monarchy but in the USA, the structure of the "state" followed a specific intent.

In the USA, the "state" was formed by the people with a primary intent of securing the pre-existing rights of the people. The citizens, toward that end, embraced principles which guided their forming of the structure of the "state". Since a fundamental principle is ALL POWER EMANATES FROM THE PEOPLE, the only powers that the state may exercise are those limited powers conferred by the people to government via specific enumeration in the Constitution.

If no power was ever conferred to the "state" to impact the personal arms of the private citizen, then none exists.

Therein the right to arms is defined, because rights are exceptions of powers never granted.

Under the US Constitution the concept that the "state" grants people their rights is nonsensical . . . How can the "state" give the people something the people never parted with?

EpicDude86 said:
and if they REALLY wanted to (try) they could take it away.
Click to expand...

When the state tries to "take away" a right it is acting beyond the powers granted to it. The regular process is to contest such a law or action in court and hopefully have it declared unconstitutional and invalid.

If an illegitimate action of the state can not be restrained by the balance of powers in government, the people retain the right to rescind their consent to be governed. If that can not be done peacefully then the 2nd Amendment guarantees that the people possess the means to reclaim their sovereignty with violence.
 
EpicDude86 said:
I kinda see what you're trying to say but I think you're using the wrong words, or the words meaning the same thing to define two things that you perceive are different.

Liberty n. 1. the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice

Freedom n. 1. the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another
Click to expand...

They do not mean the same thing.

Freedom is a state of being where you are existing without any confining structure. Either in a pure state of nature or in a domain where society or government has zero influence.

Liberty is a concept that only exists within society or under government. It doesn't mean just doing whatever you want with no rules; it is "an exemption from all human laws, to which they have not given their assent." (Algernon Sidney)

Liberty is a concept that exists only under a just, legitimate government that only exercises powers with the consent of the governed. Your ideal of granted rights that can be taken back by the "state" is the antithesis to liberty.
 
Willie Orwontee said:
That's a pretty confounding proposition you offer there . . . Who is the "they" of the state, where did "they" come from and where did "they" get this power to mete out particular rights to the people and condition them?

How can rights, because they are a construct of the mind be subject to the whims of a structure of government . . . Also a construct of the mind?

Perhaps your theory could be said to exist in a dictatorship or monarchy but in the USA, the structure of the "state" followed a specific intent.

In the USA, the "state" was formed by the people with a primary intent of securing the pre-existing rights of the people. The citizens, toward that end, embraced principles which guided their forming of the structure of the "state". Since a fundamental principle is ALL POWER EMANATES FROM THE PEOPLE, the only powers that the state may exercise are those limited powers conferred by the people to government via specific enumeration in the Constitution.

If no power was ever conferred to the "state" to impact the personal arms of the private citizen, then none exists.

Therein the right to arms is defined, because rights are exceptions of powers never granted.

Under the US Constitution the concept that the "state" grants people their rights is nonsensical . . . How can the "state" give the people something the people never parted with?



When the state tries to "take away" a right it is acting beyond the powers granted to it. The regular process is to contest such a law or action in court and hopefully have it declared unconstitutional and invalid.

If an illegitimate action of the state can not be restrained by the balance of powers in government, the people retain the right to rescind their consent to be governed. If that can not be done peacefully then the 2nd Amendment guarantees that the people possess the means to reclaim their sovereignty with violence.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that you have a firm grasp on theory, some people do not. I'm a fan of how the system is SUPPOSED to work as well. However this is Reality, if the State wanted to enforce Martial Law and it had the backing of the Military or enough guns to do so, your "rights" would mean jack ****. That is why we can never let the Government get so big as it could successful do something like that.
 
EpicDude86 said:
I'm glad that you have a firm grasp on theory, some people do not. I'm a fan of how the system is SUPPOSED to work as well. However this is Reality, if the State wanted to enforce Martial Law and it had the backing of the Military or enough guns to do so, your "rights" would mean jack ****. That is why we can never let the Government get so big as it could successful do something like that.
Click to expand...

The only reason why the "reality" you speak of is possible is because so many modern and enlightened people have turned away from "how the system is SUPPOSED to work"

Ignorance has permitted the "granted rights" mindset you promote and has allowed government to exceed the confines of the Constitution.

That we remain spot on with Madison's ratio's of total population / standing army / armed citizens should not be discounted. He intended any standing army to be outnumbered ("opposed" was the word he used) by armed citizens by a factor of 17-1 . . . If the higher estimates of gun owners today are to be accepted be have bettered that, perhaps as wide as 25-1.
 
Willie Orwontee said:
The only reason why the "reality" you speak of is possible is because so many modern and enlightened people have turned away from "how the system is SUPPOSED to work"

Ignorance has permitted the "granted rights" mindset you promote and has allowed government to exceed the confines of the Constitution.

That we remain spot on with Madison's ratio's of total population / standing army / armed citizens should not be discounted. He intended any standing army to be outnumbered ("opposed" was the word he used) by armed citizens by a factor of 17-1 . . . If the higher estimates of gun owners today are to be accepted be have bettered that, perhaps as wide as 25-1.
Click to expand...

Just because some guys with great ideas and honest intentions granted us these rights doesn't mean that the current system can't take them away, or at least try. It's the mindset that the rights CAN'T be taken away that has made us complacent. I'm mentally prepared for whatever they could possibly do, so I'm not standing around after the fact wondering where my rights went.

Also 17-1 doesn't work when they have tanks, more guns, and training that average citizens don't often have just lying around.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Also 17-1 doesn't work when they have tanks, more guns, and training that average citizens don't often have just lying around.
Click to expand...

I wonder about people who use your line of argument . . . Is there a scenario where you would stop cheering the blowing up of fellow citizens and join the fight?

So, let's look past the fighting, whatever it might be . . . After the gun nuts who were willing to die for their beliefs are actually dead do you really think that the government will then open up the polls the following November and accept whatever the vote might be? After killing a few 100,000 citizens, leveling some towns it will just go back to he same old dem vs repub BS?

Why would the administration that just killed off the resistance ever hold an election again?

They have tanks after all :roll: :roll: :doh. . .
 
Willie Orwontee said:
I wonder about people who use your line of argument . . . Is there a scenario where you would stop cheering the blowing up of fellow citizens and join the fight?
Click to expand...

First of all, The first time they try and take my weapons they'll get my ammo first, and at the end of my driveway.

Willie Orwontee said:
So, let's look past the fighting, whatever it might be . . . After the gun nuts who were willing to die for their beliefs are actually dead do you really think that the government will then open up the polls the following November and accept whatever the vote might be? After killing a few 100,000 citizens, leveling some towns it will just go back to he same old dem vs repub BS?

Why would the administration that just killed off the resistance ever hold an election again?

They have tanks after all :roll: :roll: :doh. . .
Click to expand...

Why are you asking me this?
 
molten_dragon said:
A criminal is, by definition, someone who doesn't obey the laws. You say we shouldn't have gun control laws because criminals won't obey them, but that's an absolutely terrible argument. Should we not have laws against murder and rape too then? After all, criminals don't obey those laws either.
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges. Murder and rape laws exist so that people who commit those crimes can be prosecuted.

Gun control laws prevent people from buying firearms deemed "unsafe" by the govt (sometimes for some reason as stupid as "they have a military look".) Convicted felons are already legally barred from owning guns, so obviously the majority of career criminals buy their guns illegally.

The only real thing that gun control laws do therefore is prevent law-abiding citizens from owning certain types of weapons. If the argument is that guns are dangerous and there's no way to tell when someone will use one in a crime, then maybe we should also ban kitchen knives, baseball bats, or any object that "could" be used to commit a murder.
 
My opinion on the issue of gun control is to prevent guns from falling into the hands of those with intent to harm while upholding the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. My suggestion here may not, in fact, be the best decision, or a good one, but I'm posing it more as a fundamental idea than a solution.

This is one of the few issues I'm more conservative about. I don't think there should be any debate that the second amendment gives U.S. citizens the right to own a gun; the right to protect themselves. With that being said, I don't think that there should be absolutely no gun control laws. For instance, I don't think someone who has been convicted of violent crimes in the past should be able to purchase a firearm. The goal would be to prevent criminals and potential criminals from obtaining firearms easily, while still allowing those law-abiding citizens to purchase and use firearms without difficulty.

I think we should restrict who can own guns while ensuring law-abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves. I've been told (by my highly conservative Math Analysis teacher; how legitimate this source, is up in the air) that Switzerland ensures that every law-abiding citizen's home has a gun and that they are trained to use it effectively. That, in combination with their laws preventing the sale of guns to criminals, has led to a low crime rate.

As I said, that information could be wrong, but if it is correct, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing something similar implemented in the United States.

Open to more ideas on this issue.
 
Last edited:
gabehwkns said:
My opinion on the issue of gun control is to prevent guns from falling into the hands of those with intent to harm while upholding the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. My suggestion here may not, in fact, be the best decision, or a good one, but I'm posing it more as a fundamental idea than a solution.

This is one of the few issues I'm more conservative about. I don't think there should be any debate that the second amendment gives U.S. citizens the right to own a gun; the right to protect themselves. With that being said, I don't think that there should be absolutely no gun control laws. For instance, I don't think someone who has been convicted of violent crimes in the past should be able to purchase a firearm. The goal would be to prevent criminals and potential criminals from obtaining firearms easily, while still allowing those law-abiding citizens to purchase and use firearms without difficulty.

I think we should restrict who can own guns while ensuring law-abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves. I've been told (by my highly conservative Math Analysis teacher; how legitimate this source, is up in the air) that Switzerland ensures that every law-abiding citizen's home has a gun and that they are trained to use it effectively. That, in combination with their laws preventing the sale of guns to criminals, has led to a low crime rate.

As I said, that information could be wrong, but if it is correct, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing something similar implemented in the United States.

Open to more ideas on this issue.
Click to expand...

the thing is, we already have laws that theoretically "prevent" criminals from buying guns... the problem is the criminals don't cooperate, and just as with illegal drugs the black market can supply whatever is wanted.
 
molten_dragon said:
A criminal is, by definition, someone who doesn't obey the laws. You say we shouldn't have gun control laws because criminals won't obey them, but that's an absolutely terrible argument. Should we not have laws against murder and rape too then? After all, criminals don't obey those laws either.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating taking guns away from people (I'm in favor of only modest restrictions on firearms purchases), but this argument just doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...

Actually, the argument does hold water if you don't conflate gun ownership with murder and rape....:roll:
 
molten_dragon said:
I'm not coming at gun control from the angle of trying to prevent people from having access to guns. I'm coming at it from the angle that the government should try to exercise due diligence to make sure that people who do purchase firearms legally are informed of laws surrounding firearms and safe usage of them.

What I would ideally like to see is something similar to the following:

Before you're allowed to purchase any firearms, you must get a gun-owners license. To get one you'd need to take an approved course on gun laws and gun safety, and pass a simple test on the same subjects. The test should be very basic and most of the answers should be common sense (similar to the driver's test to get your learner's permit). You only need to take the course once, and you can take the test as many times as you want until you pass.

Then, whenever you purchase a gun, you would need to register it with the government. Ideally, the gun would have a unique identification number etched into it in several places, similar to the VIN number on a car.

The only other restriction would be you'd have to pass a criminal background check.
Click to expand...

Basically, we need the government's permission to exercise a right.

:doh
 
molten_dragon said:
I see what you're saying, and it is a double standard. But it's one I'm comfortable with. You can't kill someone with hate speech. You can with a gun.
Click to expand...

Speech can compel people to violence in a number of ways.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Also 17-1 doesn't work when they have tanks, more guns, and training that average citizens don't often have just lying around.
Click to expand...

We have tanks in Afghanistan, too. Somehow, the insurgency manages to persist.
 
Ethereal said:
We have tanks in Afghanistan, too. Somehow, the insurgency manages to persist.
Click to expand...

Compare an Afghan insurgent, his lifestyle, culture and upbringing to the average U.S. citizen.

Compare the Afghan geography that of America.

You'll find you are comparing Cran-apple juice to Cran-pomegranate.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Compare an Afghan insurgent, his lifestyle, culture and upbringing to the average U.S. citizen.
Click to expand...

What about it? I'm the average US citizen and I was a Marine infantryman for four years.

Compare the Afghan geography that of America.
Click to expand...

America is fifteen times larger than Afghanistan.

You'll find you are comparing Cran-apple juice to Cran-pomegranate.
Click to expand...

You're right. Quelling an insurgency in America would be far more difficult...:2razz:
 
Ethereal said:
You're right. Quelling an insurgency in America would be far more difficult...:2razz:
Click to expand...
Yes, given that those engaging in said insurgency would be anything but the average American.
 
Ethereal said:
What about it? I'm the average US citizen and I was a Marine infantryman for four years.
Click to expand...

Well you're going to be at the very top of the list for who has the most kills in comparison to the rest of America.



Ethereal said:
America is fifteen times larger than Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

I was referring to infrastructure and military cohesion. But then again Former Marines will fare well regardless, Civilians with no guns, lack of any military or firearm training, or lack of the Patriotic sense of Honor will either be thrown in line quickly or dispatched easily.


Ethereal said:
You're right. Quelling an insurgency in America would be far more difficult...:2razz:
Click to expand...

You're comparing fighting some goat herders and tribesmen armed with Soiet bloc and black market weapons, at best, fighting in a harsh, desolate area they've lived in their entire life vs. a largely untrained and complacent populace that would turn over their rights to avoid conflict.
 
Last edited:
EpicDude86 said:
You're comparing fighting some goat herders and tribesmen armed with Soiet bloc and black market weapons, at best, fighting in a harsh, desolate area they've lived in their entire life vs. a largely untrained and complacent populace that would turn over their rights to avoid conflict.
Click to expand...
The part you're failing to consider is these are not the people that would be fighting on the side of an American insurgency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom