• 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!

Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

I'm fascinated by the "you don't need it" argument. People actually want government to decided what they need and don't need and to ban whatever it decides they don't need?

their attitudes establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, why the rest of us NEED effective weaponry

Women don't need the right to choose whether or not they have an abortion, let's get the government to ban them.
 
I also think people should have the right to choose whether or not to own a gun so I'm with you there. The problem is that we're talking about using guns for self defense and I've looked around and asked others to look around and nobody here (myself included) has found a single instance, EVER, of a civilian successfully using an AR-15 to defend themselves when a .22 would have done the job just as well. Thank you for serving the country, but now that you're back here, you're not going to need to defend yourself against large groups of people trying to kill you. And what I mean by my use of the term needs, for some of those here who don't get it, is that there is no logical reason why any American civilian needs to shoot thirty rounds to defend themselves from a robber or mugger with the possible exception of those in the Mafia and in prominent drug cartels.

Even those in gangs do just fine with pistols.

Lastly, will you please tell VanceMack what you said to me - he's repeatedly told me a bushmaster is no more powerful than a .22 and is not capable of killing more people in the same amount of time. His girlfriend is the one you heard insisting that it's not about the size of the weapon, it's how the man operates it.

You have absolutely no idea what would've happened in any of those situations if the defender had a weaker rifle, and claiming that you do is highly inaccurate.

I don't know what VanceMack said, nor do I really care. Fact is, a 5.56 AR-15 is light years more powerful than a .22. Even looking at the rounds will tell you that. There are plenty of instances where people have been shot multiple times with a .22 and still managed to overwhelm the defender, or survive the attack no problem. There's hardly anybody who's lived through a Desert Eagle .50 wound.

I wonder how many gun extremists think Giffords got what was coming to her, as she was an advocate for tighter gun laws before she was a victim of attempted murder.

Nobody. It was a horrible tragedy, and it's rather pathetic that you try to create such a ridiculous position about something so tragic and try to pin it on us.
 
Last edited:
Women don't need the right to choose whether or not they have an abortion, let's get the government to ban them.

I worked for planned parenthood. It is cutting down on dem voters.
 
Do you think people should be able to use legally use and purchase heroin? What would you say if (I'm going to assume that you are, in fact, against legalizing heroin) I told you how disgusting it is that anybody would think they have the authority to tell me what I can and cannot use. It's pathetic and it's disgusting.

This is called "debate politics." You can go elsewhere if you're offended by somebody disagreeing with you. Just because I and other people say things like "nobody needs ____" what that means is that in our opinion there is no use for ____. I told you that's what I meant and it's like you just don't get it. Frankly, I think you're very confused and in turn you are very confusing. You challenged my points but didn't understand analogy and were unable to put together a relevant response. Don't be so vigorous about getting a response from me, it made me think you were going to give me something worthy of my effort.

Ba-ha-ha! The above just shows how little you know about rights. Since when is doing heroin a RIGHT? Do you even know what a right is? I don't think you do.

As to the rest of your post, blah, blah, blah. I couldn't care less.
 
Women don't need the right to choose whether or not they have an abortion, let's get the government to ban them.

Having an abortion? Also NOT a right.
 
Demand a plan! - (new video)

 
Ba-ha-ha! The above just shows how little you know about rights. Since when is doing heroin a RIGHT? Do you even know what a right is? I don't think you do.

As to the rest of your post, blah, blah, blah. I couldn't care less.

The problem is that you don't follow what I'm saying. I'm transposing your logic in the form of an analogy, a process which clearly eludes you. What I was saying is that it makes absolutely no sense to be "disgusted" by somebody saying that a person doesn't need a bushmaster. It's every bit as logical as being disgusted by somebody telling you that you don't need heroin. Do you understand what's happening here? Apparently not. Civilians will be just fine using handguns for defense and tylenol for pain. I wasn't saying that using heroin is a right. Although part of my argument is that having any weapon under the sun is most clearly-obviously-way-past-the-point-of-debate not a right, as established by a whole host of laws and judicial rulings over the course of the last 2 centuries.

Doing heroin as opposed to having military weapons- one of those strikes you as absurd and the other clearly a god given right as allowed by our constitution? No, I'm afraid to alert you to the fact that our laws are (or at least should be) based on common sense. We doing need people overdosing and we don't need the police - or anybody else for that matter - overpowered by guns that are legal simply because you think god wants us to be armed like Rambo.

And you mentioned having an abortion as "not a right." I'm sorry, have you heard of Roe v Wade? Remember this part:

the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion

But you don't seem to be a fan of reading the constitution or the judicial decisions based on it. The right to bear arms is legitimate. Regulating the type of firearms available to citizens is just as legitimate. The right to abortion is legitimate. Regulating the process of providing these procedures for women is just as legitimate. If you're going to respond, please recall that you have just slaughtered the facts and proven that you aren't familiar with judicial rulings regarding the rights afforded to American citizens.
 
Demand a plan! - (new video)



They did already.....Stop, Drop, and Roll! :lol:

So what did you say the reason was for changing the terminology for background checks to Universal?
 
They did already.....Stop, Drop, and Roll! :lol:

So what did you say the reason was for changing the terminology for background checks to Universal?


To reflect the change in background checks just by licensed gun dealers to include background checks by unlicensed dealers as well.
 
To reflect the change in background checks just by licensed gun dealers to include background checks by unlicensed dealers as well.

Yeah and to reflect to have people that are not criminals put on lists as well. But like LaPierre stated he knew Obama would change the terminology while attempting to implement it with the Assault weapons ban. Hence now Universal, the term that Obama did not want to start with. Again wherein the Fed already has 3 databases and so do states.

Chicago and Arizona say.....wheres Gabby?
 
Yeah and to reflect to have people that are not criminals put on lists as well. But like LaPierre stated he knew Obama would change the terminology while attempting to implement it with the Assault weapons ban. Hence now Universal, the term that Obama did not want to start with. Again wherein the Fed already has 3 databases and so do states.

Chicago and Arizona say.....wheres Gabby?

All states should at least have the same list and be able to share information
 
Demand a Plan to end Gun Violence

"It’s time. Join more than 850 mayors and over 1.2 million grassroots supporters to demand that Congress step forward with a plan to end gun violence.

Our efforts cannot bring back the 20 innocent children murdered in Newtown, CT -- or the 33 people murdered with guns every day in America. But we can prevent future tragedies by passing common sense legislation that will:

1. Require a criminal background check for every gun sold in America
2. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines
3. Make gun trafficking a federal crime, with real penalties for “straw purchasers”

Demand that your members of Congress support these legislative priorities.

Watch our Super Bowl ad, then join us in standing up to the gun lobby and demanding background checks for all gun sales."



Demand a Plan - Home
 
It is not the lethality of guns that is a problem, it is how many guns there are. The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000, according to information from here:

Guns in the United States: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law

Well... 270,000,000 is a good start. I think we should have double or triple the number; everyone should own a couple and know how to use them.

Tell me... why is the number a problem for you? I'm curious.
 
"About the only thing more terrifying than a lone gunman firing into a classroom or a crowded movie theater is a half a dozen more gunmen leaping around firing their pistols at the killer, which is to say really at each other and every bystander. It’s a police officer’s nightmare."

"While other advanced countries have imposed gun control laws, America has conducted a natural experiment in what happens when a society has as many guns as people. The results are in, and they’re not counterintuitive."

Why the 'More Guns' Argument Doesn't Make Sense - NYTimes.com
 
Back
Top Bottom