• 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!

5-year old Idaho girl dies afterIdaho playmate gets gun

A society which has almost as many weapons as people is going to have an amount of collateral damage. Some innocent people will pay for that reality.


A society which has almost as many cars as people is going to have an amount of collateral damage. Some innocent people will pay for that reality.

So, what is your point exactly?
 
When the gun nuts start being part of the solution rather then the problem, the "gun control nutters" will stop fighting you. It is a fight you will loose in the long run. As I have said many times before, you can either come to the bargaining table and be part of the solution, or be left out and let us "gun control nutters" solve the issue without you. The country has been on a liberal track for a few hundred years. It is about time you come to terms with that. The south lost the war, slavery was abolished, women were allowed to vote and gay marriage is now becoming legal in most states. How many more wars do you want to lose? I highly suggest to you "gun nuts" out there that you come meet the "gun control nutters" half way on some issues to take some of the heat off, or else you will be handed a deafening defeat.

Not sure why you are so confident there. There was a huge push for new restrictions after the Newtown school tragedy. I didnt hear of one piece of legislation that was passed after that except in Conn itself. None of the ones in this state passed.
 
The owner knew unauthorized use could occure if they didn't secure the gun, so this wasn't an accident. The owner failed to properly secure the gun, so it's negligence.

Personally if it's not about kids in the home, that's bull**** too.

I am not responsible for anything that a criminal steals from my car or home. I am not a criminal, they are. I am not responsible for other people breaking the law. Would I be held liable if I they stole my car and used it in the commission of a crime (happened, wasnt)?

I have every right to have my firearm immediately accessible to me in my home, There are zero kids around and if there were I would secure but otherwise, I am not to be blamed for a criminal's actions. That gun lives on a nightstand shelf right where I can access immediately in my safe room/bedroom. If my home is broken into, I know that someone may be inside able to use it against me but I live in a rural area with dogs so it's unlikely someone will be inside when I arrived home and am not aware of something being wrong.

And in my state, by law I do not have to secure my gun (if there are no kids in the home), thankfully.
 
Not sure why you are so confident there. There was a huge push for new restrictions after the Newtown school tragedy. I didnt hear of one piece of legislation that was passed after that except in Conn itself. None of the ones in this state passed.

There are enough people who support such legislation, but it will probably take a string of incidents or possibly one large incident to light the fire under their butts to care enough to push for it. That is the way Americans are. Take 911 for example. It takes a series or one large tragic event to get people going. These events are starting to manifest themselves starting with the string of school shootings. Based on the current climate of a society saturated with guns and mental illness, it is only a matter of time before an event transpires that will force people to get off their bums and actually voice their opinions.
 
A society which has almost as many cars as people is going to have an amount of collateral damage. Some innocent people will pay for that reality.

So, what is your point exactly?

yup that is very true. The entire world experience of an heavily populated nation like ours shows that it would be nearly impossible to have the society we do without the automobile. So the price is indeed paid and probably one we must pay.

So can we say the same for the world experience with firearms and the price we must pay for that?

btw - that is the point.
 
Personally if it's not about kids in the home, that's bull**** too.

I am not responsible for anything that a criminal steals from my car or home. I am not a criminal, they are. I am not responsible for other people breaking the law. Would I be held liable if I they stole my car and used it in the commission of a crime (happened, wasnt)?

I have every right to have my firearm immediately accessible to me in my home, There are zero kids around and if there were I would secure but otherwise, I am not to be blamed for a criminal's actions. That gun lives on a nightstand shelf right where I can access immediately in my safe room/bedroom. If my home is broken into, I know that someone may be inside able to use it against me but I live in a rural area with dogs so it's unlikely someone will be inside when I arrived home and am not aware of something being wrong.

And in my state, by law I do not have to secure my gun (if there are no kids in the home), thankfully.




Tell us all about it if a child is ever in your home and finds that gun and uses it.

It's the things that people don't think are going to happen that create problems for a lot of people.

I'm not wishing bad luck on anyone, but that's a fact.
 
A society which has almost as many cars as people is going to have an amount of collateral damage. Some innocent people will pay for that reality.

So, what is your point exactly?

True, but vehicles have the tightest regulations of anything we purchase.
 
yup that is very true. The entire world experience of an heavily populated nation like ours shows that it would be nearly impossible to have the society we do without the automobile. So the price is indeed paid and probably one we must pay.

So can we say the same for the world experience with firearms and the price we must pay for that?

btw - that is the point.

Which is why the point she/he made is full of holes. Getting rid of vehicles and getting rid of guns would not have equal consequences. I would guess that ardent extremists on the gun side would somehow try to make the argument it is, but I don't think any rationally thinking person would seriously make that argument. Considering guns have been around longer the vehicles and it was not until the invension of the automobile that economies of countries whos populous owned them exploaded. While the ownership of firearms has not had anything like that effect.
 
You talked to a pretty ****ty cop if he's taking aim at holstered weapons.

How many 'bad guys' walk around oc'ing? That was just nonsense you wrote and I hope no cop actually said it.

We are both talking about open carry in populated public areas. And no, he's not the only LEO that is not okay with this new fad of open carry in populated public areas like stores and McDonalds, et al. Hell even one of our own strongly pro-gun members here started a thread about how the open carry attitudes of most that are doing it is doing more harm to the cause than good. Sorry, y'all that want to open carry in populated areas, are doing only to garner attention and be arrogant fools, and neither of those types should even own guns.

You're indignation about potentially being included in that is no concern of mine.
 
Which is why the point she/he made is full of holes. Getting rid of vehicles and getting rid of guns would not have equal consequences. I would guess that ardent extremists on the gun side would somehow try to make the argument it is, but I don't think any rationally thinking person would seriously make that argument. Considering guns have been around longer the vehicles and it was not until the invension of the automobile that economies of countries whos populous owned them exploaded. While the ownership of firearms has not had anything like that effect.

Excellent point. Well stated.
 
A society which has almost as many cars as people is going to have an amount of collateral damage. Some innocent people will pay for that reality.

So, what is your point exactly?

He apparently doesn't care for the first quote in your sig. I personally love it though. Freedom has risks, and we either accept those risks and be free, or we decide to abandon freedom and allow other people to control us. The choice is ours.
 
Which is why the point she/he made is full of holes. Getting rid of vehicles and getting rid of guns would not have equal consequences. I would guess that ardent extremists on the gun side would somehow try to make the argument it is, but I don't think any rationally thinking person would seriously make that argument. Considering guns have been around longer the vehicles and it was not until the invension of the automobile that economies of countries whos populous owned them exploaded. While the ownership of firearms has not had anything like that effect.

Who the **** even cares? You don't eliminate freedom because something might happen. Some of you people are like the worst kind of sheep. You follow even before the leader tells you to do so. It's even annoying to leaders when people do that.
 
Who the **** even cares? You don't eliminate freedom because something might happen. Some of you people are like the worst kind of sheep. You follow even before the leader tells you to do so. It's even annoying to leaders when people do that.

Our entire law system is based on that concept. Why do we maintain criminal records, so that we know who the dangerous people are. That is infact a way of punishing people for what they have the propensity of doing based on evidence. Why do we have a sex offender registry, because we have identified these people have a history of being sexual predators and based on that history, we deem them a danger to society. Why do people get so upset when people who murder are let out early and murder again. They should have known that person was a dangerous person based on their history of violence. I mean come on. Do you really not have a better argument then that?
 
Our entire law system is based on that concept. Why do we maintain criminal records, so that we know who the dangerous people are. That is infact a way of punishing people for what they have the propensity of doing based on evidence. Why do we have a sex offender registry, because we have identified these people have a history of being sexual predators and based on that history, we deem them a danger to society. Why do people get so upset when people who murder are let out early and murder again. They should have known that person was a dangerous person based on their history of violence. I mean come on. Do you really not have a better argument then that?

Interestingly, I disagree with every example you used. :D
 
Interestingly, I disagree with every example you used. :D

I guess thats the difference between evidence and ignorance. I mean, when I watch someone else place their hand on a fire and it is burned, I trust the same will happen to me if I try it because there is historical evidence, despite scientific evidence, that it is likely to occur again. I would not like to live in a society that does not hold people accountable for their actions.

Is that not a reason to own a firearm as well. The reasoning of what someone might do. If it is not, then what is the point if you do not believe that?
 
I guess thats the difference between evidence and ignorance. I mean, when I watch someone else place their hand on a fire and it is burned, I trust the same will happen to me if I try it because there is historical evidence, despite scientific evidence, that it is likely to occur again. I would not like to live in a society that does not hold people accountable for their actions.

Is that not a reason to own a firearm as well. The reasoning of what someone might do. If it is not, then what is the point if you do not believe that?

None of your examples dealt with holding people accountable for their actions, but instead negatively impacting peoples lives well after they have done their time. What do you think happens when everyone has access to someones criminal record? It must be fun to a liberal that is always complaining about unemployment when what you support causes it.
 
None of your examples dealt with holding people accountable for their actions, but instead negatively impacting peoples lives well after they have done their time.
You think holding people accountale for their actions does not negatively impact their lives. I tell you what.. Go down to your local prison and ask the inmates if you think being in jail has negatively impacted their lives. Then ask the question, should it? OF COURSE IT SHOULD! That is the whole purpose of being put in prison. That is the purpose of compiling a criminal record on someone. That is how our system of law works.

What do you think happens when everyone has access to someones criminal record? It must be fun to a liberal that is always complaining about unemployment when what you support causes it.
Do you blame companies that don't want to hire people who have criminal backrounds? Would you hire a babysitter who was previously convicted as a pedofile, to come in to your home and watch your children? I would hope not. I will leave you to do that on principle to your family, and not mine.
 
Which is why the point she/he made is full of holes. Getting rid of vehicles and getting rid of guns would not have equal consequences. I would guess that ardent extremists on the gun side would somehow try to make the argument it is, but I don't think any rationally thinking person would seriously make that argument. Considering guns have been around longer the vehicles and it was not until the invension of the automobile that economies of countries whos populous owned them exploaded. While the ownership of firearms has not had anything like that effect.



Firearms have had a far more profound effect than vehicles.

Before firearms became common, egalitarian democracy hardly existed. Not long after, it started becoming very commonplace indeed.

Why? Because it changed the force equation and made it possible for the common peasant to kill the armored knight (with a lifetime of training in arms behind him) with only a few days of training.

Similarly, the 2A is not merely about guns; it is about The People sharing in the sovereign power of Force that oppressive governments reserve to themselves.


Let's ask George, Tom and Rick what they think...

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788
 
Firearms have had a far more profound effect than vehicles.

Before firearms became common, egalitarian democracy hardly existed. Not long after, it started becoming very commonplace indeed.

Why? Because it changed the force equation and made it possible for the common peasant to kill the armored knight (with a lifetime of training in arms behind him) with only a few days of training.

Similarly, the 2A is not merely about guns; it is about The People sharing in the sovereign power of Force that oppressive governments reserve to themselves.


Let's ask George, Tom and Rick what they think...

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

Precisely correct-all one needs to do is see what totalitarian states/dictators do regarding weapons in their society.
Weapons change the equation, and they want anything BUT that.
 
Do you think that the price of coke would radically come down?

Coke isnt that hard to get...what makes you think...after an intial upswing because 'they can'....that so many more people would do it? It's no different than anything else....just because you try it doesnt mean you'll like it. Like cigarettes....millions of people tried cigs and did not become smokers. I'm one of them.

And also, just because you ocassionally use coke recreationally doesnt mean you'll get addicted. In some cases, it's 'just a party favor.' :)


We're talking coke here, not meth. I dont think the coke problem has worsened in decades.
You still haven't explained how legalising hard drugs is going to reduce the number of drug users.

But I guess that's for another thread.
 
Firearms have had a far more profound effect than vehicles.

Before firearms became common, egalitarian democracy hardly existed. Not long after, it started becoming very commonplace indeed.

Why? Because it changed the force equation and made it possible for the common peasant to kill the armored knight (with a lifetime of training in arms behind him) with only a few days of training.

Similarly, the 2A is not merely about guns; it is about The People sharing in the sovereign power of Force that oppressive governments reserve to themselves.


Let's ask George, Tom and Rick what they think...

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

Again. leave it to the extremists to make the case. There has never been an armed insurection other then the civil war, in the US despite the fact that there have been many rights movements that have been effective in creating changes in government policy. I think the case being made by you is unfounded when you look through American history. After the civil war, we have done well in solving our problems without armed conflict. I think we understood after the civil war that resolving conflicts within our own country politically was at the best interest of all involved. We have moved beyond the point of solving issues within the US with armed conflicts. And there does not seem to be any issues on the horizon, or movements, that would contradict that. So again, your assertion that we need firearms to protect against the government are unfounded. Only the conspiracy theorists and extreemists, which are many times one in the same, still hold the belief that we need firearms to protect ourselves from the government. Out of the two arguments; one being self defense, the other being protection against the government, the self defense argument is much more convincing. Even though its still a hard case to make, and one can argue against it, it still is a much better argument then the protection against the government. I think most gun owners understand this, and only the extremist among them still parrot this line of argument.
 
Out of the two arguments; one being self defense, the other being protection against the government, the self defense argument is much more convincing.

I dont care what you think is more convincing, my rights are not based on your opinion, nor does a "need" have to be shown for them. :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom