• 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!

[W:711] 2/3rds of Americans want an assault weapons ban

TU Curmudgeon said:
You will be receiving a bill from the AKME Monitor and Keyboard Cleaning Company shortly. Please pay it upon receipt or I shall be forced to take appropriate action.
Click to expand...

:lamo


 
TurtleDude said:
I don't consider DUI offenses sufficient to strip someone of their constitutional rights without something that is a violent felony on their record
Click to expand...

But, under the laws of the United States of America they are.

Are you saying that the laws of the United States of America that remove a convicted felon's right to "keep and bear arms" (or even to vote) are "unconstitutional"?

What are you some sort of bleeding heart liberal tree hugger?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
But, under the laws of the United States of America they are.

Are you saying that the laws of the United States of America that remove a convicted felon's right to "keep and bear arms" (or even to vote) are "unconstitutional"?

What are you some sort of bleeding heart liberal tree hugger?
Click to expand...

for 45 years-I have stated that those convicted of non-violent felonies, who had completed their sentences, should be able to own firearms. I am a libertarian, not a conservative
 
TurtleDude said:
pretty much so. Though the Czech Republic might be useful for comparison in a few decades.
Click to expand...

I see, so, as far as you are concerned, the statement


"In comparison with ALL similar countries, no country has better health care, lower crime rates, longer life expectancy, lower infant death rates, more open elections, more honest elections, less government regulation, lower poverty rates, higher educational attainments, and fewer instances of intermeddling in the internal affairs of other country than the United States of America has."
​

is both true and actually makes sense.
 
TurtleDude said:
for 45 years-I have stated that those convicted of non-violent felonies, who had completed their sentences, should be able to own firearms. I am a libertarian, not a conservative
Click to expand...

Here you and I will have to agree to disagree. I don't think anyone convicted of a felony, violent or not, should ever be allowed to own or possess a firearm. Convicted felons (or those in the military who were given a Dishonorable Discharge) have effectively been stripped of their citizenship. They can't vote (in most States), they can't obtain a passport, and they should not be allowed to own or possess a firearm. They gave up their ability to express their individual rights freely - for life - when they were convicted of a felony.

There are consequences to committing a felony, and losing your individual right to keep and bear arms is one of those consequences.
 
Glitch said:
Here you and I will have to agree to disagree. I don't think anyone convicted of a felony, violent or not, should ever be allowed to own or possess a firearm. Convicted felons (or those in the military who were given a Dishonorable Discharge) have effectively been stripped of their citizenship. They can't vote (in most States), they can't obtain a passport, and they should not be allowed to own or possess a firearm. They gave up their ability to express their individual rights freely - for life - when they were convicted of a felony.

There are consequences to committing a felony, and losing your individual right to keep and bear arms is one of those consequences.
Click to expand...

So then, you DO agree that the "right to keep and bear arms" is NOT an "inalienable" right.

That means that the only difference between you and the most rabid "ANTI-Gun Nut" is the specific conditions under which the "right to keep and bear arms" can be taken away. Strangely enough, both your position and that of the most rabid "ANTI-Gun Nut" can be reduced to "Everyone who doesn't do something that I disapprove of has the right to keep and bear arms." - it's just that the rabid "ANTI-Gun Nut" has a broader "something that I disapprove of" range than you do.

That means that the debate is not over "SHOULD there be 'Gun Control' laws in the US?" but rather over "HOW BROAD SHOULD the 'Gun Control' laws in the US be?".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
So then, you DO agree that the "right to keep and bear arms" is NOT an "inalienable" right.
Click to expand...
No, I do not. I have no idea where you would get such a stupid idea. People are sued for libel and/or slander, but we still have the individual right to free speech. Just because someone has their individual rights stripped from them for committing illegal acts does not mean the right is not "inalienable" or inherent.

TU Curmudgeon said:
That means that the only difference between you and the most rabid "ANTI-Gun Nut" is the specific conditions under which the "right to keep and bear arms" can be taken away. Strangely enough, both your position and that of the most rabid "ANTI-Gun Nut" can be reduced to "Everyone who doesn't do something that I disapprove of has the right to keep and bear arms." - it's just that the rabid "ANTI-Gun Nut" has a broader "something that I disapprove of" range than you do.

That means that the debate is not over "SHOULD there be 'Gun Control' laws in the US?" but rather over "HOW BROAD SHOULD the 'Gun Control' laws in the US be?".
Click to expand...

The only form of gun control that I recognize is the ability of the shooter to hit their target. Everything else is an infringement. I will not be subjected to background checks, permits, licenses, or registration in order to exercise my individual rights. Furthermore, if I wish to purchase numerous fully automatic firearms, without federal regulation or taxes, I live in a State where I can.

So unless someone is convicted of a felony, stay away from the firearms.
 
j-mac said:
So, a Socialist that want's to exploit capitalism for their own gain, while railing against it....Wow, never seen that before. :roll:
Click to expand...

I guess that you've never heard of

armandhammer.jpg​

before either.
 
Glitch said:
No, I do not. I have no idea where you would get such a stupid idea. People are sued for libel and/or slander, but we still have the individual right to free speech. Just because someone has their individual rights stripped from them for committing illegal acts does not mean the right is not "inalienable" or inherent.
Click to expand...

I'll buy "inherent in that particular society" much more readily than I will buy "inalienable in that particular society" when it is possible, in that particular society to have "their individual rights stripped from them" REGARDLESS of why the rights can be "stripped from them".

Glitch said:
The only form of gun control that I recognize is the ability of the shooter to hit their target. Everything else is an infringement. I will not be subjected to background checks, permits, licenses, or registration in order to exercise my individual rights. Furthermore, if I wish to purchase numerous fully automatic firearms, without federal regulation or taxes, I live in a State where I can.
Click to expand...

Good for you. I guess that felons in your state have the right NOT to be "subjected to background checks, permits, licenses, or registration" if they want to purchase firearms. Are they?

Glitch said:
So unless someone is convicted of a felony, stay away from the firearms.
Click to expand...

So you would agree that it is perfectly proper for someone who is (let's say) a 50 years old doctor and minister who has spent the last 25 years providing free medical care to the indigent and who has never been convicted of any crime other than the three DUIs (the third one constituting a "felony") that they accumulated with they were 19 years old NOT to be allowed to own firearms. Correct? And, of course, being a "convicted felon" they shouldn't be allowed to vote either. Correct?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I'll buy "inherent in that particular society" much more readily than I will buy "inalienable in that particular society" when it is possible, in that particular society to have "their individual rights stripped from them" REGARDLESS of why the rights can be "stripped from them".



Good for you. I guess that felons in your state have the right NOT to be "subjected to background checks, permits, licenses, or registration" if they want to purchase firearms. Are they?



So you would agree that it is perfectly proper for someone who is (let's say) a 50 years old doctor and minister who has spent the last 25 years providing free medical care to the indigent and who has never been convicted of any crime other than the three DUIs (the third one constituting a "felony") that they accumulated with they were 19 years old NOT to be allowed to own firearms. Correct? And, of course, being a "convicted felon" they shouldn't be allowed to vote either. Correct?
Click to expand...

Now you are either deliberately trolling or truly stupid, I haven't figured out which yet. You manufacture quotes I never posted and then twist what I said to mean exactly the opposite. In the event that you are not deliberately trolling, I will explain it once again in terms that a child can comprehend: Convicted felons are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms. If they are not convicted felons then they may own any firearm they desire without being infringed upon with background checks, registration, licensing, or permits. If that wasn't simple enough for you, then you are clearly a troll and not worthy of further response.
 
Glitch said:
Now you are either deliberately trolling or truly stupid, I haven't figured out which yet. You manufacture quotes I never posted and then twist what I said to mean exactly the opposite.
Click to expand...

I fail to see where I have "manufactured any quotes" (however if someone is not conversant with the proper use of quotation marks I could see how they might think that I had).

Glitch said:
In the event that you are not deliberately trolling, I will explain it once again in terms that a child can comprehend: Convicted felons are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms. If they are not convicted felons then they may own any firearm they desire without being infringed upon with background checks, registration, licensing, or permits.
Click to expand...

In short, they have an "inherent right" to "keep and bear arms" BUT that right is revocable (which means that it is NOT "inalienable").

Glitch said:
If that wasn't simple enough for you, then you are clearly a troll and not worthy of further response.
Click to expand...

Since, it would appear, everyone has to prove that they are NOT "a convicted felon" in order to be allowed to "keep and bear arms" in your state, could you please tell me how that can be done WITHOUT background checks? If it is necessary to do background checks to verify that someone is NOT "a convicted felon" in your state, would you please tell me how it would be possible to do those background check ONLY on someone who is "a convicted felon" and not on all persons purchasing firearms?

Are you suggesting that it is legal, in your state, for "a convicted felon" to purchase firearms but also that it is NOT legal for them to own firearms? If so, would you please explain how that can be done?
 
j-mac said:
Wait what? Not following you.
Click to expand...

Look up the history of Arm & Hammer.

PS - I am not in the least bit surprised that someone who could write "So, a Socialist that want's to exploit capitalism for their own gain, while railing against it....Wow, never seen that before." would be unaware of historical reality.

PPS - I would be incredibly surprised that someone who could write "So, a Socialist that want's to exploit capitalism for their own gain, while railing against it....Wow, never seen that before." would be aware of the lifetime position of Roger Howard (the long-time treasurer of British Columbia's New Democratic Party [likely seen by most Americans as "thinly disguised communists"]) which was "There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a profit. It's what you do with the profit after you make it that causes the problems.". All intelligent "socialists" are fully aware that you cannot run any business at a loss and stay in business for long.
 
Last edited:
swing_voter said:
Pro-gun people need enact some common sense gun legislation. That way the people can see they're trying to solve the problem at least.

The number of anti-gun people is going to rise and rise and eventually, all guns will be banned.
Click to expand...

Let's hope so.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Look up the history of Arm & Hammer.

PS - I am not in the least bit surprised that someone who could write "So, a Socialist that want's to exploit capitalism for their own gain, while railing against it....Wow, never seen that before." would be unaware of historical reality.

PPS - I would be incredibly surprised that someone who could write "So, a Socialist that want's to exploit capitalism for their own gain, while railing against it....Wow, never seen that before." would be aware of the lifetime position of Roger Howard (the long-time treasurer of British Columbia's New Democratic Party [likely seen by most Americans as "thinly disguised communists"]) which was "There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a profit. It's what you do with the profit after you make it that causes the problems.". All intelligent "socialists" are fully aware that you cannot run any business at a loss and stay in business for long.
Click to expand...

Let me tell you something, I couldn't give two ****s less what YOU think of my beliefs...In fact it is so insignificant to me, that it makes me want to take a nap....What I do care about is your arrogant, dishonest way of injecting yourself into American politics, as if any American cares what a kanuck says anyway, ay? You should be more concerned with the problems of your own country rather than come in here and make snarky, stupid comments about mine....Got it?
 
j-mac said:
Let me tell you something, I couldn't give two ****s less what YOU think of my beliefs...In fact it is so insignificant to me, that it makes me want to take a nap....What I do care about is your arrogant, dishonest way of injecting yourself into American politics, as if any American cares what a kanuck says anyway, ay? You should be more concerned with the problems of your own country rather than come in here and make snarky, stupid comments about mine....Got it?
Click to expand...

Certainly. Some people might conclude that only an ignorant boor would make such comments, but I don't.

The fact that you do not know what you are talking about doesn't bother me at all.

The fact that you don't WANT to know what you are talking about does bother me somewhat, but I am consoled by the fact that it's about as likely that you would leave the United States of America as it is that a bug would crawl out from under a rock.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Certainly. Some people might conclude that only an ignorant boor would make such comments, but I don't.

The fact that you do not know what you are talking about doesn't bother me at all.

The fact that you don't WANT to know what you are talking about does bother me somewhat, but I am consoled by the fact that it's about as likely that you would leave the United States of America as it is that a bug would crawl out from under a rock.
Click to expand...

You should take solace that you can hide within the internet...;)
 
marke said:
People with guns kill about 10,000 Americans each year. People with cars kill about 60,000 Americans each year. What to do?
Click to expand...

***head smack*** duhhhh! guns are designed to kill, cars are not.
 
madman said:
***head smack*** duhhhh! guns are designed to kill, cars are not.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but if you "normalize" (a technical term) those figures to take into account the "per capita rate" (guns = 1.205 and cars = .811) you end up with approximately 8,300 for guns and approximately 74,000 for cars.

That, obviously, means that "You are around 8.9 times as likely to be run down by a car while you are in church as you are to be shot while you are in church." is a sentence that makes sense.

[Ain't statistics wunnerful?]

PS - Did you know that very few people are actually killed by guns in the United States of America (the number is less than 100 per year)? Most of those so-called "people killed by guns" were NOT killed by guns at all. They were killed by bullets. Admittedly those bullets had - at some time in the past - been in a gun, but they had absolutely no connection with any gun at the time that they caused the death. [This is sort of like "Oh sure, __[fill in the blank]__ USED TO BE associated with __[fill in the blank]__ and spread the same message as __[fill in the blank]__ spreads and said how much they admired __[fill in the blank]__ and held up __[fill in the blank]__ as a shining example of what people should be like in order to do what __[fill in the blank]__ said had to be done, BUT they weren't actively involved in __[fill in the blank]__ when they killed all of those people so that means that __[fill in the blank]__ has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with those killings." - isn't it?]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom