• 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!

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

Goobieman said:
I'm sure you could. But, it doesnt change what I said.
If there were a sound argument for banning AWs, you wouldn't have to look to crime in Mexico as justification.
Click to expand...

Okay fine whatever you win:roll:

*plonk*
 
WillRockwell said:
It only makes sense if you THINK. By guaranteeing the rights of people to own weapons with more firepower than law enforcement, capable of firing unlimited rounds in a short amount of time, you are not only appeasing, but enabling potential mass murderers and terrorists.
Click to expand...

Ha! What horrible scare tactics. By upholding freedom of speech, I'm appeasing hate crime, and inciting to riot. By upholding assembly, I'm appeasing rioters and anarchists and anti-government extremest. By upholding right to privacy and property against illegal search and seizure, I'm appeasing drug dealers and crime lords, illegal gun dealers, etc.

Pfft. All the rights can be taken to extreme. By upholding my rights, I am not appeasing any of these people. When I fight for my right to keep and bear arms I do so because it is MY right and I can exercise it and the government needs to learn its place. You can't take people's rights away because the exercise of them has some negative results. Of course there's negative results, there will always be someone somewhere abusing the power of the their rights, infringing upon the rights of others. That's mostly why the government exists. Once that happens, the government may act and arrest that individual, and put him on trial, and by his peers be condemned or exonerated. Will people abuse guns? Of course they will. But that doesn't give you or anyone else license to infringe upon my rights. It's a consequence of freedom, take it or leave it; but the alternative ain't so great. Free is not safe, free was never safe, free will never be safe. It is an innately dangerous system, it comes with all sorts of perils and pitfalls. I will gladly bear them all because there is nothing greater than being free. All the consequences, all the responsibilities of freedom; I want them and I want them in full!

BTW, you know why we're tried by our peers? It's supposed to be (though corrupted away from this) an ultimate check on the government. Your peers are to decide on if you had done something wrong or not. Now they decide of you broke a law, but that's not the purpose of a jury of your peers. They were supposed to gauge if you did something wrong. Thus if an unjust law came up, something the People didn't agree with and you were arrested for it. Your peers would find you innocent because they didn't think you did anything wrong. It's the ultimate check on the legislative authority of the government and the force used by the judicial system to suppress the exercise of our rights. How's that for dangerous? I wish people understood this and took it more seriously.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" -Samuel Adams


On American Independence by Samuel Adams. America: I. (1761-1837). Vol. VIII. Bryan, William Jennings, ed. 1906. The World's Famous Orations
 
Orius said:
Coming into this late... wow there have been a lot of replies!
Click to expand...
This is one Americans will probably never solve, or completely let go.


Why do you want to own an assault rifle? Is it in case you need to fight your government? Fend off an intruder? Do you plan to go hunting with one? Or is it "just because"?
Click to expand...
It really is all of the above to be perfectly honest. Assault rifles simply have a few differences like select fire switches, shorter barrels for clearing, tactical changes, etc. But assault rifles fire the same rounds as typical hunting rifles, sub-machine guns? pistol rounds....they just do this at an increased rate of fire.

I don't really understand the need to have an assault rifle. Also, can someone explain to me if the constitution mentions unlimited access to any firearm, or if it's just to "firearms" as a rule? If the latter, then the government can technically restrict your firearms all they want, as long as you have access to some, no?
Click to expand...
The original intent was to allow citizens the same rights to ownership that the government could exercise, merchant ships at the time of the constitutions writing had large cannons much like the federal troops, and I believe the original Howizters were legal for civilian ownership. That doesn't mean the pro 2nd side means people should have M-180 grenade attachments or artillery cannons without an explosives license, and no one should have nukes, but I digress, wanted to give you a sample of the thinking behind our side.
 
The trouble is, the federal government has no way absolute way of knowing if Joe the Assault Weapon Owner is a law-abiding citizen or a hardened criminal...Imagine the data that would have to be gathered, and the resistance....
A man must remember that NO rights are absolute, nor can they be...
 
stevenb said:
Because they have nothing in the states to really prove their point.

I was reading a while ago that the Brady campaign considers suicides violent gun crime... they also consider people 26 and younger to be children.

Pretty easy to make up statistics that show anything you want these days. :)
Click to expand...

Oh really? explain these statistics

Yearly firearm murders by country:
Australia: 65 per year
Canada: 165
France: 255
United Kingdom: 68
Germany: 381
Japan: 39
United States: 11,127.

My explanation is it's because the firearm community in America refuses to act responsibly in creating legislation to limit the availability of guns. What's your explanation?
 
WillRockwell said:
My explanation is it's because the firearm community in America refuses to act responsibly in creating legislation to limit the availability of guns.
Click to expand...
Support this argument.

Be sure to explain how, if the availability of guns is the explanation for the relatively high number of murders, how it is the number of guns goes up every year, and yet the number of gun murders is about the same as it was 35 years ago.

Then, also be sure to compare the number of guns and the number of gun murders in each country. The US has 1 gun-related murder for every 25,000 guns.

THEN tell us how banning 'assault weapons' will have any significant effect on this.

And THEN tell us how a ban on 'assault weapons' does not violate the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
WillRockwell said:
Oh really? explain these statistics

Yearly firearm murders by country:
Australia: 65 per year
Canada: 165
France: 255
United Kingdom: 68
Germany: 381
Japan: 39
United States: 11,127.

My explanation is it's because the firearm community in America refuses to act responsibly in creating legislation to limit the availability of guns. What's your explanation?
Click to expand...

You know that over 56% of "murders" are suicides?
 
earthworm said:
The trouble is, the federal government has no way absolute way of knowing if Joe the Assault Weapon Owner is a law-abiding citizen or a hardened criminal...
Click to expand...
That is a good thing, they are servants of the people with no business knowing to what extent we exercise our rights.
Imagine the data that would have to be gathered, and the resistance....
Click to expand...
Tyranny should always be resisted.
A man must remember that NO rights are absolute, nor can they be...
Click to expand...
The right to own arms is absolute, that's the way the amendment was written, only their usage should be limited.
Click to expand...
 
earthworm said:
The trouble is, the federal government has no way absolute way of knowing if Joe the Assault Weapon Owner is a law-abiding citizen or a hardened criminal.
Click to expand...
That's the thing about this country... we don't infringe the rights the law abiding on the off chance that they might be a criminal.

Its illegal for criminals to have guns. When they are found with a gun, they are charged with a crime and go to jail. That's as far as that can go, withought infringing the rights of the law abiding.

A man must remember that NO rights are absolute, nor can they be...
Click to expand...
For the limits of the right to arms, methinks you should look to the limits on the right to free speech as a model.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Let me drink these beers, jump on my motorcycle, strap a bat to my front forks, and I'll be right over to say it to your face!

:p
Click to expand...

What no gun?

2zs6umt.jpg
 
WillRockwell said:
Oh really? explain these statistics

Yearly firearm murders by country:
Australia: 65 per year
Canada: 165
France: 255
United Kingdom: 68
Germany: 381
Japan: 39
United States: 11,127.

My explanation is it's because the firearm community in America refuses to act responsibly in creating legislation to limit the availability of guns. What's your explanation?
Click to expand...



Please take sucides and criminal on criminal out of thier... Also do you have the violent crime rates?


Also you do know more childeren die from drowning than firearms.
 
stevenb said:
You know that over 56% of "murders" are suicides?
Click to expand...

Actually you're wrong. The chart represents murders only. Suicide by firearm in American adds another 17,000 fatalities to the body count.


Firearm Deaths in 2003
The 2003 firearm death rates in the United States vary according to intent.
United States Firearm Death Profile, 2003
Number Rate*
Total Firearm Deaths 30,136 10.36
Suicides 16,907 (56.1%) 5.81
Homicides 11,920 (39.6%) 4.10
Unintentional 730 (2.4%) 0.25
Legal Intervention 347 (1.2%) 0.12
Undetermined 232 (0.8%) 0.08
*Death rate per 100,000 population.
Source: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC.
Click to expand...
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Also you do know more childeren die from drowning than firearms.
Click to expand...

Statistics show that about 1,500 children die of drowning each year, quite a few less than the 11,000 firearms homicides. So once again you either got the facts wrong or are just lying. Which is it? I would appreciate a correction.

Drowning is the 4th leading cause of accidental death in the United States, claiming 4,000 lives annually. Approximately one-third are children under the age of 14.

American Institute for Preventive Medicine
Click to expand...
 
WillRockwell said:
Statistics show that about 1,500 children die of drowning each year, quite a few less than the 11,000 firearms homicides. So once again you either got the facts wrong or are just lying. Which is it? I would appreciate a correction.
Click to expand...



Gee look, your accusing me of lying cause you got your facts wrong. But hey.... That's ok... :roll:


11,000 childeren die from firearms? IS this what you are now claiming?



1,500? Gee that is a hell of a lot more than the number died by guns. 86.



We should ban water!
 
WillRockwell said:
Statistics show that about 1,500 children die of drowning each year, quite a few less than the 11,000 firearms homicides. So once again you either got the facts wrong or are just lying. Which is it? I would appreciate a correction.
Click to expand...
Um... YOU misunderstand. Priobably deliberately.
He was saying that more kids die from drowning than are murdered with a firearm.
 
Goobieman said:
Support this argument.

Be sure to explain how, if the availability of guns is the explanation for the relatively high number of murders, how it is the number of guns goes up every year, and yet the number of gun murders is about the same as it was 35 years ago.

Then, also be sure to compare the number of guns and the number of gun murders in each country. The US has 1 gun-related murder for every 25,000 guns.

THEN tell us how banning 'assault weapons' will have any significant effect on this.

And THEN tell us how a ban on 'assault weapons' does not violate the Constitution.
Click to expand...

What's that? No repsponse?

Thought not. Its what usually happens when you know you have, well, no response.
 
Last edited:
Yearly firearm murders by country per year:

Country |Murders|Population |Murders/Million |Guns/Million
Australia: |65 |21,600,300 |3| 155,000
Canada:| 165 |33,567,000 |5| 315,000
France: |255 |65,073,482 |4 |320,000
United Kingdom: |68 |61,612,300 |1 |56,000
Germany: |381 |82,062,200 |4.6 |300,000
Japan: |39 |127,704,000 |0.3 |<10,000
United States: |11,127 |305,887,000 |36 |900,000

Murders/Gun
0.00002
0.00002
0.00001
0.00002
0.00002
0.00003
0.00004

Hope my math is right.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Gee look, your accusing me of lying cause you got your facts wrong. But hey.... That's ok... :roll:
11,000 childeren die from firearms? IS this what you are now claiming?

1,500? Gee that is a hell of a lot more than the number died by guns. 86.

We should ban water!
Click to expand...

Where did I say that 11,000 children died from firearms? I didn't, so you are lying again. No surprise there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom