• 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!

The new right wing and their opinion on protecting gun ownership.

gino said:
How about an alternate viewpoint?

After most mass shootings, politicians start asking for tougher gun laws. However, the new laws usually wouldn't have stopped the mass shooting that just occurred. I ask that if you do enact new, tougher gun laws, make them effective against the bad guys, not just those of us that own guns legally.

One of the problems with stopping mass shootings is that those people, before the shooting, have the right to privacy. Say a person is crazy. You want to put them on a list so they can't buy guns. But isn't that persecuting someone BEFORE they commit a crime? Isn't that against the constitution? Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as it sounds.

Another thing to think about. The vast majority of gun owners never commit a crime with them. Since the nation started to allow regular citizens to carry concealed weapons, we have years of data that shows that ordinary citizens are very capable of being armed in public and not committing crimes.

You use the term Nazis. So, you are saying that a person should be denied the right to own guns if they have an opposing political viewpoint than yours? Very dangerous precedent.

Non-gun politicians are quick to point out that high capacity magazines are "dangerous". Back a few years ago, we civilians were only allowed to own 10 round magazines for our guns. Have you ever fired a semiautomatic gun? It takes a second to change magazines. The 10 round mag limit really didn't make us any safer. That's what is wrong with so much gun control legislation. I limits MY rights, but doesn't really make anyone safer.

Just my humble opinion,
Gino
Click to expand...

Gino, you sound much more rational and considered in your response than many of the loudest voices rushing to state capitals.
jbander's OP asks for guns to be withheld from "Nazis in this country" as well as the mentally unstable. IMO this is a base minimum (along with criminals) for a citizen to request of our government.

jbander does not urge government to take away legally owned guns other than those owned by two groups who can be seen as threatening.
Many on the Right claim all of us who seek a saner approach to gun ownership and gun availability want to "takeaway their guns". This is nonsense promoted by the NRA.
And that 100% pro-gun stance is a key to our divided nation. American white supremacist groups are by definition modern Nazis.

Looking at the armed angry crowd that recently entered the Michigan state house we can see some Americans are willing to act like an armed hate group right in our democratic society.
I have no way of knowing if some of those individuals are a danger to folks with other political viewpoints, but I agree with jbander that screaming angry gun-totting protesters need to be restrained for the sake of peace.
I have no clue why protesters should come armed except to intimidate others.
 
Fledermaus said:
The usual jbander hyperbole directed at people who voted is a way he disagrees with.
Click to expand...

And in typical macho fashion, you attack a message that simply asks for what most US citizens want -- a safer less gun violent nation.
Tell me, why does anyone who travels to protest their state government's actions need to show up in a public assembly armed with a military weapon?
To prove how ready to take back their rights? Don't we do that at the ballot box?
Those of us who represent a large majority of Americans see gun-rights advocacy as out of control in the US.
 
dcaraz said:
And in typical macho fashion, you attack a message that simply asks for what most US citizens want -- a safer less gun violent nation.
Tell me, why does anyone who travels to protest their state government's actions need to show up in a public assembly armed with a military weapon?
To prove how ready to take back their rights? Don't we do that at the ballot box?
Those of us who represent a large majority of Americans see gun-rights advocacy as out of control in the US.
Click to expand...

I respond to hyperbolic partisan insults and attacks by mocking the person making them.

And please share.... What firearms related deaths, injuries or accidents occurred during the armed protests....
 
Cordelier said:
That's ridiculous, jbander.... a libertarian is pretty much the polar opposite of a Nazi.
Click to expand...

You argue over the poster's inexact language regarding political ideologies. But his OP is far more correct than your arguments.
In a free democratic society citizens should not enter government buildings, institutions of learning, houses of worship, or other people's properties with firearms in their possession.
Folks who are not gun lovers, anarchists, nut job survivalists or members of anti-government hate groups don't have unlimited rights to intimidate the rest of society--2nd Amendment not withstanding.
The fact you argue over the man's language is no defense for aggressive public behavior by armed idiots.
 
Fledermaus said:
I respond to hyperbolic partisan insults and attacks by mocking the person making them.

And please share.... What firearms related deaths, injuries or accidents occurred during the armed protests....
Click to expand...

You point to our key difference of opinion.
You feel public gun-totting is perfectly fine as long as no one is hurt by those firearms.
I say the act of coming armed to public gatherings is in itself an attempt to intimidate and harass.
Your choice will eventually lead to someone being harmed in some way because someone will reject the gun totters' insistence on
carrying their big swinging manly weapons in their face and there will be a confrontation.

But of course confrontation is likely what the armed crew were hoping for. Why else come armed? For protection?
 
jbander said:
All you had to do is do just that with fletch, the person I was responding to . The libertarian crap is a joke to me., can't help it/ They come on here waving the libertarian flag and generally across the board make it clear that they are simply anarchist with a new name to clear up their appearance.
Click to expand...

Fletch isn't a Nazi. I think he's honest about where he's coming from and he holds consistent viewpoints. My only problem with him is that he only seems to debate against weaker opponents he feels he can ridicule. Which is fine, if that's his thing... the guy obviously has a brain, though - I just wish he'd use it for more constructive ends. I think it'd be fun to mix it up with him if he'd only put in the effort.
 
dcaraz said:
You point to our key difference of opinion.
You feel public gun-totting is perfectly fine as long as no one is hurt by those firearms.
I say the act of coming armed to public gatherings is in itself an attempt to intimidate and harass.
Your choice will eventually lead to someone being harmed in some way because someone will reject the gun totters' insistence on
carrying their big swinging manly weapons in their face and there will be a confrontation.

But of course confrontation is likely what the armed crew were hoping for. Why else come armed? For protection?
Click to expand...

So... No one killed, injured or any damaged property.

Compare with G9 Protests. Occupy protests. Antifa actions... The annual anarchists protests in Berkeley.... Each and every one of those had people injured. Only by the grace of God were none killed.

I grew up with gun racks in the High School parking lots. With kids walking the rural paths with 22 rifles. In a neighborhood where most had at least one gun in the house. I helped Cub Scouts learn firearms safety more than once.

Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens don't scare me.
 
dcaraz said:
You argue over the poster's inexact language regarding political ideologies. But his OP is far more correct than your arguments.
In a free democratic society citizens should not enter government buildings, institutions of learning, houses of worship, or other people's properties with firearms in their possession.
Folks who are not gun lovers, anarchists, nut job survivalists or members of anti-government hate groups don't have unlimited rights to intimidate the rest of society--2nd Amendment not withstanding.
The fact you argue over the man's language is no defense for aggressive public behavior by armed idiots.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.... that bull**** that went on in Michigan was inexcusable. I don't mind peaceful demonstrations, but when you start showing up with guns, that's something else entirely.
 
ludin said:
we have a constitution...TO protect us from people with your mentality.
Click to expand...

Protections are important. I believe jbander's OP makes the point that HE doesn't feel PROTECTED when angry people swarm a state house while brandishing their semi automatics.
You obviously don't care if HE feels as safe and comfortable as you do. Nor do you value the views of the majority of Americans who agree with some of his point of view.
So what happened to rule by majority? Has it faded into "My Tribe, Right or Wrong"?
 
dcaraz said:
Protections are important. I believe jbander's OP makes the point that HE doesn't feel PROTECTED when angry people swarm a state house while brandishing their semi automatics.
You obviously don't care if HE feels as safe and comfortable as you do. Nor do you value the views of the majority of Americans who agree with some of his point of view.
So what happened to rule by majority? Has it faded into "My Tribe, Right or Wrong"?
Click to expand...

Where was HE when the state house was approached?

If he wasn't in the direct vicinity his fear was an irrational one.

And I am not responsible for anyone else's irrational fear.

There are many irrational fears over firearms.

I have even had one poster on this board admit to fearing firearms owned by a trained owner, secured by locks, unloaded and all the way across the continent.

And as to jbander... You may wish to acquainte your self to his hyperbole, ignorance and insult laden rants of the past.
 
TurtleDude said:
No private citizen in the USA has ever used a belt fed legally owned machine gun to commit murder.
Click to expand...

I am happy about that! Now, back to the threat average unarmed Americans might feel when viewing semi-automatic totting angry protesters taking over City Hall...
The OP is concerned about the threat posed by armed hate groups, psychos, and the mentally ill. Not machine guns--but your experience is interesting.
My support for the OP is that a majority of Americans agree more with him. We think gun lovers have gone too far and we want to take back our nation!
We don't want your guns. But we don't want to see them on Main Street. Or in our Capital Building. Or at church.

And many of us -- and don't forget we out number you -- are sick and tired of your efforts to control our democratic decision making on this subject.
It is time for gun owners to holster their need to go everywhere armed.
 
jbander said:
All you had to do is do just that with fletch, the person I was responding to . The libertarian crap is a joke to me., can't help it/ They come on here waving the libertarian flag and generally across the board make it clear that they are simply anarchist with a new name to clear up their appearance.
Click to expand...

Lot of that in this forum. I'm sure some in the Michigan gathering could care less about my "rights" since they have little care for the constitution.
What they are angry about is THEIR rights being messed with. By the governor. By the pandemic.
 
dcaraz said:
Lot of that in this forum. I'm sure some in the Michigan gathering could care less about my "rights" since they have little care for the constitution.
What they are angry about is THEIR rights being messed with. By the governor. By the pandemic.
Click to expand...

You have a "right" to not be offended?

Since when?
 
Fledermaus said:
Would a pro murder law be CONSTITUTIONAL?

No.

Pesky Constitution and those irritating rights.
Click to expand...

Once again, calling it "constitutional" is no way to defend something either.
People always seem to end up using "but the constitution say so" as an argument.
If you think the constitution is wrong about something - like gun rights - say so.
 
Marrybore said:
Once again, calling it "constitutional" is no way to defend something either.
People always seem to end up using "but the constitution say so" as an argument.
If you think the constitution is wrong about something - like gun rights - say so.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Constitution is wrong. I think the 2nd Amendment could be better worded.
 
dcaraz said:
I am happy about that! Now, back to the threat average unarmed Americans might feel when viewing semi-automatic totting angry protesters taking over City Hall...
The OP is concerned about the threat posed by armed hate groups, psychos, and the mentally ill. Not machine guns--but your experience is interesting.
My support for the OP is that a majority of Americans agree more with him. We think gun lovers have gone too far and we want to take back our nation!
We don't want your guns. But we don't want to see them on Main Street. Or in our Capital Building. Or at church.

And many of us -- and don't forget we out number you -- are sick and tired of your efforts to control our democratic decision making on this subject.
It is time for gun owners to holster their need to go everywhere armed.
Click to expand...
Why do these clowns have 20 guns when they only have one trigger finger. these band bang boys, don't like the idea of people taking away their big swinging dicks. They have no identity without them.
 
Marrybore said:
Once again, calling it "constitutional" is no way to defend something either.
People always seem to end up using "but the constitution say so" as an argument.
If you think the constitution is wrong about something - like gun rights - say so.
Click to expand...
Everyone of these right wing bangers have their own personal definition of the 2nd amendment. That the only way that the constitution will support their wank ideas about gun ownership. I'll stick with what is written and what the courts decide about gun laws constitutionality. Not these feeble opinions of their rights under the second that these bang bang boys make up.
 
Marrybore said:
I suggest making it illegal to own a gun unless you are a policeman or something similar.
I know that idea has all sorts of problems, but a gun-free society would be ideal, wouldn't it?
(Too bad for the people who like using guns, I'm afraid).
Click to expand...

making Heroin illegal has kept people from dying of overdoses?

Perhaps we should limit free speech to members of the organized press?
 
jbander said:
Everyone of these right wing bangers have their own personal definition of the 2nd amendment. That the only way that the constitution will support their wank ideas about gun ownership. I'll stick with what is written and what the courts decide about gun laws constitutionality. Not these feeble opinions of their rights under the second that these bang bang boys make up.
Click to expand...

Good to see you support Heller and McDonald
 
Fledermaus said:
I don't think the Constitution is wrong. I think the 2nd Amendment could be better worded.
Click to expand...

yep, but the founders didn't think we'd have politicians who would want to disarm honest folk
 
dcaraz said:
I am happy about that! Now, back to the threat average unarmed Americans might feel when viewing semi-automatic totting angry protesters taking over City Hall...
The OP is concerned about the threat posed by armed hate groups, psychos, and the mentally ill. Not machine guns--but your experience is interesting.
My support for the OP is that a majority of Americans agree more with him. We think gun lovers have gone too far and we want to take back our nation!
We don't want your guns. But we don't want to see them on Main Street. Or in our Capital Building. Or at church.

And many of us -- and don't forget we out number you -- are sick and tired of your efforts to control our democratic decision making on this subject.
It is time for gun owners to holster their need to go everywhere armed.
Click to expand...

How do you figure?
 
jbander said:
Why do these clowns have 20 guns when they only have one trigger finger. these band bang boys, don't like the idea of people taking away their big swinging dicks. They have no identity without them.
Click to expand...

Gun grabbers are fixated on the genitals of those who dare own a firearm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom