• 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!

Gun Advocates: What Would it Take?

flogger said:
Heads up . Britain gave up slavery many decades before the US did
Click to expand...

You know what I find particularly piquant? The fact that you don't appear to have gotten where that quote came from. It was from Patrick Henry. And after those words came: "Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

He stated that because our people were sick of not having rights. It had nothing to do with owning slaves. We were sick of being slaves to your government. Your government with an atrocious record for civil rights of sovereign lands. And that is precisely my point: we value rights and freedom. So how much are you willing to give up for security? Clearly your freedoms. And thusly it is piquant that you do not "get it" being from YOUR nation...and I being from mine.



Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.
 
blackjack50 said:
You know what I find particularly piquant? The fact that you don't appear to have gotten where that quote came from. It was from Patrick Henry. And after those words came: "Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

He stated that because our people were sick of not having rights. It had nothing to do with owning slaves. We were sick of being slaves to your government. Your government with an atrocious record for civil rights of sovereign lands. And that is precisely my point: we value rights and freedom. So how much are you willing to give up for security? Clearly your freedoms. And thusly it is piquant that you do not "get it" being from YOUR nation...and I being from mine.
.
Click to expand...

Your own founding fathers were enthusiastic slave owners :wink:

What has any of this to do with wanting the lethal facility to take a life more easily than we can .... or that we would ever choose to ?
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
Your own founding fathers were enthusiastic slave owners :wink:
Click to expand...

Wrong. SOME of the founders did. Not all. Your nation enslaved the multiple nations. We are hardly alone.


Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Ghandi
"Gandhi, An Autobiography", M. K. Gandhi, page 446

How about Ireland? They seemed real
Happy with you. Or Africa? Or the Middle East? You not only exploited all these areas...you left them an utter wreck that we still have to deal with.


Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.
 
BretJ said:
Some out of how many? A fraction of 1%? So you want to restrict the rights and freedoms of 120,000,000 gun owners, based on the actions of a fraction of 1%. What fraction of alcohol consumers openly admit to having driven drunk? What fraction of male African Americans are violent offenders? Would you base legislation on that percentage?

Sorry, but your line of reasoning in that respect is no different than a bigot or Prohibitionist. Well meaning but ignorant.
Click to expand...

It's not how many there are in that camp - it's the result of their actions . . . and yes. My original point stands and it's a view I've held for quite some time.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
It's not how many there are in that camp - it's the result of their actions . . . and yes. My original point stands and it's a view I've held for quite some time.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.. so we had attacks by muslims...

Should we enact laws restricting our muslim citizens because of the results of the actions of a few muslims?
 
jaeger19 said:
Hmmm.. so we had attacks by muslims...

Should we enact laws restricting our muslim citizens because of the results of the actions of a few muslims?
Click to expand...

I suggested a universally applied requirement... and you counter with 'but muslims'?

Do you honestly think that has anything to do with it? A person walks into a store to buy ammunition - and their ID is logged at the register, just like the list required for me to buy Sudafed. I don't see the issue, here.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
It's not how many there are in that camp - it's the result of their actions . . . and yes. My original point stands and it's a view I've held for quite some time.
Click to expand...

So given that African American on African American make up such a large number of gun crimes, and numbers are your concern after all, are you suggesting legislation to restrict African Americans from owning firearms? Seems that is conducive to your train of thought. If a minority of asshats can drive legislation to screw with the rights of millions, ban the immigration of Muslims as well. That would seriously drive the numbers you are concerned about down. Bet you are a Trump supporter....
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I suggested a universally applied requirement... and you counter with 'but muslims'?

Do you honestly think that has anything to do with it? A person walks into a store to buy ammunition - and their ID is logged at the register, just like the list required for me to buy Sudafed. I don't see the issue, here.
Click to expand...

And what exactly would that accomplish? Seriously. What?

Actually, how about an endorsement on a driver's license or state issued license that shows if you are a mental health risk, violent offender or alcohol abuser. Show the license anytime you want to purchase alcohol, firearms or ammunition. License is simply cross checked to make sure it is still valid. Hammer anyone who provides anyone with an endorsement any of those items, even privately....
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
Heads up . Britain gave up slavery many decades before the US did
Click to expand...

citizens of India, Kenya, etc might argue that point
 
BretJ said:
So given that African American on African American make up such a large number of gun crimes, and numbers are your concern after all, are you suggesting legislation to restrict African Americans from owning firearms? Seems that is conducive to your train of thought. If a minority of asshats can drive legislation to screw with the rights of millions, ban the immigration of Muslims as well. That would seriously drive the numbers you are concerned about down. Bet you are a Trump supporter....
Click to expand...

You DO realize that Republicans / Conservatives are more likely to support gun-rights?
And you DO realize that Trump is running as a Republican / Conservative, don't you?

:lamo

But it's not a surprise - someone suggests a few sensible regulations and the fools immediately squat and give birth to a full grown cows . . . while accomplishing absolutely nothing in the meantime in either direction. Bravo, well done.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You DO realize that Republicans / Conservatives are more likely to support gun-rights?
And you DO realize that Trump is running as a Republican / Conservative, don't you?

:lamo

But it's not a surprise - someone suggests a few sensible regulations and the fools immediately squat and give birth to a full grown cows . . . while accomplishing absolutely nothing in the meantime in either direction. Bravo, well done.
Click to expand...

1) most of the things called "sensible regulations" are hardly sensible

they are often unconstitutional and have no hope of actually deterring crime since they are not intended to do so in the first place

2) many of the things called "sensible" are actually intended to harass honest gun owners or serve as a stepping stone for the next "sensible" restriction.

the problem is-the vast majority o the people who claim stuff is "sensible" have absolutely no understanding of the issues or they are dishonest
 
TurtleDude said:
1) most of the things called "sensible regulations" are hardly sensible

they are often unconstitutional and have no hope of actually deterring crime since they are not intended to do so in the first place

2) many of the things called "sensible" are actually intended to harass honest gun owners or serve as a stepping stone for the next "sensible" restriction.

the problem is-the vast majority o the people who claim stuff is "sensible" have absolutely no understanding of the issues or they are dishonest
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right in that it's useless - but I don't think that 'doing nothing' is sensible, either.

But I'll point out that the only way for it to be legal is for the Constitution to be amended or for the SCOTUS to define and clarify what the 2nd really means.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I suggested a universally applied requirement... and you counter with 'but muslims'?

Do you honestly think that has anything to do with it? A person walks into a store to buy ammunition - and their ID is logged at the register, just like the list required for me to buy Sudafed. I don't see the issue, here.
Click to expand...

I don't want the government to know anymore of my personal business than they already do. On anything! As it stands today, they have no idea what I buy because I quit using my Debit card except for Costco gas and quit using my CC for anything except weekly groceries. Everything else is paid in person with cash, or a generic Cashiers check.

TurtleDude said:
1) most of the things called "sensible regulations" are hardly sensible

they are often unconstitutional and have no hope of actually deterring crime since they are not intended to do so in the first place

2) many of the things called "sensible" are actually intended to harass honest gun owners or serve as a stepping stone for the next "sensible" restriction.

the problem is-the vast majority o the people who claim stuff is "sensible" have absolutely no understanding of the issues or they are dishonest
Click to expand...

Exactly correct.

Aunt Spiker said:
Maybe you're right in that it's useless - but I don't think that 'doing nothing' is sensible, either.

But I'll point out that the only way for it to be legal is for the Constitution to be amended or for the SCOTUS to define and clarify what the 2nd really means.
Click to expand...

We already know what it means and the 100s of gun laws on the books now.............................are waaaaay too many as it is!
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You DO realize that Republicans / Conservatives are more likely to support gun-rights?
And you DO realize that Trump is running as a Republican / Conservative, don't you?

:lamo

But it's not a surprise - someone suggests a few sensible regulations and the fools immediately squat and give birth to a full grown cows . . . while accomplishing absolutely nothing in the meantime in either direction. Bravo, well done.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I do birthday parties as well

In all honesty, I gave you my suggestion for sensible regulations. I thought my suggestion is pretty reasonable as well. Did you consider it? Seems a good compromise. Obtains what you would want and avoids what concerns me.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
And your point is?
Click to expand...

Are you the person who wanted ammo sales recorded or not? Is it not obvious to you that per shot death rate of 303,000 or more rounds sold do no harm. Does the concept of burning the haystack to find the needle seem like a good idea to you?

Seriously? Some 2nd Amendment supporters are total reckless morons and are quite open about it. Surely you've noticed.
Click to expand...

Seriously what has that got to do with the wording of the 2A or for what reason does it need to be changed?

The many morons you speak of number how many? Do you even know?

Repeating propaganda slogans and assertions is not going to make this a sensible debate.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I suggested a universally applied requirement... and you counter with 'but muslims'?

Do you honestly think that has anything to do with it? A person walks into a store to buy ammunition - and their ID is logged at the register, just like the list required for me to buy Sudafed. I don't see the issue, here.
Click to expand...

That is probably because this is not your idea and you have put no thought or examination into it.

What for instance will this recording of ammunition sales do.

There are between 10 and 20 BILLION rounds fired in the US per YEAR.

Do please expand on this to show what result you expect and at what cost it WILL be achieved or if it can be achieved.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You DO realize that Republicans / Conservatives are more likely to support gun-rights?
And you DO realize that Trump is running as a Republican / Conservative, don't you?

:lamo

But it's not a surprise - someone suggests a few sensible regulations and the fools immediately squat and give birth to a full grown cows . . . while accomplishing absolutely nothing in the meantime in either direction. Bravo, well done.
Click to expand...

Can you explain what is sensible about your suggestions? You neglected to mention that. However that neglect does not entitle you to go on a tirade of abuse of those you see as exacerbating your fears. Facts and knowledge are far better than unfounded fear.

Fact, every word you hear claimed for gun control is a lie.

Let us see if a gun control advocate can disprove that.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
You DO realize that Republicans / Conservatives are more likely to support gun-rights?
And you DO realize that Trump is running as a Republican / Conservative, don't you?

:lamo

But it's not a surprise - someone suggests a few sensible regulations and the fools immediately squat and give birth to a full grown cows . . . while accomplishing absolutely nothing in the meantime in either direction. Bravo, well done.
Click to expand...

But gun control laws accomplish absolutely nothing. Every single news story that makes the headlines would have still happened if the Democrats got every single one of these "sensible regulations" they want passed. That's the point. Sensible regulations only effect law abiding people. They do not apply to criminals and terrorists who don't obey laws. Chicago already has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country and some of the worst gun violence. California also did and it didn't stop a terrorist attack there. France has very strict gun laws but it didn't stop terrorists with guns there in more than one case or even a maniac in a truck.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Maybe you're right in that it's useless - but I don't think that 'doing nothing' is sensible, either.

But I'll point out that the only way for it to be legal is for the Constitution to be amended or for the SCOTUS to define and clarify what the 2nd really means.
Click to expand...

That's my biggest gripe with liberals. They want to take law abiding citizen's rights of gun ownership away while they refuse to take the rights of freedom away of dangerous people who shouldn't be roaming the streets in the first place. In fact, they want to even release dangerous people from jails and then try passing gun control legislation to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't be free and have no intention of following the laws. That's what's crazy. You can have a guy with a history of domestic violence and terroristic threatening who says he is going to kill his ex-wife and what do we do? We slap him with a protective order and try to keep guns away from him. Meanwhile his ex-wife is found dead. In fact, we just had a case here in Kentucky where one of these guys tried breaking into her home in violation of a protective order. She had a gun and shot him dead because she was smart enough to know that a worthless piece of paper was not going to protect her. If he had been locked up she wouldn't have even needed a gun. The best gun control legislation is to keep people locked up that are a danger to society.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I suggested a universally applied requirement... and you counter with 'but muslims'?

Do you honestly think that has anything to do with it? A person walks into a store to buy ammunition - and their ID is logged at the register, just like the list required for me to buy Sudafed. I don't see the issue, here.
Click to expand...

I do.. I don't think you should have to log in to buy Sudafed because of a few people that use massive amounts of Sudafed to cook meth..any more than I should have to have my personal information logged into a registry to buy ammunition because a few people commit crimes with firearms.

The idea that because a minority of folks cause a problem.. means that personal freedoms of the rest of society should be impinged does not make sense to me. .
 
jaeger19 said:
I do.. I don't think you should have to log in to buy Sudafed because of a few people that use massive amounts of Sudafed to cook meth..any more than I should have to have my personal information logged into a registry to buy ammunition because a few people commit crimes with firearms.

The idea that because a minority of folks cause a problem.. means that personal freedoms of the rest of society should be impinged does not make sense to me. .
Click to expand...

Touché
 
All it would take is for gun control advocates to examine for validity what they claim. Fundamental to their whole argument is the ability of guns to cause crime. Yet not one gun control advocate has established their legitimacy of their arguments or demands.

Would it be possible to get some sensible common sense reasons from gun control advocates why they have not established their legitimacy of demands or alternatively explain what is the basis of those demands they make.

It would really be silly to try and debate the value of gun control as any kind of solution without a basis of validity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom