• 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!

My Gun Control Plan [W:1271]

Where did I mention knives then ?

:

That's the point.. it doesn;t matter. Knives. Guns, rocks. Dead is dead.

You've already been shown that this statement is nonsense on every count

Far from it....you;ve already been shown not only that this statement is true but why its statistically true. While you use invalid statistics to try to bolster your emotional pleas.

We currently have the lowest uniformed police numbers since the mid 70s coupled with the lowest firearm and indeed overall murder rates in 35 years . So how do you account for that ?

You don't know your own numbers perhaps?

From the chart.. number of police officers in England and wales: 1970: 91,307

In 2012: 134,100.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-officers-in-england-and-wales-during-1959-1970-1997-2003-and-2012/police-officers-in-england-and-wales-during-1959-1970-1997-2003-and-2012

The number of police officers in 2015:
There were 126,818 police officers in the 43 police forces on the 31 March 2015.

Sorry dude but you might want to check your numbers.

And if they have access to a firearm the consequences of their condition are going to be potentially far more lethal

Meh.. or access to a vehicle, or access to illicit drugs, or access to a knife or access to a baseball bat, or access too....

And if they have access to a gun that makes the potential lethal consequences that so much worse

Meh.. see above.

Heads I'm your personal opinion does not represent facts. So far I'm the one cornering the market with those

Yeah... not so much. I think you are a legend only in your own mind.
 
One does not have to be an alcoholic to go into a drunken rage and murder/harm someone.

But if you are an alcoholic with access to a gun it makes that outcome much more likely to be lethal

One does not have to be an alcoholic to rape someone or abuse their wife or children while drunk.

Ditto ...

If you are happy with your countries results with gun control, why in the world are you satisfied with the status quo (good band btw), of something that has caused more deaths, murders and tragedies than firearms ever did in your country including Northern Ireland??? Why do you assume everyone is responsible for their own actions in regards to alcohol yet consider everyone a potential murderer if they own a firearm when numbers show your are just as likely if not more so to harm someone while under the influence of alcohol? Not very rational

Because guns make murder or suicide that much more likely to be successful be that via alcohol, depression or whatever other motivation the human condition is prey to . Thats a very 'rational' conclusion borne out by your numbers
 
Far from it....you;ve already been shown not only that this statement is true but why its statistically true. While you use invalid statistics to try to bolster your emotional pleas.

Prove they are invalid or in any way emotional ?

You don't know your own numbers perhaps?

There are now 25,000 fewer police officers now than there were just before the gun ban and that number continues to fall . The last time I checked 1970 wasn't actually the mid 70s when UK numbers were higher because of the actions of the IRA


From the chart.. number of police officers in England and wales: 1970: 91,307

In 2012: 134,100.

In 2015 118,000 (ONS numbers) Interestingly per capita the US has nearly 50% more police officers than does the UK so this UK 'police state' BS doesn't wash either

Meh.. or access to a vehicle, or access to illicit drugs, or access to a knife or access to a baseball bat, or access too....

Such ongoing denial is unbelievable in the wake of so many facts ! Just take it on the chin with a bit more dignity :roll:
 
But if you are an alcoholic with access to a gun it makes that outcome much more likely to be lethal



Ditto ...



Because guns make murder or suicide that much more likely to be successful be that via alcohol, depression or whatever other motivation the human condition is prey to . Thats a very 'rational' conclusion borne out by your numbers

Except our numbers show it is a very, very small percentage; less than a fraction of 1%.

You did not answer the question, why are you happy with the status quo? Your country determined a relative handful of deaths due to firearms was worthy of stripping away your freedom to own firearms for the most part. Yet those greater numbers of murders, rapes, family abuse and lives lost or tragically altered by alcohol are just a byproduct of you and the boys having a few drinks and a couple of laughs. Why is it all about personal responsibility for one but not the other?
 
:roll:

In less than 100 words state why guns are not tools and correctly categorise them. I bet you cannot.:shock:

Even if guns were tools (and I'm not saying that they are), a gun and a tool are not synonymous. Some construction workers equip themselves with hammers and some farmers equip themselves with scythes. Legislators are granted power by those before them, all the way back to the framers, and by the people who elect them to write laws with a pen.

What's the difference between a firearm and a tool? The gun control we are talking about does not include nail guns. There's one difference between two guns.

I've noticed that gun control is a touchy subject. Imprudent posters actually believe that if the Constitution didn't grant the power to the federal government, then the federal government doesn't have that power. That's simply not true. However, we can make gun control a matter of state law and rely on the commerce clause, with that I have no problem whatsoever.

Still, the Second Amendment does not preclude federal law relating to firearms, as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.
 
You had 28,600 gun deaths in 2000 last year you had over 35,000.

The numbers really are a bitch for you zealots :wink:

not at all. gun crimes are going down. and we really don't care what foreigners think-especially those that live in bedwetting nations
 
Even if guns were tools (and I'm not saying that they are), a gun and a tool are not synonymous. Some construction workers equip themselves with hammers and some farmers equip themselves with scythes. Legislators are granted power by those before them, all the way back to the framers, and by the people who elect them to write laws with a pen.

What's the difference between a firearm and a tool? The gun control we are talking about does not include nail guns. There's one difference between two guns.

I've noticed that gun control is a touchy subject. Imprudent posters actually believe that if the Constitution didn't grant the power to the federal government, then the federal government doesn't have that power. That's simply not true. However, we can make gun control a matter of state law and rely on the commerce clause, with that I have no problem whatsoever.

Still, the Second Amendment does not preclude federal law relating to firearms, as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

you are lying. the constitution never granted the federal government any such power. rather the supreme court ignored the meaning of the constitution, the bill of rights and ratified congressional power grabs that clearly violated the constitution . ONE OR FEWER GUNS-that is one of the most stupid comments I have ever seen on this board, and this board is full of people who clearly have no clue about constitutional theory.
 
you are lying. the constitution never granted the federal government any such power. rather the supreme court ignored the meaning of the constitution, the bill of rights and ratified congressional power grabs that clearly violated the constitution . ONE OR FEWER GUNS-that is one of the most stupid comments I have ever seen on this board, and this board is full of people who clearly have no clue about constitutional theory.

Can you cite a specific example of this "constitutional theory," or is this further argumentum ad lapidem?

I am not lying, the Second Amendment gives the "people" the right to bear "arms," which means that any person has the right to bear a firearm, not two and not three. The only reason that you have the right to own more than one gun is not according to the Constitution but your unsubstantiated claim that the framers intended it to be that way.
 
Can you cite a specific example of this "constitutional theory," or is this further argumentum ad lapidem?

I am not lying, the Second Amendment gives the "people" the right to bear "arms," which means that any person has the right to bear a firearm, not two and not three. The only reason that you have the right to own more than one gun is not according to the Constitution but your unsubstantiated claim that the framers intended it to be that way.

have you ever read Cruikshank? you seem to think that the government's power somehow increases based on what you own. that shows you have absolutely no understanding of the negative restriction that the second amendment was intended to create.

remind me what section of the constitution actually empowers the federal government to regulate privately owned arms
 
remind me what section of the constitution actually empowers the federal government to regulate privately owned arms

Remind me of why a section of the Constitution is necessary to empower the government to regulate privately owned arms. Oh that's right, you can't, because Constitutional law is only a part of statutory law. An important part, but a lack of Constitutional law does not preclude enactment of statute in order to regulate privately owned arms.
 
Remind me of why a section of the Constitution is necessary to empower the government to regulate privately owned arms. Oh that's right, you can't, because Constitutional law is only a part of statutory law. An important part, but a lack of Constitutional law does not preclude enactment of statute in order to regulate privately owned arms.

OMG this is a winner. you not only don't understand the bill of rights, you seem to think that the federal government is a government of unlimited powers. NO wonder this country is going down the toilet-way too many citizens don't even understand the entire premise of the constitution-that the federal government is one of LIMITED powers
 
Can you cite a specific example of this "constitutional theory," or is this further argumentum ad lapidem?

I am not lying, the Second Amendment gives the "people" the right to bear "arms," which means that any person has the right to bear a firearm, not two and not three. The only reason that you have the right to own more than one gun is not according to the Constitution but your unsubstantiated claim that the framers intended it to be that way.

Arms is plural and did you miss that. While you look it up also look up the word infringed.
 
Arms is plural and did you miss that. While you look it up also look up the word infringed.

People is also plural and did you miss that? I'll wait, while you figure out how plural persons permits one firearm per person under the plural "arms."
 
Last edited:
OMG this is a winner. you not only don't understand the bill of rights, you seem to think that the federal government is a government of unlimited powers. NO wonder this country is going down the toilet-way too many citizens don't even understand the entire premise of the constitution-that the federal government is one of LIMITED powers

Your argument that I don't understand the Bill of Rights has proven fruitless, and I have never said that the power of the federal government is unlimited. The government should ideally be a representative democracy, which means that the people elect representatives and the representatives govern. Part of governance is writing statute and in order to facilitate the growth of the republic, new laws sometimes need to be written. This is where we stand, catch up.
 
Your argument that I don't understand the Bill of Rights has proven fruitless, and I have never said that the power of the federal government is unlimited. The government should ideally be a representative democracy, which means that the people elect representatives and the representatives govern. Part of governance is writing statute and in order to facilitate the growth of the republic, new laws sometimes need to be written. This is where we stand, catch up.


again you demonstrate you have no clue about the entire foundation upon which our constitutional republic was based. You seem to think that the federal government can do anything it wants as long as its popular enough.

sorry that is crap. the federal government was supposed to only have the powers delegated to it in the constitution or by amendment
 
People is also plural and did you miss that? I'll wait, while you figure out how plural persons permits one firearm per person under the plural "arms."

No it means People, all the People are allowed to bear arms, otherwise the Founders in their wisdom would have said each citizen is allowed to bear an arm, not what it says. Nice try, total failure.
 
Here's an article with a sentence diagram for the plebeians among us. No part in the Second Amendment gives us the right to own multiple firearms. The Second Amendment gives us the right to own at least one firearm. It does not require of us ownership of more, or less, and it does not explicitly give us the right to own any more than a single firearm. Moreover, no other law that I know of expressly grants the right to private ownership of multiple firearms.
 
again you demonstrate you have no clue about the entire foundation upon which our constitutional republic was based. You seem to think that the federal government can do anything it wants as long as its popular enough.

sorry that is crap. the federal government was supposed to only have the powers delegated to it in the constitution or by amendment

TurtleDude, your argument is just one big argumentum ad lapidem. You have no proof whatsoever that I have no clue, as this is not a demonstration of my knowledge or lack thereof the "entire foundation" upon which our country was based. You seem to think that by repeating your populist garbage, that it will somehow be true. There is nothing about the foundation, and no law in the Constitution which precludes gun control. Pray tell, where does it say that the federal government was supposed to only have the powers delegated to it in the Constitution and if that was the case, what should stop the states from enacting gun control statute?
 
Here's an article with a sentence diagram for the plebeians among us. No part in the Second Amendment gives us the right to own multiple firearms. The Second Amendment gives us the right to own at least one firearm. It does not require of us ownership of more, or less, and it does not explicitly give us the right to own any more than a single firearm. Moreover, no other law that I know of expressly grants the right to private ownership of multiple firearms.

you clearly have no education in constitutional law or theory. the bill of rights GIVES nothing. IT merely recognizes rights that we were assumed to have since the dawn of man and those rights were not areas where the federal government was given ANY power to change that fact. The bill of rights restates that fact by specifically DENYING the federal government any power over those rights. Your moronic claims that as long as we can own one firearm, our second amendment rights are intact is beyond specious since you are assuming that the federal government has a power to ban what we own based on what we already own. Its based on the idiotic and unlearned claim that the second amendment can be limited as what we do rather it limits what the federal government can do.

the crap you spew comes from the tiring bannerrhoid attitude that the second amendment is barrier against the idiocy of the Bannerrhoid movement that the BM cannot get around if the second amendment is interpreted as the founders intended (which of course is consistent with the entire foundation upon which the constitution is based). SO the BM tries to pretend that the second amendment can be mutated so as to allow all sorts of governmental powers that cannot be found in ANY part of the constitution

I ask you again-what part of the constitution authorizes the federal government to limit the number of firearms a private citizen can own.
 
TurtleDude, your argument is just one big argumentum ad lapidem. You have no proof whatsoever that I have no clue, as this is not a demonstration of my knowledge or lack thereof the "entire foundation" upon which our country was based. You seem to think that by repeating your populist garbage, that it will somehow be true. There is nothing about the foundation, and no law in the Constitution which precludes gun control. Pray tell, where does it say that the federal government was supposed to only have the powers delegated to it in the Constitution and if that was the case, what should stop the states from enacting gun control statute?

what university awarded you a law degree and what constitutional scholarship supports your silly claims.

NOW YOU are shifting to STATE power rather than federal powers. Geez, you really don't understand the difference do you?
 
Here's an article with a sentence diagram for the plebeians among us. No part in the Second Amendment gives us the right to own multiple firearms. The Second Amendment gives us the right to own at least one firearm. It does not require of us ownership of more, or less, and it does not explicitly give us the right to own any more than a single firearm. Moreover, no other law that I know of expressly grants the right to private ownership of multiple firearms.

Well then I guess I am over a dozen or so past my limit, think I will go get some more. Seems as if the American People agree, sales are at record levels and no laws, stomping of your feet or whining will ever get those guns away from the American People. Now back to your word nonsense, the American people know what the Second A means and you are desperate to change it, maybe you should try rewriting some history next.
 
you clearly have no education in constitutional law or theory. the bill of rights GIVES nothing.
The Bill of Rights need not give anything in order for the federal government to be granted powers. The Constitution provides a framework upon which legislation may enumerate in greater detail the powers of the government. That is precisely why the Bill of Rights was designed to limit statute - so that we would know what not to add when we add to law. Pretty much anything else is fair game. Don't you agree?

I ask you again-what part of the constitution authorizes the federal government to limit the number of firearms a private citizen can own.
I'm not sure how this is relevant. The Constitution need not authorize the federal government to limit the number of firearms a private citizen can own to one.


what university awarded you a law degree and what constitutional scholarship supports your silly claims.
I'm not a lawyer, any asshole can come to the same conclusion I have. Call me John Doe.

Well then I guess I am over a dozen or so past my limit, think I will go get some more. Seems as if the American People agree, sales are at record levels and no laws, stomping of your feet or whining will ever get those guns away from the American People. Now back to your word nonsense, the American people know what the Second A means and you are desperate to change it, maybe you should try rewriting some history next.
Well, I'm not here for you to blow hot air in my direction, but I'll let the chart do the talking. You're full of it.
120731095634-declining-gun-ownership-chart-story-top.jpg
 
The Bill of Rights need not give anything in order for the federal government to be granted powers. The Constitution provides a framework upon which legislation may enumerate in greater detail the powers of the government. That is precisely why the Bill of Rights was designed to limit statute - so that we would know what not to add when we add to law. Pretty much anything else is fair game. Don't you agree?


I'm not sure how this is relevant. The Constitution need not authorize the federal government to limit the number of firearms a private citizen can own to one.



I'm not a lawyer, any asshole can come to the same conclusion I have. Call me John Doe.


Well, I'm not here for you to blow hot air in my direction, but I'll let the chart do the talking. You're full of it.
120731095634-declining-gun-ownership-chart-story-top.jpg

you're just wrong-period ITs bannerrhoid nonsense yet again, Citing the VPC for any "fact" about guns is like citing the National Alliance as to the contributions blacks or Jews have made to our society I know you are not a lawyer. No one could pass IL constitutional law and spew the silliness I have seen in your posts about federal governmental power.

SO it is your opinion that the federal government can limit the number of guns a private citizen can own even without any constitutional basis for that?

I will destroy that idiocy tomorrow if none of the others who actually understand this topic do so by the time I return,
 
Back
Top Bottom