• 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!

What are the best arguments against gun control?

Wan said:
How would gun control make guns available to fewer criminals? Criminals can get guns from all sorts of sources, some legal, some illegal. In fact, I think I have seen a manual of some sort circulating on the internet that essentially showed people how to manufacture guns in their own garage. Also, if the new process that you propose is onerous, it might make guns less available to law-abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

So you believe in no gun control at all since criminals can get guns anyway.....right?
 
vegas giants said:
So you believe in no gun control at all since criminals can get guns anyway.....right?
Click to expand...

No. I said nothing of the sort. I was just posting some real concerns of mine, which I hoped you could address.
 
Wan said:
No. I said nothing of the sort. I was just posting some real concerns of mine, which I hoped you could address.
Click to expand...

You want me to answer a question? From you? Lol
 
vegas giants said:
You want me to answer a question? From you? Lol
Click to expand...

It's totally fine with me if you refuse to answer my questions. As for what you think of me, well, I really don't care.
 
Wan said:
It's totally fine with me if you refuse to answer my questions. As for what you think of me, well, I really don't care.
Click to expand...

Oh goody. Lol
 
vegas giants said:
Responsible gun owners won't have their guns taken away under any gun control I support. Not a single gun
Click to expand...

So therefore you're not for banning any guns that are legal in this country today, right?
 
Wan said:
What if the seller sands off the serial number on the gun? I know this is illegal, but some people do it anyway. This would make the gun un-traceable back to them.
Click to expand...

If somebody is doing a straw purchase, that is probably all the more reason they would deface the serial number.
 
Since you reference Columbine, I would say that the best argument against Gun Control is that none of the proposed Gun Control measures would have made a difference at Columbine.

None.

Zero.
 
Old Trapper said:
You are doing just what I said you would do in the other forum. You consistently ignore the rest of the decision in Heller:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Now, what do you do about the weapons that are commonly not "in common use for lawful purposes"?
Click to expand...
You seem like a reasonably smart guy so let me ask you a few questions. No tricks...just straightforward questions. 1-Is the Ruger Ranch Rifle a 'military style weapon'?
2-Im one of those that doesnt give half a **** if people call them military style weapons. Have you read the 2nd Amendment? DO you agree that the 2nd Amendment guarantees citizens the right to keep and bear military grade firearms as members of the militia and specifically to preserve the free state? Or do you believe that somehow the 2nd Amendment was REALLY only meant to describe personal defense and hunting weapons and if you believe THAT, how do you manipulate the actual 2nd Amendment to reach that conclusion?
 
VanceMack said:
You seem like a reasonably smart guy so let me ask you a few questions. No tricks...just straightforward questions. 1-Is the Ruger Ranch Rifle a 'military style weapon'?
Click to expand...

Yes, and it was the foundation for the M-4, and M-16. The designer of the AR-15 designed it for the military, and not for civilian use.

2-Im one of those that doesnt give half a **** if people call them military style weapons. Have you read the 2nd Amendment? DO you agree that the 2nd Amendment guarantees citizens the right to keep and bear military grade firearms as members of the militia and specifically to preserve the free state?
Click to expand...

All one has to do is google "First Congress and Second Amendment Debate" and you will find a record of the debate there. No where is the private ownership of weapons mentioned save for as the Militia.

Or do you believe that somehow the 2nd Amendment was REALLY only meant to describe personal defense and hunting weapons and if you believe THAT, how do you manipulate the actual 2nd Amendment to reach that conclusion?
Click to expand...

Really quite easy. The Framers understood the basic rights of the People, and they understood "Natural Rights". These are rights given by God, and they cannot be taken away, or regulated, by government. It is these rights that include the right to self defense, to hunting as a means of survival, etc. In these modern times the concept of Natural Rights has been lost, and the power to regular ones rights has been given to the government. Thus we hunt for the Kings deer, we rely on government for our self defense, we rely on government for our housing, and the list goes on. Do you think you own your home, or are you renting it from the government? What is the purpose of a hunting license save to get permission to hunt? In getting a CDL are you not seeking permission from the government to protect yourself?

May I suggest you do some research on Natural Rights v Government Rights.

Natural Law and Natural Rights - Online Library of Liberty
 
Last edited:
Old Trapper said:
Yes, and it was the foundation for the M-4, and M-16. The designer of the AR-15 designed it for the military, and not for civilian use.



All one has to do is google "First Congress and Second Amendment Debate" and you will find a record of the debate there. No where is the private ownership of weapons mentioned save for as the Militia.



Really quite easy. The Framers understood the basic rights of the People, and they understood "Natural Rights". These are rights given by God, and they cannot be taken away, or regulated, by government. It is these rights that include the right to self defense, to hunting as a means of survival, etc. In these modern times the concept of Natural Rights has been lost, and the power to regular ones rights has been given to the government. Thus we hunt for the Kings deer, we rely on government for our self defense, we rely on government for our housing, and the list goes on. Do you think you own your home, or are you renting it from the government? What is the purpose of a hunting license save to get permission to hunt? In getting a CDL are you not seeking permission from the government to protect yourself?

May I suggest you do some research on Natural Rights v Government Rights.

Natural Law and Natural Rights - Online Library of Liberty
Click to expand...

that's complete nonsense. and tell me-in Constitutional terms-why it matters if the designer of a rifle was hoping for a military contract or not?
 
Old Trapper said:
Yes, and it was the foundation for the M-4, and M-16. The designer of the AR-15 designed it for the military, and not for civilian use.



All one has to do is google "First Congress and Second Amendment Debate" and you will find a record of the debate there. No where is the private ownership of weapons mentioned save for as the Militia.



Really quite easy. The Framers understood the basic rights of the People, and they understood "Natural Rights". These are rights given by God, and they cannot be taken away, or regulated, by government. It is these rights that include the right to self defense, to hunting as a means of survival, etc. In these modern times the concept of Natural Rights has been lost, and the power to regular ones rights has been given to the government. Thus we hunt for the Kings deer, we rely on government for our self defense, we rely on government for our housing, and the list goes on. Do you think you own your home, or are you renting it from the government? What is the purpose of a hunting license save to get permission to hunt? In getting a CDL are you not seeking permission from the government to protect yourself?

May I suggest you do some research on Natural Rights v Government Rights.

Natural Law and Natural Rights - Online Library of Liberty
Click to expand...
So YOU would define a military grade weapon as any semiautomatic firearm? You think the Ruger Ranch Rifle was designed as a precurser to the M16???

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


You are correct in that the right to home defense, self defense and hunting were NATURAL rights. The 2nd Amendment is OBVIOUSLY a right to keep and bear military grade firearms for the defense of the free state. We KNOW 'the people' are the militia. We KNOW the militia (the people-not an organized military body) is seen as necessary to secure the free states. And we damn sure know what 'shall not be infringed' means. There have been many judgements by the courts but the judgments are in opposition to the 2nd. Unfortunately, far too many gun owners have allowed the argument to be framed incorrectly.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's complete nonsense. and tell me-in Constitutional terms-why it matters if the designer of a rifle was hoping for a military contract or not?
Click to expand...

This is an asinine, and quite childish, question I always expect from the likes of you. There is not "Constitutional" issue here, it is one of personal opinion as to the dangers of certain types of guns. The designer of the weapon recognized that he was designing a weapon for the military, not for civilians.
 
Old Trapper said:
This is an asinine, and quite childish, question I always expect from the likes of you. There is not "Constitutional" issue here, it is one of personal opinion as to the dangers of certain types of guns. The designer of the weapon recognized that he was designing a weapon for the military, not for civilians.
Click to expand...

Wasn't his version fully automatic?
 
VanceMack said:
So YOU would define a military grade weapon as any semiautomatic firearm? You think the Ruger Ranch Rifle was designed as a precurser to the M16???
Click to expand...

Just the opposite.

AR-15 (CMMG M4 LE) and Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Carbines compared

You are correct in that the right to home defense, self defense and hunting were NATURAL rights. The 2nd Amendment is OBVIOUSLY a right to keep and bear military grade firearms for the defense of the free state. We KNOW 'the people' are the militia. We KNOW the militia (the people-not an organized military body) is seen as necessary to secure the free states. And we damn sure know what 'shall not be infringed' means. There have been many judgements by the courts but the judgments are in opposition to the 2nd. Unfortunately, far too many gun owners have allowed the argument to be framed incorrectly.
Click to expand...

It was to be organized, and trained. The difference was it was not to be permanent save for a small force to protect armories, or other related government structures. We now have a permanent military thus the need for a permanent state of war.

Just as an observation, in the days of the Founders, and until the early 1900's, when a person was released from prison he was given his gun, his horse (later it was a certain amount of money), and his freedom. We lost that understanding somewhere along the way. But then, I support open carry, mandatory military service, and ones right to protect himself, his family, his neighbor, and his property.
 
Old Trapper said:
This is an asinine, and quite childish, question I always expect from the likes of you. There is not "Constitutional" issue here, it is one of personal opinion as to the dangers of certain types of guns. The designer of the weapon recognized that he was designing a weapon for the military, not for civilians.
Click to expand...

in other words, you haven't a clue about this issue. Is K-bar knife more dangerous than a Randall Model 1?
 
TurtleDude said:
in other words, you haven't a clue about this issue. Is K-bar knife more dangerous than a Randall Model 1?
Click to expand...

In other words you lack even a basic understanding of what "Constitutional" means. Nothing new there.
 
JC Axe said:
I've been looking to make my analysis of the most common / most convincing arguments against gun control in order to write a follow up to an article I wrote recently (available here: 19 Years on From the Columbine School Massacre, What Has Changed? | The Urban Twist).

So far, I've been presented with the following arguments which stand in favour of the second amendment:

• Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
• If guns are banned, it will push guns into the hands of criminals.
• Japan didn’t invade America because it knew the population was armed.
• Responsible gun owners shouldn’t have their guns taken away.
• An armed civilian population prevents dictatorships from forming.
• Gun crime prevents domestic violence.
• Guns save more people than they kill.
• The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.
• Switzerland has lots of guns and very little crime.
• More people die from opiates than gun crime.
• Most of the mass killings by gun in the United States in recent years — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino and Orlando — took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so.
• The NRA says that from 1991 to 2012, the murder fell by half while the number of semi-automatic guns rose by 50 million

Does anyone have any stronger arguments than these? Or can anybody expand on them, or argue against them?
Click to expand...

Shall not be infringed is the only argument necessary.
 
JC Axe said:
I've been looking to make my analysis of the most common / most convincing arguments against gun control in order to write a follow up to an article I wrote recently (available here: 19 Years on From the Columbine School Massacre, What Has Changed? | The Urban Twist).

So far, I've been presented with the following arguments which stand in favour of the second amendment:

• Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
• If guns are banned, it will push guns into the hands of criminals.
• Japan didn’t invade America because it knew the population was armed.
• Responsible gun owners shouldn’t have their guns taken away.
• An armed civilian population prevents dictatorships from forming.
• Gun crime prevents domestic violence.
• Guns save more people than they kill.
• The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.
• Switzerland has lots of guns and very little crime.
• More people die from opiates than gun crime.
• Most of the mass killings by gun in the United States in recent years — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino and Orlando — took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so.
• The NRA says that from 1991 to 2012, the murder fell by half while the number of semi-automatic guns rose by 50 million

Does anyone have any stronger arguments than these? Or can anybody expand on them, or argue against them?
Click to expand...

Those arguments in favor of the 2nd amendment are completely friggen stupid, just typical talking points. Those are slogans, not arguments, and have no facts supporting it. and I'll address each one

People use guns to kill people. Guns go off and kill people, they kill innocent, THe sheer insanity of the number of gun related deaths in this country is all you need to know there needs to be regulation. The number of mass murders of people being slaughtered byt he dozens or more because pepole have miltary grade weapons.

• If guns are banned, it will push guns into the hands of criminals.- This is another dumb argument, people break all kinds of laws, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws. Yes, ultimately there are is an absurd amount of guns even if there was a ban people would have access since their is so many. But not a reason there can't be some regulations

• Japan didn’t invade America because it knew the population was armed.- This is complete nonsense Japan didn't invade because they were so far away and didn't have close by bases capable of striking the mainland US> planes had limited range. Even the US had to slowly march through the pacific to get close enough to be able to be in range of the US. Plus, you think armed civilians can stand up to any military?

• Responsible gun owners shouldn’t have their guns taken away.-Yeah, everybody is a responsible gun owner until they kill someone, use it in a crime, leave it out for kids to kill other kids, etc. THat's a stupid argument, we have thousands upon thosuands of examples of irresponsibility of gun owners every year


• An armed civilian population prevents dictatorships from forming.-This is so friggen stupid, you think armed civilians can take on any military?

• Gun crime prevents domestic violence.- WTF, the victim of domestic violence is often killed by their abuser with a gun. Another complete work of fiction

• Guns save more people than they kill.- Another stupid comment unsubstantiated with facts. If we didn't have so many guns, there wouldn't be any need to have guns saving people

• The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.- Yeah, by police. The cases where civilians actually stop a crime with a gun or protect themselves is so minor, and those odds are much smaller than the odds they will be a victim of gun related incident just by having the gun

• Switzerland has lots of guns and very little crime.- Another dumb one, switzerland has regulations regarding guns, and have nowhere near the willy nilly wild west gun situation we have int his country.

• More people die from opiates than gun crime. How the hell is that an argument for no gun control?

Holy ****, what a dumb OP. Why is it right wingers lack the ability to make rational, fact based arguments? Could it be you don't have any? All you did was post a bunch of unsubstantiated one liner talking points.
 
Old Trapper said:
Just the opposite.

AR-15 (CMMG M4 LE) and Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Carbines compared



It was to be organized, and trained. The difference was it was not to be permanent save for a small force to protect armories, or other related government structures. We now have a permanent military thus the need for a permanent state of war.

Just as an observation, in the days of the Founders, and until the early 1900's, when a person was released from prison he was given his gun, his horse (later it was a certain amount of money), and his freedom. We lost that understanding somewhere along the way. But then, I support open carry, mandatory military service, and ones right to protect himself, his family, his neighbor, and his property.
Click to expand...
Again...THIS

5801.jpg

to you is a military grade rifle?

The militia has always been 'the people'-that is...the citizens of this country. Thats precisely WHY the 2nd Amendment acknowledges the MILITIA and the rights of 'the people' to keep and bear arms and that those rights are to be uninfringed. So that the citizens of this country be free to own military grade firearms to protect the country in the gravest extreme. Not an army and ceretainly not the rights of 'the army to keep and bear arms. Not an organized standing state militia and certainly no the right of said government entity to keep and bear arms. The people...and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The requirement was then as it is now...for each citizen as a member of the militia to own firearms and be trained in their use, their weapons kept in good working order, and be appropriately stocked (the meaning of the term 'well regulated'). Washington and others described the responsibility of citizens. True enough...many shirk from their responsibility.

The 2nd was always...ALWAYS about the rights of 'the people' and not a government entity. We need look no further than where the government entity keeps its arms...in a national guard armory...to understand the difference between an official body and the people.
 
JC Axe said:
I've been looking to make my analysis of the most common / most convincing arguments against gun control in order to write a follow up to an article I wrote recently (available here: 19 Years on From the Columbine School Massacre, What Has Changed? | The Urban Twist).

So far, I've been presented with the following arguments which stand in favour of the second amendment:

• Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
• If guns are banned, it will push guns into the hands of criminals.
• Japan didn’t invade America because it knew the population was armed.
• Responsible gun owners shouldn’t have their guns taken away.
• An armed civilian population prevents dictatorships from forming.
• Gun crime prevents domestic violence.
• Guns save more people than they kill.
• The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.
• Switzerland has lots of guns and very little crime.
• More people die from opiates than gun crime.
• Most of the mass killings by gun in the United States in recent years — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino and Orlando — took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so.
• The NRA says that from 1991 to 2012, the murder fell by half while the number of semi-automatic guns rose by 50 million

Does anyone have any stronger arguments than these? Or can anybody expand on them, or argue against them?
Click to expand...
I just noticed this thread, so, if I'm a bit repetitious I apologize. The simple answer is there are no arguments against gun control - he have a highly restrictive web of gun control already. The argument shouldn't be frames as a "guns for everybody" or "take away all guns"; it's never been that.

The basic fact is that the idea that more laws would stop every shooting is fallacious. There is no law on the book that has not been violated. People still drive drunk, beat up their spouses, rob, rape and pillage. Stuff happens and you can't regulate against all stuff.
 
Bullseye said:
I just noticed this thread, so, if I'm a bit repetitious I apologize. The simple answer is there are no arguments against gun control - he have a highly restrictive web of gun control already. The argument shouldn't be frames as a "guns for everybody" or "take away all guns"; it's never been that.

The basic fact is that the idea that more laws would stop every shooting is fallacious. There is no law on the book that has not been violated. People still drive drunk, beat up their spouses, rob, rape and pillage. Stuff happens and you can't regulate against all stuff.
Click to expand...

We have the most lax gun laws of any developed nation on earth and the most gun deaths. Not a coincidence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom