• 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 control ad - 1981

Rucker61 said:
If there were 15,000 tommy guns sold on the civilian market, how come there weren't hundreds and thousands of mass shootings?

The "Slippery slope" argument went away when Pelosi publicly endorsed it.
Click to expand...

So then maybe you can answer Jaeger19’s question a couple posts back of who here is advocating for no regulations.
 
Threegoofs said:
9808c3d3836876851b93e6bbb95c1eab.jpg


Over 10k excess deaths in 1980. That number has only increased... which means the US has had almost 400,000 additional excess deaths since then.

But think of the FREEDOM!
Click to expand...

No, think of stupid people just trying to sell more guns: that's all this is about for them. They cloak themselves in the constitution and the second amendment to justify their hideous ideology as pawns for the NRA and the gun manufacturers. The constitution has nothing to do with it.
 
Rich2018 said:
Try a couple of guesses.

High powered rifles...fitted with scopes (or capable of being fitted with scopes...)


JFK...blown away...what more do I have to say ?
Click to expand...
But-but-but, when your would be King Obama was talking about the 2nd he was clear that his wasn't out to "take our hunting rifles". Well he wanted them all and people like you confirm it.
 
ataraxia said:
Mental health specialists define insanity as behavior or mindsets which create dysfunctional situations. As weapons technology continues to evolve, the mindset that 18th century laws made for 18th century technology need to be clung to as something absolutely sacred and inviolable will become increasingly dysfunctional. It already has, of course. It’s just a matter of how bad it has to get before even the most insane among the advocates have to cry uncle.
Click to expand...


The 2nd amendment wasn't created so that you can go hunting and shoot burglars and other criminals. It was created so that we the people, the average citizens can defend our nation against invasions and to defend against a tyrannical government. Those two needs will never disappear and as such the 2nd amendment will never be out dated.

Trying to use the "but they didn't have that back then" is a pathetic excuse used by anti-2nd amendment trash trying to infringe on the 2nd amendment. Also using they didn't have that back then excuse could back fire and be applied to all our other rights. For example they didn't have computers, cellphones, telephones, televisions, radio, mass printing presses high rise buildings and the only mega-church back then was the Catholic Church. So using your logic its okay for the government to dictate your speech unless it was printed on a 18th century printing press, okay for the government to house troops in high rise office buildings, listen in on your conversations and read your emails on your computers,cellphones and telephones without a warrant because those things didn't exist back then.



BTW suicides by firearm as far as most of us know take only one shot.Which is what any 18th century handgun is capable of.
 
ataraxia said:
We can argue the details, and exactly where to draw the lines. That’s where rational discourse comes in. But this mindset that any regulation is a slippery slope to Soviet style communist dictatorship is a highly dysfunctional mindset.
Click to expand...



What regulations would you like to see? A ban on semi-automatic firearms under the guise of an assault weapons ban? A ban on 10 to 30 round standard capacity magazines under the guise of a high capacity magazine ban? Excessive taxes on bullets and firearms so that its hard for average citizens to be able to buy those things? Expensive firearm courses to make it hard for your average citizen to be able to buy and use guns? Licenses/Permits just to be able to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms? Wrongful death lawsuits against firearm manufacturers so they can be bankrupted because criminals used their product for an illegal purpose? The government knowing who has what firearms through the use of a mandatory firearm registration? None of these are sane to any 2nd amendment advocate. But yet anti-2nd amendment trash advocate for those things. You either don't understand why the 2nd amendment was created or you don't care.
 
jamesrage said:
What regulations would you like to see? A ban on semi-automatic firearms under the guise of an assault weapons ban? A ban on 10 to 30 round standard capacity magazines under the guise of a high capacity magazine ban? Excessive taxes on bullets and firearms so that its hard for average citizens to be able to buy those things? Expensive firearm courses to make it hard for your average citizen to be able to buy and use guns? Licenses/Permits just to be able to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms? Wrongful death lawsuits against firearm manufacturers so they can be bankrupted because criminals used their product for an illegal purpose? The government knowing who has what firearms through the use of a mandatory firearm registration? None of these are sane to any 2nd amendment advocate. But yet anti-2nd amendment trash advocate for those things. You either don't understand why the 2nd amendment was created or you don't care.
Click to expand...

What would you like to see done to reduce gun deaths and where is that plan currently working?
 
zsu2357 said:
But-but-but, when your would be King Obama was talking about the 2nd he was clear that his wasn't out to "take our hunting rifles". Well he wanted them all and people like you confirm it.
Click to expand...

"Would be king"? That's delusion speak! As is the rest of the NRA-drone nonsense. Better regulation is not "taking your gunz"
 
Manc Skipper said:
"Would be king"? That's delusion speak! As is the rest of the NRA-drone nonsense. Better regulation is not "taking your gunz"
Click to expand...

The platform of the Democratic Party and its top three presidential candidates included a ban on "assault weapons". What part of the word "ban" are you missing?
 
Rich2018 said:
Supporters of gun control do not hate your rights...they hate your guns.

Guns kill...a lot.

No rights are worth the amount of death and disability guns needlessly inflict every year.

I would sooner support your right to sell heroin than own a gun
At least people you might sell heroin to have a choice whether the drug goes into their body...the victims of gun crime (generally) have no say whether a bullet enters theirs.


In case you misunderstand, I do not support the sale of heroin in any way...just wanted to point out where ownership of guns fits on the scale.
Click to expand...

Gun usage save lives. Whats your answer to that?
 
jonny5 said:
How do you know if we dont try it?
Click to expand...

Why has no one on planet earth been able to implement it successfully in modern times? Doesn't that tell you something?
 
vegas giants said:
What would you like to see done to reduce gun deaths and where is that plan currently working?
Click to expand...
If people want to off themselves then that is their business. Banning guns is not going to stop most of these deaths from happening, they will find some other means to off themselves.
 
jamesrage said:
If people want to off themselves then that is their business. Banning guns is not going to stop most of these deaths from happening, they will find some other means to off themselves.
Click to expand...

Well the science disagrees but more importantly this is not a solution to gun violence
 
jonny5 said:
Gun usage save lives. Whats your answer to that?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Every study done shows that the more guns there are in a place, the more violence. This holds across countries, as well as states in the United States. Just because guns are being used a lot defensively, does not mean the place is safer. Just means the place is a war zone. Guns are used a lot defensively in war zones as well. But would you say that place is safer because it has more guns?
 
Rucker61 said:
The platform of the Democratic Party and its top three presidential candidates included a ban on "assault weapons". What part of the word "ban" are you missing?
Click to expand...

Some even want to ban semi-automatics.
 
ataraxia said:
What are you talking about? Every study done shows that the more guns there are in a place, the more violence. This holds across countries, as well as states in the United States. Just because guns are being used a lot defensively, does not mean the place is safer. Just means the place is a war zone. Guns are used a lot defensively in war zones as well. But would you say that place is safer because it has more guns?
Click to expand...

What can you do about "more guns", or even the number of guns we have now?
 
vegas giants said:
Why has no one on planet earth been able to implement it successfully in modern times? Doesn't that tell you something?
Click to expand...

I dont know of anyone who has actually tried to deal with the root causes of violence. All I see is temporary band aids for political gain.
 
jonny5 said:
I dont know of anyone who has actually tried to deal with the root causes of violence. All I see is temporary band aids for political gain.
Click to expand...

I know of lots of places that have low gun deaths. Gun control works
 
ataraxia said:
What are you talking about? Every study done shows that the more guns there are in a place, the more violence. This holds across countries, as well as states in the United States. Just because guns are being used a lot defensively, does not mean the place is safer. Just means the place is a war zone. Guns are used a lot defensively in war zones as well. But would you say that place is safer because it has more guns?
Click to expand...

I would say that individuals and society is safer if it has an armed populace, yes. On the other hand, when the people are disarmed, tyranny takes over. We have thousands of years of war to prove it. But on the micro level its even more important. If I cant defend myself, who will?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom