• 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!

[W:1311]The Second Amendment - A Military Right to Bear Arms

jet57 said:
You know that Reagan supported gun control and signed the Brady Bill - right? What does his being dead have to do with the fact that HE supported gun control and assault weapons bans? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-lobby/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7745e146a6cf
Click to expand...

OMG ANOTHER JET LIE-REAGAN NEVER SIGNED THE BRADY BILL-it didn't get passed until 1993

Its great watching another complete bit of fiction


https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/brady-bill-signed-into-law

During a White House ceremony attended by James S. Brady, President Bill Clinton signs the Brady handgun-control bill into law. The law requires a prospective handgun buyer to wait five business days while the authorities check on his or her background, during which time the sale is approved or prohibited based on an established set of criteria.
 
While President (ended January 1989) Reagan did not support gun control. True-he signed the mainly pro gun McClure-Volker Firearms Owner Protection Act even though mendacious democrats improperly attached an Amendment to it (The Hughes Amendment) that the ATF then interpreted banned the ability of private citizens to register machine guns made after May, 1986 and thus this amendment effectively banned such firearms from being owned by civilians. Reagan was on record as supporting the original law and spiteful dems tried to derail it. Due to the predicted (and accurate) belief that the GOP would lose the senate in November of 1986 and given legal counsel's belief that the Hughes Amendment would be stricken by the Courts, Reagan supported a bill that mostly was pro gun owner. He did NOT support the Brady bill or any bans while in office. After he was out of office (and was clearly senile) he started mouthing support for the Brady bill.
 
True-he signed the mainly pro gun McClure-Volker Firearms Owner Protection Act
Click to expand...

So Reagan DID sign a gun control law and supported the Brady Bill. And he DID support an assault weapons ban.

Aside from a slight error, I was absolutely correct.
 
jet57 said:
So Reagan DID sign a gun control law and supported the Brady Bill. And he DID support an assault weapons ban.

Aside from a slight error, I was absolutely correct.
Click to expand...

Reagan opposed the Brady Bill when it was first introduced. When his brain went, he started supporting gun control in the early 1990s. In 1987 or so, when Reagan was actually still president, Mario Cuomo noted something to the effect that a "fish rots from the head first" referring to Reagan's failing mind.

So you lied once again. Reagan never signed the Brady Bill. Reagan NEVER supported waiting periods when he was president, nor gun bans.
 
TurtleDude said:
Reagan opposed the Brady Bill when it was first introduced. When his brain went, he started supporting gun control in the early 1990s. In 1987 or so, when Reagan was actually still president, Mario Cuomo noted something to the effect that a "fish rots from the head first" referring to Reagan's failing mind.

So you lied once again. Reagan never signed the Brady Bill. Reagan NEVER supported waiting periods when he was president, nor gun bans.
Click to expand...

"when Reagan's brain went"

You've been shown up again.


You wouldn't believe the truth if it walked up and slapped you in the face.
 
jet57 said:
"when Reagan's brain went"

You've been shown up again.


You wouldn't believe the truth if it walked up and slapped you in the face.
Click to expand...

people should read my signature to get an idea of Jet's idea of "truth"
 
OpportunityCost said:
Yeah...he didn't sign the Brady Bill. That was Clinton.
Click to expand...

anyone who claims they know gun issues and then claims REAGAN signed the Brady bill -it would be like someone who claims to be an expert on astronomy stating that the sun revolves around the earth and the earth is flat
 
OpportunityCost said:
Enough with your scummy ****ing accusations. You are on a debate forum, I am replying to your retarded opinions.

EVERYTHING you advocate would INFRINGE on their Second Amendment rights, you don't have to deny the right to infringe on it. Another of your facile little distortions.
Click to expand...

Insulting me is not debate.

We do NOT even agree on the fundamental word here - INFRINGED and when it occurs. If we cannot define that basic term - how do you think honest debate is even possible?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Ronald Reagan is DEAD. He cannot be your ally because he cannot consent to agree with your nonsense opinions.
Click to expand...

Ronald Reagan supported banning certain guns. Ronald Reagan supported the Brady Bill.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/true-arms-talks/

May 3, 1994

To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:
We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford

Jimmy Carter

Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...

Today, the NRA crowd would tar and feather him as a "gun banner" instead of the life long friend he actually was.

That demonstrates very very clearly how radical the NRA has been transformed to over the last few decades.

He is most certainly my ally in these gun discussions.
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
I happen to have a very high standard when it comes to data, unlike you. Among those standards are:

* the raw data must be available
* the source must be known. Who collected the data and why.
* the time the data was collected must be known.
* if instrumentation is used, the calibration source, reference point, and tolerance must be known, as well as the design of the instrument.
* if a statistical summary is used, the margin of error must be calculated and displayed along with the results of the summary. Any attempt to predict using a statistical summary is rejected, since mathematics loses the power of prediction in statistical math due to the use of random numbers.

You have failed to provide the raw data, the source of who collected the data, the statistical summary information, or when the data was collected.

You are making it up, or quoting someone else that made it up. That is the argument from randU fallacy. The numbers you are quoting are essentially random numbers of type randU.
Click to expand...

First and foremost if you have a "very high standard when it comes to data" why are you not providing me with the correct statistics, since you want to invalidate mine? It makes me suspicious when I have provided the data, yet you cannot need even provide counter data that go against my claims. How about you provide something before criticising because at the moment you have provided me with NO data.

Just to also touch on your criteria. This is coming from someone who has done units in statistics and quite simply you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. A sample is representative of a population if it meets the relevant criteria for predictions to be made, of which this below source is because the sample size is large enough to estimate the population proportions.

Much of my data is coming from this website and a plethora of others:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2698492

Raw Data: Available on the website
Source Must be Known: The Source is the University (of Washington) under a research institute within the university with the Founder being the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation

The Abstract of the Source Provides all the additional relevant information:

Importance Understanding global variation in firearm mortality rates could guide prevention policies and interventions.

Objective To estimate mortality due to firearm injury deaths from 1990 to 2016 in 195 countries and territories.

Design, Setting, and Participants This study used deidentified aggregated data including 13 812 location-years of vital registration data to generate estimates of levels and rates of death by age-sex-year-location. The proportion of suicides in which a firearm was the lethal means was combined with an estimate of per capita gun ownership in a revised proxy measure used to evaluate the relationship between availability or access to firearms and firearm injury deaths.

Exposures Firearm ownership and access.


LETS NO CRITIQUE OTHER PEOPLEa DATA WHEN YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANYTHING TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS AGANST MY DATA. HERE WE GO AGAIN...WE HAVE ANOTHER DENIER CLAIMING THAT THE FACT 33,000 PEOPLE DIED IN A GIVEN YEAR IN THE US IS ENTIRELY RANDOM AND UNTRUE. UNBELIEVABLE. WHEN PEOPLE BEGIN TO DENY THE DEATH OF OTHERS YOU HAVE SOME SERIOUS PROBLEMS.
 
Into the Night said:
Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is making the fallacies.

No, it doesn't.

Yes there is.

I saw the image. That is not a constitution. The government can change this document on a whim.

That is exactly what Australia is. It's form of government is an oligarchy. It has no constitution. It is the same as Canada and the UK.

Not a fact. Learn what a 'fact' is. You use this word like a buzzword.
Click to expand...


1- Just back up your claims with something substantial. I will ask again...support your claims against mine with facts. It is simple.

2- Australia does have a Constitution Are you calling the Australian Government liars?? I have gone to the liberty of ensuring your point is disproven by putting screen shots of the Australian Governments website with facts about the Australian Constitution. Just so you can understand why your claim is so false.

3- Once again to your point...it is a Constitution stop denying it. Unbelievable. Are you still calling the Australian Government liars?

4- Australia is a constitutional monarchy and democracy. Your statements are so wrong, so very wrong.

5- I don't really see your point...I am arguing a point of which you seem to dislike.






Screen Shot 2018-12-10 at 12.22.03 am.jpgScreen Shot 2018-12-10 at 12.23.03 am.jpg
 
Into the Night said:
Irrelevant.Treaties are not the Constitution. None of them have anything to do with the 2nd amendment. Redirection fallacy.

I am not trying to make a point, other than to point out where gun grabbers are ignoring the Constitution. YOU are the one trying to make a point. Inversion fallacy.
Click to expand...

If you are so correct in what you are stating......why would it be so hard to answer my questions??

1- It is entirely relevant to the point I was making before, regarding your claim to the USA's complete and utter uniqueness. Why should you be able to decide when something is relevant or not....shouldn't that remain the decision of an impartial third person. This alludes to the fact I am talking to a bias, skewed individual who claims everything is a fallacy when they don't want to answer my question. Once again I will ask Do you deny that the USA is part of over 150 treaties (in which unite them as a common entity under the treaty to following the provisions it outlines) ??

2- No...I believe a healthy debate and discussion of my point of view with others a) lets me gain some pleasure from something I enjoy b) allows me to possibly change peoples minds c) allows me to gain insight into others views on the topic. It is as simple as that. Not diminish bring about change.

3- That is not true. It is false once again. The US has signed international treaties of which create certain obligations relating to firearms and their trading. Most notably the Arms Trade Treaty 2013. This influences the extent of weapons that can be purchased, made or traded...directly affecting the overall usage of the Second Amendment

4- Once again bias....they are not irrelevant to you because the scope of your argument is so hellbent on the Constitutional document rather than broader implications, policy etc.. You have spent more time either denying or claiming a fallacy than actually debating the topic itself.

5- If your point is so correct why are you unable to answer very clear and simple question??

6- I am. You are not. Simple as that

7- So you cannot even provide any counter statistics......how do I know you have no statistics to back it up?? You deny yet cannot even back up the thing you are denying. Quite disappointing.

8- They are and now I have. It would be reasonable for you to also provide some counter statistics.

9- Who agrees with you?? You truely are the criticiser yet cannot even support with a counter claim for those that you criticise...

10- I was talking about your fallacies and other comments. That is quite an obvious statement to make..."the Constitution is law"

11- Not ignoring the Constitution disagreeing with one of the provisions of which I am entitled to do..
 
Into the Night said:
Once again, your illiteracy in logic is YOUR problem, not mine.

False equivalence fallacy. Murder is illegal in the United States. It matters not whether the murder was by gun, knife, sword, baseball bat, or a rock.
Click to expand...

1- Quite bias really. I have posted on here over 700 times and no one has ever stated that except you and I am providing much of the same arguments, statements and statistics. Its you against everyone else on my illiteracy in logic. Its more like just your dislike for my view. Your problem not mine.

2- If you are going to deny statistics you have to back it up with a counter claim. In a job, politics, school, university, school meetings, court etc.... you cannot deny something and simple say "its not my argument". That is not how life works accept it or support your counter claim with something. Once again attempting to cover your own back for your insufficient evidence against my claim.

3- So if a study finds through direct contact with a funeral home that they conducted 50 funerals that week...that is not proof of the number of funerals they completed that week according to you??

4- I will not be told what to be careful on....I am well aware and established on what I can and cannot state. The truth is the truth, of which you have denied everything from the outset to now.

5- Comment 2. Same applies, a mere cover up for ones insufficient evidence.

6- You have once again avoided my question....whilst stating the obvious. What a ridiculous proposition...it matters entirely what the weapon of choice was as the investigation sometimes centres around finding what the weapon actually was. If an act was committed with an illegal object it would be different to if it was carried out with a legal object by way of additional charges, finding how the object was in the persons possession etc...

I WILL ASK AGAIN......."if a person was shot and killed with a firearm what would their cause of death be on their death certificate??"
 
Into the Night said:
That won't stop a suicide.

I'll stick with constitutional government, thanks. I don't like oligarchies.
Click to expand...


1- And you have no evidence to suggest otherwise...simply making a broad sweeping statement because you just like to deny everything.

So are you stating that if the following occurs my suggestion if not stopping a suicide....
If a person is feeling as though they want to end their life however have been told to call a hotline (under this program) to be able to discuss and talk to an individual regarding this of which the individual is able to interact with the parent/guardian who can act appropriately.

Also the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) is a living and breathing success of this idea that programs are effective.


2- Your claim is Australia, NZ etc.. are oligarchies prove it....ITS YOUR ARGUMENT. I DID IT FOR MINE, YOU SHOULD DO IT FOR YOURS
 
Into the Night said:
Yes you did. Now you want to deny your own argument?

Void question. Define 'expert' in relation to this question.

Argument from randU fallacy. Question irrelevant as a leading question.

I don't need anything. I'm not the one making YOUR argument. Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. Attempted force of negative proof.
Click to expand...

1- Your argument...how about you prove it rather than claiming I did by simply stating "yes". Maybe a quote.

2- Its only void because you have no idea how to answer it. How is it void when you are then asking about the applicability of one part of the question. You deny validity of the question and then reinstate its validity in two sentences. Expert being professionals trained in their area / field through such mechanisms as degrees.

3- I will ask again. It directly relevant to the Second Amendment and gun policies implications on the economy. So you deny that gun violence costs the tax payer 12 million per day??

4- Just support your claims with counter statistics. Its not hard.
 
goldkam said:
3- I will ask again. It directly relevant to the Second Amendment and gun policies implications on the economy. So you deny that gun violence costs the tax payer 12 million per day??
Click to expand...

Yes, I deny that gun violence costs the tax payer 12 million per day.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Registration database
Mandated Confiscation
Automatic weapon ban
Defining Common use as a majority of Americans
Click to expand...

If any of those violated the second amendment they wouldn't be happening. Your opinion does not matter.
 
Into the Night said:
Not at all. I respect the Constitution of the United States. I respect anyone's right to defend themselves.

If a mother wants a guns removed, she is a gun grabber. Paradox.

Murder is already illegal in the United States.

You can say the same thing about knives, swords, baseball bats, lawnmowers, vending machines, clubs, church, winning the lottery, etc. You are effectively making a void argument.

Argument from randU. You don't get to amend the Constitution of the United States. You don't have the authority to.

Define 'moral'.

I assume you mean recreational drugs. How are you going to stop it? Prohibition doesn't work.
Click to expand...


1- So you respect the Constitution and ones ability to defend themselves but couldn't care less about ones right to life or right to feel safe...that is unbelievably the hideous sign of how disgraceful the views of some are. When people get to the point they value a weapon over life that is when people should truely begin to re-evaluate their morality, their views and their perception. You cannot replace a life.

2- If you want to begin to title people who may have depression, anxiety, PTSD etc.. because of their son/daughter/husbands death you are getting to a point of disrespect and complete and utter negation of any type of value or understanding towards anyone. Lets begin to apply titles... you are a supporter of life grabbing.

3- When did I ever say it wasn't..just another cover up to avoid addressing the question. Why did you bring in a completely irrelevant concept of murder when it was not even mentioned?????

4- But we are not talking about those objects....so why would you even bring that up??? Another cover up. I am on a firearm thread for a reason...more than happy to create other threads for your other objects/topics. Would you like me to do that?

5- Of course I don't...once again an obvious claim. That rests through political views and perception of which I am attempting to sway. That is how politics in society works.
 
goldkam said:
1- So you respect the Constitution and ones ability to defend themselves but couldn't care less about ones right to life or right to feel safe...that is unbelievably the hideous sign of how disgraceful the views of some are. When people get to the point they value a weapon over life that is when people should truely begin to re-evaluate their morality, their views and their perception. You cannot replace a life.
Click to expand...

No one has the right to take a life with any weapon. The existence of a weapon in and of itself does not not infringe on someone's right to life. As far as one's right to feel safe, no such right exists, nor does one's desire to feel safe override anyone's rights or anyone else's desire to feel safe.
 
jet57 said:
If any of those violated the second amendment they wouldn't be happening. Your opinion does not matter.
Click to expand...

There is no registration database, the Fed is restricted from keeping one.
Mandated Confiscation disguised as a forced buyback is happening in NY. Its already under challenge.
There is no comprehensive automatic weapons ban.
Common use is defined Constitutionally as for lawful, legal use, not as a percentage of Americans that own it.

Of the 4 only 1 is occurring. If you are trying to jump in the middle and be wrong over and over, you sure are succeeding.
 
haymarket said:
Ronald Reagan supported banning certain guns. Ronald Reagan supported the Brady Bill.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/true-arms-talks/



Today, the NRA crowd would tar and feather him as a "gun banner" instead of the life long friend he actually was.

That demonstrates very very clearly how radical the NRA has been transformed to over the last few decades.

He is most certainly my ally in these gun discussions.
Click to expand...

Not while in office he didn't. Why do you suppose that is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom