• 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 is the most efficient solution for gun control?

Wayne Jr said:
I can post the definition of "most" for you, if the contradiction doesn't evaporate with an additional reading.

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.
Click to expand...

It's not the first clause, it's the last one that everyone was in the militia.
 
Wayne Jr said:
I never claimed that you have to be in the militia in order to buy a firearm. I said owning a firearm was for joining a militia. Those are not the same statements. And most pro-gun on this forum are quick to cite the portion of Title 10 USC designating everyone as militia anyway, so even if I had claimed that you had to be in a militia to own a firearm, you are in the militia according to that interpretation of that law.
Click to expand...
"I said owning a firearm was for joining a militia." Which is incorrect. Owning a firearm is for hunting. Owning a firearm is for self defense. Owning a firearm is for home defense. And you bet...in the gravest extreme, owning a firearm is for defending the country.

Because the rights of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed.
 
Wayne Jr said:
View attachment 67249289
Click to expand...

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

This part was not overturned.


"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress".

That s is the part that was overturned by McDonald - the clause that limited 2A protections to the federal government.
 
TheMadKing said:
Why exactly do some people want gun control?
Click to expand...
They enjoy violating people's civil liberties.


TheMadKing said:
The 2nd amendment says that you have the right to own a gun (not to have zero restrictions guns btw) for the sake of organizing a militia. What militia are you apart of?
Click to expand...
If you want to require people to be in a militia in order to exercise their rights, you first need to provide a militia for them to join.
 
Bucky said:
I think we should adopt a policy similar to Australia.
Click to expand...
Never. Australia abolished their freedom.


Bucky said:
You confiscate semi's and auto's and throw them all away in a scrap metal yard, that would instantly make us safer.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. It would merely violate our civil liberties for the enjoyment of leftists.
 
Wayne Jr said:
The founders wrote the 2A in reaction to reasonable fears that Congress would undermine the militia by under-training and supplying them. The 2A was to protect the State's militia by affording individual private persons the right to personally own firearms, thus bypassing Congress. It wasn't until Heller that gun ownership was divorced from militia duty.
Click to expand...
The right to keep and bear arms has always included people having guns for private self defense.
 
VanceMack said:
"I said owning a firearm was for joining a militia."
Click to expand...
That statement does not mean you had to be in the militia in order to own a firearm.
 
Wayne Jr said:
No, you just read things that I don't type. For example:


I never said it was.
Click to expand...

well we have a problem-I and several other posters with long track records on this board of being pro gun advocates, have questioned what your real position is. You seem to think all of us are misinterpreting your views.

Was the purpose of the Second Amendment to guarantee an individual right of citizens to keep and bear arms period?
 
Rucker61 said:
"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

This part was not overturned.
Click to expand...
"earing arms for a lawful purpose" was never challenged on this thread and is supported by other law anyway.


Rucker61 said:
"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress".

That s is the part that was overturned by McDonald - the clause that limited 2A protections to the federal government.
Click to expand...
And your point is.....?
 
Toggle Almendro said:
The right to keep and bear arms has always included people having guns for private self-defense.
Click to expand...
I never said otherwise. If you buy a truck for your business, that doesn't mean you can't use the truck for other things.
 
TurtleDude said:
well we have a problem-I and several other posters with long track records on this board of being pro gun advocates, have questioned what your real position is. You seem to think all of us are misinterpreting your views.

Was the purpose of the Second Amendment to guarantee an individual right of citizens to keep and bear arms period?
Click to expand...
FFS YES because that was the only way to protect the militia.
 
Bucky said:
You can call the police my friend or buy a security system.
Click to expand...

...like I said....UNREALISTIC.

When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Police only fill out the report AFTER you are attacked. They do not stop anything.
Security systems only give the alarm. They offer no protection in any way.
I already know this.

I hope you never have to learn the harsh realities of home defense like I had to.
I can tell you are only talking from theory.

A common thread i noticed about those who hate guns is they also seen to LOVE criminals and do not want them harmed in any way.
Which is why most gun banners also object to actually hurting a criminal.
I have noticed this trend.

I, on the other hand, have no problem holding them down and drilling their eyeball out with a 1/2 inch drill bit. A dull one.
Once you have had to fight for your life mano a mano you will understand this attitude. It is the only thing that will keep you alive.
You are not a human to criminals. You are only someone in the way.
Once you cross that line of civil humanity, you know you can go there again if you have to.
 
Last edited:
PleasantValley said:
...like I said....UNREALISTIC.

When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Police only fill out the report AFTER you are attacked. They do not stop anything.
Security systems only give the alarm. They offer no protection in any way.
I already know this.

I hope you never have to learn the harsh realities of home defense like I had to.
I can tell you are only talking from theory.

A common thread i noticed about those who hate guns is they also seen to LOVE criminals and do not want them harmed in any way.
Which is why most gun banners also object to actually hurting a criminal.
I have noticed this trend.

I, on the other hand, have no problem holding them down and drilling their eyeball out with a 1/2 inch drill bit. A dull one.
Once you have had to fight for your life mano a mano you will understand this attitude. It is the only thing that will keep you alive.
You are not a human to criminals. You are only someone in the way.
Once you cross that line of civil humanity, you know you can go there again if you have to.
Click to expand...

You can...

A. Buy a security dog

B. Boy a alarm system

C. Buy pepper spray, a taser, cattle prod, ninja stars.
 
Bucky said:
Ar15 didn't even exist when the constitution was written
Click to expand...

when gun banners try to pretend that the second amendment is not about a balance of power or the individual right of self defense but, instead, try to limit its protection to 1790 weaponry, it demonstrates a frightening level of ignorance about the concept of a right and a restriction on government. This sort of stupid argument would mean that anything written on the internet or broadcast on TV would not be protected by the second or forms of torture than involve electricity etc would not come within the ban on cruel punishments if it was something usually used.
 
Bucky said:
You can...

A. Buy a security dog

B. Boy a alarm system

C. Buy pepper spray, a taser, cattle prod, ninja stars.
Click to expand...

For the third time....unrealistic.
You are only talking from theory about what SHOULD work....and further evidence you will go to any length to ensure criminals are not harmed.
Why do you love criminals so much you will go to all these ridiculous lengths to ensure they are not harmed....to the point of letting yourself be killed.

I know from real life what DOES WORK.

Your alarm system is your own ears.
Your security system is the gun in your hand.

Ninja stars ???? did you actually say that ???? :lamo. You never see me use the green LMAO emoticon, but you certainly earned it with this post.
Yes, PV, he really said ninja stars are preferable to a gun !
Now i know you have no clue.

Stop now before you embarrass yourself any further, Samurai Bucky.

Ninja stars....:doh (shaking my head at the wisdom of another internet "expert")
 
Last edited:
Bucky said:
You can...

A. Buy a security dog

B. Boy a alarm system

C. Buy pepper spray, a taser, cattle prod, ninja stars.
Click to expand...

OK, folks....after this post I think I am talking to a BOT.
Or someone completely and totally programmed with an agenda.
An agenda that does not want to see criminals harmed in any way.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom