• 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!

Minority Rights

Michael McMahon said:
If guns were kept in a gun club instead of at the house or on your person, then if they were located closer to you than the police you could also call your local gun club for backup against an armed threat.
Click to expand...
naw.... I think I'll keep carrying a gun on me. That's MUCH closer than the gun club or police.
 

We’d run into difficulty fighting against this automatic grenade launcher!
 
Michael McMahon said:
In terms of tyranny I suppose no one can tell how the future will unfold in different countries.
Click to expand...
In terms of tyranny, Ireland has been under the British boot for centuries. Whether or not more guns would have helped the Irish secure their freedom sooner is not for certain. The close proximity of your island to the English tyrants worked against you. Here in America there was 3,000 miles of ocean, and then of course the fact the British were engaged in a huge war with France when we decided to step up and take our shot at independence and freedom.

Please understand that our 2nd Amendment is our assurance to our people that we would never again allow a government, any government to hold all the ultimate power. Guns are dangerous things, but they are also necessary things. Necessary to keep tyranny at bay.
 
Court Jester said:
In terms of tyranny, Ireland has been under the British boot for centuries.
Click to expand...
Yes, there’s no limit to how long tyranny can last for. Tyranny is a legitimate danger in any society. In post 24 I commented, “The army could distribute weapons to civilians if there's an imminent threat of foreign invasion.” That same idea would hold true in the event of a civil war against tyranny.
 
Michael McMahon said:
Yes, there’s no limit to how long tyranny can last for. Tyranny is a legitimate danger in any society. In post 24 I commented, “The army could distribute weapons to civilians if there's an imminent threat of foreign invasion.” That same idea would hold true in the event of a civil war against tyranny.
Click to expand...
You really think the army, working for the government, would distribute weapons to the citizens they're fighting against in the case of a civil war?
 
DebateChallenge said:
the army, working for the government
Click to expand...
Well the army is being paid for by the whole parliament and taxpayers rather than just the government. So soldiers are accountable to all of society. A government one year can be in opposition the next so it’s in everyone’s interest for their to be a balanced and shared control of the army.
 
DebateChallenge said:
distribute weapons to the citizens they're fighting against in the case of a civil war?
Click to expand...
The pro-tyrant side won’t be arming you. If you’ve got any amount of representation in the army at all then that’s all you really need. You can join that specific platoon with your fellow civilians to rebel against a tyranny.
 
A military troop has a diversity of guns and tactics. They’ll have some soldiers trained as long-distance snipers, others specialising as close-quarters machine-gunners, and a few equipped with mortars. An individual can’t carry around every type of gun at once due to their weight. So they won’t be able to adapt to every type of gunfight in a battle. That’s why group tactics and not just trained individuals are important if we’d ever need to fight against tyranny.
 
SMH this is a really bad zombie thread.......
 
Maidenrules29 said:
SMH this is a really bad zombie thread
Click to expand...
Even with legalised guns we’re unable to safely target practice in an urban setting unless we’re at a gun club or travel to a farm or woodland. So gun control wouldn’t have a negative impact in terms of the recreation of shooting practice and hunting. All it’d mean is that you’d have to collect the guns from the gun club before heading somewhere to hunt. That will ensure the guns can’t be stolen by criminals.
 
Michael McMahon said:
Well the army is being paid for by the whole parliament and taxpayers rather than just the government. So soldiers are accountable to all of society. A government one year can be in opposition the next so it’s in everyone’s interest for their to be a balanced and shared control of the army.
Click to expand...
Newsflash, if you're being paid by taxpayer's money you are being paid by the government. Taxpayer's money is government money. Taxes are the government's source of income.
 
Michael McMahon said:
The pro-tyrant side won’t be arming you. If you’ve got any amount of representation in the army at all then that’s all you really need. You can join that specific platoon with your fellow civilians to rebel against a tyranny.
Click to expand...
Right, I can join with my fellow armed civilians.
 
Michael McMahon said:
Even with legalised guns we’re unable to safely target practice in an urban setting unless we’re at a gun club or travel to a farm or woodland. So gun control wouldn’t have a negative impact in terms of the recreation of shooting practice and hunting. All it’d mean is that you’d have to collect the guns from the gun club before heading somewhere to hunt. That will ensure the guns can’t be stolen by criminals.
Click to expand...
Requiring guns to be stored in a gun club is not only an infringement in the 2nd Amendment its also an infringement on the 4th Amendment which states that the government can't prohibit you from keeping your own property at your own home.
 
DebateChallenge said:
an infringement on the 4th Amendment
Click to expand...
Believe it or not it might be safer to allow a big machine gun in a gun club than a revolver on the streets. In a gun club there will be fellow members and staff there to keep an eye on each other. It’s not only the firepower but also the stealth component that can inflict harm on victims of criminality.
 
Michael McMahon said:
Believe it or not it might be safer to allow a big machine gun in a gun club than a revolver on the streets.
Click to expand...
They already to have big machine guns in some gun clubs. As for allowing a revolver on the street the 2A guarantees the "right to keep and bear arms." The word "bear" in this case means "to carry" or "to take from place to place" so to not allow revolvers on the streets would be a violation of the 2A.

I never said it was any more or less safe to allow a machine gun in a club than it is to allow a revolver on the street, but that's beside the point.

Michael McMahon said:
In a gun club there will be fellow members and staff there to keep an eye on each other. It’s not only the firepower but also the stealth component that can inflict harm on victims of criminality.
Click to expand...
If you're talking about concealed carry, bad guys are going to carry concealed anyway, so its only fair to allow good guys to carry concealed so they can fight back against the bad guys.
 
Michael McMahon said:

We’d run into difficulty fighting against this automatic grenade launcher!
Click to expand...

a good sniper with a Barrett 50 caliber sniper rifle could take that grenadier out long past the maximum range of that launcher
 
Waddy said:
I wouldn't have much faith in an airgun saving my life against a determined criminal even armed with a knife.
Click to expand...
An air rifle is more powerful than an air pistol. They can both potentially be deadly depending on the section of the body they hit. If a criminal armed with an actual gun was hit by a metal pellet then their ability to continue on their attack would be significantly impaired if not completely prevented. A pellet wound would be temporarily immobilising so a person could escape to cover or flee from the criminal if they persisted in their assault. An air rifle can be very stealthy from a long distance and both an air rifle and air pistol can be used from a hidden position in an ambush. Therefore they’re unsatisfactory defence weapons that ordinarily wouldn’t be allowed under gun control. Ideally all projectile weapons would be prohibited. So I’m not advocating for these air guns. I mention them only if there was a conflict situation where gun control was being regularly breached by armed criminals or terrorists. An air rifle is still less deadly than a revolver.
 
Michael McMahon said:
What about a criminal with grenades? Yes, you might be able to beat such a person with your gun. Yet we can’t legalise fragmentation hand grenades because of the risk of ambush and collateral damage. That’s why we can’t realistically be as armed as the worst possible criminal. I think alternative methods like those mentioned above need to be explored.
Click to expand...

You keep on throwing out bad faith arguments. Not to meantion ridiculous senarios.
First its, "The criminals will simply equally arm themselves" as if they know we are armed in the first place. Then bringing an airgun to an actual gunfight, while criminals can use more leathal means. Then to gernades as if private citizens are some how going to move to tanks or jet fighters. Relying on police is often after the incident is over, let citizens decide to bet their lives on that.
Let each person decide for themselves how they will protect themselves.
 
lwf said:
You are correct that if someone specifically wants you dead, having immediate access to a firearm is unlikely to protect you, nor would them NOT having access to a firearm protect you for that matter.
Click to expand...
The threat of ambush is much more severe for people living under death threats. Simply having a gun isn’t always sufficient protection in dealing with armed gangs. Living in seclusion or changing identity are drastic measures to avoid attack.
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/16/justice/witness-protection-program/index.html
 
Michael McMahon said:
The threat of ambush is much more severe for people living under death threats. Simply having a gun isn’t always sufficient protection in dealing with armed gangs.
Click to expand...
No, you should also get good training.

Michael McMahon said:
Living in seclusion or changing identity are drastic measures to avoid attack.
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/16/justice/witness-protection-program/index.html
Click to expand...
I shouldn't have to move or change my identity just to avoid being attacked.
 
Michael McMahon said:
Therefore they’re unsatisfactory defence weapons that ordinarily wouldn’t be allowed under gun control. Ideally all projectile weapons would be prohibited.
Click to expand...
Would that include compound bows, crossbows, and arrows? They are projectile weapons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom