• 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!

Pro Gun Control does not equal Anti Gun

pinqy said:
How am I quibbling? I do not know what you consider to be an assault weapon or what you think differentiates it from non-assault weapons or any you think they need more regulation.

And if your approach is co.Mon sense, then why won't you share what it is.

I suspect that you never actually thought about it a d only have a very vague idea in your head. And you're proving my thoughts on use of "common sense" to be correct.
Click to expand...

to left wing activists-common sense means laws that their leaders can use to pander to low wattage voters, while harassing honest gun owners as much as possible without losing the next election.
 
Media_Truth said:
Yeah, I posted plenty in post #156. This is a common ploy for the gun nuts.
Click to expand...

You say I’m quibbling, but you have not defined what an assault rifle or an assault weapon is (and definitions absolutely matter in questions of law), or, more importantly, why you think they need more regulation than other firearms, or banning. And you won’t say what your “common-sense” approach is and why it’s necessary and what it will accomplish.

Do you really think asking for a well-defined argument instead of vague assertions is “quibbling?”
 
Media_Truth said:
No it's not. Where'd you get that ridiculous notion? Guns, in their different forms, have been banned in different areas of the United States, at different times in history, since the founding of our country.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make it constutional.
 
Media_Truth said:
Precedence is part of the Constitutional philosophy.
Click to expand...

that is true, and that is why many of us wanted Trump in office since we don't want judges who want to expand unconstitutional gun laws
 
apdst said:
Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional, no matrer what. "Shall not be infringed" is absolute.
Click to expand...

I know. Why wont they let little kids bring guns to school?

Shall not be infringed


Merica
 
vegas giants said:
I know. Why wont they let little kids bring guns to school?

Shall not be infringed


Merica
Click to expand...

They let 16 y/o's drive to school. There are 80,000 auto deaths every year. That's nearly 3 times the number of all gun deaths.
 
apdst said:
They let 16 y/o's drive to school. There are 80,000 auto deaths every year. That's nearly 3 times the number of all gun deaths.
Click to expand...

16???? Way to late for guns. They need them in kindergarten.

The sandbox is a rough place.


Merica
 
vegas giants said:
What it means on here is that:

You hate America
You are a communist
You hate the constitution
And you want to ban every gun ever made
Click to expand...

It certainly means the first thing that you mention, that you hate America and that you're UnAmerican.
 
vegas giants said:
Did you serve....your majesty??? Lol
Click to expand...

Assuming you did serve it doesn't automatically mean you fought for the country it means you served the government, did their bidding, and fought for the government which is not always the same thing as fighting for the country.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Assuming you did serve it doesn't automatically mean you fought for the country it means you served the government, did their bidding, and fought for the government which is not always the same thing as fighting for the country.
Click to expand...

I will take that as a no.

When you grow up you should consider the military.


It will make a man out of you. Lol
 
vegas giants said:
I will take that as a no.

When you grow up you should consider the military.


It will make a man out of you. Lol
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact I was considering it, but as it turns out I've got red/green color blindness.
 
bearcat22 said:
I am no scholar, but I THINK it says "A well REGULATED milita...."

Clearly they intended and expected gun control: REGULATIONS.

If you're so hot to own a gun, go join the Coast Guard.
Click to expand...

Well Regulated doesn't equate to government control or regulation, it means well maintained.

At the time there was relatively little in the way of formal training in marksmanship among the armies and militias, so the idea was the more familiarization with such would lead to a militia that could be much easier mobilized.

Government regulation in this context would be completely antithetical to the original intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom