• 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!

Current Attempts to destroy Gun rights in Congress

TurtleDude said:
Walther has been making a major play at several price points. They have some cheaper guns that are decent (they paired with SW a few years ago-each offered similar firearms that were decent). They just came out with a 1500 dollar competition gun where they will pay you if you win big shoots with one. HK are over priced but well made.
Click to expand...

I didn't know you could spend $1500 on a handgun, unless it was gold plated and studded with diamonds.

What kind of money is on offer to win a "big shoot"


I had a family member who once won a competition of the Bisley

Did you know there is a British NRA that predates the American NRA ?
 
Rich2018 said:
I didn't know you could spend $1500 on a handgun, unless it was gold plated and studded with diamonds.What kind of money is on offer to win a "big shoot"


I had a family member who once won a competition of the Bisley

Did you know there is a British NRA that predates the American NRA ?
Click to expand...

You've argued at length on the prices of various handguns. Rather startling that you admit to arguing from ignorance.
 
marke said:
Bill Ayers did it. I don't think he ever gave a good reason for bombing federal buildings when he was a proud stupid punk anarchist kid. Why did McVey bomb the federal building? Because he was stupidly deceived, like all misguided rebels against God.
Click to expand...

Timothy cVeigh is a good example

He was no gang member but took unilateral action against his own government - seemingly he was ever so sad at the death of David Koresh at Waco


I see this attitude extolled by many on the right who seek to justify their guns by saying it's some kind of insurance for if the US government ever turned into a tyranny

As if any democratically elected government (with one spectacular exception) had ever turned into a tyranny. (where privately held guns would have been no hindrance at all to the totalitarian government that took over.

Yet when the RW gun lovers are asked if they support other RW gun nuts unilaterally deciding when to overthrow the government they go quiet

Same with the RW supporters who extol the virtues of "natural" rights - which they take to include owning a gun - they claim the UK is a police state or tyranny for banning guns and that it's a natural right of a citizen to overthrow a tyrannical government. Yet McVeigh was convicted and executed.
I would bet money, he was a gun owner who supported the 2nd amendment.
 
Rich2018 said:
Good movie - I like chase movies

The guy playing Luther did a much better job playing a low life gang member in "48 Hours" IMO

But Luther didn't want to destroy American, he just wanted some high Adrenalin fueled excitement


Gangs are alienated people who can't see a future outside the collective structure of their gang, I think it highly unlikely that they'd construct one outside the structure of American society.
In short they are looking for goals, within the confines of society

They have no political agenda - as witnessed by their motivation to extort the system for cash in return for drugs.


Now the 9/11 attackers, they wanted to destroy America as we know it.
Click to expand...

what defines that actor-getting dropped off the cliff by Ahnold IN Commando (Rae Dawn Chong-what happed to Solly? Ahnold: I let him GO), getting shot by his own confederates in 48 hours or THIS:
 
Rich2018 said:
Timothy cVeigh is a good example

He was no gang member but took unilateral action against his own government - seemingly he was ever so sad at the death of David Koresh at Waco


I see this attitude extolled by many on the right who seek to justify their guns by saying it's some kind of insurance for if the US government ever turned into a tyranny

As if any democratically elected government (with one spectacular exception) had ever turned into a tyranny. (where privately held guns would have been no hindrance at all to the totalitarian government that took over.

Yet when the RW gun lovers are asked if they support other RW gun nuts unilaterally deciding when to overthrow the government they go quiet

Same with the RW supporters who extol the virtues of "natural" rights - which they take to include owning a gun - they claim the UK is a police state or tyranny for banning guns and that it's a natural right of a citizen to overthrow a tyrannical government. Yet McVeigh was convicted and executed.
I would bet money, he was a gun owner who supported the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

And what did he use to commit one of the most heinous mass murders in US history?
 
TurtleDude said:
what defines that actor-getting dropped off the cliff by Ahnold IN Commando (Rae Dawn Chong-what happed to Solly? Ahnold: I let him GO), getting shot by his own confederates in 48 hours....
Click to expand...

He cornered the market for a few years in the 80's for playing creepy gangsters, as well as driving the sound of clanking beer bottles into American consciousness

I read that Hollywood wanted to remake the Warriors but set it in LA, and I thgought what a stupid idea....the suits must think it's just a collection of weirdly dressed street thugs duking it out, but it's not, it's a chase movie....a chase in LA seems pointless


Btw, if you really want to appreciate Rae Dawn Chong, check out the movie "Quest for Fire"
 
"Boosted largely by the personal fortune of billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who is considering a 2020 presidential run, the gun-control war chest almost entirely benefits Democrats, who are seeking to wrest majorities from the Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate in the Nov. 6 elections.

Gun-control groups, including Giffords and Everytown for Gun Safety, have spent $20.2 million on the elections, well over the $14.1 million spent by pro-gun groups led by the NRA, according to data released on Friday by the U.S. Federal Election Commission..."



U.S. gun-control groups outspending pro-gun forces on election - Reuters
 
Rich2018 said:
He cornered the market for a few years in the 80's for playing creepy gangsters, as well as driving the sound of clanking beer bottles into American consciousness

I read that Hollywood wanted to remake the Warriors but set it in LA, and I thgought what a stupid idea....the suits must think it's just a collection of weirdly dressed street thugs duking it out, but it's not, it's a chase movie....a chase in LA seems pointless


Btw, if you really want to appreciate Rae Dawn Chong, check out the movie "Quest for Fire"
Click to expand...

yeah quest for fire was an underrated masterpiece.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah quest for fire was an underrated masterpiece.
Click to expand...

Oh you've seen it ?

Sadly movie SFX and CGI weren't around in 1982.

It would make great material for a large budget remake with a couple of A list stars.



Way better than that 10,000 Years BC crap.
 
Rich2018 said:
Oh you've seen it ?

Sadly movie SFX and CGI weren't around in 1982.

It would make great material for a large budget remake with a couple of A list stars.



Way better than that 10,000 Years BC crap.
Click to expand...

given the dialogue, why waste the money on top stars?
 
TurtleDude said:
given the dialogue, why waste the money on top stars?
Click to expand...

Because, like it or not, the stars draw the crowds.


Unless you go for an Avatar like movie where the visual experience is the stat - and even that move had one or two stars.

Come to think of it Zoe Saldana would be a great cal for Rae Down Chongs part.
 
Last edited:
Rich2018 said:
Timothy cVeigh is a good example

He was no gang member but took unilateral action against his own government - seemingly he was ever so sad at the death of David Koresh at Waco


I see this attitude extolled by many on the right who seek to justify their guns by saying it's some kind of insurance for if the US government ever turned into a tyranny

As if any democratically elected government (with one spectacular exception) had ever turned into a tyranny. (where privately held guns would have been no hindrance at all to the totalitarian government that took over.

Yet when the RW gun lovers are asked if they support other RW gun nuts unilaterally deciding when to overthrow the government they go quiet

Same with the RW supporters who extol the virtues of "natural" rights - which they take to include owning a gun - they claim the UK is a police state or tyranny for banning guns and that it's a natural right of a citizen to overthrow a tyrannical government. Yet McVeigh was convicted and executed.
I would bet money, he was a gun owner who supported the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

Americans have owned firearms of all kinds for hundreds of years. It has been only during the last few decades that liberal leftists have wanted those guns confiscated from Americans. Those gun grabbers come up with all sorts of arguments for gun rights removal, such as claiming nobody will ever arise from within the US government or on American soil to illegally and immorally threaten their life and liberty.

There are a few problems with the leftist liberal arguments.

1. Americans have been threatened and killed in large numbers by enemies and thugs on American soil.
2. Leftists want free enterprise destroyed and replaced with socialism servitude, proving there are enemies of America in America and those enemies want to take guns out of the hands of Americans as a part of their process of transforming the US into a socialist Marxist state. That, if for no other, is a major reason all good Americans should remain armed.
3. Good Americans do not kill innocent people and should remain armed against those who do kill innocent people.
 
marke said:
Americans have owned firearms of all kinds for hundreds of years. It has been only during the last few decades that liberal leftists have wanted those guns confiscated from Americans. [n common place in American society
Click to expand...

Make no mistake, gun control movements came as a response to mass killings


There are a few problems with the leftist liberal arguments.

1. Americans have been threatened and killed in large numbers by enemies and thugs on American soil.
2. Leftists want free enterprise destroyed and replaced with socialism servitude, proving there are enemies of America in America and those enemies want to take guns out of the hands of Americans as a part of their process of transforming the US into a socialist Marxist state. That, if for no other, is a major reason all good Americans should remain armed.
3. Good Americans do not kill innocent people and should remain armed against those who do kill innocent people.
Click to expand...

1. And most of those "thugs" have also been Americans who've seen their arsenal of weapons enhanced by America's liberal attitude to guns

2. Where is your evidence for "leftists wanting free enterprise destroyed" ? Where is your evidence that "leftists" want to destroying Democracy and introduce a totalitarian state
The main stream left wing economics do not argue for a Marxist state and more than mainstream "rightists" argue for a RW state like Nazism
Only one democracy had turned into a RW tyranny in history and guns would have done no good

3. I'd go further and say good Russians or good Chinese don't kill innocent people
The USA did drop the bomb on "innocent people though"
And the USAF is prepared to accept that occasionally, the terrorist training camp it bombs, turns out to be a Pakistani wedding
There's a deluded poster on here that suggests that the existence of a militia means that the USA should not have any problem with crime - do you agree with him?
I struggle to agree to giving license to "good" people to stop "those who do kill innocent people".
 
Rich2018 said:
Make no mistake, gun control movements came as a response to mass killings
Click to expand...


You say, "Make no mistake.." and follow it with an unfounded and mistaken assertion.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Again, property rights are far less important than basic human rights.
Click to expand...

As TD said, it depends on who you are


And as Napoleon is reputed to have said: "A man will fight harder for his interests, than his rights"
 
Rich2018 said:
Make no mistake, gun control movements came as a response to mass killings




1. And most of those "thugs" have also been Americans who've seen their arsenal of weapons enhanced by America's liberal attitude to guns

2. Where is your evidence for "leftists wanting free enterprise destroyed" ? Where is your evidence that "leftists" want to destroying Democracy and introduce a totalitarian state
The main stream left wing economics do not argue for a Marxist state and more than mainstream "rightists" argue for a RW state like Nazism
Only one democracy had turned into a RW tyranny in history and guns would have done no good

3. I'd go further and say good Russians or good Chinese don't kill innocent people
The USA did drop the bomb on "innocent people though"
And the USAF is prepared to accept that occasionally, the terrorist training camp it bombs, turns out to be a Pakistani wedding
There's a deluded poster on here that suggests that the existence of a militia means that the USA should not have any problem with crime - do you agree with him?
I struggle to agree to giving license to "good" people to stop "those who do kill innocent people".
Click to expand...

false.

the first widespread gun control was aimed at freed slaves by klan dominated southern legislatures

the next widespread gun control was directed at southern European immigrants in NY-mainly Italian longshoremen who started packing pistols to stave off being harassed by the Irish mobs and Irish cops (which often were the same thing).

The next wave of gun control was a reaction to the prohibition gangs. The only real mass shooting was one bunch of mobsters shooting other mobsters in the St Valentine's day massacre. FDR wanted to ban handguns-but settled for de facto bans on machine guns and SBRs/ In the 60s, the democrats started another wave of gun control in order to pander to growing discontent over street crime-due to drugs and the antiwar protests-and the assassinations of the Kennedys and Dr King. The big mass shooting of that era-the Texas university tower shooting-involved a deer rifle and an MI carbine-there were no efforts to ban those firearms.

So the history of gun control of the USA does not really include mass shootings until the Patrick Purdy incident in stockton California. But that was after the VPC told the media to start attacking semi auto firearms as "machine guns" because the jihad against handguns was fading
 
Fledermaus said:
Incorrect. It began with Al Capone.
Click to expand...

Nope, it started with reconstruction, and then you had the sullivan law in NYC that was a response to Italian longshoremen arming themselves to deal with the Irish mob (which ran the city)
 
TurtleDude said:
false.

the first widespread gun control was aimed at freed slaves by klan dominated southern legislatures

the next widespread gun control was directed at southern European immigrants in NY-mainly Italian longshoremen who started packing pistols to stave off being harassed by the Irish mobs and Irish cops (which often were the same thing).

The next wave of gun control was a reaction to the prohibition gangs. The only real mass shooting was one bunch of mobsters shooting other mobsters in the St Valentine's day massacre. FDR wanted to ban handguns-but settled for de facto bans on machine guns and SBRs/ In the 60s, the democrats started another wave of gun control in order to pander to growing discontent over street crime-due to drugs and the antiwar protests-and the assassinations of the Kennedys and Dr King. The big mass shooting of that era-the Texas university tower shooting-involved a deer rifle and an MI carbine-there were no efforts to ban those firearms.

So the history of gun control of the USA does not really include mass shootings until the Patrick Purdy incident in stockton California. But that was after the VPC told the media to start attacking semi auto firearms as "machine guns" because the jihad against handguns was fading
Click to expand...


British and Australian gun control laws came as a response to mass shootings

US gun control movements today are also motivated by mass shootings


Are you aware of any gun control organizations that trace their origin to the 19th century or before ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom