• 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!

SCOTUS said that the 2nd amendment allowed people to use guns for self defense

TurtleDude said:
you are wrong-private citizens are almost always the FIRST RESPONDERS in a violent confrontation with criminals. Criminals rarely attack police as the beginning of a crime spree.
Click to expand...

Link please. You saying something does not make it true.
 
Moon said:
That part is covered by the first amendment.
Click to expand...

NO, trying to intimidate people is not covered by "free speech". It is like yelling fire in a crowded theater, especially when those hooligans are wearing assault rifles strapped to their chests.
 
jamesbyoung said:
Meaning I gave the appropriate response to an individual who for whatever reason has real mental and emotional problems.
Click to expand...

If I was you I would not continue to do as you are doing. It can get you thrown off this message board. I would not have anything to do with it, but have been given punishment for writing a lot. Just a suggestion.
 
independentusa said:
Link please. You saying something does not make it true.
Click to expand...

common sense works for me-private citizens generally are the first people who have to deal with a violent criminal attack unless you want to claim that cops and agents get mugged, raped or robbed more than private citizens
 
independentusa said:
NO, trying to intimidate people is not covered by "free speech". It is like yelling fire in a crowded theater, especially when those hooligans are wearing assault rifles strapped to their chests.
Click to expand...

no it is not anything like that. You don't have a right to scream fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire or you know that no one will panic. You do have a right to BEAR arms even if it causes some people to irrationally suffer fear. You calling demonstrators "hooligans" when they have broken no laws, seriously interferes with any of your opinions being taken seriously in this area.
 
jamesbyoung said:
Meaning I gave the appropriate response to an individual who for whatever reason has real mental and emotional problems.
Click to expand...

the only emotional issues or problems I see, are those who are irrationally afraid of people bearing arms.
 
TurtleDude said:
common sense works for me-private citizens generally are the first people who have to deal with a violent criminal attack unless you want to claim that cops and agents get mugged, raped or robbed more than private citizens
Click to expand...

DebateChallenge uses the same excuse, when he makes a claim that he's challenged on, his evidence is quite often common sense or common knowledge

Completely forgetting that it used to be "common knowledge" that the Earth was flat.
 
Rich2018 said:
DebateChallenge uses the same excuse, when he makes a claim that he's challenged on, his evidence is quite often common sense or common knowledge

Completely forgetting that it used to be "common knowledge" that the Earth was flat.
Click to expand...

do you deny that private citizens are generally more likely to be the first people to encounter an armed criminal vs cops?
 
TurtleDude said:
the only emotional issues or problems I see, are those who are irrationally afraid of people bearing arms.
Click to expand...

Bearing arms to intimidate people at a state capitol is not rational behavior.
 
TurtleDude said:
do you deny that private citizens are generally more likely to be the first people to encounter an armed criminal vs cops?
Click to expand...

Criminals, yes, normally are the victims of criminals and thus are the first to encounter them.
 
jamesbyoung said:
Criminals, yes, normally are the victims of criminals and thus are the first to encounter them.
Click to expand...

that's a sound point-most people killed by criminals are other criminals. That is why the anti gun statistics have to be looked at more carefully. 80% of those murdered are generally people with records or are close associates of known felons.
 
TurtleDude said:
who is being intimidated? not me, not most citizens.
Click to expand...

Someone with a long gun strapped to chest chest isn't intimidating ?


If not, why does Trump's security ban open carry at his political rallies ?
 
Rich2018 said:
"Encounter" yes

They'd be the victims.
Click to expand...

that would only be always true in a society where the citizens have been disarmed. here in America, citizens stop violent crime hundreds of thousands of times a year. I know, I stopped a break in of my apartment with a handgun (without shooting the perpetrator) and a year later, a pair of muggers (one who was shot)
 
independentusa said:
NO, trying to intimidate people is not covered by "free speech". It is like yelling fire in a crowded theater, especially when those hooligans are wearing assault rifles strapped to their chests.
Click to expand...

Of course it is, just like when all the protesters filled the capitol building in Madison when Scott Walker was Governor of Wisconsin. Or Occupy Whatever. Or any other massing of protestors waving signs or other props and preventing access to buildings and roads. It’s all to intimidate and it’s all covered by the 1st amendment until someone crosses a line and commits a crime, like assault or vandalism.

And I seriously doubt you have any clue what an assault rifle really is.
 
TurtleDude said:
that would only be always true in a society where the citizens have been disarmed. here in America, citizens stop violent crime hundreds of thousands of times a year. I know, I stopped a break in of my apartment with a handgun (without shooting the perpetrator) and a year later, a pair of muggers (one who was shot)
Click to expand...

Respectfully, your anecdotes are not evidence

What about violent crime involving guns ?
 
Rich2018 said:
So the DoI doesn't mention self defense either

And if I have the right to life, doesn't that mean I have the right to see guns banned so as to prevent mass shootings ?
Click to expand...

Hmmm let's look at the important part:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Click to expand...

In the USA (and anywhere else as far as this Author was concerned) each individual has the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That people institute government to protect those rights.

However, if that government abuses it's citizens it is their right, their duty, to throw off such government...

Now this was written by a once-citizen of the then considered "most enlightened" government, a "Constitutional" Monarchy actually governed by a partially elected Parliament.

How did the ex-citizens of the government "free themselves" of that burden? Armed insurrection.

Which is a citizen's "right." A citizen's "duty."

The Second Amendment is the protection of a citizens means of exercising those "rights" and "duties."

Absent this right to keep and bear arms...what would you expect a citizenry to do?

 
Last edited:
Rich2018 said:
Someone with a long gun strapped to chest chest isn't intimidating ?


If not, why does Trump's security ban open carry at his political rallies ?
Click to expand...

that is generally the secret service's decision
 
Rich2018 said:
Respectfully, your anecdotes are not evidence

What about violent crime involving guns ?
Click to expand...

you mean actions that are already highly illegal-that you think you can stop with additional laws?
 
TurtleDude said:
that would only be always true in a society where the citizens have been disarmed. here in America, citizens stop violent crime hundreds of thousands of times a year. I know, I stopped a break in of my apartment with a handgun (without shooting the perpetrator) and a year later, a pair of muggers (one who was shot)
Click to expand...

Has anyone here said anything about people not being able to defend themselves, no. That is what people who want to change the subject always come to. What we are saying is that you can not use a weapon to intimidate people as those at the Michigan protest were doing. Many of the state legislators said that it was intimidating and one even went so far as to wear a vest. There is certainly no question as to what those gun toters were doing, NONE. To suggest otherwise shows either lack of perception or just blindness to reality
 
independentusa said:
Has anyone here said anything about people not being able to defend themselves, no. That is what people who want to change the subject always come to. What we are saying is that you can not use a weapon to intimidate people as those at the Michigan protest were doing. Many of the state legislators said that it was intimidating and one even went so far as to wear a vest. There is certainly no question as to what those gun toters were doing, NONE. To suggest otherwise shows either lack of perception or just blindness to reality
Click to expand...

there are objective and subjective issues. The law specifies what is illegal menacing or threats. Merely bearing a firearm without brandishing it is generally not seen as an objectively intimidating action.,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom