• 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!

Guns

What do you think gun control should be like?

  • Let everyone have a gun

    Votes: 19 22.4%
  • Quick background check to purchase and carry

    Votes: 25 29.4%
  • Quick background check to purchase, but more difficult to carry

    Votes: 11 12.9%
  • Background check, waiting period for purchase and carrying.

    Votes: 17 20.0%
  • Background check, waiting period, no carrying

    Votes: 5 5.9%
  • No guns at all

    Votes: 8 9.4%

  • Total voters
    85
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lots of Turkeys killed by guns where I live though I prefer hunting them with a bow.

Lots of Armenians probably wished they had more guns too

they had enough guns to kill their turkish neighbours.
 
they had enough guns to kill their turkish neighbours.

since the evil and the bad will have guns, its stupid to disarm the good and the righteous
 
which one is the good ?,why do you attack me?

No attacks, just telling the truth

people who commit rape and murder don't obey laws

so we who don't commit crime need to be well armed to deal with criminals
 
shoulder fired missiles are issued to military groups and is not an individual weapon as contemplated by the second amendment nor does it have generally self defense use.
Is that what the current thinking is on the 2nd, "individual weapon" and "self defense use"? Or is that just your interpretation? I guess my beliefs are ****ed if it's the former. I don't think there should be a limit on what can be owned, just who can own what. Of course, the "military groups" might solve it.
 
Is that what the current thinking is on the 2nd, "individual weapon" and "self defense use"? Or is that just your interpretation? I guess my beliefs are ****ed if it's the former. I don't think there should be a limit on what can be owned, just who can own what. Of course, the "military groups" might solve it.

1) when the second was penned, there was a clear boundary between "artillery" Ordnance and "arms". today that line is blurry when you have things like a grenade launcher mounted to a M16, surface to air handheld missiles, LAWS, MAWS and HAWS etc

2) those gray area weapons-which are generally issued per Platoon or Squad etc are difficult to discuss in terms of individual rights

3) however, UNTIL every honest citizen can own freely, the same weapons CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT employees use-such as submachine guns like the MP 5, Select fire carbines like the M4, we need not even address stuff like LAW or a M79

4) when we can buy an MP5 or M4 the same as we buy a SW 19 or a GLOCK 17 or a Remington 870 then we can start debating whether you ought to be able to buy offensive weapons like a Strela or a claymore mine
 
i dont know the second amendment,but i cant understand the right of having gun

I don't understand NOT having the right to own a gun. In your country are only criminals, terrorists and killers armed? The government is armed, right? Citizens aren't free to arm themselves? Tell me about how it is in Turkey.

I think you would love it here.
 
Boo Radley said:
Muskets are fine. I know a fellow who uses them.

What about modern single shots? I'm just trying to figure out where you draw the line between acceptable weapon and unacceptable weapon.

haymarket said:
What I have repeatedly stated is that I support the Second Amendment and I believe it is more of a positive than it has negatives.

The entire Constitution is written with respect to the government, not the people. When the voice is positive it is declaring which powers are delegated to the government. When the voice is negative it enumerates restrictions on the government from encroaching on specific rights of the states or the people.

That said, I recognize that I am unfortunately in the minority when it comes to recognizing that the government has overstepped its bounds by an enormous margin in virtually every aspect. It is my hope that a little education will knock some sense into people...

Medusa said:
i cant understand the right of having gun

It stems from the reality that those who are allegedly supposed to protect us (namely the police) are not always available in all situations where we may need them. Those from large cities are generally oblivious to the very long response times of police in rural areas. Even in large cities the response times are essentially always too late. It is a basic human right - not limited to any specific nationality - to defend oneself from danger. Since many would-be attackers have firearms at their disposal it only makes sense that defenders have similar capabilities.

Ultimately, those interested in self-defense do not use weapons aggressively against others and those who do can care less what laws are in existence to limit this ability.
 
Lots of Turkeys killed by guns where I live though I prefer hunting them with a bow.

Lots of Armenians probably wished they had more guns too

Oooo-****in'-Rah I wanna have your baby TD. LOL!
 
Scumbags will own firearms, legally or not, which means that it is best that we own them too, and if the scumbags want to do something illegal against us with firearms, then we have the right to do something legal with ours, such as blow the scumbags' asses away.

Exactly. It's kind of like the Super PAC's. Obama don't like them but he will use them since his opponents will certainly have them in their arsenal. He won't bring a knife to a gunfight.

Look, in a pefect world, we would not be having this discussion because none of us would have even heard of a gun. Necessity being the mother of all invention, take away necessity and you remove invention. But you can't put toothpaste back into the tube. It is what it is. That ain't MY fault.

And be damned if I am going to walk in a world full of armed criminals with a butter knife. That would be as stupid as not using a Super PAC.
 
i hate when trigger is pulled

That is understandable. Violence is not something that some people can accept. I am all for pacifism. Of course sometimes I feel that sometimes pacifism only exists through superior firepower.
 
That is understandable. Violence is not something that some people can accept. I am all for pacifism. Of course sometimes I feel that sometimes pacifism only exists through superior firepower.


Its sort of like that question some idiot reporter asked me after I shot a mugger

What did you feel

answer

recoil
 
i dont know the second amendment,but i cant understand the right of having gun

This is a general Western Political theory. Basically what is said is that all people have a right to defend themselves from anyone that should take their rights. So if you understand the United States Constitution in terms of our bill of rights, then you understand that we have free religion, free expression, free speech, and all of that. Basically freedom from oppression. The only problem is that those are unenforceable. The biggest problem in history has never been the people taking away those rights. It has always been government that decides we don't need those. Not to mention other people will take away those rights (through murder or coercion). The 2nd amendment is the only protection from that. It is the right that gives teeth to all the others.

The reason why the gun is so essential is because it is the equalizer. An 80 year old woman can kill a 20 year old man in his prime. Just like those who fly bombers or drones can be shot, politicians who make bills that revoke rights have to worry about them as long as they are in the open. The 2nd amendment is more than just a right to guns, it is a right to self defense. In the UK they have banned OC (pepper) spray and tasers. Why? It certainly has nothing to do with a murder rate, and it certainly doesn't seem fair to the 18 year old rape victim who has no chance against a man twice her size.
 
why do you hate rights? that is the true extremism

and you really have demonstrated you don't have the knowledge sufficient to debate anyone on firearms

you still think that dead children gave their lives for the second amendment

I am NOT debating you on the technical aspects of firearms. I could not give a bag of manure about that topic. Sadly, that is what extremist gun nuts always try to do - reduce the argument to the absurdity of who knows more about technical aspects of guns. Of course, YOU have laready declared that you are never wrong about this subject so what the hell is the point?

Tell me that Turtle. If you are an infallible GOD on this subject, what the hell is the point of any other person alive saying one word about guns?
 
Its sort of like that question some idiot reporter asked me after I shot a mugger

What did you feel

answer

recoil

I have total confidence that you were expressing the truth and the total and complete depth of your emotions.
 
I am NOT debating you on the technical aspects of firearms. I could not give a bag of manure about that topic. Sadly, that is what extremist gun nuts always try to do - reduce the argument to the absurdity of who knows more about technical aspects of guns. Of course, YOU have laready declared that you are never wrong about this subject so what the hell is the point?

Tell me that Turtle. If you are an infallible GOD on this subject, what the hell is the point of any other person alive saying one word about guns?


The only extremists are those who try to crap on our constitutional rights by claiming that our exercise of a right kills children as you have.

You are always wrong on guns because you are quite ignorant about the issues surrounding them.
 
The only extremists are those who try to crap on our constitutional rights by claiming that our exercise of a right kills children as you have.

You are always wrong on guns because you are quite ignorant about the issues surrounding them.

If you are an infallible GOD on the subject of guns and look at the Second Amendment as an absolute pure good - why should any person on the face of the earth say one word about the subject other than you?
 
I have total confidence that you were expressing the truth and the total and complete depth of your emotions.

Get mugged, get your nose broken, have an adrenalin jolt that keeps you up for two days and get back to me Haymarket. That same idiot reporter asked me why I didn't just give these poor "youths" (they were both 18) my wallet since I was wealthier than they were. The DA asked the lady reporter if that was her position on rape cases as well
 
The only extremists are those who try to crap on our constitutional rights by claiming that our exercise of a right kills children as you have.

You are always wrong on guns because you are quite ignorant about the issues surrounding them.
He might as well debate the technicals of firearms cause he know about as much as the constitutional aspect of this argument.
 
If you are an infallible GOD on the subject of guns and look at the Second Amendment as an absolute pure good - why should any person on the face of the earth say one word about the subject other than you?

Your understanding of rights and your attempt to diminish a right that your beloved party has pissed on for the last 80 years are rather disturbing to any freedom loving patriot
 
He might as well debate the technicals of firearms cause he know about as much as the constitutional aspect of this argument.


Ouch, that's gonna hurt and its truthful too
 
He might as well debate the technicals of firearms cause he know about as much as the constitutional aspect of this argument.

You have never ever been able to point to one thing I have ever said about the Constitution that is wrong. And you sir have proven that you do not even know the basic difference between the Constitution and the nations brith announcement.

Now is your time. Step up to the plate - man up - state your case - show me where I have made a mistake of fact about the Constitution. I certainly am bnot claiming I am ever wrong - but am challenging YOU to show me where I was.

Do it or man up and have the decency to stand down.
 
You have never ever been able to point to one thing I have ever said about the Constitution that is wrong. And you sir have proven that you do not even know the basic difference between the Constitution and the nations brith announcement.

Now is your time. Step up to the plate - man up - state your case - show me where I have made a mistake of fact about the Constitution. I certainly am bnot claiming I am ever wrong - but am challenging YOU to show me where I was.

Do it or man up and have the decency to stand down.
Haymarket, I've beaten you blind on the constitution. I've pointed at least a hundred times that you do NOT know **** about the subject. The problem is everyone else sees it BUT you.
 
You have never ever been able to point to one thing I have ever said about the Constitution that is wrong. And you sir have proven that you do not even know the basic difference between the Constitution and the nations brith announcement.

Now is your time. Step up to the plate - man up - state your case - show me where I have made a mistake of fact about the Constitution. I certainly am bnot claiming I am ever wrong - but am challenging YOU to show me where I was.

Do it or man up and have the decency to stand down.

trying to smear a right by claiming dead schoolchildren are "heroes" of the second Amendment is pretty sickening

but like Boo you seem to come here to shower disdain on right wing gun owners without really having an point you want to make concerning the OP
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom