• 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.
Generally speaking, long guns (rifles, shotguns) are better than handguns at almost everything, except certain specialized applications...

1. Close-quarters combat
2. Concealment
3. Handiness, lightness, ease of carry and use.


It's hard enough to get a woman to carry a little automatic, I sure don't see them lugging around shotguns and rifles to go shopping.

We have done amazing things with technology. I'm sure that if there is a big enough market for them we can get gun manufacturers to make a rifle or a shotgun ideal for female use. And we can also get women to get used to using firearms too.

If women can get used to driving and having careers then theyy can get used to pulling a trigger.
 
If someone wants to, why not?

If owning a firearm, including rifles and shotguns, is perfectly legal why shouldn't someone be able to carry it around on the streets if they want?



Because it's bigger and heavier and thus more noticeable. If you want to defend yourself then wielding a rifle or shotgun makes everyone know that you're capable of and willing to defend yourself. And it's not something criminals can really hide so they can use it in their criminal endeavors.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to do it. I just think it would be very strange. But now that I think about it what does a concealed carry permit allow one to carry? Is it only handguns or any gun?
 
What a bunch of nuts we have here...
"let everyone have a gun...implied no regulation".....33% !!
Your so-called freedoms and liberties are more important than the welfare of society...
And imagine if madmen such as I were to be a gun-owner.....freedoms and liberties....down the drain !

1) Freedoms and Liberties are far more important than the general welfare of society...because individual freedoms and liberties ARE the general welfare of society.
2) You are more than welcome to have a gun as a nutbag. Keep in mind that those of us you call a "bunch of nuts " are going to have a gun as well.
3) Oh and we keep and bear arms to prevent madmen with guns from taking our freedoms and liberties.

;)
 
Again. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Where is the well regulated Militia? A militia is like a 'light' army reserves, i.e. mostly civilian. And if you don't follows the rules of the militia you are kicked out. This was the intention of the 2nd, regardless of those that have reduced it to: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is meaningless as a separated phrase.
 
And as far as teh gun thing goes...I wasn't sure of your position. I just wanted to clarify it.



This is my position: I support the right to own and carry arms for all free legal citizens, regardless of past history. I think that felons should have the right of gun ownership after they have paid their debt to society for their crimes, and I think that if the justice system is failing, by letting dangerous criminals loose, that the justice system needs to be fixed, not the 2nd amendment altered to accomodate the failings of the justice system.
 
sorry, but I don't think untreated paranoid schizophrenics who hallucinate and think everyone is trying to kill them, should be allowed to own firearms.

That was more a facetious statement, mainly used to highlight the point that those "paranoid schizos" with guns trying to take our rights, would be facing a non paranoid populace with plenty of firearms that want to keep their rights.
 
This is my position: I support the right to own and carry arms for all free legal citizens, regardless of past history. I think that felons should have the right of gun ownership after they have paid their debt to society for their crimes, and I think that if the justice system is failing, by letting dangerous criminals loose, that the justice system needs to be fixed, not the 2nd amendment altered to accomodate the failings of the justice system.

See this is where I differ. Our penetentary system is very much a failing system. It is essentially basic training for criminals. Felons are more likely to come out more dangerous than when they went in. I have no issue with the laws, but I also feel that by the act of committing a felony, you have violated the social contract. That violation means your rights (to a certain extent) are void. That means rights like firearms, voting, etc. Certain other rights are a little excessive, but for people like pedophiles, rapists, and violent offenders it is better to air on the side of caution.
 
Then this seems to significantly undermine the authority of the constitution, doesn't it? This being the case then how can one argue that other constitutional rights cannot be conditioned by the application of subsequent legislation? A Bill of Rights doesn't seem to mean so much in that case.

Yes, sir. I would agree with you. There are many, many, many instances where the Constitution is circumvented. I'm no Constitutional lawyer or historian, but I would say to you that wherever the Constitution is circumvented it is decidedly not to the benefit of the People of the United States.

A quick example is the fact that the Constitution states that only Congress shall declare war. There is a great reason for that and it is the People who benefit from it. I could explain in detail, but I don't want to divert the thread. Since Vietman, however, Congress has permitted circumvention of the Constitution and has allowed the President to make the determination as long - and this is key - as the Congress can be assured plausible deniability. The circumvention clearly does not benefit the People of the United States, Congress, however gains a great deal from it.
 
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

It does not state "only the right of those without a past criminal action", or "only the right of those whom we deem worthy". It says the right shall not be infringed.

I would like to say that Arizona statute upholds the Constitution in that the "right shall not be infringed" to bear arms. State statute prevents seizure of legally owned firearms even in a declared state of martial law. I like that. I like it a lot.
 
I'm not sure what your position is but come on man. Do you expect people to just casually carry rifles and shotguns through the streets? And you say it yourself a rifle or shotgun can kill someone just as easily as a shotgun or rifle so why would anyone carry something bigger and heavier?

There is a great deal involved in your question, cthomp. Where I live you can open carry. I see it all the time. No big deal at all. I prefer concealed carry, but that's my choice. I've never seen anyone carrying a shotgun or a rifle into Lowe's Hardware, though I have seen guys open carry. My guess is if you walked into most public places with a shotgun you'd get a great deal of attention and rightfully so. Same with a rifle. It's not illegal, but it is something you don't often see.

Self defense in public with shotguns and rifles is a bit weird. If I'm a bad guy with a hidden gun in some public place the first thing I'd do would be to shoot the guy with the shotgun, by surprise. That wouldn't be as much of a concern to me as the number of people who I couldn't identify as carrying concealed weapons.

You can legally open carry shotguns and rifles in Arizona, but they must be in a holster or a scabbard. Makes sense, no? Carry a shotgun or a rifle for defense in public? Generally not smart.
 
And how much would all that cost?

What I suggested? It wouldn't cost much. That's basically the system that's in place in Michigan, and it doesn't seem to be bankrupting anyone

Great to see that people see that rights should be curtailed to the point of making them functionally pointless.

I'm sure some people do, I'm not one of them though.
 
I'm not saying it is bad. Just strange. A handgun is more convenient and just easier to deal with.
 
We have done amazing things with technology. I'm sure that if there is a big enough market for them we can get gun manufacturers to make a rifle or a shotgun ideal for female use. And we can also get women to get used to using firearms too.

If women can get used to driving and having careers then theyy can get used to pulling a trigger.


Of course women can get used to firearms, including rifles.... I sometimes get paid for teaching them these things.

But you're missing the point. Rifles and shotguns are very INCONVENIENT things to lug around as a self-defense weapon. Generally it is only done in certain places, like certain parts of Israel, where the odds of needing serious firepower are HIGH.

Also, they are not concealable; they are obvious. In many situations this is potentially a tactical disadvantage.

If a woman is managing three kids and a shopping cart, a small handgun in her pocket or purse is not only a lot more reasonable, convenient and useable, but SAFER. "Let's see, I'll carry little Joseph on my left side and sling my AR on my right shoulder... but then I can't hold Cindy-Lu's hand as we cross the street... dammit!"

Not only is a concealed handgun SAFER and handier, it is more TACTICALLY DEPLOYABLE than a long-gun on a sling. There are basically two ways to sling a long gun.... where it is tactically handy but you have to keep a hand on it or it will fall off your shoulder at some point.... or where it is secure and won't fall off your shoulder but getting it into action is going to take a few seconds and be a bit awkward. Well, there's also center-point sling but then you get a big long gun swinging around in front of you unless you hold it with one hand or something.

You're a smart fellow, Sam, just face the facts: there are reasons why handguns are the weapon of choice for most civilian self-defense, other than home defense. (and even then there are times a handgun is better, such as when clearing a corridor or stairwell but that's another topic...)
 
This is my position: I support the right to own and carry arms for all free legal citizens, regardless of past history. I think that felons should have the right of gun ownership after they have paid their debt to society for their crimes, and I think that if the justice system is failing, by letting dangerous criminals loose, that the justice system needs to be fixed, not the 2nd amendment altered to accomodate the failings of the justice system.


Amen.

Jerkwad criminals get away with too many crimes before getting serious time. Then they get out early too often and have generally not undergone any real "reform".

We shouldn't be letting people OUT of prison in the FIRST place unless we think they are SAFE to be out in society as normal citizens.
 
You're a smart fellow, Sam, just face the facts: there are reasons why handguns are the weapon of choice for most civilian self-defense, other than home defense. (and even then there are times a handgun is better, such as when clearing a corridor or stairwell but that's another topic...)

You know, I'm not debating those points, as I am sure you may be right on them.

All I'm saying is that I think it would be better that those things be decided on a local level.

I'm not even saying handguns should be considered illegal everywhere.

I'm just saying that I think the people of a locality should be able to decide for themselves in regards to that. And if a locality feels the same way you do then they should be free to do so.
 
I want a thorough background check before purchase and carry along.
 
Amen.

Jerkwad criminals get away with too many crimes before getting serious time. Then they get out early too often and have generally not undergone any real "reform".

We shouldn't be letting people OUT of prison in the FIRST place unless we think they are SAFE to be out in society as normal citizens.

Prison isn't about reform in the u.s. it's about punishment.
 
You know, I'm not debating those points, as I am sure you may be right on them.

All I'm saying is that I think it would be better that those things be decided on a local level.

I'm not even saying handguns should be considered illegal everywhere.

I'm just saying that I think the people of a locality should be able to decide for themselves in regards to that. And if a locality feels the same way you do then they should be free to do so.


If people in Chicago, DC and NYC, etc, were actually voting in a public referendum what kind of local gun control laws they wanted in their jurisdiction I could see your point, but it is being decided FOR them by political "machines" that run those municipalities, not by the people.

Besides which, my Constitutional rights should not change from one state or city to another.... they're supposed to be universal rights of all citizens regardless of where.
 
Prison isn't about reform in the u.s. it's about punishment.

Hell it is not really even about that; it is about warehousing them for the specified period with a minimum of expense and fuss, then scuffling them out to make room for the next schmuck whether they've actually learned anything or not.
 
Last edited:
Prison isn't about reform in the u.s. it's about punishment.

Then apparently it's not working as a deterrent. If the recidivism rate is high for violent criminals, then the justice being served is not adequately structured, nor the pusnishment severe enough. Prison should be a place that nobody wants to go to, much less return to. If you go to prison, and you learn that the last thing you want is to be there, then you have, in essence, been reformed. I support having no criminal record for released felons. Ex-cons really get screwed out in the real world after release, because they have a criminal record that keeps them from getting gainful employment. It's like a scarlet letter.
 
Last edited:
If people in Chicago, DC and NYC, etc, were actually voting in a public referendum what kind of local gun control laws they wanted in their jurisdiction I could see your point, but it is being decided FOR them by political "machines" that run those municipalities, not by the people.

Besides which, my Constitutional rights should not change from one state or city to another.... they're supposed to be universal rights of all citizens regardless of where.

1) You're right, which is why I favor expanded usage of referendums. I even advocate a Constitutional amendment in which the people can veto federal legislation and presidential executive acts via referendum, and use referendum to pass federal laws.

2) Which is why, in the opinion I have, I consider people to have a universal right to rifles and shotguns so that they may be used for hunting, for self-protection, and as a well-regulated militia. I think that anybody should be able to own a rifle or shotgun anywhere, and that a person's right to bear arms is absolute in that way, but I don't think it's absolute in regards to all weapons, which, in my opinion, includes handguns.
 
Only if you count gov brewer.

"Too shay" as Reasonable Mind likes to say.

Jan Brewer, God help us. There is also a state legislator who, during an interview in her office last year, took out her pistol pistol and showed it to him during the interview. Pointed at him! When he asked her not to point the gun at him she replied, "It's not loaded." Had she been through any formal gun training? No.
 
1) You're right, which is why I favor expanded usage of referendums. I even advocate a Constitutional amendment in which the people can veto federal legislation and presidential executive acts via referendum, and use referendum to pass federal laws.

2) Which is why, in the opinion I have, I consider people to have a universal right to rifles and shotguns so that they may be used for hunting, for self-protection, and as a well-regulated militia. I think that anybody should be able to own a rifle or shotgun anywhere, and that a person's right to bear arms is absolute in that way, but I don't think it's absolute in regards to all weapons, which, in my opinion, includes handguns.


Well, if doing things your way meant I could walk down Madison Square Garden with a AR15, I might decide that I could live with not being able to pack a handgun in NYC.... but you know as well as I do that the Bloombergs of the world aren't going to accept that. Hard enough to get them to accept that people have a right to a gun to defend their own homes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom