• 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.
OhIsee.Then said:
I was not expecting a pistol to show up pointed at me from 5 feet. I was not expecting him to be armed. I was in a weak position unless I had a pistol pointed at him first. To do so I would have had to have a valid reason. I didn't. I could have been the one going to jail. I don't think he was actually willing to kill me and his behavior was bearing that out. That put him a great risk, but the police arrived in time.
Click to expand...

why in the world would you go to jail in such a situation. if a guy is on your property committing a crime, especially if armed, you have every right to pull on him.
 
Thunder said:
these private armies, made up of mostly right-wing crazies, bigots, and extremists, will NEVER be called to do anything for the govt. other than to clean toilets.
Click to expand...

See my post from earlier and tell me if all these people were crazies

taxigirl said:
I have to agree with Goshin on this one.

McVeigh's response, as unfortunate as it was, was intended as a message against the government who had gone after Ruby Ridge and Waco.
If you think Americans should not worry about their government coming for them...

Everyone thought Randy Weaver was paranoid, but they came for him.

Frank Clearwater and Buddy Lamont

Fred Hampton and Mark Clark

Kent State

Molly Maguires

Whiskey Rebellion

MOVE

etc...

The United States government in no way has its hands clean when it comes to going after people who dared to speak against it. This goes for Federal , State and local entities.
Click to expand...
 
Thunder said:
that's a great way to disregard the beliefs of those you disagree with: simply tell yourself again & again, that they just care about hassling honest gun owners, and really don't give a **** about reducing crime and the number of innocent deaths in our country.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, your constantly changing what sort of additional hassles you want to impose on gun owners proves that the anti gun types have not really thought out what actually deters criminals. You used to claim that the NYC nonsense was proper, then you wanted registration, then you wanted to limit honest people (criminals can buy not one gun a month legally) to one gun a month etc


the fact is, the only laws that deter criminals are ones that incarcerate people for using guns in crime because by incarcerating they are in prison. Laws that merely hassle or even penalize honest people only creates contempt for government. TElling me I have to register guns I own etc might make the ARCs happy but since criminals are exempt-under 5th amendment grounds-its a stupid law
 
Kandahar said:
I don't really have a problem with non-violent, non-crazy adults owning guns. Obviously you need a background check to confirm that they aren't violent and/or crazy. As far as actually CARRYING the weapons...meh. Again, I don't really have a problem with it if the person can prove that they're responsible. I would probably suggest a lengthier background check for this, since a person can be non-violent and non-crazy but still be a complete dip****. To carry a weapon, I'd suggest something akin to a driver's test...if someone can show that they know the basics of firearm safety (and they can pass the background check to get the weapon in the first place), they can carry it if they want.

That would seem like the most sensible solution to me. I have no interest in taking guns away from people who haven't done anything wrong and just want them for protection and/or sport. But background checks are necessary to make sure that the crazies can't easily get them.
Click to expand...


waiting periods have no proper use--It has been proven time and time again those only get honest people killed and the "heat of the passion" crap has been dismissed dozens of times
 
Turtle

I know you love film. One of the truly great ones is the Steven Spielberg 1993 movie SCHINDLERS LIST. It details how the German Nazi's enacted their policies over the Jews of Poland in the 1930's and 40's. There is a scene near the end where Oskar Schindler is trying very hard to include as many Jews as he can on his list - Jews to be saved from death - and his right hand man - Itzhak Stern explains to him that the list is a pure good. In Jewish culture, this can also be known as a mitzvah, something which is so purely good that there is no negative attached to it.

Do you believe that the Second Amendment as it is now seen in the USA is a pure good? Or do you see it as something with a good side and a bad side but where the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
 
haymarket said:
Turtle

I know you love film. One of the truly great ones is the Steven Spielberg 1993 movie SCHINDLERS LIST. It details how the German Nazi's enacted their policies over the Jews of Poland in the 1930's and 40's. There is a scene near the end where Oskar Schindler is trying very hard to include as many Jews as he can on his list - Jews to be saved from death - and his right hand man - Itzhak Stern explains to him that the list is a pure good. In Jewish culture, this can also be known as a mitzvah, something which is so purely good that there is no negative attached to it.

Do you believe that the Second Amendment as it is now seen in the USA is a pure good? Or do you see it as something with a good side and a bad side but where the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
Click to expand...
I know what would happen if your beloved party tries to ban guns or severely restrict them

that would be all bad

both for the gunowners and the idiots who try to impose such idiocy
 
TurtleDude said:
I know what would happen if your beloved party tries to ban guns or severely restrict them

that would be all bad

both for the gunowners and the idiots who try to impose such idiocy
Click to expand...

You did NOT answer a direct question. Here it is again:

Do you believe that the Second Amendment as it is now seen in the USA is a pure good? Or do you see it as something with a good side and a bad side but where the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
 
haymarket said:
You did NOT answer a direct question. Here it is again:

Do you believe that the Second Amendment as it is now seen in the USA is a pure good? Or do you see it as something with a good side and a bad side but where the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
Click to expand...

yes it is a pure good. rights are always good-those who ABUSE the rights are bad

and are you still pretending you are pro second amendment?
 
TurtleDude said:
yes it is a pure good. rights are always good-those who ABUSE the rights are bad

and are you still pretending you are pro second amendment?
Click to expand...

There is the difference between you and me. I do NOT have a religious like zeal about any right or freedom or liberty. I recognize that all rights in a society have to be balanced and considered with the individual rights of others as well as the good of all of society as a whole. This not only applies to the Second Amendment, it applies to ALL rights people have.

The Second Amendment is included in that.

I truly am convinced that there are people in America today, and perhaps you are one of these people, who do look at the Second Amendment as a pure good - as a mitzvah - from which nothing bad can evolve. That view is not only foolish in a society of 311 million people it is naive and almost childlike in its approach and simplicity and denial of reality that jumps off the daily newspaper.

I am pro Second Amendment. I am convinced that - on balance - it does more good for our nation that it does bad for our nation. I am convinced that it benefits more people in our nation that it causes harm or damage to people in our nation. So when I weigh these considerations of practicality and reality, I come down on the side of the Second Amendment. I would NOT abolish it. I would NOT severly limit practical rights that flow from it necessary to carry it out or use it.

But that does not put me with the pure good firearms advocates that you now admit to being one of. And that does not make me against the Second Amendment because I am not one of you.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
I don't really have a problem with non-violent, non-crazy adults owning guns. Obviously you need a background check to confirm that they aren't violent and/or crazy. As far as actually CARRYING the weapons...meh. Again, I don't really have a problem with it if the person can prove that they're responsible. I would probably suggest a lengthier background check for this, since a person can be non-violent and non-crazy but still be a complete dip****. To carry a weapon, I'd suggest something akin to a driver's test...if someone can show that they know the basics of firearm safety (and they can pass the background check to get the weapon in the first place), they can carry it if they want.

That would seem like the most sensible solution to me. I have no interest in taking guns away from people who haven't done anything wrong and just want them for protection and/or sport. But background checks are necessary to make sure that the crazies can't easily get them.
Click to expand...

You have basically stated the Florida laws.

Background check.
Waiting period (that I disagree with)
In-depth background check for CCW
Firearms safety class for CCW

Florida's CCW is valid in about 40 states.

Additionally, "the gun show loophole" is not an issue here. The same background checks are required. Even tho I have a CCW, when I purchase a firearm they still run a check thru FDLE (Florida dept of law enforcement). If you do not have a CCW, you still have a waiting period.
 
haymarket said:
Turtle

I know you love film. One of the truly great ones is the Steven Spielberg 1993 movie SCHINDLERS LIST. It details how the German Nazi's enacted their policies over the Jews of Poland in the 1930's and 40's. There is a scene near the end where Oskar Schindler is trying very hard to include as many Jews as he can on his list - Jews to be saved from death - and his right hand man - Itzhak Stern explains to him that the list is a pure good. In Jewish culture, this can also be known as a mitzvah, something which is so purely good that there is no negative attached to it.

Do you believe that the Second Amendment as it is now seen in the USA is a pure good? Or do you see it as something with a good side and a bad side but where the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
Click to expand...



In a perfect world, there would be little or no need for weapons. If all humans were benevolent we would not need to concern ourselves over self-defense.

Using a weapon involves the threat of death or harm, or actual death or harm. I wouldn't call that a pure good, even if the purpose for using the weapon IS a pure good (protect my family from harm by an aggressor).

But the world isn't perfect and never will be, nor will all humans ever be benevolent.

Very very few things are mitzvah, pure good. Automobiles are not pure good; industry is not pure good; heck even food is not always pure good is it? ;)

Guns are not a pure good; however I see them as being strongly more of a good than a negative for a variety of obvious reasons.


My Constitutionalist side tends to resent any infringements at all on the 2A.... however my pragmatic side recognizes that our society does a lot of things that are Constitutionally questionable and that sometimes compromise is better than the alternative. Therefore I grudgingly accept certain small infringements, like the National Instant Check System and CCW permits, as a compromise I can live with for the sake of the desire to make it harder for criminals to get guns, even if I doubt its actual effectiveness.

I would not object to adding a red flag to NICs for those who have been involuntarily committed, for another example.

In general though I think we have plenty of gun control laws already and don't need any more, and it would take considerable factual evidence of some new laws benefits to persuade me otherwise.

Rights are not rights unless they are jealously guarded.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
In a perfect world, there would be little or no need for weapons. If all humans were benevolent we would not need to concern ourselves over self-defense.

Using a weapon involves the threat of death or harm, or actual death or harm. I wouldn't call that a pure good, even if the purpose for using the weapon IS a pure good (protect my family from harm by an aggressor).

But the world isn't perfect and never will be, nor will all humans ever be benevolent.

Very very few things are mitzvah, pure good. Automobiles are not pure good; industry is not pure good; heck even food is not always pure good is it? ;)

Guns are not a pure good; however I see them as being strongly more of a good than a negative for a variety of obvious reasons.


My Constitutionalist side tends to resent any infringements at all on the 2A.... however my pragmatic side recognizes that our society does a lot of things that are Constitutionally questionable and that sometimes compromise is better than the alternative. Therefore I grudgingly accept certain small infringements, like the National Instant Check System and CCW permits, as a compromise I can live with for the sake of the desire to make it harder for criminals to get guns, even if I doubt its actual effectiveness.

I would not object to adding a red flag to NICs for those who have been involuntarily committed, for another example.

In general though I think we have plenty of gun control laws already and don't need any more, and it would take considerable factual evidence of some new laws benefits to persuade me otherwise.

Rights are not rights unless they are jealously guarded.
Click to expand...

I agree with pretty much with your comments. Well said.

For any educated and intelligent person to so blindly believe in something that they cannot see that something which is mostly good is not purely a good in an of itself without having to acknowledge that bad or negative can arise from it, is a sad state of affairs and a sign of a self imposed value system at work that denies the reality of the world.
 
Goshin said:
...In general though I think we have plenty of gun control laws already and don't need any more, and it would take considerable factual evidence of some new laws benefits to persuade me otherwise....
Click to expand...

the problem is that our gun laws are not uniform throughout the whole country. it is their ununiformity that allows folks to buy lots of guns in a pretty safe area, and sell them to criminals in a more dangerous area that has stronger gun laws.

strong gun laws that strictly regulate gun sales, are kinda useless when one can simply buy guns across state-lines, and easily bring them over and sell them. we need gun law uniformity.
 
LaMidRighter said:
You have no clue what comprises them or how many there are. Glad to see all you have is out of context quotations, bigotry, emotionalizing, and demonizing left.
Click to expand...

your very adorable use of the word "bigotry", is very cute.

since when did right-wing Militias become a protected group in our society? what's next, defending the KKK from harsh criticism & ridicule?
 
cpwill said:
not at all. the Constitution (which includes the 2nd Amendment) makes no organizational notes whatsoever. the Militia Act merely provides for one. Here is some of the relevant language:...
Click to expand...

of course, you are WRONG.

Article 1, Section 8 of the USC includes:

....To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions;

To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Miltia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and to the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.


clearly, any intelligent & logical reading of the above, makes it clear that Congress has the power to organize, arm, & discipline the Militia. However, it is the job of the States to appoint officers who will train the Militia, according to the rules set forth by Congress.

no organizational notes whatsoever? You're being dishonest.
 
Thunder said:
your very adorable use of the word "bigotry", is very cute.

since when did right-wing Militias become a protected group in our society? what's next, defending the KKK from harsh criticism & ridicule?
Click to expand...
Since when is the term "bigotry" only applicable to "protected groups" in our society? It's simply animosity or a devotion to intolerance of others.
 
Thunder said:
your very adorable use of the word "bigotry", is very cute.

since when did right-wing Militias become a protected group in our society? what's next, defending the KKK from harsh criticism & ridicule?
Click to expand...

What about the left-wing militias? You keep avoiding my point about this.
 
cpwill said:
...except, that, of course, they have been. How did you think the armies of the Civil War (for example) were created? Mostly it was just federalized militia units.
Click to expand...

no, our modern-day private armies of right-wing extremists, that you call "militias", have never been called up by the government to fulfill their Constitutional role, to defend the nation and suppress insurrections.
 
TurtleDude said:
In all fairness, your constantly changing what sort of additional hassles you want to impose on gun owners proves that the anti gun types have not really thought out what actually deters criminals...
Click to expand...

TD, this is a complicated issue. I am weekly bombarded with hundreds of posts, which sometimes contain new information which changes the dynamics of the issue. Plus I do research on my own on this issue. What is the effect of this? My views change. This issue is very fluid..and so are my views on it. Forgive me for not being hard-headed, unable to adjust my views based on new info, sworn to loyalty to my party's platform, unwilling to see things from another perspective.

I make no apologies.
 
Thunder said:
the problem is that our gun laws are not uniform throughout the whole country. it is their ununiformity that allows folks to buy lots of guns in a pretty safe area, and sell them to criminals in a more dangerous area that has stronger gun laws.

strong gun laws that strictly regulate gun sales, are kinda useless when one can simply buy guns across state-lines, and easily bring them over and sell them. we need gun law uniformity.
Click to expand...



When the rest of the country wishes to adopt South Carolina style laws on guns, carry and self-defense, I will be most pleased to facilitate this. :mrgreen:


See this is where we run into trouble. I consider the NYC/DC/Chicago/Massachutsetts/etc model of gun control totally unacceptible.

I will not tolerate having to have FOID just to own/possess guns. I will not tolerate laws that effectively ban handguns. I will not tolerate "discretionary-issue" (also known as shall-NOT-issue) carry permits. I will not tolerate being told I can't possess certain firearms because they cosmetically resemble military arms. I will not tolerate having to get a Psychologist to certify me as OK to possess firearms. I will not accept laws telling me all guns in my home have to be unloaded, locked up and ammo locked up seperately.... might as well say no guns for home defense at all.

Lots of things people in those areas are burdened with that I wouldn't tolerate.


If that's the "common sense gun control" you're preaching, you can keep it. We don't want it.



Tell ya what though.... if I were running things in the South, I'd agree to institute a one-handgun-a-month law IF I could get National Reciprocity on CCW in return, so I can carry in NYC just like I do in SC....
 
Goshin said:
...
See this is where we run into trouble. I consider the NYC/DC/Chicago/Massachutsetts/etc model of gun control totally unacceptible.....
Click to expand...

I am also not in favor of all of NYC's gun laws, including the very high cost of obtaining a rifle/shotgun permit. There is no reason why a permit should cost more than many of the guns one would purchase with the permit..other than to attempt to arbitrarily limit gun ownership. NYC will not become significantly unsafer....if more folks own a rifle or shotgun.
 
Thunder said:
I am also not in favor of all of NYC's gun laws, including the very high cost of obtaining a rifle/shotgun permit. There is no reason why a permit should cost more than many of the guns one would purchase with the permit..other than to attempt to arbitrarily limit gun ownership. NYC will not become significantly unsafer....if more folks own a rifle or shotgun.
Click to expand...


I'm not in favor of having to get a permit to buy a gun period, let alone pay money for it. NICs covers all that.


NYC will be safer when they allow honest citizens to carry handguns for their own defense.


Atlanta does it. Miami does it. Orlando. Houston. Dallas. Charlotte. Memphis. Birmingham. Lots of big cities.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
yes, and several of these big cities have MUCH higher murder and crime rates, than NYC.

FYI..comparing Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Memphis..to NYC as far as crime is concerned, is VERY self-defeating.
Click to expand...


Fine.... let's compare them to DC, Chicago and Detroit then.

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom