• 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.
TurtleDude said:
do you have anything to actually discuss on guns other than thinking the people murdered by nutcases paid the price for our rights
Click to expand...

I have been saying it all along. You simply have a belief set which prohibits from entertaining any position other than the quasi-religious position that the Second Amendment is a pure good - and you said that quite clearly.

My position is that it is not a pure good. On balance, it does more good than harm. However, it still does harm. As a citizen who cares about my fellow Americans I would like a national discussion about this and what we as a people can do to rectify these areas of weakness.

You on the other hand, are blind - by your own admission of the pure good belief - to even a single thing bad coming from the Second Amendment. Such a position finds itself incapable of any rational discussion because they dare not consider any reality but their own self imposed belief system. It becomes the equal of trying to argue religion with a zealot who sees their God as all good, all knowing and all pure and incapable of anything other than that.

You put that label upon yourself Turtle in your own post 357.

I have to be in radio studio across town at 7 am. So why don't you take the night to reconsider your "pure good " position and perhaps you will want to retract it in the morning.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
I think guns are like a lot things, like marijuana, alcohol etc, is that when you make laws to ban them, it only puts the control of them in the hands of criminals. I don't think people on probation, or violent felons should be allowed to purchase or own guns, but other than that just leave it alone.
Click to expand...

You are blinded from what is happening in this country. Cops killing unarmed people, beating their brains out, tasering for no reason, people going on shooting sprees, racial hatred on talk radio everywhere, perpetual fear and hatred mindset, war.
 
haymarket said:
I have been saying it all along. You simply have a belief set which prohibits from entertaining any position other than the quasi-religious position that the Second Amendment is a pure good - and you said that quite clearly.

My position is that it is not a pure good. On balance, it does more good than harm. However, it still does harm. As a citizen who cares about my fellow Americans I would like a national discussion about this and what we as a people can do to rectify these areas of weakness.

You on the other hand, are blind - by your own admission of the pure good belief - to even a single thing bad coming from the Second Amendment. Such a position finds itself incapable of any rational discussion because they dare not consider any reality but their own self imposed belief system. It becomes the equal of trying to argue religion with a zealot who sees their God as all good, all knowing and all pure and incapable of anything other than that.

You put that label upon yourself Turtle in your own post 357.

I have to be in radio studio across town at 7 am. So why don't you take the night to reconsider your "pure good " position and perhaps you will want to retract it in the morning.
Click to expand...

how does a right cause harm? there is no right to commit crime
 
LaMidRighter said:
... For those choosing Thunder's limited grasp of the militia this important figure from the time of the founding spells it out.

From the site THUNDER!
Get it yet?
Click to expand...

sorry, but I follow what the Constitution & the Militia Act say.

perhaps you should as well.
 
haymarket said:
In college did they teach you about the debate fallacy known as Argumentum ad populum?
Click to expand...


haymarket said:
TurtleDude said:
those students for the most part were not heroes.
Click to expand...

the nation said otherwise.
Click to expand...


_____
irony-meter.jpg
_____
 
That Was Awesome :lol:
 
Thunder said:
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.
Click to expand...

so? neither had the militia members who stood at Concord and Lexington.
 
Thunder said:
folks who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.
Click to expand...

This is the THIRD time I have posted this. Will you ignore it again as it Proves that your above hypothesis is bull?

If you don't know anything about the following incidents I will be happy to educate you.

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...

They will come and they will kill you if they do not like you. Of the above list Randy Weaver was the only one who was paranoid, and they did come for him.


As for your arguments about the miltia you keep ignoring the court cases I cited earlier.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.[115]
Click to expand...

District of Columbia v. Heller 2008

Get it yet?
 
I dont got any problem with the current system. Maybe shorter waiting periods, and perhaps give automatic guns to people of a certain age with no criminal record.
 
taxigirl said:
....They will come and they will kill you if they do not like you. Of the above list Randy Weaver was the only one who was paranoid, and they did come for him?....
Click to expand...

what in God's name are you trying to pull? maybe you should post this crap in the Conspiracy Theory section.

:lamo
 
cpwill said:
so? neither had the militia members who stood at Concord and Lexington.
Click to expand...

The Battle of Lexington & Concord......1775.

The United States Constitution....1787.

The 2nd Militia Act....1792.

I think you are going backwards, friend. But keep it up...its funny.

:)
 
lizzie said:
"As far as I am concerned" is an opinion, not a fact.
Click to expand...

that is true. however, while they may not be illegal...they surely don't fall into line with the Constitution.

that's not opinion....that's called the English language.
 
Thunder said:
what in God's name are you trying to pull? maybe you should post this crap in the Conspiracy Theory section.

:lamo
Click to expand...

Look them up. These are cases where the government KILLED people who were standing up for their rights. These people were not convicted of crimes and in most cases won huge settlements from the government for their losses. This is not conspiracy this is reality. They had nothing to hide.
 
Thunder said:
that is true. however, while they may not be illegal...they surely don't fall into line with the Constitution.

that's not opinion....that's called the English language.
Click to expand...

What about the SCOTUS decisions I have mentioned more than once now that you choose to ignore.
 
taxigirl said:
Look them up. These are cases where the government KILLED people who were standing up for their rights. These people were not convicted of crimes and in most cases won huge settlements from the government for their losses. This is not conspiracy this is reality. They had nothing to hide.
Click to expand...

In this, you are correct.

Ultimately, all power comes from the barrel of a gun, and if you resist the law long enough and fiercely enough -- ANY law -- the government WILL come and shoot you.

That is the ultimate threat from which governments derive all power.
 
stonewall50 said:
A revolver is not a semi-automatic.
Click to expand...
I should have said 'and revolvers' - thanks for the correction.
stonewall50 said:
I don't think it matters how many shots you want to take. The less bullets you plan on expending the more dangerous I think you are going to be anyway....to yourself or others.
Click to expand...
Not much for hunting are you? Around here you have three shots max before a reload on a shotgun. (It could be four but I think it's three.) Double-barrels, of course, give you two shots. Hunting rifles are typically single shot, lever action or bolt action. I've never seen anyone seriously hunt with an M-16, AK-47, or any other semi-auto. Can't recall anyone hunting with a handgun, really, but if someone wants a two-shot Derringer that doesn't bother me.
stonewall50 said:
Always watch out for the guy who says...can I buy A bullet. Or can I buy 2 bullets? And if he says 3 bullets...it is probably for that guy that his wife cheated with.
Click to expand...
We're not talking bullets here. A duck hunter won't go out with only three shells even though that's all he can put in the gun. Don't be obtuse.
 
TurtleDude said:
when someone makes an error of this magnitude its hard to ever find them credible on any gun issue
Click to expand...
Believe what you will. I don't have the technical jargon down because the people around me don't use handguns. Doesn't mean I wasn't 12 when I fired my first rifle (it was just a .22 but still) or that I haven't shot an M-14. I've had plenty of opportunity to fire an AK-47 or an Uzi, I have a friend that has one of each, but I have no interest in it.

I have no problem with anyone (except felons and Mr Looney Tunes) owning a gun of any kind. I think the more firepower the gun has - meaning how many people you can kill per minute - the more you should be checked out before being allowed to own it. I don't even have objection to full auto's. It's so easy to turn some semi-autos into full auto anyway (or at least it used to be) that we may as well make it legal. (It's like trying to outlaw pot, which is also stupid.) You want to slam and exclude me because I'm color blind when it comes to handguns? Fine - you do that. But you're being stupid 'cause I'm a LOT more on your side than I am the other, numb nuts.

On the flip side, anybody caught with a full auto and no documentation for it should be thrown in jail for 10 years, no parole; 25 years if they shouldn't have had one in the first place.

To take up a question I asked you twice, that you never answered: No, I don't give a **** if my neighbor does have a tank as long as he's been cleared to own one. If some 20-year ex-armor vet wants to play with tanks in his old age more power to him.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
That Was Awesome :lol:
Click to expand...

Actually it was not.

Two members here have made a serious error. The argumentum ad populatim was made by Turtle in claiming that he was right because a few other members agreed with him in his opinion. I properly applied the fallacy to his tactic and exposed it.

When I referred to the building of monuments and memorials to the slain innocents heralded as heroes in previous events such as 911, Columbine and Oklahoma City I was not using the opinion of some board members here who are fellow believers who simply share an ideological self imposed belief. I was referring to the historical fact that these memorials were built and the people who built them as well as the media of the nation did so in honoring them as heroes. We have no less than the remarks of the President of the United States as well as Congress as well as the inscriptions and dedication ceremonies to look to.

The issue is not using opinion to prove who is right about their opinion. The issue is using evidence of historical fact to demonstrate that a precedent has been set in which the slain innocents were memorialized as heroes just as I suggested the Ohio youth should be accorded the same honors.

If some fellow traveler who shares the belief system of Turtle wants to equate all that with the simple beliefs of a few posters here simply to help him save face - so be it. But they are so very very different things. One is a tactic used by Turtle to take the views of a small number of fellow posters to support his false accusations where he failed to present any actual evidence to support his charges ie: that I am anti Second Amendment. The other is a recognition of the historical record and actions taken by the nation to honor the slain dead with memorials and monuments and the remarks made to honor them as heroes.

I realize that people who did not formally debate and were not educated to these differences and nuances might improperly confuse the actual situation in an attempt to help their fellow poster with whom they share some ideological belief.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Read back, I've got you both ways. They are in the militia as able bodied men 18-45, they are private militia in that you must have a common ground(membership) to be involved in their activities, and they drill regularly. They organize as a unit and they have used weapons. That being said they are the definition of a militia in every sense of the word.
Click to expand...
I'll be sure to remember that definition if we ever get back to the Berkeley "militia" attacking non-violent students with mace.
 
Thunder said:
The Battle of Lexington & Concord......1775.

The United States Constitution....1787.

The 2nd Militia Act....1792.

I think you are going backwards, friend. But keep it up...its funny.

:)
Click to expand...


:) and neither had the militia members who served as the main Army during the Civil War prior to the outbreak of that conflict. And the last Act you mention explicitly states that every male of military age shall be considered an at large member of the militia, and is ordered to arm himself and maintain his weaponry. If you want to argue that that law is still binding, then you or anyone else who is not armed is in violation.

:shrug: again, it's irrelevant to a discussion of the 2nd Amendment, as the right is reserved to the people, and done so explicitly with the intention that they retain the ability should they choose to do so of overthrowing an overweening government by force of arms.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Believe what you will. I don't have the technical jargon down because the people around me don't use handguns. Doesn't mean I wasn't 12 when I fired my first rifle (it was just a .22 but still) or that I haven't shot an M-14. I've had plenty of opportunity to fire an AK-47 or an Uzi, I have a friend that has one of each, but I have no interest in it.

I have no problem with anyone (except felons and Mr Looney Tunes) owning a gun of any kind. I think the more firepower the gun has - meaning how many people you can kill per minute - the more you should be checked out before being allowed to own it. I don't even have objection to full auto's. It's so easy to turn some semi-autos into full auto anyway (or at least it used to be) that we may as well make it legal. (It's like trying to outlaw pot, which is also stupid.) You want to slam and exclude me because I'm color blind when it comes to handguns? Fine - you do that. But you're being stupid 'cause I'm a LOT more on your side than I am the other, numb nuts.

On the flip side, anybody caught with a full auto and no documentation for it should be thrown in jail for 10 years, no parole; 25 years if they shouldn't have had one in the first place.

To take up a question I asked you twice, that you never answered: No, I don't give a **** if my neighbor does have a tank as long as he's been cleared to own one. If some 20-year ex-armor vet wants to play with tanks in his old age more power to him.
Click to expand...
Putting people in jail for merely owning something is tyrannical and disgusting and violates the constitution and again you prove how little you know-more bullets does not necessarily mean more lethal

if that were true we'd hunt elephants, lions and bears with 50 shot 22 caliber rifles rather than double barrelled 458 magnums and our soldiers would be issued machine guns with the same 22 ammo since you can carry 1000 rounds of 22 far more easily than 200 rounds of 308 NATO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom