• 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.
Chiefgator said:
After two insurgent/asymetrical wars for experience, I have e feeling the US military would put up a bit more resistence than Algiers.... let's hope it never comes to that.
Click to expand...

given the inclinations of those who join, I would suspect that the US Military would also see severe retention issues. Every Marine grunt I worked with would salivate at the thought of getting to play insurgent for a change.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I've seen it postulated before that many in the military would refuse the orders to shoot citizens simply because they are sworn to uphold the constitution. Don't know how true that is and hope we never find out.
Click to expand...


depends on the citizens.


i mean... yeah, of course I would shoot my officers before I would shoot real people. but if it was just hippies? :mrgreen:

35ca90.jpg
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
depends on the citizens.


i mean... yeah, of course I would shoot my officers before I would shoot real people. but if it was just hippies?
Click to expand...
That thought was in the back of my mind. I think Joe Sixpack tired of being overtaxed and kicked around, and Sally Soccermom would have support from our fighting men and women. I'm more than certain that a bunch of hippies would be red misted.
 
cpwill said:
depends on the citizens.


i mean... yeah, of course I would shoot my officers before I would shoot real people. but if it was just hippies? :mrgreen:

35ca90.jpg
Click to expand...

Well sure.... I mean they're just hippies, it's not like they were real people..... ;)

 
that is my all time favorite episode.
 
Chiefgator said:
After two insurgent/asymetrical wars for experience, I have e feeling the US military would put up a bit more resistence than Algiers.... let's hope it never comes to that.
Click to expand...

It would be an occupation. They would require patrols. Any figure of authority becomes a target. Occupation of the United States would be near impossible because of the size of the nation. Every city and town would be shooting galleries for anyone putting up resistance. Drive by shootings of any beat cop, snipers, road side bombs, bridges blown up, vehicle sabotage, and the list goes on. Algeirs was difficult because they didn't understand what was going on. Here it is difficult because the civillian population doesn't have to kill the authority figures to get guns. We already got them. Not that that scares any politician, but it certainly shows it as an impossibility to occupy this nation.

Of course the only option to occupy the nation would be to kill everyone. Mass airstrikes etc. I really don't see that being a viable option. I don't see a pilot willingly dropping a bomb on US Citizens.
 
stonewall50 said:
It would be an occupation. They would require patrols. Any figure of authority becomes a target. Occupation of the United States would be near impossible because of the size of the nation. Every city and town would be shooting galleries for anyone putting up resistance. Drive by shootings of any beat cop, snipers, road side bombs, bridges blown up, vehicle sabotage, and the list goes on. Algeirs was difficult because they didn't understand what was going on. Here it is difficult because the civillian population doesn't have to kill the authority figures to get guns. We already got them. Not that that scares any politician, but it certainly shows it as an impossibility to occupy this nation.

Of course the only option to occupy the nation would be to kill everyone. Mass airstrikes etc. I really don't see that being a viable option. I don't see a pilot willingly dropping a bomb on US Citizens.
Click to expand...
Even then, an Air Force commander would probably feel compelled to tell the politician ordering a strike that "If we blow the roads away, there won't be much we can do to evac you away from the people we didn't get".
 
TurtleDude said:
what exactly is your agenda on these gun threads. You show up and pretend that people really don't need guns. WTF cares? If you don't want a gun don't carry one or own one but your constant litany about "fear" etc is silly. and claiming people have religious attachments to weapons is just left wing psychobable
Click to expand...

So, discussion is against the rules? You either tow the TD line or you have an agenda? Odd way of thinking you have.

:coffeepap
 
Porchev said:
In the unlikely event that our country was invaded, fighting back with small arms and improvised explosive devices might make them go away eventually---it worked for the Iraqis.
Click to expand...

Do you really think no one would be able to get such in that situation? Our army would just fall aside, with no one having access or getting any of those weapons?

Seriously, having your small arms is meaningless. I'm just saying, the mythology doesn't add up any more.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I think I need to dig out Red Dawn ...
Click to expand...


It's an unrealisitc one star movie. Why would any thinking person dig that out? Kind of like thinking the show 24 tells you all you need to know about torture. Silly.


:coffeepap
 
cthomp said:
Why do you say if you can't defend yourself without a weapon, you can't with one? I have never been present at a robbery. However, I am still young. Anyone in the safest of places could find themselves in the middle of a robbery or a violent attack.
Click to expand...

I've faced a gun or two in my time. Never owned one of my own. I've seen violence and crime. A weapon is but a tool. Having a hammer and nail doesn't make you a carpenter. Nor does having a gun make you safe. If you are smart and wise enough, you're safe with or without one.

Also, years of working on an ambulance I never picked up anyone shot by a criminal, at least not someone trying to rob or murder someone. I never picked up anyone who shot a criminal. From 1979 to 1995, not once. But I picked up a lot of shootings. Family disputes. Accidents. Sheer stupidity. I admit it has helped form my views. I have no emotional attachment or revolsion of weapons. Only the beleif that it is a tool to be used by those who need the tool and know how to use it. Many give lip service to their knowledge, but the accidents nd stupidy are far from rare.

And, yes, anything can happen anywhere. But you're not safe from that just because you're armed. There are few absolutes, but overwhelmingly, those who survive such sudden and surprising situations are either lucky or smart. Being armed or not is merely incidental.
 
stonewall50 said:
Cannot match the firepower of the average infantry soldier or police officer? I can buy a .300 Win Mag rifle...plenty of ammo...a great scope...and I have more firepower than the average military or police rifle.

I can buy the exact same weapons they use.

I can buy the same ammo.

We still live in a world where people die by 1 bullet. That is all that matters. What politicians don't understand is that ammo restriction simply means I gotta make the 1st one count.
Click to expand...

Think Rubby ridge. Or any number of individuals agaisnt the government. Out numbered and overrun.

Many of you are leaping to all out war, which is even more unlikely. If that ahppened, again, being armed would be the least of our problems. I spoke about us fighting our government, which would mean our army is intact, and there would hardly be any serious numbers of support. Over rather quickly. Others leapt to us being invaded, and went silly with an old D movie that presented something so unrealistic as to be laughable. reminded me of all those old communist films they showed in churches in the 50's and 60's. But such an event would also be different, and having our own guns would only a little. Without some help, either from some things the military grapped before falling, or say Canada, we'd just live for countless decades in hell, or fall.

No, in any of those cases, a wise person would have another plan.
 
Chiefgator said:
Sukarno had no support from anyone. The Dutch had vastly superior weapons. True, the Indonesians had captured Japanise weapons, but little ammo and no real framework for resupply.

I agree that it has a very low chance of success, but with no means to resist there is zero chance.
Click to expand...

I try to never speak in absolute terms. There is folly in that. But largely, a better plan wouold be smarter.
 
Boo Radley said:
I've faced a gun or two in my time. Never owned one of my own. I've seen violence and crime. A weapon is but a tool. Having a hammer and nail doesn't make you a carpenter. Nor does having a gun make you safe. If you are smart and wise enough, you're safe with or without one.

Also, years of working on an ambulance I never picked up anyone shot by a criminal, at least not someone trying to rob or murder someone. I never picked up anyone who shot a criminal. From 1979 to 1995, not once. But I picked up a lot of shootings. Family disputes. Accidents. Sheer stupidity. I admit it has helped form my views. I have no emotional attachment or revolsion of weapons. Only the beleif that it is a tool to be used by those who need the tool and know how to use it. Many give lip service to their knowledge, but the accidents nd stupidy are far from rare.

And, yes, anything can happen anywhere. But you're not safe from that just because you're armed. There are few absolutes, but overwhelmingly, those who survive such sudden and surprising situations are either lucky or smart. Being armed or not is merely incidental.
Click to expand...

Seeing how your views are formed I can respect that. If someone has a nail and hammer and knows how to use it can very well being a carpenter. That being said, I have grown up around guns my whole life. I hunt and shoot frequently. I understand and practice gun safety, and know how to use guns properly. If I am able to carry a gun with me it will only increase my chances of survival in a dangerous situation. Having a gun can also be used as a deterrent. I am not sure on what the law is on the concealed carry and this might be a stupid question, but I'll ask anyway. If you have the permit can the gun be visible as long as it is in a holster?
 
cthomp said:
Seeing how your views are formed I can respect that. If someone has a nail and hammer and knows how to use it can very well being a carpenter. That being said, I have grown up around guns my whole life. I hunt and shoot frequently. I understand and practice gun safety, and know how to use guns properly. If I am able to carry a gun with me it will only increase my chances of survival in a dangerous situation. Having a gun can also be used as a deterrent. I am not sure on what the law is on the concealed carry and this might be a stupid question, but I'll ask anyway. If you have the permit can the gun be visible as long as it is in a holster?
Click to expand...

And if that is true, I have no objection to you having a gun.

As for the deterent, depends on where you are and the circumstances. There are places where it will provoke. But, that's getting a little too specifc. They are as rare as anyone actually needing one on a daily basis. ;)

I can only speak for Iowa on Open carry. Open carry in Iowa is not restricted by state law with the exception of carrying in a vehicle or inside city limits. Carry permit holders may open carry anywhere that it is otherwise legal to have a firearm. This practice is not universally accepted and could attract attention from law enforcement.
 
Boo Radley said:
And if that is true, I have no objection to you having a gun.

As for the deterent, depends on where you are and the circumstances. There are places where it will provoke. But, that's getting a little too specifc. They are as rare as anyone actually needing one on a daily basis. ;)

I can only speak for Iowa on Open carry. Open carry in Iowa is not restricted by state law with the exception of carrying in a vehicle or inside city limits. Carry permit holders may open carry anywhere that it is otherwise legal to have a firearm. This practice is not universally accepted and could attract attention from law enforcement.
Click to expand...

I live in Jersey where there is no real concealed carry permit. It is virtually impossible to obtain one unless you protect large sums of money.
 
Goshin said:
Well sure.... I mean they're just hippies, it's not like they were real people..... ;)
Click to expand...
Oh.... you guys, you're too much. :cool:

--your resident goddamn dirty hippie.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
It's an unrealisitc one star movie. Why would any thinking person dig that out? Kind of like thinking the show 24 tells you all you need to know about torture. Silly.


:coffeepap
Click to expand...
Because it's entertaining. I watch The Cosmos because it's also entertaining.

Do you watch and read only non-fiction material?


Ed:
Speaking of old Communist movies, I like Dr. Strangelove, too! :D

(BTW - "Communist" in the context you used it in should be capitalized. At least, I assume you were referring to the USSR style Communism and not a hippie commune.)
 
Last edited:
I am not a fan of Open Carry. While it can certainly be a deterrence, it can also escalate a situation and make the person a target.
Scenerio is this:
Bad guy walks up to rob the liquor store. Sees a patron with a pistol on his hip. He has two choices. Walk away and find an easier target or blast away.
I feel it forces the hand of the criminal to go to the next step. I personally do not want to get shot in the back because I am seen as an obstacle.
 
Boo Radley said:
So, discussion is against the rules? You either tow the TD line or you have an agenda? Odd way of thinking you have.

:coffeepap
Click to expand...

I asked you waht your agenda is on guns-every gun thread you jump on it and chide gun owners for being fearful rather than actually directly take on the issue

What I see is someone who has a snarky disdain for gun owners based on an emotoresponse to the fact that most gun rights advocates are anti-left and that seems to motivate your ancillary attacks on them by claiming gun owners are fearful

Its sort of a hyena style attack by someone who realizes acting the part of the lion will get him stomped with facts
 
Chiefgator said:
I am not a fan of Open Carry. While it can certainly be a deterrence, it can also escalate a situation and make the person a target.
Scenariois this:
Bad guy walks up to rob the liquor store. Sees a patron with a pistol on his hip. He has two choices. Walk away and find an easier target or blast away.
I feel it forces the hand of the criminal to go to the next step. I personally do not want to get shot in the back because I am seen as an obstacle.
Click to expand...

You can't carry a gun into a liquor store, fyi, at least not in my state. If the establishment generates more than half of it's income from the sale of malt beverages or liquor, by law it is automatically a gun-free zone (exceptions exist). This is my favorite anti-gun law because I can still go into Safeway or Family Thrift's liquor department and buy alcohol while armed, but if I go next door to the actual liquor store, which is the same size as SW's or FT's liquor department, I would be committing a crime. Same part of town, same time of day, same person, same weapon, same CCW permit, same bottle of liquor...one door leads to responsible drinking, the other door leads to 1-10 years in jail.

But yes I understand the point you're making and I think it has merit.

For me, carrying open simply creates to much social tension, because people either panic at the very sight of a pistol, or they're infatuated and always want to ask why I think I need to carry a gun. Either way it makes life harder.

A gun on the hip should be as normal as a cell phone or molti-tool on the belt.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Because it's entertaining. I watch The Cosmos because it's also entertaining.

Do you watch and read only non-fiction material?


Ed:
Speaking of old Communist movies, I like Dr. Strangelove, too! :D

(BTW - "Communist" in the context you used it in should be capitalized. At least, I assume you were referring to the USSR style Communism and not a hippie commune.)
Click to expand...

You miss my point. I watch and read all kinds of fiction, which often requires the willing suspension of disbelief. But I don't pretend it represents reality, as some here are.

Yes, Dr. Strangelove is a classic. Though I like Fail Safe a little better.
 
TurtleDude said:
I asked you waht your agenda is on guns-every gun thread you jump on it and chide gun owners for being fearful rather than actually directly take on the issue

What I see is someone who has a snarky disdain for gun owners based on an emotoresponse to the fact that most gun rights advocates are anti-left and that seems to motivate your ancillary attacks on them by claiming gun owners are fearful

Its sort of a hyena style attack by someone who realizes acting the part of the lion will get him stomped with facts
Click to expand...

Is there an issue here? The question is what I think gun control should be. I stated that early on and merely follow the discussion as it goes.

But I have no disdain for gun owners, responsible gun owners. I have disdain for the mythology, the magical almost religious reverence some hold towards guns. There is a difference.

:coffeepap
 
I prefer more Gun education than more Gun control.
 
Jerry said:
You can't carry a gun into a liquor store, fyi, at least not in my state. If the establishment generates more than half of it's income from the sale of malt beverages or liquor, by law it is automatically a gun-free zone (exceptions exist). This is my favorite anti-gun law because I can still go into Safeway or Family Thrift's liquor department and buy alcohol while armed, but if I go next door to the actual liquor store, which is the same size as SW's or FT's liquor department, I would be committing a crime. Same part of town, same time of day, same person, same weapon, same CCW permit, same bottle of liquor...one door leads to responsible drinking, the other door leads to 1-10 years in jail.

But yes I understand the point you're making and I think it has merit.

For me, carrying open simply creates to much social tension, because people either panic at the very sight of a pistol, or they're infatuated and always want to ask why I think I need to carry a gun. Either way it makes life harder.

A gun on the hip should be as normal as a cell phone or molti-tool on the belt.
Click to expand...

I don't want to derail the discussion, but it is perfectly legal to carry in a liquor store in FLorida. The law you state is for establishments that sell liquor for Consumption on the Premises. You state may be different. You might want to check.

Agree with all of your other statements however.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom