• 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.
beerftw said:
did your just fancyfy all your words and use so many so to do the exact same thing if you had just said "no turdle dude your wrong"


never get why liberals think talking more like a college grad makes their point more or less valid.
Click to expand...

I want him to understand why he is wrong. Not sure he understands. ;)
 
Captain America said:
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.
Click to expand...
almost everybody can easily have a gun here if he applies for a gun license and so lots of potential killers may have a gun ,all kind of citizens are free enough to arm themselves,and this is very disturbing and the reason why i dont like the gun rights
 
Medusa said:
but how can you know that one having gun will use that right just for self protection?
Click to expand...

You don't. You don't know what anyone will do until they do it.

How do we know you're not going to beat some random stranger to death with a brick? We don't.

But we don't get to act on the assumption that you are going to do such a thing, until you actually do it, or at least give us some good cause to believe that you intend to do such a thing. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a foundation of our justice system. We do not get to treat someone as a criminal until he has, in fact, been proven to be a criminal.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
You don't. You don't know what anyone will do until they do it.

How do we know you're not going to beat some random stranger to death with a brick? We don't.

But we don't get to act on the assumption that you are going to do such a thing, until you actually do it, or at least give us some good cause to believe that you intend to do such a thing. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a foundation of our justice system. We do not get to treat someone as a criminal until he has, in fact, been proven to be a criminal.
Click to expand...

partly i agree with you, a justice system must be as you describe,but flexible laws may encourage the ones who tend to commit a crime to do it easily .
 
Medusa said:
partly i agree with you, a justice system must be as you describe,but flexible laws may encourage the ones who tend to commit a crime to do it easily .
Click to expand...

Under the principles upon which this nation was founded, we don't get to abridge someone's rights because we think he might commit a crime. What you call “flexible laws” that “may encourage the ones who tend to commit a crime to do it easily”, we call “freedom”. The vast majority of us do not ever, in our entire lifetimes, commit serious crimes. Those few who do, don't do so because the laws are too “flexible”. To make us less free does nothing to protect those of us who are not criminally-inclined from those who are, and even if it did, it's not consistent with the values on which this nation was founded. As one of the great men who founded this nation wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
 
TurtleDude said:
You still confuse a right with someone's misuse of an object



and what is your purpose with calling slain children Heroes of the second amendment
Click to expand...

Misuse? What misuse. A firearm is made to shoot a projectile and hit an object. That is its intended use. To use it to nail something into apiece of wood might be a misuse. But to intentionally fire a bullet from it by squeezing a trigger is exactly the way it is suppose to be used. One cannot separate the object from the right to keep and bear that same object because that is the language of the Second Amendment. Or are you going to tell us that the Second Amendment is only to keep and bear arms but not fire them? That would be absurd.

My purpose of calling the high school kids killed in Ohio heroes of the Second Amendment is because that is what they are. All of us live in a society where the Second Amendment is in effect. Part of that is the fact that in some areas there are more firearms than there are actual people. The proliferation of firearms means that we live in a society with a large number of firearms owned by a very large number of people. Connect the dots.

You were afraid to answer my question before so Captain America did it for you. If there were no guns, there could be no American shot here. If there were but a single gun in the land, it could be easily controlled and there would be no large numbers of people killed each year with firearms. Same if there were but one gun per state. But that is not the reality of America. The reality of America is that we have a Second Amendment and we have millions upon million of guns and we have simply crossed over the tipping point with them. We now get all kinds of collateral damage from them. And we all live with the possibility that we can become collateral damage at any time on any day for almost any reason beyond our own control.

The kids at Columbine suffered that fate.
The kids in Ohio suffered that fate.
The adults at Virginia Tech.
I could add to that list from the historical record but the point is made.

This is the America we live in. As such, this is a reality we accept. So that the good of the Second Amendment can be present in America - and I have repeatedly stated that on balance the Second Amendment is more good than bad - and the good things associated with the right to keep and bear arms can work in the land, we accept the collateral damage. We accept the reality that our children can die at any die for reasons that are senseless to us. We accept the reality people will commit crimes with guns, that people will commit suicide with guns, that there will be accidents with guns - and we all know the results. So we are all potential heroes of the Second Amendment in that we permit this, we allow this, we tolerate this, we accept this as American citizens. And when innocent citizens actually pay the price of that right to keep and bear arms with their own lives, they are true heroes.

Turtle - it does not matter if you agree with me or not on this issue. It does not matter if you accept my explanation on this issue. It is irrelevant if you do or not.

One cannot do as you have clearly stated and operate under the false self imposed belief that the Second Amendment is a pure good - a mitzvah - from which no bad can happen or flow. There are good advantages to the Second Amendment and there are negatives to the second Amendment. It is not the mitzvah or a Pure Good you believe it to be. No work of man can be for we are human and to be human is to err sometimes.

Some of your fellow posters who are very supportive of weapons have seen this argument and side with it. What prevents you from seeing reality?
 
Boo Radley said:
Then you should listen to what the claims are. Please point to where I said banning guns would end crime.

And no, you can't prove that. You think you can, because a few causal relationship error filled reports tell you that, but they don't hold up (hint look up causal relationship fallacy).

So, to recap, you inaccurately guess at my claim, which is odd because it means you have either not read what you quoted, or the meaning escapes you. And secondly, you don't know the weakness in your own claim.

But, go ahead, throw an insult about how dumb everyone else is.

:coffeepap
Click to expand...


we can prove gun laws that apply only to honest people do cause us hassles

You cannot prove those laws deter crime

you fail the burden of proof
 
haymarket said:
Misuse? What misuse. A firearm is made to shoot a projectile and hit an object. That is its intended use. To use it to nail something into apiece of wood might be a misuse. But to intentionally fire a bullet from it by squeezing a trigger is exactly the way it is suppose to be used. One cannot separate the object from the right to keep and bear that same object because that is the language of the Second Amendment. Or are you going to tell us that the Second Amendment is only to keep and bear arms but not fire them? That would be absurd.

My purpose of calling the high school kids killed in Ohio heroes of the Second Amendment is because that is what they are. All of us live in a society where the Second Amendment is in effect. Part of that is the fact that in some areas there are more firearms than there are actual people. The proliferation of firearms means that we live in a society with a large number of firearms owned by a very large number of people. Connect the dots.

You were afraid to answer my question before so Captain America did it for you. If there were no guns, there could be no American shot here. If there were but a single gun in the land, it could be easily controlled and there would be no large numbers of people killed each year with firearms. Same if there were but one gun per state. But that is not the reality of America. The reality of America is that we have a Second Amendment and we have millions upon million of guns and we have simply crossed over the tipping point with them. We now get all kinds of collateral damage from them. And we all live with the possibility that we can become collateral damage at any time on any day for almost any reason beyond our own control.

The kids at Columbine suffered that fate.
The kids in Ohio suffered that fate.
The adults at Virginia Tech.
I could add to that list from the historical record but the point is made.

This is the America we live in. As such, this is a reality we accept. So that the good of the Second Amendment can be present in America - and I have repeatedly stated that on balance the Second Amendment is more good than bad - and the good things associated with the right to keep and bear arms can work in the land, we accept the collateral damage. We accept the reality that our children can die at any die for reasons that are senseless to us. We accept the reality people will commit crimes with guns, that people will commit suicide with guns, that there will be accidents with guns - and we all know the results. So we are all potential heroes of the Second Amendment in that we permit this, we allow this, we tolerate this, we accept this as American citizens. And when innocent citizens actually pay the price of that right to keep and bear arms with their own lives, they are true heroes.

Turtle - it does not matter if you agree with me or not on this issue. It does not matter if you accept my explanation on this issue. It is irrelevant if you do or not.

One cannot do as you have clearly stated and operate under the false self imposed belief that the Second Amendment is a pure good - a mitzvah - from which no bad can happen or flow. There are good advantages to the Second Amendment and there are negatives to the second Amendment. It is not the mitzvah or a Pure Good you believe it to be. No work of man can be for we are human and to be human is to err sometimes.

Some of your fellow posters who are very supportive of weapons have seen this argument and side with it. What prevents you from seeing reality?
Click to expand...

that is just stupid. Victims are not heroes.

You want to smear the right with dead kids
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Under the principles upon which this nation was founded, we don't get to abridge someone's rights because we think he might commit a crime. What you call “flexible laws” that “may encourage the ones who tend to commit a crime to do it easily”, we call “freedom”. The vast majority of us do not ever, in our entire lifetimes, commit serious crimes. Those few who do, don't do so because the laws are too “flexible”. To make us less free does nothing to protect those of us who are not criminally-inclined from those who are, and even if it did, it's not consistent with the values on which this nation was founded. As one of the great men who founded this nation wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Click to expand...

i respect all founders,but the conditions have changed since he said these words.we are living in a crazy world in which lots of people have enough freedom to decide to kill someone or not and many liberties which you call freedom (and i call flexible laws)may end one's right to live in safety.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is just stupid. Victims are not heroes.

You want to smear the right with dead kids
Click to expand...

This is Typical Turtle Talk. I give you a solid case based on reality, based on history, based on facts, based on analysis and based on evidence. You respond with personal pontifications that do not even speak to the points raised.

I do no smear anyone. I did not kill those children. You conveniently seem to overlook that vital connection.

I have not and do not advocate taking away anyone's Second Amendment rights. You also conveniently overlook that fact as well in your effort to attack and demonize me.

Why?
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
Under the principles upon which this nation was founded, we don't get to abridge someone's rights because we think he might commit a crime.
Click to expand...

If rights could be abridged based on some people being irresponsible, we'd have no cars, alcohol, etc etc etc.
 
haymarket said:
This is Typical Turtle Talk. I give you a solid case based on reality, based on history, based on facts, based on analysis and based on evidence. You respond with personal pontifications that do not even speak to the points raised.

I do no smear anyone. I did not kill those children. You conveniently seem to overlook that vital connection.

I have not and do not advocate taking away anyone's Second Amendment rights. You also conveniently overlook that fact as well in your effort to attack and demonize me.

Why?
Click to expand...


No you didn't. Your claim is silly. Innocent victims are not the same as heroes. And the second amendment didn't kill those children nor did those children die because of our rights. Those children died because some asshole illegally shot them to death with a gun he couldn't legally possess
 
ecofarm said:
If rights could be abridged based on some people being irresponsible, we'd have no cars, alcohol, etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

All rights are indeed abridged because some people are irresponsible. Read the First Amendment. It clearly states that Congress shall make NO LAW in certain areas of freedom - two of which are speech and press. But yet, e have laws against the irresponsible use of these rights - slander and libel. Of course, we place limits on rights.
 
haymarket said:
All rights are indeed abridged because some people are irresponsible. Read the First Amendment. It clearly states that Congress shall make NO LAW in certain areas of freedom - two of which are speech and press. But yet, e have laws against the irresponsible use of these rights - slander and libel. Of course, we place limits on rights.
Click to expand...

duh that is obvious but tell me why are slain victims "heroes" and why is the second amendment the issue with you rather than same a memorial to victims
 
haymarket said:
I do no smear anyone. I did not kill those children. You conveniently seem to overlook that vital connection.
Click to expand...

Wait, what?

What, then, is 'Typical Turtle Talk', and are you accusing TD of thinking that you killed children?
 
TurtleDude said:
No you didn't. Your claim is silly. Innocent victims are not the same as heroes. And the second amendment didn't kill those children nor did those children die because of our rights. Those children died because some asshole illegally shot them to death with a gun he couldn't legally possess
Click to expand...

Nobody said the amendment killed anyone.

It has been explained to you that legality or illegality is irrelevant. We as a society recognize that there will be illegality. We as a society recognize that there will be the asshole. And we still preserve the right just the same. We all live with that knowledge. We all live with that reality. We support it. And some pay the ultimate price for it.

And they are heroes.
 
haymarket said:
Nobody said the amendment killed anyone.

It has been explained to you that legality or illegality is irrelevant. We as a society recognize that there will be illegality. We as a society recognize that there will be the asshole. And we still preserve the right just the same. We all live with that knowledge. We all live with that reality. We support it. And some pay the ultimate price for it.

And they are heroes.
Click to expand...

that is the idiocy of your position-they are not heroes but victims and they didn't pay the price for us having a second amendment. You are trying to claim that if there was no second amendment there would be no innocents killed by whackos. That is a false assumption

and you clearly are trying to impose a feeling of guilt on gun owners with your nonsense
 
ecofarm said:
Wait, what?

What, then, is 'Typical Turtle Talk', and are you accusing TD of thinking that you killed children?
Click to expand...

Please see my post 1059 which details a point by point case. Then see the Turtle response, post 1061, in which he simply attacks it without any actual debate involved of any kid stating his usual talking points.

Turtle is accusing me of smearing the Second Amendment. If the second amendment has been smeared because of the killing of the three in Ohio, it was not me who did it.
 
haymarket said:
Please see my post 1059 which details a point by point case. Then see the Turtle response, post 1061, in which he simply attacks it without any actual debate involved of any kid stating his usual talking points.

Turtle is accusing me of smearing the Second Amendment. If the second amendment has been smeared because of the killing of the three in Ohio, it was not me who did it.
Click to expand...

the only people smearing the second amendment or claiming that the existence of the second amendment had some role in the killings are anti gun extremists
 
TurtleDude said:
that is the idiocy of your position-they are not heroes but victims and they didn't pay the price for us having a second amendment. You are trying to claim that if there was no second amendment there would be no innocents killed by whackos. That is a false assumption

and you clearly are trying to impose a feeling of guilt on gun owners with your nonsense
Click to expand...

No. I never claimed that either. Perhaps you can quote where I said that.

If somebody feels guilt or not is not for me to say.
 
haymarket said:
All rights are indeed abridged because some people are irresponsible. Read the First Amendment. It clearly states that Congress shall make NO LAW in certain areas of freedom - two of which are speech and press. But yet, e have laws against the irresponsible use of these rights - slander and libel. Of course, we place limits on rights.
Click to expand...

Slander is being irresponsible with a right. That is, to infringe excessively on the right of another in the exercise of ones own. All rights are subject to limitation resulting from other rights. The point you missed is that limiting a right due to the chance that someone might irresponsibly use it... does not work. You lost the context of "limiting rights because someone might abuse it" and went to "all rights have limitations". The point is, we cannot limit the legitimate rights of some because others are/might be irresponsible.


haymarket said:
Please see my post 1059 which details a point by point case. Then see the Turtle response, post 1061, in which he simply attacks it without any actual debate involved of any kid stating his usual talking points.
Click to expand...

I shan't review the nonsense. Is "Typical Turtle Talk" a smear or not?
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
the only people smearing the second amendment or claiming that the existence of the second amendment had some role in the killings are anti gun extremists
Click to expand...

And that is not me. I support the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear and use arms.

It is sad that instead of debating the issue, you have to resort to demonizing people who disagree with you and lying about their beliefs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom