• 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!

Gun Control

Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 39.9%

  • No

    Votes: 74 50.0%

  • Others

    Votes: 15 10.1%
  • Total voters
    148
TurtleDude said:
its amazing how many of the Obama slurpers attacked me for saying that Obama is anti gun and would try to instigate attacks on gun owners if he got a second term.

oh well 20 years after 1994 would be a good time for a major ass kicking of gun haters in congress-especially now that the supreme court's ruling in heller is going to make it tough for lower courts (which they could do pre heller) to find that bans are acceptable
Click to expand...


Nice hysterics there Mr TurtleDude, but the article mentions nothing about attacks on gun owners.
 
lizzie said:
Gun rights are not dependent on need, but only the existence of the constitutional right to own firearms.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I would not call it a constitutional right. It is a human right, which we would still have even if there were no constitution.
 
Boo Radley said:
Most likely an editorial by someone who loves a good conspiracy.
Click to expand...

its funny how the anti gun groups work

some scream for bans, and the others merely demand "reasonable controls" made to look more reasonable by the extremism of their fellow travelers. others call those of us who note what the gun haters are up to "paranoid" or worse. Its common for the gun haters to say that no one wants to take your guns or that "registration" is not confiscation. Too bad for you we understand history.
 
Boo Radley said:
If that makes you feel better. But frankly, there is much less need for one today.
Click to expand...

that is funny given how many of your fellow travelers complain about all the murders in this country. and with more technology, the power of the state continues to grow. I understand you see that as a positive development.
 
Federalist said:
I agree, but I would not call it a constitutional right. It is a human right, which we would still have even if there were no constitution.
Click to expand...

But if it were a human right, with no legal enforcement capability, that right would be essentially meaningless, depending on the whims of those in power.
 
Catawba said:
Nice hysterics there Mr TurtleDude, but the article mentions nothing about attacks on gun owners.
Click to expand...

the only hysterics I see comes from people like you who want to use a tragedy that could not have been prevented by your beloved gun control schemes in an effort to punish people like me who are gun owners and hostile to your far left agenda
 
Catawba said:
Nice hysterics there Mr TurtleDude, but the article mentions nothing about attacks on gun owners.
Click to expand...

BTW gun control as your side frames it-IS AN ATTACK ON GUN OWNERS
 
lizzie said:
Gun rights are not dependent on need, but only the existence of the constitutional right to own firearms.
Click to expand...

I agree and said the same thing earlier.
 
lizzie said:
But if it were a human right, with no legal enforcement capability, that right would be essentially meaningless, depending on the whims of those in power.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here as well. It IS a human right, and we are fortunate that the law of land recognizes it as such (at least for the time being).
 
TurtleDude said:
its funny how the anti gun groups work

some scream for bans, and the others merely demand "reasonable controls" made to look more reasonable by the extremism of their fellow travelers. others call those of us who note what the gun haters are up to "paranoid" or worse. Its common for the gun haters to say that no one wants to take your guns or that "registration" is not confiscation. Too bad for you we understand history.
Click to expand...

Show me where in our history that we've banned all weapons. I'd be interested in seeing that.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is funny given how many of your fellow travelers complain about all the murders in this country. and with more technology, the power of the state continues to grow. I understand you see that as a positive development.
Click to expand...

Don't care much one way or another, a fact is just a fact.
 
TurtleDude said:
the only hysterics I see comes from people like you who want to use a tragedy that could not have been prevented by your beloved gun control schemes in an effort to punish people like me who are gun owners and hostile to your far left agenda
Click to expand...

You like playing the victim in every circumstance don't you? Relax Mr. TurtleDude, no one has proposed any punishment for you.
 
TurtleDude said:
BTW gun control as your side frames it-IS AN ATTACK ON GUN OWNERS
Click to expand...

Show me the current legislation proposed that attacks gun owners?
 
Catawba said:
Show me the current legislation proposed that attacks gun owners?
Click to expand...
Google "Connecticut's Assault Weapon Ban", read the text of the law, and that's your answer.
 
Boo Radley said:
Show me where in our history that we've banned all weapons. I'd be interested in seeing that.
Click to expand...


there are several of you who think that as long as some weapons are allowed then our rights have not been infringed You also are ignoring the fact that anti gun nutcases know they cannot immediately ban everything. that is why the patron saint of the gun hater movement-the late Pete Shields-admitted that an incremental approach to bannings was most likely to be effective.


In 1934 the NFA not only imposed an extremely expensive tax on automatic weapons, it allowed local law enforcement officers to refuse ownership for any reason or no reason at all. that was a de facto ban in many cases.

then we had the ban on importing certain handguns in 1960 including some high quality weapons like the famous Walther PPK pistol. then in 1986, the dems, in a craven attempt to derail the McClure Volker act, attached a poison pill that most likely was not properly introduced or passed called the hughes amendment which banned the sale and possession of any automatic weapon registered (ie by the manufacturer with the ATF) after May 19, 1986 and this drove up the cost of most already registered weapons of a minimum of 5000 dollars. then we had the GHWB order (based on a new ATF interpretation of what is "sporting purpose) banning importation of certain rifles (18 USC 922 codified this-which is why imported AK rifles have to have a certain number of american made parts to be legal). Then CLinton banned all imports from China that involve weapons or ammo and then his Gun ban
 
Catawba said:
Show me the current legislation proposed that attacks gun owners?
Click to expand...

every year nut case democrats introduce bans on semi auto sporting firearms. Diane FineSwine has promised to introduce another ban in back when she helped get the first one passed, she admitted she wanted to seize all those that were currently owned at the time. Weren't you one of the obama supporters who claimed Obama and the dems were not anti gun?
 
I'm sure we'll be seeing so many on the left gleefully quoting Benjamin Franklin and Martin Niemoller over the next few weeks/months during the debate to institute restrictions upon the 2nd amendment in hopes of protecting the children. I got so used to seeing it tossed out over the past decade, I'd be disappointed to see it magically not appear.
 
iliveonramen said:
It was done in the 1930's with submachine guns. They ended up off the street and there were no added actions against the ownership of other weapons.
Click to expand...

Good. So we are still there, no automatic, or select fire weapons, have been added. The "assualt weapon" is nothing that did not exist before.
 
TurtleDude said:
there are several of you who think that as long as some weapons are allowed then our rights have not been infringed You also are ignoring the fact that anti gun nutcases know they cannot immediately ban everything. that is why the patron saint of the gun hater movement-the late Pete Shields-admitted that an incremental approach to bannings was most likely to be effective.


In 1934 the NFA not only imposed an extremely expensive tax on automatic weapons, it allowed local law enforcement officers to refuse ownership for any reason or no reason at all. that was a de facto ban in many cases.

then we had the ban on importing certain handguns in 1960 including some high quality weapons like the famous Walther PPK pistol. then in 1986, the dems, in a craven attempt to derail the McClure Volker act, attached a poison pill that most likely was not properly introduced or passed called the hughes amendment which banned the sale and possession of any automatic weapon registered (ie by the manufacturer with the ATF) after May 19, 1986 and this drove up the cost of most already registered weapons of a minimum of 5000 dollars. then we had the GHWB order (based on a new ATF interpretation of what is "sporting purpose) banning importation of certain rifles (18 USC 922 codified this-which is why imported AK rifles have to have a certain number of american made parts to be legal). Then CLinton banned all imports from China that involve weapons or ammo and then his Gun ban
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the words well regulated allows for some restrictions. And we've seen such restrictions almost sense the beginning. That genie isn't going back into the bottle. But we've never been close to banning all guns. That's just a fact.
 
Boo Radley said:
As I understand it, the words well regulated allows for some restrictions. And we've seen such restrictions almost sense the beginning. That genie isn't going back into the bottle. But we've never been close to banning all guns. That's just a fact.
Click to expand...


that is idiotic, for you to say that you have to claim that part of the bill of rights is a delegation of power to the federal government.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is idiotic, for you to say that you have to claim that part of the bill of rights is a delegation of power to the federal government.
Click to expand...

Not following you. Can you restate?
 
Boo Radley said:
Not following you. Can you restate?
Click to expand...

I believe what he's suggesting is that the Bill of Rights tells the government what it can't do, not what it can do.

You're suggesting that the 2nd amendment specifically tells the government it CAN regulate the right to bear arms. IE, that's not something he likely believes is indicated in other parts of the Constitution as an ability of the federal government, and thus the only place you're deriving that ability from is the 2nd amendment within the Bill of Rights. Thus, he's suggesting the notion that the 2nd gives the government the ability to regulate peoples bearing of arms is out of place with the notion that the Bill of Rights tells the government what they CAN'T do rather than what they can.
 
Zyphlin said:
I believe what he's suggesting is that the Bill of Rights tells the government what it can't do, not what it can do.

You're suggesting that the 2nd amendment specifically tells the government it CAN regulate the right to bear arms. IE, that's not something he likely believes is indicated in other parts of the Constitution as an ability of the federal government, and thus the only place you're deriving that ability from is the 2nd amendment within the Bill of Rights. Thus, he's suggesting the notion that the 2nd gives the government the ability to regulate peoples bearing of arms is out of place with the notion that the Bill of Rights tells the government what they CAN'T do rather than what they can.
Click to expand...

Ok. But I do be the argument has been used to justify regulations we have, and was argued before most of us were born.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom