• 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
iacardsfan said:
I have always been against guns, not to the extent of repealing the 2nd amendment, but to limiting it. Times have clearly changed , they did not have assault rifles back then. It was common for people to have guns because we relied on militias.
Click to expand...

True, they did not. However, until 1903, every adult male was considered to be part of the militia. The standing military was first line of defense, the militia (all adult male citizens) were the reserve and home guard. All adult male citizens were part of the military, just not active or standing, and were required to have personal weapons to fulfill a military role.

Because their intent was for all adult male citizens to be part of the military and fulfill a roll in the nations defense, then had there been assault rifles, they would not of banned them, they would of encouraged ownership of them. What good is a militiaman if he doesn't have military style/grade weapons?
 
Cephus said:
Everybody dies. Do they have their liberty taken away if they die by natural causes? Seems absurd.
Click to expand...

I believe the 26 people in Connecticut including 20 first graders did not "die by natural causes".
 
Catawba said:
"insure domestic Tranquility"
Click to expand...

Others have pointed out one fallacy of this.

What proof do you have that restrictive gun laws "insure domestic Tranquility?

Evidence from before 1903 and after, would suggest that restrictive gun laws can have just the opposite affect. I'm am not referring to just the 1903 law, but the entire history. Social factors seem to have a much larger affect upon "domestic tranquility" than gun laws.

And how much "domestic tranquility" are you going to have when gun owners start defending their right to own guns when the government tries to take them away?
 
VanceMack said:
Gun Incidents -

Welcome to gun free England...

Just a taste...
NOVEMBER 2012



Click Liverpool, 26 November 2012

A 31-year-old man has died after he was shot at least five times as he sat in his car outside his home in Wavertree, Merseyside. He was believed to have been attacked by two men who were waiting outside the property in a stolen car that was later abandoned and set alight. The victim was taken to hospital after being shot in the head, chest and arms but died from his wounds seven days later.

Nottingham Post, 20 November 2012

A man has died after he was shot with a firearm in Bilborough, Nottingham. He was found collapsed on the road by a local resident and taken to hospital by ambulance, but later died from his injuries. A 32-year-old man has been arrested in connection with the death.

Eastern Daily Press, 11 November 2012

A 60-year-old man has died from a gunshot wound to the head outside a hotel in Titchwell, Norfolk. Emergency services were called after the man was seen walking into the car park with a firearm, but were unable to resuscitate the victim.

BBC News, 5 November 2012

A male police officer has died in a firearms incident at a police station in Glasgow, Strathclyde. No one else is believed to have been involved in the shooting. Officers from another police force have begun an investigation into the circumstances of his death.

OCTOBER 2012



The Star, 26 October 2012

A 42-year-old man who was shot in the chest in the doorway of his home in Wath-upon-Dearne, South Yorkshire in September (see September incidents) has died in hospital. Two men have been arrested in connection with the murder, which police believe was a targeted attack.

Liverpool Echo, 19 October 2012

A 54-year-old man has died after he was shot in the head at a house Huyton, Merseyside. Officers who were called to the scene recovered two handguns and an alleged quantity of drugs at the property but made no arrests. An inquest into the death was begun and has been adjourned.

SEPTEMBER 2012



Daily Mail, 20 September 2012

Two female police officers, aged 23 and 32, were killed while working in Hattersley, Greater Manchester. The unarmed officers were allegedly tricked into going to the property by false reports of a burglary where they were met with a gunfire and grenade attack. A 50k-volt taser was recovered from the scene which the victims may have attempted to discharge to stop the attack. A man who had been wanted for two previous shooting murders of a father and son and 4 attempted murders (see August Incidents), presented himself for arrest at a police station in the city soon after the incident. A 15-year-old boy was later arrested at a school in the area on suspicion of assisting in the attack but has been released on bail (Metro, 22 September 2012).

Southend Standard, 7 September 2012

A mother and son have been found shot dead at the woman's home in Crays Hill, Essex. The son is thought to have been battling a heroin addiction and police are not looking for anyone else in connection with the shooting. An unlicensed gun was recovered from the property.
Click to expand...





If you would have listed a few more, you would have included all the homicides in the England in 2012. The US has about 100 times as many homicides by guns each year.
 
Catawba said:
If you would have listed a few more, you would have included all the homicides in the England in 2012. The US has about 100 times as many homicides by guns each year.
Click to expand...
Actually...the weblink does. I posted a snippet. Try again.
 
DVSentinel said:
And how much "domestic tranquility" are you going to have when gun owners start defending their right to own guns when the government tries to take them away?
Click to expand...

You mean like the civil war that broke out the last time assault weapons were banned? :)
 
VanceMack said:
Actually...the weblink does. I posted a snippet. Try again.
Click to expand...


The web link does what, shows that England has a fraction of the homicides by guns per year compared to the US?
 
Catawba said:
You mean like the civil war that broke out the last time assault weapons were banned? :)
Click to expand...

"Assault weapons" have never been baned. The sale of imported assault style "weapons" were baned. Plenty of Domestic produced ones were still on the market. Also, here you are mentioning only one type of gun, but your previous posts leads one to believe that you are seeking the ban of all guns.

How many of the "massacres" have been carried out with only "assault" style weapons?

A ban on "assault" style "weapons" may lead to violence, even revolution, depending on what is labeled as "assault weapons".

Also you cannot ban assault weapons. As I have pointed out before, only a human mind can be a weapon, everything else is inanimate tools used by that weapon.
 
Catawba said:
The web link does what, shows that England has a fraction of the homicides by guns per year compared to the US?
Click to expand...
Shows that even with 'bans' you can never be 'safe', and that even on an island, people find a way to access weapons and kill people.

Oh...wait...I REMEMBER now...You LIKE shotguns...
The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre and the 1996 Dunblane massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British history.
 
Catawba said:
The web link does what, shows that England has a fraction of the homicides by guns per year compared to the US?
Click to expand...

That is still a lot for a "gunless" society.

Yes, Americans use more guns in attacks, do you have any evidence that there is a lower rate of violent attacks?

How many of those Homicides occurred against unarmed victims and victims in areas where carrying defensive weapons were not allowed?

Other than banning gun ownership, which you have been shown many times is not a possibility, do you have any other method of reducing violent crime in America? You have also been shown, that broader availability/ownership and unrestricted carry has indeed resulted in low murder rates. You continue to reject the proven method but instead focus upon an impossible method. Where is an alternative?
 
VanceMack said:
Shows that even with 'bans' you can never be 'safe', and that even on an island, people find a way to access weapons and kill people.

Oh...wait...I REMEMBER now...You LIKE shotguns...
The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre and the 1996 Dunblane massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British history.
Click to expand...


And what were the total homicides with guns in 2010 in the UK? In 2009, it was 39 total for the year! No one has suggested that you must always be 'safe', we are just talking about reducing 10,000 homicides each year with guns.

So unless you gun rights people can get something implemented to reduce the numbers, the people and their representatives will do what we think will help reduce the numbers.

What you guys got going?
 
Cephus said:
Actually, the original intent of the 2nd amendment was not for personal rights.
Click to expand...
Actually it was. The Framers believed that the citizenry armed held the ultimate sovereign power.

It was written before the advent of a standing army,
Click to expand...
This is not true. An armed citizenry was the antidote to a standing army. The rebellious colonists had been oppressed by standing armies. To say that the right to keep and bear arms was written before standing armies turns history on its head.

when every able-bodied man (okay, let's be honest, every able-bodied white land-owning man) was expected to maintain a firearm and come forward in times of crisis to protect their homes, towns and nation. Every man was, by definition, part of the militia and had to provide their own weapons.
Click to expand...
See my first and second statements above. In the US sovereignty rests in the citizens. In other places it rests in the state.

That was the purpose of the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
The purpose was to provide a powerful antidote to tyranny. A state will find it exceptionally difficult to subjugate a free, armed people. Of course the Framers did not foresee the modern Democratic party and the massive administrative state. Who can avoid the tyranny of the EPA and now Obamacare?

However, times change and today, we have a standing military and an active police force, two things not forseen by the founding fathers.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. An armed citizenry is the antidote to the standing army. Far from being something they did not see it was a response to something they had seen and had been tyrannized by.

The modern-day Supreme Court's sole job is to interpret the Constitution in light of modern events, yet the farther we get from the days of the founding fathers, the less impact the founding documents can have on modern life because they just had no clue about the modern world. Given a modern army and police force, it's unlikely that the founding fathers would have taken the positions they did with the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
And here is the real goal. If you can just convince us that the Constitution should be bent to the popular will of a majority without going through the effort of amending the Constitution itself then Progressivism-socialism-liberalism will have won a very great victory. Then you can ride roughshod over the liberty of the people and the statist will be in the position to choose what rights the people may exercise.

I think we can make some good, logical reasons for personal gun ownership, but this mindless clinging to the 2nd amendment really is pretty pathetic.
Click to expand...

It is regrettable that you made such a mess of your arguments. All of them are wrong. All of them do damage to our history.
 
iacardsfan said:
Just wondering, do you think that those 26 people who died in CT had their liberties taken away? Liberty is a priority, everybody should have the liberty to live, those 26 didn't? Thoughts on that?
Click to expand...
No. They had their lives taken from them.

They and the adults responsible for their care and safety were disarmed by politicians who created gun free zones. The politicians who vote for a gun free zone and the politicians who vote to disarm the citizens are culpable and should be punished. They are second in line after the murderer when blame is placed.

Citizens who enable the politicians to disarm the citizens are third in line for blame.
 
iacardsfan said:
I have always been against guns, not to the extent of repealing the 2nd amendment, but to limiting it. Times have clearly changed , they did not have assault rifles back then. It was common for people to have guns because we relied on militias.
Click to expand...
This does violence to history. The Second Amendment was intended to arm the citizenry with the same weapons the infantry carried. WE have not kept pace.

There are bolt action weapons. They require that each bullet be loaded before firing with a maximum capacity of one bullet.
There are semiautomatic weapons. They can be loaded on Sunday and fired all week long. One trigger pull means one round down range.
There are automatic weapons. They can be loaded on Sunday and have options including semiautomatic, short (usually three round) burst and automatic. For semiautomatic one trigger pull causes on round to go down range. For short burst a trigger pull causes three rounds to go down range. For automatic as long as the trigger is pulled rounds will follow one after another until the rounds are expended.

"Assault" weapons are a political definition intended to dupe you into disarming because some weapons look frightening.

I am all for limiting access to guns myself. No politician should have access to guns or armed bodyguards. There. That is a reasonable first step to our disarmament.
 
Misterveritis said:
This does violence to history. The Second Amendment was intended to arm the citizenry with the same weapons the infantry carried. WE have not kept pace.
Click to expand...



If the right wing on guns truly believes that the American people will accept technology as the only limit on what guns are acceptable, or this meme that people need the same weapons as the military since the day of The Great Right Wing Revolution Where We Fight From Street To Street will someday arrive, they have a huge and ugly awakening ahead of them.
 
haymarket said:
If the right wing on guns truly believes that the American people will accept technology as the only limit on what guns are acceptable, or this meme that people need the same weapons as the military since the day of The Great Right Wing Revolution Where We Fight From Street To Street will someday arrive, they have a huge and ugly awakening ahead of them.
Click to expand...
This is where you are forced to go when you have to back away from an incorrect statement.

You could have just said, "You are right MisterVeritis, the Second Amendment was intended to arm the citizenry with the same weapons the infantry carried. We have not kept pace. "
 
Cephus said:
But once you take away the guns and the knives and the bomb-making chemicals in everyone's homes and cars, etc., you're still left with the PEOPLE! Why not stop worrying about all the things that can cause damage and deal with the actual problem?
Click to expand...

Because then they would have to realize that their argument works for everything.
 
haymarket said:
If the right wing on guns truly believes that the American people will accept technology as the only limit on what guns are acceptable, or this meme that people need the same weapons as the military since the day of The Great Right Wing Revolution Where We Fight From Street To Street will someday arrive, they have a huge and ugly awakening ahead of them.
Click to expand...

Or those who believe that a revolution is not brewing and not only possible, but becoming more and more likely will have even a bigger surprise, if or when it comes.

With the knowledge to build better weapons, all I need are the tools, why would I want the outdated old technology that we currently give our military? What limit is there on people to acquire the knowledge and tools needed? Their bank account is the only limit. Most of military's crap is old and was built by the lowest bidder to begin with.

How well has all the drones, tanks and aircraft done against the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan? That is only a few thousand insurgents, there are over 100 million gun owners in America. And a lot of them are military, prior military, law enforcement and prior law enforcement.

The best way for neither side to get a "surprise" is not push the issue in the first place.
 
Misterveritis said:
This is where you are forced to go when you have to back away from an incorrect statement.

You could have just said, "You are right MisterVeritis, the Second Amendment was intended to arm the citizenry with the same weapons the infantry carried. We have not kept pace. "
Click to expand...

I could also have said that the tri-cornerd hat was quite the rage when some people believed that quaint relic of ancient history.
 
haymarket said:
I could also have said that the tri-cornerd hat was quite the rage when some people believed that quaint relic of ancient history.
Click to expand...
I am curious. Why do you do this when you are clearly wrong? You could have just said, "You are right MisterVeritis, the Second Amendment was intended to arm the citizenry with the same weapons the infantry carried. We have not kept pace."

Do you have any evidence the Framers intended the citizenry to be armed with only obsolete, ineffective weapons?
 
Misterveritis said:
I am curious. Why do you do this when you are clearly wrong? You could have just said, "You are right MisterVeritis, the Second Amendment was intended to arm the citizenry with the same weapons the infantry carried. We have not kept pace."

Do you have any evidence the Framers intended the citizenry to be armed with only obsolete, ineffective weapons?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant and without any standing in this debate.

My evidence is the Second Amendment and what the words meant at the time of that era. What some individual may have believed is a nice anecdote of history but is irrelevant next to the Second Amendment.

But I think you should trumpet this stance to the high heavens and say it loud and say it proud as often as possible before the American people. I strongly and enthusiastically support your efforts to get that message out as the reason we should no nothing on this issue.
 
Earlier I wrote, "I am curious. Why do you do this when you are clearly wrong? You could have just said, "You are right MisterVeritis, the Second Amendment was intended to arm the citizenry with the same weapons the infantry carried. We have not kept pace."

Do you have any evidence the Framers intended the citizenry to be armed with only obsolete, ineffective weapons?"

haymarket said:
Irrelevant and without any standing in this debate.

My evidence is the Second Amendment and what the words meant at the time of that era. What some individual may have believed is a nice anecdote of history but is irrelevant next to the Second Amendment.

But I think you should trumpet this stance to the high heavens and say it loud and say it proud as often as possible before the American people. I strongly and enthusiastically support your efforts to get that message out as the reason we should no nothing on this issue.
Click to expand...

You should have said you had nothing and moved on.

Are you arguing that the Framers intended that citizens be armed with obsolete weapons Haymarket? Are you really?

Can you further expound on why you believe the Framers words mean anything other than what they wrote? If that is your interpretation are there other parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that you believe should be reframed away from what they wrote and more in line with your interpretation?
 
Catawba said:
And what were the total homicides with guns in 2010 in the UK? In 2009, it was 39 total for the year! No one has suggested that you must always be 'safe', we are just talking about reducing 10,000 homicides each year with guns.

So unless you gun rights people can get something implemented to reduce the numbers, the people and their representatives will do what we think will help reduce the numbers.

What you guys got going?
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting the numbers were comparable BEFORE the ban? :lamo

Nah...all it proves is that like your idiotic efforts, it doesn't stop mass killings. People find a way. Whether its Dunblane Scotland or China.
 
Misterveritis said:
Earlier I wrote, "I am curious. Why do you do this when you are clearly wrong? You could have just said, "You are right MisterVeritis, the Second Amendment was intended to arm the citizenry with the same weapons the infantry carried. We have not kept pace."

Do you have any evidence the Framers intended the citizenry to be armed with only obsolete, ineffective weapons?"



You should have said you had nothing and moved on.

Are you arguing that the Framers intended that citizens be armed with obsolete weapons Haymarket? Are you really?

Can you further expound on why you believe the Framers words mean anything other than what they wrote? If that is your interpretation are there other parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that you believe should be reframed away from what they wrote and more in line with your interpretation?
Click to expand...

How does you repeating the same nonsense provide substance to the same nonsense?

You asked your question. I answered it. What about that do you not comprehend?

My position is clear and unmistakable: The Second Amendment says what it says and no more and no less. For you or anybody else to pretend to tell me or anyone else what some individuals may have believed about their personal intent is irrelevant compared to the actual language which they gave us. They would not be the first people who wrote language which later came back to bite them in the ass because they failed to write it the way they thought they intended to.

Your problem is NOT with me. Your problem is with the language of the Second Amendment and it DOES NOT say what you want it to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom