• 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!

Would You Give Up Your Guns?

Would you comply with a gun ban?

  • Yes, I would.

    Votes: 11 16.7%
  • No, I would not.

    Votes: 55 83.3%

  • Total voters
    66
I call BS on that-lots of gun haters want to ban hunting how can you support "legitimate self defense" if you think honest people can be limited to 7 rounds 5 rounds, 3 rounds (Bloomturd's proposal one night on Night Line) etc

tell me why my argument that we should clearly allow all honest citizens of age and clean backgrounds to own the same defensive weapons cops have is improper

and how can a governmental entity honestly say that the stuff our tax dollars arms our civilian LEOs with "has not legitimate use" in the same society when owned by other civilians-many of whom are far better trained than cops (many of whom are not exactly in the front lines of crime fighting)

It's true you can someone against or for anything, but these "gun haters" are small in number. Don't be too literal.

And I've already addressed the cop question. Different job, different expectations, so they need more than you and me. You're drifting a bit, trying to just throw a bunch of silliness up. Go back over my argument.
 
In the hands of the American people, so that if necessary they can organized into a well-regulated militia, which is necessary to the security of a free state.
Umm, in that realm, who's regulating the well-regulated militia? And in what way are they regulated?
 
It's true you can someone against or for anything, but these "gun haters" are small in number. Don't be too literal.

And I've already addressed the cop question. Different job, different expectations, so they need more than you and me. You're drifting a bit, trying to just throw a bunch of silliness up. Go back over my argument.



you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of lethal confrontations and the advantage of an instigator has over someone who has to react. If anything those protecting their homes and businesses should have heavier and more effective weapons than cops because homeowners and business owners almost always are reacting to an attack rather than choosing the time and place to start a gun fight
 
Umm, in that realm, who's regulating the well-regulated militia? And in what way are they regulated?

what does that have to do with regulating an inalienable right of the citizens
 
Umm, in that realm, who's regulating the well-regulated militia? And in what way are they regulated?

Once formed into a militia, they were to be regulated by a well educated officer core. Regulated as in disciplined and orderly.
Different meaning than what you are implying.
 
Once formed into a militia, they were to be regulated by a well educated officer core. Regulated as in disciplined and orderly.
Different meaning than what you are implying.
Not really since there is no regulation in what you describe since there is no governing body to decide if said officer core is well educated, discaplined, orderly, or even competent. What you describe is self-regulation as defined by the militia itself, which may be anything but "well-regulated" but still considering itself "well-regulated." Shirley, there is a more clearly defined and enforceable description of "well-regulated militia."

Also seems your meaning is different from that of the Constitution, which stipulates the federal government regulates the militia.

 
Also seems your meaning is different from that of the Constitution, which stipulates the federal government regulates the militia.

Now that is a new one on me.

Here is the text:


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Where does it specify that the Federal Government is the one doing the regulating?
 
Umm, in that realm, who's regulating the well-regulated militia? And in what way are they regulated?

You might want to do some further research into what the authors meant by the term "well-regulated". It meant "properly functioning" or "in good working order".

The founders knew that a properly functioning militia is necessary to the security of a free state, therefore, they forbade interfering with the people's right to keep and bear militarily relevant arms.
 
you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of lethal confrontations and the advantage of an instigator has over someone who has to react. If anything those protecting their homes and businesses should have heavier and more effective weapons than cops because homeowners and business owners almost always are reacting to an attack rather than choosing the time and place to start a gun fight

I still can't get over the fact I've never had to have a gun. Never knew anyone who did. And know statistically, dogs work better. And nothing works better than being smart. Sorry, I don't really buy your argument at all.
 
I still can't get over the fact I've never had to have a gun. Never knew anyone who did. And know statistically, dogs work better. And nothing works better than being smart. Sorry, I don't really buy your argument at all.

I've had to use one of my guns to protect my dogs. Any Coyote that gets that close to them has to be Rabid and it was better for me to shoot it than let it nearer to my dogs.
 
To clarify, I think most people would hide them.

If you hide them, they are no good to you, when you really need them. What must we resort to the use of bows and arrows and crossbows? I am pretty good with my crossbow, and it has a red dot sight, but it is hard to reload quickly. So I suppose I need to buy at least 5 more crossbows for home defense from criminals.
 
If you hide them, they are no good to you, when you really need them. What must we resort to the use of bows and arrows and crossbows? I am pretty good with my crossbow, and it has a red dot sight, but it is hard to reload quickly. So I suppose I need to buy at least 5 more crossbows for home defense from criminals.

I didn't mean in some sort of hidden panel or obscure location, just that people would claim to not have them and keep them out of sight. It might make them slightly less accessible, but if they were outlawed that would really be the only option. If you were to openly store, transport, or carry them they would be taken and you would most likely go to jail.
 
I've had to use one of my guns to protect my dogs. Any Coyote that gets that close to them has to be Rabid and it was better for me to shoot it than let it nearer to my dogs.

Go no problem with that.
 
I didn't mean in some sort of hidden panel or obscure location, just that people would claim to not have them and keep them out of sight. It might make them slightly less accessible, but if they were outlawed that would really be the only option. If you were to openly store, transport, or carry them they would be taken and you would most likely go to jail.

Not sure where you're from, but Virginia allows concealed carry permits. I had a ccw for years, just so I could carry a weapon in the truck, but since I used to work for the government, I was never allowed to carry in the vehicle. I eventually just let my ccw lapse and never renewed, mainly because Obama got re-elected. Virginia is an open-carry state, as well, and right now, I don't see any of the 23 executive actions affecting anything in Virginia.
 
Not sure where you're from, but Virginia allows concealed carry permits. I had a ccw for years, just so I could carry a weapon in the truck, but since I used to work for the government, I was never allowed to carry in the vehicle. I eventually just let my ccw lapse and never renewed, mainly because Obama got re-elected. Virginia is an open-carry state, as well, and right now, I don't see any of the 23 executive actions affecting anything in Virginia.

Again this is just a what if, asking what people would do if a full ban ever took place. Such a ban would outlaw guns, so the way you carry would not matter. This poll has nothing to do the current legislation or executive orders.
 
Again this is just a what if, asking what people would do if a full ban ever took place. Such a ban would outlaw guns, so the way you carry would not matter. This poll has nothing to do the current legislation or executive orders.

I would see a ban like this causing an all out civil war. You already have sherrif's and law enforcement officers in many states saying they would not enforce an unconstitutional law such as this.

I remember my government teacher drilling it into my head about Ex Post Facto laws. These are laws enacted by tyrannical leaders, which make an act illegal that before the law was passed was perfectly legal, like in our case, to own firearms. This law would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment and also a violation of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the US Constitution.

Ex post facto laws retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. An ex post facto law is considered a hallmark of tyranny because it deprives people of a sense of what behavior will or will not be punished and allows for random punishment at the whim of those in power.

Ex Post Facto Laws legal definition of Ex Post Facto Laws. Ex Post Facto Laws synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
 
Also seems your meaning is different from that of the Constitution, which stipulates the federal government regulates the militia.

Now that is a new one on me.

Here is the text:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Where does it specify that the Federal Government is the one doing the regulating?

Article I

Section 8

The Congress shall have Power ...

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
 
I won't comply. Toss whatever dumbass flag you want.
Put your money where your mouth is, go buy a machine gun. **** the Hughes Amendment, right? You'll do what you want anyway. Who cares if the Fed says you have to have a Class-3 tax stamp and registration, right? You won't comply. They can't stop you. Go buy an AR15, modify it and post a pic here.
 
Last edited:
Toss all you want, Jerry. You are assuming (and you know what they say when someone assumes!) that all people are ignorant and spineless. That is a huge mistake. I believe our government would probably agree with you... that will be their downfall if it comes to blows.

I'm also confused about what 'internet tough guys' is supposed to mean, since it seems you are playing that card yourself... since you're pretty certain people will roll over and give what is rightfully theirs to the big daddy government.

You underestimate people - and that is dangerous.
Yeah that's why pro-gun put up such a huge fuss in 1987 and refused to comply with the Hughes Amendment. That's why no one registered their assault rifles and machine guns after 1987. That's why today no one gets a Class-3 to have an assault rifle or machine gun, everyone just does what they want.

Oh wait....no they don't...

We've already seen this fight before. We know exactly how it's going to go. History will repeat itself. A gun ban will be snuk in under much controversy, and you will be a good little citizen and comply. You aren't going to shoot a cop, so there's no point in talking tough.
 
Last edited:
In answer to the Poll Questions: NO! Not only NO!, but HELL NO!
 
In answer to the Poll Questions: NO! Not only NO!, but HELL NO!
If you don't want to be raped, you have to be willing to shoot a rapist. If you don't want your home burglarized you have to be willing to shoot an intruder. If you don't want to be assaulted in a road-rage incident, you have to be willing to shoot someone braking your car window.

If you don't want your gun taken, you have to be willing to shoot the cop who comes to take it. You have to be willing to shoot a cop. You won't shoot a cop. You know it, I know it, because we saw it in 1987 when cops came to take assault rifles and machine guns.
 
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?
Patrick Henry

The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison

Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms. <-------------------
Aristotle

The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
Samuel Adams

Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
Thomas Paine

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.
James Madison
 
Oh really, Jerry? How in the **** do you know what I did in 1987?
 
Back
Top Bottom