• 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!

Who Is More Afraid? The One Who Feels He Needs a Gun? Or the One Who Doesn't?

Who is more afraid? The one who feels he needs a gun, or the one who doesn't?

  • The person who feels he needs a gun is the one who's more afraid.

    Votes: 28 77.8%

  • The person who does NOT feel he needs a gun is the one who's more afraid.

    Votes: 8 22.2%
  • Total voters
    36
ttwtt78640 said:
Registration, if free to the user, is OK provided it is voluntary for existing guns and mandatory only for new guns and includes the full right to carry nationwide.
Click to expand...

Y'know, I'd agree to most of that...but only if all guns confiscated by police are destroyed - no sell-backs to the public. That way, even though it wouldn't be that effective in the short run, as the years go by, there would be fewer and fewer unregistered guns. But concerning the right to carry nationwide - IIRC that right already exists...but only within certain limits and only for those with the proper permits. Perhaps that could still be expanded a bit more, if a deal for registration could be made.

Except for places like bars - allowing guns in bars (like GA just did) is a very, very bad idea. And guns in schools? Really?

IMO guns - like almost everything else - fall under the "Goldilocks rule" - too much gun freedom is every bit as bad as too little. There has to be limits, there has to be sensible regulation...but by the same token, those limits and regulation must not prevent a law-abiding citizen from buying a good, effective firearm.
 
TurtleDude said:
claiming a bunch of politicians accepted that they had more power means nothing to me

can you even fashion a reasonable argument for what FDR did USING THE LANGUAGE OF THE CC

of course you cannot. FDR couldn't do it
Click to expand...

You have a right to accept or not accept what pleases you so that it fits in with your own belief system. All I am doing is explaining the reality of the situation to you as evidenced by the wide acceptance among all the people I listed for my "pathetic argument". What you do with it is up to you.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Y'know, I'd agree to most of that...but only if all guns confiscated by police are destroyed - no sell-backs to the public. That way, even though it wouldn't be that effective in the short run, as the years go by, there would be fewer and fewer unregistered guns. But concerning the right to carry nationwide - IIRC that right already exists...but only within certain limits and only for those with the proper permits. Perhaps that could still be expanded a bit more, if a deal for registration could be made.

Except for places like bars - allowing guns in bars (like GA just did) is a very, very bad idea. And guns in schools? Really?

IMO guns - like almost everything else - fall under the "Goldilocks rule" - too much gun freedom is every bit as bad as too little. There has to be limits, there has to be sensible regulation...but by the same token, those limits and regulation must not prevent a law-abiding citizen from buying a good, effective firearm.
Click to expand...

Merely owning a tool, and requiring leaving it the truck/tool shed, does one no good at the job-site. This is the problem with most that do not see the 2A as a "right of the people to keep and bear arms". You desire the right to keep registered arms coupled with the state issued privilege to actually bear them.

I have no objection to designating and enforcing gun free zones but insist that the enforcement exist - otherwise all you have done is disarmed the law abiding (potential) victims by posting a sign easily ignored by criminals.
 
haymarket said:
You have a right to accept or not accept what pleases you so that it fits in with your own belief system. All I am doing is explaining the reality of the situation to you as evidenced by the wide acceptance among all the people I listed for my "pathetic argument". What you do with it is up to you.
Click to expand...

Your argument is the government did what it wanted to do and that alone makes it right
 
TurtleDude said:
Your argument is the government did what it wanted to do and that alone makes it right
Click to expand...

Nope - that is not my argument. My argument is that the Constitution of the USA makes it right, And the Congress, the President and the Supreme Court - the guardians of the Constitution - agree with my position and not your position.
 
haymarket said:
Nope - that is not my argument. My argument is that the Constitution of the USA makes it right, And the Congress, the President and the Supreme Court - the guardians of the Constitution - agree with my position and not your position.
Click to expand...


you have never answered this question directly

what words in Ariticle I sec 8 delegate the power to the federal government to make me register weapons I have owned for years or to prevent me from owning a machine gun?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Merely owning a tool, and requiring leaving it the truck/tool shed, does one no good at the job-site. This is the problem with most that do not see the 2A as a "right of the people to keep and bear arms". You desire the right to keep registered arms coupled with the state issued privilege to actually bear them.

I have no objection to designating and enforcing gun free zones but insist that the enforcement exist - otherwise all you have done is disarmed the law abiding (potential) victims by posting a sign easily ignored by criminals.
Click to expand...

And I am happy to see that you're willing to earnestly discuss this matter and be willing to meet me halfway. That's something that a lot of politically-active people in this nation have forgotten.
 
TurtleDude said:
you have never answered this question directly

what words in Ariticle I sec 8 delegate the power to the federal government to make me register weapons I have owned for years or to prevent me from owning a machine gun?
Click to expand...

I have printed the relevant sections of the Constitution which gives Congress power to regulate firearms many many times over the years we have discussed this.

Article I, Section 8

paragraph 1 - Congress shall have the power to provide for the general welfare

paragraph 3 - Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce

paragraph 16 - Congress hall have the power for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia

paragraph 18 - and to make all laws necessary and proper to execute the above powers

I have discussed this with you many many times Turtle. None of this is anything new.
 
haymarket said:
I have printed the relevant sections of the Constitution which gives Congress power to regulate firearms many many times over the years we have discussed this.

Article I, Section 8

paragraph 1 - Congress shall have the power to provide for the general welfare

paragraph 3 - Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce

paragraph 16 - Congress hall have the power for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia

paragraph 18 - and to make all laws necessary and proper to execute the above powers

I have discussed this with you many many times Turtle. None of this is anything new.
Click to expand...

that's really a joke

FDR and subsequent gun haters used the commerce clause

none of those other things so trying to claim the general welfare allows gun bans is idiotic

same with the militia

I want you to say that the intent of the founders in authoring the commerce clause was to allow regulation of firearms notwithstanding the 2A.

your concept of the general welfare is the statist utopia because it allows congress to do anything it wants
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really a joke

FDR and subsequent gun haters used the commerce clause

none of those other things so trying to claim the general welfare allows gun bans is idiotic

same with the militia

I want you to say that the intent of the founders in authoring the commerce clause was to allow regulation of firearms notwithstanding the 2A.

your concept of the general welfare is the statist utopia because it allows congress to do anything it wants
Click to expand...

You asked for the information and I simply provided you with it. We have discussed this many times. You are free to disagree but the Constitution supports my opinion that Congress is authorized to pass laws controlling firearms.
 
APACHERAT said:
Well we know that what businesses that weren't looted and burned to the ground were the businesses who's owners were armed with firearms.

We also know, that blacks were responsible for almost all of the violence, arson and murders but the majority of the looting was done by Hispanic illegal aliens.

If you looked at East L.A. where the Americans of Mexican decent live, there was no rioting, looting or arson. They aren't stupid. They aren't going to loot Latino owned businesses or burn their own neighborhoods to the ground.



BTW: There are very few people in Redondo Beach who are dependent on government so there was little rioting in Redondo Beach.
Click to expand...

Wow....you make so many generalizations and assumptions that are just plain and simply flat out wrong, I wouldn't even know where to start...and the reality is....you are so far off base on your assumptions that it wouldn't make any sense to even try to educate you. Its best that you remain behind the orange curtain.
 
haymarket said:
You asked for the information and I simply provided you with it. We have discussed this many times. You are free to disagree but the Constitution supports my opinion that Congress is authorized to pass laws controlling firearms.
Click to expand...

the only support for gun regulations created out of thin air was the commerce clause

do you believe that the commerce clause was intended to allow gun regulations

and if so state why
 
disneydude said:
Wow....you make so many generalizations and assumptions that are just plain and simply flat out wrong, I wouldn't even know where to start...and the reality is....you are so far off base on your assumptions that it wouldn't make any sense to even try to educate you. Its best that you remain behind the orange curtain.
Click to expand...

Well if you were to drugged out back in 1992, may I suggest you borrow twenty bucks to purchase "Official Negligence." Or if you still remember what a public library is and where it is and what those things are sitting on the shelf, grab it, blow off the dust and start reading. It list who and how many were arrested. It list who looted, murdered, committed mayhem, and arson by race and by the numbers.

Official Negligence : How Rodney King and the Riots Changed Los Angeles and the LAPD: Lou Cannon: 9780813337258: Amazon.com: Books

So this post isn't thread drift, the book also shows where armed law abiding citizens were able to protect their lives, their family lives and their businesses.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
the only support for gun regulations created out of thin air was the commerce clause

do you believe that the commerce clause was intended to allow gun regulations

and if so state why
Click to expand...

I have no idea if it was or was not.

It is not important either way. It is there just the same to be used as necessary.
 
haymarket said:
I have no idea if it was or was not.

It is not important either way. It is there just the same to be used as necessary.
Click to expand...

that's dishonest. the CC has been the foundation of all federal infringements on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

why don't you find some reference to something other than the CC if you are claiming its something else
 
TurtleDude said:
that's dishonest. the CC has been the foundation of all federal infringements on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

why don't you find some reference to something other than the CC if you are claiming its something else
Click to expand...

No - its honest and factual.
 
Lachean said:
Says the guy that thinks so long as you can own a single muzzle loader but no ammo no law can infringe on the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

In which post did I make that statement?
 
APACHERAT said:
Well if you were to drugged out back in 1992, may I suggest you borrow twenty bucks to purchase "Official Negligence." Or if you still remember what a public library is and where it is and what those things are sitting on the shelf, grab it, blow off the dust and start reading. It list who and how many were arrested. It list who looted, murdered, committed mayhem, and arson by race and by the numbers.

Official Negligence : How Rodney King and the Riots Changed Los Angeles and the LAPD: Lou Cannon: 9780813337258: Amazon.com: Books

So this post isn't thread drift, the book also shows where armed law abiding citizens were able to protect their lives, their family lives and their businesses.
Click to expand...

LOL....you don't even know how lack of a clue you have with this. I'm an attorney that works in the criminal courts. Perhaps I have a little better idea of what was going on in Los Angeles than someone behind the orange curtain who really had no connection to it at all.
 
haymarket said:
In which post did I make that statement?
Click to expand...

many times you have claimed that as long as someone can "enjoy" their 2A rights-meaning owning a gun-bans on all sorts of guns could not deprive you of "ENJOYING" your 2A rights

it was a pathetic argument because the 2A is invoked when Congress acts to infringe on the RKBA
individual situations do not make a law in violation of the 2A sound
 
disneydude said:
LOL....you don't even know how lack of a clue you have with this. I'm an attorney that works in the criminal courts. Perhaps I have a little better idea of what was going on in Los Angeles than someone behind the orange curtain who really had no connection to it at all.
Click to expand...


Public Defender?

Judicial Clerk?
 
TurtleDude said:
many times you have claimed that as long as someone can "enjoy" their 2A rights-meaning owning a gun-bans on all sorts of guns could not deprive you of "ENJOYING" your 2A rights

it was a pathetic argument because the 2A is invoked when Congress acts to infringe on the RKBA
individual situations do not make a law in violation of the 2A sound
Click to expand...

So you are unable to provide a quote from me in which I made that statement about muzzle loaders without ammo?

But somehow someway you equate my position on the word INFRINGED with that leap across the Grand Canyon of logic even though you know I am on record as agreeing with the Heller decision that those rights were INFRINGED with a handgun ban in DC?

Why would you claim that when those two positions are miles apart?
 
TurtleDude said:
Public Defender?

Judicial Clerk?
Click to expand...

I was working as a public defender at the time....so I directly handled several of the cases. I don't believe any that I handled were non-documented, although I know some were. But to make the assuptions that Apacherat did without any knowledge is just a pure display of ignorance.
 
disneydude said:
I was working as a public defender at the time....so I directly handled several of the cases. I don't believe any that I handled were non-documented, although I know some were. But to make the assuptions that Apacherat did without any knowledge is just a pure display of ignorance.
Click to expand...

I won't argue that point. I was curious your role.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom