• 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!

'People punching' guns[W:249]

Should 'people punching' weapons be kept by civilians who want them?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 73.9%

  • No

    Votes: 5 21.7%

  • Not sure/it depends

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • Total voters
    23
Henrin said:
Without others I wouldn't have been born. What's your point?
Click to expand...

My point is you have no choice but to enter the Social Contract. The need to exist among others requires a restriction of your absolute freedom. Everyone looses some freedom for justice. You can't just 'do whateva u want' and you cannot have a nuke.

Perhaps you will understand what the founders did and admit the specification of "militia"/infantry arms was intentional and wise.
 
ecofarm said:
My point is you have no choice but to enter the Social Contract. The need to exist among others requires a restriction of your absolute freedom. Everyone looses some freedom for justice. You can't just 'do whateva u want' and you cannot have a nuke.
Click to expand...

A contract is an agreement, so your entire argument is nonsense. I entered into no such contract.

Perhaps you will understand what the founders did and admit the specification of "militia"/infantry was intentional and wise.
Click to expand...

I will not. The creation of the nuke was stupid, but I will not accept any restriction of freedom.
 
Henrin said:
A contract is an agreement, so your entire argument is nonsense. I entered into no such contract.

I will not. The creation of the nuke was stupid, but I will not accept any restriction of freedom.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense. Are you getting me back for the laughs during your 'tank vs. rifle' crap?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
The "nuh uh" defense adds no strength to your argument at all.
Click to expand...
the only one (errr...ones) that are making the nu uh defense are those that see the precise words and voiced intent and still pretend "nope, not buyin it...thats not what they meant." The beauty of relying on the FACTS is that I dont have to make up a pretend argument. We HAVE a Constitution. We HAVE a Bill of Rights which enumerates the RIGHTS of the CITIZENS and places limitations on government. We have the founders spoken intent. What you are left with is your opinion that you dont like it. Which is certainly FINE...you are entitled to your opinion, regardless of inconsistency with the facts.
 
ecofarm said:
This is nonsense. Are you getting me back for the laughs during your 'tank vs. rifle' crap?
Click to expand...

It's nonsense? So when did I agree to the terms of this contract of yours? Without my agreement to this contract there is no contract between you and me.
 
The discussion on "social contracts" is even dumber than "people-punching guns".
 
Jerry said:
The discussion on "social contracts" is even dumber than "people-punching guns".
Click to expand...

Any discussion on the existence of a social contract is dumb since those making the argument it exists can offer no proof that it does in fact exist and that people agreed to it's terms. The best part is when they say you don't have to agree, as if they can hold people to the terms of a contract without them agreeing to it. They apparently never looked up the word contract.
 
Henrin said:
It's nonsense? So when did I agree to the terms of this contract of yours? Without my agreement to this contract there is no contract between you and me.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to The Social Contract. An agreement we all enter into for the purpose of co-existence.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm referring to The Social Contract. An agreement we all enter into for the purpose of co-existence.
Click to expand...

I know. Where is this contract you speak of? If you are going to hold me to the terms of a contract the least you can do is allow me to look over it's terms.
 
Zyphlin said:
Would you mind providing a source for any particular firearm having the explicit "primary purpose of killing several people at close or medium range in a very short time"?
Click to expand...
He is going to have trouble with that, weapons are produced to function in a specific way such as lighter trigger pull, for automatics a faster rate of fire, and different rifling patterns to control the spiral of the shot but these are functional characteristics and not purpose built designs. Saying a gun "was designed specifically to..............." without adding "fire a projectile in a straight line" is automatically wrong.
 
Henrin said:
I know. Where is this contract you speak of? If you are going to hold me to the terms of a contract the least you can do is allow me to look over it's terms.
Click to expand...

It's a concept, the terms are called law. You ignoring it does not negate its existence or reason.
 
ecofarm said:
It's a concept, the terms are called law. You ignoring it does not negate its existence.
Click to expand...

So this contract is nothing but a concept? Well, thank god, I thought I agreed to something for a second there, but thankfully it's still just a concept in your head.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
That's why states issue (and can revoke) driver's licenses. Are you saying you support gun operator licenses? :)
Click to expand...

Can a person who killed someone with a firearm own a firearm? That would be the equivalent of killing someone with a vehicle. So no I dont think that murderers should be allowed to own a firearm.

BTW you can own a vehicle yet not drive it, negating the need for a drivers license. In fact if you lose your licence you may still own a vehicle. But if you kill someone whether it was with a firearm or not you lose the right to own a firearm. But both methods can kill mass amounts of people with ease. WHere are all these people when it comes to vehicles why are they not calling for their ban?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
For the record, the term has been used before. (Feel free to research it if you want.) And like opendebate, I am totally against the idea of confiscating handguns used for self-defense or weapons designed for hunting. It's only when some civilians would insist on a "right" to military-grade weapons that I begin to question their motives.
Click to expand...
Give one example of one person with credibility using this term, we will wait. I am 35 and have around 29 years of experience with firearms and shooting and have never once heard this term issued by anyone with any real credibility.
 
Henrin said:
So this contract is nothing but a concept? Well, thank god, I thought I agreed to something for a second there, but thankfully it's still just a concept in your head.
Click to expand...

I didn't invent the concept of The Social Contract. I merely understand it.
 
ecofarm said:
I didn't invent the concept of The Social Contract. I merely understand it.
Click to expand...

I know, I'm messing with you. I'm well aware of the numerous social contract theories out there. It's kind telling that there is so many, isn't it? I wonder how I can agree to all those social contracts at once? Isn't it interesting how some of them contradict each other, and yet, supposedly I agreed to all of them? Wouldn't that mean I'm in violation of some of them? What is my punishment, I wonder.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
I know, I'm messing with you. I'm well aware of the numerous social contract theories out there. It's kind telling that there is so many, isn't it? I wonder how I can agree to all those social contracts at once?
Click to expand...

The is only one "Social Contract Theory". It states that we give up freedom for justice/civilization. Accompanying theories merely argue the nuance of The Social Contract from various contexts and perspective.

My point is, the founders specification was entirely reasonable within the framework of the concept of The Social Contract. Militia/infantry arms are within ones private right to defense, personal and national. More extensive weaponry is best kept in the hands of the people through the system we've established, given Western liberal democracy.
 
ecofarm said:
The is only one "Social Contract Theory". It states that we give up freedom for justice/civilization. Accompanying theories merely argue the nuance of The Social Contract from various contexts and perspective.

My point is, the founders specification was entirely reasonable within the framework of the concept of The Social Contract. Militia/infantry arms are within ones private right to defense, personal and national.
Click to expand...

So the terms of the contract isn't what is important, but just that I give up something for the group? Ah..ok? That is a pretty dumbass way to uphold a contract.

I'm pretty sure the terms of the contracts were pretty important to their authors, but ok, lets just ignore them and go with the idea we give up something for the group. That is surely upholding the contract. :roll:
 
Henrin said:
So the terms of the contract isn't what is important, but just that I give up something for the group? Ah..ok? That is a pretty dumbass way to uphold a contract.
Click to expand...

This is pointless, you've no understanding of why we would put the responsibility for weaponry more extensive than militia arms in the hands of our system of government and not private individuals.

Let me know when you've negotiated new treaties. We wouldn't want the government taking away your freedom to do so.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Can you at least tell me why it should be okay for a garden-variety civilian to own a military grade firearm? Do you understand this question?
Click to expand...

Because the Constitution explicitly affirms that we have this right, and forbids government from interfering with this right.

If you don't like it, try to get an amendment ratified that supersedes the Second Amendment.
 
Last edited:
anonymous polls sucketh
 
DifferentDrummr said:
This poll question refers to firearms that are designed for the primary purpose of killing several people at close or medium range in a very short time. If you answer, please explain why civilians should be able to keep them or why not.

Also, the question has nothing to do with whether these types of firearms are legal and constitutional to own (in the US), but whether they should be.
Click to expand...

does this count? I got my son one

he can shoot 9 shots in under 3 seconds with it


Versa Max® Zombie Gargoyle Green


anything civilian cops can use-other civilians should be able to own
 
ecofarm said:
This is pointless, you've no understanding of why we would put the responsibility for weaponry more extensive than militia arms in the hands of our system of government and not private individuals.

Let me know when you've negotiated new treaties. We wouldn't want the government taking away your freedom to do so.
Click to expand...

Your use of "we" is also stupid. We did nothing. We are not the government. We were not born in 1791.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
The government has to be armed with heavy weaponry to be prepared for war. The second amendment was not created so that every citizen could have the firepower to fight their own personal wars.
Click to expand...

I suspect you have very little understanding what the 2A was designed to do
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Fair enough.

Neither one of these was designed with the primary purpose of killing large numbers of people, however.

Not my intention, but as far as I know, most if not all assault weapons would qualify. In addition, there'd be some firearms that technically aren't assault weapons but would still qualify.

Point taken: I'll try to stay away from the term for the rest of the thread.
Click to expand...

sometimes several people need to be terminated extremely quickly. Like a bunch of home invasion robbers.

you appear to be terrified guns unless only the government owns them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom