• 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!

Do firearms empower people?

Do firearms empower people?

  • Total voters
    52
CaptainCourtesy said:
The ideology in and of itself is not a problem. It promotes order, equity amongst people with free access to services, preventing poverty. Problem is, this is idealistic to the max and cannot happen because of human nature. The ideology is not the issue; it's incompatibility with how humans operate is.
Click to expand...

If someone ever comes up with a system that is both compatible with human nature and able to control it that is a man I want to meet. No system for governance that I have found avoids the same ends. All the different systems appear to just vary in how long they last and how the authoritarianism is applied in the end. Nothing else about it is really all that different. It seems as if the basic human nature to abuse a position of authority is the nail in every last coffin of every last ideology in existence.
 
lizzie said:
It isn't the second amendment which creates that mechanism. It's human beings who are destructive and want to kill. The second amendment was put in place for defense of the individual and the collective, not offense. There is nothing in the second which says it's okay to kill people.
Click to expand...

a couple of the dimmer gun haters constantly claim that the 2A is responsible for deaths. That is akin to saying that 21st Amendment was responsible for the Carrolton Bus crash where a drunk drier killed 27 people on a school bus
 
lizzie said:
It isn't the second amendment which creates that mechanism. It's human beings who are destructive and want to kill. The second amendment was put in place for defense of the individual and the collective, not offense. There is nothing in the second which says it's okay to kill people.

People are going to kill whether they have guns and gun rights, or not. they will kill with stones if need be, just as they did prior to humans making any significant gains using tools.
Click to expand...

Much the same as turtledudes claim that the application of communism by people leads to the mechanism by which genocide can occur, I believe that it is the application of the second amendment by people that creates the mechanism by which more gun homicide takes place. Much like in the 2A, there is also nothing in communism which says it is ok to kill people (you don't have to think communism is a good thing to realize this). There is some serious cognitive dissonance going on if you claim that communism causes genocide but the 2A doesn't cause more gun deaths.

If you disagree with me, that is fine. It is far from clear cut, I don't think the 2A is directly responsible for any deaths, and this isn't me being a 'dim gun hater':

X Factor said:
Your point is fair if you say the same about, say, the implementation of the 2nd Amendment and, really, who could deny that there are more deaths by gun in the US simply because there are more guns? However, I do not believe the overall murder rates are any worse because people will use what's available.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
right you are-I get my communist turds confused:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Eh, I have a soft spot for Trotsky. George Bernard Shaw said this of his writing ability: "When Trotsky cuts off his opponent's head, he holds it up to show that there are no brains in it."
 
X Factor said:
I agree that those notions appeal to many people (understandably) but, as I said, even if communism could be implemented exactly as intended, it still sounds like some sort of utopian nightmare to me, like you completely lose your individuality and identity and become nothing more than a worker bee completely indistinguishable from all the others.
Click to expand...

You just described, perfectly, why human nature would never allow communism to succeed. Congrats, X... you're human. :mrgreen:
 
Henrin said:
If someone ever comes up with a system that is both compatible with human nature and able to control it that is a man I want to meet. No system for governance that I have found avoids the same ends. All the different systems appear to just vary in how long they last and how the authoritarianism is applied in the end. Nothing else about it is really all that different. It seems as if the basic human nature to abuse a position of authority is the nail in every last coffin of every last ideology in existence.
Click to expand...

Accurate, though democracy, because of the balance of power and the hills and valleys created by it, has the best chance. Problem is, whenever you have the need for those in power, you have the roots of oligarchical/plutarchical societies to grow... which eventually move towards authoritarianism. Problem with democracy is that it happens so slowly that no on will notice until it's already upon us.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Eh, I have a soft spot for Trotsky. George Bernard Shaw said this of his writing ability: "When Trotsky cuts off his opponent's head, he holds it up to show that there are no brains in it."
Click to expand...

Poor Trotsky had a soft spot

in his head!:mrgreen:
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You just described, perfectly, why human nature would never allow communism to succeed. Congrats, X... you're human. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

True (and good to hear because before the consensus was that I am, at best, "human like") not only are we fundamentally, at least, somewhat greedy, we're all generally uncomfortable with the concept that we're actually not the center of the universe.
 
X Factor said:
True (and good to hear because before the consensus was that I am, at best, "human like") not only are we fundamentally, at least, somewhat greedy, we're all generally uncomfortable with the concept that we're actually not the center of the universe.
Click to expand...

That's true. You all aren't. I am. :mrgreen:

We all have the need to stand out and feel "special". Can't do that with communism which stifles progression. This is one reason why I always laugh at those who compare progressivism to communism. Communism is the antithesis to progression.
 
US Conservative said:
At least 100 million, all over the world and all over the last 100 years. The left did this.
The Black Book of Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mass killings under Communist regimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

A) The wikipedia entry on that book is almost as heavily dedicated towards criticism of the book's methodology as it is describing the author's work. Not a good sign the work is particularly well respected.

B) You're still not demonstrating that Marxism killed anyone, you're still merely demonstrating that malevolent dictators are bad for the safety of their citizens --a point which we're already in agreement.
 
Guns are a machine for killing. They make killing easier and less personal. Like any good machine, it empowers the operator.
 
upsideguy said:
Guns are a machine for killing. They make killing easier and less personal. Like any good machine, it empowers the operator.
Click to expand...

actually you are wrong. Firearms are designed to project a bullet. some are designed to win olympic medals, some are designed for self defense or offense. but its like a compound bow. Some guys use brand x compound bow to shoot 3D tournaments. SOme use it to hunt deer.
 
US Conservative said:
The red terror was only the beginning for the marxists, tragically.
Click to expand...

Yes as we all know marxists have killed everyone who has ever died

TurtleDude said:
marxists have killed over 100 million innocents. we should use guns to kill more marxists if we want less genocide apparently:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

that number is faulty in 2 ways. the first is deaths in socialist countries could happen for the same reasons in capitalist ones but still be blamed on marxism and the other is the black book of communism is rife with faulty math
 
X Factor said:
I agree that those notions appeal to many people (understandably) but, as I said, even if communism could be implemented exactly as intended, it still sounds like some sort of utopian nightmare to me, like you completely lose your individuality and identity and become nothing more than a worker bee completely indistinguishable from all the others.
Click to expand...

why does freedom from need cause you to lose individuality and identity? that doesnt make any sense
 
TurtleDude said:
actually you are wrong. Firearms are designed to project a bullet. some are designed to win olympic medals, some are designed for self defense or offense. but its like a compound bow. Some guys use brand x compound bow to shoot 3D tournaments. SOme use it to hunt deer.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am right. You are once again attempting to making noble what is not. Yes, they are designed to project a bullet... but the purpose of that machine (projecting a bullet) is to kill.

Guns were not created for sport; sport only became a use of the gun. Guns were first and foremost a weapon... a machine for killing (either to gain military advantage or to make getting dinner a bit easier). The sport came later.

HowStuffWorks "Who invented the first gun?"
The History of Firearms - A Timeline
Gun Timeline | History Detectives | PBS
History of the firearm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
instagramsci said:
Yes as we all know marxists have killed everyone who has ever died



that number is faulty in 2 ways. the first is deaths in socialist countries could happen for the same reasons in capitalist ones but still be blamed on marxism and the other is the black book of communism is rife with faulty math
Click to expand...

marxist countries are the ones piling up the bodies. not constitutional republics
 
US Conservative said:
Says the Brit to the American. :mrgreen:

Whats all this about then
Click to expand...
?

Surrender_of_Lord_Cornwallis.jpg
Click to expand...


It's about some old white men fighting for their freedom and rights (But not for the freedom and rights of blacks and women.)
 
upsideguy said:
You are making noble what is not. Guns were not designed for sport; sport only became a use of the gun. Guns were first and foremost a weapon... a machine for killing (either to gain military advantage or to make getting dinner a bit easier). The sport came later.

HowStuffWorks "Who invented the first gun?"
The History of Firearms - A Timeline
Gun Timeline | History Detectives | PBS
History of the firearm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

you can say the same thing about the discus, knives, darts, archery, balls etc. the first "ball" was a stone thrown to kill.

the PURPOSE of a firearm is whatever the shooter intends. I have over 500,000 rounds. Tonight I shot a pistol match (two guns-Open and stock-150 rounds) then three rounds of Skeet with my Beretta 682 with Briley tubes. The open gun is a CZ Czechmate race gun-designed purely for speed shooting. its based on a military design-the CZ 75. My stock gun is a CZ Custom shop version of the 75, its called the CZ shadow. again its designed for competition. the shotgun-designed purely for clay target shooting

of the over half a million rounds I have shot from a pistol-only one was at a human.
of the 100,000-150,000 shotgun shells I have shot, maybe 15,000-27000 were at birds (I used to do high volume dove shooting in south america) the rest were at clay targets .
 
dogtowner said:
Empower to what ?
Click to expand...

Is it turns out, the only answer to that question is "kill other people". And when it comes to Americans carrying weapons, those other people are usually other Americans. Unarmed other Americans who they feel they have the right to kill. Guns empower people to create a little bit of tyranny in their immediate vicinity. It's pretty sad to hear people raise a fuss about government tyranny and then celebrate their ability to kill their fellow citizens on a whim.
 
TurtleDude said:
marxist countries are the ones piling up the bodies. not constitutional republics
Click to expand...

"constitutional republics" have killed plenty of people
 
Superfly said:
This exchange comes from one of my favorite movies:


Yeah, I think a lot of people feel that way. I think a lot of people would react completely differently if they didn't have a gun. I'm not pigeon-holing all gun owners like this,
but I think that, for some people, owning a gun gives them this feeling that they can do anything, and can get away with anything.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Some people in the USA have learned the hard way that things don't work like that in the USA. A gun can get you a long stay at the greybar hotel.
 
TurtleDude said:
actually you are wrong. Firearms are designed to project a bullet. some are designed to win olympic medals, some are designed for self defense or offense. but its like a compound bow. Some guys use brand x compound bow to shoot 3D tournaments. SOme use it to hunt deer.
Click to expand...

And a lawnmower is designed to spin a blade.

Doesn't mean its purpose isn't cutting grass. I'm sure people race lawnmowers too.
 
TurtleDude said:
you can say the same thing about the discus, knives, darts, archery, balls etc. the first "ball" was a stone thrown to kill.

the PURPOSE of a firearm is whatever the shooter intends. I have over 500,000 rounds. Tonight I shot a pistol match (two guns-Open and stock-150 rounds) then three rounds of Skeet with my Beretta 682 with Briley tubes. The open gun is a CZ Czechmate race gun-designed purely for speed shooting. its based on a military design-the CZ 75. My stock gun is a CZ Custom shop version of the 75, its called the CZ shadow. again its designed for competition. the shotgun-designed purely for clay target shooting

of the over half a million rounds I have shot from a pistol-only one was at a human.
of the 100,000-150,000 shotgun shells I have shot, maybe 15,000-27000 were at birds (I used to do high volume dove shooting in south america) the rest were at clay targets .
Click to expand...

15 to 27K rounds shot at birds? Damn. I don't know what you drive but if there's anything truth to karma you've got a LOT of crap to clean off your windshield coming up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom