• 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
instagramsci said:
i would. i can come up with more if you'd like
Click to expand...

yeah and find someone other than a blogger who doesn't even supply his last name.

it appears that there were not millions and millions deliberately killed. The wiki article noted that the brits seemed unaware of a rice blight or other problems that lead to a war time famine. that's a bit different than the mass executions communists have perpetrated
 
serato said:
I once read that those in possession of firearms are more likely to find themselves in a position to use it, and without having an issue with anyone feeling the need to arm themselves, it's this very reason I've chosen to live comfortably without a weapon.
Click to expand...

I sure wouldn't want to find myself in a position when I need one and don't have one.

911 is the worse caliber to be armed with.
 
serato said:
Ugh no I just never felt the need to own a weapon. And I find your line of questioning to be rather odd and irrelevant to my post. Perhaps you've misunderstood what I said.
Click to expand...

perhaps, if your point is you don't feel a need for a weapon but you do not deny that others might nor do you wish to interfere with their choice then my comment was improper and I apologize
 
APACHERAT said:
I sure wouldn't want to find myself in a position when I need one and don't have one.

911 is the worse caliber to be armed with.
Click to expand...

My son, a pizza fanatic, noted that Papa John's comes faster than the cops to most homes
 
TurtleDude said:
perhaps, if your point is you don't feel a need for a weapon but you do not deny that others might nor do you wish to interfere with their choice then my comment was improper and I apologize
Click to expand...

I believe everyone should have a constitutional right to bear arms, it's just my choice not to own one although it would be fun to occasionally go to a range to fire as I've also read that firing relieves stress. Would be nice to know if ranges rent by the hour for those like myself not in possession.
 
TurtleDude said:
it appears that there were not millions and millions deliberately killed. The wiki article noted that the brits seemed unaware of a rice blight or other problems that lead to a war time famine.
Click to expand...

im sure they werent feeling too bad about dead indians

TurtleDude said:
that's a bit different than the mass executions communists have perpetrated
Click to expand...

why does it seem like people pick and choose what they want to call mass executions. sometimes its manmade famines. sometimes its shooting people. which is it
 
serato said:
I believe everyone should have a constitutional right to bear arms, it's just my choice not to own one although it would be fun to occasionally go to a range to fire as I've also read that firing relieves stress. Would be nice to know if ranges rent by the hour for those like myself not in possession.
Click to expand...


where do you live there are four ranges in the greater Cincinnati area that rent by the hour-you just have to use the weapon on the premises and use the (sometimes overpriced) ammo they sell.
 
US Conservative said:
Yes, it is. That stat does not account for suicides and criminals within the house. Once you account for that, you are safer with a gun.

You can either continue with the delusion or thank my for enlightenment.
Click to expand...

I truly believe that each time I read your posts, I lose I.Q points and with that said, I'm off to bed.
 
instagramsci said:
im sure they werent feeling too bad about dead indians



why does it seem like people pick and choose what they want to call mass executions. sometimes its manmade famines. sometimes its shooting people. which is it
Click to expand...

uh I disagree. the stuff you supplied at best demonstrated neglect or a priority that was not conducive to feeding everyone (i.e. beating the Nazis and the Japanese was more important to the Brits then Indian nutrition)
 
serato said:
I truly believe that each time I read your posts, I lose I.Q points and with that said, I'm off to bed.
Click to expand...

That's ok, read mine and you gain the points back:mrgreen:
 
TurtleDude said:
uh I disagree. the stuff you supplied at best demonstrated neglect or a priority that was not conducive to feeding everyone (i.e. beating the Nazis and the Japanese was more important to the Brits then Indian nutrition)
Click to expand...

ethically what's the difference between british indifference killing indians and say, a hypothetical mass shooting
 
this thread is so thoroughly derailed. im recusing myself :peace
 
US Conservative said:
I think some define the word by the modern foo foo dr phil/oprah measure. Im using the term as defined.
Click to expand...

Then guns have an effect, but of a very indirect kind.
 
Must be about the most blatantly trolling thread title since, I don't know what.
Of course guns make people more powerful. They're very simple machines with only one purpose- and no, guns shouldn't be used to drive nails.
 
Grand Mal said:
Must be about the most blatantly trolling thread title since, I don't know what.
Of course guns make people more powerful. They're very simple machines with only one purpose- and no, guns shouldn't be used to drive nails.
Click to expand...

Ah, Mr. Maclean, do you really believe that a pistol makes people more powerful? or are they just dreaming?
 
jet57 said:
Ah, Mr. Maclean, do you really believe that a pistol makes people more powerful? or are they just dreaming?
Click to expand...

Of course it does. And it's not just pistols. I hunt with a bow in bow season but I bring my rifle when I can because it's a more powerful weapon.
 
Grand Mal said:
Of course it does. And it's not just pistols. I hunt with a bow in bow season but I bring my rifle when I can because it's a more powerful weapon.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the same as empowerment...
 
Tucker Case said:
To give an example, the whole Bundy ranch thing. If we actually had a tyrannical government, all of the people involved in the "resistance" would have been smoking husks at the bottom of a crater.

We don't actually have a tyrannical government, though, so they were able to give the illusion of resisting a mythical tyranny with their guns.
Click to expand...

You are right and you are wrong. You are right that if you are insufficiently armed then yes all you have is an illusion to resist tyranny. However if you are sufficiently armed then your potential for resistance is NOT illusion. If the cost to the tyranny is light or nothing then they will pay and not think about paying, its the cost of doing business. If however the potential cost is expensive or more so then they may not be so quick to pay said cost. The principle of mutually assured destruction is based on the principle of cost. As costs to the various parties in a conflict go up the less the likelihood that armed conflict will occur and the more likely a negotiation occurs. So the ability to extract high to potential adversaries costs is a worthwhile ability and negotiating tool.
 
Objective Voice said:
Anyone who holds a weapon over another who is defenseless holds the power. That much is clear. But that doesn't mean that the person without a weapon is powerless. It just means you have the upper hand until you no longer have it. Such clearly was the case of the German soldier who apparently believe he had the upper hand on the peasant until he didn't and the gun was turned on him.

I that sense, yes, clearly the man holding the gun is in control. But I don't see that as empowerment. I see that as control. Two separate things.
Click to expand...

US Conservative said:
All of this boils down to you being unclear on the definition of empowerment.
Click to expand...

You seem to be arguing two separate things here.

On the one hand, you define empowerment as the ability to take up arms to fight against aggression.

On the other hand, you're saying that anyone who has a gun has the power or at least should feel empowered to take matters into their own hands.

One is an act of self defense. The other per your examples is an act of control and/or induced fear.

Having a gun does "enable" you to defend yourself. And in having such a weapon one "permits" himself to feel confident he can do such, but I don't need a gun to feel that way. Of course, I'd rather have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
 
US Conservative said:
Exercising one's rights. A means to prevent tyranny. Self defense. The means to hunt.


Do firearms empower people? Note that this is not pertaining specifically to the US or the 2nd amendment, but rather a general question.


600x3691.jpg

People-with-guns.jpg

tumblr_lhagptXHyu1qbi6a5o1_500.jpg

firearms_smg_sten_maquisard_1944.jpg

RKBA1.jpg
Click to expand...

Actually ALL arms can empower people. They can also destroy people. It all depends on how one employs their tools and for what. Arms are tools like levers or hammers or knifes, no more no less.
 
jet57 said:
I don't think that's the same as empowerment...
Click to expand...

What? 'more powerful weapon' doesn't mean empowerment? To empower means to give power to, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom