• 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!

Americans are 100s of times more likely to die from the flu than because AR15s are legal

Razorsedge64 said:
Those weapons didn’t exist when the second was written so you’re incredibly wrong. All you get is what they had then. A flint lock.
Click to expand...

And freedom of the press only counts for writing employing a quill.
 
ecofarm said:
And freedom of the press only counts for writing employing a quill.
Click to expand...

it is far more likely founders envisioned faster firing weapons than they envisioned computers or electronic based communications
 
TurtleDude said:
it is far more likely founders envisioned faster firing weapons than they envisioned computers or electronic based communications
Click to expand...

The founders were not as stupid as high school sophomores often imagine. The amendments were specifically written so as to transcend time.
 
ecofarm said:
The founders were not as stupid as high school sophomores often imagine. The amendments were specifically written so as to transcend time.
Click to expand...

But they don't and what's more even Thomas Jefferson thought so and believed the Constitution was only good for a generation or so.
 
Rich2018 said:
Myths huh ?


"Finally, civil libertarians are rightly alarmed that the attorney general can detain, for seven days, non‐​citizens suspected of terrorism. After seven days, pursuant to Section 412 of the Act, deportation proceedings must commence or criminal charges must be filed. Originally, the Justice Department had asked for authority to detain suspects indefinitely without charge. Congress could not be persuaded to go along. But the final bill, for all practical purposes, allows expanded detention simply by charging the detainee with a technical immigration violation. And if a suspect cannot be deported, he can still be detained if the attorney general certifies every six months that national security is at stake.

To illustrate the magnitude and scope of that problem, the Wall Street Journal reported on Nov. 1 that seven Democrats had filed Freedom of Information Act requests for a detailed accounting from Attorney General John Ashcroft on the status of more than 1,000 detainees. The lawmakers cited reports that “some detainees have been denied access to their attorneys, proper food, or protection from … physical assault.” Some of them were allegedly being held in solitary confinement even though they hadn’t been charged with any criminal offense. According to a representative of the New York Legal Aid Society, several Arab detainees had been limited to one phone call per week to a lawyer and, if the line was busy, they had to wait another week.

...here’s what the Washington Post had to say in an Oct. 31 editorial: “The Department of Justice continues to resist legitimate requests for information regarding the 1,017 people it acknowledges having detained in its investigation of the September 11 attacks.… The questions are pretty basic. How many of the 1,000-plus are still in custody? Who are they? What are the charges against them? What is the status of their cases? Where and under what circumstances are they being held? The department refuses not only to provide the answers but also to give a serious explanation of why it won’t provide them.”


The USA Patriot Act: We Deserve Better | Cato Institute
Click to expand...

That contradicts your previous assertion that people could be held without charges. ;)
 
Aberration said:
That contradicts your previous assertion that people could be held without charges. ;)
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, article 412 says they can - I bolded the relevant bit for you.

They charge you with something minor like a technical immigration violation, and can then hold you almost indefinitely without facing a charge or terrorism etc.


In other words the cops find something minor to charge you with, and it's virtually impossible not to break some rule or law, and then they can keep you.
 
Rich2018 said:
No it doesn't, article 412 says they can - I bolded the relevant bit for you.

They charge you with something minor like a technical immigration violation, and can then hold you almost indefinitely without facing a charge or terrorism etc.


In other words the cops find something minor to charge you with, and it's virtually impossible not to break some rule or law, and then they can keep you.
Click to expand...

You claimed people were indefinitely held without charge. The bolded relevant bit, along with this reply, contradict that statement.
 
Aberration said:
You claimed people were indefinitely held without charge. The bolded relevant bit, along with this reply, contradict that statement.
Click to expand...

Yes and so they are.

As stated the federal authorities charge them with a minor immigration infraction and then jail them without trial


The jailing is not for the immigration charge, which would at worst see someone be refused admittance to the USA.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes and so they are.

As stated the federal authorities charge them with a minor immigration infraction and then jail them without trial


The jailing is not for the immigration charge, which would at worst see someone be refused admittance to the USA.
Click to expand...

So they are charged. Which contradicts your statement they are held without charge.
 
Aberration said:
So they are charged. Which contradicts your statement they are held without charge.
Click to expand...

Are you not reading, they are charged with a minor immigration infraction that at most would see deportation...but they're held without charge instead


Unless you think that immigration infraction covers it.
 
So they are charged, but then held without charge?

That’s stupid. Just admit it.
 
Hang on.

Are you saying there are germs everywhere?
 
Redress said:
The US spends around 10 billion a year on flu related costs, including uninsured hospital visits, medicare/medicaid treatments, regulations and enforcement. By your logic, do you support spending millions on year on safety regulations and enforcement for AR-15s?
Click to expand...

Interesting. The US spends that money PROVIDING those flu shots to underserved populations. Providing training for caregivers to give these shots.. etc..

So.. are you proposing that the poor should be able to go to their local gun shop and get their FREE AR-15...

Like they get their "free"... flu shot?
 
jaeger19 said:
Interesting. The US spends that money PROVIDING those flu shots to underserved populations. Providing training for caregivers to give these shots.. etc..

So.. are you proposing that the poor should be able to go to their local gun shop and get their FREE AR-15...

Like they get their "free"... flu shot?
Click to expand...

May be they should get free ammo ?
 
Tlrmln said:
Where can you buy the flu and defend yourself with it?
Click to expand...

That comment is a meaningless. It doesn't relate to your original comment. Your original comment implied that the flu was more dangerous than AR-15s. Maybe so, but we don't manufacture and sell the flu, but we do have a means to control the gun market. The "Gun Control Act" has effectively eliminated certain classes of firearms from wide use in criminal activities and limited the number of owners. It's an effective method of regulation that does not stop anyone from owning those firearms.
 
manofknowledge said:
That comment is a meaningless. It doesn't relate to your original comment. Your original comment implied that the flu was more dangerous than AR-15s. Maybe so, but we don't manufacture and sell the flu, but we do have a means to control the gun market. The "Gun Control Act" has effectively eliminated certain classes of firearms from wide use in criminal activities and limited the number of owners. It's an effective method of regulation that does not stop anyone from owning those firearms.
Click to expand...

It's just a typical "smart" response from the gun lobby

Best either ignore it or dismiss it with humor.
 
manofknowledge said:
That comment is a meaningless. It doesn't relate to your original comment. Your original comment implied that the flu was more dangerous than AR-15s. Maybe so, but we don't manufacture and sell the flu, but we do have a means to control the gun market. The "Gun Control Act" has effectively eliminated certain classes of firearms from wide use in criminal activities and limited the number of owners. It's an effective method of regulation that does not stop anyone from owning those firearms.
Click to expand...

My comment was no less meaningless than yours. Whether you can buy a thing and use it to kill people is totally irrelevant. The issue is what measures do people, who are clutching their pearls over "gun violence," actually do to keep themselves safe, when there are no political points or fame to be gained in the process.

Introducing yet another red herring into the conversation doesn't help -- the fact that "certain classes of firearms" have been "effectively eliminated...from wide use in criminal activities" doesn't mean we're any safer as a result.
 
Tlrmln said:
My comment was no less meaningless than yours. Whether you can buy a thing and use it to kill people is totally irrelevant. The issue is what measures do people, who are clutching their pearls over "gun violence," actually do to keep themselves safe, when there are no political points or fame to be gained in the process.

Introducing yet another red herring into the conversation doesn't help -- the fact that "certain classes of firearms" have been "effectively eliminated...from wide use in criminal activities" doesn't mean we're any safer as a result.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing that if people had RPGs instead of AR-15s they would be even safer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom