• 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!

Argue the other side.

Kal'Stang said:
To be frank I was hoping for more than what this thread has produced. I was looking for actual attempts and not just regurgitations that have been used to describe the other side.
Click to expand...
Doesn't one good regurgitation deserve another? The gun ban people for the most part don't or won't make actual attempts to garner any facts other than the ones that fit their agendas,now I'm not saying all but a very good lot.
Now TD's post #7 wasn't bad as it wasn't over the top...much. However vg,s response in #8 post is ridiculous. Maybe that's his actual interpretation of firearm owners due to constant regurgitation. That would be like me saying yeah I'm so anti gun that just the very thought or sight of a gun is probably going to turn me into some kind of mass shooter so ban them all (even pictures).
 
zsu2357 said:
Doesn't one good regurgitation deserve another? The gun ban people for the most part don't or won't make actual attempts to garner any facts other than the ones that fit their agendas,now I'm not saying all but a very good lot.
Now TD's post #7 wasn't bad as it wasn't over the top...much. However vg,s response in #8 post is ridiculous. Maybe that's his actual interpretation of firearm owners due to constant regurgitation. That would be like me saying yeah I'm so anti gun that just the very thought or sight of a gun is probably going to turn me into some kind of mass shooter so ban them all (even pictures).
Click to expand...

Opinion noted…..and dismissed
 
Evilroddy said:
I am not American and I support reasonable legal regulation which protects society as much as possible without trampling on the property and privacy rights of legal and lawful gun owners. I do not think that gun ownership or possession is an absolute right and I oppose the ability of gun owners to amass private arsenals of firearms. I also believe that too many modern-day firearms are too powerful for widespread use in the population and that such powerful weapons should be restricted to only specially qualified and licensed private citizens.

My contrary argument in support of a near absolute right to own and bear firearms is as follows:

1) There is an inherent and inalienable human right to self-defence which was handed down from British legal tradition to Americans and that right has standing over and above the desire of some or even many citizens and the state to limit that right. That inalienable right is endangered if the state attempts to disarm the people or to control access of the people to firearms and therefore the state must not be permitted to limit or extinguish that right.

2) America is a revolutionary country and its formative revolution was only possible because the population was far better armed and more proficient with firearms than most European populations of the same time period. No widespread availability of firearm, no successful revolution and no America.

3) America was a frontier nation from its birth in the 1770's until about 1900. That frontier could only be defended and forcefully expanded by armed civilians who were self-reliant and able to defend themselves as the frontier was too distant or too sparsely populated with American citizens for effective and timely collective defence by the territorial, state or federal governments.

4) The same political forces which arose to make Britain an intolerable usurper of American rights can happen again domestically, so it is necessary to maintain an armed population which is proficient with firearms in order to act as a countervailing force to any potential emergent domestic tyranny. All governments are potential leviathans and are thus dangerous to liberty.

5) The US Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to make any laws which abridge the rights of American citizens to possess, own and publicly bear firearms and through amendments and jurisprudence that prohibition against abridgement has been extended to the governments of the states for the most part.

6) American gun culture is older and more established than even the United States itself and therefore has a strong legal right to exist based on four centuries of New World custom and usage. Courts and governments must respect and abide by that legal tradition or they become instruments of tyranny and are thus illegitimate in the eyes of American political and cultural tradition.

7) As the vast number of deaths caused by firearms in America today are either self-inflicted, inflicted on others by illegally armed criminals or done legitimately by duly appointed agents of the state, it makes no sense to abridge the rights of legal and lawful gun owners in order to prevent abuses by the mentally deranged who are tragically bent on self-destruction, the criminally driven who scoff at the laws anyway and would thus not abide by gun control laws; also such controls will only inhibit the ability of lawfully operating agents of the state from deputising competent and armed citizens as an aid to the civil power in times of need.

8) While America is predominantly urbanised now, millions of Americans still live throughout rural America where firearms are still vitally necessary tools for self-defence from man or beast, for pest control, for property protection and for hunting. Firearms are also tools for sports shooting and for competition and thus fill an important social role too.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU! THIS is what I was looking for. Now, can others follow your example?
 
vegas giants said:
I will take the extreme pro gun side:


I believe all gun laws should be abolished. My right to own guns over rides your love of your children and family. I don't care if every child in America dies of gun violence as long as I can have my guns. Everyone should be able to shoot it out wherever they want. Freedom baby
Click to expand...

That is utter nonsense. The 2A is not a right to shoot anyone, much less children. That is akin to saying that the privilege to drive on public roadways is permission to run down pedestrians and to ignore traffic laws.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is utter nonsense. The 2A is not a right to shoot anyone, much less children. That is akin to saying that the privilege to drive on public roadways is permission to run down pedestrians and to ignore traffic laws.
Click to expand...

Tell that to gun nuts who share these views. There are plenty of them
 
vegas giants said:
I can't. It violates forum rules. Trust me.....it would be easy
Click to expand...

Quoting other posters (in full context) does not violate forum rules nor does referring to names of posters that have participated in this thread. You are prone to making such assertions yet (always?) manage to find some reason not to back them up. Nice dodge - yet again.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Quoting other posters (in full context) does not violate forum rules nor does referring to names of posters that have participated in this thread. You are prone to making such assertions yet (always?) manage to find some reason not to back them up. Nice dodge - yet again.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I can not refer to individuals on this forum as gun nuts. Too late
 
vegas giants said:
Sorry. I can not refer to individuals on this forum as gun nuts. Too late
Click to expand...

Exactly. You AGAIN made a claim that you had no intention of ever backing up. You could, of course, show us posts of folks that think that the 2A allows intentionally killing folks (other than in self-defense) and/or have stated that they don't care about 'gun crime' victims but you won't - because you simply can't find such posts.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Exactly. You AGAIN made a claim that you had no intention of ever backing up. You could, of course, show us posts of folks that think that the 2A allows intentionally killing folks and/or have stated that they don't care about 'gun crime' victims but you won't - because you simply can't find such posts.
Click to expand...

I have no intention of breaking forum rules
 
We tried this over in the ME forum a few years ago. It worked well for the most part and enabled posters to find some common ground.

It could work well here too if people could just get the sticks out of their arses for 5 minutes and actually tried to stay within the spirit of the thread.

Try. You might be surprised.
 
As a faux gun control proponent...

I start with recognizing the Constitution as the supreme law of the land> Therefore...while I may WANT to see restrictions, I will defer to the founding document. That being said...

I do believe that people proven to be a danger to themselves or others and those that have shown tendency to commit violent acts should if not forfiet their rights to keep and bear arms, should be required to petition for the return of those rights and demonstrate that there is a reasonable expectation that they can be trusted.

I believe gun laws should be enforced.

I would see laws requiring gun owners be responsible with their firearms...especially in homes with children or adolescents with demonstrated mental health/behavioral health concerns. There should be a standard of reasonable care established.

Not sure if this is meeting the OP challenge..because I pretty much feel this way as a pro-gun proponent. I cant argue AGAINST gun ownership even if I wanted to because you cant ignore the Constitution.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm interested to know if anyone on the pro-gun control side can argue from the point of the pro-2nd Amendment side.

And if anyone from the pro-2nd Amendment side can argue the pro-gun control side.

I can't right now as I'm too tired. Going to get some sleep after I post this. But for now consider that this is what the thread is about. Argue the opposite side. If you can't, or won't, then simply please do not post in the thread. I would like to see an honest attempt at this.
Click to expand...

As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes away!
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm interested to know if anyone on the pro-gun control side can argue from the point of the pro-2nd Amendment side.

And if anyone from the pro-2nd Amendment side can argue the pro-gun control side.

I can't right now as I'm too tired. Going to get some sleep after I post this. But for now consider that this is what the thread is about. Argue the opposite side. If you can't, or won't, then simply please do not post in the thread. I would like to see an honest attempt at this.
Click to expand...

1). All unsafe, nonfunctional firearms can be turned in for food vouchers at the local law enforcement offices. Functional forearms may be turned in no questions asked for a larger reward.

2). Firearms of historic value will be retained and refurbished and available for purchase from museums and/or collectors. Others shall be destroyed and metal recycled.

3). All weapons will be subject to registration. Registration to be the responsibity of local law enforcement. A "registration holiday" will allow weapons to be registered with current owners no questions asked. Only weapons deemed illegal by laws/acts prior to 1940 shall be considered to be unregisterable and shall be turned over to LEO for disposal. Fair market value shall be given to previous owner.

4). Registration info shall not leave the local law enforcement entities unless part of a criminal investigation...


More to follow.
 
I don't see it as two different sides, I see it as a cult versus scattered positions all over the spectrum.
Some liberals were always okay with the 2A, more are coming to terms with it and are wondering what to do about the just plain violent nature of our society instead. They worry about mental health, about the collective mental health of our country.

I advise liberals to take BACK the gun issue and make it their own, because guns are here to stay no matter what laws are passed. But maybe more importantly, self-preservation against crazy people is the larger issue, what with all the talk of civil war and weapons grade revanchist authoritarianism against people outside the extreme Right.
Conservatives do not deserve sole authority on the gun issue because, left to their own, they destroyed its sanctity.

I make my peace with the gun issue every day by saying, "Let sensible gun control begin with liberal gun owners, let it begin with me."

It's not two opposite sides as much as it's a side that has healthy respect for guns versus a fundamentalist cult that allows nothing outside the absolutist position. That doesn't mean that banners do not exist, it acknowledges the fact that they ultimately have no power to make any real world effective ban ever come to fruition, except on paper.

It's like the abortion issue. You can ban abortion all you want, even impose the death penalty, but abortions will continue to happen.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I don't see it as two different sides, I see it as a cult versus scattered positions all over the spectrum.
Some liberals were always okay with the 2A, more are coming to terms with it and are wondering what to do about the just plain violent nature of our society instead. They worry about mental health, about the collective mental health of our country.

I advise liberals to take BACK the gun issue and make it their own, because guns are here to stay no matter what laws are passed. But maybe more importantly, self-preservation against crazy people is the larger issue, what with all the talk of civil war and weapons grade revanchist authoritarianism against people outside the extreme Right.

I make my peace with the gun issue every day by saying, "Let sensible gun control begin with liberal gun owners, let it begin with me."

It's not two opposite sides as much as it's a side that has healthy respect for guns versus a fundamentalist cult that allows nothing outside the absolutist position. That doesn't mean that banners do not exist, it acknowledges the fact that they ultimately have no power to make any real world effective ban ever come to fruition, except on paper.

It's like the abortion issue. You can ban abortion all you want, even impose the death penalty, but abortions will continue to happen.
Click to expand...

Hello 👋 Checkerbro. When they say the two choices are pro gun control versus pro 2nd Amendment, such a dishonest characterization, they’ve already dismissed themselves as quality posters with good form.

This is just one of so many Nixon/Atwater/Cantor false narratives from the GOP that left Eisenhower, T. Roosevelt and Lincoln.

As I’ve mentioned here before — GAGGED — God — Abortion — Gays (LGBT 🏳️*🌈 ) — Guns 💪 — Environmental Degradation
 
Serenity said:
We tried this over in the ME forum a few years ago. It worked well for the most part and enabled posters to find some common ground.

It could work well here too if people could just get the sticks out of their arses for 5 minutes and actually tried to stay within the spirit of the thread.

Try. You might be surprised.
Click to expand...
You know I did have a rebuttal but said screw it because in the end it was phony as hell and anyone that read it would know,be they anti or pro gun.
 
Being an anarchist, I'm all about freedom, but can't see the 2nd amendment as legitimate...so I don't know how to proceed here. I guess I'd have to pretend I'm a totalitarian, as that's my opposite.

I'm in charge of all of you because I say so. Do as I say; give me all your guns and ammunition.

...I'll be at the range. :mrgreen:
 
vegas giants said:
My right to own guns over rides your love of your children and family.
Click to expand...
The right to own guns goes hand in hand with the love of your children and family because with guns you can protect your children and family.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm interested to know if anyone on the pro-gun control side can argue from the point of the pro-2nd Amendment side.

And if anyone from the pro-2nd Amendment side can argue the pro-gun control side.

I can't right now as I'm too tired. Going to get some sleep after I post this. But for now consider that this is what the thread is about. Argue the opposite side. If you can't, or won't, then simply please do not post in the thread. I would like to see an honest attempt at this.
Click to expand...

Ha...you know I can... ;) Of course, I feel like I already do, being a Lefty pro-responsible-gun-ownership fella.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom