• 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!

Shouldn't the entire U.S be considered a gun free zone?

soylentgreen said:
Actually that is not marxism. A single leader was the idea of lenin not marx. Marx was very much a person who believed the proletariat ruled through elected government. A shared responsibility of the people rather than one group of elite.
Lenin through bolshevism decided that one single party ruled by one man was the way to go. Marx would have favoured trotsky who was a menshevik.

I still do not see how guns come into this. As you point out it is a cultural problem best solved by changing the culture rather than just collecting guns and waiting for someone to start shooting your elected leaders.
Click to expand...


To the Republican right in the USA the definition of a Marxist Dictator is someone elected to the White House who wants to pursue a policy of gun control.


They say that should should a situation arise, 1776 will seem like a snow ball fight...
 
soylentgreen said:
Actually that is not marxism. A single leader was the idea of lenin not marx. Marx was very much a person who believed the proletariat ruled through elected government. A shared responsibility of the people rather than one group of elite.
Lenin through bolshevism decided that one single party ruled by one man was the way to go. Marx would have favoured trotsky who was a menshevik.

I still do not see how guns come into this. As you point out it is a cultural problem best solved by changing the culture rather than just collecting guns and waiting for someone to start shooting your elected leaders.
Click to expand...

It's really simple: Firearms are a hobby. Today someone screws with someone else's hobby; tomorrow yours will get screwed with. Antique cars are death traps and have inferior braking and steering. Someone will want to ban that too. Almost everything offends somebody. I will take freedom, thank you very much.
 
Rich2018 said:
Sadly yours is a POV that is so common amongst the Republican right.

Anyone promoting gun control is labelled a Marxist, Communist...etc

Stalin took away people guns, Stalin was a communist, so if you want to restrict gun ownership in the USA, you're a Communist, Marxist. Socialist.

Do you count Germany today as a Marxist country...or France...or the UK, Ireland, Australia ?
Guess what they all control gun ownership.
Click to expand...

Nigel Farage would tell you that the EU is a heavy-handed Marxist entity.
 
SDET said:
Nigel Farage would tell you that the EU is a heavy-handed Marxist entity.
Click to expand...



He is a political lunatic....but he does/did have a very valid point.


The EU wants to become "The United States of Europe"


If Americans think Congress is wasteful, they should take a look at the EU Parliament.


Europe is not a country and never will be...the EU will end in tears sometime.
 
Rich2018 said:
To the Republican right in the USA the definition of a Marxist Dictator is someone elected to the White House who wants to pursue a policy of gun control.


They say that should should a situation arise, 1776 will seem like a snow ball fight...
Click to expand...

Somehow i really doubt that republicans will do any more than they do now. Which is enjoy the golden chains of slavery they wear.
 
SDET said:
It's really simple: Firearms are a hobby. Today someone screws with someone else's hobby; tomorrow yours will get screwed with. Antique cars are death traps and have inferior braking and steering. Someone will want to ban that too. Almost everything offends somebody. I will take freedom, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

That is really nothing more than the sad lament of the pro gun group. Rather than face an intelligent way of dealing with guns they will simply shout down any suggestions with the mindless sheeple babble of, " they want to take our guns away from us."

Your freedom is not based on your gun. Especially if your then making the contradictory opinion that guns are only a hobby.

Guns are a hobby in many countries but in america guns are an obsession. And unlike old cars with faulty brakes as a problem. Guns are not a problem, just the person who thinks stupidity with a gun is a right.
 
Rich2018 said:
I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough - so let me explain more clearly:


There is no requirement for a rifle to have a pistol grip in order to be classified as an "assault rifle".
A military assault rifle is a rifle that fires an intermediate round, with selective fire (meaning it can fire semi or fully automatic) and has a detachable box magazine.

However the purpose of a pistol grip is to aid control of the weapon when firing, especially on full auto - hence nearly all if not all assault rifles have a pistol grip (if not two).



An "assault type" weapon that is attacked by the gun control lobby is one that resembles a military combat rifle (assault rifle) - though they are usually semi auto only as you can't have a fully auto weapon made after 1996.
But resembling military rifles they will invariable have a pistol grip and are usually black (or camo painted).
So if a semi auto rifle, firing a NATO 5.56mm round in a detachable magazine has a wood stock and no pistol grip, it may very well not be attacked by the gun control lobby as an "assault type" weapon.
Click to expand...

A Mini 14 is an assault rifle then.
 
Bucky said:
The United States is the only country in the world that has a "right to bear arms" in its Constitution. It is quite insane but we have to live with it.

The Founding Fathers did mention maintaining a "well-regulated militia." We do know guns are not well regulated in this country. This social experiment has failed for the last 200 years.

When I read the term "well-regulated militia" I automatically assume this gives a presumption against gun ownership and making it less available for the everyday citizen.
Click to expand...

given you are almost always wrong on anything remotely connected to the second amendment, its not surprising how wrong you are here.
 
Rich2018 said:
That's very interesting

BUT does the Supreme Court's judgement mean a legal resident in the USA can own ANY kind of gun ?
Click to expand...

if the USSC was completely honest it would have held that the federal government has no power whatsoever to interfere with private citizens owning firearms

under the watered down version the second amendment firearms that are in common use among civilians and not "Unusually dangerous" are protected
 
Rich2018 said:
This is the problem with constitutions generally - they are products of their time. Like an old B&W movie they become terribly dated.

Back then the citizenry of a state could reasonable expect to own something similar to what regular soldiers carried. Not any longer.

Today's military would wipe the floor with the best that the USA could field in say the Second World War or the Korean war and maybe even the Vietnam War.

To organize a group of civilians into a fighting force you need a lot of training, a lot of spending, and an organization into which to assimilate them. I'm not sure but is the National Guard the direct descendant of the militia ?

Armed citizens getting together now are nothing more than an armed mob.




IIRC the SCotUSA are still to decide whether a sawn off shotgun is permitted under the 2nd amendment.






Not sure from the pictures, but the bottom one looks to have a greater magazine capacity and also a detachable magazine. That would make it an "assault type weapon" when coupled with the pistol grip.

EDIT: I say "looks to have"
Click to expand...

:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
TurtleDude said:
if the USSC was completely honest it would have held that the federal government has no power whatsoever to interfere with private citizens owning firearms

under the watered down version the second amendment firearms that are in common use among civilians and not "Unusually dangerous" are protected
Click to expand...


That would be a perfectly sound deduction.


Because the moment the SC allows the government to ban ONE firearm, it's only a short trip for the government to ban all weapons except the muzzle loaders in existence in the 18th century.
 
Rich2018 said:
That would be a perfectly sound deduction.


Because the moment the SC allows the government to ban ONE firearm, it's only a short trip for the government to ban all weapons except the muzzle loaders in existence in the 18th century.
Click to expand...

a negative restriction does not suddenly empower the government to limit choices because there are now choices
 
TurtleDude said:
if the USSC was completely honest it would have held that the federal government has no power whatsoever to interfere with private citizens owning firearms

under the watered down version the second amendment firearms that are in common use among civilians and not "Unusually dangerous" are protected
Click to expand...

That's correct.

Now, who decides what is "in common use among civilians" and what is "unusually dangerous?"
 
TurtleDude said:
a negative restriction does not suddenly empower the government to limit choices because there are now choices
Click to expand...

But if you argue that ONE type of firearm is not covered by the 2nd, you can then argue against another firearm.

Where does it stop once the precedent has been set ?
 
Rich2018 said:
But if you argue that ONE type of firearm is not covered by the 2nd, you can then argue against another firearm.

Where does it stop once the precedent has been set ?
Click to expand...

If you read my old posts (no reason to do so) you will find that I do think every firearm is clearly covered by the second amendment
 
TurtleDude said:
If you read my old posts (no reason to do so) you will find that I do think every firearm is clearly covered by the second amendment
Click to expand...


I would agree with you - but do you accept that ***IF*** the USSC did vote that the USG could ban ONE type of firearm, then conceivably it could ban nearly all ?
 
Rich2018 said:
I would agree with you - but do you accept that ***IF*** the USSC did vote that the USG could ban ONE type of firearm, then conceivably it could ban nearly all ?
Click to expand...

the USSC constantly ignores the constitution. I believe if the USG tried to completely ban guns it would cause and justify a civil war
 
TurtleDude said:
the USSC constantly ignores the constitution. I believe if the USG tried to completely ban guns it would cause and justify a civil war
Click to expand...


Well not completely ban firearms but ban those which other countries such as the UK and Australia have.

Why would that cause a civil war ?

Admittedly this is all hypothetical...no real gun control will ever happen in the USA until and unless the 2nd amendment to the Constitution is repealed.
 
Rich2018 said:
Well not completely ban firearms but ban those which other countries such as the UK and Australia have.

Why would that cause a civil war ?

Admittedly this is all hypothetical...no real gun control will ever happen in the USA until and unless the 2nd amendment to the Constitution is repealed.
Click to expand...


the bans on modern hand held automatic weapons not only are a clear violation of the second amendment, they violate the Miller and Heller decisions. I think people are starting to see that some USSC justices don't give a damn about the constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom