• 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!

Trudeau explains why he's banning assault guns

prometeus said:
About / with what?
Click to expand...
Your post that I first responded to. If I got your meaning wrong than I apologize. I do want to understand though.
Wasn't that what the founding fathers did?
Click to expand...
They definitely did risk death and imprisonment. If the British had won the revolutionary War they no doubt would have been hung as traitors.
You don' know **** about me. Why make pu moronic drivel?
Click to expand...
So you would storm the castle by yourself? Doubtful.
?

Yea so?

Also but not only.

Some even say that freedom is in the mind and some people are freer in prison than those outside.

Never said there was.
Click to expand...
So how do you fight for freedom if you are alone?
 
CLAX1911 said:
Your post that I first responded to. If I got your meaning wrong than I apologize. I do want to understand though.
Click to expand...
Its not that you got anything wrong so no need to apologise. Do me a favor and just clarify so I can address it.

They definitely did risk death and imprisonment.
Click to expand...
Yes they did and that that is why they are revered to day, because they were willing to risk EVERYTHING for freedom. It is a shame how many today have little appreciation for the freedom they have and had nothing to sacrifice for it.

So you would storm the castle by yourself?
Click to expand...
No, wanting freedom does not mean being stupid.

So how do you fight for freedom if you are alone?
Click to expand...
You start making your case to others and if you are convincing they will join you.
 
prometeus said:
Its not that you got anything wrong so no need to apologise. Do me a favor and just clarify so I can address it.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry clarify what exactly?
Yes they did and that that is why they are revered to day, because they were willing to risk EVERYTHING for freedom.
Click to expand...
That's only because they won. If they had lost nobody would even know who they are.
It is a shame how many today have little appreciation for the freedom they have and had nothing to sacrifice for it.
Click to expand...
Agreed, we merely stand on the shoulders of giants. I didn't have to risk anything for my freedoms. If I had to if like to think I would but it's hard to know not being there.
No, wanting freedom does not mean being stupid.
Click to expand...
Also agreed. Wanting freedom is nothing risking life and limb to obtain it as well as winning the battle means everything.
You start making your case to others and if you are convincing they will join you.
Click to expand...
If others say no way. You are alone.
 
Lord of Planar said:
One point is when someone misuses the word "assault rifle" for example saying someone wants to ban it.... It's already illegal without a special permit to own one. People turn around and think, damn... That person is a total idiot. When that happens, do you think they will be listened to, or laughed at?

Words have meaning. To incorrectly use words portrays a poor image of the person doing so.
Click to expand...

The gun community has it's own terminology, the more complex a gun, the more precise the terminology.

Often the gun lobby will try to defeat gun control arguments because they don't use the same terminology as them

The gun owners will claim this lack of familiarity with the gun community terminology is a sign of ignorance of guns. They are wrong IMO


The gun control lobby know exactly what they mean, and IMO its just an equivocation fallacy of the gun lobby to nit pick a detail and use it as an argument

The phrase "assault rifle" means something precise to you...but not everyone.
 
Rich2018 said:
The gun community has it's own terminology, the more complex a gun, the more precise the terminology.

Often the gun lobby will try to defeat gun control arguments because they don't use the same terminology as them

The gun owners will claim this lack of familiarity with the gun community terminology is a sign of ignorance of guns. They are wrong IMO


The gun control lobby know exactly what they mean, and IMO its just an equivocation fallacy of the gun lobby to nit pick a detail and use it as an argument

The phrase "assault rifle" means something precise to you...but not everyone.
Click to expand...

Words either mean things or they don't.
 
Rich2018 said:
The gun community has it's own terminology, the more complex a gun, the more precise the terminology.

Often the gun lobby will try to defeat gun control arguments because they don't use the same terminology as them

The gun owners will claim this lack of familiarity with the gun community terminology is a sign of ignorance of guns. They are wrong IMO


The gun control lobby know exactly what they mean, and IMO its just an equivocation fallacy of the gun lobby to nit pick a detail and use it as an argument

The phrase "assault rifle" means something precise to you...but not everyone.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what the term means to you. It has a defined meaning.
 
Rich2018 said:
To who ?

That's the point. It has NO defined meaning because there is no authority to determine definitions

The phrase merely has a usage or usages.
Click to expand...

OK, I see you choose to look foolish to the rest of us.

Isn't the freedom of the USA great!
 
Lord of Planar said:
OK, I see you choose to look foolish to the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Since when do you speak for more than just yourself ?

Isn't the freedom of the USA great!
Click to expand...


First amendment dude, you should respect it more

Just because you call something X
Doesn't mean everyone has to


I bet you get really angry by people calling a magazine a "clip" or a revolver a "pistol"


Or heaven forbid, call a firearm a "gun".
 
Rich2018 said:
Since when do you speak for more than just yourself ?




First amendment dude, you should respect it more

Just because you call something X
Doesn't mean everyone has to


I bet you get really angry by people calling a magazine a "clip" or a revolver a "pistol"


Or heaven forbid, call a firearm a "gun".
Click to expand...

"Clip" is not technically correct when one is talking about a magazine. It's like talking about the wheels on a car when you're really referring to the tires. I'm inclined to give people a pass on clip/magazine though, because so many people use them interchangeably.

A revolver is a type of pistol. Firearm and gun can be used interchangeably, though firearm is more accurate because gun can refer to artillery. (Or a glue applying device for that matter.) On all these, if I'm reasonably sure what someone is talking about I really don't care what term they use. I can ask if I'm in doubt. So long as they are using the terms in good faith.

But what about claiming that the term "portable" doesn't just refer to something that is easily carried, but refers to the legality of carrying something? What of someone who stretches a term to that extent? Do you think someone arguing that is doing so in good faith?
 
Rich2018 said:
No, a simple majority is 3/4 of the states.
Click to expand...

No, a simple majority is just the largest number. The right to bear arms was ratified by unanimity and can only be changed by 3/4 majority of the states legislatures. In which case, you are in the minority.

Which of course is why congress and you ignore the law and just do whatever the majority of partisans want. Tyranny of the majority.
 
jonny5 said:
No, a simple majority is just the largest number. The right to bear arms was ratified by unanimity and can only be changed by 3/4 majority of the states legislatures. In which case, you are in the minority.

Which of course is why congress and you ignore the law and just do whatever the majority of partisans want. Tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...



"1. Congress may submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the states, if the proposed amendment language is approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses.

2. Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 of 50 states).

3. Amendments proposed by Congress or convention become valid only when ratified by the legislatures of, or conventions in, three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states).'


Nothing about 3/4 of the vote in each state - Constitution 101
 
Rich2018 said:
"1. Congress may submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the states, if the proposed amendment language is approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses.

2. Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 of 50 states).

3. Amendments proposed by Congress or convention become valid only when ratified by the legislatures of, or conventions in, three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states).'


Nothing about 3/4 of the vote in each state - Constitution 101
Click to expand...

Thats what I said.

can only be changed by 3/4 majority of the states legislatures.
Click to expand...

And back to the point. You are not in that majority.
 
soylentgreen said:
Not in new zealand, the majority back the decision to an assault rifles. TD hopes masturbates over the idea of a civil war.
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate that your rights can be taken away from you via a vote by the majority.
 
If he gives any reason other than "Because I'm a piece of **** gun banning leftist" then he is lying.
 
apdst said:
Self defense is a natural right.
Click to expand...

Many lefties hate that concept because collectivist authoritarianism is anathema to natural rights. Many gun haters also believe that criminals are merely victims of an "unjust society" and it is not a criminal's fault that he has been "forced" to victimize others. So when you fight back against a violent attacker-and perhaps shoot and kill him-he is further victimized. I know, I heard the same crap when I shot a mugger (who was on probation after injuring a security guard a month before I shot the mugger). A couple far left barking loons defended the mope saying he couldn't help his criminal ways given his father was in prison and his mother was under indictment.
 
TurtleDude said:
Many lefties hate that concept because collectivist authoritarianism is anathema to natural rights. Many gun haters also believe that criminals are merely victims of an "unjust society" and it is not a criminal's fault that he has been "forced" to victimize others. So when you fight back against a violent attacker-and perhaps shoot and kill him-he is further victimized. I know, I heard the same crap when I shot a mugger (who was on probation after injuring a security guard a month before I shot the mugger). A couple far left barking loons defended the mope saying he couldn't help his criminal ways given his father was in prison and his mother was under indictment.
Click to expand...

Lefties hate any freedom that the government doesn't toally control. It's why they despise The Constitution.
 
Rich2018 said:
The gun owners will claim this lack of familiarity with the gun community terminology is a sign of ignorance of guns. They are wrong IMO
Click to expand...

But they are ignorant, at least in terms of guns. If you want to argue about guns, no matter what side you take, you will have to learn the terminology if you want to be effective.
 
apdst said:
It's unfortunate that your rights can be taken away from you via a vote by the majority.
Click to expand...

It is even more unfortunate that you need to stay ignorant in order to support your beliefs. Only americans are stupid enough to think guns should be a right. But guns are not a right in canada so your statement is not only a lie but a demonstration of how ignorance promotes such lies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom