Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Big Issues: "Gun Rights" --> "Gun Control"?

UchihaMadara
Posts: 1,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 10:53:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
i think there is a lot more division on whether or not there should be gun control than whether or not people should have gun rights...
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 11:00:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 10:53:21 AM, UchihaMadara wrote:
i think there is a lot more division on whether or not there should be gun control than whether or not people should have gun rights...

I'd say so. I'm a supporter of both gun control and gun rights, though perhaps some people would see the two as contradictory. For me, it's like saying I support the right to own and drive a car, and at the same time I support speed limits, registration, licenses, and controls on drunk driving.
UchihaMadara
Posts: 1,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 11:19:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 11:00:38 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 9/8/2014 10:53:21 AM, UchihaMadara wrote:
i think there is a lot more division on whether or not there should be gun control than whether or not people should have gun rights...

I'd say so. I'm a supporter of both gun control and gun rights, though perhaps some people would see the two as contradictory. For me, it's like saying I support the right to own and drive a car, and at the same time I support speed limits, registration, licenses, and controls on drunk driving.

that's pretty much my take on the issue as well
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 11:33:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree and I'm surprised this wasn't changed the last time they updated the big issues. Internet censorship is another big issue where the wording is really loaded.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 12:38:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have never had any success in getting liberals to separate the issues. Ask a liberal point blank, "Does an individual have a right to effective self-defense?" and there is never any response other than evasion. The DC v Heller Supreme Court decision that struck down the DC gun ban was all about a right to effective self-defense. The Supremes ruled that the Second Amendment guaranteed it. The right is to what is conventional for self-defense, so it's guns and not flame throwers. The bounds of regulation short of a total ban are still up for debate.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 3:23:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 11:00:38 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 9/8/2014 10:53:21 AM, UchihaMadara wrote:
i think there is a lot more division on whether or not there should be gun control than whether or not people should have gun rights...

I'd say so. I'm a supporter of both gun control and gun rights, though perhaps some people would see the two as contradictory. For me, it's like saying I support the right to own and drive a car, and at the same time I support speed limits, registration, licenses, and controls on drunk driving.

The Second Amendment was born from the idea that "the people' have a right to arm themselves in defense of their rights - even against their own government.

Can you tell me what sense it makes to 'register' your guns with a Government you may have to use those guns against - in defense of your rights and freedoms?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 5:16:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 10:53:21 AM, UchihaMadara wrote:
i think there is a lot more division on whether or not there should be gun control than whether or not people should have gun rights...

I'll put it to you this way.. Most crimes are committed with stolen guns or black market guns.
Haroush
Posts: 1,329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 5:21:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
More people die by car accidents than they do guns.. I guess we'll have to start putting more regulations on the privilege to drive a car. Oh no! Now I am going to have to pay more money for that! Figures.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 9:13:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 3:23:06 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/8/2014 11:00:38 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 9/8/2014 10:53:21 AM, UchihaMadara wrote:
i think there is a lot more division on whether or not there should be gun control than whether or not people should have gun rights...

I'd say so. I'm a supporter of both gun control and gun rights, though perhaps some people would see the two as contradictory. For me, it's like saying I support the right to own and drive a car, and at the same time I support speed limits, registration, licenses, and controls on drunk driving.

The Second Amendment was born from the idea that "the people' have a right to arm themselves in defense of their rights - even against their own government.

If the goal is to be able to defend our rights against our government, then we're going to need a lot more than the guns currently available to the general public. A tyrannical government, wielding all the weapons that the U.S. currently has, would soundly destroy any chance of such a rebellion working. Moreover, the interpretation that the second amendment was written for the purpose of the people defending their rights against their own tyrannical government is, at the very least, a bit of a stretch. There's no such language.

Can you tell me what sense it makes to 'register' your guns with a Government you may have to use those guns against - in defense of your rights and freedoms?

So, what happens if we register guns? Are you worried that letting the government know you have one means they will confiscate it should they become tyrannical? How exactly would that work? Would they send members of a secret police force into every one of the hundred million homes that currently contain guns and demand to be given them? That's asking for trouble, and if anything, it makes the fight against that government so much easier, since each individual household could now run their own fight against small, unsupported forces. Besides that, if we're talking about rights and freedoms, the fact that some people can acquire guns that cannot be tracked and then go blow away a number of other people with them showcases a distinct problem to those peoples' rights and freedoms. Why don't theirs matter?
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 9:19:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 5:16:32 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 9/8/2014 10:53:21 AM, UchihaMadara wrote:
i think there is a lot more division on whether or not there should be gun control than whether or not people should have gun rights...

I'll put it to you this way.. Most crimes are committed with stolen guns or black market guns.

Really now?

So the guns Adam Lanza used to slaughter 20 first-graders were stolen? No.

How about Virginia Tech? Nope, those were legally purchased as well.

Or UCSB? Nope.

Columbine? Nope.

Aurora? Nope.

You guys really DO make this stuff up.

http://chronicle.augusta.com...
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 9:22:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 5:16:32 AM, Haroush wrote:
At 9/8/2014 10:53:21 AM, UchihaMadara wrote:
i think there is a lot more division on whether or not there should be gun control than whether or not people should have gun rights...

I'll put it to you this way.. Most crimes are committed with stolen guns or black market guns.

I don't know if that's true, and even if it was, I don't know how that justifies making those same guns legal to acquire. More importantly, I'm not sure it has anything to do with UchihaMadara's point, which is that gun controls have a lot more proponents than gun rights have opponents.

More people die by car accidents than they do guns.. I guess we'll have to start putting more regulations on the privilege to drive a car. Oh no! Now I am going to have to pay more money for that! Figures.

I don't think that's a good comparison. For one thing, we do put a lot of regulations on driving a car, and I'm pretty sure you'd have some pretty strong issues with applying those same regulations to guns. For another, this isn't a comparison of death rates. I don't see why altering gun laws necessitates a look at all possible policies that could effect death tolls in other areas. If someone can justify gun control by showing that it could reduce the number of lives lost, they don't then have to prove that the same should be done for cars. Lastly, cars represent a very distinct problem due to their general necessity in society. It's comparing apples to oranges.
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 9:24:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 5:21:13 AM, Haroush wrote:
More people die by car accidents than they do guns.. I guess we'll have to start putting more regulations on the privilege to drive a car. Oh no! Now I am going to have to pay more money for that! Figures.

Actually, deaths by guns outnumbered deaths by car accidents in 14 states, and the trend is set to converge such that gun deaths will outnumber car accidents by 2015.

http://www.ibtimes.com...
http://www.bloomberg.com...

And that is a COMPLETE strawman. We already have regulations on your privilege to drive a car. You have to register your car, you have to go through certain licensing, you're monitored on the roads such that your license can be provoked upon reckless behavior, you may have to take classes down the road, you can be incarcerated for driving whilst inebriated, etc. With guns, we don't even have universal background checks. So, please, spare me the fairy tale you gun-toting morons have that "to do anything at all, we must do everything!" Get out of your comfort zone for a minute and consider that the world isn't black and white, and perhaps for once -- I'm about to say something that may hurt your fragile conservative brain -- facts ought to triumph over theology.
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 9:25:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 9:24:33 AM, BobTurner wrote:
At 9/9/2014 5:21:13 AM, Haroush wrote:
More people die by car accidents than they do guns.. I guess we'll have to start putting more regulations on the privilege to drive a car. Oh no! Now I am going to have to pay more money for that! Figures.

Actually, deaths by guns outnumbered deaths by car accidents in 14 states, and the trend is set to converge such that gun deaths will outnumber car accidents by 2015.

http://www.ibtimes.com...
http://www.bloomberg.com...

And that is a COMPLETE strawman. We already have regulations on your privilege to drive a car. You have to register your car, you have to go through certain licensing, you're monitored on the roads such that your license can be provoked upon reckless behavior, you may have to take classes down the road, you can be incarcerated for driving whilst inebriated, etc. With guns, we don't even have universal background checks. So, please, spare me the fairy tale you gun-toting morons have that "to do anything at all, we must do everything!" Get out of your comfort zone for a minute and consider that the world isn't black and white, and perhaps for once -- I'm about to say something that may hurt your fragile conservative brain -- facts ought to triumph over theology.

*revoked
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 9:31:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 12:38:06 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I have never had any success in getting liberals to separate the issues. Ask a liberal point blank, "Does an individual have a right to effective self-defense?" and there is never any response other than evasion.

That's a nonsensical extrapolation, and someone of your stature should know better than to make sweeping generalizations.

Let me answer your question: Yes. People DO have a right to self-defense.

Let me ask you a question now: What does that self-defense entail? I've asked many conservatives whether this right entails the unalienable right to own an automatic, or an Ozzie, or a tank. Some dodge the question entirely, others outright say "yes," and others who are more reasonable say "of course not." If you can agree with me that this right isn't absolute such that it should include automatic rifles, you've already conceded that absolutism is the wrong lens through which to view the issue of guns. As you do that, we're simply debating shades of gray, so your assertion that a liberal is categorically opposed to a right to self-defense is dubious at best, mendacious at worst.

The DC v Heller Supreme Court decision that struck down the DC gun ban was all about a right to effective self-defense.

Actually, it was about whether the right to bear arms was individual or collective, as it was interpreted as collective prior to Heller.

The Supremes ruled that the Second Amendment guaranteed it. The right is to what is conventional for self-defense, so it's guns and not flame throwers. The bounds of regulation short of a total ban are still up for debate.

They are absolutely up for debate, which is why a sweeping generalization to the effect that liberals who may want assault rifles off the streets are opposed to a right to self-defense is irresponsible and flat wrong.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 9:42:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 10:53:21 AM, UchihaMadara wrote:
i think there is a lot more division on whether or not there should be gun control than whether or not people should have gun rights...

I think there is a wide division in what kind of gun control various advocates support.

I am a gun owner and member of the NRA. I live in Texas and hunt every year for deer and duck.

I am a gun control activist.

I believe all weapon purchases should be subject to a background check.

I do not believe "assault weapons" are any more dangerous than any other long rifle.

I disagree strongly with many urban gun control advocates, but I disagree even more strongly with those who claim ANY form of rational gun sales management is an attack on the constitution.

We have a right to bear arms, that could mean we all have a right to wear a sword, but guns could be universally banned. The Constitution would still be satisfied.

We have to frame this argument not as one of a constitutional origin, but rational legislative action.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 9:46:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 12:38:06 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I have never had any success in getting liberals to separate the issues. Ask a liberal point blank, "Does an individual have a right to effective self-defense?" and there is never any response other than evasion.

You're not asking the right "liberals". Maybe speak with adult liberals and progressives rather than kids.

The DC v Heller Supreme Court decision that struck down the DC gun ban was all about a right to effective self-defense. The Supremes ruled that the Second Amendment guaranteed it.

This is entirely true, and the courts made the right call.

The right is to what is conventional for self-defense, so it's guns and not flame throwers. The bounds of regulation short of a total ban are still up for debate.

Would you support background checks for weapons purchases? Just curious.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 9:50:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 3:23:06 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/8/2014 11:00:38 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 9/8/2014 10:53:21 AM, UchihaMadara wrote:
i think there is a lot more division on whether or not there should be gun control than whether or not people should have gun rights...

I'd say so. I'm a supporter of both gun control and gun rights, though perhaps some people would see the two as contradictory. For me, it's like saying I support the right to own and drive a car, and at the same time I support speed limits, registration, licenses, and controls on drunk driving.

The Second Amendment was born from the idea that "the people' have a right to arm themselves in defense of their rights - even against their own government.

Can you tell me what sense it makes to 'register' your guns with a Government you may have to use those guns against - in defense of your rights and freedoms?

If the feds want to suppress the people, they have the means to do it. With over 330 million guns in our nation, it is not feasible they could be rounded up.

Any attempt to do so, would be met with violent clashes.
The_Immortal_Emris
Posts: 474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 10:09:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 5:21:13 AM, Haroush wrote:
More people die by car accidents than they do guns.. I guess we'll have to start putting more regulations on the privilege to drive a car. Oh no! Now I am going to have to pay more money for that! Figures.

We already regulate how many people can drive cars. Imagine if we had the same approach for cars as we do guns. Imagine how many would be dead.

Now imagine how many would be alive if we used the same strategies for gun registration.

Background checks and registration laws would save lives, and lower crime.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 10:35:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 11:00:38 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 9/8/2014 10:53:21 AM, UchihaMadara wrote:
i think there is a lot more division on whether or not there should be gun control than whether or not people should have gun rights...

I'd say so. I'm a supporter of both gun control and gun rights, though perhaps some people would see the two as contradictory. For me, it's like saying I support the right to own and drive a car, and at the same time I support speed limits, registration, licenses, and controls on drunk driving.

Except the right to drive a car isn't protected by the constitution. What exact regulations do you support?
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 10:45:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 10:35:08 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 9/8/2014 11:00:38 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 9/8/2014 10:53:21 AM, UchihaMadara wrote:
i think there is a lot more division on whether or not there should be gun control than whether or not people should have gun rights...

I'd say so. I'm a supporter of both gun control and gun rights, though perhaps some people would see the two as contradictory. For me, it's like saying I support the right to own and drive a car, and at the same time I support speed limits, registration, licenses, and controls on drunk driving.

Except the right to drive a car isn't protected by the constitution. What exact regulations do you support?

I'd say that laws enshrined by the Constitution aren't the end all be all, and that the rights in the Constitution to gun ownership aren't nearly so obvious as they're made out to be.

With regards to regulations, my view is that it makes sense to register firearms. It also would be sensible to expand background checks to the universal variety, increase regulations on semi-automatic rifles, restrict or ban high capacity magazines, and improve upon measures that allow psychiatric analysis to translate into the removal of guns from the ownership of dangerous persons.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 12:21:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 10:45:23 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 9/9/2014 10:35:08 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 9/8/2014 11:00:38 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 9/8/2014 10:53:21 AM, UchihaMadara wrote:
i think there is a lot more division on whether or not there should be gun control than whether or not people should have gun rights...

I'd say so. I'm a supporter of both gun control and gun rights, though perhaps some people would see the two as contradictory. For me, it's like saying I support the right to own and drive a car, and at the same time I support speed limits, registration, licenses, and controls on drunk driving.

Except the right to drive a car isn't protected by the constitution. What exact regulations do you support?

I'd say that laws enshrined by the Constitution aren't the end all be all, and that the rights in the Constitution to gun ownership aren't nearly so obvious as they're made out to be.

So you'd be fine with people liberally interpreting the 1st amendment to ban speech they don't like and interpreting the 4th amendment to allow greater searching power for the police? The problem with loose interpretation is you can interpret everything loosely.

With regards to regulations, my view is that it makes sense to register firearms. It also would be sensible to expand background checks to the universal variety, increase regulations on semi-automatic rifles, restrict or ban high capacity magazines, and improve upon measures that allow psychiatric analysis to translate into the removal of guns from the ownership of dangerous persons.

Why does it make sense to register? Do you not see issues with that idea?

What regulations on semi-automatic rifles? Why focus on them when most murders are committed by handguns, which are far easier to conceal?

What limits do you want on magazines?

What psychiatric disorders do you think warrant removal of guns? What do you define as a dangerous person?
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 12:45:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 12:21:52 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 9/9/2014 10:45:23 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 9/9/2014 10:35:08 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 9/8/2014 11:00:38 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 9/8/2014 10:53:21 AM, UchihaMadara wrote:
i think there is a lot more division on whether or not there should be gun control than whether or not people should have gun rights...

I'd say so. I'm a supporter of both gun control and gun rights, though perhaps some people would see the two as contradictory. For me, it's like saying I support the right to own and drive a car, and at the same time I support speed limits, registration, licenses, and controls on drunk driving.

Except the right to drive a car isn't protected by the constitution. What exact regulations do you support?

I'd say that laws enshrined by the Constitution aren't the end all be all, and that the rights in the Constitution to gun ownership aren't nearly so obvious as they're made out to be.

So you'd be fine with people liberally interpreting the 1st amendment to ban speech they don't like and interpreting the 4th amendment to allow greater searching power for the police? The problem with loose interpretation is you can interpret everything loosely.

Now you're just extrapolating with no evidence as to my views. I didn't say that we should loosely interpret it, I said that the second amendment is vague. Other amendments are also vague, but certain things are made abundantly clear, like the freedom of speech, yet despite having that freedom, we don't retain it in all instances (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theater). Even if they were all explicit, there would be contradictions, as there most certainly are, that have to be dealt with through a delicate balancing act. The second amendment shouldn't get priority over every other rights structure.

With regards to regulations, my view is that it makes sense to register firearms. It also would be sensible to expand background checks to the universal variety, increase regulations on semi-automatic rifles, restrict or ban high capacity magazines, and improve upon measures that allow psychiatric analysis to translate into the removal of guns from the ownership of dangerous persons.

Why does it make sense to register? Do you not see issues with that idea?

No, I don't. Registration of guns allows us to track legally acquired guns, and thus illegally acquired guns would be much easier to spot. The only problem I've ever been presented with on this is that the government might some day take them back, but the logic on that is all wonky. I can't figure out in what instance that would occur. If a government became tyrannical, they wouldn't waste their time confiscating known sources of guns and spreading their military/police force too thin in the process.

What regulations on semi-automatic rifles? Why focus on them when most murders are committed by handguns, which are far easier to conceal?

Mainly, I'd step up licensing on semi-automatic rifles to the level of automatic weapons. I feel that there's a lack of distinction between the two. And, once again, you're comparing numbers without any reasoning as to why. A pistol is a dangerous weapon in its own right, but I feel it's going too far to place the same regulations on the usual pistols as we do on, say, automatic rifles. It's because of the capacity for harm in a single instance of use. Yes, pistols are more often used, but automatic rifles can dole out the most deaths in the shortest time.

What limits do you want on magazines?

Capacity limitations. I don't have a specific number in mind, but such that high capacity magazines are off the table.

What psychiatric disorders do you think warrant removal of guns? What do you define as a dangerous person?

Neither of those things are up to me to decide - I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist. If you want, I can get you a list of what they view as the most problematic, but generally, I don't think it's that difficult to distinguish someone who has violent tendencies from other individuals, not to mention those who present a very obvious psychosis.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 12:54:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 9:13:09 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 9/9/2014 3:23:06 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:

The Second Amendment was born from the idea that "the people' have a right to arm themselves in defense of their rights - even against their own government.

If the goal is to be able to defend our rights against our government, then we're going to need a lot more than the guns currently available to the general public.

Do you mean like, millions of sympathetic prior service military who are able and ready to fight for their freedoms too? We have that. If you mean that we would need more guns and weaponry? Look at the military conflicts around the world where militias continue to fight with even less.

A tyrannical government, wielding all the weapons that the U.S. currently has, would soundly destroy any chance of such a rebellion working.

I can't disagree more. Our military may be commanded by the president and controlled by governmental decisions but they are under oath to protect our Constitution and the PEOPLE of the United States - NOT the government or the president.

Moreover, the interpretation that the second amendment was written for the purpose of the people defending their rights against their own tyrannical government is, at the very least, a bit of a stretch. There's no such language.


Yes. There is.

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Can you tell me what sense it makes to 'register' your guns with a Government you may have to use those guns against - in defense of your rights and freedoms?

So, what happens if we register guns? Are you worried that letting the government know you have one means they will confiscate it should they become tyrannical?

Concerned? Yes. Worried? No.

How exactly would that work? Would they send members of a secret police force into every one of the hundred million homes that currently contain guns and demand to be given them?

Local authorities, situations like WACO, Ruby Ridge and countless other police type actions.

That's asking for trouble, and if anything, it makes the fight against that government so much easier, since each individual household could now run their own fight against small, unsupported forces.

Really?

Who prevailed in Waco? Ruby Ridge?

Besides that, if we're talking about rights and freedoms, the fact that some people can acquire guns that cannot be tracked and then go blow away a number of other people with them showcases a distinct problem to those peoples' rights and freedoms. Why don't theirs matter?

Criminals by definition don't care about laws. Specifically, Not even gun laws.

So, please show me how you can force CRIMINALS to register their weapons by requiring the law abiding people to do so. Please show me how you can PREVENT criminals from getting guns ILLEGALLY by making more laws that they don't give a rats azz about.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 1:05:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 12:45:22 PM, whiteflame wrote:
Now you're just extrapolating with no evidence as to my views. I didn't say that we should loosely interpret it, I said that the second amendment is vague. Other amendments are also vague, but certain things are made abundantly clear, like the freedom of speech, yet despite having that freedom, we don't retain it in all instances (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theater). Even if they were all explicit, there would be contradictions, as there most certainly are, that have to be dealt with through a delicate balancing act. The second amendment shouldn't get priority over every other rights structure.

In regards to the right guaranteed, it seems pretty clear.

No, I don't. Registration of guns allows us to track legally acquired guns, and thus illegally acquired guns would be much easier to spot. The only problem I've ever been presented with on this is that the government might some day take them back, but the logic on that is all wonky. I can't figure out in what instance that would occur. If a government became tyrannical, they wouldn't waste their time confiscating known sources of guns and spreading their military/police force too thin in the process.

You don't need a tyrannical government to confiscate guns, and they don't need to all be confiscated at once.

Mainly, I'd step up licensing on semi-automatic rifles to the level of automatic weapons. I feel that there's a lack of distinction between the two.

First off, it is ignorant to suggest machine guns and semi-automatic rifles are the same thing. Semi-automatic is one trigger pull, one shot - the same as virtually every pistol out there today. That's why I'm asking you why you aren't tough on pistols - they're the same thing, just smaller and thus easier to conceal. That's why most shootings involve pistols, not rifles. Even if you assume gun control is the answer, focusing on rifles doesn't solve the problem.

Second, how familiar are you with federal machine gun laws?

And, once again, you're comparing numbers without any reasoning as to why. A pistol is a dangerous weapon in its own right, but I feel it's going too far to place the same regulations on the usual pistols as we do on, say, automatic rifles. It's because of the capacity for harm in a single instance of use. Yes, pistols are more often used, but automatic rifles can dole out the most deaths in the shortest time.

You can kill just as many people with a pistol as a rifle. They're both semi auto.

Capacity limitations. I don't have a specific number in mind, but such that high capacity magazines are off the table.

It's hard to judge the merit of this idea when you don't give a number. Do you support the seven-round ban New York instituted?

Neither of those things are up to me to decide - I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist. If you want, I can get you a list of what they view as the most problematic, but generally, I don't think it's that difficult to distinguish someone who has violent tendencies from other individuals, not to mention those who present a very obvious psychosis.

I think we mostly agree on this aspect then.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 1:10:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 12:54:44 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/9/2014 9:13:09 AM, whiteflame wrote:
At 9/9/2014 3:23:06 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:

The Second Amendment was born from the idea that "the people' have a right to arm themselves in defense of their rights - even against their own government.

If the goal is to be able to defend our rights against our government, then we're going to need a lot more than the guns currently available to the general public.

Do you mean like, millions of sympathetic prior service military who are able and ready to fight for their freedoms too? We have that. If you mean that we would need more guns and weaponry? Look at the military conflicts around the world where militias continue to fight with even less.

I mean the latter, and in those cases, they're not up against the best armed, best funded military in the world. If Assad had access to and was willing to use heavy bombing raids and even atomic bombs, he would, and the guns used against him would be of little concern.

A tyrannical government, wielding all the weapons that the U.S. currently has, would soundly destroy any chance of such a rebellion working.

I can't disagree more. Our military may be commanded by the president and controlled by governmental decisions but they are under oath to protect our Constitution and the PEOPLE of the United States - NOT the government or the president.

Now you're just confusing your own scenario. You're saying that there might come a day when our government becomes tyrannical. If the military doesn't follow that government, then it won't matter in the slightest whether we have guns, since the military will do all of the work of taking that government out. I'm addressing the situation where the military (or some police force that utilizes the military's tools of warfare) follows the government's whims. If that's not where you're going with this, then you need to rethink how you're arguing your stance.

Moreover, the interpretation that the second amendment was written for the purpose of the people defending their rights against their own tyrannical government is, at the very least, a bit of a stretch. There's no such language.


Yes. There is.

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yes, I can read. It doesn't say anything about taking down one's own government once it becomes tyrannical. One could read into it and say that in order to secure "a free State", one must be able to remove a tyrannical government that threatens that freedom, but even that's a stretch, since that brings into question what it means to become tyrannical, what is enough of a blow to freedom that it requires such a militia, and whether "a free State" can exist in a war torn world of paramilitaries fighting against the military of the country.

Can you tell me what sense it makes to 'register' your guns with a Government you may have to use those guns against - in defense of your rights and freedoms?

So, what happens if we register guns? Are you worried that letting the government know you have one means they will confiscate it should they become tyrannical?

Concerned? Yes. Worried? No.

Concern stems from a belief that it could happen. I'd like to see some reasoning as to why it's likely.

How exactly would that work? Would they send members of a secret police force into every one of the hundred million homes that currently contain guns and demand to be given them?

Local authorities, situations like WACO, Ruby Ridge and countless other police type actions.

So local authorities across the entire country will all march to the beat of the exact same drum and confiscate weapons on what is, at best, a flimsy basis, while facing down some of the largest and most diffuse paramilitaries that are forming against them on individual battlefronts with limited resources? Why would they bother? What purpose is there in doing this? Doesn't it make so much more sense not to risk all of those lives and resources in countless firefights and just bomb the crap out of any opposition?

That's asking for trouble, and if anything, it makes the fight against that government so much easier, since each individual household could now run their own fight against small, unsupported forces.

Really?

Who prevailed in Waco? Ruby Ridge?

Again, isolated instances where they could devote large amounts of resources to single engagements. The results of those instances should not be treated as reflective of what would happen on a nationwide scale in cities the world over.

Besides that, if we're talking about rights and freedoms, the fact that some people can acquire guns that cannot be tracked and then go blow away a number of other people with them showcases a distinct problem to those peoples' rights and freedoms. Why don't theirs matter?

Criminals by definition don't care about laws. Specifically, Not even gun laws.

By that logic, we should make guns infinitely accessible and all criminals should also have legal access. We deny them access because we realize that there are a lot of concerns with doing so. If you want to argue that criminals should have access, by all means, do so. I'll be happy to rebut that.

So, please show me how you can force CRIMINALS to register their weapons by requiring the law abiding people to do so. Please show me how you can PREVENT criminals from getting guns ILLEGALLY by making more laws that they don't give a rats azz about.

Criminals don't register guns. Law abiding citizens do. And when a gun gets stolen, that gun will still be registered to the law abiding citizen, and therefore can be confiscated from the person who stole it. It's a large part of the same reason why we register cars.

I'm not saying that I'll prevent criminals from illegally acquiring guns by implementing gun controls. That statement has the answer in it - you can't prevent illegal acquisition through laws that govern legal acquisition. However, you can determine if a gun was acquired legally if you have registration. You can force criminals to use illegal, dangerous and expensive means to acquire their guns rather than providing them a safe, legal, and cheap route to access. I don't have to provide a catch-all solution in order to show that there's a net benefit.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 1:11:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 12:38:06 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I have never had any success in getting liberals to separate the issues. Ask a liberal point blank, "Does an individual have a right to effective self-defense?" and there is never any response other than evasion.

lol... Have an answer from an Irishman, Roy: https://www.youtube.com...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 1:47:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
@WhiteFlame, I don't have time for a long protracted debate here in the forums section. If you want to debate something specific with regards to Gun control? Send me a debate challenge.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 2:18:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 1:05:09 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 9/9/2014 12:45:22 PM, whiteflame wrote:
Now you're just extrapolating with no evidence as to my views. I didn't say that we should loosely interpret it, I said that the second amendment is vague. Other amendments are also vague, but certain things are made abundantly clear, like the freedom of speech, yet despite having that freedom, we don't retain it in all instances (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theater). Even if they were all explicit, there would be contradictions, as there most certainly are, that have to be dealt with through a delicate balancing act. The second amendment shouldn't get priority over every other rights structure.

In regards to the right guaranteed, it seems pretty clear.

"Arms" is a broad term, and one we have chosen only to apply to guns. Even when it comes to guns alone, we find it entirely reasonable, within this definition, to deny access to automatic rifles, machine guns, and many of the more dangerous weapons available in that grouping. If the right is not vague, then all access to all guns (if not weaponry as a whole) should be given to every American citizen, and therefore we are in direct violation of this amendment now, and have been for quite some time. That's not to mention that the intent of the amendment was based in the time period, and therefore that the founding fathers never could have anticipated the level of weaponry currently available.

Also, you left the latter issue out of your response here. It matters that there are issues with conflict between different parts of the Constitution, even if it's clear here.

No, I don't. Registration of guns allows us to track legally acquired guns, and thus illegally acquired guns would be much easier to spot. The only problem I've ever been presented with on this is that the government might some day take them back, but the logic on that is all wonky. I can't figure out in what instance that would occur. If a government became tyrannical, they wouldn't waste their time confiscating known sources of guns and spreading their military/police force too thin in the process.

You don't need a tyrannical government to confiscate guns, and they don't need to all be confiscated at once.

...So how would you define a government that is taking away guns for little or no reason? I would view that kind of government as tyrannical, as it would be abusing its power. If it was a light kind of tyranny where that was all they were doing, they would still encounter resistance on a massive scale. That really just makes the problem smaller.

Mainly, I'd step up licensing on semi-automatic rifles to the level of automatic weapons. I feel that there's a lack of distinction between the two.

First off, it is ignorant to suggest machine guns and semi-automatic rifles are the same thing. Semi-automatic is one trigger pull, one shot - the same as virtually every pistol out there today. That's why I'm asking you why you aren't tough on pistols - they're the same thing, just smaller and thus easier to conceal. That's why most shootings involve pistols, not rifles. Even if you assume gun control is the answer, focusing on rifles doesn't solve the problem.

1. I didn't suggest that they're the same. I listed them together, that doesn't mean I assumed they're the same. I'd even treat them differently - machine guns should continue to be banned, semi-automatic rifles should simply have higher regulations than they do currently.

2. That's not a very good definition for semi-automatic rifles, especially since they can easily be modified to the point that they can function in a more automatic capacity. This makes them assault weapons, but they're still viewed as semi-automatic.

3. It is not my goal to solve for all mass shootings. You can't solve for the fact that some people want to go out and kill others. You can only ameliorate the harm.

Second, how familiar are you with federal machine gun laws?

Admittedly, not very, but I am aware that they are either banned or are so restricted that most people simply don't have access.

And, once again, you're comparing numbers without any reasoning as to why. A pistol is a dangerous weapon in its own right, but I feel it's going too far to place the same regulations on the usual pistols as we do on, say, automatic rifles. It's because of the capacity for harm in a single instance of use. Yes, pistols are more often used, but automatic rifles can dole out the most deaths in the shortest time.

You can kill just as many people with a pistol as a rifle. They're both semi auto.

I disagree, especially since pistols can't receive all the same modifications.

Capacity limitations. I don't have a specific number in mind, but such that high capacity magazines are off the table.

It's hard to judge the merit of this idea when you don't give a number. Do you support the seven-round ban New York instituted?

Again, I don't have a number in mind, so I'm iffy on any system that has instituted a specific ban. I haven't done the research to determine what kind of ban would suffice. If pressed, I'd say 10 is the max.

Neither of those things are up to me to decide - I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist. If you want, I can get you a list of what they view as the most problematic, but generally, I don't think it's that difficult to distinguish someone who has violent tendencies from other individuals, not to mention those who present a very obvious psychosis.

I think we mostly agree on this aspect then.

Cool.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 2:34:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 1:47:03 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
@WhiteFlame, I don't have time for a long protracted debate here in the forums section. If you want to debate something specific with regards to Gun control? Send me a debate challenge.

Sure, I'll figure out something to debate and send you a challenge, though it won't be for a couple of weeks. Since we've been discussing it, we can debate establishing a registry in the US. Sound good?