Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"We Need a Serious Discussion About Guns"

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 1:39:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is more of a pet-peeve/ranting, short post than a real discussion.

Basically, I always get annoyed when I see that phrase in the title coming from those who have an extreme position either way--although I 90% of the time see it from the gun-control camp. I get annoyed because, by discussion, you really mean "We need gun control NAO." The people who I generally see it from clearly don't want to actually discuss the issue. They want the issue to go their way.

/rant
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 1:40:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 1:40:04 PM, Koopin wrote:
kfc, I want to keep my AK.

Unless they ban it, then I can hide it then sell it for a nice price in the future!

*Buys a ton of weapons then starts signing petitions for their ban."
kfc
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 1:46:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 1:40:58 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:40:04 PM, Koopin wrote:
kfc, I want to keep my AK.

Unless they ban it, then I can hide it then sell it for a nice price in the future!

*Buys a ton of weapons then starts signing petitions for their ban."

That's exactly how it went, post 1986 assault rifles are banned so pre 1986 machine guns are worth a metric shitton of money.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 1:48:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
DN, I'm not sure that's accurate. The "leftist" argument is that everyone has a right to defend themselves and a right to guns. Let's just put in regulations so that criminals don't get them in the first place. This isn't even a bloody leftist argument, okay? This is a moderate argument. I think we're kind of spoiled in America, politically. We don't know what leftism is. You want to see real radicalism? How about we go the way of Britain and take the guns away from our law enforcers and give them nightsticks instead? How about that? How about we simply outlaw guns altogether?...THAT'S real leftism. Please just don't give me this BS about how the left is being intransigent and radical. There's no reason why civilians should own machine guns and military grade assault rifles. There's no reason why civilians need 30-100 rounds per magazine. There's no reason why we shouldn't upgrade background checks and make the process more selective. There's no reason why we shouldn't crack down on black market gun sales. How many tragedies will have to happen before you get the message??

I'm disappointing in your post, as it was frankly horse manure.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 1:52:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 1:48:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
DN, I'm not sure that's accurate. The "leftist" argument is that everyone has a right to defend themselves and a right to guns. Let's just put in regulations so that criminals don't get them in the first place. This isn't even a bloody leftist argument, okay? This is a moderate argument. I think we're kind of spoiled in America, politically. We don't know what leftism is. You want to see real radicalism? How about we go the way of Britain and take the guns away from our law enforcers and give them nightsticks instead? How about that? How about we simply outlaw guns altogether?...THAT'S real leftism. Please just don't give me this BS about how the left is being intransigent and radical. There's no reason why civilians should own machine guns and military grade assault rifles. There's no reason why civilians need 30-100 rounds per magazine. There's no reason why we shouldn't upgrade background checks and make the process more selective. There's no reason why we shouldn't crack down on black market gun sales. How many tragedies will have to happen before you get the message??

+1
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 2:12:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 1:40:58 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:40:04 PM, Koopin wrote:
kfc, I want to keep my AK.

Unless they ban it, then I can hide it then sell it for a nice price in the future!

*Buys a ton of weapons then starts signing petitions for their ban."

*Has FBI arrest you*
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 2:18:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 2:12:06 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:40:58 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:40:04 PM, Koopin wrote:
kfc, I want to keep my AK.

Unless they ban it, then I can hide it then sell it for a nice price in the future!

*Buys a ton of weapons then starts signing petitions for their ban."

*Has FBI arrest you*

Hope its not CIA, they'll rendition you to Macedonia and sodomize you.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 2:23:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 1:48:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
DN, I'm not sure that's accurate. The "leftist" argument is that everyone has a right to defend themselves and a right to guns. Let's just put in regulations so that criminals don't get them in the first place.... " There's no reason why civilians should own machine guns and military grade assault rifles. There's no reason why civilians need 30-100 rounds per magazine...."

000IKE, Are these really your views or were you being sarcastic?
"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...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 2:34:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Machine guns are heavily regulated and rarely used in shootings.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 2:47:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The dems are pushing for their assault rifle ban in the wake of the sandy shooting. Even though assault weapons weren't involved and the legislation wouldn't have prevented the shooting.

Isn't that the definition of using a tragedy to advance a political agenda.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 2:50:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 2:23:50 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:48:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
DN, I'm not sure that's accurate. The "leftist" argument is that everyone has a right to defend themselves and a right to guns. Let's just put in regulations so that criminals don't get them in the first place.... " There's no reason why civilians should own machine guns and military grade assault rifles. There's no reason why civilians need 30-100 rounds per magazine...."

000IKE, Are these really your views or were you being sarcastic?

those are my views
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 3:17:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 1:48:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
DN, I'm not sure that's accurate. The "leftist" argument is that everyone has a right to defend themselves and a right to guns. Let's just put in regulations so that criminals don't get them in the first place. This isn't even a bloody leftist argument, okay? This is a moderate argument. I think we're kind of spoiled in America, politically. We don't know what leftism is. You want to see real radicalism? How about we go the way of Britain and take the guns away from our law enforcers and give them nightsticks instead? How about that? How about we simply outlaw guns altogether?...THAT'S real leftism. Please just don't give me this BS about how the left is being intransigent and radical. There's no reason why civilians should own machine guns and military grade assault rifles. There's no reason why civilians need 30-100 rounds per magazine. There's no reason why we shouldn't upgrade background checks and make the process more selective. There's no reason why we shouldn't crack down on black market gun sales. How many tragedies will have to happen before you get the message??

I'm disappointing in your post, as it was frankly horse manure.

The fvck are you even on about, Ike? This post had NOTHING to do with the position. All I was saying was that I'm annoyed when people call for having a "discussion" about guns when in reality they don't want any discussion. This post is against veiling a position behind the guise of wanting to "discuss" the issue.

I'm frankly surprised people find anything to respond to in this. This was literally a rant about how people frame their arguments, not the arguments themselves.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 3:18:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 2:50:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/16/2012 2:23:50 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:48:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
DN, I'm not sure that's accurate. The "leftist" argument is that everyone has a right to defend themselves and a right to guns. Let's just put in regulations so that criminals don't get them in the first place.... " There's no reason why civilians should own machine guns and military grade assault rifles. There's no reason why civilians need 30-100 rounds per magazine...."

000IKE, Are these really your views or were you being sarcastic?

those are my views

I see.

So, can I get your opinion on this (my comments from another thread)?

"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." (2nd Amendment)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

" Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law."
(History: As Amended November 3, 1936; November 5, 1974).

http://www.in.gov...
"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...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 3:19:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 3:17:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:48:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
DN, I'm not sure that's accurate. The "leftist" argument is that everyone has a right to defend themselves and a right to guns. Let's just put in regulations so that criminals don't get them in the first place. This isn't even a bloody leftist argument, okay? This is a moderate argument. I think we're kind of spoiled in America, politically. We don't know what leftism is. You want to see real radicalism? How about we go the way of Britain and take the guns away from our law enforcers and give them nightsticks instead? How about that? How about we simply outlaw guns altogether?...THAT'S real leftism. Please just don't give me this BS about how the left is being intransigent and radical. There's no reason why civilians should own machine guns and military grade assault rifles. There's no reason why civilians need 30-100 rounds per magazine. There's no reason why we shouldn't upgrade background checks and make the process more selective. There's no reason why we shouldn't crack down on black market gun sales. How many tragedies will have to happen before you get the message??

I'm disappointing in your post, as it was frankly horse manure.

The fvck are you even on about, Ike? This post had NOTHING to do with the position. All I was saying was that I'm annoyed when people call for having a "discussion" about guns when in reality they don't want any discussion. This post is against veiling a position behind the guise of wanting to "discuss" the issue.

I'm frankly surprised people find anything to respond to in this. This was literally a rant about how people frame their arguments, not the arguments themselves.

"although I 90% of the time see it from the gun-control camp. I get annoyed because, by discussion, you really mean "We need gun control NAO.""

That was just about half of your damn rant. THAT'S the BS that you wrote. And that's what I was responding to, and rightfully so.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 3:22:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 3:19:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/16/2012 3:17:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:48:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
DN, I'm not sure that's accurate. The "leftist" argument is that everyone has a right to defend themselves and a right to guns. Let's just put in regulations so that criminals don't get them in the first place. This isn't even a bloody leftist argument, okay? This is a moderate argument. I think we're kind of spoiled in America, politically. We don't know what leftism is. You want to see real radicalism? How about we go the way of Britain and take the guns away from our law enforcers and give them nightsticks instead? How about that? How about we simply outlaw guns altogether?...THAT'S real leftism. Please just don't give me this BS about how the left is being intransigent and radical. There's no reason why civilians should own machine guns and military grade assault rifles. There's no reason why civilians need 30-100 rounds per magazine. There's no reason why we shouldn't upgrade background checks and make the process more selective. There's no reason why we shouldn't crack down on black market gun sales. How many tragedies will have to happen before you get the message??

I'm disappointing in your post, as it was frankly horse manure.

The fvck are you even on about, Ike? This post had NOTHING to do with the position. All I was saying was that I'm annoyed when people call for having a "discussion" about guns when in reality they don't want any discussion. This post is against veiling a position behind the guise of wanting to "discuss" the issue.

I'm frankly surprised people find anything to respond to in this. This was literally a rant about how people frame their arguments, not the arguments themselves.

"although I 90% of the time see it from the gun-control camp. I get annoyed because, by discussion, you really mean "We need gun control NAO.""

That was just about half of your damn rant. THAT'S the BS that you wrote. And that's what I was responding to, and rightfully so.

How? I'm saying that the people I hear that quote from "We need to discuss this," are the same people that two sentences after basically say that no discussion is needed, and gun control must be done.

Would it help if I clarified and said this was a post about FB stupidity?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 3:23:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
However, Ike, if you WANT to have a discussion--legitimate discussion, now--about the issue of gun control, we can do that. I'm more than happy.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 3:25:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 3:22:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/16/2012 3:19:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/16/2012 3:17:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:48:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
DN, I'm not sure that's accurate. The "leftist" argument is that everyone has a right to defend themselves and a right to guns. Let's just put in regulations so that criminals don't get them in the first place. This isn't even a bloody leftist argument, okay? This is a moderate argument. I think we're kind of spoiled in America, politically. We don't know what leftism is. You want to see real radicalism? How about we go the way of Britain and take the guns away from our law enforcers and give them nightsticks instead? How about that? How about we simply outlaw guns altogether?...THAT'S real leftism. Please just don't give me this BS about how the left is being intransigent and radical. There's no reason why civilians should own machine guns and military grade assault rifles. There's no reason why civilians need 30-100 rounds per magazine. There's no reason why we shouldn't upgrade background checks and make the process more selective. There's no reason why we shouldn't crack down on black market gun sales. How many tragedies will have to happen before you get the message??

I'm disappointing in your post, as it was frankly horse manure.

The fvck are you even on about, Ike? This post had NOTHING to do with the position. All I was saying was that I'm annoyed when people call for having a "discussion" about guns when in reality they don't want any discussion. This post is against veiling a position behind the guise of wanting to "discuss" the issue.

I'm frankly surprised people find anything to respond to in this. This was literally a rant about how people frame their arguments, not the arguments themselves.

"although I 90% of the time see it from the gun-control camp. I get annoyed because, by discussion, you really mean "We need gun control NAO.""

That was just about half of your damn rant. THAT'S the BS that you wrote. And that's what I was responding to, and rightfully so.

How? I'm saying that the people I hear that quote from "We need to discuss this," are the same people that two sentences after basically say that no discussion is needed, and gun control must be done.

Would it help if I clarified and said this was a post about FB stupidity?

alright, I see. I thought you were implying that leftists were being radical with gun control.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 3:29:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 3:18:32 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2012 2:50:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/16/2012 2:23:50 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:48:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
DN, I'm not sure that's accurate. The "leftist" argument is that everyone has a right to defend themselves and a right to guns. Let's just put in regulations so that criminals don't get them in the first place.... " There's no reason why civilians should own machine guns and military grade assault rifles. There's no reason why civilians need 30-100 rounds per magazine...."

000IKE, Are these really your views or were you being sarcastic?

those are my views

I see.

So, can I get your opinion on this (my comments from another thread)?

"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." (2nd Amendment)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

" Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law."
(History: As Amended November 3, 1936; November 5, 1974).

http://www.in.gov...



I'm not sure what your point is. I think I mentioned that all people have a right to defend themselves and own guns. You read that part no?

What part of these 2 quotes even slightly suggests that gun regulation is unconstitutional? Furthermore, even if that was what it suggested, isn't it pretty evident that the Founder's time was a totally different culture, where politicians could kill eachother in order to settle a dispute?, a culture with very small dispersed communities and low population density? and a culture that had guns that could only fire 1 bullet every 5 minutes or so? Would that not suggest that 18th century quotes are not very applicable to this modern issue?...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 3:41:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 3:29:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/16/2012 3:18:32 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2012 2:50:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/16/2012 2:23:50 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:48:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
DN, I'm not sure that's accurate. The "leftist" argument is that everyone has a right to defend themselves and a right to guns. Let's just put in regulations so that criminals don't get them in the first place.... " There's no reason why civilians should own machine guns and military grade assault rifles. There's no reason why civilians need 30-100 rounds per magazine...."

000IKE, Are these really your views or were you being sarcastic?

those are my views

I see.

So, can I get your opinion on this (my comments from another thread)?

"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." (2nd Amendment)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

" Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law."
(History: As Amended November 3, 1936; November 5, 1974).

http://www.in.gov...



I'm not sure what your point is. I think I mentioned that all people have a right to defend themselves and own guns. You read that part no?

What part of these 2 quotes even slightly suggests that gun regulation is unconstitutional? Furthermore, even if that was what it suggested, isn't it pretty evident that the Founder's time was a totally different culture, where politicians could kill eachother in order to settle a dispute?, a culture with very small dispersed communities and low population density? and a culture that had guns that could only fire 1 bullet every 5 minutes or so? Would that not suggest that 18th century quotes are not very applicable to this modern issue?...

The Government in Syria has declared war on its own people. Indeed, they are ramping up to use Chemical Weapons on them. The people of Syria have a right to defend themselves too. (don't they?) And would you LIMIT (regulate) their ability to do so?

I wouldn't. And the 2nd Amendment and the armed people we have here in the U.S. is exactly why that sort of thing is not going to happen here.
"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...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 4:04:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 3:41:56 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2012 3:29:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/16/2012 3:18:32 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2012 2:50:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/16/2012 2:23:50 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2012 1:48:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
DN, I'm not sure that's accurate. The "leftist" argument is that everyone has a right to defend themselves and a right to guns. Let's just put in regulations so that criminals don't get them in the first place.... " There's no reason why civilians should own machine guns and military grade assault rifles. There's no reason why civilians need 30-100 rounds per magazine...."

000IKE, Are these really your views or were you being sarcastic?

those are my views

I see.

So, can I get your opinion on this (my comments from another thread)?

"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." (2nd Amendment)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

" Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law."
(History: As Amended November 3, 1936; November 5, 1974).

http://www.in.gov...



I'm not sure what your point is. I think I mentioned that all people have a right to defend themselves and own guns. You read that part no?

What part of these 2 quotes even slightly suggests that gun regulation is unconstitutional? Furthermore, even if that was what it suggested, isn't it pretty evident that the Founder's time was a totally different culture, where politicians could kill eachother in order to settle a dispute?, a culture with very small dispersed communities and low population density? and a culture that had guns that could only fire 1 bullet every 5 minutes or so? Would that not suggest that 18th century quotes are not very applicable to this modern issue?...

The Government in Syria has declared war on its own people. Indeed, they are ramping up to use Chemical Weapons on them. The people of Syria have a right to defend themselves too. (don't they?) And would you LIMIT (regulate) their ability to do so?

I wouldn't. And the 2nd Amendment and the armed people we have here in the U.S. is exactly why that sort of thing is not going to happen here.

except that Syria is engaged in civil war, and plans on using those weapons to fight war in the name of democracy,...and the U.S is not engaged in civil war, and is already a democracy. Deep down in whatever you use to determine your opinions, there has to be something that's telling you that civil war isn't a good excuse to let everyone have machine guns, and give criminals the opportunity to shoot our children while they're at school, so can we stop this game?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 4:13:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 1:48:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
DN, I'm not sure that's accurate. The "leftist" argument is that everyone has a right to defend themselves and a right to guns. Let's just put in regulations so that criminals don't get them in the first place. This isn't even a bloody leftist argument, okay? This is a moderate argument. I think we're kind of spoiled in America, politically. We don't know what leftism is. You want to see real radicalism? How about we go the way of Britain and take the guns away from our law enforcers and give them nightsticks instead? How about that? How about we simply outlaw guns altogether?...THAT'S real leftism. Please just don't give me this BS about how the left is being intransigent and radical. There's no reason why civilians should own machine guns and military grade assault rifles. There's no reason why civilians need 30-100 rounds per magazine. There's no reason why we shouldn't upgrade background checks and make the process more selective. There's no reason why we shouldn't crack down on black market gun sales. How many tragedies will have to happen before you get the message??

I'm disappointing in your post, as it was frankly horse manure.

Large magazines jam, that's why in aurora he didnt use his main weapon - it jammed.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 4:27:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My official opinion on gun control:

The evidence shows that the better armed a people are, the better prepared they are against violence.

Government is also ineffective at gun control for the same reasons that it is ineffective at prohibition.

Having said that, there is still no inherent reason we need lethal weapons when we have non lethal alternatives that absolutely just as effective.

Don't ban guns. Replace guns.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 4:27:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 1:48:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
How about we go the way of Britain and take the guns away from our law enforcers and give them nightsticks instead? How about that? How about we simply outlaw guns altogether?...THAT'S real leftism.

We haven't outlawed guns entirely; farmers and hunters are still allowed shotguns and rifles. We just don't allow semi-automatic and concealed weapons for 'defense' because we recognise that allowing the proliferation of the deadliest firearms in the general population gives easily available killing power to criminals and psychopaths.

Yes, our cops use tasers and pepper spray instead of guns to subdue suspects. How many innocent people die in America because some trigger happy cop acts in "self defense"? I hear a story about it every other week.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 4:28:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 4:04:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/16/2012 3:41:56 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

The Government in Syria has declared war on its own people. Indeed, they are ramping up to use Chemical Weapons on them. The people of Syria have a right to defend themselves too. (don't they?) And would you LIMIT (regulate) their ability to do so?

I wouldn't. And the 2nd Amendment and the armed people we have here in the U.S. is exactly why that sort of thing is not going to happen here.

except that Syria is engaged in civil war, and plans on using those weapons to fight war in the name of democracy,...and the U.S is not engaged in civil war, and is already a democracy. Deep down in whatever you use to determine your opinions, there has to be something that's telling you that civil war isn't a good excuse to let everyone have machine guns, and give criminals the opportunity to shoot our children while they're at school, so can we stop this game?

You do know that it took a war to secure our rights (including the 2nd Amendment) and our democracy, don't you?

If you think that our founders would not have availed themselves of the most powerful weapons available at the time or if you think they disarmed themselves after the war was over? Guess again.

They had not more trust for centralized governments and power than we have (or IMHO should have) today.
"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...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 4:45:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 4:28:48 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2012 4:04:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/16/2012 3:41:56 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

The Government in Syria has declared war on its own people. Indeed, they are ramping up to use Chemical Weapons on them. The people of Syria have a right to defend themselves too. (don't they?) And would you LIMIT (regulate) their ability to do so?

I wouldn't. And the 2nd Amendment and the armed people we have here in the U.S. is exactly why that sort of thing is not going to happen here.

except that Syria is engaged in civil war, and plans on using those weapons to fight war in the name of democracy,...and the U.S is not engaged in civil war, and is already a democracy. Deep down in whatever you use to determine your opinions, there has to be something that's telling you that civil war isn't a good excuse to let everyone have machine guns, and give criminals the opportunity to shoot our children while they're at school, so can we stop this game?

You do know that it took a war to secure our rights (including the 2nd Amendment) and our democracy, don't you?

If you think that our founders would not have availed themselves of the most powerful weapons available at the time or if you think they disarmed themselves after the war was over? Guess again.

They had not more trust for centralized governments and power than we have (or IMHO should have) today.

There is an easy counter to this. Do you believe that individuals should have access to nuclear weapons ? (even if the 2nd amendment is invoked)

I merely repeat the same argument you use ...."If you think that our founders would not have availed themselves of the most powerful weapons available at the time or if you think they disarmed themselves after the war was over? Guess again. "

You can take away my nukes from my cold dead hands.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 4:47:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 4:27:39 PM, FREEDO wrote:
My official opinion on gun control:

The evidence shows that the better armed a people are, the better prepared they are against violence.

Government is also ineffective at gun control for the same reasons that it is ineffective at prohibition.

Having said that, there is still no inherent reason we need lethal weapons when we have non lethal alternatives that absolutely just as effective.

Don't ban guns. Replace guns.

And how would you do that?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 4:49:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 4:28:48 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2012 4:04:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/16/2012 3:41:56 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:


You do know that it took a war to secure our rights (including the 2nd Amendment) and our democracy, don't you?

If you think that our founders would not have availed themselves of the most powerful weapons available at the time or if you think they disarmed themselves after the war was over? Guess again.

They had NO more trust for centralized governments and power than we have (or IMHO should have) today.

Edited.
"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...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 5:01:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 4:45:25 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/16/2012 4:28:48 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

You do know that it took a war to secure our rights (including the 2nd Amendment) and our democracy, don't you?

If you think that our founders would not have availed themselves of the most powerful weapons available at the time or if you think they disarmed themselves after the war was over? Guess again.

They had no more trust for centralized governments and power back then than we have (or IMHO should have) today.

There is an easy counter to this. Do you believe that individuals should have access to nuclear weapons ? (even if the 2nd amendment is invoked)

That depends. I wouldn't rule it out entirely. Just as we have laws against the use of 'excessive force' when we use force to defend ourselves or others now.... I can't imagine a justification for having a nuke or using one in an act of self defense would not also be excessive and even an immediate danger to ones self (and everyone else in the area) when it wasn't being used. So.... in principle, YES, we all have a right to nukes. In reality, we agree (in general) to deprive ourselves (consent of the governed) to deprive ourselves of the chance to do so.

I merely repeat the same argument you use ...."If you think that our founders would not have availed themselves of the most powerful weapons available at the time or if you think they disarmed themselves after the war was over? Guess again. "

You can take away my nukes from my cold dead hands.

The irony of this given your screen name is hilarious.
"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...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2012 5:16:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/16/2012 5:01:04 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 12/16/2012 4:45:25 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/16/2012 4:28:48 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

You do know that it took a war to secure our rights (including the 2nd Amendment) and our democracy, don't you?

If you think that our founders would not have availed themselves of the most powerful weapons available at the time or if you think they disarmed themselves after the war was over? Guess again.

They had no more trust for centralized governments and power back then than we have (or IMHO should have) today.

There is an easy counter to this. Do you believe that individuals should have access to nuclear weapons ? (even if the 2nd amendment is invoked)

That depends. I wouldn't rule it out entirely. Just as we have laws against the use of 'excessive force' when we use force to defend ourselves or others now.... I can't imagine a justification for having a nuke or using one in an act of self defense would not also be excessive and even an immediate danger to ones self (and everyone else in the area) when it wasn't being used. So.... in principle, YES, we all have a right to nukes. In reality, we agree (in general) to deprive ourselves (consent of the governed) to deprive ourselves of the chance to do so.

Right, and just like you with nukes, there are people who believe M 16's or grenade launchers or whatever should be limited cause its excessive. It's just you have a difference of opinion where the line is on "excessive".

I merely repeat the same argument you use ...."If you think that our founders would not have availed themselves of the most powerful weapons available at the time or if you think they disarmed themselves after the war was over? Guess again. "

You can take away my nukes from my cold dead hands.

The irony of this given your screen name is hilarious.

I want my nukes damm it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12