Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gun Rights

PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 9:56:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

Well that is the joke now isn't it. Your going to draw the line some where and chances are it will be arbitrary, but that's life. Me personally I think we should all be allowed to have flame throwers......

1) It's in the Constitution
2) They are cool
3) I might be invaded by aliens who are immune to bullets but can be effected by heat, better safe than sorry.

Also why the restriction to people with mental illness ? also where do you draw the line on mental illness ?

There are people who think a God took a personal interest in their lives and answered there prayers meanwhile as million of people get killed, raped, tortured etc. Sounds like some sort of narcissism complex to me.
"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
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 10:06:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
IMHO all guns should be banned period, like in Britain and Japan. People that fight tooth and nail for their guns rights have two things they need to address, 1: the constitution wasn't right in stone for a reason and it was actually designed so that it could be changed with the times and public opinion. 2: Its a shame but your gun parade has been sh*t on so many times, I can't even see the metal any more. When gun violence continues to happen OVER AND OVER AND OVER with no end in sight and the victims being innocent people and more recently children, you need to realize you had your fun but now that people sh*t on your parade too dam bad.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:19:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

As a Canadian, I'm with you 99%. My only reservation is that you would stop at arming the mentally ill. But I know that's really no problem anyway because there won't be any background checks. Perfect!

Would you agree to building a high concrete wall on both the Mexican border and the Canadian border with snipers on them to pick off Americans who try to get out of the asylum?
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:32:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:19:12 AM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

As a Canadian, I'm with you 99%. My only reservation is that you would stop at arming the mentally ill. But I know that's really no problem anyway because there won't be any background checks. Perfect!

Would you agree to building a high concrete wall on both the Mexican border and the Canadian border with snipers on them to pick off Americans who try to get out of the asylum?

Did you read what he actually wrote because its literally right above what you wrote. He says hes pro guns but also pro regulations aka background checks and such. Seems to be the most reasonable/logical approach in U.S. due to public opinion.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:45:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:32:05 AM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:19:12 AM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

As a Canadian, I'm with you 99%. My only reservation is that you would stop at arming the mentally ill. But I know that's really no problem anyway because there won't be any background checks. Perfect!

Would you agree to building a high concrete wall on both the Mexican border and the Canadian border with snipers on them to pick off Americans who try to get out of the asylum?

Did you read what he actually wrote because its literally right above what you wrote. He says hes pro guns but also pro regulations aka background checks and such. Seems to be the most reasonable/logical approach in U.S. due to public opinion.

What he says and what you say are entirely beside the point little Brendan. There won't be background checks regardless of whether he's for them or not. It's contrary to your 2th. amendment rights ya know. And the point has already been made that nobody has the right to deny crazy people guns anyway.

In truth Brendan, anybody who wants to carry around fully automatic weapons could probably be deemed menatally ill anyway before any background checks.

I'm speaking entirely for Canadians carrying guns now. For Americans, I'm fully in favour of no limits. Tough love ya know! Darwin's, survival of the fittest. Fittest meaning the biggest and fastest shooting gun.
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:54:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:45:35 AM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:32:05 AM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:19:12 AM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

As a Canadian, I'm with you 99%. My only reservation is that you would stop at arming the mentally ill. But I know that's really no problem anyway because there won't be any background checks. Perfect!

Would you agree to building a high concrete wall on both the Mexican border and the Canadian border with snipers on them to pick off Americans who try to get out of the asylum?

Did you read what he actually wrote because its literally right above what you wrote. He says hes pro guns but also pro regulations aka background checks and such. Seems to be the most reasonable/logical approach in U.S. due to public opinion.

What he says and what you say are entirely beside the point little Brendan. There won't be background checks regardless of whether he's for them or not. It's contrary to your 2th. amendment rights ya know. And the point has already been made that nobody has the right to deny crazy people guns anyway.

In truth Brendan, anybody who wants to carry around fully automatic weapons could probably be deemed menatally ill anyway before any background checks.

I'm speaking entirely for Canadians carrying guns now. For Americans, I'm fully in favour of no limits. Tough love ya know! Darwin's, survival of the fittest. Fittest meaning the biggest and fastest shooting gun.
Sigh, why to people blatantly un-informed try to talk like they aren't and not to mention throw insults around.
It's not against the 2nd amendment to impose background checks, which get this, have actually been around for awhile, though they aren't well managed and need to be stronger, not to mention not mandatory at gun shows and the like in many states, a real problem.
Automatics are already ban, and at this point we are looking at high capacity mags, gun attachments and modifications such as folding it up for better concealment, as well as the types of guns available at a more specific viewpoint such as combat multipliers that are semi-auto.
Also keep in mind my first post in this thread that the amendments can we changed further despite what many un-informed Americans and obviously you as well think
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 11:58:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 11:54:56 AM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:45:35 AM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:32:05 AM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 11:19:12 AM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

As a Canadian, I'm with you 99%. My only reservation is that you would stop at arming the mentally ill. But I know that's really no problem anyway because there won't be any background checks. Perfect!

Would you agree to building a high concrete wall on both the Mexican border and the Canadian border with snipers on them to pick off Americans who try to get out of the asylum?

Did you read what he actually wrote because its literally right above what you wrote. He says hes pro guns but also pro regulations aka background checks and such. Seems to be the most reasonable/logical approach in U.S. due to public opinion.

What he says and what you say are entirely beside the point little Brendan. There won't be background checks regardless of whether he's for them or not. It's contrary to your 2th. amendment rights ya know. And the point has already been made that nobody has the right to deny crazy people guns anyway.

In truth Brendan, anybody who wants to carry around fully automatic weapons could probably be deemed menatally ill anyway before any background checks.

I'm speaking entirely for Canadians carrying guns now. For Americans, I'm fully in favour of no limits. Tough love ya know! Darwin's, survival of the fittest. Fittest meaning the biggest and fastest shooting gun.
Sigh, why to people blatantly un-informed try to talk like they aren't and not to mention throw insults around.
It's not against the 2nd amendment to impose background checks, which get this, have actually been around for awhile, though they aren't well managed and need to be stronger, not to mention not mandatory at gun shows and the like in many states, a real problem.
Automatics are already ban, and at this point we are looking at high capacity mags, gun attachments and modifications such as folding it up for better concealment, as well as the types of guns available at a more specific viewpoint such as combat multipliers that are semi-auto.
Also keep in mind my first post in this thread that the amendments can we changed further despite what many un-informed Americans and obviously you as well think

Brendan, go for all of it. No limits, no precautions. Just build the high walls around your insane asylum. That's where my interest as a Canadian ends.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 12:44:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Monty, I am trying to have a sensible discussion here. Why do you feel the need to derail this thread?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 12:48:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 12:44:15 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Monty, I am trying to have a sensible discussion here. Why do you feel the need to derail this thread?

The sensible part of any gun discussion in your country will of necessity have to come from people on the outside who can see the reality of the problem. If you invite a sensible discussion then you stand to learn something.

As it is, with some people advocating all sorts of weapons that are useful for killing people and little else, there is no sense in it. Get it to some kind of sensible middle ground first and then you'll begin to understand that your people can't do it by themselves. Ever!
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 12:54:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 12:48:37 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 12:44:15 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Monty, I am trying to have a sensible discussion here. Why do you feel the need to derail this thread?

The sensible part of any gun discussion in your country will of necessity have to come from people on the outside who can see the reality of the problem. If you invite a sensible discussion then you stand to learn something.

As it is, with some people advocating all sorts of weapons that are useful for killing people and little else, there is no sense in it. Get it to some kind of sensible middle ground first and then you'll begin to understand that your people can't do it by themselves. Ever!

Agreed. That is what i am trying to have here. You just stepped in, threw around insults, and left. Not a sensible discussion.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 1:01:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

IMO, the line is drawn for weapons that have no real defensive purposes. Namely, military-grade weapons (machine guns, poison gas, RPGs, nukes, etc.) should be banned, anything else is off-limits for a ban.

As for magazine limits, I don't agree with them because it's a purely arbitrary line. Someone may well need 20 or 30 rounds, line in a home invasion where there could be multiple intruders and you might need a lot of bullets to push them back or dispatch them
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 1:02:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 12:54:46 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 5/2/2014 12:48:37 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 12:44:15 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Monty, I am trying to have a sensible discussion here. Why do you feel the need to derail this thread?

The sensible part of any gun discussion in your country will of necessity have to come from people on the outside who can see the reality of the problem. If you invite a sensible discussion then you stand to learn something.

As it is, with some people advocating all sorts of weapons that are useful for killing people and little else, there is no sense in it. Get it to some kind of sensible middle ground first and then you'll begin to understand that your people can't do it by themselves. Ever!

Agreed. That is what i am trying to have here. You just stepped in, threw around insults, and left. Not a sensible discussion.
Don't even dignify him with more responses, he's an uneducated and un-informed troll that thinks he's self righteous for being a Canadian, despite his utter ignorance.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 1:06:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 12:54:46 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 5/2/2014 12:48:37 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 12:44:15 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Monty, I am trying to have a sensible discussion here. Why do you feel the need to derail this thread?

The sensible part of any gun discussion in your country will of necessity have to come from people on the outside who can see the reality of the problem. If you invite a sensible discussion then you stand to learn something.

As it is, with some people advocating all sorts of weapons that are useful for killing people and little else, there is no sense in it. Get it to some kind of sensible middle ground first and then you'll begin to understand that your people can't do it by themselves. Ever!

Agreed. That is what i am trying to have here. You just stepped in, threw around insults, and left. Not a sensible discussion.

Alright then, start with the position that all handguns need to be banned from the streets and from people taking them outside of their homes and that they will all be registered. As in Canada where handguns can only be taken to and from a range where they can be used legitimately. Add to that no automatic weapons and no large capacity magazines. And no weapons that are expressly designed for killing people instead of hunting purposes. Yes, that can be done and I'm not going to argue it further.

That's where the debate starts. Work from there.
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 1:21:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 1:01:56 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

IMO, the line is drawn for weapons that have no real defensive purposes. Namely, military-grade weapons (machine guns, poison gas, RPGs, nukes, etc.) should be banned, anything else is off-limits for a ban.

If people are so considered about home defense that they are willing to risk allowing schools and other locations full of innocent people to be killed just so they can own their own gun can easily just learn to use a bow and arrow with some time and effort, or even just buy a crossbow that functions just like a gun but its far far less dangerous to the public.
As for magazine limits, I don't agree with them because it's a purely arbitrary line. Someone may well need 20 or 30 rounds, line in a home invasion where there could be multiple intruders and you might need a lot of bullets to push them back or dispatch them

They only person that would every need more than 6 shots(you can always buy 6 crossbows or train in reloading them quickly) to defend their house is either under attack by the police/swat/FBI, in which cause we don't want them to have that gun, or if they are in caught up in some kind of insane criminal ring or gang.
We don't live in a world like in the movies where a group of crazy 20 or 30 crazy people will randomly raid your house.
FrEeMaSoN1692
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 1:21:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 9:56:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

Well that is the joke now isn't it. Your going to draw the line some where and chances are it will be arbitrary, but that's life. Me personally I think we should all be allowed to have flame throwers......

1) It's in the Constitution
2) They are cool
3) I might be invaded by aliens who are immune to bullets but can be effected by heat, better safe than sorry.

Also why the restriction to people with mental illness ? also where do you draw the line on mental illness ?

There are people who think a God took a personal interest in their lives and answered there prayers meanwhile as million of people get killed, raped, tortured etc. Sounds like some sort of narcissism complex to me.

I like what potbelliedgeek says because why shouldn't we have all the types of portable weapons on our home? They can be useful for something that might seem improbable, but you would be sorry if it does happen like alien invasions or a robber. The odds may be lower than other things that are more probable like murders, but once it happens it changes your life forever. It is better to be safe than sorry. I would not let fate get the best of me. I want to be ready for events like that.
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 1:26:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 1:21:55 PM, FrEeMaSoN1692 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 9:56:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

Well that is the joke now isn't it. Your going to draw the line some where and chances are it will be arbitrary, but that's life. Me personally I think we should all be allowed to have flame throwers......

1) It's in the Constitution
2) They are cool
3) I might be invaded by aliens who are immune to bullets but can be effected by heat, better safe than sorry.

Also why the restriction to people with mental illness ? also where do you draw the line on mental illness ?

There are people who think a God took a personal interest in their lives and answered there prayers meanwhile as million of people get killed, raped, tortured etc. Sounds like some sort of narcissism complex to me.

I like what potbelliedgeek says because why shouldn't we have all the types of portable weapons on our home? They can be useful for something that might seem improbable, but you would be sorry if it does happen like alien invasions or a robber. The odds may be lower than other things that are more probable like murders, but once it happens it changes your life forever. It is better to be safe than sorry. I would not let fate get the best of me. I want to be ready for events like that.
That is such a fallacious reason. That's like saying we should blow up North Korea, killing the innocent people, just in case they would ever successfully attack us. I'd also like to point out that if you think your going to use your gun against an alien that came from space you haven't even thought about how simple and dated a technology like a gun would be to a space faring, aggressive species trying to take planets over.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 1:27:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 1:21:02 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:01:56 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

IMO, the line is drawn for weapons that have no real defensive purposes. Namely, military-grade weapons (machine guns, poison gas, RPGs, nukes, etc.) should be banned, anything else is off-limits for a ban.

If people are so considered about home defense that they are willing to risk allowing schools and other locations full of innocent people to be killed just so they can own their own gun can easily just learn to use a bow and arrow with some time and effort, or even just buy a crossbow that functions just like a gun but its far far less dangerous to the public.

Lol, people like you are the reason we have the second amendment.

As for magazine limits, I don't agree with them because it's a purely arbitrary line. Someone may well need 20 or 30 rounds, line in a home invasion where there could be multiple intruders and you might need a lot of bullets to push them back or dispatch them

They only person that would every need more than 6 shots(you can always buy 6 crossbows or train in reloading them quickly) to defend their house is either under attack by the police/swat/FBI, in which cause we don't want them to have that gun, or if they are in caught up in some kind of insane criminal ring or gang.
We don't live in a world like in the movies where a group of crazy 20 or 30 crazy people will randomly raid your house.

Have you ever actually fired a gun? It's not easy to fire at a moving target, let alone multiple moving targets.
FrEeMaSoN1692
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 1:32:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 1:26:27 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:21:55 PM, FrEeMaSoN1692 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 9:56:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

Well that is the joke now isn't it. Your going to draw the line some where and chances are it will be arbitrary, but that's life. Me personally I think we should all be allowed to have flame throwers......

1) It's in the Constitution
2) They are cool
3) I might be invaded by aliens who are immune to bullets but can be effected by heat, better safe than sorry.

Also why the restriction to people with mental illness ? also where do you draw the line on mental illness ?

There are people who think a God took a personal interest in their lives and answered there prayers meanwhile as million of people get killed, raped, tortured etc. Sounds like some sort of narcissism complex to me.

I like what potbelliedgeek says because why shouldn't we have all the types of portable weapons on our home? They can be useful for something that might seem improbable, but you would be sorry if it does happen like alien invasions or a robber. The odds may be lower than other things that are more probable like murders, but once it happens it changes your life forever. It is better to be safe than sorry. I would not let fate get the best of me. I want to be ready for events like that.
That is such a fallacious reason. That's like saying we should blow up North Korea, killing the innocent people, just in case they would ever successfully attack us. I'd also like to point out that if you think your going to use your gun against an alien that came from space you haven't even thought about how simple and dated a technology like a gun would be to a space faring, aggressive species trying to take planets over.

Brendan, I see what you're saying. You're saying that I am being extreme with prevention of events that may occur. Even if I did want North Korea to be blown up, the United Nations would certainty not accept such a proposal. If it did get through, then North Korea would then blow us up with nukes. As for the alien invasion, humans would always have a way to defeat an alien occupation, if not an alien invasion.
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 1:32:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 1:27:52 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:21:02 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:01:56 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

IMO, the line is drawn for weapons that have no real defensive purposes. Namely, military-grade weapons (machine guns, poison gas, RPGs, nukes, etc.) should be banned, anything else is off-limits for a ban.

If people are so considered about home defense that they are willing to risk allowing schools and other locations full of innocent people to be killed just so they can own their own gun can easily just learn to use a bow and arrow with some time and effort, or even just buy a crossbow that functions just like a gun but its far far less dangerous to the public.

Lol, people like you are the reason we have the second amendment.

What?
As for magazine limits, I don't agree with them because it's a purely arbitrary line. Someone may well need 20 or 30 rounds, line in a home invasion where there could be multiple intruders and you might need a lot of bullets to push them back or dispatch them

They only person that would every need more than 6 shots(you can always buy 6 crossbows or train in reloading them quickly) to defend their house is either under attack by the police/swat/FBI, in which cause we don't want them to have that gun, or if they are in caught up in some kind of insane criminal ring or gang.
We don't live in a world like in the movies where a group of crazy 20 or 30 crazy people will randomly raid your house.

Have you ever actually fired a gun? It's not easy to fire at a moving target, let alone multiple moving targets.
Yes I have, and therefore I know how loud a gunshot is. I can tell you right now that in multiple instances that people HAVE owned a handgun and their home was invaded, if the victim gets a single shot off, the aggressor/s have run away without a looking to see if the victim can aim or not. Having a combat multiplier is just absurd and frankly extremely dangerous for law enforcement.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 1:37:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 1:32:45 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:27:52 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:21:02 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:01:56 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

IMO, the line is drawn for weapons that have no real defensive purposes. Namely, military-grade weapons (machine guns, poison gas, RPGs, nukes, etc.) should be banned, anything else is off-limits for a ban.

If people are so considered about home defense that they are willing to risk allowing schools and other locations full of innocent people to be killed just so they can own their own gun can easily just learn to use a bow and arrow with some time and effort, or even just buy a crossbow that functions just like a gun but its far far less dangerous to the public.

Lol, people like you are the reason we have the second amendment.

What?

The Constitution was designed to protect God-given rights, and not allow people like you who disagree with them to strip the people of them. Got a problem with guns? Don't get one. If you genuinely think you can defend yourself in a home invasion against armed intruders with a crossbow, go buy a crossbow. It's not your right to force others to share your delusion.

As for magazine limits, I don't agree with them because it's a purely arbitrary line. Someone may well need 20 or 30 rounds, line in a home invasion where there could be multiple intruders and you might need a lot of bullets to push them back or dispatch them

They only person that would every need more than 6 shots(you can always buy 6 crossbows or train in reloading them quickly) to defend their house is either under attack by the police/swat/FBI, in which cause we don't want them to have that gun, or if they are in caught up in some kind of insane criminal ring or gang.
We don't live in a world like in the movies where a group of crazy 20 or 30 crazy people will randomly raid your house.

Have you ever actually fired a gun? It's not easy to fire at a moving target, let alone multiple moving targets.
Yes I have, and therefore I know how loud a gunshot is. I can tell you right now that in multiple instances that people HAVE owned a handgun and their home was invaded, if the victim gets a single shot off, the aggressor/s have run away without a looking to see if the victim can aim or not. Having a combat multiplier is just absurd and frankly extremely dangerous for law enforcement.

Blindly shooting a gun through a wall is illegal.

Law enforcement takes upwards of 10 minutes to respond at the least. Self-defense takes however long it takes you to grab and load a gun. So if my home is being invaded, I'm going to grab a gun and call the cops.
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 1:39:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 1:32:18 PM, FrEeMaSoN1692 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:26:27 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:21:55 PM, FrEeMaSoN1692 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 9:56:37 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

Well that is the joke now isn't it. Your going to draw the line some where and chances are it will be arbitrary, but that's life. Me personally I think we should all be allowed to have flame throwers......

1) It's in the Constitution
2) They are cool
3) I might be invaded by aliens who are immune to bullets but can be effected by heat, better safe than sorry.

Also why the restriction to people with mental illness ? also where do you draw the line on mental illness ?

There are people who think a God took a personal interest in their lives and answered there prayers meanwhile as million of people get killed, raped, tortured etc. Sounds like some sort of narcissism complex to me.

I like what potbelliedgeek says because why shouldn't we have all the types of portable weapons on our home? They can be useful for something that might seem improbable, but you would be sorry if it does happen like alien invasions or a robber. The odds may be lower than other things that are more probable like murders, but once it happens it changes your life forever. It is better to be safe than sorry. I would not let fate get the best of me. I want to be ready for events like that.
That is such a fallacious reason. That's like saying we should blow up North Korea, killing the innocent people, just in case they would ever successfully attack us. I'd also like to point out that if you think your going to use your gun against an alien that came from space you haven't even thought about how simple and dated a technology like a gun would be to a space faring, aggressive species trying to take planets over.

Brendan, I see what you're saying. You're saying that I am being extreme with prevention of events that may occur. Even if I did want North Korea to be blown up, the United Nations would certainty not accept such a proposal. If it did get through, then North Korea would then blow us up with nukes. As for the alien invasion, humans would always have a way to defeat an alien occupation, if not an alien invasion.

This isn't the right place to do so, but I'd argue that humanity wouldn't stand a chance against an invasion/occupation scenario by a space-faring species.
Besides, that's not exactly relevant to the gun rights issue in all seriousness. We can't use what if scenarios as a basis for laws in society and philosophy. We take what we know for sure, and that that a small amount of people will misuse their firearms, therefore sh*tting on the parade of all other people that wish to own guns. Its like drinking and driving, it was legal until we decided it was a trouble idea.
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 1:44:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 1:37:29 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:32:45 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:27:52 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:21:02 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:01:56 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

IMO, the line is drawn for weapons that have no real defensive purposes. Namely, military-grade weapons (machine guns, poison gas, RPGs, nukes, etc.) should be banned, anything else is off-limits for a ban.

If people are so considered about home defense that they are willing to risk allowing schools and other locations full of innocent people to be killed just so they can own their own gun can easily just learn to use a bow and arrow with some time and effort, or even just buy a crossbow that functions just like a gun but its far far less dangerous to the public.

Lol, people like you are the reason we have the second amendment.

What?

The Constitution was designed to protect God-given rights, and not allow people like you who disagree with them to strip the people of them. Got a problem with guns? Don't get one. If you genuinely think you can defend yourself in a home invasion against armed intruders with a crossbow, go buy a crossbow. It's not your right to force others to share your delusion.

No it wasn't actually, because we have something called freedom of religion and separation of church and state. God given rights do not exist in the eyes of the government and any logical thinker. The constitution was litterally designed so that it could be changed, something TONS of ignorant people like to forget from 5th grade. Your point here is mute as we also already have laws that stop being from practicing the liberties detailed in the constitution (IE all drugs aren't legal and gay marriage is illegal in many states.)
As for magazine limits, I don't agree with them because it's a purely arbitrary line. Someone may well need 20 or 30 rounds, line in a home invasion where there could be multiple intruders and you might need a lot of bullets to push them back or dispatch them

They only person that would every need more than 6 shots(you can always buy 6 crossbows or train in reloading them quickly) to defend their house is either under attack by the police/swat/FBI, in which cause we don't want them to have that gun, or if they are in caught up in some kind of insane criminal ring or gang.
We don't live in a world like in the movies where a group of crazy 20 or 30 crazy people will randomly raid your house.

Have you ever actually fired a gun? It's not easy to fire at a moving target, let alone multiple moving targets.
Yes I have, and therefore I know how loud a gunshot is. I can tell you right now that in multiple instances that people HAVE owned a handgun and their home was invaded, if the victim gets a single shot off, the aggressor/s have run away without a looking to see if the victim can aim or not. Having a combat multiplier is just absurd and frankly extremely dangerous for law enforcement.

Blindly shooting a gun through a wall is illegal.

Law enforcement takes upwards of 10 minutes to respond at the least. Self-defense takes however long it takes you to grab and load a gun. So if my home is being invaded, I'm going to grab a gun and call the cops.

I'm not talking about if you owned the gun and were under attack. I'm saying if they are legal/readily available then more criminals would also own them, endangering our police forces even more then they are already if they were facing an armed person with a combat multiplier.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 1:52:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 1:44:39 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:37:29 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:32:45 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:27:52 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:21:02 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:01:56 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

IMO, the line is drawn for weapons that have no real defensive purposes. Namely, military-grade weapons (machine guns, poison gas, RPGs, nukes, etc.) should be banned, anything else is off-limits for a ban.

If people are so considered about home defense that they are willing to risk allowing schools and other locations full of innocent people to be killed just so they can own their own gun can easily just learn to use a bow and arrow with some time and effort, or even just buy a crossbow that functions just like a gun but its far far less dangerous to the public.

Lol, people like you are the reason we have the second amendment.

What?

The Constitution was designed to protect God-given rights, and not allow people like you who disagree with them to strip the people of them. Got a problem with guns? Don't get one. If you genuinely think you can defend yourself in a home invasion against armed intruders with a crossbow, go buy a crossbow. It's not your right to force others to share your delusion.

No it wasn't actually, because we have something called freedom of religion and separation of church and state. God given rights do not exist in the eyes of the government and any logical thinker. The constitution was litterally designed so that it could be changed, something TONS of ignorant people like to forget from 5th grade. Your point here is mute as we also already have laws that stop being from practicing the liberties detailed in the constitution (IE all drugs aren't legal and gay marriage is illegal in many states.)

Read the Declaration of Independence. Natural law is the basis for the Constitution. Natural rights are not granted by the Constitution, but are instead protected by it.

And yes, the Constitution was designed to be changed. In fact, the founding fathers were nice enough to create a method for it to be changed - amendments. If you think the second amendment is terrible, try and push for a repeal amendment. You can't just magically wave your hand and say 'guns are now illegal'. Also, there is no such thing as a 'mute note'.

As for magazine limits, I don't agree with them because it's a purely arbitrary line. Someone may well need 20 or 30 rounds, line in a home invasion where there could be multiple intruders and you might need a lot of bullets to push them back or dispatch them

They only person that would every need more than 6 shots(you can always buy 6 crossbows or train in reloading them quickly) to defend their house is either under attack by the police/swat/FBI, in which cause we don't want them to have that gun, or if they are in caught up in some kind of insane criminal ring or gang.
We don't live in a world like in the movies where a group of crazy 20 or 30 crazy people will randomly raid your house.

Have you ever actually fired a gun? It's not easy to fire at a moving target, let alone multiple moving targets.
Yes I have, and therefore I know how loud a gunshot is. I can tell you right now that in multiple instances that people HAVE owned a handgun and their home was invaded, if the victim gets a single shot off, the aggressor/s have run away without a looking to see if the victim can aim or not. Having a combat multiplier is just absurd and frankly extremely dangerous for law enforcement.

Blindly shooting a gun through a wall is illegal.

Law enforcement takes upwards of 10 minutes to respond at the least. Self-defense takes however long it takes you to grab and load a gun. So if my home is being invaded, I'm going to grab a gun and call the cops.

I'm not talking about if you owned the gun and were under attack. I'm saying if they are legal/readily available then more criminals would also own them, endangering our police forces even more then they are already if they were facing an armed person with a combat multiplier.

So by your logic Chicago should be a magical gun-free paradise where nobody dies from gun violence, right?

Oh wait...
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 1:56:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The big problem you americans have now is that you are living in fear of guns. And the really irrational part of it is that you people just want to have more guns.

So the fear is rational but more guns is not. You have to find your way back to when guns weren't a threat and you didn't have to live in fear all the time.

Here's the simple answer: In Canada we don't allow hanguns to be carried on the streets, in your cars, in your pockets, etc. and so we don't need to live in fear. Many of us don't even bother to lock our doors simply because we have nothing to fear.

What I'm saying is that finding solutions for your problems needs to be readdressed in a more logical manner.

It's so bad now that I have to admit that your fear is rational. You need guns to protect yourselves but you also need to make the break from answering that fear with more and more guns. Otherwise if you don't then you're just going to end up shooting a lot more americans, good guys as well as bad guys.

Now go ahead and avoid talking about the only solution to your problems.

Duhhhhhhhhhhh!
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 2:02:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 1:52:42 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:44:39 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:37:29 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:32:45 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:27:52 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:21:02 PM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:01:56 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

IMO, the line is drawn for weapons that have no real defensive purposes. Namely, military-grade weapons (machine guns, poison gas, RPGs, nukes, etc.) should be banned, anything else is off-limits for a ban.

If people are so considered about home defense that they are willing to risk allowing schools and other locations full of innocent people to be killed just so they can own their own gun can easily just learn to use a bow and arrow with some time and effort, or even just buy a crossbow that functions just like a gun but its far far less dangerous to the public.

Lol, people like you are the reason we have the second amendment.

What?

The Constitution was designed to protect God-given rights, and not allow people like you who disagree with them to strip the people of them. Got a problem with guns? Don't get one. If you genuinely think you can defend yourself in a home invasion against armed intruders with a crossbow, go buy a crossbow. It's not your right to force others to share your delusion.

No it wasn't actually, because we have something called freedom of religion and separation of church and state. God given rights do not exist in the eyes of the government and any logical thinker. The constitution was litterally designed so that it could be changed, something TONS of ignorant people like to forget from 5th grade. Your point here is mute as we also already have laws that stop being from practicing the liberties detailed in the constitution (IE all drugs aren't legal and gay marriage is illegal in many states.)

Read the Declaration of Independence. Natural law is the basis for the Constitution. Natural rights are not granted by the Constitution, but are instead protected by it.

And yes, the Constitution was designed to be changed. In fact, the founding fathers were nice enough to create a method for it to be changed - amendments. If you think the second amendment is terrible, try and push for a repeal amendment. You can't just magically wave your hand and say 'guns are now illegal'. Also, there is no such thing as a 'mute note'.

There is if its mute like this is continuing to be. I'm not saying this will happen over night, but if you realize that most people's stance on it in America, then you also know that it doesn't agree with the NRA propaganda. Most people nation wide are in favor of regulations of various kinds, including background checks, no more gun show sales without any kind of background check, limits on mag capacity, limits on gun attachments and modifications. I stand primarily alone in wanted all guns to be illegal period, however my viewpoints stand closer to reason and public opinion then that people should do what ever they want. You can't just affirm that nature rights exist when not all American believe so, not to mention what those entail, because by air is a right but owning a fire arm that hasn't even existed until around 200 years ago definitely isn't.
As for magazine limits, I don't agree with them because it's a purely arbitrary line. Someone may well need 20 or 30 rounds, line in a home invasion where there could be multiple intruders and you might need a lot of bullets to push them back or dispatch them

They only person that would every need more than 6 shots(you can always buy 6 crossbows or train in reloading them quickly) to defend their house is either under attack by the police/swat/FBI, in which cause we don't want them to have that gun, or if they are in caught up in some kind of insane criminal ring or gang.
We don't live in a world like in the movies where a group of crazy 20 or 30 crazy people will randomly raid your house.

Have you ever actually fired a gun? It's not easy to fire at a moving target, let alone multiple moving targets.
Yes I have, and therefore I know how loud a gunshot is. I can tell you right now that in multiple instances that people HAVE owned a handgun and their home was invaded, if the victim gets a single shot off, the aggressor/s have run away without a looking to see if the victim can aim or not. Having a combat multiplier is just absurd and frankly extremely dangerous for law enforcement.

Blindly shooting a gun through a wall is illegal.

Law enforcement takes upwards of 10 minutes to respond at the least. Self-defense takes however long it takes you to grab and load a gun. So if my home is being invaded, I'm going to grab a gun and call the cops.

I'm not talking about if you owned the gun and were under attack. I'm saying if they are legal/readily available then more criminals would also own them, endangering our police forces even more then they are already if they were facing an armed person with a combat multiplier.

So by your logic Chicago should be a magical gun-free paradise where nobody dies from gun violence, right?

Oh wait...
That would be awesome, but realistically no, it won't happen for a while. But if guns are harder to get then we can at least start reducing the number. And I also don't want to allow soon-to-be-criminals the access to buy a gun that is a combat multiplier, making it harder for law enforcement to control the situation.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 2:05:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 1:01:56 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

IMO, the line is drawn for weapons that have no real defensive purposes. Namely, military-grade weapons (machine guns, poison gas, RPGs, nukes, etc.) should be banned, anything else is off-limits for a ban.

As for magazine limits, I don't agree with them because it's a purely arbitrary line. Someone may well need 20 or 30 rounds, line in a home invasion where there could be multiple intruders and you might need a lot of bullets to push them back or dispatch them

I've seen people argue that they would need machine guns if there were a whole bunch of home intruders. Fact is, home intrusions by a whole bunch of people are exceedingly rare, it's usually someone you know, and honestly if you need to fire a pistol or something thirty times to fend them off, if they're actually trying to kill you you're probably already dead.

Well, okay, if you're a ninja...
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 2:11:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 2:05:49 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/2/2014 1:01:56 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:51:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Where does the line lay on what the government is or isnt allowed to ban in the gun arena? You dont often find right wingers crying out for the right to own WMD's, so where is the line drawn? I am asking as a pro gun (High capacity mags, fully auto) and pro limitation (strenuous background checks for every weapon sold, no felons, no mental illness) voter.

IMO, the line is drawn for weapons that have no real defensive purposes. Namely, military-grade weapons (machine guns, poison gas, RPGs, nukes, etc.) should be banned, anything else is off-limits for a ban.

As for magazine limits, I don't agree with them because it's a purely arbitrary line. Someone may well need 20 or 30 rounds, line in a home invasion where there could be multiple intruders and you might need a lot of bullets to push them back or dispatch them

I've seen people argue that they would need machine guns if there were a whole bunch of home intruders. Fact is, home intrusions by a whole bunch of people are exceedingly rare, it's usually someone you know, and honestly if you need to fire a pistol or something thirty times to fend them off, if they're actually trying to kill you you're probably already dead.

Well, okay, if you're a ninja...
I 100% agree, the odds of you being in a scenario where you need more than a pistol for home defense is so low it's not worth mentioning at all, and if you are in that situation I doubt even having a machine gun would help you kill all 30 people who won't just run in a straight line at you from one direction like on crappy TV.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 2:20:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 10:06:52 AM, Brendan21 wrote:
IMHO all guns should be banned period, like in Britain and Japan.

I'll debate you on gun rights.
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
9spaceking
Posts: 4,213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 2:23:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 2:20:39 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/2/2014 10:06:52 AM, Brendan21 wrote:
IMHO all guns should be banned period, like in Britain and Japan.

I'll debate you on gun rights.

we all know who's gonna win that debate...
Equestrian election
http://www.debate.org...

This House would impose democracy
http://www.debate.org...

Reign of Terror is unjustified
http://www.debate.org...

Raise min. wage to $10.10
http://www.debate.org...