Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Should we be encouraged to bear arms?

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 9:41:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Or not?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 10:18:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 9:41:11 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Or not?

http://www.avforums.com...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 10:23:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 9:41:11 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Or not?

No, if you belive law enforcement can protect you and govt will never strip you of freedoms and rights

Yes, if you belive law enforcement can't protect you and govt will eventually strip you of all your basic civil liberties and rights for the good of the state.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 10:34:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think the question implies, "Which do YOU believe?"

I believe the issue was decided a while ago and is stupid at this point, so I make a joke out of it.

Since you understand the issue well enough, one assumes you have a position (yay/nay/nay do I care).

Agnostics are the moral and political equivalent of the Hedge Fund Manager.

If you care enough to respond, care enough to take a stand.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 8:30:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, maybe not necessarily encouraged, but definitely freely allowed.
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
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 4:55:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 8:30:40 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well, maybe not necessarily encouraged, but definitely freely allowed.

Why?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Budlightyear
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 11:19:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The problem is two things:

1. Who is "we"? Should a sane person who wants a gun to use only when they NEED to defend themselves be "encouraged to bear arms"?

Or should everyone- the mass populace, including the crazy and the incompetent, be "encouraged" to bear arms?

2. What does it mean to "bear arms"? An AK-47 automatic is a weapon and constitutes "bearing arms". So is a semi-automatic .22 pistol.

Honestly, I believe "bearing arms" in terms of owning a gun built for the purpose that you have it for (self-defense, hunting, or plinking) is an inalienable right.

But no one uses an extended-mag assault rifle for any of those purposes, do they?
Cynicus993
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 3:27:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The more the merrier. Even the Brady Campaign was forced to admit that areas where concealed carry was allowed, crime went down. Gun sales (including the AR-15/AK47) have sky rocketed in the past decade, yet we have the lowest murder rate in decades. The second amendment was written for the populace to be armed to overthrow their government should it become tyrannical. This constant antagonism from the populace is a form of checks/balances on the federal government. In the absence of this, you have unchecked power that will by it's natural course become overbearing and tyrannical.
Our founding fathers new this all too well in that they had just lived it in dealing with King George. It is short sighted and complacent minded of the pseudo-intellectual to believe that this natural ebb and flow of state power vs individual liberty will never swing back to the tyrannical. History has many lessons to the contrary.