Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

The fed. government should stay out of guns

Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 3:37:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
New York wants gun control, let them have it.
Georgia wants gun control relieved, let them do it.
Seriously, why should all the Northern Democrats tell the Southern Republicans what to do.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 3:40:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:37:12 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
New York wants gun control, let them have it.
Georgia wants gun control relieved, let them do it.
Seriously, why should all the Northern Democrats tell the Southern Republicans what to do.

You mean to say, why should Congress tell Southern Republicans what to do...and your answer is, because they're the federal government, they have jurisdictional supremacy, and so they can.

pretty simple, if you ask me.
"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
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 3:54:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:40:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:37:12 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
New York wants gun control, let them have it.
Georgia wants gun control relieved, let them do it.
Seriously, why should all the Northern Democrats tell the Southern Republicans what to do.

You mean to say, why should Congress tell Southern Republicans what to do...and your answer is, because they're the federal government, they have jurisdictional supremacy, and so they can.

pretty simple, if you ask me.

"Because they're congress" is just what I mean. Take the power to control guns away from them. Leave it solely up to the states. I want to hear my governor, who lives about an hour from my house, talk about state wide gun control repealing or imposal, not my president who lives about ten hours away in a place that does not even resemble the place I live.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 3:57:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:54:28 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:40:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:37:12 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
New York wants gun control, let them have it.
Georgia wants gun control relieved, let them do it.
Seriously, why should all the Northern Democrats tell the Southern Republicans what to do.

You mean to say, why should Congress tell Southern Republicans what to do...and your answer is, because they're the federal government, they have jurisdictional supremacy, and so they can.

pretty simple, if you ask me.

"Because they're congress" is just what I mean. Take the power to control guns away from them. Leave it solely up to the states. I want to hear my governor, who lives about an hour from my house, talk about state wide gun control repealing or imposal, not my president who lives about ten hours away in a place that does not even resemble the place I live.

How many hours away does a government representative have to live before you don't want to have to listen to them?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 3:58:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:54:28 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:40:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:37:12 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
New York wants gun control, let them have it.
Georgia wants gun control relieved, let them do it.
Seriously, why should all the Northern Democrats tell the Southern Republicans what to do.

You mean to say, why should Congress tell Southern Republicans what to do...and your answer is, because they're the federal government, they have jurisdictional supremacy, and so they can.

pretty simple, if you ask me.

"Because they're congress" is just what I mean. Take the power to control guns away from them. Leave it solely up to the states. I want to hear my governor, who lives about an hour from my house, talk about state wide gun control repealing or imposal, not my president who lives about ten hours away in a place that does not even resemble the place I live.

Since use of firearms is a constitutional issue, I think it's within the power of the national government to dictate the parameters of the amendment. Also, incongruity between state laws on a matter like this is just practically untenable. People will smuggle weapons across boarders and the local restrictions would have little meaning. It's an issue that requires uniformity of practice, and therefore again, has to be sent to the federal government.
"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
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:03:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:57:03 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:54:28 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:40:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:37:12 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
New York wants gun control, let them have it.
Georgia wants gun control relieved, let them do it.
Seriously, why should all the Northern Democrats tell the Southern Republicans what to do.

You mean to say, why should Congress tell Southern Republicans what to do...and your answer is, because they're the federal government, they have jurisdictional supremacy, and so they can.

pretty simple, if you ask me.

"Because they're congress" is just what I mean. Take the power to control guns away from them. Leave it solely up to the states. I want to hear my governor, who lives about an hour from my house, talk about state wide gun control repealing or imposal, not my president who lives about ten hours away in a place that does not even resemble the place I live.

How many hours away does a government representative have to live before you don't want to have to listen to them?

Think about it, if a person went from Tennessee to New York, everything would be different. Religion, political views, social beliefs, I could go on. All I am asking is that the representative lives in an area that is socially and geographically similar to the place I live. Connecticut is different from Georgia, so why should a representative from there come up with a bill on guns that would effect the entire nation.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:05:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:58:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:54:28 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:40:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:37:12 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
New York wants gun control, let them have it.
Georgia wants gun control relieved, let them do it.
Seriously, why should all the Northern Democrats tell the Southern Republicans what to do.

You mean to say, why should Congress tell Southern Republicans what to do...and your answer is, because they're the federal government, they have jurisdictional supremacy, and so they can.

pretty simple, if you ask me.

"Because they're congress" is just what I mean. Take the power to control guns away from them. Leave it solely up to the states. I want to hear my governor, who lives about an hour from my house, talk about state wide gun control repealing or imposal, not my president who lives about ten hours away in a place that does not even resemble the place I live.

Since use of firearms is a constitutional issue, I think it's within the power of the national government to dictate the parameters of the amendment. Also, incongruity between state laws on a matter like this is just practically untenable. People will smuggle weapons across boarders and the local restrictions would have little meaning. It's an issue that requires uniformity of practice, and therefore again, has to be sent to the federal government.

"Well regulated militia", let the states regulate them how they see fit. Who knows, gun control make work wonders for New York but be extremely dangerous for Alabama. If a person goes across a state border, they are that state's problem and that state sees to punishment. This is basically how state gun laws work now anyway.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:06:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:03:03 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:

Think about it, if a person went from Tennessee to New York, everything would be different. Religion, political views, social beliefs, I could go on. All I am asking is that the representative lives in an area that is socially and geographically similar to the place I live. Connecticut is different from Georgia, so why should a representative from there come up with a bill on guns that would effect the entire nation.

I think this logic was invalidated after the failure of the Southern insurrection. There are no representatives of Connecticut controlling Georgia law, there is only a united Congress governing the country at large.
"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
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:09:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The states DO have the power to regulate guns. The Feds regulate broad strokes, the states regulate specifics which relate to their area. The Constitution affects the Federal Government (and the protections of citizens in the Constitution are required to be protected by the states as well). While I don't think the argument about the clause in the Constitution is correct, even if it's accepted, the phrase "Well-regulated militia" doesn't say "Militia well-regulated by the individual states".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:12:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:09:02 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The states DO have the power to regulate guns. The Feds regulate broad strokes, the states regulate specifics which relate to their area. The Constitution affects the Federal Government (and the protections of citizens in the Constitution are required to be protected by the states as well). While I don't think the argument about the clause in the Constitution is correct, even if it's accepted, the phrase "Well-regulated militia" doesn't say "Militia well-regulated by the individual states".

I want simply say that states should have all power over guns. I do not think the word "gun" should appear in congress at all. I simply believe that if this happens, the nation would be not be divided on this issue and everyone can be happy.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:13:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:12:05 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:09:02 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The states DO have the power to regulate guns. The Feds regulate broad strokes, the states regulate specifics which relate to their area. The Constitution affects the Federal Government (and the protections of citizens in the Constitution are required to be protected by the states as well). While I don't think the argument about the clause in the Constitution is correct, even if it's accepted, the phrase "Well-regulated militia" doesn't say "Militia well-regulated by the individual states".

I want simply say that states should have all power over guns. I do not think the word "gun" should appear in congress at all. I simply believe that if this happens, the nation would be not be divided on this issue and everyone can be happy.

"Everyone can be happy"? That's a pipe dream. Do you want the second amendment completely removed? So that some states can completely prohibit guns because they're "local"?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:24:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:13:51 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:12:05 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:09:02 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The states DO have the power to regulate guns. The Feds regulate broad strokes, the states regulate specifics which relate to their area. The Constitution affects the Federal Government (and the protections of citizens in the Constitution are required to be protected by the states as well). While I don't think the argument about the clause in the Constitution is correct, even if it's accepted, the phrase "Well-regulated militia" doesn't say "Militia well-regulated by the individual states".

I want simply say that states should have all power over guns. I do not think the word "gun" should appear in congress at all. I simply believe that if this happens, the nation would be not be divided on this issue and everyone can be happy.

"Everyone can be happy"? That's a pipe dream. Do you want the second amendment completely removed? So that some states can completely prohibit guns because they're "local"?

Okay, here is my concern and I want you to come up with a solution to my concern that is better than what I have proposed.
I fear that the North Eastern politicians will propose bills that is supposed to "help" with gun violence in their states. However, I fear that these gun bills that the Northeast is proposing and passing will affect Georgia, who generally does not want gun control. I want to ensure that Georgia does not get this gun control.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 6:53:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree. Different states have different gun cultures, so they should suit their laws accordingly.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 7:50:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:24:00 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:

Okay, here is my concern and I want you to come up with a solution to my concern that is better than what I have proposed.
I fear that the North Eastern politicians will propose bills that is supposed to "help" with gun violence in their states. However, I fear that these gun bills that the Northeast is proposing and passing will affect Georgia, who generally does not want gun control. I want to ensure that Georgia does not get this gun control.

Ah, so you just want to be special?

Federal laws shouldn't be made for specific states problems, just in general.

Comparing your state to the NE states makes a flawed argument considering that Georgia's gun murder rate per capita is considerably higher than, say, New York or Massachussetts. Georgia has equal representation in the Senate, and population-comparative representation in the House.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 8:15:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 7:50:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:24:00 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:

Okay, here is my concern and I want you to come up with a solution to my concern that is better than what I have proposed.
I fear that the North Eastern politicians will propose bills that is supposed to "help" with gun violence in their states. However, I fear that these gun bills that the Northeast is proposing and passing will affect Georgia, who generally does not want gun control. I want to ensure that Georgia does not get this gun control.

Ah, so you just want to be special?

Federal laws shouldn't be made for specific states problems, just in general.

Comparing your state to the NE states makes a flawed argument considering that Georgia's gun murder rate per capita is considerably higher than, say, New York or Massachussetts. Georgia has equal representation in the Senate, and population-comparative representation in the House.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

So say GA's gun murder rate per capita is higher than the NE states, who is to say that it will not be worse when guns are taken away from the law abiding citizens. Who is to say that though gun control may work well for the North East, that it won't cause gun violence in the South East to skyrocket. Remember, if you go region to region in the USA, the country is demographically, socially, and politically different.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 8:25:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:24:00 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:13:51 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:12:05 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:09:02 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The states DO have the power to regulate guns. The Feds regulate broad strokes, the states regulate specifics which relate to their area. The Constitution affects the Federal Government (and the protections of citizens in the Constitution are required to be protected by the states as well). While I don't think the argument about the clause in the Constitution is correct, even if it's accepted, the phrase "Well-regulated militia" doesn't say "Militia well-regulated by the individual states".

I want simply say that states should have all power over guns. I do not think the word "gun" should appear in congress at all. I simply believe that if this happens, the nation would be not be divided on this issue and everyone can be happy.

"Everyone can be happy"? That's a pipe dream. Do you want the second amendment completely removed? So that some states can completely prohibit guns because they're "local"?

Okay, here is my concern and I want you to come up with a solution to my concern that is better than what I have proposed.
I fear that the North Eastern politicians will propose bills that is supposed to "help" with gun violence in their states. However, I fear that these gun bills that the Northeast is proposing and passing will affect Georgia, who generally does not want gun control. I want to ensure that Georgia does not get this gun control.

What control, or specific bills, are you afraid will affect Georgia?

"Gun control" is so vague, it's nearly meaningless.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 8:44:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Gun control" is so vague, it's nearly meaningless.

Gun control-any thing that restricts ownership of a firearm or imposes requirements to possess such firearms(The Cowboy0108 dictionary)
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 8:52:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What about concerns over flexibility? You have to admit that at times there might be parts of the law that will not work unless they are implemented over the entire country. If the federal government cannot make laws restricting guns at all then this option is not available to them (which I would argue was the entire point of unification in the first place). Now obviously you are free to argue against any specific piece of legislation, and also free to argue for reasonable restrictions to be put on what legislation the fed can make, but to remove it entirely would effectively make it impotent. But at some point the country has to work together and accept majority decisions. Otherwise you might as well be a bunch of individuals that happen to play nice with each other for the most part.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 8:56:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 8:44:54 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
"Gun control" is so vague, it's nearly meaningless.

Gun control-any thing that restricts ownership of a firearm or imposes requirements to possess such firearms(The Cowboy0108 dictionary)

So, do you believe that children should be allowed to own/operate missile launchers?

Do you believe that all nations should have access to atomic weapons?

Do you believe that citizens with a history of violence should be granted unadulterated access to weaponry?

How about those on parole?

You're going to have to elaborate, because that could be interpreted in such a way that makes it impossible to take you seriously.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 9:04:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 8:52:59 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
What about concerns over flexibility? You have to admit that at times there might be parts of the law that will not work unless they are implemented over the entire country. If the federal government cannot make laws restricting guns at all then this option is not available to them (which I would argue was the entire point of unification in the first place). Now obviously you are free to argue against any specific piece of legislation, and also free to argue for reasonable restrictions to be put on what legislation the fed can make, but to remove it entirely would effectively make it impotent. But at some point the country has to work together and accept majority decisions. Otherwise you might as well be a bunch of individuals that happen to play nice with each other for the most part.

"Majority Decisions" -- What about the minority. I'm sorry, but if we were so concerned about the majority, we would not have had desegregation or women's rights. What I propose would basically mean that a Georgian would abide by Georgia's laws, no one else's, but would have to abide by Alabama's laws the second he crosses that border.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 9:13:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 8:56:47 PM, Such wrote:
At 7/27/2013 8:44:54 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
"Gun control" is so vague, it's nearly meaningless.

Gun control-any thing that restricts ownership of a firearm or imposes requirements to possess such firearms(The Cowboy0108 dictionary)

So, do you believe that children should be allowed to own/operate missile launchers?

Do you believe that all nations should have access to atomic weapons?

Do you believe that citizens with a history of violence should be granted unadulterated access to weaponry?

How about those on parole?

You're going to have to elaborate, because that could be interpreted in such a way that makes it impossible to take you seriously.

What I provided was my interpretation of gun control. Some gun control is important and necessary. Most gun control however, is ridiculous and meaningless, or just an outright attempt to take away as many guns from LAW ABIDING citizens as possible. Personally, I support no age limits for rifles and shotguns and no paper work for these guns as I consider them outright tools, no different than a screwdriver. Shotguns, rifles, and screwdrivers are all helpful but can also be used to kill people. Hand guns however, should be available readily but with some paperwork and to adults only. I do not believe in restricting gun ownership to people who have already served a sentence in prison/jail. That is like taking away their punishing them twice.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 9:23:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 9:13:31 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
What I provided was my interpretation of gun control. Some gun control is important and necessary. Most gun control however, is ridiculous and meaningless, or just an outright attempt to take away as many guns from LAW ABIDING citizens as possible. Personally, I support no age limits for rifles and shotguns and no paper work for these guns as I consider them outright tools, no different than a screwdriver. Shotguns, rifles, and screwdrivers are all helpful but can also be used to kill people. Hand guns however, should be available readily but with some paperwork and to adults only. I do not believe in restricting gun ownership to people who have already served a sentence in prison/jail. That is like taking away their punishing them twice.

Well, here's the thing.

First, the bolded is a contradiction. Secondly, it's a contradiction of Georgia law.

That aside, the difference between a screwdriver and a shotgun or rifle is that a screwdriver is meant to drive screws into either wood or metal, whereas shotguns and rifles are meant to hurt living things. In fact, screwdrivers aren't very effective ways to hurt or kill anyone.

What do you have against paperwork? Restricting ownership is one thing, but "paperwork" (permits and registration) actually enables law enforcement to track weapons, thus making it much easier to catch someone who commits a crime with weaponry. It doesn't limit the degree to which law abiding citizens can access those guns.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 9:26:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 9:04:51 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 8:52:59 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
What about concerns over flexibility? You have to admit that at times there might be parts of the law that will not work unless they are implemented over the entire country. If the federal government cannot make laws restricting guns at all then this option is not available to them (which I would argue was the entire point of unification in the first place). Now obviously you are free to argue against any specific piece of legislation, and also free to argue for reasonable restrictions to be put on what legislation the fed can make, but to remove it entirely would effectively make it impotent. But at some point the country has to work together and accept majority decisions. Otherwise you might as well be a bunch of individuals that happen to play nice with each other for the most part.

"Majority Decisions" -- What about the minority. I'm sorry, but if we were so concerned about the majority, we would not have had desegregation or women's rights. What I propose would basically mean that a Georgian would abide by Georgia's laws, no one else's, but would have to abide by Alabama's laws the second he crosses that border.

I didn't say majority rules in all cases just that in some it might have to. Unless you can demonstrate to me that no gun law would ever need to be implemented nation wide then it is unreasonable to expect I will be happy saying that no federal gun regulation should occur. Of course if you succeed with your proposed nation split, that would be a whole different ball game.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 9:38:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I guess my problem is that you appear to be trying to make grey issue very black and white without making it particularly clear where the black ends and the white begins. I live in Australia and we have some reasonably tight gun controls. But I could still get one legally if I wanted it and I feel no worse off for it. Now I realise I don't know what it is like to live in a household with guns but if, as you say, you treat them like a tool then as long as you can use the tool for the appropriate purpose then what is your issue. Handguns are tools, tools for threatening serious injury to someone. That's about all they are good for and if you have legitimate reason to need to do that that's fine. What is a little paperwork in the long run going to cost you. Unnecessary paperwork is always a problem in governance, what specifically bothers you about the way guns are managed?
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 9:58:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 9:38:06 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
I guess my problem is that you appear to be trying to make grey issue very black and white without making it particularly clear where the black ends and the white begins. I live in Australia and we have some reasonably tight gun controls. But I could still get one legally if I wanted it and I feel no worse off for it. Now I realise I don't know what it is like to live in a household with guns but if, as you say, you treat them like a tool then as long as you can use the tool for the appropriate purpose then what is your issue. Handguns are tools, tools for threatening serious injury to someone. That's about all they are good for and if you have legitimate reason to need to do that that's fine. What is a little paperwork in the long run going to cost you. Unnecessary paperwork is always a problem in governance, what specifically bothers you about the way guns are managed?

I can't say I have any real concerns about the way guns are managed( other than 18 year olds should be able to buy pistols). My concern is how many of the congressmen want to manage guns. They want to take them away.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 10:01:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 9:38:06 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
I guess my problem is that you appear to be trying to make grey issue very black and white without making it particularly clear where the black ends and the white begins. I live in Australia and we have some reasonably tight gun controls. But I could still get one legally if I wanted it and I feel no worse off for it. Now I realise I don't know what it is like to live in a household with guns but if, as you say, you treat them like a tool then as long as you can use the tool for the appropriate purpose then what is your issue. Handguns are tools, tools for threatening serious injury to someone. That's about all they are good for and if you have legitimate reason to need to do that that's fine. What is a little paperwork in the long run going to cost you. Unnecessary paperwork is always a problem in governance, what specifically bothers you about the way guns are managed?

I can't say I have any real concerns about the way guns are managed( other than 18 year olds should be able to buy pistols). My concern is how many of the congressmen want to manage guns. They want to take them away.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 10:06:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:03:03 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:57:03 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:54:28 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:40:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:37:12 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
New York wants gun control, let them have it.
Georgia wants gun control relieved, let them do it.
Seriously, why should all the Northern Democrats tell the Southern Republicans what to do.

You mean to say, why should Congress tell Southern Republicans what to do...and your answer is, because they're the federal government, they have jurisdictional supremacy, and so they can.

pretty simple, if you ask me.

"Because they're congress" is just what I mean. Take the power to control guns away from them. Leave it solely up to the states. I want to hear my governor, who lives about an hour from my house, talk about state wide gun control repealing or imposal, not my president who lives about ten hours away in a place that does not even resemble the place I live.

How many hours away does a government representative have to live before you don't want to have to listen to them?

Think about it, if a person went from Tennessee to New York, everything would be different. Religion, political views, social beliefs, I could go on. All I am asking is that the representative lives in an area that is socially and geographically similar to the place I live. Connecticut is different from Georgia, so why should a representative from there come up with a bill on guns that would effect the entire nation.

Actually, no it wouldn't. Sure, states generally have different cultures, but there's a reason why all the states are in a single country called the United States of America. States are not so radically different to call them different countries. The US is actually still culturally homogenous enough to have a strong central government.
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
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 1:51:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:57:03 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:54:28 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:40:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:37:12 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
New York wants gun control, let them have it.
Georgia wants gun control relieved, let them do it.
Seriously, why should all the Northern Democrats tell the Southern Republicans what to do.

You mean to say, why should Congress tell Southern Republicans what to do...and your answer is, because they're the federal government, they have jurisdictional supremacy, and so they can.

pretty simple, if you ask me.

"Because they're congress" is just what I mean. Take the power to control guns away from them. Leave it solely up to the states. I want to hear my governor, who lives about an hour from my house, talk about state wide gun control repealing or imposal, not my president who lives about ten hours away in a place that does not even resemble the place I live.

How many hours away does a government representative have to live before you don't want to have to listen to them?

If you can't walk there in 10 hours then you shouldn't have to listen to them. ;)
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 2:15:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 9:13:31 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 8:56:47 PM, Such wrote:
At 7/27/2013 8:44:54 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 8:25:19 PM, Such wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:24:00 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:

I fear that these gun bills that the Northeast is proposing and passing will affect Georgia, who generally does not want gun control. I want to ensure that Georgia does not get this gun control.

What control, or specific bills, are you afraid will affect Georgia?

"Gun control" is so vague, it's nearly meaningless.

Gun control-any thing that restricts ownership of a firearm or imposes requirements to possess such firearms(The Cowboy0108 dictionary)

So, do you believe that children should be allowed to own/operate missile launchers?

Do you believe that all nations should have access to atomic weapons?

Do you believe that citizens with a history of violence should be granted unadulterated access to weaponry?

How about those on parole?

You're going to have to elaborate, because that could be interpreted in such a way that makes it impossible to take you seriously.

What I provided was my interpretation of gun control. Some gun control is important and necessary. Most gun control however, is ridiculous and meaningless, or just an outright attempt to take away as many guns from LAW ABIDING citizens as possible. Personally, I support no age limits for rifles and shotguns and no paper work for these guns as I consider them outright tools, no different than a screwdriver.

Shotguns, rifles, and screwdrivers are all helpful but can also be used to kill people. Hand guns however, should be available readily but with some paperwork and to adults only. I do not believe in restricting gun ownership to people who have already served a sentence in prison/jail. That is like taking away their punishing them twice.

I love this guy. ^
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 11:25:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Cowboy, not enough people support a full out BAN on guns for that to realistically be a problem. Mostly they support selective bans like making sure you can't buy machine guns. There has to be some limit on what kind of things you are allowed to have. Otherwise someone who wants to nuke the White House can buy weapons grade chemicals and build a bomb because hey who's the government to say what I can or can't buy?