• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An interesting read concerning the predicted DNC push for gun control

apdst said:
That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. Natural rights can't be regulated.
Click to expand...
That is because what does not exist can not be regulated, but the rights that are regulated are only so when people who have those rights let others regulate them.
Rights are the product of freedom, when they get regulated you are giving up freedom.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You used Mexico as an example where gun regulation leads. I don't know why you even brought it up if that wasn't your point. No, the US isn't like Mexico and requiring a background check before you buy a gun doesn't violate your rights and isn't Stalinism. Cut the drama and hyperbole.



ALL rights are regulated to some degree, including the first amendment. The second amendment even has the word regulated in it, so spare us the theatrical lying.

For anyone else pretending nobody rejects all gun regulations, here's a pretty nutty example of what I was talking about.

Man, you must hate living in America with no rights whatsoever according to your definition.
Click to expand...

I never said a background violates rights nor did I compare it to stalinism, my point was restrictions lead to more restrictions, and those that argue for more restrictions claiming that they are taking away the second amendment need to learn the history of the second amendment. Mexico has one gun store to buy guns, requires permission from the secretariet of defence to sell the gun. and for being the only store less than 38 new guns are sold daily legally across the state.

Now on this whole creating a false argument thing you need to stop, anyone can read both your posts and mine and see that essentially you are creating a false argument as a means of debate, which is sign you have no way to defeat my actual argument.
 
prometeus said:
That is because what does not exist can not be regulated, but the rights that are regulated are only so when people who have those rights let others regulate them.
Rights are the product of freedom, when they get regulated you are giving up freedom.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I said. :)
 
beerftw said:
I never said a background violates rights nor did I compare it to stalinism, my point was restrictions lead to more restrictions, and those that argue for more restrictions claiming that they are taking away the second amendment need to learn the history of the second amendment. Mexico has one gun store to buy guns, requires permission from the secretariet of defence to sell the gun. and for being the only store less than 38 new guns are sold daily legally across the state.

Now on this whole creating a false argument thing you need to stop, anyone can read both your posts and mine and see that essentially you are creating a false argument as a means of debate, which is sign you have no way to defeat my actual argument.
Click to expand...

Then you don't really have an argument, you just randomly inserted an anecdote about Mexico that has nothing to do with us. So you agree having basic gun control regulations isn't unconstitutional on principle, you just disagree with the amount. I never said I'm "taking away the second amendment" and I haven't seen any politician on either side of the aisle say anything even remotely similar.

Calm your hysteria and recognize you already support gun regulation, so cut the hyperbole when talking to other people that support basic regulation like you.

TurtleDude said:
that's Orwellian
Click to expand...
apdst said:
That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. Natural rights can't be regulated.
Click to expand...

Nope, all rights have limits, stipulations and fine print and you can't point to a single example of a right that doesn't. Your freedom of speech isn't unlimited because you can't scream fire in a crowded theater or threaten the president, any criminal can't own any gun he wants on the planet, and your right to life can be subverted if you're put to death for being a violent criminal.

No right is without limits.
 
Last edited:
prometeus said:
Where in nature does it say so? Do animals have it too?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Animals have more freedom and liberty than humans do. Freedom to secure food how they please; freedom to defend themselves; freedom to secure their welfare and protect their offspring; freedom to raise their offspring without outside intervention.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Then you don't really have an argument, you just randomly inserted an anecdote about Mexico that has nothing to do with us. So you agree having basic gun control regulations isn't unconstitutional on principle, you just disagree with the amount. I never said I'm "taking away the second amendment" and I haven't seen any politician on either side of the aisle say anything even remotely similar.

Calm your hysteria and recognize you already support gun regulation, so cut the hyperbole when talking to other people that support basic regulation like you.




Nope, all rights have limits, stipulations and fine print and you can't point to a single example of a right that doesn't. Your freedom of speech isn't unlimited because you can't scream fire in a crowded theater or threaten the president, any criminal can't own any gun he wants on the planet, and your right to life can be subverted if you're put to death for being a violent criminal.

No right is without limits.
Click to expand...

But mexico quite well does, both the us and mexico have the right to bear arms in their constitution, yet reasonable restrictions in mexico led to a single gun store for legal firearms, and a process so strict only the absolute richest of mexicans can even get a gun legally. To argue reasonable restrictions, one needs to actually adress what they deem reasonable and how it will fux what they claim, as otherwise it is simply the gun control measure was never enough and we need more, and in a country with a codified right managed to lose it through such mentality no one with any slight understanding of history will blindly accept more gun control without a test of reasoning, unless that person was already against guns and never had a need for reasoning other than to infringe.
 
apdst said:
Absolutely. Animals have more freedom and liberty than humans do. Freedom to secure food how they please; freedom to defend themselves; freedom to secure their welfare and protect their offspring; freedom to raise their offspring without outside intervention.
Click to expand...
Yet we can own them. Do you ever think about what you write?
 
prometeus said:
Actually it is you, again, that is lying. Post 111 is there for anyone to see.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
Absolutely. Animals have more freedom and liberty than humans do. Freedom to secure food how they please; freedom to defend themselves; freedom to secure their welfare and protect their offspring; freedom to raise their offspring without outside intervention.
Click to expand...

technically he DID NOT SAY THAT ANIMALS HAVE MORE RIGHTS
 
apdst said:
They don't care. Actually, making things worse is the objective. "Never let a crisis go to waste".
Click to expand...

I don't mind that they have it out for Trump. But could we ask that they not disrupt our entire government in the process?
 
No gun control laws will be passed. They just want them presented so gun sales will go up.
 
Oborosen said:
I don't mind that they have it out for Trump. But could we ask that they not disrupt our entire government in the process?
Click to expand...

How sure are you that that isn't the ultimate goal?

"Never let a crisis go to waste"
 
apdst said:
How sure are you that that isn't the ultimate goal?

"Never let a crisis go to waste"
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it is the goal. But that shouldn't stop me from asking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom