• 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!

Are progressives consistent regarding civilian firearm ownership?

Rich2018 said:
What about if you just took the population of military age (and sound of mind & body), less the ones unwilling to fight
For a country bordered by Canadians, Mexicans and fish, 4.5 millions guns is way, way enough.
Click to expand...
Most of those are already issued to active duty and reserve components.
 
aociswundumho said:
Consider this:

View attachment 67377046


I think that is typical of how modern progressives view gun ownership.

But with Russia invading the Ukraine, now it seems the same people have changed their position:

View attachment 67377047

They are against civilians in the US owning guns, but they wholeheartedly support rifles being handed out like candy in the Ukraine.

One response from progressives might be that this is war, and it's not intellectually inconsistent to want civilians armed during war but disarmed during peacetime. This response doesn't work for at least two reasons:

1. You can't just throw guns at people and expect them to be instantly proficient using them. It takes a lot of time and practice to become competent with firearms. Gun safety alone requires a degree of mental discipline that only comes from repetition and practice.

2. The Russia/Ukraine situation is one state invading another, but history is replete with examples where states murder the very people they rule over. If you agree that civilians should have guns to fight against a hostile state, then it's silly to say they shouldn't have guns if the hostile state trying to kill them is their own government.
Click to expand...
Well, if it ever looks like Russia is about to invade the country I'll change my mind and start handing out automatic weapons. Until then I'd just as soon the red-necked nut-job down the street doesn't have enough firepower to clear a whole church in under 5 minutes.
 
Gateman_Wen said:
Well, if it ever looks like Russia is about to invade the country I'll change my mind and start handing out automatic weapons. Until then I'd just as soon the red-necked nut-job down the street doesn't have enough firepower to clear a whole church in under 5 minutes.
Click to expand...
What should be the maximum number that a shooter can kill in five minutes?
 
aociswundumho said:
Consider this:

View attachment 67377046


I think that is typical of how modern progressives view gun ownership.

But with Russia invading the Ukraine, now it seems the same people have changed their position:

View attachment 67377047

They are against civilians in the US owning guns, but they wholeheartedly support rifles being handed out like candy in the Ukraine.

One response from progressives might be that this is war, and it's not intellectually inconsistent to want civilians armed during war but disarmed during peacetime. This response doesn't work for at least two reasons:

1. You can't just throw guns at people and expect them to be instantly proficient using them. It takes a lot of time and practice to become competent with firearms. Gun safety alone requires a degree of mental discipline that only comes from repetition and practice.

2. The Russia/Ukraine situation is one state invading another, but history is replete with examples where states murder the very people they rule over. If you agree that civilians should have guns to fight against a hostile state, then it's silly to say they shouldn't have guns if the hostile state trying to kill them is their own government.
Click to expand...
As a Modern Progressive I can honestly say I have no "need" for an AR-15, nor does any other Civilian, in my opinion, but if I change my mind and I "want" to own one, like others, whether I "need" it or not, I wish that ownership to remain my 2nd Amendment Right!
 
Rucker61 said:
You're looking to limit civilian firepower based on a scenario you gave.

What current legal classes of firearms do you wish to ban from civilian ownership?
Click to expand...
You're still here?

Take the straw man away.
 
Gateman_Wen said:
You're still here?

Take the straw man away.
Click to expand...
Did you write this in this forum: "Until then I'd just as soon the red-necked nut-job down the street doesn't have enough firepower to clear a whole church in under 5 minutes."

Given that this is the gun control forum, this indicates a desire for stronger gun control. What stronger gun control do you wish to see imposed?
 
PeacefulWarrior said:
Why sure.

If a person doesnt think the way you think, thats why we all walk around with our Mass Murder Machines strapped on....am I right Turtle? AMIRITE? In case a "9mm colonoscopy" is indicated?

You're a walking advertisement for why people in the USA should never own anything more deadly than a Crayola crayon my friend.

BAN. THEM. ALL.

(crime will fall)
Click to expand...
what a moronic post-as usual. If you are upset about guns, then don't own one. But you have not right to tell others they cannot own one. Molon Labe dude
 
PeacefulWarrior said:
well....it is a WAR so I dont really know of anyone thats ever said that you shouldn't use firearms against your enemy in a war if necessary.

Even on a military base the firearms are locked up and carrying them is restricted because well YOU DONT WANT EVERY IDIOT WALKING AROUND WITH A GUN ALL THE TIME.

I have no idea how any person doesnt understand this.

Obviously the Ukraine government didnt have every idiot walking around with a gun all the time because they know how freaking ST00PID such a policy would be from a public safety standpoint, but now that there is a war some of them will get firearms because they are needed for the WAR. Gee. You get it? Its not rocket science.
Click to expand...

On a military base, the vehicles are locked up and driving them is restricted because well YOU DONT WANT EVERY IDIOT DRIVING AROUND WITH A TRUCK OR CAR ALL THE TIME.

I have no idea how you don't know that government property is kept secured when not in use.
 
Rucker61 said:
Did you write this in this forum: "Until then I'd just as soon the red-necked nut-job down the street doesn't have enough firepower to clear a whole church in under 5 minutes."

Given that this is the gun control forum, this indicates a desire for stronger gun control. What stronger gun control do you wish to see imposed?
Click to expand...
What are you, the energizer bunny?

I don't play straw man.

have a nice day.
 
aociswundumho said:
Consider this:

View attachment 67377046


I think that is typical of how modern progressives view gun ownership.

But with Russia invading the Ukraine, now it seems the same people have changed their position:

View attachment 67377047

They are against civilians in the US owning guns, but they wholeheartedly support rifles being handed out like candy in the Ukraine.

One response from progressives might be that this is war, and it's not intellectually inconsistent to want civilians armed during war but disarmed during peacetime. This response doesn't work for at least two reasons:

1. You can't just throw guns at people and expect them to be instantly proficient using them. It takes a lot of time and practice to become competent with firearms. Gun safety alone requires a degree of mental discipline that only comes from repetition and practice.

2. The Russia/Ukraine situation is one state invading another, but history is replete with examples where states murder the very people they rule over. If you agree that civilians should have guns to fight against a hostile state, then it's silly to say they shouldn't have guns if the hostile state trying to kill them is their own government.
Click to expand...
Although I can't speak for Occupy Democrats, I believe they would not be against US citizens getting guns to defend against a foreign invasion. However, since there is no such invasion here, it appears they do not feel US citizens need similar firearms.

Could that be it?
 
Airyaman said:
Although I can't speak for Occupy Democrats, I believe they would not be against US citizens getting guns to defend against a foreign invasion. However, since there is no such invasion here, it appears they do not feel US citizens need similar firearms.

Could that be it?
Click to expand...
well if you don't have them nor can you train with them, it's not going to be very good if you need one, and don't know how to use it
 
PeacefulWarrior said:
It only makes good logical sense for every mouth breathing idiot and every tired middle aged housewife to walk around with a .50 cal strapped on.

Ya know....just in case of "invasion".

Maybe also driving tanks to the grocery store would be good too, just in case. Think of the FrEeDuMbZ$™.

ffs what in the he!1 is wrong with people.
Click to expand...
What I see as "Dumbz" is progressives who talk against firearms without knowing what the hell they are talking about ..
 
Airyaman said:
Although I can't speak for Occupy Democrats, I believe they would not be against US citizens getting guns to defend against a foreign invasion. However, since there is no such invasion here, it appears they do not feel US citizens need similar firearms.

Could that be it?
Click to expand...
Sure there is .. there is an invasion from progressives to remove / restrict firearms from law abiding citizens.
 
jotathought said:
Sure there is .. there is an invasion from progressives to remove / restrict firearms from law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...
Are progressives a foreign invading force?
 
jotathought said:
What I see as "Dumbz" is progressives who talk against firearms without knowing what the hell they are talking about ..
Click to expand...
and even worse are those who aren't honest about what motivates their anti gun extremism. Crime control almost never is the reason
 
TurtleDude said:
well if you don't have them nor can you train with them, it's not going to be very good if you need one, and don't know how to use it
Click to expand...
There are alot of gun owners who don't know how to properly use their guns.

St.LouisCouple.jpg
 
Airyaman said:
There are alot of gun owners who don't know how to properly use their guns.

St.LouisCouple.jpg
Click to expand...
and what does that mean? what are the percentages of lawful gun owners who improperly harm others with their firearms?
 
Airyaman said:
There are alot of gun owners who don't know how to properly use their guns.

St.LouisCouple.jpg
Click to expand...
Like what percentage when you say, "alot of gun owners?" What would that percentage look like compared to criminals which are often discounted and released from jail to be a reoffender?
 
jotathought said:
Like what percentage when you say, "alot of gun owners?" What would that percentage look like compared to criminals which are often discounted and released from jail to be a reoffender?
Click to expand...
Wut?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom