• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Every Iraqi home is allowed an AK-47, but not in America!

One can't take your argument seriously when you suggest that someone should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon.

This is why we have a supreme court, to interpret the constitution and judge whether a law is constitutional or not. In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court held"
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

blaxshep said:
No I don't that is WHY there is an amendment process. Why is it so hard for you to connect those two dots?

Look at it this way, as far as the 2nd is written arms means all arms whether you like it or not, yet I am reasonably sure that there are arms today that the majority of people would agree should not be owned by just anyone. That is why there is an amendment process. I'm gonna go all the way out on the extreme limb and say the 2nd protects the right to own a nuclear weapon. You don't think we could get 2/3 and 3/4 to pass an amendment banning personal ownership of nuclear arms? Instead you would rather play interpretation games with a document written to protect our rights? What could go wrong there?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
Exactly like Occupied Poland! Nailed it on the head!

how draconian :roll:
Click to expand...

It's a draconian world, didn't you know?

Ask anyone who survived the Warsaw ghetto.

Ask anyone who finds themselves defenseless and knows that their life is at an end.

But don't ask armed criminals. They care nothing for your laws, your opinion, and all too often for your continued breath.
 
Oftencold said:
It's a draconian world, didn't you know?
Click to expand...
No.. No its not. Not in the West.

Ask anyone who survived the Warsaw ghetto.

Ask anyone who finds themselves defenseless and knows that their life is at an end.

But don't ask armed criminals. They care nothing for your laws, your opinion, and all too often for your continued breath.
Click to expand...
Yes because the Australia once they disarmed turned into "occupied Poland" :roll:
 
Oh dear. Someone else with no sense of history.

A pacified (disarmed) populace is much closer to becoming a police state. The Second Amendment is there to prevent that among other things. I know that's disturbing to the effete people so many want us to become, but it does have the faded virtue of truth.

Let's apply a bit of adult thinking shall we?
 
Last edited:
Oftencold said:
Oh dear. Someone else with no sense of history.

A pacified (disarmed) populace is much closer to becoming a police state. The Second Amendment is there to prevent that among other thighs. I know that's disturbing the the effete people so many want us to become, but it does have the faded virtue of truth.

Let's apply a bit of adult thinking shall we?
Click to expand...

It'll take more than one example for you to learn it.
 
Oftencold said:
Those who'd have us disarmed might be accused of wanting the USA be like Occupied Poland in 1944.
Click to expand...

Who, in this thread, has said any such thing?

And who, in this thread has said anything about disarming anyone?

I'll give you a hint.... nobody.
 
American said:
Let's talk machine guns, bubba. Our military allowed every Iraqi household to have an AK-47, but Americans aren't allowed the same freedom without a bunch of laws. It's bull****. I should be able to go down to Ace Hardware and pickup my AK-47, just like every Iraqi.
Click to expand...

While I do agree, there is no way in hell I'd ever live in Iraq, even after we brought it "freedom and democracy". That place is a **** hole.
 
Oftencold said:
A pacified (disarmed) populace is much closer to becoming a police state. The Second Amendment is there to prevent that among other things. I know that's disturbing to the effete people so many want us to become, but it does have the faded virtue of truth. Let's apply a bit of adult thinking shall we?
Click to expand...
Uh huh

When we apply "adult thinking," we see:

• Numerous nations with restrictive gun laws, that are not tyrannical or autocratic

• Several autocratic nations with liberal gun laws, and even high rates of gun ownership (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Ecuatorial Guinea, Iraq etc)

• Numerous instances of unarmed civilians overthrowing heavily armed autocratic regimes (e.g. India, Arab Spring) or successfully securing rights (e.g. Civil Rights movement)

• Numerous instances of armed civilians completely failing to fend off government enforcement (e.g. Whiskey Rebellion) -- nor is it all that likely that owning more powerful weapons would have produced different results

• There is no correlation between rates of gun ownership, and the expansion or contraction of citizen's rights


The case for suggesting that gun ownership would somehow protect citizens from an oppressive government is rather thin.
 
Visbek said:
Uh huh

When we apply "adult thinking," we see:

• Numerous nations with restrictive gun laws, that are not tyrannical or autocratic

• Several autocratic nations with liberal gun laws, and even high rates of gun ownership (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Ecuatorial Guinea, Iraq etc)

• Numerous instances of unarmed civilians overthrowing heavily armed autocratic regimes (e.g. India, Arab Spring) or successfully securing rights (e.g. Civil Rights movement)

• Numerous instances of armed civilians completely failing to fend off government enforcement (e.g. Whiskey Rebellion) -- nor is it all that likely that owning more powerful weapons would have produced different results

• There is no correlation between rates of gun ownership, and the expansion or contraction of citizen's rights


The case for suggesting that gun ownership would somehow protect citizens from an oppressive government is rather thin.
Click to expand...

pretend you are a senator or president

would you be more or less likely to support dictatorial laws if you knew that there were 80 million people who could kill you if you did?
 
TurtleDude said:
pretend you are a senator or president

would you be more or less likely to support dictatorial laws if you knew that there were 80 million people who could kill you if you did?
Click to expand...

As a Dictator I would just make sure I killed all 80 million first and it would not be that difficult. And you being armed and all is a great excuse for exterminating you. The more weapons you have the greater the excuse. So just keep buying them. Also I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of you guys decide to join the Imperial Storm Trooper corps. to conquer other planets too. We could give you lots of cool weapons.

But the results so far have been The Govt. kills all the rebels and that is that. It's been going on since the before the Civil war.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
As a Dictator I would just make sure I killed all 80 million first and it would not be that difficult. And you being armed and all is a great excuse for exterminating you. The more weapons you have the greater the excuse. So just keep buying them. Also I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of you guys decide to join the Imperial Storm Trooper corps. to conquer other planets too. We could give you lots of cool weapons.

But the results so far have been The Govt. kills all the rebels and that is that. It's been going on since the before the Civil war.
Click to expand...

thanks for demonstrating what really motivates the anti gun mindset. But I suspect like any other tough issue-you want someone else to do the dirty work for you

The problem is when you outsource even self defense to others, you are pretty helpless if you become the target of nastiness
 
iguanaman said:
As a Dictator I would just make sure I killed all 80 million first and it would not be that difficult. And you being armed and all is a great excuse for exterminating you. The more weapons you have the greater the excuse. So just keep buying them. Also I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of you guys decide to join the Imperial Storm Trooper corps. to conquer other planets too. We could give you lots of cool weapons.

But the results so far have been The Govt. kills all the rebels and that is that. It's been going on since the before the Civil war.
Click to expand...

Hitler had great difficulty killing 6 million unarmed Jews but you think it would be easy to kill 80 million armed rebels. The logistic alone are staggering. You also believe that the armed forces you have would all fall in line and kill their own families and other American citizens on American soil. Now who is the extremist kook?
 
blaxshep said:
Hitler had great difficulty killing 6 million unarmed Jews but you think it would be easy to kill 80 million armed rebels. The logistic alone are staggering. You also believe that the armed forces you have would all fall in line and kill their own families and other American citizens on American soil. Now who is the extremist kook?
Click to expand...

BTW - "The Govt. kills all the rebels and that is that. It's been going on since the before the Civil war." These are the people you want to be the ones with all the guns? Get a clue.
 
iguanaman said:
As a Dictator I would just make sure I killed all 80 million first and it would not be that difficult. And you being armed and all is a great excuse for exterminating you. The more weapons you have the greater the excuse. So just keep buying them. Also I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of you guys decide to join the Imperial Storm Trooper corps. to conquer other planets too. We could give you lots of cool weapons.

But the results so far have been The Govt. kills all the rebels and that is that. It's been going on since the before the Civil war.
Click to expand...

Thanks for confessing why you support governement gun registries for citizens. This is good to know.
 
Last edited:
Chaddelamancha said:
Because the 2nd amendment is open for interpretation. You can't compare the society of today with that of our forefathers.
Click to expand...

No it isn't, and that has been reaffirmed in court. People always thought it was an individual right, and only the Left of today bitched about it enough to bring it to court. And then they lost.
 
American said:
Thanks for confessing why you support governement gun registries for citizens. This is good to know.
Click to expand...
He asked a hypothetical question and he gave a hypothetical answer..
 
Did you even read the case I posted?

American said:
No it isn't, and that has been reaffirmed in court. People always thought it was an individual right, and only the Left of today bitched about it enough to bring it to court. And then they lost.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom