• 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!

Gun control is damn near the equivalent of car control

Infringe
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
Not really a workable definition from a legal point of view.
You will need to explain the utilization of the term in 18th century America.
 
I seldom make claims that something is universally true, and I seldom agree with shifting arguments. So odds are, no.

And yet you seem to think that discussing regulations on firearms are universally bad. Am I misunderstanding?
 
Every right is inherently restricted.
Only if exercising such right violates another's right.
Firearms are the most restricted right I can think of.
What does infringed mean?
I posted the legal definition
The entire process of understanding the Constitution comes down to personal values and a degree of subjectivity.
I do not like that YOUR interest in convenient access to guns has contributed to 100,000 casualties yearly from firearms.
Man will abuse anything. Cars, Sudafed, and opioids.
Convenient access? Have you attempted to purchase a firearm?
Probably before that....
 
And yet you seem to think that discussing regulations on firearms are universally bad. Am I misunderstanding?
Enforce the laws we have now to the fullest, and then let's discuss what's missing.
 
Prioritize patience over murder.

So you think patience is important, yet somehow patience for a criminal background check on potential terrorist and murderers before they buy shockingly efficient murder weapons anywhere is too inconvenient for you, I see.

And who said anything about murder? I just roar my engine a little bit, and then push through the crowd. It’s not a crime to bump up against them a little bit here and there. I always find it amusing how fast the little old people on walkers and with canes can really go when you do that.
 
Not really a workable definition from a legal point of view.
You will need to explain the utilization of the term in 18th century America.
Yeah, that is the legal definition. You just refuse to accept it.
You and I are wasting our lives on this forum regarding this issue.
If you want to do something, write your elected officials.
St Louis area has ramped up Federal Enforcement and it appears to be working.
 
Convenient access? Have you attempted to purchase a firearm?

You say that like it’s a good thing. Is it? Why is that not infringement?
 
A harm to one’s right is an infringement.
 
If post history is any indication, we'll soon hear that because it isn't generally permitted to operate bulldozers on the street, he should be able to buy nuclear bombs at Walmart.

Other than repeating that history in a supposedly mocking way, you have never offered any sort of refutation of why that’s wrong.
 
Enforce the laws we have now to the fullest, and then let's discuss what's missing.

How is that different than enforcing murder laws to the fullest before we can have traffic lights?

What’s missing is that the United States is off the chart in terms of violent crime when compared to peer nations.
 
False equivalence. Are you going to give up your cars because more people die from heart disease yearly.

Predictable response, but wrong. Convenient access of item x to convenient access of item y is being compared. Entirely equivalent.

Firearm violence is far more preventable than MV accident death because it is largely intentional.

Hahaha! Explain how you prevent someone from carrying out deliberate actions.

Ironically, it appears that MV will become far safer than firearm use and many cities have a goal of zero traffic fatalities.

It has a long way to go, but meanwhile the casualties are over a million per year.
 
Any right is unlimited until it violates another's right.

I assume “the right arms shall not be infringed” includes the right to nuclear arms? So why not have nuclear arms on sale at Walmart? Only prosecute if someone hurts someone else with them, right?
 
And yet you seem to think that discussing regulations on firearms are universally bad. Am I misunderstanding?

I should say you are. I quite obviously enjoy such discussions.
 
Other than repeating that history in a supposedly mocking way, you have never offered any sort of refutation of why that’s wrong.

Have I told you it's wrong? Buy all the bulldozers and nuclear missiles you like.
 
I assume “the right arms shall not be infringed” includes the right to nuclear arms? So why not have nuclear arms on sale at Walmart? Only prosecute if someone hurts someone else with them, right?
If I were you, I'd leave that argument alone.
If firearms rights were argued the way Progs argue Abortion, Then there would be unlimited access to weapons and the government would fund it.
 
I used to keep a loaded gun in my boot when I slept. It was in just the right position for quick action in the dead of night.
You slept in your bed in boots and you folks are lecturing people about how they live in *cities*? LOLOLOL
 
How is that different than enforcing murder laws to the fullest before we can have traffic lights?

What’s missing is that the United States is off the chart in terms of violent crime when compared to peer nations.

Is Mexico inferior to the US, or superior?
 
Predictable response, but wrong. Convenient access of item x to convenient access of item y is being compared. Entirely equivalent.
No. Equivalent would be the comparison between substantially similar devices or issue. False equivalence feigns a similarity by extracting ONE feature for comparison. Most people understand the difference between a firearm and a motor vehicle in terms of risk, utility, construction, users, life span, operation, licensing, registration, function and purpose.
Hahaha! Explain how you prevent someone from carrying out deliberate actions.
The same way that all behaviors are regulated between individuals in a society.
It has a long way to go, but meanwhile the casualties are over a million per year.
Compare deaths from the highly used motor vehicles to the rarely used firearms for a real estimate of risk.
 
If I were you, I'd leave that argument alone.
If firearms rights were argued the way Progs argue Abortion, Then there would be unlimited access to weapons and the government would fund it.
They have obliterated your arguments. I have no idea why you're running a victory lap.
 
You slept in your bed in boots and you folks are lecturing people about how they live in *cities*? LOLOLOL

I never said that. Why lie so obviously?
 
They have obliterated your arguments. I have no idea why you're running a victory lap.
The follower again.

Nothing to add to a discussion, just attempted personal insults.
 
The follower again.

Nothing to add to a discussion, just attempted personal insults.
The post I quoted was just one long insult because you couldn't hang in that exchange. Do better.
 
Back
Top Bottom