• 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 not and has never been about saving lives

swing_voter said:
I don't the two are connected in any way.
Click to expand...

Well, what's the motivation/purpose of gun control laws?

swing_voter said:
The National Firearms Act is gun control that pretty much everyone agrees is necessary.
Click to expand...

No, pretty much everyone agreed that it wasn't necessary, but they passed it anyway. The NFA was a response to the result of progressive social engineering - alcohol prohibition. It was idiotic progressivism that gave us the volstead act which in turn led to a massive increase in street violence, much in the same way as the drug war does today:
Homicide Rate alcohol prohibition.jpg

As soon as prohibition was repealed in 1933 the homicide rate dropped like a stone, but the scumbag progressives didn't let the crisis go to waste and passed the NFA in 1934 anyway, even though all of the scumbags knew it wasn't necessary.
 
aociswundumho said:
Well, what's the motivation/purpose of gun control laws?

No, pretty much everyone agreed that it wasn't necessary, but they passed it anyway. The NFA was a response to the result of progressive social engineering - alcohol prohibition. It was idiotic progressivism that gave us the volstead act which in turn led to a massive increase in street violence, much in the same way as the drug war does today:

As soon as prohibition was repealed in 1933 the homicide rate dropped like a stone, but the scumbag progressives didn't let the crisis go to waste and passed the NFA in 1934 anyway, even though all of the scumbags knew it wasn't necessary.
Click to expand...
Just a point of clarification.

What you refer to as "scumbag progressives" were in actuality Democrat leftist fascists. Just because the leftist fascists love calling themselves things they clearly are not - like progressive - you should not confuse them with the ACTUAL Progressive Party that existed at that time.

The Progressive Party was founded during the 1890s by former Republicans. They first supported McKinley, and after his assassination they supported Teddy Roosevelt. They also supported the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments. Even former President Teddy Roosevelt ran in 1912 as a Progressive Party candidate. After the failed assassination attempt on Teddy's life, and claiming to be "fit as a bull moose" with a bullet lodged in his chest. The Progressive Party became more popularly known as the "Bull Moose" Party. However, they were truly the progressive party during America's "Age of Reform" between 1890 and 1930. Not these leftist filth pretenders who wouldn't know progress if it bit them in the posterior. Leftism is as repressive and oppressive as it gets. Just ask the 100+ million slaughtered by leftist filth during the last century alone. Oh, that's right, you can't.
 
Glitch said:
Just a point of clarification.

What you refer to as "scumbag progressives" were in actuality Democrat leftist fascists. Just because the leftist fascists love calling themselves things they clearly are not - like progressive - you should not confuse them with the ACTUAL Progressive Party that existed at that time.

The Progressive Party was founded during the 1890s by former Republicans. They first supported McKinley, and after his assassination they supported Teddy Roosevelt. They also supported the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments. Even former President Teddy Roosevelt ran in 1912 as a Progressive Party candidate. After the failed assassination attempt on Teddy's life, and claiming to be "fit as a bull moose" with a bullet lodged in his chest. The Progressive Party became more popularly known as the "Bull Moose" Party. However, they were truly the progressive party during America's "Age of Reform" between 1890 and 1930. Not these leftist filth pretenders who wouldn't know progress if it bit them in the posterior. Leftism is as repressive and oppressive as it gets. Just ask the 100+ million slaughtered by leftist filth during the last century alone. Oh, that's right, you can't.
Click to expand...

"Leftist fascist" - you simple use of this nonsensical phrase means you have no idea what you're talking about.

I doubt you could even define the terms "leftist" or "fascist" - and you clearly have no idea what "progressive" means.
 
TurtleDude said:
those who push gun control are almost always leftwing operatives or leftwing politicians. They do it for several reasons

1) to pander to the low wattage morons who DEMAND instant SOLUTIONS any time there is a tragedy

2) to pretend to do something about violent crime, while studiously avoiding doing anything that actually makes the lives of violent criminals less safe

3) to harass and obstruct legal gun ownership because leftwing politicians understand gun rights advocates usually oppose the creeping crud of collectivism that the left pushes. It is all about punishing the political enemies of the left
Click to expand...
It might also be about how criminals with guns are much more dangerous than criminals with blow darts.
 
skeptic llc said:
It might also be about how criminals with guns are much more dangerous than criminals with blow darts.
Click to expand...
so tell us counselor: if the consequences of committing mass murder, armed robbery or being a serial killer does not stop the perpetrator from doing those crimes, how is making currently legal behavior, illegal, going to prevent those criminals from murdering or robbing?
 
(1) Your alternatives are an obvious straw man. They are not the actual reasons people, including many smart people, support gun control. (2) It makes it harder to get guns. Do you actually need this explained? It is not the legal penalty for buying the weapons that stops mass shooters, it is the inability to buy personal arsenals.
 
skeptic llc said:
(1) Your alternatives are an obvious straw man. They are not the actual reasons people, including many smart people, support gun control. (2) It makes it harder to get guns. Do you actually need this explained? It is not the legal penalty for buying the weapons that stops mass shooters, it is the inability to buy personal arsenals.
Click to expand...
who is most likely to be disarmed by a gun control law-an honest homeowner or a serial killer/armed robber etc

many smart people want gun control mainly for political purposes. How many mass killers needed "arsenals" not the guy who shot up VA tech. Not the guy who shot up the gay bar in Orlando. Not the guy who killed all the people in the Luby's Diner in texas or the guy who committed a massacre in the McDonald's in San Ysidro California. Not the Muslim officer in Fort Hood.

how are gun bans going to stop people from getting guns in a country where there are 400 million guns and given the failure of the war on drugs, anyone who claims gun control will deny serious criminals from owning firearms is deluded
 
TurtleDude said:
so tell us counselor: if the consequences of committing mass murder, armed robbery or being a serial killer does not stop the perpetrator from doing those crimes, how is making currently legal behavior, illegal, going to prevent those criminals from murdering or robbing?
Click to expand...
Example: let's say you are a patriotic rank-and-file Trumper, convinced by your hero that democracy is being stolen from you. Like any patriot, you choose to violently resist. Because your nation's freedom is under siege, Fox News says so, and even posters on your friendly chosen politics site never seem to take a stand to the contrary. So you decide to arm yourself, as heavily as possible, because you have been convinced that FREEDOM requires that you stand up to "the steal." No sacrifice is too much, because you are a true patriot who believes exactly what POTUS and your news sources are saying (i.e., you don't actually view this stuff as satire, you honestly think they are on your side and speaking truth). Consequences? Consequences be damned, you are doing your part to save freedom. Now, what makes you most dangerous? Assault weapons, six shooter, or kitchen knife? Like, if you were one of the LEOs faced with a mob of these people, would you feel least unsafe if they were armed like military personnel, or personal chefs? This is not hard.
 
skeptic llc said:
Example: let's say you are a patriotic rank-and-file Trumper, convinced by your hero that democracy is being stolen from you. Like any patriot, you choose to violently resist. Because your nation's freedom is under siege, Fox News says so, and even posters on your friendly chosen politics site never seem to take a stand to the contrary. So you decide to arm yourself, as heavily as possible, because you have been convinced that FREEDOM requires that you stand up to "the steal." No sacrifice is too much, because you are a true patriot who believes exactly what POTUS and your news sources are saying (i.e., you don't actually view this stuff as satire, you honestly think they are on your side and speaking truth). Consequences? Consequences be damned, you are doing your part to save freedom. Now, what makes you most dangerous? Assault weapons, six shooter, or kitchen knife? Like, if you were one of the LEOs faced with a mob of these people, would you feel least unsafe if they were armed like military personnel, or personal chefs? This is not hard.
Click to expand...
why do you have a proclivity of constantly fixating on this issue of Trump on threads that have nothing to do with it. I want to have any weapon that someone who might attack my home might have access to
 
TurtleDude said:
who is most likely to be disarmed by a gun control law-an honest homeowner or a serial killer/armed robber etc

many smart people want gun control mainly for political purposes. How many mass killers needed "arsenals" not the guy who shot up VA tech. Not the guy who shot up the gay bar in Orlando. Not the guy who killed all the people in the Luby's Diner in texas or the guy who committed a massacre in the McDonald's in San Ysidro California. Not the Muslim officer in Fort Hood.

how are gun bans going to stop people from getting guns in a country where there are 400 million guns and given the failure of the war on drugs, anyone who claims gun control will deny serious criminals from owning firearms is deluded
Click to expand...
As you can imagine, it's less about the single winner for "most likely" and more about making guns harder to find, acquire, buy, use, etc. Yes, in any market, if guns and ammo are illegal, it will be harder to acquire them. Many smart people want gun control because they are sick of innocent people being shot up while going about their business. And as to the 400 million guns, laws matter for criminals the same way they would for those who want guns. As in, yes, there are a ton of guns in the US right now -- should we continue that, or would it make things better to have less over time? One could just as well say "400 million guns, that's plenty, let's stop with the new ones" -- clearly you are not for that.
 
TurtleDude said:
why do you have a proclivity of constantly fixating on this issue of Trump on threads that have nothing to do with it. I want to have any weapon that someone who might attack my home might have access to
Click to expand...
Ohhh wait I know, because Trumpers made me not trust Americans with guns and flipped me on this issue. When you attempt a coup, people learn lessons from that. It's not like Rs are convincingly denouncing the whole coup/Trump/authoritarian thing, so there is a good chance it happens again, and when it does, these gun laws we are discussing come into play. It would be different if sane Rs had roundly rejected Trump and his coup and shown that they can be trusted with guns (instead of acceding to violent authoritarian impulses ... which is what you all actually did). Trump happened. R collaboration happened. **** no you guys shouldn't have guns after that. If you cared about your guns, you should have stood up for the constitution when it was under attack. But you didn't, so IMHO, no military weaponry for you.
 
TurtleDude said:
why do you have a proclivity of constantly fixating on this issue of Trump on threads that have nothing to do with it. I want to have any weapon that someone who might attack my home might have access to
Click to expand...
I would want better weapons, and more of them, that someone who might attack my home might have access to.

Why settle for equal? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom