• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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

RedAkston

Master of Shenanigans
Administrator
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
48,879
Reaction score
29,083
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You have 5,000 characters to state your opinion if you choose. The rules of this forum are found here.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,755
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right; the right to life demands the right to self-defense, and the right to self-defense demands the effective means to do so. Every free person, in every country on Earth, is morally entitled to free access to contemporary weaponry. This right encompasses all personal weaponry that can be used for the purpose of lawful self-defense, including concealable handguns and military rifles, and it includes the right to carry such weapons in public. Governments which do not recognize this principle, no matter how "democratic", are illegitimate.

The right to keep and bear arms is the democratization of the capacity for armed force within society. It empowers the people to defend themselves from the depredations of the lawless and authoritarian alike. Personal arms allow vulnerable populations, like ethnic and sexual minorities, to protect themselves against bigotry when the police refuse to do so. Widespread gun ownership is a powerful political pressure that forces the corporate, imperialist State to be more responsive to liberal and progressive movements. In America, the right to keep and bear arms was fundamental both to the Progressive movement and the Civil Rights movement.

Fundamentally, gun rights are a liberal issue and a progressive issue. People who claim to fight "for the people" should support the right of those people to fight for themselves.
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,079
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Instead of advocating arbitrarily 'banning' certain types of firearms from the community, why doesn't the activist left advocate actively participating in gun-safety programs, in which federal and/or state-level organizations actively work with the community to advance courses in gun safety such as: classes, firing range, civil defense, militia/minutemen organizations for community defense, etc. etc.

Not only is 'gun-banning' horrifically unconstitutional, it's just plain laziness and stupidity. Use the government what it is there for: to organize. Not spread fear and hysteria by way of severely mishandling and fopdoodling all over the damn place lol.
 

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
28,555
Reaction score
14,732
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Instead of advocating arbitrarily 'banning' certain types of firearms from the community, why doesn't the activist left advocate actively participating in gun-safety programs, in which federal and/or state-level organizations actively work with the community to advance courses in gun safety such as: classes, firing range, civil defense, militia/minutemen organizations for community defense, etc. etc.

Not only is 'gun-banning' horrifically unconstitutional, it's just plain laziness and stupidity. Use the government what it is there for: to organize. Not spread fear and hysteria by way of severely mishandling and fopdoodling all over the damn place lol.

This gun nutter agrees with you on the gun safety and training.

It is reasonable and necessary.

If I were a benevolent dictator.......I would demand it!
 

Northern Light

The Light of Truth
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
7,186
Reaction score
4,387
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I've been around the world and gun rights to the extent that the U.S. has them are unique to the U.S., as part of its cultural basis for being. There are many countries that would fall apart if suddenly they were introduced to free gun access, so I don't agree with the notion that gun rights should be a global thing. Not everyone shares American values or necessities. In countries where social and economic inequities are properly and effectively addressed, the need for guns for self-defense drops dramatically. In such societies, guns have become redundant for protection and are mostly a recreational tool, for hunting and sports. Violent people exist everywhere, but widespread violence and regular massacres are a sign of a violent society that has fallen ill. Granting more guns or removing more guns is not going to cure the underlying illness. People don't just go on violent killings for no reason, they are nurtured into doing so.

We are past the point of development as a nation where high powered weaponry could ever stop the State from turning tyrannical. This isn't the 18th century with muskets and cannons. Our government has weapons, some of them classified, that are beyond our defense; and our government's greatest asset is that it has become an expert at psychologically manipulating its own people into doing its bidding. Even if 10% of the military remained loyal to the government in a civil conflict, the public would still be doomed.

Our civil rights have already been infringed upon to levels that previous generations would never have tolerated, through secret measures and "terrorism" bills. Our rights have been declining for decades and nobody is willing to really fight for them with the rights that the 2nd Amendment has afforded them. There is a stark difference between the era of the civil rights movements, and where we are now. It's like night and day. We have grown lazy and complacent as a nation. If the government came for us tomorrow, those among us with guns would surely resist, but the U.S. government is the most powerful on Earth and it would swiftly take control. It has a known history of experimenting on the People and showing utter disregard for our well being, in cold and calculated ways. The 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant to preventing tyranny. We already have a tyrannical government. All the talk about freedom and greatness is just lip service at this point. If you spend a length of time overseas in different countries and then come back to the U.S., it's obvious how controlled we are, in insidious ways that try to convince us we're still free and the greatest nation on Earth. The fight against tyranny is already over. We lost.

So, putting aside the redundancy of having a well armed militia, that leaves personal access to self-protection. People with known psychopathy and a history of criminal violence should not have access to fire arms, let alone assault rifles to mow down crowds of people. It's easy to talk political philosophy on a computer but if your family member was mowed down by someone who bought their assault rifle at the corner store, you'd question this too. I support everyone having firearms for protection of themselves, loved ones, and property. I support background checks for automatic and semi-automatic weapons because they are the most efficient killing machines of the innocent. Because our society is ill we can't look at them the same way that we used to.

There has to be a middle ground. We can still have a 2nd Amendment while doing whatever we can to try and prevent our most degenerate citizens from killing people en mass. As I said earlier, the violence is a symptom of a much bigger problem, but there's treating the branch and then there's treating the root. The root, in my opinion, is beyond help. Our country is in a downward spiral that we won't recover from, one that will require some kind of reconfiguration of our society that we are not capable of voluntarily doing right now. All we can do for now is address the branch, which is to prevent known degenerates from acquiring weapons. It will never be foolproof, but we have to try.
 

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
41,662
Reaction score
48,103
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There has been no better boon to the "assault rifle" market than the well publicized political desire to ban them.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,646
Reaction score
21,939
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We are past the point of development as a nation where high powered weaponry could ever stop the State from turning tyrannical. This isn't the 18th century with muskets and cannons. Our government has weapons, some of them classified, that are beyond our defense; and our government's greatest asset is that it has become an expert at psychologically manipulating its own people into doing its bidding...Our civil rights have already been infringed upon to levels that previous generations would never have tolerated, through secret measures and "terrorism" bills. Our rights have been declining for decades and nobody is willing to really fight for them with the rights that the 2nd Amendment has afforded them...If the government came for us tomorrow, those among us with guns would surely resist, but the U.S. government is the most powerful on Earth and it would swiftly take control...So, putting aside the redundancy of having a well armed militia, that leaves personal access to self-protection. People with known psychopathy and a history of criminal violence should not have access to fire arms, let alone assault rifles to mow down crowds of people. It's easy to talk political philosophy on a computer but if your family member was mowed down by someone who bought their assault rifle at the corner store, you'd question this too. I support everyone having firearms for protection of themselves, loved ones, and property. I support background checks for automatic and semi-automatic weapons because they are the most efficient killing machines of the innocent. Because our society is ill we can't look at them the same way that we used to... Our country is in a downward spiral that we won't recover from, one that will require some kind of reconfiguration of our society that we are not capable of voluntarily doing right now. All we can do for now is address the branch, which is to prevent known degenerates from acquiring weapons. It will never be foolproof, but we have to try

I disagree with your position for the following reasons:

1. Historically, governments have almost always had greater military and intelligence gathering capabilities than any individual or sub-group of citizens. That fact has not stopped a single failed rebellion, nor any successful revolution, from occurring.

2. As for the disparity in technological access? Technology has always been advancing from the moment our most distant ancestors picked up a stick or rock to use as a weapon. Certainly technology has been advancing faster now than in past eras. However, arguing that government technology can crush us even if we had access to it ourselves is both fallacious (affirming the consequent), and disingenuous. It is actually a point that argues in favor of continuing efforts to insure equal access to any tools the government can and will use against us.

3. Listing the harms that have accrued as the result of public complacency molded by government indoctrination efforts is no argument for giving up the struggle to preserve the right to keep and bear arms. It is reason for those of us who recognize this to continue that struggle.

4. There is no "redundancy" in having an armed citizenry simultaneously to existing government military and police forces. It is a necessary balance to that threat; one clearly stated at the founding of this nation. Give up this right willingly and you lose even the possibility of trying to oppose tyranny.

5. As to point four, always denigrated by ridicule when not ignored by people who argue your position; there is no guarantee of success...only a guarantee to be able to TRY!

6. Emotional appeals, circular reasoning, and resorting to ab absurdo statements do not make a valid argument.

The bottom line is that in any society the individual is still personally responsible for himself; his actions and inaction; his safety and the safety of those he cares about; how he deals with others and his society. Having both access to the most effective tools available to do so, and a willingnees to accept full responsibility for their use is key.

Surrendering this responsibility to the good will of others is equivalent to surrendering one's liberty; and there is really no argument that will compel me to do so.
 
Last edited:

Celebrity

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
761
Location
VT, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I just love shooting guns, but my talents are wasted on it. My energy is better used in teaching and philosophizing rules.
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
17,841
Reaction score
5,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's because you imagined a value in your principles, if ever such a thing, different than set from whom you borrowed.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Good government vs individual rights. That's the difference between the US and most other Western democracies. Good government as the paramount value means that individual rights can be limited to effect an orderly and peaceful society. The right to use guns can therefore be limited or even abolished. If individual rights are paramount then the government can't abolish certain rights, like the use of guns, for any reason. The US was founded with individual rights as the basis for governance. That being the case only a fundamental change in our form of government would enable the government to significantly restrict or nullify an enumerated right like the right to bear arms. In which case it would no longer be America, but something else. Maybe we can get Queen Elizabeth to take us back in that case.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,544
Reaction score
85,166
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Gun control is based on a fundamental dishonesty and is motivated by a fundamental dishonesty. It is based on the fundamental dishonesty that those who are not deterred by the serious penalties that are imposed for murder, rape, robbery or felonious assault, will somehow be restrained by laws that punish them for possession weapons. It is motivated by the fundamental dishonesty that controlling criminals is what the gun control movement is really seeking. IN reality, gun control is fashioned by politicians to pander to the ignorant and to punish non-beleivers.

The current gun control movement in the USA is currently a statist and leftist movement. Its roots are in FDR's desire to pander to the public when bootleggers used (in a few cases) automatic weapons and FDR wanted to ban these firearms and the best he could do was to rape the constitution and impose a punitive tax. IN the 1960s, the Democrat party was being hammered by Nixon, and others-over its perceived coddling of black street criminals. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was a way the Democrat Party was able to pretend it was actually doing SOMETHING about crime without actually harming criminals.

This led to the most substantial firearms group-the NRA-to become political and the NRA began lobbying efforts. This in turn has caused those on the left, who saw gun control as a shield from Nixon's "soft on crime" attacks, to see the NRA as an enemy. Some of the gun control bills of the last 4 decades are purely designed to harass gun owners and the NRA-such as the HUGHES AMENDMENT which was improperly passed in a failing attempt to derail the pro gun owner "McClure Volker Firearms Protection Act of 1986". Gun control efforts continue to be a combination of pandering to low wattage voters who demand "something be done" overtime a suicidal killer wipes out a bunch of unarmed victims in a rampage and an effort to attack the NRA's political power and honest gun owners.

Finally, the gun control movement is characterized by the fact that its leaders and activists are invariably afraid to tell the public what their ultimate goals are. Gun control schemes are almost always termed "sensible" or a "reasonable step" without the sponsors admitting what the ultimate goal is. and from a strategic point of view-that makes sense because if the Gun control advocates were to admit that what they really want are almost complete gun bans for the public, they would be seen for what they are and have almost no credibility. As long as they pretend all they want are "reasonable" restrictions, the slow witted will support them.

My view-ANY firearm is protected by the second amendment. And ANY firearm issued to a civilian law enforcement agency is one that the relevant governmental unit cannot be heard to say is improper for lawful citizens to own
 

Angel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
2,908
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"Control" only to the extent of licensing and registration perhaps, but the right to own belongs to every full citizen of the USA in good standing, a right guaranteed by the Constitution and derived from the natural right to self-defense, which is corollary to the natural right to life. End of story.
 

vegas giants

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
90,107
Reaction score
13,470
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Instead of advocating arbitrarily 'banning' certain types of firearms from the community, why doesn't the activist left advocate actively participating in gun-safety programs, in which federal and/or state-level organizations actively work with the community to advance courses in gun safety such as: classes, firing range, civil defense, militia/minutemen organizations for community defense, etc. etc.

Not only is 'gun-banning' horrifically unconstitutional, it's just plain laziness and stupidity. Use the government what it is there for: to organize. Not spread fear and hysteria by way of severely mishandling and fopdoodling all over the damn place lol.

If such training is MANDATORY I fully support it
 

theliq

Active member
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
449
Reaction score
54
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Good government vs individual rights. That's the difference between the US and most other Western democracies. Good government as the paramount value means that individual rights can be limited to effect an orderly and peaceful society. The right to use guns can therefore be limited or even abolished. If individual rights are paramount then the government can't abolish certain rights, like the use of guns, for any reason. The US was founded with individual rights as the basis for governance. That being the case only a fundamental change in our form of government would enable the government to significantly restrict or nullify an enumerated right like the right to bear arms. In which case it would no longer be America, but something else. Maybe we can get Queen Elizabeth to take us back in that case.
you could do a lot worse,just sayin
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,950
Reaction score
29,390
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right; the right to life demands the right to self-defense, and the right to self-defense demands the effective means to do so. Every free person, in every country on Earth, is morally entitled to free access to contemporary weaponry. This right encompasses all personal weaponry that can be used for the purpose of lawful self-defense, including concealable handguns and military rifles, and it includes the right to carry such weapons in public. Governments which do not recognize this principle, no matter how "democratic", are illegitimate.

The right to keep and bear arms is the democratization of the capacity for armed force within society. It empowers the people to defend themselves from the depredations of the lawless and authoritarian alike. Personal arms allow vulnerable populations, like ethnic and sexual minorities, to protect themselves against bigotry when the police refuse to do so. Widespread gun ownership is a powerful political pressure that forces the corporate, imperialist State to be more responsive to liberal and progressive movements. In America, the right to keep and bear arms was fundamental both to the Progressive movement and the Civil Rights movement.

Fundamentally, gun rights are a liberal issue and a progressive issue. People who claim to fight "for the people" should support the right of those people to fight for themselves.

You're my hero!
 

marke

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
34,752
Reaction score
3,960
Location
north carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You have 5,000 characters to state your opinion if you choose. The rules of this forum are found here.

Keep your guns if you love freedom and security. Giving up your protections will not protect your freedoms and security.
 

Hamish Howl

Horrible Bastard
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2019
Messages
15,272
Reaction score
9,276
Location
Tucson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I am in favor of any citizen to own any man-portable weapon, to include crew-served weapons.

In fact, I'm going to go a step further and say that if a citizen has the means to obtain the weapon of his choice, the only things off the table are germs, gas, and nukes.

To clarify, I mean any citizen, provided the person hasn't lost their rights due to a felony conviction or involuntary commitment.

Even then, when the felon's sentence is completely served, they should get their rights back.
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,950
Reaction score
29,390
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I've been around the world and gun rights to the extent that the U.S. has them are unique to the U.S., as part of its cultural basis for being. There are many countries that would fall apart if suddenly they were introduced to free gun access, so I don't agree with the notion that gun rights should be a global thing. Not everyone shares American values or necessities. In countries where social and economic inequities are properly and effectively addressed, the need for guns for self-defense drops dramatically. In such societies, guns have become redundant for protection and are mostly a recreational tool, for hunting and sports. Violent people exist everywhere, but widespread violence and regular massacres are a sign of a violent society that has fallen ill. Granting more guns or removing more guns is not going to cure the underlying illness. People don't just go on violent killings for no reason, they are nurtured into doing so.

We are past the point of development as a nation where high powered weaponry could ever stop the State from turning tyrannical. This isn't the 18th century with muskets and cannons. Our government has weapons, some of them classified, that are beyond our defense; and our government's greatest asset is that it has become an expert at psychologically manipulating its own people into doing its bidding. Even if 10% of the military remained loyal to the government in a civil conflict, the public would still be doomed.

Our civil rights have already been infringed upon to levels that previous generations would never have tolerated, through secret measures and "terrorism" bills. Our rights have been declining for decades and nobody is willing to really fight for them with the rights that the 2nd Amendment has afforded them. There is a stark difference between the era of the civil rights movements, and where we are now. It's like night and day. We have grown lazy and complacent as a nation. If the government came for us tomorrow, those among us with guns would surely resist, but the U.S. government is the most powerful on Earth and it would swiftly take control. It has a known history of experimenting on the People and showing utter disregard for our well being, in cold and calculated ways. The 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant to preventing tyranny. We already have a tyrannical government. All the talk about freedom and greatness is just lip service at this point. If you spend a length of time overseas in different countries and then come back to the U.S., it's obvious how controlled we are, in insidious ways that try to convince us we're still free and the greatest nation on Earth. The fight against tyranny is already over. We lost.

So, putting aside the redundancy of having a well armed militia, that leaves personal access to self-protection. People with known psychopathy and a history of criminal violence should not have access to fire arms, let alone assault rifles to mow down crowds of people. It's easy to talk political philosophy on a computer but if your family member was mowed down by someone who bought their assault rifle at the corner store, you'd question this too. I support everyone having firearms for protection of themselves, loved ones, and property. I support background checks for automatic and semi-automatic weapons because they are the most efficient killing machines of the innocent. Because our society is ill we can't look at them the same way that we used to.

There has to be a middle ground. We can still have a 2nd Amendment while doing whatever we can to try and prevent our most degenerate citizens from killing people en mass. As I said earlier, the violence is a symptom of a much bigger problem, but there's treating the branch and then there's treating the root. The root, in my opinion, is beyond help. Our country is in a downward spiral that we won't recover from, one that will require some kind of reconfiguration of our society that we are not capable of voluntarily doing right now. All we can do for now is address the branch, which is to prevent known degenerates from acquiring weapons. It will never be foolproof, but we have to try.
That's great, let's follow through with improved attention to mental health.
 
Top Bottom