• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gun Control

Mr.America

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2004
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
Maryland
I thought that this would be an interesting topic to talk about.

Are you for or against gun control? Why? :thinking
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,959
Reaction score
6,071
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'm wondering if this should go to the 2nd amendment forum.

Lets see where this leads us...

I am against gun control because I believe the 2nd amendment grants us that right.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
I'm for it because too many stupid people with guns cause excessive violence. It's mainly for the kids, however, who don't really know what a gun is.
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
I am 100% against gun control.
Why you might ask and I refer you to the second amendment to the constition
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, was not intended to be a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment was meant to preserve and guarantee an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.
There is no evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to members of an active militia.
 

Mr.America

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2004
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
Maryland
Isn't it funny that states that allow you to carry around guns (like Texas) have the lowest crime rates in the US, but states that don't allow you to exersize that 2nd Amendment (like New York) have the highest crime .
 

jcueckert13

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Location
edgewood nm
the reason i am against gun control is because in every instance where it has been used it has been a complete failure and in some cases has resulted in genoside. in the late 1930s hitler enacted laws that prohibited jews from owning firearms and look at the result of that.
another example is the city of chicago which has the highest murder rate in the country and has a ban on hand guns.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
I'm sorry, I have to come out of the dark from World of Warcraft for this one. What are you smoking? How is Hitler's banning of jews with firearms have to do with gun control? Hitler had a standing army on every corner. That's completely false logic. Please, think before you spit out thesis statements for a poorly supported paper.
 

jcueckert13

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Location
edgewood nm
heyjoeo said:
I'm sorry, I have to come out of the dark from World of Warcraft for this one. What are you smoking? How is Hitler's banning of jews with firearms have to do with gun control? Hitler had a standing army on every corner. That's completely false logic. Please, think before you spit out thesis statements for a poorly supported paper.
for the sake of everyone on the board it would be nice if you would look up the definition of gun control. the definition should state that gun control is an action taken by a government (also known as a law) stating who can or can not own a firearm and can also limit the type of firearm. now i appalogise for thinking that a law restricting jews from owning firearms would fall under the catagory of gun control. what was i thinking(note the sarcasm).
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Personally, a person that does not use proper grammar capitalization, and poor spelling should never try to lecture me on anything. Of course Hitler making a law to ban guns for Jews is gun control. However to make the assumption that gun control leads to genocide, you'd have to be a complete moron
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
heyjoeo In that paticular instance gun control did lead to genocide. The Jews were unable to own guns and unable to defend themselves. By the way What are you smoking?
 

jcueckert13

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Location
edgewood nm
heyjoeo said:
Personally, a person that does not use proper grammar capitalization, and poor spelling should never try to lecture me on anything. Of course Hitler making a law to ban guns for Jews is gun control. However to make the assumption that gun control leads to genocide, you'd have to be a complete moron
i wasnt lecturing you, i was pointing out an instance where your misguided point of view was false. and now it seems that rather than find facts to back up your ideas you attack my grammer to chande the subject.

Nazi Germany was not the only instance where gun control led to genocide. Other examples are:
Turkey established gun control in 1911.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.


The USSR established gun control in 1929.
From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated by their own government.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated people", unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.

now feel free to dispute these figures but from now on try to stay on the subject at hand instead of getting pissed that someone less educated that the almighty HeyJoeo can actually support his point of view.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
No, that's totally incorrect. You can't make that assumption. And who said they didn't have guns anyway, regardless of the law? I don't think it would have even mattered if they were allowed to have guns either. You jump to conclusions way to quickly.
 

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
Well heyjoeo I guess from your post that had you been around at that time you would have been exterminated. You would have calmly gotten in line and waited for it to be over. I would rather have a chance and take a few with me. If its going to happen might as well go down fighting. I guess just a difference in opinion. I feel sorry for you that you don't feel your life is worth defending.
 

Tetsuo

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
CSA_TX said:
Well heyjoeo I guess from your post that had you been around at that time you would have been exterminated. You would have calmly gotten in line and waited for it to be over. I would rather have a chance and take a few with me. If its going to happen might as well go down fighting. I guess just a difference in opinion. I feel sorry for you that you don't feel your life is worth defending.
Me and Michael Moore don't see eye to eye on a great deal but here is a prime example of where me and him do. The American conciousness is in a great number of cases that there is some unseen enemy always out to get you and that guns are an essential part of defending that freedom.

"Life worth defending" How in hells name does owning a gun defend your life? What is there in Texas that so requires a gun to defend youself? It wont save you from a car crash (statistically most likely to kill you) or a house fire. And the government is quite happy letting people shoot each other and then locking them up for it because while everyone is so busy thinking that criminals, terrorists, communists and muslims are out to get them the people in power are getting richer and richer. Does anyone seriously beleive that in their lifetime a revolution/invasion will come where people will have to rise up with their own guns? Thats why our taxes pay for the military.

The bottom line is that people who are scared consume more and in a capitalist society that can be nothing but a good thing, your good ol boy paranoid outlook is probably the thing that keeps the US going, more's the pity.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
jcueckert13 said:
i wasnt lecturing you, i was pointing out an instance where your misguided point of view was false. and now it seems that rather than find facts to back up your ideas you attack my grammer to chande the subject.

Nazi Germany was not the only instance where gun control led to genocide. Other examples are:
Turkey established gun control in 1911.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.


The USSR established gun control in 1929.
From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated by their own government.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated people", unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.

now feel free to dispute these figures but from now on try to stay on the subject at hand instead of getting pissed that someone less educated that the almighty HeyJoeo can actually support his point of view.
I own guns, hell I even sell guns in my business. But Nazi Germany is a terrible example of your point. In Germany it was the Jewish population, by and far, that the Nazi's were sending off to the "camps." The Jew's weren't a gun owning crowd. Many of the jewish people who did end up fighting the Nazi's in places like the Warsaw Ghetto had no idea how to use a firearm, hadn't learned, many had never even seen a gun. Well until the Nazi's pointed one at them away. So to say that the guns laws in Germany lead to the genocide really doesn't add up. Now maybe if Jew's had owned guns...
 
Last edited:

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
Tetsuo

your good ol boy paranoid outlook is probably the thing that keeps the US going
Thank you for the compliment. Yes I am a good ol boy and wear the badge with honor and pride. Always want to help my country.

"Life worth defending" How in hells name does owning a gun defend your life? What is there in Texas that so requires a gun to defend youself
It is very unfortinate but we do not live in a perfect world. There are members of society that have no moral fiber that beleive it is ok to rob, rape, and kill just for the sake of robbing, raping, and killing. I refuse to be a victom. My tool used to protect myself, my possessions and my family from these deaviants of society is a firearm. My life and that of my loved ones are worth defending from societies scum.

It wont save you from a car crash (statistically most likely to kill you) or a house fire
True my gun will not protect me from a car crash however that is why I drive a big truck . Better odds of surviving a crash in a bigger heavier vehicle also helps keep up my good ol boy persona. My gun may not protect me from a house fire however that is why I have multiple fire extigusers so I can try to protect my house and belongings. My guns and ammo are stored in a fire proof gun safe so in the event of a house fire my life defending equipment will be protected and if I am not home then they will not be stolen.

Does anyone seriously beleive that in their lifetime a revolution/invasion will come where people will have to rise up with their own guns?
I don't know however I chose to be prepared just in case.

I also get much enjoyment from my tools. I also like to shoot for sport as well as hunting to provide food for my family. So perhaps my purchasing of this life saving equiptment is helping the capitalist society. However it is also being used so I don't spend as much money at the grocery store.

You say that you agree with Michael Moore when it comes to guns. Instead of giving you my opinion of Mr Moore I 'll leave that to Ann M Kechter - Mother of slain Columbine student

From the Rocky Mountain News: "Recently, a co-worker asked me if I had seen the movie Bowling for Columbine yet, I told her absolutely not! My answer surprised her, given the fact my son, Matthew, was one of the 13 murdered during the deadliest school shooting in our country's history. I explained to her that prior to the public release of the movie the families of the injured and dead were invited by Michael Moore to attend a preview screening. How thoughtful.

Our family and others considered attending because we were genuinely interested in his message to the public regarding gun control and school violence.

However, once we discovered he was going to charge us admission we refrained from doing so.

It's laughable that Moore attempts to portray himself as an anti-establishment liberal who is the voice of the common folk, when in fact he is no better than the greedy capitalists he shuns. Maybe now that he has made millions of dollars off the blood of our children he could toss a DVD or two our way to view."
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Tetsuo said:
Me and Michael Moore don't see eye to eye on a great deal but here is a prime example of where me and him do. The American conciousness is in a great number of cases that there is some unseen enemy always out to get you and that guns are an essential part of defending that freedom.

"Life worth defending" How in hells name does owning a gun defend your life? What is there in Texas that so requires a gun to defend youself? It wont save you from a car crash (statistically most likely to kill you) or a house fire. And the government is quite happy letting people shoot each other and then locking them up for it because while everyone is so busy thinking that criminals, terrorists, communists and muslims are out to get them the people in power are getting richer and richer. Does anyone seriously beleive that in their lifetime a revolution/invasion will come where people will have to rise up with their own guns? Thats why our taxes pay for the military.

The bottom line is that people who are scared consume more and in a capitalist society that can be nothing but a good thing, your good ol boy paranoid outlook is probably the thing that keeps the US going, more's the pity.
No it won't save me from a car crash. But then again if I fell out of an airplane I wouldn't be wanting for seat belt now would I? I'd want a parachute. If a drug addicted loser breaks into my house at night I wouldn't want a parachute. I'd reach for my seat belt. No wait! I mean my Glock.

In your last comment I think you may actually make some sense. It seems that the government and the media, at least here, try to keep us in a constant state of "be afraid, be very afraid." And it works. You should have seen the increase in Duck tape sales when the government told people it could save them from a terrorist chemical attack. I personally always get under my desk during chemical attacks. No wait that's nuclear attacks. Hum, guess I forgot what I usally do during chemical attacks.
 

jcueckert13

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Location
edgewood nm
my useage of nazi germany as an example was because if you have ever read mein kampf (writen 20 years before germanys use of gun control) hitler states that a govenrment must control all firearms in order to control the population. the fact that hitler wrote about controling the german people through gun control 15 years before gaining power shows that he understood the purpose of gun control.

heyjoeo give me one example of where gun control has worked and back up your answer with facts instead of childish statements.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Ha, call me a child, I'm the one who has control over the English language. I'm sorry, but aggressive dicators are not good examples about why gun control is bad. That's just silly. Personally, me vs hundreds of troops isn't going to do much, with a gun or not. Sure it would be "glorifying" if I died fighting, what's the difference? The outcome is the same.

Anyway, examples of when gun control works. Well, do you think the child who couldn't find daddy's gun because he couldn't buy one and thereby the child's life is saved would be in the paper? No.

I have just one question: What do you think of tribal soverignty in the 21st century? (See George Bush)
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
heyjoeo said:
Ha, call me a child, I'm the one who has control over the English language. I'm sorry, but aggressive dicators are not good examples about why gun control is bad. That's just silly. Personally, me vs hundreds of troops isn't going to do much, with a gun or not. Sure it would be "glorifying" if I died fighting, what's the difference? The outcome is the same.

Anyway, examples of when gun control works. Well, do you think the child who couldn't find daddy's gun because he couldn't buy one and thereby the child's life is saved would be in the paper? No.

I have just one question: What do you think of tribal soverignty in the 21st century? (See George Bush)
You control the English language? Well I'll say this- at least you don't appear childish in your control.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,959
Reaction score
6,071
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Anyway, examples of when gun control works. Well, do you think the child who couldn't find daddy's gun because he couldn't buy one and thereby the child's life is saved would be in the paper? No.
Ever heard of the statement "guns don't kill people - people do". If this child you are refering to really wants to die - daddys gun safe being locked will not stop him/her.
 

jcueckert13

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Location
edgewood nm
heyjoeo you may have control over the english language but it appears that in mastering the english language you have sacrificed your common sence, and your ability to debate.

you are correct in saying that a single person cant do much against hundreds of troops but thousands of armed citizens have the ability to take down an army. and in your little story about the kid finding daddys gun the child would be fine if daddy had the common sence to buy a gunlock or gun safe, and also teach his kid about gun safety.

BTW i still have a challenge on the table for you.give me one example of where gun control has worked and back it up with facts. so far all you have been able to do is insult my intellegence and evade the subject by spouting liberal propaganda.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Wow did you even read my post? I'm telling you that nobody would report an instance where gun control saved a person, simply because the situation is avoided altogether. Liberal propaganda? That's funny.

Now you answer a question for me. How would you control guns on the streets? Free for all? Gang battles? If you were a cop, would you rather be up against handguns or automatic machine guns? You can't have a free willy-nilly (technical term there) gun market. There has to be some control. I'm not saying a complete abolishment of the 2nd amendment (that would be silly!) but strict rules on types of guns sold and documenting every gun out there on the market. Sure it would be hard, but if we shut the damn gun show loophole we should be halfway there.

Seriously though, learn how to type. It really bothers me.

Hey I can control any language I want, ESPECIALLY the english language.
 

jcueckert13

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
Location
edgewood nm
yes i did read your post and what i am trying to point out is that where strict gun control has been used crime has gone up. in australia for instance where there is extremly strict gun control the government is looking at having to ban swords because while gun crime has gone down sword crime has sky rocketed.

my personal view about guns is manditory safety training, and at most a licence to own a fully automatic firearm. it is not any of the governments business what firearms the people own because the founding fathers meant for people to control the government not the other way around. and also if i was a cop i would rather be up against rifles than hand guns for the simple reason that if i get shot i would rather have the bullet exit my body rather than having shrapnel left inside my body. also in many cases kevlar is completly useless. one of the cheapest havdguns is a semi auto 7.62x25(30 cal.) pistol called the cz52. the cz52 has the ability to go through stage 2 body armor. in reality the only guns body armor is good against is somthing like a 9mm or a .45.

the "gun show loophole" is complete bull shit. i doubt you have ever been to a gun show but in order to buy a gun at a gun show you have to wait for the ffl(federal firearms licence) dealer to call in a background check just like when you walk in to a gun store, or walmart to buy a gun. and guess what? in states where there is a waiting period you still have to wait if youy buy at a gun show. the only way around a background check when buying a gun is to buy one out of the classifieds in the newspaper, or from a private owner.

and BTW i know how to type but because this in not a college class or my job i choose to write in this form.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
If I told you when I turn 21 I will be buying a gun? Do I want the government to know I have it? Do I care? No. Because the only reason I would care that the government knew I had the gun would be if I was going to use that gun for crime.

"and BTW i know how to type but because this in not a college class or my job i choose to write in this form."

Practice makes perfect. Type how you would speak intellectually. Please.
 
Top Bottom