• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gun Control

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Excepting hunting and target practice, the one and only purpose of any firearm is to kill people. Since killing someone is, without a doubt, the epitome of assault upon his person, tell me, please, what kind of firearms are not 'assault weapons'?

so by your definition couldent a knife also be consitered a assault weapon? or what about a club? my point is that it is impossible to use the term assault weapon to define a certain firearm or group of firearms because if you take the literal meaning of assault weapon it can be applied to a variaty of objects ranging from knifes to axes to crow bars to guns. end quote

Quibbling about definitions is beside the point. Assault weapon is a dumb definition, anyway. These things used to be called simply sub-machine guns, and it was pretty obvious what they were. The question is whether they are good for anything but killing people? I vote no.
 
To all you guys who are thinking about defending your freedom and constitutional rights with whatever collection of popguns you've accumulated: Think Swat Team. If it comes to that, you've already lost.
 
Rhadamanthus said:
The fact that you deem everyone on welfare to be undeserving disturbes me. Surely a few people abuse the govornment help but all and all I think that there are a lot of people out there who are able to live because of welfare.

The UN is the only way that anything will ever happen on a global leval. The balance of power shifts back and fourth and without the UN it would be easy for more people like Hitler to arise. The fact the UN does not acomplish as much as we would wish is partly because it is not enabled. Untell it gets more power it will only ever acomplish a fraction of what it would if it had more assets at its command.

And the politiciand do care more about what the world thinks than the voters, or at least 51 percent of the voters.
The UN has never succeeded in any attempt to improve the lot of impoverished people. The problem is that the rulers of most impoverished countries are well pleased with the status quo because it enables them to remain in power. They don't want any change.

Are you suggesting a 'one world' concept with the UN doing the ruling?
 
exactly. and exactly. we nead the 'one world' concept. If there is enough pressure on all the combined countries war and acts of govornment supported terrorism will end. No one would go to war if they knew that as soon as they fired a shot they would have 200 other some nations leaping down their throat. This 'one world concept' under the UN is the govornment of the future.
 
Rhadamanthus said:
exactly. and exactly. we nead the 'one world' concept. If there is enough pressure on all the combined countries war and acts of govornment supported terrorism will end. No one would go to war if they knew that as soon as they fired a shot they would have 200 other some nations leaping down their throat. This 'one world concept' under the UN is the govornment of the future.
Given its more than fifty year history, the UN has proven to be innefectual in dealing with the problems you describe.

It has refused to enforce the mandate with which it caused the nation of Israel to be formed. It will not stand up to the Arab nations who still work to "drive Israel into the sea".

It was unable to resolve the Korean conflict to anything more than an armed armistice that has continued more than fifty years, to this day.

It does not involve itself in civil wars, concluding that these are purely internal matters.

It does not involve itself in ethnic or tribal uprisings that are confined within a country's borders.

With the formation of the European Union, the players in the major wars of the past century and a half have been effectively neutered.

With the formation of NATO, and especially since its membership has been opened to many of the former Iron Curtain nations, and with the demise of the Russian Bear, the whole of Europe and much of Asia is unable to form a coalition for war.

All of the nations in the Far East are each much too interested in pursuing their burgeoning economic interests to worry about agression. Even China fits into this category, at least for the next hundred years or so. North and South American countries, while trading an occasional insult, are too economically entwined to cause any upset.

The exeption is North Korea, which reminds one of a flea, climbing up an elephants hind leg, with rape on its mind.

What is left? At this point, the remainder of Africa and the Arab nations.

All of the problems in the remainder of African nations are internal and, for the most part, arise from the tyrannical practices of government. The UN will not intervene.

The support for terrorism, world wide, is rooted in the Arab nations. Whether government sanctions and supports terrorism or merely turns a blind eye to those who do is unimportant because of the way that oil money flows from the ground, through the government treasuries, to the thousands of princes who, it would seem, view the whole thing as a game on a grand scale.

Oil has become, in many ways, the currency of the world. Those who possess it also possess the power to manipulate people in high places. The latest expose', is of course, the current unraveling of the UN's 'Oil for Food' program. I wonder how much of this kind of manipulation continues, undetected?

The UN has proven itself to be a high level debating society that has about as much power to effect beneficial change as do we in this forum. But, that is of no real consequence because the UN has no real desire to effect any change.

The difference, I believe, is that we, in this forum, would like to see the occurrence of beneficial changes.
 
So you do not believe that the UN would like to see benificial changes?

The UN is sound in theory. The idea that we nead something like it is true. However there are many flaws in its system, many of which you so kindly listed ebove. Change does not happen over night, the first step was forming the UN the next is empowering it. If large powerfull countries threw themselves behind the UN that would in itself give it more power.

You are right in your evaluation of the oil is power effect. That is the reason while the world must be weened from its dependency on fossil fuels. Places like ANWR must not be opended and wars must cease to be faught over oil.
 
Rhadamanthus said:
So you do not believe that the UN would like to see benificial changes?

The UN is sound in theory. The idea that we nead something like it is true. However there are many flaws in its system, many of which you so kindly listed ebove. Change does not happen over night, the first step was forming the UN the next is empowering it.
The UN was formed in 1945. In San Francisco, to be precise. The ideals expressed in its charter sing the sweetest song of world liberty, love, peace, enlightenment, and kindness that one could possibly imagine. In the interim, nearly one hundred eighty nations have signed on to those ideals and have pledged their time, talent, and treasure to bring liberty, love, peace, enlightenment, and kindness to all of their fellow nations.

Here we are some sixty years later and what is there to show for it besides a majestic building situated on one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in the world, a gift from the Rockefeller family.

What there is to show is a modern day version of the Old Testament Tower of Babel. Even with the finest translation system and translators, while everone talks and talks, it would seem that with very few exceptions, everyone is interested in just two things; their own agenda, and bashing the US.

Since you didn't dispute any of the problems I laid before you, I must conclude that you are, at least, in general agreement.

I, for one, think that sixty years is more than enough time to do anything, if the will is there. If the will is not there, as I believe it is not, then the next sixty years will produce no more than the past.

If large powerfull countries threw themselves behind the UN that would in itself give it more power.

If one measures your comment in dollars, I present for you an excerpt from the 2004 UN Regular Budget. The formatting is a bit skewed, but the first number is dollars in millions and the second number is the percentage of the total budget they represent.

UN Regular Budget for 2004: US$ 1.483 Billion
Assessment Percentage

US 363 million 24.777
Japan 280 18.881
Germany 124 8.281
UK 88 5.934
France 87 5.866
Italy 70 4.720
Canada 40 2.697
Spain 36 2.248
China 29 1.955
Mexico 27 1.821
S. Korea 26 1.753
Netherlands 24 1.618
Australia 23 1.551
Brazil 22 1.483
Switzerland 17 1.146

In terms of actual accomplishment, I believe that other than the US, the major nations see any accomplishment of the UN as a zero sum exercise. To the extent that another benefits, they will be diminished.

At the end of World War II, with the exception of the US, all of the combatant nations were in deplorable condition. Those considered pre-war world powers were in shambles. The US spent many billions of dollars aiding friend and foe alike in their rebuilding efforts and asked little in return. The US became to be regarded as a symbol of wealth that doled out charity. The needy took all they could get, but like many who are impoverished, accept grudgingly and, forever after, embarrassingly resent the donor.

They resent the fact that while their cities, landmarks, and treasures were destroyed, the US, insulated by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, remained intact.

What better place to exhibit this contempt for the US than at the world forum known as the UN. Had the US adopted the mean, cold, cruel attitude of the USSR after World War II, I truly believe that it would have, and would now enjoy a much greater degree of world respect.

It is not the peoples of the world that hate the US, it is the governments. Possibly an additional bone stuck in their throats is the fervor with which their subjects ceaselessly stuggle to flee to the US. After all, if things are so rosy at home, why come here?

You are right in your evaluation of the oil is power effect. That is the reason while the world must be weened from its dependency on fossil fuels. Places like ANWR must not be opended and wars must cease to be faught over oil.

So long as socialist environmentalists force our continued dependence on foreign oil by their continued opposition to increasing nuclear derived electric power above the 20% now produced, nothing will change.
 
Money does not always supply power. Will is not always born. The cynics of this world must step up and play their part. The people cannot resign themselves to a life without change. The UN is there, now we must use it.
 
Rhadamanthus said:
Money does not always supply power. Will is not always born. The cynics of this world must step up and play their part. The people cannot resign themselves to a life without change. The UN is there, now we must use it.
All of the political rhetoric aside, the vast majority of member nations are content to leave things exactly as they are. If one listens in to the sessions of the security when they are broadcast, one can easily understand that the only reason many of the ambassadors take time out from enjoying all of the social, cultural, and entertainment benefits available to them in New York City, to show up on the job, is to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The governments of most member nations are headed by dictators, tyrants, or other gangster types who gladly extend their hands to accept whatever largesse is being doled out, but make sure that the folks at home are kept securely in line. The only place these guys use the words freedom and liberty is at the microphone when it is their turn to address the assembly.

The UN is not empowered to intrude on the 'peaceful' member nations regardless of how corrupt they may be.

What can be done about that?
 
We both agree that, a) the UN is not effective b) we nead to do something about that.

The only thing that i can think of doing is for countries like the US and Brittan to say to the UN, "Here we are, tell us what to do." If a few powerfull countries were seen obeying the UN then other countries would as well. Besides. If someone is doing thing that go against the UN, they have the US, and whoever else want to come along to stop them.
 
Rhadamanthus said:
We both agree that, a) the UN is not effective b) we nead to do something about that.

The only thing that i can think of doing is for countries like the US and Brittan to say to the UN, "Here we are, tell us what to do." If a few powerfull countries were seen obeying the UN then other countries would as well. Besides. If someone is doing thing that go against the UN, they have the US, and whoever else want to come along to stop them.
After he continued to spit in the eye of the UN for twelve years by ignoring resolution after resolution, The US and Great Britain finally stepped in and took action.

You know how the rest of the major UN powers reacted to that.

That's exactly what you can expect in the future, too.
 
define gun control? i mean specifics like nobody but cops and hunters need to be walkin around w/ a gun anywhere also if u own a gun its should be locked up thats as strong as gun control should be imo

you cant use the 2nd amendment as an excuse for no gun control.... when the second amendment was created we were under constant threat of attack guns could only shoot one bullet at a time (extremely inaccurate at that) and for full effective ness they needed to be shot in group volleys the amendment needs to be altered because now we have guns that can shoot 100 bullets in a minute w/ great acurracy and fast reloading.
 
Jufarius87 said:
you cant use the 2nd amendment as an excuse for no gun control.... when the second amendment was created we were under constant threat of attack guns could only shoot one bullet at a time (extremely inaccurate at that) and for full effective ness they needed to be shot in group volleys the amendment needs to be altered because now we have guns that can shoot 100 bullets in a minute w/ great acurracy and fast reloading.
so are you saying that because the first amendment should only apply to quills because in those days there was no such thing as a typewriter of computer? there should be some restrictions to the second amendment like when you comit a violent crime you should have your right to bear arms revoked. but law abiding citizens should not be punished for the actions of criminals.
 
jcueckert13 said:
so are you saying that because the first amendment should only apply to quills because in those days there was no such thing as a typewriter of computer? there should be some restrictions to the second amendment like when you comit a violent crime you should have your right to bear arms revoked. but law abiding citizens should not be punished for the actions of criminals.

Great point.

No, I'm not for gun control. I have the right to own a gun, and gun control doesn't work anyway. Gun control hurts the people who own guns legally. If you take guns away from people who use them to protect their babies, and wives, why in the world would you figure that the criminals who already own them, illegally, would give them up? Stop being stupid. "You don't need an AK to protect yourself from 1 person". No but I need an AK to protect myself from 15 persons -- and it's my right to protect myself from any instance that could possibly happen, no matter what.
 
you cant use the 2nd amendment as an excuse for no gun control.... when the second amendment was created we were under constant threat of attack guns could only shoot one bullet at a time (extremely inaccurate at that) and for full effective ness they needed to be shot in group volleys the amendment needs to be altered because now we have guns that can shoot 100 bullets in a minute w/ great acurracy and fast reloading.

Jufarius87 put down the crack pipe. The second protects the rest. If you are willing to give up one, are you willing to give up the rest?
 
chuckdt128 said:
Great point.

No, I'm not for gun control. I have the right to own a gun, and gun control doesn't work anyway. Gun control hurts the people who own guns legally. If you take guns away from people who use them to protect their babies, and wives, why in the world would you figure that the criminals who already own them, illegally, would give them up? Stop being stupid. "You don't need an AK to protect yourself from 1 person". No but I need an AK to protect myself from 15 persons -- and it's my right to protect myself from any instance that could possibly happen, no matter what.

In what situation are you likely to have to defend yourself from 15 people all armed and trying to cause harm to you or your family? Many times this fear if danger is imagined, and when someone has the power to end that fear they tend to do so before thinking their desision through. There was a case not so long ago near where I live where a christian pastor heard a noise in the church with which his home was atached. There he found two theifs searching for valuables. At the sight of the man with the gun they both fled towards the door. The pastor shot both of them in the back as they ran. Was it wrong that two people were atempting to rob this man? Yes. But it was also wrong that he shot two unarmed men in the back as they fled from him.

I see no wrong with the owning of guns. I own guns, my family owns guns. We use them for hunting and for protection against bears and such when the nead arises. But this argument that we nead guns to defend ourselves seems to me proposterous. And the people that use gun controle as the deciding issue on important topics that impact many more things than just their right to own guns discust me. I have hoped that people in the past would be willing to make the same sacrifice of owning a gun that I and people i know am, but it has become obviouse to me that people are so selfish about their right to own weapons that they care not for other things.
 
There shouldn't be unnecessary restrictions on the right to own guns.
When you regulate them, it just makes less average people own guns so the criminals have more confidence in pursuing their horrible ways.

In the case with the guy shooting two fleeing robbers, it depends on a lot of circumstances. They could probably file a lawsuit as well against the man shooting them while they were fleeing.



PS: You're signature is awesome! Everyone in the world should read it! (and abide by it too)
 
The right to keep and bear arms isn't about hunting, sport shooting or defense against criminals, although all of those things are valid uses of a firearm. The real reason Americans have the right to keep and bear arms is so that free men and women can prevent their government from becoming a tyrannical, totalitarian state. Disarmed people are not free. They are at the mercy of the state.
 
out of the blue said:
The right to keep and bear arms isn't about hunting, sport shooting or defense against criminals, although all of those things are valid uses of a firearm. The real reason Americans have the right to keep and bear arms is so that free men and women can prevent their government from becoming a tyrannical, totalitarian state. Disarmed people are not free. They are at the mercy of the state.
You, of course are free to think as you wish. However, I live in the US, a country in which people do not have to fear a that the government will become tyrannical and totalitarian.
 
Fantasea said:
You, of course are free to think as you wish. However, I live in the US, a country in which people do not have to fear a that the government will become tyrannical and totalitarian.
Wake up and smell the corrupt politicial scandals!
Our government is becoming tyrannical and totalitarian and most people don't even know!
 
The right to keep and bear arms isn't about hunting, sport shooting or defense against criminals, although all of those things are valid uses of a firearm. The real reason Americans have the right to keep and bear arms is so that free men and women can prevent their government from becoming a tyrannical, totalitarian state. Disarmed people are not free. They are at the mercy of the state.

Yeah, I see how well that is working in places where guns and explosives are much more plentiful and uncontrolled than they are in this country. I remember how well that worked for the Branch Davidians at Waco, and those nuts up in Montana, too. What I can't seem to remember is a case where anyone's little gun collection prevented a government from becoming tryrannical. :thinking
 
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:
Yeah, I see how well that is working in places where guns and explosives are much more plentiful and uncontrolled than they are in this country. I remember how well that worked for the Branch Davidians at Waco, and those nuts up in Montana, too. What I can't seem to remember is a case where anyone's little gun collection prevented a government from becoming tryrannical. :thinking
Do you realize every state that legalizes concealed handguns has a significant drop in crime rates?

Do you know when Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance requiring each household to keep a firearm, crime rates dropped 74% the next year?


Think about it. Where would you rather steal from, a place where nobody is allowed to have guns, or somewhere where there's a pistol in each household.

It's only common sense!
 
Fantasea said:
You, of course are free to think as you wish. However, I live in the US, a country in which people do not have to fear a that the government will become tyrannical and totalitarian.

i am afraid. However i do not think that the people can take back their country with an armed uprising. The days for revolution in this country are past. Our battles are faught with words and our weapon is the pen.
 
Back
Top Bottom