• 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.

GunControl

Position on Gun Control?

  • All guns should be banned.

    Votes: 5 12.8%
  • You should have to have a license to own guns.

    Votes: 7 17.9%
  • All guns should be allowed except for machineguns.

    Votes: 3 7.7%
  • There should be no or very few limits on possession or carrying of firearms.

    Votes: 13 33.3%
  • There should be significant limits on the types, features, possesion and strict carry laws

    Votes: 9 23.1%
  • Other- Please Specify

    Votes: 2 5.1%

  • Total voters
    39

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
PhotonicLaceration said:
What is your position on Gun Control?
You put this in the "Polls" Department...add a poll or ask a Moderator to move it...There is a spot for this on the forum...Constitution of the United States - Second Amendment...
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
72
Reaction score
0
Location
Nevada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hmm, it shows a poll when I look at it. Try refreshing. I think that it actually posts the thread before you are finished with the poll since your post showed up before I was even done writing it.
 
Last edited:

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
PhotonicLaceration said:
Hmm, it shows a poll when I look at it.
Well then what the hell was I looking at?!?!?:doh

uhhhhhhhhh...never mind!...backup up slowly and whistling....
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
PhotonicLaceration said:
Hmm, it shows a poll when I look at it. Try refreshing. I think that it actually posts the thread before you are finished with the poll since your post showed up before I was even done writing it.
I like this answer better....Yeah!...That was it!!!!:2wave:
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I have 3 handguns and 2 rifles in my house.......I use the handguns for protection and target practice and the rifles for hunting..........Oboviously I am a strong supporter of the second amendment and the right to bear arms.........

Charlton Heston is the man............I hope he recovers from his illness...........
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I believe the types should be restricted... I have no problem with people owning guns. I don't see a purpose to owning an uzi though. Just my thoughts. Assult weapons should be in the hands of the military and the police, in my opinion. Other than that... own on!
 

superskippy

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
377
Reaction score
2
Location
Tel'Aviv (when not on duty.)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
At least over here gun's are vital for protection and make crime almost non existant, and we are the 2nd most heavily armed populace on the face of the earth. (The First Being Switzerland.) You go through government training and must go to a firing range 3 times a year for excess training. Settlers may own pistols, and semi-automatic weapons. Citizens inside the greenline may own a pistol or if your a reservist a semi-automatic rifle, the same goes if you are an officer or get special permission. Once turning 18 generally you can get a government issued pistol after training. Almost everyone does. As a matter of fact a few years back when three Palestinian Gun Men tried to attack a town square to kill as many as possible some people eating lunch ranging from a 20 year old reservist, to a 50 year old man unpacked pistols and killed two of them. The Survivor is quoted as saying, "It's not fair we did not know the civilian were armed". Gun's save lives over here. The Palestinians are afraid to attack schools now since almost all the adult's will have some sort of firearm.

I'm all for gun's in a society if they are properly trained by the government and licensed.

Most semi-automatic weaposn issued are M-16's and more often the Uzi.
 

C.J.

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
409
Reaction score
9
Location
Mississippi
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
debate_junkie said:
I believe the types should be restricted... I have no problem with people owning guns. I don't see a purpose to owning an uzi though. Just my thoughts. Assult weapons should be in the hands of the military and the police, in my opinion. Other than that... own on!
The military doesn't want and wouldn't have the "assault" weapons you don't want in the hands of civilians. Why would one need a purpose for a semi auto Uzi other than recreational shooting, or just having it to look at?
 

C.J.

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
409
Reaction score
9
Location
Mississippi
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
superskippy said:
At least over here gun's are vital for protection and make crime almost non existant, and we are the 2nd most heavily armed populace on the face of the earth. (The First Being Switzerland.) You go through government training and must go to a firing range 3 times a year for excess training. Settlers may own pistols, and semi-automatic weapons. Citizens inside the greenline may own a pistol or if your a reservist a semi-automatic rifle, the same goes if you are an officer or get special permission. Once turning 18 generally you can get a government issued pistol after training. Almost everyone does. As a matter of fact a few years back when three Palestinian Gun Men tried to attack a town square to kill as many as possible some people eating lunch ranging from a 20 year old reservist, to a 50 year old man unpacked pistols and killed two of them. The Survivor is quoted as saying, "It's not fair we did not know the civilian were armed". Gun's save lives over here. The Palestinians are afraid to attack schools now since almost all the adult's will have some sort of firearm.

I'm all for gun's in a society if they are properly trained by the government and licensed.

Most semi-automatic weaposn issued are M-16's and more often the Uzi.
The situation in your country is somewhat different than here. I would have no objection of registration and government training if the government supplied the weapons. Here each state is supposed to be a republic within the union, and per the power we gave the government at its founding they should have no power over us on this issue. Per most state constitutions and since the Fourteenth Amendment, the states are limited in this respect also. In your country, the government empowers the people, in this one we supposedly empower the government. The rules are different, not necessarily good or bad, just different.
 

ElGringo17

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
People here have the right to own any type of weapon necessary to overthrow a tyrannical government.

We need M16's, HK G3's, Galil's, Uzi's, and any other weapon to be able to accomplish that should the need ever arise.

For self defense, we also need heavy large ammo rifles and shotguns like the Koreans successfully used to fend off mobs of mongoloids of mexican descent and negroes who were rampaging during the L.A. riots.
 

KevinWan

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'm personally in favor in upholding the right to bear arms. The people of the United States are the last line of defense for protecting our own liberties. Hitler disarmed his own people when he came to power, to ensure no revolutionary or civil violence would derail his administration. If some leader, or party, wants to seize power and take away our liberties, and the courts fail to stop them, then it is up to the people to act on their Constitutional right to overthrow the government that oppresses them. Without guns, I don't think we'll get very far in achieving that.

Also, we can't do away with hunting, or personal self-defense etc. etc. Gun control only leads to the deterioration of these.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
KevinWan said:
Also, we can't do away with hunting, or personal self-defense etc. etc. Gun control only leads to the deterioration of these.
Unless..of course by gun control you mean hitting your target and holding it with both hands.:mrgreen:
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
C.J. said:
The military doesn't want and wouldn't have the "assault" weapons you don't want in the hands of civilians. Why would one need a purpose for a semi auto Uzi other than recreational shooting, or just having it to look at?
Could you please clarify CJ? Cuz it sounds to me like you're saying the military doesn't have Uzi's or other automatic and semi automatic weaponry. I'm also on my first cup of coffee so bear with me.
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I believe that you should be able to have damn near anything you want, but there should be a registration system.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
There are around 40,000 guns deaths in USA per annum.
You are fighting a war in Iraq four years after 911, in a country that didn't spawn the 911 terrorists yet you have a 911 death toll every month from gun deaths.
It would be an understatement to say banning guns would be a rather more efficient way of saving American lives than blundering into the wrong country in the war on terror.
To argue with this is to argue black is white, becuase the facts are, we have less than a tenth as many gun deaths in the UK per capita becuase of our strict gun controls. If you had the strict gun controls we have in the UK you wouldn't need guns to protect yourselves, so Navy Pride's argument in favour of guns doesn't hold water.
Gun ownership is so taboo in UK & prison sentences so harsh for illegal possession of firearms that that hardest of criminals think twice before owning one. Hence the number of 'off ticket' guns in UK is also very low. But hey, thanks for helping us keep our low levels of gun ownership. Everytime people here argue in favour of liberal gun ownership, we just point a finger across the pond to show them why it's a bad idea.
Funny word liberal isn't it. I mean it's about liberty & being free, yet it's the anti liberals like Navy Pride that think everyone should be 'free' to own a gun.
What a contradiction.
The end result means criminal low life are 'free' to own the means to blow you away.
 
Last edited:

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
KevinWan said:
I'm personally in favor in upholding the right to bear arms. The people of the United States are the last line of defense for protecting our own liberties. Hitler disarmed his own people when he came to power, to ensure no revolutionary or civil violence would derail his administration. If some leader, or party, wants to seize power and take away our liberties, and the courts fail to stop them, then it is up to the people to act on their Constitutional right to overthrow the government that oppresses them. Without guns, I don't think we'll get very far in achieving that. Also, we can't do away with hunting, or personal self-defense etc. etc. Gun control only leads to the deterioration of these.
Yeah but it's always the evil ba5tards that take power by force of arms, so I don't think you should make it any easier for them to have arms.
 

C.J.

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
409
Reaction score
9
Location
Mississippi
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
debate_junkie said:
Could you please clarify CJ? Cuz it sounds to me like you're saying the military doesn't have Uzi's or other automatic and semi automatic weaponry. I'm also on my first cup of coffee so bear with me.
Sure! The civilian "assault weapons" in question are semi autos, while the military versions are selective fire.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,834
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
The United Kingdom has the land area and population approximating one or two USA states. Comparing logistics of governance between the two countries is like comparing a watermelon to a kumquat.

So far as semi-automatic weapons go, I know of no weapon of any kind that is particularly hazardous in the hands of a law abiding citizen, and I see no reason that the crooks, and gang bangers should be better armed than the police or law abiding citizenry. Most of the gun deaths here are thug against thug and while any death is tragic, there are consequences for lawlessness. Sometimes I think we should just round them all up, put them in one big compound, and let them go at it. (I'm kidding of course. Well mostly.)

If my person or my loved ones are threatened by anybody, I want the means to defend myself.

I have no problem with a required license or regulation of firearms used in a public place just as any lethal object/substance, including automobiles, are licensed or regulated. I have no problem with severe consequences for any who use guns irreponsibily or illegally. And I have no problem with gun free zones just so long as nobody tries to make my person or my private property a gun free zone.
 
Last edited:

C.J.

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
409
Reaction score
9
Location
Mississippi
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
robin said:
Yeah but it's always the evil ba5tards that take power by force of arms, so I don't think you should make it any easier for them to have arms.
On the other hand, why make it easier for the evil ones to take over by offering no substantial resistance? The evil ones will access firearms whether the good can or not.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
C.J. said:
On the other hand, why make it easier for the evil ones to take over by offering no substantial resistance? The evil ones will access firearms whether the good can or not.
Give me an example of a country where bad guys tried to take over but were overthrown by good guys in the civilian population becuase they had guns.
Thanks to our strict gun controls there are not enough guns in the UK for the bad guys ever to overthrow our military & our military answer to our democratically elected politicians.
 

C.J.

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
409
Reaction score
9
Location
Mississippi
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
robin said:
Give me an example of a country where bad guys tried to take over but were overthrown by good guys in the civilian population becuase they had guns.
Thanks to our strict gun controls there are not enough guns in the UK for the bad guys ever to overthrow our military & our military answer to our democratically elected politicians.
If you are going to try and point the discussion you may want to rephrase your request. Those trying to take over a country cannot be overthrown. Only those who have possession can be overthrown, kind of like what happened to the British after we declared independence. Heck, that was an example wasn't it???

As a country, we don't have what you would refer to as strict gun control, but there are not enough guns in the U.S. for the "bad guys to overthrow our military" either.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
C.J. said:
If you are going to try and point the discussion you may want to rephrase your request. Those trying to take over a country cannot be overthrown. Only those who have possession can be overthrown, kind of like what happened to the British after we declared independence. Heck, that was an example wasn't it???

As a country, we don't have what you would refer to as strict gun control, but there are not enough guns in the U.S. for the "bad guys to overthrow our military" either.
Let me phrase that correctly.... Give me an example of a country where bad guys tried to take over but were stopped by good guys in the civilian population becuase they had guns.
Thanks to our strict gun controls there are not enough guns in the UK for the bad guys ever to overthrow our military & our military answer to our democratically elected politicians.

"As a country, we don't have what you would refer to as strict gun control, but there are not enough guns in the U.S. for the "bad guys to overthrow our military" either"

So that kind of shows that if your government tried to become a military dictatorship then there still aren't enough civilians with guns to stop them. So your right to bear arms is no use in that respect so what use is it ?"

Answer is.. None at all. They just mean guns are freely available to any lowlife that want them.

I'm very very relieved we don't have high levels of gun ownership that you have in the states. More people are shot in Washington alone than all of the UK !
We don't need to carry guns to defend ourselves here. We don't need to look over our shoulder to worry about someone going to stick a gun in our backs.
 
Last edited:

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,834
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Robin writes
I'm very very relieved we don't have high levels of gun ownership that you have in the states. More people are shot in Washington alone than all of the UK
And isn't that an interesting fact, assuming it is verifiable, considering that Washington D.C. has the toughest gun control laws of any U.S. city?

It is true there aren't enough rifles, shotgun, hand guns, and miscellaneous weaponry among the U.S. citizenry that could arm an organized militia that could stand up against the sophisticated weaponry of our military. There are enough guns throughout the U.S. to dissuade any would-be dictator from attempting any kind of military coup or assault as the entire country would have to be leveled in order to establish any kind of control. There was a logic behind the Second Amendment here.

If you are happy with being unarmed and defenseless and at the mercy of whatever in the U.K., that's great. Maybe your risk isn't as great as those living in inner city Detroit or East L.A. or East St. Louis or Dallas, but whatever it is you seem content to accept it. Maybe there are no Brits left with tendencies to do violence to others. But there are here. And until you live here, it is best to understand that different situations call for different solutions. Besides, I don't think the United States is likely to emulate the UK any time soon. Shall we compare cuisines?
 

ElGringo17

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Robin,

The 2nd Amendment is not SOLELY to be able to ovethrow an entity that would overtake our government, it is PRIMARILY to able to overthrow OUR OWN government, should they ever not obey the will of the people, which in many instances IS HAPPENING NOW.


Try actually reading the Federalist Papers if you actually want to know the intent, instead of making it up to suit your views:

Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788;


"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in 'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym 'A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Ghandi
 
Top Bottom