• 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!

How many school kids (gunned down) per year would it take for you to support repealing the 2nd?

How many school kids (gunned down) per year would it take for you to support repealing the 2nd?

  • Total voters
    101
Crovax said:
They would have been killed by this man whether guns existed or not. That fact that you are unable to see this is dishear
Click to expand...
Not one scintillion iota of truth to that statement.
Crovax said:
Yes you have made it abundantly clear all you care about is guns and not children
Click to expand...
You seriously have no clue at all what I really care about.
 
grip said:
According to you, I'm not well informed.

Are you trying to say you're the Most Interesting Man in the World?
Click to expand...
 
Crovax said:
Your posts show me what you value, and it isn't the children
Click to expand...
My posts only show what I wish them to show.

When you assume the rest, incorrectly, that only makes an ass of one, contrary to the old saw, and that one here is not me!
 
jaeger19 said:
Well..thats why you have a disconnect.
Is America awash with firearms causing mass murder and crime..for which we need stringent gun control to fix.
Or us it a peaceful nation in which no one needs a firearm to protect themselves. ?
The anti gunners believe the us is both.
Click to expand...
most active gun banners don't care about crime and only use that as a facade to hide their real goal-punishing people who don't buy into their agenda but the rank and file bannerrhoids labor under the following delusions:

1) people who currently use guns legally and have no history of harming others, have to have more of their rights curtailed and more of their activities banned to stop people who

2) are undeterred by the consequences of life sentences or a death penalty
 
CaughtInThe said:
you'd have to ask them. they have said that 50 million school kids per year gunned down wouldn't make them change.
Click to expand...
why should they-its a false choice. Its like asking if 50 million starved would you give up eating? or if fifty million were raped, would you cut your penis off
 
LouC said:
My posts only show what I wish them to show.

When you assume the rest, incorrectly, that only makes an ass of one, contrary to the old saw, and that one here is not me!
Click to expand...

Your posts show you care about guns but not about children. You have posted nothing to the contrary.

Perception becomes reality if you let it happen.
 
TurtleDude said:
why should they-its a false choice. Its like asking if 50 million starved would you give up eating? or if fifty million were raped, would you cut your penis off
Click to expand...
Yes, 50 milion school kids gunned down in math class per year wouldn't change you.

You've made that abundantly clear.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That‘s nonsense. The poll’s alternative to picking a number (of “gun crime” victims from 1 to “infinity”) is to say that no number of “gun crime” victims would be cause to repeal the 2A.

Apparently you think that there is cause to repeal the 2A, but based on something else.
Click to expand...
No, my answer was Other, a closer (pre Heller) interpretation of the 2nd. Around well regulated Militia.
I actually like shooting guns & explosions & whatnot. If it weren't for the Charlie Whitman Sweepstakes, I'd have no qualms about people owning guns, but it's become endemic.
 
jpevans said:
No, my answer was Other, a closer (pre Heller) interpretation of the 2nd. Around well regulated Militia.
I actually like shooting guns & explosions & whatnot. If it weren't for the Charlie Whitman Sweepstakes, I'd have no qualms about people owning guns, but it's become endemic.
Click to expand...
what do you think the second amendment really means

and then discuss the tenth amendment and the commerce clause
 
jpevans said:
No, my answer was Other, a closer (pre Heller) interpretation of the 2nd. Around well regulated Militia.
I actually like shooting guns & explosions & whatnot. If it weren't for the Charlie Whitman Sweepstakes, I'd have no qualms about people owning guns, but it's become endemic.
Click to expand...
I do say it can be a little vexing having to register with every police chief between Hartford and Dracut if you want to transport a flea market gun and remain technically compliant. And I am never surprised by the number of MA, CT and even RI and NY plates at the border flea market I go to. The strange greybeards with their odd piles off almost assembled weapons make good money.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I have stated clearly that criminal abuse of X is not a valid reason to ban or heavily restrict X possession. See post #464.
Click to expand...
So, does that mean that you favour the elimination of all laws banning (or heavily restricting) the possession of drugs?

And, of course, there is the "criminal abuse" of medicine which is known as "abortion", so do you favour the elimination of all laws banning (or heavily restricting) "abortions"?

And, then, there is the "criminal abuse" of the ability to take which is known as "theft", so do you favour the elimination of all laws banning (or heavily restricting) "theft".

Or is what you actually meant to write something like

The abuse of an item that I want to possess, or the abuse of a power in a manner that I want to be able to exercise it is NOT a valid reason to ban (or heavily restrict) either the item or the power. BUT, the fact that I do not want to posses an item, or do not want to exercise a power in a particular manner, IS a valid reason to ban (or heavily restrict) either the item or that exercise of power. And those are the case REGARDLESS of what the majority of the population wants (even if I am the only person in the country who wants to see those bans/restrictions imposed).​
 
jpevans said:
No, my answer was Other, a closer (pre Heller) interpretation of the 2nd. Around well regulated Militia.
I actually like shooting guns & explosions & whatnot. If it weren't for the Charlie Whitman Sweepstakes, I'd have no qualms about people owning guns, but it's become endemic.
Click to expand...

You, like most, see no problem with their own guns. What is troubling to me is the idea that the type of gun matters (only?) in criminal mass shootings, yet makes no difference whatsoever ever in most other criminal shootings. Thus scary looking black rifles are bad, while ‘regular’ handguns (the primary gun choice of criminals) are finer than frog hair.

To me it is obvious what the gun banners have in mind. Step one is to establish a firm legal precedent that ‘criminal abuse’ (alone) of a (relatively rare) type of gun makes that a ‘compelling state interest’ to justify banning that type of gun.

Step two is to say much more ‘criminal abuse’ of handguns. than rifles of any type, clearly exists so that same established precedent of a ‘compelling state interest’ exists to justify banning them.

Step three is to ban any remaining types of guns as they rise to the statistical top of guns most often ‘criminally abused’.
 
CaughtInThe said:
You and 26 other people have now gone on record and said that if 50 million school kids were gunned down in school per year you wouldn't budge.

There is no solution. The slaughters will continue.

Well, in this country. The UK doesn't have to worry so much.
Click to expand...
You are being purposefully dishonest now.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
So, does that mean that you favour the elimination of all laws banning (or heavily restricting) the possession of drugs?
Click to expand...

Yes. There is no victim (other party having their rights violated) in that case. I do favor labeling of drugs (and other products to be ingested).

TU Curmudgeon said:
And, of course, there is the "criminal abuse" of medicine which is known as "abortion", so do you favour the elimination of all laws banning (or heavily restricting) "abortions"?
Click to expand...

Yes, unless some Constitutional amendment is passed declaring fetal development past a certain point (time from conception?) to convey (potential?) rights to the unborn human as was found (invented?) by the SCOTUS in RvW.

TU Curmudgeon said:
And, then, there is the "criminal abuse" of the ability to take which is known as "theft", so do you favour the elimination of all laws banning (or heavily restricting) "theft".
Click to expand...

No. There is a clear victim (other party having their rights violated) in that case.

TU Curmudgeon said:
Or is what you actually meant to write something like
​
The abuse of an item that I want to possess, or the abuse of a power in a manner that I want to be able to exercise it is NOT a valid reason to ban (or heavily restrict) either the item or the power. BUT, the fact that I do not want to posses an item, or do not want to exercise a power in a particular manner, IS a valid reason to ban (or heavily restrict) either the item or that exercise of power. And those are the case REGARDLESS of what the majority of the population wants (even if I am the only person in the country who wants to see those bans/restrictions imposed).​
Click to expand...

No.
 

How many school kids (gunned down) per year would it take for you to support repealing the 2nd?​

Click to expand...

I'm pro gun in a European way but thank f*** we don't have the stupid lack of laws that America does and we don't have people use killings of innocent children for their pro-gun beliefs.
Things will never change though - America will continue to have the highest mass slaughter rate in the western world.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I'm pro gun in a European way but thank f*** we don't have the stupid lack of laws that America does and we don't have people use killings of innocent children for their pro-gun beliefs.
Things will never change though - America will continue to have the highest mass slaughter rate in the western world.
Click to expand...
Perfectly put, there is no number of children's death that would change an American gun lovers attitude.

Its chilling when one stands back and objectively looks at what the US is all about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom