• 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!

Is gun control a futile debate?

CLAX1911 said:
You made the absolute worst of bad faith arguments blaming me for your dichotomy. This is why you people don't get anywhere nobody listens to you.

Thank you for being terrible at this.
Click to expand...
If you don’t want to be called out on it then don’t bring it up.
 
PeacefulWarrior said:
The concept that some guy in 1700 with a funny hat and REALLLY bad B.O. thought it would be a great idea for everyone in 2025 to pack Mass Murder Machines around everywhere through city streets, shopping centers and churches.....and then also gave blanket permission for modern day firearms manufacturers to sell Mass Murder Machines to anyone with a pulse.....well that concept is so ****ing dumb as to defy all logic.

Just laughably stupid.

We've come to a place where ST00PID™ is in full control. Its not a great place to be.

Enjoy!!
Click to expand...
You're free to think its stupid. But as far as changing it, that's another story.

I'm curious how you would interpret the second Amendment. Some people being allowed to own firearms is a check and balance on power. So it will boil down to how a "well-regulated militia" is being defined.

Or, on the other hand, if you want to repeal it in its entirety, you'll have your work cut out for you. And I don't see any evidence of that happening in the near future.
 
PeacefulWarrior said:
The concept that some guy in 1700 with a funny hat and REALLLY bad B.O. thought it would be a great idea for everyone in 2025 to pack Mass Murder Machines around everywhere through city streets, shopping centers and churches.....and then also gave blanket permission for modern day firearms manufacturers to sell Mass Murder Machines to anyone with a pulse.....well that concept is so ****ing dumb as to defy all logic.

Just laughably stupid.

We've come to a place where ST00PID™ is in full control. Its not a great place to be.

Enjoy!!
Click to expand...
In 1789, civilians could (and did) own cannon and warships. Were those "Mass Murder Machines"?
 
OrphanSlug said:
Because they no longer stand for reasonable position on this matter, they used to but those days are long gone.
Click to expand...
What's their position? What's up googling who's the president of the NRA when was this president elected by its members? What was this person's reason for running for president of the NRA?

What's the main purpose of the NRA I bet you can't answer any of these questions and I bet you won't you'll just moan and complain about me trying to stop you from being part of the conversation you did that all on your own.
OrphanSlug said:
Not on your best day. But keep trying!
Click to expand...
Then why are you whining about me trying to remove a participant?
 
rahl said:
The constitution controls the issue.
Click to expand...
Yeah, during this era, you can save the constitution stuff for the tourists, assuming that you find any.
 
Helix said:
Yeah, during this era, you can save the constitution stuff for the tourists, assuming that you find any.
Click to expand...
In any era. The constitution controls this issue. I’m sorry you don’t like it. But reality doesn’t care.
 
rahl said:
In any era. The constitution controls this issue. I’m sorry you don’t like it. But reality doesn’t care.
Click to expand...
You don't seem to get it. I guess that you'll have to keep not getting it, because not it.
 
Helix said:
You don't seem to get it. I guess that you'll have to keep not getting it, because not it.
Click to expand...
Of course I get it. You don’t like that the constitution precludes you from removing my rights. And I love the fact that you don’t like it.
 
rahl said:
Of course I get it. You don’t like that the constitution precludes you from removing my rights. And I love the fact that you don’t like it.
Click to expand...
Refer to my most recent post that you quoted.
 
Noodlegawd said:
No, the process is:

1. Win the Presidency and a majority of the Senate and House,
2. eliminate the filibuster,
3. add 6 seats to the Supreme Court and fill them with hardcore left-wing Justices, giving them a strong majority on the court,
4. pass a federal or state law banning guns, and
5. litigate the Constitutionality of that ban all the way to the Supreme Court, which would then overturn Heller, thereby rendering the 2nd Amendment completely meaningless for any modern purposes.
Click to expand...
"Abolishing the 2nd amendment" has a well know effect. Stalin, Hitler, and others very effectively to destroy their countries.
 
Helix said:
Refer to my most recent post that you quoted.
Click to expand...
Ok. You don’t like that the constitution precludes you from removing my rights. And I love the fact that you don’t like it.
 
SoCal said:
I agree. What's futile is pointing out that common sense gun control doesn't mean, "they're coming to take my guns away".

There may be a few extremists on DP and elsewhere who want to repeal the 2nd, but rank and file Democrats nationally have no intention to actually repeal it. Claiming so is the favorite false dichotomy of every gun nut. They'll never stop claiming it, it's the motivation that drives them to hunker down in the basement, nervously stroking their AR, murmuring, "my precious" over and over, convinced the evil government is about to break down their door and take their guns away.

Requiring background checks? They're coming to take my guns away!
Require training to carry a firearm? They're coming to take my guns away!
Click to expand...

Many propose compulsory "training" to even own a gun.

SoCal said:
Prohibiting possession of a firearm that is undetectable by airport-level detection devices? They're coming to take my guns away!
Registering a semi-auto firearm modified to match a military issue machine guns' rate of fire? They're coming to take my guns away!
Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here will accuse me of being a gun banner, but I certainly support criminal background checks as a requirement for possessing a firearm or motor vehicle. Neither side in the issue seems to support me in that.

And maybe they haven't come to take my guns away in my state, but they have certainly made it impossible to legally buy certain guns and parts. There is one poster here who has made it plain that is a necessary component of his scheme to ultimately reduce private gun ownership to zero.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Yes, the thread has already proven it, the gun control debate is futile now.

The debate between everyone should be armed to the teeth with assault rifles going up against the ban it all crowd has left all the sane people on the sidelines of the debate. Between the likes of the NRA and the likes of the Moms Demand Action group all rational consideration for keeping the 2nd Amendment and also having less kids executed in school has been suspended.

Until sanity is allowed back into the debate, expect the "cause...'Merica" and "here is my man card" carrying AR crowd going up against the take 'em all away crowd to continue the nonsense.
Click to expand...

Why do you frame owning a modern sporting rifle as a negative quality?
 
OrphanSlug said:
Your interpretation, nothing more.
Click to expand...

You wrote:
The debate between everyone should be armed to the teeth with assault rifles going up against the ban it all crowd...

I've never seen anyone seriously suggest that everyone should be armed to the teeth with assault rifles.

But I do understand you were framing the extremes of the gun control discussion, and you tossed modern sporting rifles into the mix.

You could have said "armed to the teeth with revolvers". Or "armed to the teeth with semiautomatic shotguns".

But you deliberately chose modern sporting rifles, calling them by the inaccurate name "assault rifles".
 
RF667799 said:
You wrote:
The debate between everyone should be armed to the teeth with assault rifles going up against the ban it all crowd...

I've never seen anyone seriously suggest that everyone should be armed to the teeth with assault rifles.

But I do understand you were framing the extremes of the gun control discussion, and you tossed modern sporting rifles into the mix.

You could have said "armed to the teeth with revolvers". Or "armed to the teeth with semiautomatic shotguns".

But you deliberately chose modern sporting rifles, calling them by the inaccurate name "assault rifles".
Click to expand...

Your anecdotal take on this does not matter to me, and splitting hairs on assault rifles vs. sporting rifles is purely about issue avoidance.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Your anecdotal take on this does not matter to me, and splitting hairs on assault rifles vs. sporting rifles is purely about issue avoidance.
Click to expand...

So far as I can see, your reference to "everyone armed to the teeth with assault rifles" isn't even anecdotal. I believe it's something you made up to illustrate what you see as an extremist position in the gun control debate.

You deliberately tossed modern sporting rifles into that illustration of extremists.

If you want to go on the record acknowledging that modern sporting rifles have nothing to do with extremism in the debate, nor are there any special negative implications involved in owning them; I'm fine with that.

Otherwise you were dog whistling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom