• 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 there anyone here that believes the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment so that America would be the shooting gallery it is today?

Those are not massive restrictions. They didn't prevent anyone from owning any kind of firearm.
Correct the NFA is not a gun control law, it is tax law. That is why it is found in Title 26, United States Code section 5801 et. seq., which is the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, formerly under the Department of the Treasury, but now overseen by the Department of Justice. Gun control laws are under Title 18.
 
The beautiful thing about this country, is that you don’t get a say in what anyone else needs or wants.

No, it is because I do get a say. My point was no one is required to own a weapon to have their rights recognized in this country. That is a fact. Which means we don’t need to own a gun to have the same rights as those who do own a gun. Owning a gun is but one right of many and all the other rights don’t depend on it to exist and be recognized and protected by our government. No one needs a gun in order to live their life in our country. This is a fact borne out by the many who do this.
 
Clearly, the framers never intended for the US to globally renowned as a "gun culture" and a place of regular mass murders.
But we don't have the will to change it, sadly.
We now accept regular mass murders and gun violence as normal and necessary in exchange for some ill-conceived notion that "freedom" requires this.
It is madness.
Perhaps less an issue of normality than and issue of a claim that 100,000 death and injuries are somehow justified to indulge the whim and convenience of a third of the population.
 
What definition of DGU are they using? Sounds like it is actually pulling the trigger and shooting. We have never said that only shooting someone counts as a DGU. Yet another lie.

And "hearing gunshots" is "exposed to gun violence". That is some graduate level reaching there. :ROFLMAO:

More than one-third (34.4%) said they had known someone who had died by firearm suicide. In the past year, 32.7% said they had heard gunshots in their neighborhood. Although only 2.1% of the sample indicated they had been shot, 59.5% of all instances of defensive gun use during which an individual shot at a perceived threat occurred among those who had previously been shot themselves.
 
Bullshit.

{An overwhelming majority of firearm users, or about 92%, indicated they never have used their weapons to defend themselves, with less than 1% say they did in the previous year, a new study by the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center found.}

Meanwhile, 99% of firearm users , indicated they never have used their weapons to criminally attack others, with less than .000000000000000000000001% say (sic) they did in the previous year,
 
Fantasies? I do have easily portable lethal power that can be used against humans. Reality.

It's called a motor vehicle.

A motor vehicle is not so portable as to be used on the 10th floor of a high rise apartment building against humans. Reality.
 
Bullshit.

{An overwhelming majority of firearm users, or about 92%, indicated they never have used their weapons to defend themselves, with less than 1% say they did in the previous year, a new study by the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center found.}

Meanwhile, 99% of firearm users , indicated they never have used their weapons to criminally attack others, with less than .000000000000000000000001% say (sic) they did in the previous year,

So it sounds like guns aren’t really needed at all, statistically speaking.
 
No, it is because I do get a say.
You get no say in what I or anyone else needs.
My point was no one is required to own a weapon to have their rights recognized in this country.
What a silly strawman
That is a fact. Which means we don’t need to own a gun to have the same rights as those who do own a gun.
You have the right to not own a gun. I have the right to own a gun. You don’t get a say in whether I own one or not, or what kind I own.
Owning a gun is but one right of many and all the other rights don’t depend on it to exist and be recognized and protected by our government. No one needs a gun in order to live their life in our country. This is a fact borne out by the many who do this.
You don’t get a say in what anyone needs.
 
You get no say in what I or anyone else needs.

What a silly strawman

You have the right to not own a gun. I have the right to own a gun. You don’t get a say in whether I own one or not, or what kind I own.

You don’t get a say in what anyone needs.
You seem to believe that your freedom is limitless. If you decide you "need" something, then no one has any right to stand in your way?
 
Bullshit.

{An overwhelming majority of firearm users, or about 92%, indicated they never have used their weapons to defend themselves, with less than 1% say they did in the previous year, a new study by the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center found.}

Meanwhile, 99% of firearm users , indicated they never have used their weapons to criminally attack others, with less than .000000000000000000000001% say (sic) they did in the previous year,
I don't follow your reasoning in that rant. What is your point?
 
You seem to believe that your freedom is limitless. If you decide you "need" something, then no one has any right to stand in your way?
That is a good summary of the pro-gun arguments as it really comes down to "I want it".
 
What definition of DGU are they using? Sounds like it is actually pulling the trigger and shooting. We have never said that only shooting someone counts as a DGU. Yet another lie.

And "hearing gunshots" is "exposed to gun violence". That is some graduate level reaching there. :ROFLMAO:

More than one-third (34.4%) said they had known someone who had died by firearm suicide. In the past year, 32.7% said they had heard gunshots in their neighborhood. Although only 2.1% of the sample indicated they had been shot, 59.5% of all instances of defensive gun use during which an individual shot at a perceived threat occurred among those who had previously been shot themselves.

1% per year is actually pretty high. I don't know why the antis think that's a point in their column.

What percentage of lawful gun owners use their guns in violent crimes every year?
 
What definition of DGU are they using? Sounds like it is actually pulling the trigger and shooting. We have never said that only shooting someone counts as a DGU. Yet another lie.

And "hearing gunshots" is "exposed to gun violence". That is some graduate level reaching there. :ROFLMAO:

More than one-third (34.4%) said they had known someone who had died by firearm suicide. In the past year, 32.7% said they had heard gunshots in their neighborhood. Although only 2.1% of the sample indicated they had been shot, 59.5% of all instances of defensive gun use during which an individual shot at a perceived threat occurred among those who had previously been shot themselves.
Self-defense firearms are primarily an inducement to use of lethal force unnecessarily (especially under SYG laws), risky for the owner, an opportunity for impulsive actions, a risk for loss or theft of firearm, a danger to bystanders (as in SLC recently), and a demonstration of poor judgment. Of course, they do signal Trump support and a disdain for the safety of others.

 
So it sounds like guns aren’t really needed at all, statistically speaking.

In 2023, last year of compiled statistics, there were 17,927 homicides using firearms.

With 520 MILLION firearms in the USA, this is 0.00003447%

There CLEARLY is no need for gun grabbing.

1 in 5 million guns is used in violent crime?
 
The Second Amendment was written for a very narrow reason. To keep the Federal Government from disarming State Militias. That is all.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Second Amendment did not apply to the States, who were free to enact 100% gun confiscation if they had wished. And they did, in regards to non-whites for the most part, who, at best, had limited access to firearms.

And it took until 2010 for the Supreme Court to bother incorporating the Second Amendment against the States.

No, the President should not grab power, whether that be the current twit or any future Republican or Democrat. The Presidency should be neutered, not the other way around.

But the Supreme Court will not always stay as it is and a future court will likely narrow the decisions of the current court and could even go so far as to disincorporate the Second Amendment by overturning MacDonald.

Time will tell.
If that were the case then 1-They would have written it to protect the rights of the states and state militias, and not, THE PEOPLE, and 2-the 2nd Amendment would not have been secured 2nd of 10 in the BILL OF RIGHTS that guarantees the rights of THE PEOPLE, and 3-It would have been addressed as the standard for the last 250 years and not just as some internet offering by some random ant-gun internet nobody that apparently hasnt read anything of the framers actual intent regarding private ownership of firearms.
 
1% per year is actually pretty high. I don't know why the antis think that's a point in their column.

What percentage of lawful gun owners use their guns in violent crimes every year?
The more important statistic is that most homicides are committed with firearms.
 
They wanted a populace armed so that when the Fed Govt went beyond what it was supposed to be they could rise up and fight back

That's pretty clear I'd think to anyone who'd looked at American History.

What they didn't anticipate was the degrading morality of the nation where people were so violent and cultures encouraged violence :(
 
In 2023, last year of compiled statistics, there were 17,927 homicides using firearms.

With 520 MILLION firearms in the USA, this is 0.00003447%

There CLEARLY is no need for gun grabbing.

1 in 5 million guns is used in violent crime?
Why do you dismiss the entire spectrum of firearm violence?
Why do you think that 40,000+ deaths from firearms is acceptable?
Recommendation: learn about the firearm violence in similar countries (Canada, Australia, UK, NZ. Ireland)
 
The more important statistic is that most homicides are committed with firearms.

So what? How is that relevant? Most homicides are also committed by men. Should we start restricting their Fourth through Eighth Amendment rights as well, to cut down on the numbers?

Most highway fatalities are caused by cars. Should we pass stricter car laws? There isn't anything in the Bill of Rights preventing that.
 
That is not a Mass Shooting in the modern sense of the term nor is it one in any sense. That is a policing action. Nice try though...

Name a Mass Shooting pre-colt with one shooter massacring innocent civilians... I expect another dumb response. Don't let me down.

One mass shooter massacring dozens = somehow negates the need for gun rights

State oppressor massacring people = shrug my shoulders, doesn't matter, not a justification for gun rights
 
So what? How is that relevant? Most homicides are also committed by men. Should we start restricting their Fourth through Eighth Amendment rights as well, to cut down on the numbers?
Since firearms are optional property with little practical use, restrictions on firearms are indicated.
Of course. prohibiting men from owning or possessing firearms would go a long way to reducing the problem.

Most highway fatalities are caused by cars. Should we pass stricter car laws? There isn't anything in the Bill of Rights preventing that.
Cars are not firearms.
The practicality of cars and the low risk of injury during use far outweigh the risk. Furthermore, extreme efforts are made to improve the safety of vehicular use; not efforts have been made to make firearms safer, since they are inherently dangerous. So, to answer your question, yes, we should pass more car laws if there is a condition that can improve safety in and around vehicles.
 
One mass shooter massacring dozens = somehow negates the need for gun rights

State oppressor massacring people = shrug my shoulders, doesn't matter, not a justification for gun rights
Puzzling.
 
They wanted a populace armed so that when the Fed Govt went beyond what it was supposed to be they could rise up and fight back

That's pretty clear I'd think to anyone who'd looked at American History.

What they didn't anticipate was the degrading morality of the nation where people were so violent and cultures encouraged violence :(
The NRA indoctrination has been successfully adopted apparently.
Civil War? Shays Rebellion? Whiskey Rebellion? Waco? endless other RW gun fanatics...
 
Back
Top Bottom