• 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!

Let me throw this question out for discussion....

BretJ

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
6,457
Reaction score
2,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
How does the mindset and goals of gun control advocates differ from that of the Prohibitionists of the 1920s?

In my view, I cannot see any difference whatsoever. Gun prohibitionists seem to hold the same views on firearms as those held by prohibitionists concerning alcohol. No one needs alcohol. Alcohol is dangerous. Think of all the lives we could save. Etc....

Agree/disagree?
 
Prohibition in the 1920s was driven primarily by religious groups, because it was considered immoral and sinful. Nowadays many people try to act as if their religious freedoms and gun freedoms are one and the same, I don't see a major push by religious groups to ban guns at all.
 

I disagree. The issue about alcohol was done in the open by using a constitutional amendment to add/delete a federal power. Gun control is trying to nullify (infringe upon) an individual constitutional right but by making no change at all to the constitution. It is quite clear that any other item in the bill of rights cannot be restricted at the state level; for example, nobody would accept "have an attorney present during police questioning permits" required by the state.

A constitutional right (liberty) cannot be removed, from an individual, without due process of law (5th amendment); saying that a convicted felon may not keep and bear arms is constitutional but, saying that one must first take a class, pass a test and pay a fee is not an option (at any level of gov't) simply to keep/obtain the constitutional right to keep and bear arms - since that violates both the 2nd and 5th amendments.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
A constitutional right (liberty) cannot be removed, from an individual, without due process of law (5th amendment); saying that a convicted felon may not keep and bear arms is constitutional but,
Click to expand...
Can you show the rationale the SCt used to deprive felons of their "Right"?
It wasn't the 5th.

It was the Court simply weaseling out of their duty by agreeing with Congress implementing a Civil Disability on those convicted.
Much like in the following terminology.

The federal gun laws, however, focus not on reliability, but on the mere fact of conviction or even indictment, in order to keep firearms away from potentially dangerous persons. Congress' judgment that a convicted felon -- even one whose conviction was allegedly uncounseled -- is among the class of persons who should be disabled from dealing in or possessing firearms because of potential dangerousness is rational.

Lewis v. United States - 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
@67
Lewis v. United States - 445 U.S. 55 (1980) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center​





Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980) - Ruling that the Congress may prohibit felons from possessing firearms:

"This Court has recognized repeatedly that a legislature constitutionally may prohibit a convicted felon from engaging in activities far more fundamental than the possession of a firearm....These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 307 U. S. 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia')"​

Firearm case law in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​


Funny thing here though, is that at least in one state, Felons used to be given a firearm upon release of prison.
And in some places, that Trusties used to perform armed guard duties while incarcerated.
The restrictions are based upon nothing but fear.
 
Last edited:


I disagree.

All gun control advocates, without exception, fall under two categories:

Primarily, there are those who are willfully on the side of criminals and tyrants, and who recognize that the greatest threat to criminals and tyrants is an armed populace. They want to disarm honest, law-abiding citizens, because doing so makes them easier and safer prey for criminals and tyrants. I think it should be obvious that alcohol has no relevance to this issue, and that banning or restricting alcohol would not benefit criminal or tyrants in the same way that banning or restricting guns does.

The other category is those who are foolish and gullible enough to believe the lies told by the first group; and who are deceived into thinking that gun control will make them safer, when, in fact, it makes them less safe.
 

The alcohol prohibition turned into 'Only the government has the ability to distributed and tax alcohol'

They already have that for firearms and eventually ii will be for anything they deem dangerous.
 
Last edited:


actually some of the biggest contributors to the Brady Bunch are pillow headed soft minded utopians from religious groups. What you are confused about appears to be those who cherish their first amendment rights often cherish second amendment rights as well
 
WCH said:
The alcohol prohibition turned into 'Only the government has the ability to distributed and tax alcohol'

I suspect they want the same for firearms and eventually anything they deem dangerous.
Click to expand...

IT all comes from the same malignant mentality: scum suckers who pretend they know better for you and me than we know for ourselves. Its about control over others when it comes to the LEADERS. When dealing with the minions, it often is instigated by FEAR.
 

True-as I have noted gun control activists are at least one of two major types

1) the DISHONEST who claim their goal is to limit criminals when their real agenda is to punish honest people and

2) the STUPID or IGNORANT who actually believe laws that only affect the honest gun owners is going to inhibit people who already break laws by merely owning guns
 
I agree.

I also changed my original statement regarding firearms. Aside from private purchases, they are prohibited.
 

I disagree. I agree with Bob's point. Those who benifit from a lack of a armed society IE the criminals and potential tyrants, they do not give two ****s about some nut job shooting up a bunch of people except to manipulate their useful idiots into supporting more gun control. Their useful idiots somehow think that if we do not severely restrict or ban firearms then some nut job is going to shoot them despite the fact they have better odds of sleeping with twin playboy models,winning the lottery and getting struck by lightning all the same day than getting murdered by some nutjob with a gun. If you used a pie chart to represent gun owners vs scumbags who used a firearm to murder people then the scumbags would be represented by a thinly drawn line instead of a actual slice. Both groups do not give rats ass about the Constitution,as far as many of them are concerned it is a outdated document that should be ignored.
 
Last edited:

While I appreciate your research into the matter, the SCOTUS has often made bad calls. My point is that removing a right from all and then making one "earn" those rights, e.g. literacy tests for voting or safety/marksmanship test for gun rights, are far different than excluding those that have failed a due process test of their ability to obey the law. By adding in high fees (taxes?) to secure one's basic constitutional rights takes that up yet another level towards infringement.

I agree with the SCOTUS that those defined as "dangerous" (whether by felony conviction, adjudged to be mentally incompetent or currently under a judicial restraining/protection order) by due process of law may have their rights limited. To prevent that from being abused, by the states or federal gov't, I would add the requirement that the felony conviction must have been for a violent act; such felonies as driving w/o insurance, DWI, contraband sales, fraud or tax evasion do not make a person "dangerous" as they used no force upon the victim that a having a gun would aid in repeating.
 

No I mean literally there are people, some of them on this forum, who will argue that Jesus commanded his disciples to fight and kill and therefore Jesus must back gun rights. Anyway the difference is thus, the prohibition movement started in the South and was led by religious groups which is much the same story today where most of the counties dry or "moist" counties are in the South and the laws are supported by religious groups. Obviously the South is also, in general terms, very big on gun rights so clearly the gun control movement and prohibition don't have the same origins.
 

I find appeals to Jesus to have zero value in a debate unless the debate is about Jesus.

Prohibition was driven by women who didn't like men drinking
Gun Control tends to have a feminine bias as well-far more women support gun bans then men thought the power hungry scumbags who lead the gun control movement are often men.
 

No that's not true.
 
Wiseone said:
No that's not true.
Click to expand...

I am going to need a bit more evidence than your claim given I have studied the gun control scumbags for 4 decades and I am pretty up on the prohibition movement

be back in 45-i have to work with my kid on one of his sports
 

I'd be interested in seeing some statistics regarding women overwhelmingly supporting more stringent gun control laws and/or outright bans.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
I'd be interested in seeing some statistics regarding women overwhelmingly supporting more stringent gun control laws and/or outright bans.
Click to expand...

I don't have them but having studied this issue for decades its pretty clear cut though its changing a bit. women also are far more likely to support gun restrictionist politicians given that women vote Dem far more than men. Indeed, I believe that LBJ was the only Democrat that won a majority of the male vote since women were able to vote in 1920.

I know Romney, Bush, Bush, McCain, Ford, Nixon and Nixon won a majority of the male vote

as to guns here is something I found

Custom Market Research Solutions from ICR

The telephone survey by ICR of Media, Pa., found 56 percent of American adults favored stricter gun laws and 39 percent opposed. Sixty-six percent of women favored the tougher laws, compared with 45 percent of men. Thirty percent of women and 49 percent of men were opposed.
"Women have the mother instinct and don't want guns around," said James Rowe, a 73-year-old semi-retired contractor and gun enthusiast from San Diego.
In mid-April, just before the Colorado shootings, 55 percent of adults favored tougher gun laws. When the question was repeated in an AP poll a week after the shootings, the proportion jumped to 63 percent.
But while a majority favors stricter gun laws, only 43 percent in the latest poll said new laws would be more effective in reducing gun violence than better enforcement of existing laws. Those numbers are statistically unchanged from the poll taken before the shootings, but represent a sharp shift in opinion as measured in the post-shooting poll, when 51 percent chose tougher gun laws and 39 percent picked better enforcement of existing laws.

see also
Explaining the Gender Gap On Gun Control - NationalJournal.com
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 65 percent of women favor stronger gun laws, compared to 44 percent of men. That’s consistent with previous polling; a recent Quinnipiac University poll showed 61 percent of women and 45 percent of men in favor stricter gun laws.

Richard Feldman, the Independent Firearms Association president and a former NRA lobbyist, said that the gender gap on gun laws is a long-standing one, and that much of it has to do with who owns guns.

“The gender gap is real, but when you look at the gun owners and the non-gun-owners, that differential is going to drop substantially,” he said.


Although gun ownership among women has increased over the previous decades, men are still three times more likely to own guns than women, according to a March Pew Center survey. And opinions on the effectiveness of gun laws vary greatly depending on whether you own a gun or if there is one in your house. According to the Pew survey, 66 percent of people who live in gun-free homes say stricter gun laws would reduce mass-shooting casualties; only 35 percent of people in gun-owning households agreed.
 
Prohibition = gun Control?

That's quite a stretch. I interpret prohibition to equate to a total banning of whatever is prohibited. Just like there are regulations on alcohol, there are regulations on guns. That's not a total banning.

Nothing is more fun that going Gnat shootin' after having a few Fat Tire's. In moderation, of course.

 

almost everyone who wants a total ban on some or all guns supports incremental controls

so your argument has less merit
 
TurtleDude said:
almost everyone who wants a total ban on some or all guns supports incremental controls

so your argument has less merit
Click to expand...

Well, I really wasn't presenting an argument. More like an opinion or interpretation. Would you like to argue whether or not shooting at a remote control model plane is fun or not. I say it is. Argue with that.
 
Captain America said:
Well, I really wasn't presenting an argument. More like an opinion or interpretation. Would you like to argue whether or not shooting at a remote control model plane is fun or not. I say it is. Argue with that.
Click to expand...

yeah and I saw that once

1989 State (Ohio) Skeet championships-Canton Ohio

they had six fields-the last one was lower than the others and on the far right side of the club

that's where they put the ISU style shooters whose targets are randomly delayed after you call for them. and you have to remain with the gun's stock touching basically your belt until the target appears. Needless to say, something moving in your field of view could really screw with you. So some asshole decided it would be fun to fly a model airplane right over that field. The referee yelled out to "cut that crap" but the kid-a few hundred yards away yelled back that he was out of range of the #9 shot skeet shooters used

well the guy leading the field was a member of the 88 (alternate) and later the 96 Olympic teams and then the current WR holder. So he looked at the referee and requested a "time out" because his gun was not "working"

we all smiled and the rest of us in contention all said 'fine with us'

so the guy goes to his car and pulls out some high brass heavy goose loads that have far far more range than skeet loads

He comes back with his gun and says "I think I fixed it-MAY I TAKE A TEST FIRE

again we all said-sure

so he loads two goose loads and pretends like he is calling for the target

sure enough along comes the plane about 80 yards out

boom-half of the tail gets obliterated

and the shooter yells out-NEXT LOAD IS IN THE %#)#)$ engine block

never saw that plane the rest of the weekend

we all came with goose loads for the second day of the tournament the next day though

my suggestion to have a go at the plane with the AR 15 I had in my trunk was not approved!! (I had a magazine worth of tracers as well)
 

They are because of the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
 
Captain America said:
Well, I really wasn't presenting an argument. More like an opinion or interpretation. Would you like to argue whether or not shooting at a remote control model plane is fun or not. I say it is. Argue with that.
Click to expand...

I would vote for fun. Of course it really depends on who owns it....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…