• 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....

I meant that many people view gun rights as a religious freedom, or at least backed by their religious beliefs.

and those who pray to the altar of socialism, collectivism and welfare redistribution and those demons' vicar on earth-Obama and his Holy Democratic Party Church, see banning guns as a sacred rite
 
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.
I see what you did there, but it is not the same thing as having your 2nd Amendment Right removed through due process.
It is an arbitrary removal based on a conviction of a crime. Which is wrong.
 
I see what you did there, but it is not the same thing as having your 2nd Amendment Right removed through due process.
It is an arbitrary removal based on a conviction of a crime. Which is wrong.

That is not arbitrary at all, that is what due process is all about. Folks are not arbitrarily (randomly?) tried and convicted of felonies.
 
That is not arbitrary at all, that is what due process is all about. Folks are not arbitrarily (randomly?) tried and convicted of felonies.
:naughty
That is not due process for removal of your 2nd Amendment Right.
That is due process for whether or not the person committed a crime.
Deciding that whole groups of people should be denied their Right based on a conviction is arbitrary and not due Process.
 
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.

Did you see the PBS 3 part series on Prohibition a bout 2 months ago? It was fascinating.

And yes, it was driven by religious groups but what drove them was...and I had not realized this was so prevalent...the fact that *the majority* of men in the late 80's timeframe drank heavily (there's a reason for that beyond getting drunk that I'm forgetting) and spent a good deal of their work wages on drink before they even got home on Fridays and also abused the heck out of their families...it was literally an epidemic.

It was well supported and drew a different picture than I'd realized. The birth of the prohibition movement was literally survival for women and children and the American family. That sounds dramatic but it was indeed out of control. And it took about 50 yrs for that initial movement to result in the 14th Amendment.

I am not supporting Prohibition but by the time it was passed, society had made enough changes that when it was repealed, we never reverted back to the original violence and wasted $.

Also, altho it was done federally with the 14th Amendment, *many states and counties* already had enacted their own prohibition against alcohol.

It was an amazing series, I highly recommend it for an in-depth picture into our history.
 
Did you see the PBS 3 part series on Prohibition a bout 2 months ago? It was fascinating.

And yes, it was driven by religious groups but what drove them was...and I had not realized this was so prevalent...the fact that *the majority* of men in the late 80's timeframe drank heavily (there's a reason for that beyond getting drunk that I'm forgetting) and spent a good deal of their work wages on drink before they even got home on Fridays and also abused the heck out of their families...it was literally an epidemic.

It was well supported and drew a different picture than I'd realized. The birth of the prohibition movement was literally survival for women and children and the American family. That sounds dramatic but it was indeed out of control. And it took about 50 yrs for that initial movement to result in the 14th Amendment.

I am not supporting Prohibition but by the time it was passed, society had made enough changes that when it was repealed, we never reverted back to the original violence and wasted $.

Also, altho it was done federally with the 14th Amendment, *many states and counties* already had enacted their own prohibition against alcohol.

It was an amazing series, I highly recommend it for an in-depth picture into our history.

I think you meant the 18th amendment. The 14 Amendment was a reconstruction amendment that is used to apply say the first, second, fourth and other amendments to the states.
 
I think you meant the 18th amendment. The 14 Amendment was a reconstruction amendment that is used to apply say the first, second, fourth and other amendments to the states.

LOL yeah.
 
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.

funny-temperance.webp
 

Do you think they didnt like it just for the heck of it? Or was there a reason 'they didnt like it?'

There is clear cause and effect why women had reason to fear liquor. No such reason has been proven for guns, so I dont see this comparison.
 
Do you think they didnt like it just for the heck of it? Or was there a reason 'they didnt like it?'

There is clear cause and effect why women had reason to fear liquor. No such reason has been proven for guns, so I dont see this comparison.
Don't read too much into this picture, on the part about alcohol prohibition. It's fine that some people don't like drinking or alcohol, just like it's fine that people don't like x thing others do, it's not okay to try to keep others from exercising a right or liberty just because one doesn't like it.
 
Don't read too much into this picture, on the part about alcohol prohibition. It's fine that some people don't like drinking or alcohol, just like it's fine that people don't like x thing others do, it's not okay to try to keep others from exercising a right or liberty just because one doesn't like it.

Altho we look back on it now and think it was *just* about that, it actually had to do with an epidemic of domestic abuse and financial damage that women initially drove for the survival of their families and then the church picked it up and 'moralized' it.

Did you see the PBS 3 part series on Prohibition a bout 2 months ago? It was fascinating.

And yes, it was driven by religious groups but what drove them was...and I had not realized this was so prevalent...the fact that *the majority* of men in the late 80's timeframe drank heavily (there's a reason for that beyond getting drunk that I'm forgetting) and spent a good deal of their work wages on drink before they even got home on Fridays and also abused the heck out of their families...it was literally an epidemic.

It was well supported and drew a different picture than I'd realized. The birth of the prohibition movement was literally survival for women and children and the American family. That sounds dramatic but it was indeed out of control. And it took about 50 yrs for that initial movement to result in the 14th Amendment.

I am not supporting Prohibition but by the time it was passed, society had made enough changes that when it was repealed, we never reverted back to the original violence and wasted $.

Also, altho it was done federally with the 14th Amendment, *many states and counties* already had enacted their own prohibition against alcohol.

It was an amazing series, I highly recommend it for an in-depth picture into our history.
 
Altho we look back on it now and think it was *just* about that, it actually had to do with an epidemic of domestic abuse and financial damage that women initially drove for the survival of their families and then the church picked it up and 'moralized' it.
It was mainly the women hating the fact that their husbands were going to bars if I remember correctly. Either way, same issue, they blamed bad actors and restricted the rights of people that were not a problem, not okay.
 
It was mainly the women hating the fact that their husbands were going to bars if I remember correctly. Either way, same issue, they blamed bad actors and restricted the rights of people that were not a problem, not okay.

No....it was about systemic physical abuse of kids and women, the financial losses by male breadwinners (the sole earner in those days), and the epidemic damage done to family units. Did you read my post?
 
No....it was about systemic physical abuse of kids and women, the financial losses by male breadwinners (the sole earner in those days), and the epidemic damage done to family units. Did you read my post?
I did read it, but never heard those arguments about the movement. I always read it to be a moralistic thing, I get the arguments you've posted though and that makes perfect sense.
 
I did read it, but never heard those arguments about the movement. I always read it to be a moralistic thing, I get the arguments you've posted though and that makes perfect sense.

It's an amazing 3 part series...I am hoping it comes on again, I only recorded part of it.

I really recommend it for a different perspective. It's not what I expected either.
 
It's an amazing 3 part series...I am hoping it comes on again, I only recorded part of it.

I really recommend it for a different perspective. It's not what I expected either.
In those days there wasn't as much legal recourse for bad actors, these days all it would take would be tweaking sentencing to either convince people that would be prone to abusing others to cut it out, or get them off the streets for a very long time.

EDIT - While I disagree with prohibition, I do respect that it was done properly through the amendment process and cannot argue at that point it's legality. I don't like the "just pass it and get it signed" mentality of today, the federal should always be granted a power from the states should they not have it.
 
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?

I think that is really pushing it. Outside of the fact some people wanted to see each banned, I really do not see a connection. The push to do away with alcohol was to reform society, take those evil spirits away, bring society back to moral Christian levels. Besides, Alcohol was not a right protected by the constitution, guns are. I think both prohibition and gun control advocates are misguided. But one can't really compare the two.
 
I think that is really pushing it. Outside of the fact some people wanted to see each banned, I really do not see a connection. The push to do away with alcohol was to reform society, take those evil spirits away, bring society back to moral Christian levels. Besides, Alcohol was not a right protected by the constitution, guns are. I think both prohibition and gun control advocates are misguided. But one can't really compare the two.
Exactly my point. Except substitute your use of the word spirits with firearms. Take away Christian and substute it with civilized.
My point is that they both have the inane idea that they know what is best for everyone else. Secular or non-secular, they both believe that they are doing it for the betterment of society. They both believe that alcohol/firearms are an evil that needs to be removed from a civilized society. It is the mindset that I find similar. The mindset that believes they know what is best for the unwashed sinners and that in the end, society will pat them on the back and thank them for it.
 
67158248d1386963652-let-me-throw-question-out-discussion-funny-temperance.jpg

Do you think they didnt [sic] like it just for the heck of it? Or was there a reason 'they didnt [sic] like it?'

There is clear cause and effect why women had reason to fear liquor. No such reason has been proven for guns, so I dont [sic] see this comparison.

To be more clear, men have a tendency to become more prone to violence when they are drunk. And women have a tendency to become the targets of that violence. There's a pretty string reason, right there, for women to prefer men who do not drink.

BTW, you know why it is that people, especially women, tend to look so dour and unappealing in old photographs like this? It isn't that they were really less attractive back then.

Early photographic emulsions used on wet plates and early films were considerably less sensitive than more modern films or digital image sensors. Some of the earliest photographs required exposures on the order of hours. The first photograph to contain recognizable human figures had an exposure of about ten minutes. A man was getting his shoes shined in the scene where a cityscape photograph was being taken, which resulted in both he and the shoe shiner remaining in a consistent enough position, long enough, that their figures could be recognized as human shapes in the resulting image.

The above picture probably required an exposure of a minute or longer, at least. To get a reasonably sharp picture, they had to stay frozen in pose and facial expression for that long. Especially with women, it seems, the only facial expressions that can readily be held in place that long are unappealing expressions such as we see here. Men could sometimes pull it off, so that they came out looking regal or dignified, but women tended much more to come out looking dour and bitchy.

Modern photographs are usually taken at exposures of anywhere from 1/25 of a second (generally regarded as the slowest speed at which one can expect to hold a camera sufficiently still with a standard-length lens—modern image stabilization technology makes even slower speeds feasible in hand-held shooting; generally, with much slower speeds than this, it's assumed you'll need to put the camera on a tripod or other stable mount, rather than holding it in your hands) to 1/8000 of a second (the fastest speed on most high-end modern shutters—Nikon had one production model, the D1, with a 1//16,000 shutter, but after that, they concentrated more on reliability and accuracy than raw speed.)
 
No....it was about systemic physical abuse of kids and women, the financial losses by male breadwinners (the sole earner in those days), and the epidemic damage done to family units. Did you read my post?

I did read it, but never heard those arguments about the movement. I always read it to be a moralistic thing, I get the arguments you've posted though and that makes perfect sense.

Is it not a valid moral issue for women to be affected by violence and poverty as a result of their husbands' alcoholism?

There's certainly room to question whether so broad a prohibition was necessary or called-for for what may have been a narrower problem, but you seem to think that the moralism of the issue is somehow artificial and irrelevant.
 
Exactly my point. Except substitute your use of the word spirits with firearms. Take away Christian and substute it with civilized.
My point is that they both have the inane idea that they know what is best for everyone else. Secular or non-secular, they both believe that they are doing it for the betterment of society. They both believe that alcohol/firearms are an evil that needs to be removed from a civilized society. It is the mindset that I find similar. The mindset that believes they know what is best for the unwashed sinners and that in the end, society will pat them on the back and thank them for it.

Knowing what is best for all is defiantly an elite Washington D.C. idea. They push these things all the time regardless of party. Yeah, I can buy the mindset. Those who pushed for prohibition didn't envision the speak easy's or boot leggers or home stills. Gun control addicts don't foresee that if firearms are completely banned, only criminals will have them. You will have the same underground, blackmarket etc with firearms as you had with Alcohol. The problem is with the society we have become, not with the firearms or guns. FIx society and the amount of guns, the number of bullets a clip holds or the type of firearm will not mean a hill of beans.
 
Is it not a valid moral issue for women to be affected by violence and poverty as a result of their husbands' alcoholism?

There's certainly room to question whether so broad a prohibition was necessary or called-for for what may have been a narrower problem, but you seem to think that the moralism of the issue is somehow artificial and irrelevant.
Not at all. What I was thinking was it was a church movement based upon scripture which is not the way to legislate. It certainly is a moral issue when one allows their addictions or behaviors to affect their families.
 
To be more clear, men have a tendency to become more prone to violence when they are drunk. And women have a tendency to become the targets of that violence. There's a pretty string reason, right there, for women to prefer men who do not drink.

BTW, you know why it is that people, especially women, tend to look so dour and unappealing in old photographs like this? It isn't that they were really less attractive back then.

Early photographic emulsions used on wet plates and early films were considerably less sensitive than more modern films or digital image sensors. Some of the earliest photographs required exposures on the order of hours. The first photograph to contain recognizable human figures had an exposure of about ten minutes. A man was getting his shoes shined in the scene where a cityscape photograph was being taken, which resulted in both he and the shoe shiner remaining in a consistent enough position, long enough, that their figures could be recognized as human shapes in the resulting image.

The above picture probably required an exposure of a minute or longer, at least. To get a reasonably sharp picture, they had to stay frozen in pose and facial expression for that long. Especially with women, it seems, the only facial expressions that can readily be held in place that long are unappealing expressions such as we see here. Men could sometimes pull it off, so that they came out looking regal or dignified, but women tended much more to come out looking dour and bitchy.

Modern photographs are usually taken at exposures of anywhere from 1/25 of a second (generally regarded as the slowest speed at which one can expect to hold a camera sufficiently still with a standard-length lens—modern image stabilization technology makes even slower speeds feasible in hand-held shooting; generally, with much slower speeds than this, it's assumed you'll need to put the camera on a tripod or other stable mount, rather than holding it in your hands) to 1/8000 of a second (the fastest speed on most high-end modern shutters—Nikon had one production model, the D1, with a 1//16,000 shutter, but after that, they concentrated more on reliability and accuracy than raw speed.)
I get that some men become violent when drinking, I don't, and haven't really associated with any angry drunks, though I have seen them. Like the firearms issue, liberty is important to preserve and there has to be a better argument than "some abuse the right/liberty" to pass a law that engages in prior restraint.
 
Knowing what is best for all is defiantly an elite Washington D.C. idea. They push these things all the time regardless of party. Yeah, I can buy the mindset. Those who pushed for prohibition didn't envision the speak easy's or boot leggers or home stills. Gun control addicts don't foresee that if firearms are completely banned, only criminals will have them.

The more knowledgeable gun control advocates know fully well that the policies that they advocate will leave criminals armed, while disarming law-abiding citizens. This is their intent. They are willfully on the side of criminals, and it is their purpose to make it easier and safer for criminals to do their jobs. The only other significant body of gun control advocates are those who are ignorant, foolish, and gullible enough to believe the lies told by the other group.
 
Back
Top Bottom