• 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's consolidate invaild pro-gun arguments

"If the 1st amendment applies to Radio, TV, and the Internet, and the 4th amendment covers electronic wiretapping and video surveillance, how can the 2nd amendment only apply to 18th century firearms technology?"
 
Aintiwar, I think it kind of falls into that same "fire in a crowded theater" exception thing. Almost every right has some obvious restrictions. Almost all gun advocates understand and accept that some people--e.g., the criminally insane--should not have guns. And yes, I know that seems to go against that "should not be infringed" thing, but it might come down to how you define "infringed." It can get very complicated, but that's actually a good thing because it means that everybody needs to put some thought into it to figure out what's best for the country.
Shouldn't the criminally insane be locked up?
 
Shouldn't the criminally insane be locked up?

Yes, Bob, I agree--which would take them out of the gun-owning crowd. So, I guess my comment didn't make much sense (as is usually the case).
 
You'll be at the front of the line turning your guns in. You're just waiting for them to tell you when and where.
There really was no reason for you to prove my point that you don't know squat, you have proven it enough times for everyone know by now.
 
I bet I could outshoot you. Iron sights, unmarked ranges. Liberals who can shoot created your country and along the way since liberals have won all your rights and freedoms.
You're welcome.

You really should read a history book sometime...lol. Leftists didn't build this country. :ROFLMAO:
 
"If the 1st amendment applies to Radio, TV, and the Internet, and the 4th amendment covers electronic wiretapping and video surveillance, how can the 2nd amendment only apply to 18th century firearms technology?"
Hey, if we're nit-picking, the second amendment doesn't mention firearms at all. Your right to bear arms is satisfied with a Navy cutlass.
I know, I know, that's absurd, right? Just like tactical nuclear weapons is absurd in the other direction. The point is, nothing is absolute.
 
Hey, if we're nit-picking, the second amendment doesn't mention firearms at all. Your right to bear arms is satisfied with a Navy cutlass.
I know, I know, that's absurd, right? Just like tactical nuclear weapons is absurd in the other direction. The point is, nothing is absolute.

A gun is an arm.
 
And nuclear weapons are arms.

And obviously that argument is just as stupid as it was the first time it was ever brought up. If the "nuclear wespons" argument is the best you can do, then you might as well just give it up.
 
what silliness-the liberals of the revolutionary period have far more in common with the libertarian right wingers than they do with they reactionary parasitic statists who claim to be "liberals" or "progressives" today. And I know I could out shoot you.
Anyone can claim to be anything that appeals to them but if someone doesn't have (and advocate) liberal values they aren't liberal, doesn't matter what you, they or anyone else says. And that fallacy, that the whole left can be called liberalism, is more exercised by rightists than leftists. How many times have you yourself called statists and socialists and authoritarians 'liberals'?
And I bet you could, too. You could also outshoot that, well, let's not go there. That esteemed member I was replying to.
 
And obviously that argument is just as stupid as it was the first time it was ever brought up. If the "nuclear wespons" argument is the best you can do, then you might as well just give it up.
Give up because say so!!!!! LOL
 
Hey, if we're nit-picking, the second amendment doesn't mention firearms at all. Your right to bear arms is satisfied with a Navy cutlass.
I know, I know, that's absurd, right? Just like tactical nuclear weapons is absurd in the other direction. The point is, nothing is absolute.
I'm refuting the argument that the constitution is supposed to interpreted for different eras, it is not supposed to be read that way. People will say that guns were only legal because of how low the fire rate and accuracy was and that automatic and semiautomatic weapons should be illegal. The leaders of the country were very aware of the prototypes of machine guns and spiral barreled rifles that were being developed, they had a good idea of where guns were going and some even lived long enough to see it start to come to fruition. I think we all understand that people should not own nuclear weapons but that is very different than denying someone from owning a semi-automatic Ar15.
The right to bear arms is not satisfied by a navy cutlass. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines the noun arm as "a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm."18 Black's Law Dictionary defines the word arms as "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon." You cannot deny ownership to firearms. Its pretty clear that they want Americans to be able to own firearms and form defensive militias to protect against tyranny. Its a amendment that directly speaks to Lexington and concord and the ability to hold arms.
 
Yes, Bob, I agree--which would take them out of the gun-owning crowd. So, I guess my comment didn't make much sense (as is usually the case).
Well then if they are locked up they won't have guns. Why penalize the legal, responsible gun owners for locked up criminals?
 
We can debate this forever. Nobody is changing their minds. Sort of like abortion.

Republicans have been telling us for decades that the democrats are going to take our guns. It hasn't happened yet. Don't really expect it to.

Now we once had an assault weapons ban. That actually came out of the Reagan administration along with the Brady bill.

I am a true gun loving democrat. I am not against rational gun laws. Background checks, all gun sales have to go through a FFL, close the gun show loophole which from my experience doesn't really exist. Frankly I don't believe any of that will change anything. Only us law abiding citizens follow the laws.

But I will say this. I will not accept a gun registration or confiscation. They come for my guns they better be ready to die. I am. I am old and don't much give a shit.
 
"If the 1st amendment applies to Radio, TV, and the Internet, and the 4th amendment covers electronic wiretapping and video surveillance, how can the 2nd amendment only apply to 18th century firearms technology?"
Hey now, does that mean I have get rid of my 19th century firearms, hey they said I could keep those. I feel used, maybe it would be better to not give them an inch...
 
We can debate this forever. Nobody is changing their minds. Sort of like abortion.

Republicans have been telling us for decades that the democrats are going to take our guns. It hasn't happened yet. Don't really expect it to.

Now we once had an assault weapons ban. That actually came out of the Reagan administration along with the Brady bill.

I am a true gun loving democrat. I am not against rational gun laws. Background checks, all gun sales have to go through a FFL, close the gun show loophole which from my experience doesn't really exist. Frankly I don't believe any of that will change anything. Only us law abiding citizens follow the laws.

But I will say this. I will not accept a gun registration or confiscation. They come for my guns they better be ready to die. I am. I am old and don't much give a shit.
Are you willing to pay thousands annually in taxes?
 
Still wrong, that is the same as calling Nazis Socialist Left-wingers, based on the word Socialist in their title, they were niether.
They are Bombs, did you know large amounts of explosive material is used to activate the device itself, no I doubt that you do. They are not Arms, period.
 
Still wrong, that is the same as calling Nazis Socialist Left-wingers, based on the word Socialist in their title, they were niether.
They are Bombs, did you know large amounts of explosive material is used to activate the device itself, no I doubt that you do. They are not Arms, period.
What difference does it make in the conversation about weapons? Nuclear weapons are the ultimate arm/bomb/explosive/gun/weapon/WMD. They are aimed, they fly through the air, and they destroy whatever they impact. They are an existential threat. Instead of saying "Hey guys, this is ****ing stupid beyond all belief," the US keeps and keeps "investing" in nuclear weapons. Therefore, other countries do the same.

It directly parallels guns. You know why so many people believe they need a gun? Because they know the America is awash in guns. "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight."
 
...

Republicans have been telling us for decades that the democrats are going to take our guns. It hasn't happened yet. Don't really expect it to.

...

But I will say this. I will not accept a gun registration or confiscation. They come for my guns they better be ready to die. I am. I am old and don't much give a shit.
What's the point in saying you'll kill and/or be killed if you have to register or hand over certain guns or even all guns?

The two parts of your comment that I quoted are contradictory.
 
Let's start with the ultimate invalid argument, the 2A. Many pro-gun people reflexively default to "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." The 2A is infringed upon, and rightly so. If you disagree, then you are for an absolutely unrestricted right to any and all guns for any and all Americans. Therefore, you should also take on absurd positions such as: death row prisoners should have unrestricted rights.

Why doesn't the US have a simple, national gun registry? It seems like such a simple thing to do. Hell you could create a Google Doc for that. (just kidding).

But seriously, it would solve a lot of problems.
 
Why doesn't the US have a simple, national gun registry? It seems like such a simple thing to do. Hell you could create a Google Doc for that. (just kidding).

But seriously, it would solve a lot of problems.
There are two videos by Vice (or Vox?) that do a decent job of showing the attitudes of some gun owners in Canada and America.

In Canada they said they don't even think of guns as being for self-defense.

Here's the one on Canada:


This isn't the one I'm thinking of for America, but ...:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom