• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

M14 v Nifty


Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Jul 13, 2006
Reaction score
Political Leaning
Niftydrifty’s closing remarks, part three of three

M14 Shooter said:
Why are conservatives so opposed to gun control?
Not only do conservatives think gun control is only effective at disarming law abiding citizens, not criminals who obviously can't be expected to follow the rules, we also believe the 2nd Amendment gives us the constitutional right to be armed. Because of that, conservative opposition to gun control is a given.
While I point to opinion polls and data, M14 Shooter points to how the political scene seems to appear to somebody. Most Conservatives supported the assault weapon ban.

niftydrifty said:
It’s really unbelievable to me that M14 Shooter can confuse the term “modern firearm” with the term “weapon.” The poll he talks about mentions nukes.
M14 Shooter said:
My opponent fails to notice that there are other classes of weapons noted in the polls, all of which have to do with various – indeed, all – kinds of firearms, modern and otherwise. Why my opponent thinks the inclusion of nukes into the poll is relevant, one can only guess.
I was hoping M14 Shooter could tell me about the nukes. It was his inclusion, not mine. While I have responded to M14 Shooter’s previous post point-by-point, omitting nothing, M14 Shooter omits the parts of my post that are devastating to his arguments. He left this out:
niftydrifty said:
M14 Shooter is trying to connote the debatepolitics.com population with the US population. The percentages of political opinions represented at debatepolitics.com do not in any way resemble the opinions of most Americans.
This renders the DP poll irrelevant to our discussion here. I already pointed that out. It’s lost on M14 Shooter

M14 Shooter said:
The point of this poll, of course, is that there is –obviously—some degree of ideological disparity regarding who believes what firearms are covered by the 2nd, contrary to his claims. Please note the results of the poll:

But what “poll” is this? This isn’t a poll at all. It’s an excel chart put together by none other than DP’s Goobieman. Where did the data come from? Is it any surprise that in the great big wide “actual” world, M14 Shooter could find no clean data to support his point of view, but that M14 Shooter could find such data from a local partisan source, and not disclose the data upon which the chart is based? I’m not surprised.

M14 Shooter said:
From this, it is fair to say that liberals and Democrats are more restrictive on this issue, and conservatives and Republicans are less so. My opponent argues there is “generally a consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable), on the issue” that all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd. It appears this poll negates this claim. Please note too that this poll is specific regarding the classes of weapons protected by the 2nd, and does not simply ask whether or not ‘assault weapons’ should be banned.

So much for that “broad consensus” between the ideologies and the parties and the people of the United States.
Yes, I say so based upon real data about most people, not upon suspect data and excel charts created by partisan friends, and anecdotal examples.

M14 Shooter said:
That his entire argument here rests on that concept that there is such a consensus, and clearly no consensus exists, his entire argument that there is “no liberal side” ultimately fails. That there is no consensus indicates there is a difference of opinion from which he could indeed argue; rather than argue this difference of opinion from the liberal side, as he agreed he would, my opponent tried to run away from the debate by changing the subject.
What has actually happened, however, is that I have challenged M14 Shooter’s assertions about the gun debate in this country and the relevance of his topic. Again, M14 Shooter omits mention of repealing the second amendment.

M14 Shooter said:
So, to conclude: My opponent has continued to refuse to argue against the issue I presented, choosing instead to change the subject to something that I did not bring up but that he thought he could argue against.
I chose to stay true to the statements I made and that M14 Shooter agreed to. Everything I’ve said are my own opinions and are consistent with Liberalism.

M14 Shooter said:
My opponent has tried to redefine the argument into one of consensus between ideologies and parties in an attempt to show that there is no “liberal position” against mine, in an attempt to justify not arguing against my position – and since it has been demonstrated that there is no such consensus, both in terms of gun control in general, and what weapons are protected by the 2nd in specific, he has failed.
M14 Shooter’s position has been demonstrated using anecdotal evidence, quotes from the most extreme members of both parties, and selective data.

M14 Shooter said:
My opponent continues to argue against a position that I, myself, declared irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion, and thinks his efforts to that end have some meaning.
What I did say was that in so doing, M14 Shooter had mischaracterized the gun debate in this country. And M14 Shooter did do that, whether or not it was relevant to this discussion or not. It took a few rounds of back-and-forth for M14 Shooter to be reminded that the statement was even made. Please forgive me, M14 Shooter, for pointing out how you were wrong.

M14 Shooter said:
In the end, my opponent, knowing he can’t argue against my position, simply said “oh yeah, well I agree because there isn’t any argument against this”, and has since done everything he can to avoid addressing my argument. Each of the justifications he has used to avoid the argument have been shot down, while illustrating that there is, indeed an argument contrary to mine, leaving him with naught while still facing a position that he has yet to address in any meaningful way.
M14 Shooter assumes this is what I have done. My opinions stated here are my own. I won’t argue on behalf of the most extreme elements of Liberalism. I will argue on behalf of what my own beliefs are and (as I agreed to do) the beliefs of most people.

Despite agreeing to conclude the debate with his last post, I hope that M14 Shooter won’t drag it onward, now that his claims have again been demolished, and eke out of the agreement made, revealing himself to be a ... [insert M14 Shooter's favorite epithet here].

Here are a few key statements I previously made that M14 Shooter, for whatever reason, chose not to address:
• M14 Shooter has further confused the matter by mixing up “Liberalism” with any “position contrary to” his own.
• Most Conservatives disagree with Shooter. Does that make him a Liberal?
• “A number of people” is not most Liberals.
• There are much more contentious aspects to the gun debate.
• Links arguing against the idea of repealing the second amendment are evidence of a debate about appealing or not appealing the second amendment.
• I’d like to hear what M14 Shooter thinks the author does believe the second amendment covers, if it isn’t modern firearms.
• Most Conservatives are in favor of banning assault weapons, too.
• Most Democrats disagree with Ted Kennedy.
• The percentages of political opinions represented at debatepolitics.com do not in any way resemble the opinions of most Americans.
• Lobbying or advocacy groups tend to be more extreme than most people.

In addition, I made a great deal about there being more noise made about repealing the second amendment than there is about what the second amendment covers. After easily refuting M14 Shooter’s arguments about that, he let this aspect of the debate drop altogether. It appears that M14 Shooter hoped no one would notice.
Top Bottom