• 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.

Mexico's "second amendment" contributes to it's high crime rate

And the U.S. Is limited to what the ATF and SCOTUS allows. You can't get an automatic weapon or sawed off shotgun as easily as a small caliber handgun.

The OPs primary argument stands, at least in the eyes of sane people.

Baloney. The fact you need to engage in pouty condescension gives away your lack of game. If you want to sign on to the OP's witless and dishonest assertion, knock yourself out.
 
Just be quiet, you have no clue. The ATF is not part of the second amendment and neither is SCOTUS, there is no "unless otherwise contested" provision in the second amendment and if you doubt me then read it again. The ATF is less than a century old, whereas the second amendment is over two centuries old, doubt me? Don't care, do the research and then the math. SCOTUS gave itself legal purview BTW, Marbury v. Madison, they have about as much constitutional authority as granted as the Chicago Blackhawks, and about the same track record of success as the Chicago Cubs.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Your position that SCOTUS has no Constitutional authority is noted.

I will now go on to summarily dismiss all your future posts.
 
Thanks for the thoughts.

Your position that SCOTUS has no Constitutional authority is noted.

I will now go on to summarily dismiss all your future posts.

might as well-you constantly reject anything that makes sense when it comes to gun issues

but adopting the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" leads you to support some of the most idiotic posts this forum has ever seen. So far, you appear to be the ONLY poster who supports the baiting nonsense coming from LN
 
might as well-you constantly reject anything that makes sense when it comes to gun issues

but adopting the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" leads you to support some of the most idiotic posts this forum has ever seen. So far, you appear to be the ONLY poster who supports the baiting nonsense coming from LN

Probably because everyone else has fled this awful section.

I'm actually quite sensible when it comes to this topic. Some here wouldn't recognize sensible if it hit them in the forehead like a .44 Magnum hollow point.
 
And the U.S. Is limited to what the ATF and SCOTUS allows. You can't get an automatic weapon or sawed off shotgun as easily as a small caliber handgun.

The OPs primary argument stands, at least in the eyes of sane people.

This is such nonsense.

#1 The ATF does not limit anything. They enforce laws, they don't make them.
#2 SCOTUS Interprets law, they don't again make law.
#3 You can not get a fully automatic weapon or sawed off shotgun easily is true, but it's not hard. You do realise they have pistols chambered for 7.62x51, .223 and many other rifle rounds.

The OP's primary argument is hogwash and shows no understanding of US law. You response shows you don't know a true small bore weapon vs a hole in the ground. In other words you know little about weapons in general.
 
Probably because everyone else has fled this awful section.

I'm actually quite sensible when it comes to this topic.

Not really.

Some here wouldn't recognize sensible if it hit them in the forehead like a .44 Magnum hollow point.

Please stop trying to use weapon metaphors you know nothing about. It just makes you sound like a bad movie.
 
Thanks for the thoughts.

Your position that SCOTUS has no Constitutional authority is noted.

I will now go on to summarily dismiss all your future posts.
Actually, it does because it is based off of constitutional law, you're dismissed.
 
Thank you for being the voice of reason. It is clear, from the solid, undeniable, beyond a reasonable doubt proof I have provided that when a population has a "right to bear arms," and weak gun laws like Mexico has, then there will be very high gun crime

Demanding_chang is that you?
 
Thank you for being the voice of reason. It is clear, from the solid, undeniable, beyond a reasonable doubt proof I have provided that when a population has a "right to bear arms," and weak gun laws like Mexico has, then there will be very high gun crime

Where does the Mexican constitution grant a right to bear arms?
 
Mexico, like the US, has the "right to bear arms" in it's constitution.

Like the US, it has a higher than average gun ownership rate. Mexico's is 14 per 100, which means that for every five people, there is a privately owned gun.

And like the US, it has extremely high gun crime rates.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/mexico

One thing is clear from these facts. A nation which puts "the right to bear arms" in it's constitution will be a nation with extremely high murder rates

Mexico has a strict gun control policy
Guns are Illegal in Mexico | U.S. Consulate General Tijuana, Mexico

The desire for our gun laws be more like Mexicos is so American guns don't illegaly wind up in Mexico
Mexico
 
you can't even do basic math. 14 in 100 is 1 in 7, not one in 5, altho of course, lots of kids <18 skew the numbers.
 
All crminals drink water. America drinks water. Water causes crime in America.

#logik

perfect example of causation without correlation.
 
stop lying. few can own guns legally in Mexico. The onerous restrictions are well known. I was a member of a US shooting team. Even traveling to Mexico to shoot at the Benito Juarez games under the Auspices of the ISSF is an onerous proposition. you are lying about the statistics as well. "higher than average" compared to what? and that includes mainly ILLEGAL guns.

and yes, Mexico is constantly cited as one of the major failures of gun control preventing violent gun crime

Really? One of the major failures of gun control? Or a victim of being a country between the producers of drugs (and producing loads of the crap themselves) and the biggest importer of that poison in the Western World (aka the USA).

I would say that being a drug producing/transporting country, combined with the gangs that go with that disgusting trade and an ample stock of illegal arms from sources largely to the north of them in a country where gun purchases are no problem.

So I would say that it is the United States (without it planning or desiring to do so) is the main reason that the gun control in Mexico fails so miserably, rather than the premise of gun control itself.
 
Really? One of the major failures of gun control? Or a victim of being a country between the producers of drugs (and producing loads of the crap themselves) and the biggest importer of that poison in the Western World (aka the USA).

I would say that being a drug producing/transporting country, combined with the gangs that go with that disgusting trade and an ample stock of illegal arms from sources largely to the north of them in a country where gun purchases are no problem.

So I would say that it is the United States (without it planning or desiring to do so) is the main reason that the gun control in Mexico fails so miserably, rather than the premise of gun control itself.

Lolz and the guns were responsible for nazi violence in the netherlands!
 
Lolz and the guns were responsible for nazi violence in the netherlands!

Yes, with the Nazi that were attached to them. Just like in Mexico it is the drug dealers that are making loads of money from smuggling the poison to their customers (US drug addicts) that use those illegal weapons for death and destruction.
 
Yes, with the Nazi that were attached to them. Just like in Mexico it is the drug dealers that are making loads of money from smuggling the poison to their customers (US drug addicts) that use those illegal weapons for death and destruction.

Is it the inanimate object or the person thats to blame?
 
Is it the inanimate object or the person thats to blame?

One cannot be seen as totally independent from the other. Without that inanimate object the drug dealers would not be able to shoot and kill so many people, be stronger and better armed than the regular police and be able to cause terror against the local population.
 
One cannot be seen as totally independent from the other. Without that inanimate object the drug dealers would not be able to shoot and kill so many people, be stronger and better armed than the regular police and be able to cause terror against the local population.

I asked you a simple question-who's to blame-the inanimate object or the fascist?
 
I asked you a simple question-who's to blame-the inanimate object or the fascist?

your question is not a simple one, as you well know so I will stand by my earlier given answer.
 
Did the k-98 mauser cause WW2?

Did it invade your homeland?

No. But without weapons the Germans could have not invaded my country. As said, it is not a simple question at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom