• 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!

Minority Rights

And for all you know the number of home made guns in those countries could be much higher.

And the moon made of cheese

Stick to what you know and can substantiate



Did you see the videos I linked? People are already making homemade guns with 3D printers and by other means....

In what quantity ?

Most home made guns in the UK use deactivated guns or replica guns - or parts of
If LE deems this presents a real issue, ban them too


So now you're an expert on homemade guns?

Nope, it's what the evidence says (and reflected in the number of home made guns made i countries where they're illegal)


So you agree that going around seizing guns would be too big a task for US law enforcement.

No


The number of armed citizens by far outnumbers the police and armed forces, that's how they would stand up against a modern army.


Like the number of victims of killed in the holocaust far exceeded the number of men killing them.

The silent majority counts for nothing.


Maybe you can explain how an armed citizenry has ever prevailed against an army ?
Please stay more current that the 18th century.
 
And the moon made of cheese

Stick to what you know and can substantiate
I'll do that if you do it.

In what quantity ?
Obviously everybody who makes such guns isn't going to announce it to the world so such a quantity would be unknown.

Most home made guns in the UK use deactivated guns or replica guns - or parts of
If LE deems this presents a real issue, ban them too
You don't need deactivated or replica guns to make homemade guns, you can get all the necessary supplies at a hardware store.

Nope, it's what the evidence says (and reflected in the number of home made guns made i countries where they're illegal)
You keep asking me to present evidence, now lets see you present evidence of this claim of yours.

Like the number of victims of killed in the holocaust far exceeded the number of men killing them.

The silent majority counts for nothing.
The victims of the holocaust weren't armed.


Maybe you can explain how an armed citizenry has ever prevailed against an army ?
Please stay more current that the 18th century.
There hasn't been any modern examples of an armed citizenry going up against an army.
 
I'll do that if you do it.

Please advise if there's anything you require evidence for


Obviously everybody who makes such guns isn't going to announce it to the world so such a quantity would be unknown.

So it could be a negligible quantity ?


You don't need deactivated or replica guns to make homemade guns, you can get all the necessary supplies at a hardware store.

Where is your evidence of this ?


You keep asking me to present evidence, now lets see you present evidence of this claim of yours.

Police seizures in the UK of homemade guns.

I found a news story that said in 2012 over 8,000 firearms possession - I can't find any of seizures pf home made guns

Wild West Britain: Terrifying arsenal of 24 firearms seized by police in just one month | Daily Mail Online


Another news story reports that guns bought in Belgium can be sold for 4 times that in the UK, so the gun ban must be working and again no mention of home made guns being seized/smuggled/made.


'I've used this gun 10 times': More firearms seized than ever before | UK News | Sky News




The victims of the holocaust weren't armed.


Sometimes they were and it did no good

Soviet partisans were and so was the famous French Resistance and again it did no good in the face of a real tyranny


There hasn't been any modern examples of an armed citizenry going up against an army.


Probably because no group of armed citizens wanted to be wiped out.

How about the Viet Kong in the Tet offensive? They were virtually wiped out too.
 
Speaking of military decentralisation, there’s an interesting debate in history about the degree to which we are dependent on great army leaders versus the average soldier:

Great man theory - Wikipedia

I think an increasingly decentralised military might lead to an improved separation of powers.
 
Speaking of military decentralisation, there’s an interesting debate in history about the degree to which we are dependent on great army leaders versus the average soldier:

Great man theory - Wikipedia

I think an increasingly decentralised military might lead to an improved separation of powers.




But not very good at fighting wars or gaining financial advantages through economics of scale.
 
Speaking of military decentralisation, there’s an interesting debate in history about the degree to which we are dependent on great army leaders versus the average soldier:

Great man theory - Wikipedia

I think an increasingly decentralised military might lead to an improved separation of powers.

We simply need good plans.
 
The right wing should have acknowledged they really just wanted to practice being tyrants and built new Castles to show off with. Does anyone believe the native population would have been able to hold out or launch any serious military offensives in that case?
 
The right wing should have acknowledged they really just wanted to practice being tyrants and built new Castles to show off with. Does anyone believe the native population would have been able to hold out or launch any serious military offensives in that case?

Explain.

Native population, military offensives ?
 
Rich2018: “ But not very good at fighting wars...”

Ancient Greece actually had a drastic version of decentralisation in the form of city-states:
“... Another reason city-states formed, rather than a central, all-encompassing monarchy, was that the Greek aristocracy strove to maintain their city-states’ independence and to unseat any potential tyrants.”

Greek City-States
| National Geographic Society


Rich2018: “...financial advantages through economics of scale.”

I suppose a military could try to find a balance between both federal and local elements.
 
Rich2018: “ But not very good at fighting wars...”

Ancient Greece actually had a drastic version of decentralisation in the form of city-states:


Ancient Greece wasn't a country so no, there was no policy or deliberate de-centralization

Merely that city states rose before the nation state. De-centralization is a modern term to explain how a sovereign entity can be governed


I suppose a military could try to find a balance between both federal and local elements.


How ?

A large military will equip its soldiers the same, OK there might be some minor uniform variation but the expensive stuff is standardized (boats, tanks, planes, guns etc)
 
"Sniping is usually aways done with rifles. Its done from a great distance with a rifle that has a scope, not with a shotgun and certainly not with a handgun. If your concern is about sniping than your focus should be on long range rifles".
-DebateChallenge

A sniper is just one example of a surprise attack. My concern is about the reaction time a civilian would have if a criminal pulled a gun on them. One cannot dodge an actual bullet! There are less lethal types of ammunition such as a pellet gun. A civilian might potentially have the ability to return fire after being hit by such a weapon from a criminal. They're clearly still very dangerous weapons. But a civilian could have a 'second strike capacity' which would deter many would-be criminals.
 
"Sniping is usually aways done with rifles. Its done from a great distance with a rifle that has a scope, not with a shotgun and certainly not with a handgun. If your concern is about sniping than your focus should be on long range rifles".
-DebateChallenge

A sniper is just one example of a surprise attack. My concern is about the reaction time a civilian would have if a criminal pulled a gun on them. One cannot dodge an actual bullet! There are less lethal types of ammunition such as a pellet gun. A civilian might potentially have the ability to return fire after being hit by such a weapon from a criminal. They're clearly still very dangerous weapons. But a civilian could have a 'second strike capacity' which would deter many would-be criminals.

And you don't need a scope or fore from a great distance to be a "sniper"

You don't even need a rifle:

sniper pistol - Google Search
 
Waddy: “...EVERY government on the planet is based on the use of force.
And do they always enforce only good laws? Of course not; history shows us they can also enforce bad laws. Were Jim Crow laws enforced?
And any time the National Guard is called out to maintain order; like Katrina, they will use force if necessary.
If you would rather believe the state is based on some version of flower power to enforce it's wishes, then go ahead. But it just ain't so. As Mao said, "power comes from the barrel of a gun". True now and always“.

The right to disobey illegal orders doesn’t only apply to a private disobeying their captain. It includes generals and entire battalions refusing orders from their head of state as well.

“ Although normally nobody is allowed to refuse the president's order, in practice, generals would expect a good explanation for the strike - and would be obliged to say "no" to an illegal order”.

- Can US generals say 'no' to Trump if he orders a nuclear strike? - BBC News
 
Waddy: “...EVERY government on the planet is based on the use of force.
And do they always enforce only good laws? Of course not; history shows us they can also enforce bad laws. Were Jim Crow laws enforced?
And any time the National Guard is called out to maintain order; like Katrina, they will use force if necessary.
If you would rather believe the state is based on some version of flower power to enforce it's wishes, then go ahead. But it just ain't so. As Mao said, "power comes from the barrel of a gun". True now and always“.

The right to disobey illegal orders doesn’t only apply to a private disobeying their captain. It includes generals and entire battalions refusing orders from their head of state as well.

“ Although normally nobody is allowed to refuse the president's order, in practice, generals would expect a good explanation for the strike - and would be obliged to say "no" to an illegal order”.

- Can US generals say 'no' to Trump if he orders a nuclear strike? - BBC News

"Political power comes from the barrel of a gun" - attributed to Mao Zedong


One thing he got right.
 
Flogger: “Indeed. If knives and cutting implements were deemed that lethal guns would never have been invented.”

I think banning close-combat weapons would be hard to enforce as knives are already legal inside your home. One would have to put metal detectors everywhere and frisk search everyone outside their house. I don’t think that would be feasible. Unfortunately a criminal could use any blunt object or tool as a weapon.

Also, these weapons might give weaker people a slightly increased chance if the ever were confronted with a truly lethal attacker. Close combat weapons give an inordinate advantage to whoever manages to strike their opponent first as the resulting injury would be severe. This might result in a more random and probabilistic outcome. A weaker victim could capitalise on this. A stronger aggressor would invariable beat them in an unarmed conflict.
 
Flogger: “Indeed. If knives and cutting implements were deemed that lethal guns would never have been invented.”

I think banning close-combat weapons would be hard to enforce as knives are already legal inside your home. One would have to put metal detectors everywhere and frisk search everyone outside their house. I don’t think that would be feasible. Unfortunately a criminal could use any blunt object or tool as a weapon.

Also, these weapons might give weaker people a slightly increased chance if the ever were confronted with a truly lethal attacker. Close combat weapons give an inordinate advantage to whoever manages to strike their opponent first as the resulting injury would be severe. This might result in a more random and probabilistic outcome. A weaker victim could capitalise on this. A stronger aggressor would invariable beat them in an unarmed conflict.

You can't ban knives, they're just too essential in lots of trades and professions


You can ban people carrying them by insisting that they must have a reasonable reason for carrying one.
 
You can't ban knives, they're just too essential in lots of trades and professions


You can ban people carrying them by insisting that they must have a reasonable reason for carrying one.

Sure. Tightly controlled. Licensed. Registered. Background checks and mandatory training.
 
But firearms are not necessary and there is no good reason for carrying one*


Unless you're on your way to/from a hunt/sporting completion and your firearm is securely locked away in your vehicle.

Back to that absolutely crippled argument, eh?
 
But firearms are not necessary and there is no good reason for carrying one


Unless you're on your way to/from a hunt/sporting completion and your firearm is securely locked away in your vehicle.


The only reason to own a firearm is for recreation.

Proof of your claims?
 
But firearms are not necessary and there is no good reason for carrying one


Unless you're on your way to/from a hunt/sporting completion and your firearm is securely locked away in your vehicle


The only reason to own a firearm is for recreation. Gun owners don't want to admit it but it's true
I suppose you could argue a second reason, that of improving their self image.
 
But firearms are not necessary and there is no good reason for carrying one


Unless you're on your way to/from a hunt/sporting completion and your firearm is securely locked away in your vehicle


The only reason to own a firearm is for recreation. Gun owners don't want to admit it but it's true
I suppose you could argue a second reason, that of improving their self image.

That (bolded above) is ridiculous and you know it - the 2A says absolutely nothing about recreation. Do police officers (on/off duty) carry guns for recreation or just to improve their self image?
 
That (bolded above) is ridiculous and you know it - the 2A says absolutely nothing about recreation. Do police officers (on/off duty) carry guns for recreation or just to improve their self image?

I was meaning privately owned firearms

And yes, I am aware that some police depts give officers an allowance to buy their own gun, but they shouldn't IMO
Law enforcement should be like the military, they should issue guns on a temporary basis only.
 
How to stop a sniper like Stephen Paddock? Police sharpshooters firing from helicopters is one idea - Los Angeles Times
“Keeter is a guitarist for the Josh Abbott Band. Hours before Jason Aldean's show was shattered by gunfire and bullets rained on a crowd of some 22,000 people, Keeter had played on the same stage... And despite having their own weapons, they were unable to defend themselves.
"We actually have members of our crew with CHL [concealed handgun license] licenses, and legal firearms on the bus," Keeter said. "They were useless. We couldn't touch them for fear the police might think that we were part of the massacre and shoot us."”
- Las Vegas Massacre Prompts Musician To Call For Gun Control: 'Enough Is Enough' : The Two-Way : NPR

Sadly this horrific event shows utterly ineffective handguns are against snipers.

“A night-watchman state or minarchy is a model of a state that is limited and minimal, whose only functions are to act as an enforcer of the non-aggression principle by providing its citizens with the military, the police and courts, thereby protecting them from aggression, theft, breach of contract, fraud and enforcing property laws.”
-Wikipedia

The bare minimum role of a government is to at least fulfill the defensive needs of its citizens. This is regardless of any economic and social policies. Otherwise there would be anarchy due to criminals or indeed the threat of foreign invasion. No individual can ever single-handedly dismantle a tyranny. They’d be wholly outnumbered. People must instead use democratic procedures to prevent tyranny in the military and, by extension, the government.

“The Nazi gun control argument is a belief that gun regulations in the Third Reich helped to facilitate the rise of the Nazis and the Holocaust.”
-Wikipedia

I think adequate representation of minorities and political opponents within the military along with hate speech laws would help prevent evil regimes. Hitler’s rise to power underscores the need for democratic safeguards more so than arming any civilians.
 
Back
Top Bottom