• 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!

"No one wants to ban your guns"

A symbolic bill that will go nowhere.
 

Turtle, I can tell you right now that there is a growing sentiment among Americans that when they hear that slippery-slope argument, they're going to have a one-word response: So? So what if legal private ownership of guns becomes next to impossible. That doesn't sound too bad to them. You know full and well that they'd produce half a dozen developed nations that have very strict gun laws off the top of their heads, and only a fool would call those nations tyrannical. (Hint: Socialism =/= tyranny, no matter how loudly some people say otherwise.)

Where do I personally stand? Not sure yet, but I can assure you, the no guns = tyranny argument comes across as fearmongering to me, no matter how much your boy James Madison may have said otherwise. He's been dead for over two centuries and times have changed.
 

why cannot gun banners be honest and admit their incremental schemes are steps towards gun bans.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
why cannot gun banners be honest and admit their incremental schemes are steps towards gun bans.
Click to expand...

Some of them are. Some of them aren't. I don't know what percent is what. But again, for those who still don't mind private ownership of guns, your accusation is just going to incite more of them to want precisely that.
 
St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia
March 23, 1775.

MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

-continued-
 
-from above-

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
A symbolic bill that will go nowhere.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but the point remains...there is a solid segment of society that does want to ban guns...despite public claims to the contrary.


Actually socialism does equate to tyranny...one dreaded as "The Majority"; since it pushes for the collective over the individual, wealth redistribution by taxing those with more heavily to pay for things for those with less, expects equality of outcome rather than opportunity, and conformity, conformity, conformity.

How do they expect to enforce this among those who disagree? Disarm everyone except the State police forces.

No...IMO the growing sentiment is due to socialists and progressives taking over the education system and teaching our kids to be drones.

Hopefully I'll be long dead before our "new society" progressives are successful in removing an individual's right to keep and bear REAL arms.
 
Last edited:
Ban all semi autos. Collect them from federal agents in the the FBI BLM Secret Service protecting Democratic party representatives first etc.... If that pilot program goes good we can expand it to include republican protecties and their families. Then after that trial period onto state and local poilce. If the program still has support and has shown a significant decrease In gun viplance after a year or so from the time the last police gun was confiscated then I will hand mine over gladly as the last gun collected. Untill then I'll keep em clean oiled and loaded just in case.
 
jimbo said:
Hopefully.
Click to expand...

Even demorats not in safe, solid blue districts will not join this show. Why give your opponent campaign ad material showing you to be a full tilt gun banner for the sake of a bill that had zero chance of becoming law?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Maybe, but the point remains...there is a solid segment of society that does want to ban guns...despite public claims to the contrary.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see how many of those folks would still support the Bill once constituents voice their displeasure between proposal and execution
 
Phys251 said:
Some of them are. Some of them aren't. I don't know what percent is what. But again, for those who still don't mind private ownership of guns, your accusation is just going to incite more of them to want precisely that.
Click to expand...


It goes both ways. Folks like me who are open to more controls on the who what when of gun ownership see these purposed bans and run towards the leave my guns alone crowd.
 
Phys251 said:
Some of them are. Some of them aren't. I don't know what percent is what. But again, for those who still don't mind private ownership of guns, your accusation is just going to incite more of them to want precisely that.
Click to expand...

if you think banning some guns will keep criminals from getting them, aren't you going to believe banning more guns will mean even less guns for criminals?
 

Nah, it's the old cosmetic based ban.

https://www.scribd.com/document/372469353/Assault-Weapons-Ban-of-2018#fullscreen&from_embed

I did go to Cicilline's FB page and asked, if we needed to "pass sensible legislation to get these weapons of war off our streets" and since “Assault weapons were made for one purpose,” Cicilline said in a statement. “They are designed to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time. They do not belong in our communities" why he carved out an exemption for the police to carry and use these weapons of war that are designed to kill as many people in a short amount of time, and especially why did he specially give campus police the power to carry these.

No response yet.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons
 

My bright line solution-anything civilian police have in firearms, other civilians should be able to freely own. if you don't want civilians owning "assault weapons" then police shouldn't have them either
 
calamity said:
I'd only ban men from owning them
Click to expand...


With the 10 or so genders floating around would you just ban them from people who identify as cis gender straight males only?
 
Chillfolks said:
With the 10 or so genders floating around would you just ban them from people who identify as cis gender straight males only?
Click to expand...

No. I'm good with a "dick with balls test."
 
calamity said:
No. I'm good with a "dick with balls test."
Click to expand...


I'm thinking that's not exactly true, but too lazy to ge back over some bathroom bill threads to prove you're full of ****. I'll just make do with my opinion on the amount of **** your full of.
 
Chillfolks said:
I'm thinking that's not exactly true, but too lazy to ge back over some bathroom bill threads to prove you're full of ****. I'll just make do with my opinion on the amount of **** your full of.
Click to expand...

Dude, I spent 18 months arguing that issue with CC. I'm basically a Dick & Balls defines you kind of guy.
 
TurtleDude said:
if you think banning some guns will keep criminals from getting them, aren't you going to believe banning more guns will mean even less guns for criminals?
Click to expand...

You seem to be assuming that I believe that the relationship is linear and uniform. That certainly isn't the case. For example, a major reason for Chicago's gun violence is the ease at which anyone can drive to nearby Gary, Indiana, buy a gun there, and then return to Illinois. Compare that with LA, which is a three-hour drive from the gun-happy state of Arizona. It is my understanding that year after year, LA has quite a lower murder rate than does Chicago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…