• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Please Stop Debating the Second Amendment Crowd.......

A

ArtemisBarca

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
2,280
Reaction score
297
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Not .0001% of Americans want a national ban and confiscation..

There is no army willing to go door to door taking all the guns..

It would start a civil war...

No politician in American history has ever even proposed a national ban/confiscation. As it would be political suicide to even suggest it..




So why is that the primary voting issue for half of republicans???? Well besides the propaganda crowd hyping up the sheeple..



BECAUSE THEY TAKE PEOPLE DEBATING THE HYPOTHETICAL EVENT WHERE A MAGIC GENIE MADE ALL THE GUNS DISAPPEAR, WOULD MAKE AMERICA SAFER, AS PROOF OF A VAST CONSPIRACY TO TAKE THEOR GUNS!!!!!

Well is that debate even worth having when there ain’t no F’n genies and the other party is going to take that as proof of a vast leftist Illuminati????

I kinda think the EXTREMELY bad arguments that could be example questions in a logical fallacy text book, are intentionally engineered to cause a debate when both people already agree on the fundamentals..

For example , probably the most common second amendment crowd talking point,

“Guns don’t kill people , people kill people...”

That could literally be the example question of a logical fallacy as it pretends ANYONE believes that guns float off the table solo and commit murders...


What if the logical fallacy part is intentional to fabricate a bad guy where there is none???


Say person X and Y both agree a national ban and confiscation is a bad idea, but X is a hard right conservatives just waiting for the government to come after his guns and Y is a moderate..

So When X says , “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and them Y starts to debate the logic of his statement, NOT the logic of the actual ban/confiscation.

X person then takes Y person debating the stupidity of his talking point, as him debating the deeper point of “banning all the guns”..


Abracadabra: a bad guy where there was none....













Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
To a law-abiding gun owner, any infringement on his/her right to possess a gun is unconstitutional and therefore against the law.

So yes, when people or lawmakers try to make it impossible for me to obtain a gun, then I believe that person is violating my rights, is evil, and needs to be stopped.
 
We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!
 
Fine, no debating. Can we still discuss a "Wolverines" scenario?
 
danielpalos said:
We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!
Click to expand...

Regulate gun lovers well.
 
SkyChief said:
To a law-abiding gun owner, any infringement on his/her right to possess a gun is unconstitutional and therefore against the law.

So yes, when people or lawmakers try to make it impossible for me to obtain a gun, then I believe that person is violating my rights, is evil, and needs to be stopped.
Click to expand...

So what law is preventing you from obtaining a firearm?
 
The second amendment crowd ranges from regular gun owners to the paranoid militia/ prepper types. Talking to the former can be interesting, but debating the latter is absolutely pointless. The government doesn't want your 20 year bucket of creamed chicken, Rambo.
 
ArtemisBarca said:
Not .0001% of Americans want a national ban and confiscation..

There is no army willing to go door to door taking all the guns..

It would start a civil war...

No politician in American history has ever even proposed a national ban/confiscation. As it would be political suicide to even suggest it..




So why is that the primary voting issue for half of republicans???? Well besides the propaganda crowd hyping up the sheeple..



BECAUSE THEY TAKE PEOPLE DEBATING THE HYPOTHETICAL EVENT WHERE A MAGIC GENIE MADE ALL THE GUNS DISAPPEAR, WOULD MAKE AMERICA SAFER, AS PROOF OF A VAST CONSPIRACY TO TAKE THEOR GUNS!!!!!

Well is that debate even worth having when there ain’t no F’n genies and the other party is going to take that as proof of a vast leftist Illuminati????

I kinda think the EXTREMELY bad arguments that could be example questions in a logical fallacy text book, are intentionally engineered to cause a debate when both people already agree on the fundamentals..

For example , probably the most common second amendment crowd talking point,

“Guns don’t kill people , people kill people...”

That could literally be the example question of a logical fallacy as it pretends ANYONE believes that guns float off the table solo and commit murders...


What if the logical fallacy part is intentional to fabricate a bad guy where there is none???


Say person X and Y both agree a national ban and confiscation is a bad idea, but X is a hard right conservatives just waiting for the government to come after his guns and Y is a moderate..

So When X says , “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and them Y starts to debate the logic of his statement, NOT the logic of the actual ban/confiscation.

X person then takes Y person debating the stupidity of his talking point, as him debating the deeper point of “banning all the guns”..


Abracadabra: a bad guy where there was none....













Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Uh, no.

It is encumbant on Y to explain why its ok to infringe the 2nd amendment rights of over 200,000,000 legal gun owners, in order to maybe prevent 100,000 criminal acts per year executed with the aid of fire arms.
 
jamesbyoung
Government has the right to regulate the militia.

danielpalos said:
How socialist.
Click to expand...

How constitutional, you mean!

And, Kevin Kohler, your false dichotomy above is noted.
 
jamesbyoung said:
jamesbyoung
Government has the right to regulate the militia.



How constitutional, you mean!

And, Kevin Kohler, your false dichotomy above is noted.
Click to expand...

Not a false dichotomy. Y makes a claim, demands action...

Y needs to explain that claim to mutual satisfaction, and backup the relative effectiveness of the suggested action.

That's called debating.

And for my personal spin on the subject, it would also behoove Y to learn at least a little bit about the subject they wish to govern.
 
Praxas said:
So what law is preventing you from obtaining a firearm?
Click to expand...

In California, I cannot (legally) receive a gift AR 10 from my brother who lives in Arizona, even though the AR-10 is fully compliant with existing California gun laws.

The 2nd Amendment protects my right to accept the gift rifle. California gun law violated my (protected) right to accept it.
 
SkyChief said:
In California, I cannot (legally) receive a gift AR 10 from my brother who lives in Arizona, even though the AR-10 is fully compliant with existing California gun laws.
Click to expand...

What specific law are you citing? Do you have a felony conviction?
 
Praxas said:
So what law is preventing you from obtaining a firearm?
Click to expand...

See these are the types of responses I think are valid, BUT ANY DEBATE that even humors the thought of a national ban . Is instantly taken as proof they wanna turn the frogs gay?!?

Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ArtemisBarca said:
Not .0001% of Americans want a national ban and confiscation..

There is no army willing to go door to door taking all the guns..

It would start a civil war...

No politician in American history has ever even proposed a national ban/confiscation. As it would be political suicide to even suggest it..




So why is that the primary voting issue for half of republicans???? Well besides the propaganda crowd hyping up the sheeple..



BECAUSE THEY TAKE PEOPLE DEBATING THE HYPOTHETICAL EVENT WHERE A MAGIC GENIE MADE ALL THE GUNS DISAPPEAR, WOULD MAKE AMERICA SAFER, AS PROOF OF A VAST CONSPIRACY TO TAKE THEOR GUNS!!!!!

Well is that debate even worth having when there ain’t no F’n genies and the other party is going to take that as proof of a vast leftist Illuminati????

I kinda think the EXTREMELY bad arguments that could be example questions in a logical fallacy text book, are intentionally engineered to cause a debate when both people already agree on the fundamentals..

For example , probably the most common second amendment crowd talking point,

“Guns don’t kill people , people kill people...”

That could literally be the example question of a logical fallacy as it pretends ANYONE believes that guns float off the table solo and commit murders...


What if the logical fallacy part is intentional to fabricate a bad guy where there is none???


Say person X and Y both agree a national ban and confiscation is a bad idea, but X is a hard right conservatives just waiting for the government to come after his guns and Y is a moderate..

So When X says , “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and them Y starts to debate the logic of his statement, NOT the logic of the actual ban/confiscation.

X person then takes Y person debating the stupidity of his talking point, as him debating the deeper point of “banning all the guns”..


Abracadabra: a bad guy where there was none....













Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...






How about we regulate guns (a well regulated militia) like we do cars? You register your gun and you need a valid license to operate it?

If you don't have a valid registration or license, the cops fine you, just like they do if you don't have a car registration and license.
 
SkyChief said:
In California, I cannot (legally) receive a gift AR 10 from my brother who lives in Arizona, even though the AR-10 is fully compliant with existing California gun laws.

The 2nd Amendment protects my right to accept the gift rifle. California gun law violated my (protected) right to accept it.
Click to expand...

That is no where near a ban and/or confiscation..

If the second amendment crowd had to fund raise on that because they were gonna actually be honest about what the other side was trying to do, there would be no NRA..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SkyChief said:
In California, I cannot (legally) receive a gift AR 10 from my brother who lives in Arizona, even though the AR-10 is fully compliant with existing California gun laws.

The 2nd Amendment protects my right to accept the gift rifle. California gun law violated my (protected) right to accept it.
Click to expand...

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
 
swing_voter said:
How about we regulate guns (a well regulated militia) like we do cars? You register your gun and you need a valid license to operate it?

If you don't have a valid registration or license, the cops fine you, just like they do if you don't have a car registration and license.
Click to expand...

That would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

All citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. It plainly states this in the 2nd Amendment.

The government shall not infringe (tax, license, restrict) on this right.
 
SkyChief said:
That would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

All citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. It plainly states this in the 2nd Amendment.

The government shall not infringe (tax, license, restrict) on this right.
Click to expand...

Since people kill people with guns, regulate the gun crazes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom