• 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!

Progressives: Would you support a complete gun ban? What about self defense?

ModerationNow! said:
Would you support Americans being forced to give up all guns to the government?
Click to expand...

Well I'm not a progressive but the answer is no, no, no and no

It will never work in this country.
 
joG said:
Why that? Nazis, Maoists and Soviets were all statists and at their time they were progressives of the worst kind. ;)
Click to expand...

Nazis = "progressives"
Stalinists = "progressives"
Maoists = "progressives"

LOL.
 
Redress said:
If you really think a bunch of gun nuts are stopping the government from doing anything, that is just silly. This is the real world, your wanting to still play cowboys and indians is kinda irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It is logistically impossible to "ban" hundreds of millions of guns... see Checkerboard Strangler's post.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Really? Then why is it that places like the UK have laws against "hate speech" where as in the US people have the Right to say "hate speech"? How long do you think the 1st Amendment would last if the government was not kept in check by the Populace?
Click to expand...

I have been saying this same thing all along.

See folks,.............. we are doing fine without the second, now lets take a closer look at the 1st.
 
Kobie said:
Nazis = "progressives"
Stalinists = "progressives"
Maoists = "progressives"

LOL.
Click to expand...

To read the press from back then you will have to go to the library, but that was the story, when they were young.
 
Redress said:
If you really think a bunch of gun nuts are stopping the government from doing anything, that is just silly. This is the real world, your wanting to still play cowboys and indians is kinda irrelevant.
Click to expand...

You are completely out of touch with a lot of Americans. There is still a very strong mindset of personal freedom in most parts of America. Not everyone lives and thinks like a metrosexual.
 
joG said:
To read the press from back then you will have to go to the library, but that was the story, when they were young.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
 
Kobie said:
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
Click to expand...

It is very simple. The three ideologies were considered progressive and were so described with the conservatives being decried in much the same way as they are now. To see this, one needs to read the literature as it was published at that time. As much of the discussion was in the newspapers that are now only available in libraries, you will have to go to the library to appreciate that those ideologies were considered progressive.
 
ModerationNow! said:
Would you support Americans being forced to give up all guns to the government? If so, how would they protect themselves against criminals who WONT give up their guns? Do you see any potential legal issues involved with denying a basic constitutional right?
Click to expand...

Professional criminals generally don't shoot their guns at normal straight people. They don't want all the fuss that it will attract. It's the idiot nutters and general sado fools who get a gun and try robbing people to buy drugs etc. Because they are chaotic at best fools they are the ones who are dangerous. It's also them that will be unable to get a gun if it's hard to get hold of.
 
joG said:
It is very simple. The three ideologies were considered progressive and were so described with the conservatives being decried in much the same way as they are now. To see this, one needs to read the literature as it was published at that time. As much of the discussion was in the newspapers that are now only available in libraries, you will have to go to the library to appreciate that those ideologies were considered progressive.
Click to expand...

Considered by who?
 
legalimmigrant said:
Why ban guns? What is the objective? Would that be it? A quote:

United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010.

In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

Why ban guns? Ask Australia....since our two countries are more similar....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/world/australia/australia-gun-ban-shooting.html
 
Abbazorkzog said:
It is logistically impossible to "ban" hundreds of millions of guns... see Checkerboard Strangler's post.
Click to expand...

Which has exactly nothing to do in any possible way with what I wrote. Reading Is Fundamental.
 
RetiredUSN said:
You are completely out of touch with a lot of Americans. There is still a very strong mindset of personal freedom in most parts of America. Not everyone lives and thinks like a metrosexual.
Click to expand...

Why is it no one is replying to what I wrote? Is it non sequitur night?
 
Moot said:
Why ban guns? Ask Australia....since our two countries are more similar....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/world/australia/australia-gun-ban-shooting.html
Click to expand...

first and foremost other countries never really sell me on gun issues. I would never even consider doing gun bannings in this country until there was proof that about 95% of the illegal guns were gone.

next, Gun deaths went down over a decade in australia?. . .well thats not really a shock at all, if we ban cars car deaths will go down . .

but where the LOGICAL and HONEST concern is, and this is a honest question where are the charts on crimes and gun crimes:

assault
assault with a gun
rape
armed robbery
burglary
theft
etc

Id be very interested to see what happened with them.
 
Moot said:
Why ban guns? Ask Australia....since our two countries are more similar....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/world/australia/australia-gun-ban-shooting.html
Click to expand...

AGENT J said:
first and foremost other countries never really sell me on gun issues. I would never even consider doing gun bannings in this country until there was proof that about 95% of the illegal guns were gone.

next, Gun deaths went down over a decade in australia?. . .well thats not really a shock at all, if we ban cars car deaths will go down . .

but where the LOGICAL and HONEST concern is, and this is a honest question where are the charts on crimes and gun crimes:

assault
assault with a gun
rape
armed robbery
burglary
theft
etc

Id be very interested to see what happened with them.
Click to expand...

I looked up two just real quick, assault and rape

figure_16.png

Screen-Shot-2016-01-27-at-8.48.31-AM-900x609.jpg
Australian Institute of Criminology - Assault

odd they both end in 07, guess its possible the rates have come back down but again I think this makes my point.

For me personally i couldnt care less if gun deaths drop (which would be obvious) if assaults, rapes and other crimes climb . . .
 
AGENT J said:
I looked up two just real quick, assault and rape

View attachment 67202898

View attachment 67202899
Australian Institute of Criminology - Assault

odd they both end in 07, guess its possible the rates have come back down but again I think this makes my point.

For me personally i couldnt care less if gun deaths drop (which would be obvious) if assaults, rapes and other crimes climb . . .
Click to expand...

You should've read the link I provided...it has charts. But I agree, I don't think a complete gun ban would work here. I wouldn't even want to try. The point of posting that was to show that after Australia banned guns...they've had zero mass killings since 1996. Whereas before they had many.
 
Redress said:
So you are not even going to try and make a relevant, coherent point. This does not surprise me.
Click to expand...

Why should I bend over backwards for someone who perennially insults me? Point out a single response to me by you that hasn't been an insult.

You gotta give someone incentive to respect you, you can't just flail about and demand it like a three-year-old.
 
Redress said:
If you really think a bunch of gun nuts are stopping the government from doing anything, that is just silly. This is the real world, your wanting to still play cowboys and indians is kinda irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Funny, I seem to remember a bit of history where civilians did stop governments. Like it or not, the government is not all powerful. That is the fact of the real world.
 
Kobie said:
Raw numbers mean little without comparisons to relative population.
Click to expand...

Those weren't just raw numbers in that link. As the link points out:

The trend in assaults shows an average growth of five percent each year from 1995 to 2007, four times the annual growth of the Australian population in the same period.
Click to expand...
 
Kal'Stang said:
Funny, I seem to remember a bit of history where civilians did stop governments. Like it or not, the government is not all powerful. That is the fact of the real world.
Click to expand...

You mean over 200 hundred years ago, before there was ever a second amendment, against a government not even on the continent, in the age of sails? LoLz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom