• 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!

Sunny Hostin: 'I feel like a hostage' to assault rifle owners

Tlrmln said:
She's an idiot. Her chances of being killed by "an assault rifle owner" are infinitesimal. If she wants to feel like a real hostage, someone should tell her about the revolving prison door, which allows rapists to walk free in less time than she probably wants to put people in jail for having an 11-round pistol magazine.
Click to expand...
NOT A SINGLE US CITIZEN has ever been murdered by an Assault rifle in the hands of a private US citizen NOT ONE
 
calamity said:
I agree. It's time to put the well-regulated militia part back in the Second. This rampant private ownership of assault weapons is ridiculous. There is no need for people to have National Guard like arms.
Click to expand...
not a single leading constitutional scholar, nor has the supreme court EVER held that. There is no need for citizens to have word processors or internet access when we have a "free press"
 
RF667799 said:
You're referring to laws about the use of vehicles on public streets and highways.

Guess what. There are lots of laws about the use of guns. Unless you can show where someone has argued they should be allowed to use a gun in any manner they please, such as shooting out streetlights or hunting squirrels in the city park; you're just flailing away at a false analogy.
Click to expand...

Why aren’t all those laws restrictions flagrant infringements on the 2nd amendment? There are already laws about vandalizing property like breaking street lights. Why would you need special laws about using a gun to do it? Guns are constitutionally protected. Driving is not.
 
Rich2018 said:
Bearing and keeping is, using isn't.
Click to expand...

Nuclear arms are a type of arms. The constitution does not specify what types of arms should be banned from being born and used. Any restrictions being placed have been put by liberal court justices intent on whittling away at the second amendment. They’re all a slippery slope to completely getting rid of our God-given right altogether.
 
ataraxia said:
Why aren’t those restrictions flagrant infringements on the 2nd amendment? Guns are constitutionally protected. Driving is not.
Click to expand...

You wish to change your argument from "Regulate guns like cars" to "Gun rights are unfettered"? Okay.

Seems to me, that a right to keep and bear arms doesn't say that the use can't be regulated. For about the most obvious example, there is no right to murder someone with a gun within the right to keep and bear. Likewise, there is no right to shoot out my neighbor's windows though I should be able to shoot out my own, I suppose. Is anyone other than you arguing in support of such actions?
 
CLAX1911 said:
To govern traffic on the roadway.

You don't use firearms on the roadway.

I don't know why you're having trouble understanding this.
Click to expand...

You’re mixing analogies. You don’t drive a rifle, and you don’t pull the trigger on a car. They’re both potentially hazardous tools whose use, like all potentially hazardous tools, can get pretty heavily regulated- and for legitimate reasons I think we can both understand.

Now if you want to tell me that the particular case of guns is different because it is constitutionally protected, that’s fine. That’s a valid argument.

What you have to say then is not that it is safer to have these dangerous tools completely free and unregulated, but that it is dangerous and the rest of us just have to suck it up and pay for your freedom with our blood on a routine basis.


I don't know why you're having trouble understanding this.
 
RF667799 said:
You wish to change your argument from "Regulate guns like cars" to "Gun rights are unfettered"? Okay.

Seems to me, that a right to keep and bear arms doesn't say that the use can't be regulated. For about the most obvious example, there is no right to murder someone with a gun within the right to keep and bear. Likewise, there is no right to shoot out my neighbor's windows though I should be able to shoot out my own, I suppose. Is anyone other than you arguing in support of such actions?
Click to expand...

There is no right to run people over with a car either. There are already laws against that. So why do we need any other traffic laws?
 
Rich2018 said:
Absolutely, nothing demonstrated this more than the Jan 2020 demonstration in Richmond, Va where perhaps 10,000 gun owners terrorized a small town's residents

And the Jan 6th insurrection riot when (admittedly unarmed but many in the same kind of military clothing) the RW tried to usurp the lawfully elected government.
Click to expand...
should we ban military clothing too because of how it makes you feel?
 
ataraxia said:
Why aren’t all those laws restrictions flagrant infringements on the 2nd amendment? There are already laws about vandalizing property like breaking street lights. Why would you need special laws about using a gun to do it? Guns are constitutionally protected. Driving is not.
Click to expand...

Ah, you edited your post.

Yes, I see no need for special laws about shooting out street lights vs breaking them with rocks...except a case could be made for reckless, wanton endangerment or the like. I see no special law needed for murdering someone with a gun vs murdering someone with a chainsaw.

The 2nd is intended to restrain the government from taking guns away from the general population; not to license murder, vandalism, or mayhem when those are committed with guns.
 
Rich2018 said:
Remove restrictions to make them equal to semi-automatic rifles, and that will change.
Click to expand...
how so-that is contrary to reality. There are millions upon millions of such rifles in circulation. The 1934 NFA was an attempt at a de-facto ban on a firearm that was rarely offered for sale in a time when the country was in its worst depression
 
ataraxia said:
There is no right to run people over with a car either. There are already laws against that. So why do we need any other traffic laws?
Click to expand...
we have thousands of laws on preventing how you can use a firearm. sort of akin to laws against speeding etc
 
ataraxia said:
There is no right to run people over with a car either. There are already laws against that. So why do we need any other traffic laws?
Click to expand...

Running someone over with a car doesn't fall into the category of traffic laws. Traffic laws regulate the use of vehicles on public roadways, ostensibly to provide an orderly flow of traffic, and factually to provide a source of revenue for the state. That's likely the case with some gun laws, as well.

If you are going to try to argue that because something is done then something is rightly done, you probably will have to abandon that argument shortly.
 
RF667799 said:
Running someone over with a car doesn't fall into the category of traffic laws. Traffic laws regulate the use of vehicles on public roadways, ostensibly to provide an orderly flow of traffic, and factually to provide a source of revenue for the state. That's likely the case with some gun laws, as well.
Click to expand...

Right. So why not get rid of them all. Just don’t shoot people or run them over- that seems to be the most laws we need.

Besides, big nanny government doesn’t even stop there. It’s not just about regulating traffic flow. They regulate what types of cars are considered street legal. They regulate what type of people can drive them, like they’ve banned blind people, people with a recent history of seizures, and even Alzheimer’s patients. It seems they will stop at nothing to provide revenue for the state. Crazy tyrannical liberals. It’s all a slippery slope to their final goal: to institute their vision of a tyrannical communist utopia, where we will all have to salute a statue of Stalin every morning.
 
RF667799 said:
Ah, you edited your post.

Yes, I see no need for special laws about shooting out street lights vs breaking them with rocks...except a case could be made for reckless, wanton endangerment or the like. I see no special law needed for murdering someone with a gun vs murdering someone with a chainsaw.

The 2nd is intended to restrain the government from taking guns away from the general population; not to license murder, vandalism, or mayhem when those are committed with guns.
Click to expand...

Guns are no different than any other potentially hazardous tool. Left unregulated and trivialized, it’s just a matter of time before the “potential” becomes reality.
 
ataraxia said:
You’re mixing analogies. You don’t drive a rifle, and you don’t pull the trigger on a car. They’re both potentially hazardous tools whose use, like all potentially hazardous tools, can get pretty heavily regulated- and for legitimate reasons I think we can both understand.
Click to expand...
Traffic laws have to do with traffic. This isn't a phenomenon that occurs with fire arms.
Now if you want to tell me that the particular case of guns is different because it is constitutionally protected, that’s fine. That’s a valid argument.
Click to expand...
Guns are different because they aren't operated on the roadway like cars are.
What you have to say then is not that it is safer to have these dangerous tools completely free and unregulated, but that it is dangerous and the rest of us just have to suck it up and pay for your freedom with our blood on a routine basis.
Click to expand...
Is dangerous not to have traffic regulations. Traffic regulations apply to the roadway.

There isn't an analogous equivalent to the roadway for fire arms.

I don't know why you're having trouble understanding this.
Click to expand...
Because traffic laws apply to the roadway. There isn't an analogous equivalent to the roadway with firearms.
 
ataraxia said:
Nuclear arms are a type of arms. The constitution does not specify what types of arms should be banned from being born and used. Any restrictions being placed have been put by liberal court justices intent on whittling away at the second amendment. They’re all a slippery slope to completely getting rid of our God-given right altogether.
Click to expand...
A nuclear weapon produces ionizing radiation. Just being near it can kill you.
 
ataraxia said:
Right. So why not get rid of them all. Just don’t shoot people or run them over- that seems to be the most laws we need.
Click to expand...
traffic laws aren't there to stop you from intentionally running people over there to control your behavior on the roadway so that you drive in a manner that is safe.

There's no equivalent to the roadway with firearms.
Besides, big nanny government doesn’t even stop there. It’s not just about regulating traffic flow. They regulate what types of cars are considered street legal. They regulate what type of people can drive them, like they’ve banned blind people, people with a recent history of seizures, and even Alzheimer’s patients. It seems they will stop at nothing to provide revenue for the state. Crazy tyrannical liberals. It’s all a slippery slope to their final goal: to institute their vision of a tyrannical communist utopia, where we will all have to salute a statue of Stalin every morning.
Click to expand...
It's because the roadway is a shared space and being on it in a vehicle necessarily endangered everyone else on it.

There isn't an equivalent to the roadway with firearms.
 
ataraxia said:
Right. So why not get rid of them all. Just don’t shoot people or run them over- that seems to be the most laws we need.

Besides, big nanny government doesn’t even stop there. It’s not just about regulating traffic flow. They regulate what types of cars are considered street legal. They regulate what type of people can drive them, like they’ve banned blind people, people with a recent history of seizures, and even Alzheimer’s patients. It seems they will stop at nothing to provide revenue for the state. Crazy tyrannical liberals. It’s all a slippery slope to their final goal: to institute their vision of a tyrannical communist utopia, where we will all have to salute a statue of Stalin every morning.
Click to expand...

Is there a coherent point in that mess?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom