• 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!

The Hypocrisy of Gun Nuts

I don't think they need a gun registry or gun licensing in America. I do think that it should be illegal to sell someone a gun without doing background checks on them. Things will slip through the cracks, and guns will show up that we have no idea who sold to whom, but that's just how it is sometimes.
That is already the law. All sales from a FFL (dealer) or private sales that cross state lines require a Federal background check. The Federal government cannot legally regulate intrastate private party sales, that is rightfully the provenance of the respective state governments and some do require background checks.
I do think there should be a tax on ammo. If you want to shoot it at the range you bought it at, no tax. Take it home, that should be taxed. Maybe a 50% tax.
There is already an 11% tax on all ammo and firearms sold in the U.S. (Pittman-Robinson Excise Tax). 50% is outrageous.
They should also think about restricting more gun types. Currently there are restrictions on full auto and on shotgun barrel length. I think they need a few more restrictions, maybe based on reload speed and gun mass.
Full auto is legal. Short barreled shotguns and rifles are legal. Just different checks.

Define reload speed. Do you want to ban all magazine fed firearms?

It seems like you are throwing things against the wall based on common misconceptions about existing laws.
 
Do you think saying that five times makes it less idiotic than if you say it once?
You have yet to answer. What part of being in a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, do you not understand?
 
Is the Second Amendment only for militia?
Except for military and police, yes.
A 5–4 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia.
The Court was wrong. The Court is fallible as we have seen them reverse earlier decisions.
 
Read the constitution (if you learned to read while you were in an indoctrination center) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand???? And the 1st 10 amendments of the constitution are called The Bill of Rights, so, in short, Gun ownership is a right...... And when the defecation contacts the rotary oscillator in this country (it's no longer an IF but a WHEN), cowards will be hiding behind people like me to protect your sorry asses.
It has nothing to do with your what a constitution says. My argument wa about how the supreme court has interpreted the constitution. My argument went way over your head
 
Except for military and police, yes.
Wrong.
The Court was wrong. The Court is fallible as we have seen them reverse earlier decisions.
Every case were the 2A has been addressed by SCOTUS going back almost 150 years (1876) has reiterated that the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service.
 
It is crazy watching Gun Nuts be fine with people needing a driving license, register their car and even the have to take test to drive, but that just about anybody can stroll in and buy a gun, no license, no registration, no test. It is amazingly hypocritical and the counter argument will be, "golly gee though, huk huk huk... it is a right". No it isn't. It is just what a few guys wrote down 250 years ago. Speach is a Right. Religion (believing what you want) is a Right. Reporting on things and the government is a right. Owning a weapon designed to kill people is not a Right.

I adamantly oppose driving licenses, car registrations, or any thing else of that nature.

If you really believe you can walk into a store and walk out with a gun, or that the gun you buy won't in fact be registered then you're an ignoramus.

Our Rights actually exists outside of the Constitution, the document merely delineates that the federal government may not oppress them. That means that the right to self defense and ownership of the means to do so are in fact....rights, regardless of what any government might say. They may repress but they do not revoke.

In short, you wrote 3 lines of complete and utter bullshit

I give you an F- for knowledge and a zero for effort.
 
Some animals are more equal than others?
Twisted thinking.
I guess you also think that politicians and celebrities should be allowed armed security but not the unwashed masses.
"I guess you also think... " Pathetic retort with no substance and no purpose other than to project a shadow of your own making to criticize. What do they call it? A
Snap 2024-07-18 at 09.41.59.webp
 
Is what these people do with their weapons considered murder according to any reasonable person or law?
I used the term "killing."

poppopfox said:
People make up members of the military, yes?
You are claiming that those people have guns for not killing?
Hunters are people too, yes?
Is it safe to say their purpose in having guns is not killing?
 
Back to bot speak, I suppose.

Give us your argument as to why the problematic part of firearms out-weigh the benefits, as is considered with other consumer items.
You can look at the data and see that thousands of deaths occur yearly from firearms.
 
That's absolutely false. The police and the military are apparatuses that make the country safe they do so with the application of firepower.
Not really. Most firearm discharges are done by civilians, not LE.
If they didn't make you safer why would you spend any money at all on police and military?
The arming of police is an entirely different issue from, and unrelated to, easy civilian access to firearms.
 
Wrong.
Every case were the 2A has been addressed by SCOTUS going back almost 150 years (1876) has reiterated that the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service.
So what? They also affirmed slavery and segregation. They are wrong about this as well.
 
I live in a state with high firearm prevalence and very low homicide rste
Explain the” consequences”.
We have been over this endlessly in other threads. You choose to disregard the evidence and focus on outliers rather than looking at the overall American firearm experience.
 
You can look at the data and see that thousands of deaths occur yearly from firearms.

Now quantify the benefits and show us the proof of your claim.
 
Wrong.

So what? They also affirmed slavery and segregation. They are wrong about this as well.
It does not occur to gun nuts that Constitutional 2A judgments have changed over the years, not through enlightenment, but by introduction of personal political bias. No gun nut talks about Rahimi. Why?
 
Now quantify the benefits and show us the proof of your claim.
Explain the justification for 100,000 deaths and injuries yearly from firearm and you will have your answer.
If you do not understand the statistics, you will never understand the problem.
 
We have been over this endlessly in other threads. You choose to disregard the evidence and focus on outliers rather than looking at the overall American firearm experience.

There's no such thing as an "overall American firearm experience". The firearm experience is radically inconsistent from place to place.
 
I adamantly oppose driving licenses, car registrations, or any thing else of that nature.

If you really believe you can walk into a store and walk out with a gun, or that the gun you buy won't in fact be registered then you're an ignoramus.

In the United States, not all firearms need to be registered. While federal law requires the registration of certain firearms, such as machine guns and silencers, the majority of firearms do not need to be registered at the federal level.

There is no universal, national gun registry or federal license required to own a gun, and the vast majority of states don’t require registration or licensing.

LOL 😂 LOL


Our Rights actually exists outside of the Constitution, the document merely delineates that the federal government may not oppress them.
My comment inferred that.
That means that the right to self defense and ownership of the means to do so are in fact....rights, regardless of what any government might say. They may repress but they do not revoke.
Where did I say otherwise?
In short, you wrote 3 lines of complete and utter bullshit

I give you an F- for knowledge and a zero for effort.
It is an analogy that you failed to address... your grading means nothing.
 
Explain the justification for 100,000 deaths and injuries yearly from firearm and you will have your answer.
If you do not understand the statistics, you will never understand the problem.

You can't quantify the benefits, I suppose.

Therefore, your claim is rejected as being something you imagined.
 
But all transactions at an FFL go through a background check. Why should it take longer?
In the United States, not all firearms need to be registered. While federal law requires the registration of certain firearms, such as machine guns and silencers, the majority of firearms do not need to be registered at the federal level.
And this is a good thing.
There is no universal, national gun registry or federal license required to own a gun, and the vast majority of states don’t require registration or licensing.
Yup, this is a good thing.
LOL 😂 LOL


My comment inferred that.

Where did I say otherwise?

It is an analogy that you failed to address... your grading means nothing.
 
Back
Top Bottom