• 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 intellectual dishonesty of the Incrementalists [W:79]

I'm glad you focused on one issue and didn't broadly paint anyone who believes in some reasoned controls as one who is calling for a complete ban. On this issue I agere. I don't think a 10 round magazine limit is right in anyway; we should be entitled to the same protections as a police officer or other government agent.

I don't however agree with libertarian pro gun advocates that want to hand semi autmotic rifles off to those who "just did their time" and are some how now suppose to be trusted with firearms. I don't agree that a non gun owner can't wait 3 days or even 5 or 7 days for their first firearm so we can make sure they are legally allowed to own one and won't walk out of the store seconds after buying it and kill themselves or others. I think its fine to regulate fully automatic weapons and silenced weapon as they are EXCEPT that I think new permits should be issued each year - this freeking arbitrary limit to the existing number of "Federal Stamps" is pathetic.

The gun advocates need to prove to those on the fence and with no interest in controls one way or another that they believe in public safety and measures to insure as few criminals as possible will possess firearms. Irrresponsible comments around this place about everyone getting to enjoy everything (that's what the second says) is pathetic and deserving of condemnation.


Every few weeks we get an anti gun poster who whines about normal capacity magazines which are normally 15-17 rounds for modern defensive handguns and 20-30 rounds for "Military" or militia style rifles. These antis claim that say 10 rounds are OK but 15 are not.

Other than the obvious fact that these restrictionists are unlearned as to what is normally used by police, they pretend that they have the expertise to draw lines which of course is a stepping stone (look at Cuomo in NY) to less and less and less.


The fact is, these restrictionists have to claim that normal law abiding citizens can be trusted with 10 rounds but not 15 or 20-an argument that is impossible to support. They also have to argue that we citizens who are not police officers, are less entitled to self defense then our public servants.

when You see a gun restrictionist make this argument you know you are dealing with someone who doesn't trust you to own any weapon but they understand the political ramifications of calling for a complete ban now
 
I'm glad you focused on one issue and didn't broadly paint anyone who believes in some reasoned controls as one who is calling for a complete ban. On this issue I agere [sic]. I don't think a 10 round magazine limit is right in anyway; we should be entitled to the same protections as a police officer or other government agent.

I don't however agree with libertarian pro gun advocates that want to hand semi autmotic [sic] rifles off to those who "just did their time" and are some how now suppose to be trusted with firearms. I don't agree that a non gun owner can't wait 3 days or even 5 or 7 days for their first firearm so we can make sure they are legally allowed to own one and won't walk out of the store seconds after buying it and kill themselves or others. I think its fine to regulate fully automatic weapons and silenced weapon as they are EXCEPT that I think new permits should be issued each year - this freeking arbitrary limit to the existing number of "Federal Stamps" is pathetic.

The gun advocates need to prove to those on the fence and with no interest in controls one way or another that they believe in public safety and measures to insure as few criminals as possible will possess firearms. Irrresponsible [sic] comments around this place about everyone getting to enjoy everything (that's what the second says) is pathetic and deserving of condemnation.

Living in California, you cannot possibly have avoided seeing how the sort of “reasonable” restrictions that you support and defend are routinely expanded to unreasonable degrees, and outright abused. To continue to defend these sort of violations of the Second Amendment puts you on the side of our enemies, on the side of criminals, tyrants, and corrupt government officials, and against the side of the American people.

It takes an unimaginable degree of naïvety, and trust in a government that has proven beyond any doubt that it cannot be trusted, to believe that the restrictions that you think will keep guns out of the hands of those who you think should not have them (even though they will do no such thing) will not eventually be turned against you and used to deny you your Second Amendment rights. These measures are not promoted by those who have our safety or our best interests in mind; they are promoted by those who want eventually to deny to as many of us as possible the rights which the Second Amendment affirms that we all have.

People like you, who are willing and eager to give up parts of our rights in the false hope that by doing so, our enemies will be persuaded to leave along those parts that you do not surrender, are as harmful to our cause as those who outright admit that they want to eliminate our right to keep and bear arms. We're not going to lose this right all at once, and our enemies know this. We are losing it a bit at a time, and it is in large part because of those of you who willingly surrender it a bit at a time.
 
Last edited:
And idiots that push the extreme limits of gun ownership like I have pointed out put ALL our rights at greater risk. The fact you are naive and fail to recognize this is the greatest risk we have to maintaining our free society. Shameful for one that pretends he's for keeping our rights - purely and simply SHAMEFUL and in every respect pathetic.

In fact I often think the ultra left would play this game - come on a forum and pretend to be so moronic as to suggest we should hand assault weapons to past felons, ignore common sense and ask those who don't have a single firearm to their name for a responsible check into their history, and ignore the reality of protecting our society from idiots that will do it harm. The libertarian extremist view that these reasoned obstructions are some how violations to the goal of our constitution to the pursuit of happiness is a comlete failure and why libertarians enjoy about 1% of the public's total vote, have ZERO elected congressmen and ZERO elected senators in this United States. That extremist point of view I think is often brought upon these forums by extreme leftist to divded those with an ounce of common sense and reality.


Living in California, you cannot possibly have avoided seeing how the sort of “reasonable” restrictions that you support and defend are routinely expanded to unreasonable degrees, and outright abused. To continue to defend these sort of violations of the Second Amendment puts you on the side of our enemies, on the side of criminals, tyrants, and corrupt government officials, and against the side of the American people.

It takes an unimaginable degree of naïvety, and trust in a government that has proven beyond any doubt that it cannot be trusted, to believe that the restrictions that you think will keep guns out of the hands of those who you think should not have them (even though they will do no such thing) will not eventually be turned against you and used to deny you your Second Amendment rights. These measures are not promoted by those who have our safety or our best interests in mind; they are promoted by those who want eventually to deny to as many of us as possible the rights which the Second Amendment affirms that we all have.

People like you, who are willing and eager to give up parts of our rights in the false hope that by doing so, our enemies will be persuaded to leave along those parts that you do not surrender, are as harmful to our cause as those who outright admit that they want to eliminate our right to keep and bear arms. We're not going to lose this right all at once, and our enemies know this. We are losing it a bit at a time, and it is in large part because of those of you who willingly surrender it a bit at a time.
 
Every few weeks we get an anti gun poster who whines about normal capacity magazines which are normally 15-17 rounds for modern defensive handguns and 20-30 rounds for "Military" or militia style rifles. These antis claim that say 10 rounds are OK but 15 are not.

Other than the obvious fact that these restrictionists are unlearned as to what is normally used by police, they pretend that they have the expertise to draw lines which of course is a stepping stone (look at Cuomo in NY) to less and less and less.

The fact is, these restrictionists have to claim that normal law abiding citizens can be trusted with 10 rounds but not 15 or 20-an argument that is impossible to support. They also have to argue that we citizens who are not police officers, are less entitled to self defense then our public servants.

when You see a gun restrictionist make this argument you know you are dealing with someone who doesn't trust you to own any weapon but they understand the political ramifications of calling for a complete ban now

So the only restriction that you accept is the limitiation of the possibilities of technology?

Μολὼν λαβέ;1062112725 said:
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I believe is what he's stating. (Which is a rational argument based on citizens' rights acknowledged by the US Constitution.)

That and those who worship big brother are inclined to disagree.

I do not understand your post as a reply to my question

I interpreted TD's post for you after you responded to it with an unrelated, irrelevant question. Sorry you didn't understand my post, however TD did because he gave me a like for it. I'm sure everyone else here understood it too.
 
It's "law abiding citizens" that have committed the most mass killings. That is, rampages where large clips were used. This is a strawman argument. There is no way to determine which law abiding citizen will snap, when or why. That is the argument of the left. And it's accurate. However, constitutionally they can't take arms afforded to average infantry. So... another path must be found. Crime must be reduced. If it isn't, the left will eventually win the argument, alter or ignore the constitution, and it's game over.

The bold that you stated is actually 100% incorrect. My proof:

http://www.caps.ku.edu/~caps/askstaff/snapping.shtml

Your question is an excellent one and one that other people might struggle with as well. Although when someone breaks down emotionally, it may seem like they just snapped all of the sudden; the reality of the situation is that, most likely, there were certain life stresses and strains which came to bear on the individual for some time prior to the break down.

The Pentagon Shooting: They Don

Reports are now painting a picture of a man who sank deeply into mental illness and anti-government rants. As is often the case, the family tried to get him help that he apparently refused to accept. Bedell was diagnosed as bipolar, and had been in and out of treatment programs for years. His psychiatrist, J. Michael Nelson, told the Associated Press that Bedell tried to self-medicate with marijuana, inadvertently making his symptoms more pronounced. "Without the stabilizing medication, the symptoms of his disinhibition, agitation and fearfulness complicated the lack of treatment," Nelson said. The AP reported that his parents had contacted authorities in Hollister, CA weeks ago to warn that he was unstable and might have acquired a gun.

A simple google search of "Do people snap?" revealed the above results and more, so I will provide the link:

https://www.google.com/search?q=do+...e.0.57j0l3j62.2877j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

It IS possible to predict. So whenever someone makes the argument of "What if they snap?" Inform them that people don't snap. That is why the argument SHOULD have been about mental health care from the start. But as we know...there isn't enough room for political football in that debate...and no points to gain. So that is why there is talk of "gun control."
 
It's "law abiding citizens" that have committed the most mass killings. That is, rampages where large clips were used. This is a strawman argument. There is no way to determine which law abiding citizen will snap, when or why. That is the argument of the left. And it's accurate. However, constitutionally they can't take arms afforded to average infantry. So... another path must be found. Crime must be reduced. If it isn't, the left will eventually win the argument, alter or ignore the constitution, and it's game over.

I have to say that it's a very narrow view of the issue to focus on mass killings. Most violence in this country isn't due to mass killings, it's just regular old violence due to gang wars or moments of blood lust. With that in mind, reducing clip size has essentially no effect on reducing the death rate for the average crime. There should never be an advantage to being an average criminal vs an average citizen, which is why I'm against such a ban. A criminal should always have atleast a small voice in the back of their head saying, "Hey, he might have a bigger gun than me, is this a good idea?".

We need to focus on the most typical crime, not the rarest, and we need to focus on using psychology to reduce crime, not physical force.
 
It's "law abiding citizens" that have committed the most mass killings. That is, rampages where large clips were used. This is a strawman argument. There is no way to determine which law abiding citizen will snap, when or why. That is the argument of the left. And it's accurate. However, constitutionally they can't take arms afforded to average infantry. So... another path must be found. Crime must be reduced. If it isn't, the left will eventually win the argument, alter or ignore the constitution, and it's game over.

that's moronic. Lanza was a criminal who had committed capital murder before he shot up the school. The minute you obtain a weapon with the INTENT of committing a crime you are in violation of felony laws. Crime is diminishing while arms are increasing. IN the end we might have to kill those who would take our rights. But that of course was the purpose behind the second amendment. 75-85% of all murderers are committed by those who have records (Juvenile records are hard to factor due to the fact they are usually sealed). an almost equal percentage of those murdered have such records. The guy who killed the firefighters in NY already had a murder rap.
 
The ones that parrot people like Mayor Bloomberg.

Someone appears to be ignoring reality. Cuomo et al constantly whine about "high capacity magazines" which of course is a term like "assault weapon"
 
If my living situation was troubling enough to feel compelled to own an assault rifle I would move. Why be miserable? Or dose cuddling up to an M-16 every night make for some great wet dreams?
 
If my living situation was troubling enough to feel compelled to own an assault rifle I would move. Why be miserable? Or dose cuddling up to an M-16 every night make for some great wet dreams?

Maybe it's all you've ever known.

Maybe you have a crazy idea about improving the place rather than fleeing.

Maybe you can't afford to move, but you already had the gun.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062114146 said:
I interpreted TD's post for you after you responded to it with an unrelated, irrelevant question. Sorry you didn't understand my post, however TD did because he gave me a like for it. I'm sure everyone else here understood it too.

Of course he did. What else did you expect?

Argumentum ad Populum is a fallacy. You may want to avoid it in the future.
 
If my living situation was troubling enough to feel compelled to own an assault rifle I would move. Why be miserable? Or dose cuddling up to an M-16 every night make for some great wet dreams?

And other people might choose not to move. Just because you can't understand, that doesn't make their reasons any less valid.
 
Of course he did. What else did you expect?

Argumentum ad Populum is a fallacy. You may want to avoid it in the future.

I expected you would understand the OP as everyone else does who reads it without trying to derail it. I guess I expected too much.
 
Of course he did. What else did you expect?

Argumentum ad Populum is a fallacy. You may want to avoid it in the future.

actually his argument is well reasoned and appropriate
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062114509 said:
I expected you would understand the OP as everyone else does who reads it without trying to derail it. I guess I expected too much.

Which has what to do with my post or your comment on it?
 
actually his argument is well reasoned and appropriate

He made no argument - well reasoned or otherwise - about the content he was replying to other than invoking Argumentum ad Populum - a fallacy. Perhaps that explains why you would look kindly upon it as you yourself have employed that same fallacy quite often.
 
He made no argument - well reasoned or otherwise - about the content he was replying to other than invoking Argumentum ad Populum - a fallacy. Perhaps that explains why you would look kindly upon it as you yourself have employed that same fallacy quite often.

I don't find your debate "rules" to have any relevance to my reality and thus your attempts to apply your rules to my world is as silly as say an Imam telling the Pope that the Latin Mass is not a proper devotional to Allah
 
I don't find your debate "rules" to have any relevance to my reality and thus your attempts to apply your rules to my world is as silly as say an Imam telling the Pope that the Latin Mass is not a proper devotional to Allah

I learned the rules in two years of competitive intercollegiate debate. They are not mine.
 
I learned the rules in two years of competitive intercollegiate debate. They are not mine.

:lamo OMG! Now THAT must be a joke!
 
:lamo OMG! Now THAT must be a joke!

Tell you what Chris. A cool thousand plus my continued existence here against the same for you says the joke will be on you if you doubt what I just stated as fact.


Ready?
 
Tell you what Chris. A cool thousand plus my continued existence here against the same for you says the joke will be on you if you doubt what I just stated as fact.


Ready?

Yup. Bring it old timer. :2razz:
 
I learned the rules in two years of competitive intercollegiate debate. They are not mine.

They do not apply here any more than the Rules of the Yale Political Union. This place is called Debate Politics and the only rules that matter are those set forth by the guy who owns this place and those he has delegated such power to.
 
They do not apply here any more than the Rules of the Yale Political Union. This place is called Debate Politics and the only rules that matter are those set forth by the guy who owns this place and those he has delegated such power to.

I did not realize that this place was called POMPOUS PERSONAL PONTIFICATIONS?
 
Back
Top Bottom