• 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 regulation free alternative

Ok, how would you frame the discussion?

Because just saying: bill of rights says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon; is not sufficient argument when you're dealing with legislative proposals that don't ban or don't "infringe" upon that right.

Having to pass some sort of test(like a background check), some sort of an exam, is not infringement... it's common sense.

First off, I agree. Just like you can't yell fire in a movie theater, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun with the intent to commit a crime. We age restrictions on alcohol use. We could do the same with firearms. If the right to vote requires registration and a valid id, then I think you would have an argument for doing the same with firearms.
 
First off, I agree. Just like you can't yell fire in a movie theater, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun with the intent to commit a crime. We age restrictions on alcohol use. We could do the same with firearms. If the right to vote requires registration and a valid id, then I think you would have an argument for doing the same with firearms.
You dont have a right to vote. You have a right to own a firearm.
 
True. I was trying to frame the discussion away from things not in the constitution. Thanks for the catch.

But you cannont frame gun ownership away from the constitution. You cannot compare it to owning a car, or voting.
If we did not have the 2A, we would have no legal gun ownership in this nation. Period.
 
But you cannont frame gun ownership away from the constitution. You cannot compare it to owning a car, or voting.
If we did not have the 2A, we would have no legal gun ownership in this nation. Period.

Yup, that is my point.
 
But you cannont frame gun ownership away from the constitution. You cannot compare it to owning a car, or voting.
If we did not have the 2A, we would have no legal gun ownership in this nation. Period.

Let me go one deeper. I am trying to show that because gun ownership is protected by our Bill of Rights and should only have the same restrictions to as we do to our other rights. See where we are going?
 
Let me go one deeper. I am trying to show that because gun ownership is protected by our Bill of Rights and should only have the same restrictions to as we do to our other rights. See where we are going?

Then you understand the threats that come with losing the 2A.
 
I would note the okinawan martial arts weapons systems were a reaction to this disarmament by the Japanese overlords and turned FARM implements into weapons

Nunchaku-Rice Flail
Bo-The staff
Kama-the rice sickle
Tonfa-the rice grinder
Sai-an implement for planting rice

all turned into effective weapons against sword armed samurai

Absolutely correct the samurai were given the right to dispatch.... which they enjoyed with some enthusiasm. Japan's firearms industry the largest in the world at the time was decimated.

Japan another gun control success where people cannot fart without governments permission or knowledge and +80% of crimes are solved by "confession". Police brutality even if clearly visible is not a reason to ignore a "confession".

Hands up those who support gun control lets see the destroyers of the world because they would rather believe the BS of gun control rather than check a few facts. Japanese citizens feel so safe they want to commit suicide.
 
All rights are lost.

Yep that is correct but who understands gun control is not about guns....

So instead they are protecting the guns and giving their rights away agreeing that some gun control is good because some idiot told them gun control wants the guns. Come and get them they say not get the f... off my rights or you will be looking for another job.

If the founding fathers thought the 2A was divisible why the heck did they put in "shall not be infringed"?

Does nobody ask themselves these questions and get damn annoyed when politicians trample our rights? Do we prefer to appease politicians and gun control by giving up our rights? Looks like it.
 
In my opinion, this is a big problem for folks who wish to ban guns of any type, or any accesory.
The Illicit Arms Trade
This link shows black markets have already been established to meet the demand by people who either can't get firearms, or people who want guns, magazines, suppressors, ect. which have already been banned. If you banned Semi-auto rifles, and/or high-cap mags what makes you think the black markets wouldn't simply step up to meet the additional demand? If you acknowledge that they would how would you solve this problem?

True, it does somewhat parallel drugs in that manner, however there are some differences which would make a ban on guns much easier and more effective than banning drugs. I am just discussing this as a discussion, not condoning before the crazies start whining.

First off the nature of drugs is diverse and many of them simply pop out of the ground. If a country were to ban guns it would be able to also ban internal manufacture of the weapons and ammo. Unlike the drug war, you would then only need to worry about imports.

Guns are easier to scan for and detect in packages. They have a specific design and shape and are often composed of metal or materials that would show up on an X-ray scan or on a metal detector. Not to mention they are hard materials. This means they are not easily conformed to odd spaces like drugs can be. So you really are at a much bigger advantage in keeping imports out.

makeshift guns do not have the potency of regular guns. Yes, there are things like zip guns and things where you could fire a bullet, but these things do not have the accuracy, firing rate, and utility for shooting that a gun has. This renders most jury rigged stuff far less dangerous.

Due to these natures it would be easier to strip an area of guns and to keep guns out because manufacture inside that area would be hard. Slowly you would remove the guns in circulation and lower the number available. With a good crack down this would drive gun owners further underground where they would resort to other weapons saving the gun for extreme situations because they would not want to blow their power on something petty.

Now it is true that in the US there are more ways to import due to less secure borders than say the UK. The UK has an advantage that you cannot walk guns in nor bring them by car. The US has large borders and a big area. So that does mean there is a larger area to bring guns in and perhaps also a large area to manufacture guns in the US if you could get the money up for the equipment. Of course the crackdown would drive prices sky high on guns being unlike drugs they do not just pop up from nowhere and have a much more resource heavy creation process. If there was a crackdown and a ban there would rise a black market for guns. It is already here so you are not going to stop it. What a full ban would do is to drastically lower the number of guns in circulation and allow for the prosecution of those who would own or make one. Not everyone chooses to have a gun. This is why we see some countries having success with gun banning. I think a real gun ban would be a lot more effective than a drug ban simply because guns are harder to hide than drugs and harder to make. It would be hard at first to round up the guns in the US given the number of them out there, but as long as you were destroying them you would probably be able to seize more than were imported or manufactured if you made a good effort to watch imports and internal manufacturing.

My personal opinion is it costs too much to do all of that. A war on guns would be like a war on drugs in that we would criminalize a lot of people who did nothing wrong aside from possession or safe use of a gun. This is why I would prefer a more heavy licensing structure with taxes to help make things run and cover any damage. It is the same thing i support with drugs. You can have them, but you have to do the right thing.
 
True, it does somewhat parallel drugs in that manner, however there are some differences which would make a ban on guns much easier and more effective than banning drugs. I am just discussing this as a discussion, not condoning before the crazies start whining.

First off the nature of drugs is diverse and many of them simply pop out of the ground. If a country were to ban guns it would be able to also ban internal manufacture of the weapons and ammo. Unlike the drug war, you would then only need to worry about imports.

Guns are easier to scan for and detect in packages. They have a specific design and shape and are often composed of metal or materials that would show up on an X-ray scan or on a metal detector. Not to mention they are hard materials. This means they are not easily conformed to odd spaces like drugs can be. So you really are at a much bigger advantage in keeping imports out.

Let one of your crazies out of touch with your reality respond.

England banned handguns and collected what it could. There are now more illegal guns including hand guns in England than ever before. England is an ISLAND. How do you explain this since it is easy to prevent and detect such things as you claim and a ban "can work". You failed to define what work means becasue if it is reduce crime, the supply of guns to criminals or increase the public safety it is a deliberate lie. Nor have you shown a relationship that will make it possible for such an intervention to work.

Can you do that first before trying to waste time arguing over what can work or not. If such a causal relationship does not exist you would just be lying.

Let's take Japan another island and very technologically advanced. Japan has the strictest laws in the world and has literally banned firearms. Japan admits to a firearms problem. How do you explain that?

Jamaica, another gun control success is an ISLAND.

makeshift guns do not have the potency of regular guns. Yes, there are things like zip guns and things where you could fire a bullet, but these things do not have the accuracy, firing rate, and utility for shooting that a gun has. This renders most jury rigged stuff far less dangerous.

Rubbish, patently false.

The Home Gunsmith

Foundry for the Home gunsmith - YouTube

Gunsmithing

HomeGunsmith.com Welcome

Due to these natures it would be easier to strip an area of guns and to keep guns out because manufacture inside that area would be hard. Slowly you would remove the guns in circulation and lower the number available. With a good crack down this would drive gun owners further underground where they would resort to other weapons saving the gun for extreme situations because they would not want to blow their power on something petty.

To what purpose other than to punish them for what they have not done and that you don't like them?

Now it is true that in the US there are more ways to import due to less secure borders than say the UK. The UK has an advantage that you cannot walk guns in nor bring them by car. The US has large borders and a big area. So that does mean there is a larger area to bring guns in and perhaps also a large area to manufacture guns in the US if you could get the money up for the equipment. Of course the crackdown would drive prices sky high on guns being unlike drugs they do not just pop up from nowhere and have a much more resource heavy creation process. If there was a crackdown and a ban there would rise a black market for guns. It is already here so you are not going to stop it. What a full ban would do is to drastically lower the number of guns in circulation and allow for the prosecution of those who would own or make one. Not everyone chooses to have a gun. This is why we see some countries having success with gun banning. I think a real gun ban would be a lot more effective than a drug ban simply because guns are harder to hide than drugs and harder to make. It would be hard at first to round up the guns in the US given the number of them out there, but as long as you were destroying them you would probably be able to seize more than were imported or manufactured if you made a good effort to watch imports and internal manufacturing.

More absolute rubbish. Drugs are shipped into the the US by the TON. What's a hundred or thousand guns added to that? How difficult is it to detect a TON of drugs?

My personal opinion is it costs too much to do all of that. A war on guns would be like a war on drugs in that we would criminalize a lot of people who did nothing wrong aside from possession or safe use of a gun. This is why I would prefer a more heavy licensing structure with taxes to help make things run and cover any damage. It is the same thing i support with drugs. You can have them, but you have to do the right thing.

My personal opinion is that government does not care how much it costs and is willing to pay with our lives. Greed knows no bounds and the greed for power and control even less.

What has cost and affordability got to do with it. The question is is it JUSTIFIED and so far you have not Justified it therefore what you ask for is inhuman and oppressive. Is that what you intended to be while calling those who oppose your inhumanity crazies?
 
Last edited:

Look, if you want to have a discussion you need to tone it down and stop acting like a muslim at a muhammed drawing contest. You are way off base and like I said this is all just saying things without condoning. If all you want to do is shout go downstairs and quote me and I will be happy to lay into you. Otherwise I cannot have a decent discussion with someone having a meltdown over nothing.
 
Look, if you want to have a discussion you need to tone it down and stop acting like a muslim at a muhammed drawing contest. You are way off base and like I said this is all just saying things without condoning. If all you want to do is shout go downstairs and quote me and I will be happy to lay into you. Otherwise I cannot have a decent discussion with someone having a meltdown over nothing.

Listen Bubba I am not the one advocating a very real chance of death and injury to people I have caused to be disarmed. You are. What's your excuse for your irrationality, inhumanity and trying to force such laws down everyone’s throats becasue you THINK is will be good for them. You call that a discussion when you now try to force others to join your madness and unproven theories. Either present the evidence that shows you are right or desist.

And yes I am well aware a belief requires no proof. The belief guns cause crime is such a false belief until you can prove otherwise. Do not be afraid to fail. In 200 years of desperately searching the corners of science, physics and human behaviour gun control has failed to find even a shred of evidence it even exists.

Just because gun control and government apply the Goebles principle of a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth does not make it true. It is a lie until you prove otherwise.

When are you going to do that? Or would you prefer I discus the merits of various forms of gun control to see which may "work"? None of them end of discussion until you can prove it otherwise or don't you realise that?
 
Listen Bubba I am not the one advocating a very real chance of death and injury to people I have caused to be disarmed. You are. What's your excuse for your irrationality, inhumanity and trying to force such laws down everyone’s throats becasue you THINK is will be good for them. You call that a discussion when you now try to force others to join your madness and unproven theories. Either present the evidence that shows you are right or desist.

And yes I am well aware a belief requires no proof. The belief guns cause crime is such a false belief until you can prove otherwise. Do not be afraid to fail. In 200 years of desperately searching the corners of science, physics and human behaviour gun control has failed to find even a shred of evidence it even exists.

Just because gun control and government apply the Goebles principle of a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth does not make it true. It is a lie until you prove otherwise.

When are you going to do that? Or would you prefer I discus the merits of various forms of gun control to see which may "work"? None of them end of discussion until you can prove it otherwise or don't you realise that?

OK, that is cool, you melt down, and the rest of us will have a conversation. Now that I know you have no desire to participate in it I can just let you babble on.
 
OK, that is cool, you melt down, and the rest of us will have a conversation. Now that I know you have no desire to participate in it I can just let you babble on.

Ho Ho nice deflection but you still look like the despoiler of children in advocating what has a very high chance of causing harm to others because you don't like something. Now either you can prove your claim is valid or not, which is it? So far three times its not and your avoidance of doing so by attempting to smear me is obvious to even a moron. What is your problem? A rational discussion beyond you?

It is rational and logical to offer some credence or proof of ones claims. I do not believe what you have claimed is true and so far you have offered nothing to show it is not a big lie. Is that much not obvious to you? Yes peoples lives do hang in the balance so beliefs just don't cut it an you will not take responsibility for the consequences of what you advocate, promote and insist government force on everyone.
 
A rational logical discussion might be why do people support gun control? Some 50% of the US population supports stricter gun control laws. Only 11% less strict laws or no laws. Why is that?

Just like tererun the only thing we are willing to discuss is how much gun control to accept or why some gun control measure does not work very well.

We accept gun control as valid and justified, we just have to find a way to make it work. We are not trying to respect our rights or safety we are throwing both away because gun control will only discuss gun control interventions with us forcing us to accept the validity of gun control.

Perhaps this needs to be in flaming letters 100 ft high so it might get through.

Once you accept gun control all you can do is argue over how much to accept.

Nobody fights what they accept, nobody.

How many here are actually objecting to gun control in public? Not not saving the guns, not promoting sales, membership, services and laws. Objecting to gun control. Less than 1%?

Huston we have a problem!!! This damn thing is not flying, we are going to crash.
 
Back
Top Bottom