• 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!

There is no 2A debate! We have them. We won't surrender them. Your move!

Practical

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
101
Reaction score
25
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
We have been over this and over this...so let's do it again ThePodocasts style! There is no debate on the second amendment no matter how much you wish there to be. An estimated 500-600 million firearms are in the hands of private citizens in this country, and we aren't giving them back. How do you plan on enforcing whatever laws you pass?

RT around 9 minutes

 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
We have been over this and over this...so let's do it again ThePodocasts style! There is no debate on the second amendment no matter how much you wish there to be. An estimated 500-600 million firearms are in the hands of private citizens in this country, and we aren't giving them back. How do you plan on enforcing whatever laws you pass?

RT around 9 minutes


gun banners count on men with guns to enforce gun bans
 

aociswundumho

Capitalist Pig
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
14,422
Reaction score
6,549
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

Jean-s

Gone
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Messages
4,325
Reaction score
1,388
Location
Spain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
The Supreme Court put an end to debate with its interpretation that the right to bear arms is an individual one and nothing to do with a well regulated militia. Short of the Supreme Court reversing itself, only a Constitutional Amendment can change the matter.
 

Checkerboard Strangler

GOP WHEEL OF MORAL PANICS!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
62,000
Reaction score
43,966
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We have been over this and over this...so let's do it again ThePodocasts style! There is no debate on the second amendment no matter how much you wish there to be. An estimated 500-600 million firearms are in the hands of private citizens in this country, and we aren't giving them back. How do you plan on enforcing whatever laws you pass?

RT around 9 minutes



Been saying this for years.
It's fiscally, mathematically and logistically impossible to remove 400 million (is it really up to 500 now?) guns from private hands. So no matter how much gun grabbers screech about it, it's never going to be a reality.
A not so new wrinkle however, lies with my longstanding belief that there is much more to fear from far Right proto-fascists like Trump when it comes to actions of this nature, because without question, a fascist dictatorship is always the shortest route to mass confiscation attempts on firearms.
Still, it's never going to succeed, I just believe that authoritarians are more fond of trying to take away guns than your typical mealy-mouthed garden variety Democrat type gun grabber.

The far Right is fond of passing laws and making court determinations that ensure gun rights but the problem with that is, once full power is seized, all of that is out the window because the Constitution is out the window, Congress is a rubber stamp, and the rule of law ceases to exist. If you want to argue that lefty type authoritarians are just as bad or worse, you probably wouldn't get much pushback from me because...ehhh, it's a tossup.

As a lefty gun owner, I am annoyed by the anti-gun faction in the Democratic Party, but I sneer at their effectiveness because they don't sell the idea of regulation or protection, they are trying to sell total bans and confiscation. That only speaks to the somewhat fragmented clique of fellow travelers. Most of the general public seem to be more in favor of stuff like background checks and even then, it is more a wish to have better enforcement of gun laws already on the books, at least once they are more aware of what those laws are. (HINT! Most of them are not aware!)
The gun grabbers ARE the lefty authoritarians!

I did not watch the clip because for me this is more about the general idea of the 2A, not some YouTuber's personal stump speech.
Folks on the liberal and left can be educated about making their peace with the 2A.
I've seen it happen many times.

To answer the question: How do you plan on enforcing whatever laws you pass?


How do they plan on enforcing it? Same way every other authoritarian does, think Volstead Act, War on Drugs.
Same level of astoundingly expensive failure! Same self-serving self-dealing creation of cottage industries, same phony and at least somewhat privatized penal infrastructure, same self-defeating creation of new agencies to do the job, with the same nudge nudge wink wink acknowledgment that success would doom the agency and all the JOBS CREATED by them.
(Think private prisons - - do they REALLY want to see corrections and rehabilitation and a drop in crime? Hell no, they'd be out of business!)

To close, there are some who think the solution to "the gun problem" isn't even found in government at all.
Insurance, they say, is the key. I am not going to volunteer an opinion on that just yet because I don't feel well enough informed on it. But it does seem that if insurance were to be a factor, the insurance industry would NOT want to see guns go away. They'd want customers and the free market* would pressure costs down.
(*Ehhhh, maybe...maybe not.)
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
61,531
Reaction score
42,206
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
nobody is coming after those guns in your home
at worst, they will only hurt the gun owner and his family
at best they will allow him to defend from intruders

but those guns you carry on the streets
yep, those are soon going to be vulnerable
watch your back
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
nobody is coming after those guns in your home
at worst, they will only hurt the gun owner and his family
at best they will allow him to defend from intruders

but those guns you carry on the streets
yep, those are soon going to be vulnerable
watch your back

what Democrats want to do, is to kill off recreational shooting activities. Hunting, target shooting, plinking etc-areas where people openly use firearms in currently legal ways. They know they cannot confiscate guns that remain in homes and they know that would cause many of them to be killed if they tried it-so they won't except in cases where someone has to shoot a robber or if there is a fire etc where authorities see the weapons. Then they will confiscate them.

By destroying the shooting sports, the Democrats achieve their main goal (which of course is not public safety) of destroying pro gun organizations. If there is no legal hunting anymore, than groups like Ducks Unlimited or Safari Club International will cease to exist. And if target shooting is destroyed, then there will be no more groups such as the National Skeet Shooting Association, United States Practical Shooting association, USA Shooting etc: and ultimately the NRA.

Destroying these groups would eliminate a major voting/lobbying bloc that has been responsible for many Democrats losing elections-such as Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
17,860
Reaction score
11,902
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
what Democrats want to do, is to kill off recreational shooting activities. Hunting, target shooting, plinking etc-areas where people openly use firearms in currently legal ways. They know they cannot confiscate guns that remain in homes and they know that would cause many of them to be killed if they tried it-so they won't except in cases where someone has to shoot a robber or if there is a fire etc where authorities see the weapons. Then they will confiscate them.

By destroying the shooting sports, the Democrats achieve their main goal (which of course is not public safety) of destroying pro gun organizations. If there is no legal hunting anymore, than groups like Ducks Unlimited or Safari Club International will cease to exist. And if target shooting is destroyed, then there will be no more groups such as the National Skeet Shooting Association, United States Practical Shooting association, USA Shooting etc: and ultimately the NRA.

Destroying these groups would eliminate a major voting/lobbying bloc that has been responsible for many Democrats losing elections-such as Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

Which Democrats want to do this and why didn't they try it during the 8 years of the previous administration?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Which Democrats want to do this and why didn't they try it during the 8 years of the previous administration?

Obama could not do what he wanted, because Harry Reid was more interested in remaining in power, than doing what many of his colleagues wanted. He remembers what happened in 1994 and his state tends to have more gun rights voters than banners. So he refused to allow Feinstein's gun ban scheme to reach the floor of the senate, and when the dems lost the houses in 2010, bannerrhoid wet dreams were DOA. Obama did what he could-he appointed a justice who had a track record of hating gun rights and his second appointment, was a person whose demographics and politics suggests at best, a dislike of gun rights
 

d0gbreath

Yellow Dog Democrat
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
16,693
Reaction score
5,629
Location
There's my hat.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
what Democrats want to do, is to kill off recreational shooting activities. Hunting, target shooting, plinking etc-areas where people openly use firearms in currently legal ways. They know they cannot confiscate guns that remain in homes and they know that would cause many of them to be killed if they tried it-so they won't except in cases where someone has to shoot a robber or if there is a fire etc where authorities see the weapons. Then they will confiscate them.

By destroying the shooting sports, the Democrats achieve their main goal (which of course is not public safety) of destroying pro gun organizations. If there is no legal hunting anymore, than groups like Ducks Unlimited or Safari Club International will cease to exist. And if target shooting is destroyed, then there will be no more groups such as the National Skeet Shooting Association, United States Practical Shooting association, USA Shooting etc: and ultimately the NRA.

Destroying these groups would eliminate a major voting/lobbying bloc that has been responsible for many Democrats losing elections-such as Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

Since I've never heard about any of this before, a citation would be nice.

I searched for you, but couldn't find anything. :shrug:
 
Last edited:

MaryP

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
19,771
Reaction score
12,290
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
what Democrats want to do, is to kill off recreational shooting activities. Hunting, target shooting, plinking etc-areas where people openly use firearms in currently legal ways. They know they cannot confiscate guns that remain in homes and they know that would cause many of them to be killed if they tried it-so they won't except in cases where someone has to shoot a robber or if there is a fire etc where authorities see the weapons. Then they will confiscate them.

By destroying the shooting sports, the Democrats achieve their main goal (which of course is not public safety) of destroying pro gun organizations. If there is no legal hunting anymore, than groups like Ducks Unlimited or Safari Club International will cease to exist. And if target shooting is destroyed, then there will be no more groups such as the National Skeet Shooting Association, United States Practical Shooting association, USA Shooting etc: and ultimately the NRA.

Destroying these groups would eliminate a major voting/lobbying bloc that has been responsible for many Democrats losing elections-such as Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

I never heard of people going after hunters and gun ranges. And if gun control had something to do with Gore and Hillary losing, times have changed. It is no longer a poison pill to talk about another ban on military style weapons in the hands of civilians. Background checks may keep a few folks from purchasing weapons, but it doesn't do squat to get illegal guns off the street. The only way to do that is to have seriously less guns in this country floating around to be stolen or sold illegally. Make ammunition cost prohibitive and make new gun owners pass a gun safety course first, along with a psych. eval and make it necessary to go through it again every seven years for renewal. Anyone carrying an unlicensed weapon gets hit with a $100,000 fine. No more dumb ass Joe Schmoe walking into Cabelas to buy an AR or a handgun just because he feels like a tough guy that day. It will eventually cut down on the number of guns in this country and that will very obviously lead to many less homicides by gun.

You want to keep your guns? Fine. Earn it.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
17,860
Reaction score
11,902
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Obama could not do what he wanted, because Harry Reid was more interested in remaining in power, than doing what many of his colleagues wanted. He remembers what happened in 1994 and his state tends to have more gun rights voters than banners. So he refused to allow Feinstein's gun ban scheme to reach the floor of the senate, and when the dems lost the houses in 2010, bannerrhoid wet dreams were DOA. Obama did what he could-he appointed a justice who had a track record of hating gun rights and his second appointment, was a person whose demographics and politics suggests at best, a dislike of gun rights

How do you know what Obama wanted? And while I disagree with Feinstein's assault weapons ban, that's a far cry from Democrats wanting to take everyone's guns.

Wanting common sense gun laws does not equal wanting to ban all guns, in spite of what the NRA tells people.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Since I've never heard about any of this before, a citation would be nice.

I searched for you, but couldn't find anything. :shrug:

ignorance is no defense. and no-the democrats aren't going to announce this anymore than some right-wingers will admit that trying to ban abortion is not about saving "innocent life" but rather keeping the leftist/feminist movement on the defensive.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
How do you know what Obama wanted? And while I disagree with Feinstein's assault weapons ban, that's a far cry from Democrats wanting to take everyone's guns.

Wanting common sense gun laws does not equal wanting to ban all guns, in spite of what the NRA tells people.

what common sense gun laws do you support and want passed? can you name any that do not further intrude on what lawful Americans can do? common sense to ME-means laws that will mostly impede CRIMINALS while not harassing honest folk
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I never heard of people going after hunters and gun ranges. And if gun control had something to do with Gore and Hillary losing, times have changed. It is no longer a poison pill to talk about another ban on military style weapons in the hands of civilians. Background checks may keep a few folks from purchasing weapons, but it doesn't do squat to get illegal guns off the street. The only way to do that is to have seriously less guns in this country floating around to be stolen or sold illegally. Make ammunition cost prohibitive and make new gun owners pass a gun safety course first, along with a psych. eval and make it necessary to go through it again every seven years for renewal. Anyone carrying an unlicensed weapon gets hit with a $100,000 fine. No more dumb ass Joe Schmoe walking into Cabelas to buy an AR or a handgun just because he feels like a tough guy that day. It will eventually cut down on the number of guns in this country and that will very obviously lead to many less homicides by gun.

You want to keep your guns? Fine. Earn it.

I want the few undecided people on the gun issue to read that crap and see what would happen if people who think like her had the power to decide what would happen to gun ownership in the USA
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
'Fine for me, but not for thee' - rather hypocritical.

Leftwing elites wallow in hypocrisy-be it their rants about guns, the rich, exclusive neighborhoods or armed police protection
 

d0gbreath

Yellow Dog Democrat
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
16,693
Reaction score
5,629
Location
There's my hat.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
ignorance is no defense. and no-the democrats aren't going to announce this anymore than some right-wingers will admit that trying to ban abortion is not about saving "innocent life" but rather keeping the leftist/feminist movement on the defensive.

Wouldn't the NRA announce this so that I don't have to be where you are; in the dark?
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
17,860
Reaction score
11,902
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
what common sense gun laws do you support and want passed? can you name any that do not further intrude on what lawful Americans can do? common sense to ME-means laws that will mostly impede CRIMINALS while not harassing honest folk

Universal background checks impede criminals while only mildly inconveniencing honest folk. Requiring a reasonable CCW permit to carry concealed impedes criminals while only mildly inconveniencing honest folk. Banning open carry in crowded public places impedes criminals while only mildly inconveniencing honest folk.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Wouldn't the NRA announce this so that I don't have to be where you are; in the dark?

If you actually read the various articles examining the anti gun movement my argument is nothing new
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Universal background checks impede criminals while only mildly inconveniencing honest folk. Requiring a reasonable CCW permit to carry concealed impedes criminals while only mildly inconveniencing honest folk. Banning open carry in crowded public places impedes criminals while only mildly inconveniencing honest folk.

background checks are worthless in preventing crime or criminals from getting guns according to a widely reported Duke University study and is worthless as to private sales without universal registration. Do you support registration?

you don't need CCW permits to prevent criminals from carrying because a police officer can almost immediately determine if someone is a convicted criminal if they are found with a concealed weapon.
 

MaryP

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
19,771
Reaction score
12,290
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I want the few undecided people on the gun issue to read that crap and see what would happen if people who think like her had the power to decide what would happen to gun ownership in the USA

What would happen? What is so terrible? You don't need lethal rounds to target shoot and you don't need a stockpile of 2,000 bullets in your closet. Where I live, you can only hunt with a load of 3+1, anyway.

I hate guns and wish every blessed one of them on the face of the earth would disappear, but that ain't gonna happen, so the next best thing is to limit gun ownership like every other civilized country on this planet. Look at their homicide rates via gun and tell me less guns don't lead to far fewer deaths. You want to kill someone? Put a little effort into it. Is that so much to ask?
 
Top Bottom