• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

This[W:218]

Henrin said:
Taking away everyone's right to own certain kinds of property because some people use that type of property in crimes is ****ing idiotic and tyrannical nonsense.
Click to expand...
We gave you the right, and we can take it back. The list of things you can't own, or can't do with your property, is a mile long. Guns are no different.
 
JunkyardDogma said:
I still have a need to kill things, while very few do. When all the guns go, mine will as well.
Click to expand...

That's kind of funny. So basically you want the government to ban the tool you use to acquire food because other people use that same tool to kill people with. So basically you wish to abuse yourself because people are assholes. That's just self defeating idiocy. :lol:
 
JunkyardDogma said:
We gave you the right, and we can take it back. The list of things you can't own, or can't do with your property, is a mile long. Guns are no different.
Click to expand...

:lamoNo one gave me the right to own property. People were owning property before the government ever came to be and will be owning property after it is long gone. Your whole bothersome ideology is just a speed bump and nothing more.
 
JunkyardDogma said:
I'm not going to go back and read what I have already responded to just because you pressed post too soon.
Click to expand...
Are you sure I pressed post at all? Review the thread. What post of mine are you quoting?
 
Henrin said:
That's kind of funny. So basically you want the government to ban the tool you use to acquire food because other people use that same tool to kill people with. So basically you wish to abuse yourself because people are assholes. That's just self defeating idiocy. :lol:
Click to expand...
If you can prove the need, hunting with a long gun would count, you can keep the gun, for now. Most can't prove any need at all, not when almost no one has a gun.
 
Jerry said:
Are you sure I pressed post at all? Review the thread. What post of mine are you quoting?
Click to expand...

My statement is clear. Once I respond I don't give a damn what edits you make. Over and done with.
 
JunkyardDogma said:
Bans do work. See Japan. which has had as few as two firearm murders in a year for 120 million people.
Click to expand...
You might want to know what you are talking about there. Bans dont work...even in Japan. They estimate there are still hundreds smuggled into the country every week. Do you know what DID work in Japan? After the 'ban' was passed they still had a problem with gun crime and violence. In response, the government passed draconian prison sentencing laws for violent offenders AND passed the Japanese version of RICO which meant that if the violent offender could be shown to be gang affiliated, the gang leaders faced similar sentencing.

But before we get too crazy there...Japan is not the US. We have this massive expansive northern and Southern border which people stream across like its the Macy's. We have 20 million PEOPLE in this country we couldnt keep out. We have illegal drugs flooding into this country. How the **** are you going to sit there and say something stupid like 'bans do work'?
 
Henrin said:
:lamoNo one gave me the right to own property. People were owning property before the government ever came to be and will be owning property after it is long gone. Your whole bothersome ideology is just a speed bump and nothing more.
Click to expand...

What you own is what you can legally, or physically, defend. We set all the rules on the first criteria.
 
JunkyardDogma said:
If you can prove the need, hunting with a long gun would count, you can keep the gun, for now. Most can't prove any need at all, not when almost no one has a gun.
Click to expand...

Wait..since when was peoples right to own property attached to need?
 
JunkyardDogma said:
We gave you the right, and we can take it back. The list of things you can't own, or can't do with your property, is a mile long. Guns are no different.
Click to expand...
"We"

:lamo
 
Mr Person said:
I am referring to the notion that we should have some kind of policy to do something about "the culture." What in the fresh hell is that supposed to mean in terms of specifics? Assume it's true, what do "we" d, how do we do it, who does it, and why would it work?

Which culture specifically? Black culture? Poor culture? Inner city or rural poor culture?

Are we going to tell the kind of gangbangers discussed in the video to pull their pants up and educate themselves, then call it a day? Jail them for life and hope that they won't be replaced by up and coming gang bangers, as has always happened?

End the War on drugs that creates the revenue streams that lures people into gang-banging? Well, can't have that. Drugs are bad mmmmkay.

So what....what are we doing to do about "the culture"?

Again: focus on doing something about the culture as a policy for dealing with gun violence seems to me to be no more than a way of ensuring we do nothing.
Click to expand...

I hate guns. I don't own one, try to prevent my son from playing with them and feel queasy when we have a code blue at work and I see the gun on the police officers hip. However, I do think we need to change the culture; black culture, drug culture, poor culture, prison culture, mentally ill culture, all of it. It's going to be much more difficult than changing gun laws. But in the long run will be worth it. As to specifics, what would I suggest:

Legalize drugs, take that out if the equation. Simple enough to do.

Bring manual labor jobs back to the US. Uneducated people need a way to support themselves and their families. Drugs and violence should not be a means of survival.

Stop shoving education down everyone's throats. Many cultures do not value education. Those people deserve a right to support themselves, see above.

The mentally ill need help. We need to bring back mental institutions (I hate that term). Mentally ill people need outlets and places to heal and feel safe and not ostracized.

Develop an intensive prison-release-to-work program. My friend is a chef at the county jail. In the past 25 years it's staggering the faces he sees again and again. When he asks guys what their going to do when they get out if prison, the majority of them say they'll be back to selling smack within the hour.

BIRTH CONTROL! Teach it and make it affordable and easily accessible.

Increase incentives for qualified families to adopt kids from the foster care system. At the same time, increase background checks and raise qualifications standards for said families.

Legalize prostitution

Any one or all of these ideas would greatly reduce gun violence.
 
JunkyardDogma said:
What you own is what you can legally, or physically, defend. We set all the rules on the first criteria.
Click to expand...

Haha..yeah, I have heard that before. It's basically saying you don't own anything if an aggressor can take it from you. It's stupid nonsensical gibberish and ****ing stupid when used as an argument by the aggressor themselves.
 
VanceMack said:
You might want to know what you are talking about there. bans dont work...even in Japan.
Click to expand...
Gun murders in Japan can be counted on ten fingers and ten toes meaning, the ban works like a charm.
 
Mr Person said:
The kind of gun control politicians talk about generally won't do anything.

That doesn't mean no gun control could ever do anything. I think the only thing we can really aim at doing under the 2nd is to focus on ways of chocking the flow of guns to criminals. I envision a package of laws:

1. National gun registry;

2. National ammo registry;

3. Complete ban on private resale and private transfer, except perhaps weapons inherited upon death of the owner, with the only transfer allowed being back to a gun dealer or government buyback program;

4. Severe penalties for private resale;

5. Increased detection aimed at smuggling, once this has been in effect for some time.

6. Equal laws apply to all lawful sellers of guns.

7. Better ways to insure serial numbers aren't "obliterated." (I dunno - perhaps have the number formed a non-dangerous amount of radioactive material, which is then encased in the steel frame of the gun somewhere)

If a gun used in a crime is discovered, there's also a two-fer: #4 lets the prosecutor put serious plea-bargaining pressure on the person who sold the gun, which in turn could lead to identification of the person who used it. There would also be a greater disincentive to falsely report the "theft" of your guns when you actually sold them.



This would probably do little until at least 20 years have passed, given the life expectancy of guns and number of them out there. But, criminals often discard guns once used. There are only so many out there. Eventually, this might seriously reduce the amount of guns available to the criminal underwold.

The problem is that these ideas make too much sense, and the nuttier the gun nut, the less sense they'll tolerate. Often when I make these suggestions, the nuttier nuts immediately object because this would simply lead to government confiscating all your weapons. (One of many answers to this would be: if we are in a situation where the government is trying to confiscate everyone's guns, that is precisely when the "armed militia" thing becomes relevant. You'd already be in the tyrannical government situation, and if you were going to form a citizen militia to fight it, you would have been doing it already).
Click to expand...

So under your "ideal gun laws", I would be in prison for handing down my .22 rifle my father bought me when I was 15 years old, and in-turn handing it down to my granddaughter on her 15th birthday.

I am not a criminal or terrorist, and neither is my granddaughter, but somehow throwing us BOTH in prison would make for a safer world. She would be 15 and I would be 63.

Under YOUR proposed new gun laws we would BOTH rot in prison under YOUR mandatory sentencing and zero tolerance policy.

Now, if you think that is just fine, then you need to also reexamine whatever you use as a moral compass.

Throwing grandpa and his granddaughter in prison for going plinking with a family heirloom is 100% WRONG.
 
Henrin said:
Haha..yeah, I have heard that before. It's basically saying you don't own anything if an aggressor can take it from you. It's stupid nonsensical gibberish and ****ing stupid when used as an argument by the aggressor themselves.
Click to expand...
Life on this planet. Learn it.
 
Henrin said:
Yeah man, stealing peoples stuff is impossible without the state! Totally makes sense.
Click to expand...

With the state or without the state doesn't matter in that case. What you think of as yours isn't, unless you can defend it in court or defend it yourself.
 
JunkyardDogma said:
With the state or without the state doesn't matter in that case. What you think of as yours isn't, unless you can defend it in court or defend it yourself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just a bunch of statist drivel living completely outside of reality. Did anyone ever notice that it is always the statist supporting thief logic?
 
Riveroaks said:
Red herring.

Straw man.
Click to expand...
No...question you dont have the balls to answer, so you throw out the pathetic 'strawman' defense.

You believe 'whackos' as you describe them represent a threat to themselves and others. You even admitted as much. You cite the Lanza case. Fine...Im feelin ya. Then what about Susan Smith? What about Tami Griffith? There are maybe...MAYBE 50 victims of violent mass shootings attributed to people like Adam Lanza in any given year. Conversely, women with 'mental health conditions' kill about 1500 of their children every year. So...what IS your purpose? Are you JUST another anti-gun weasel out to use tragic incidents to further your anti-gun causes or do you really and legitimately give a **** about people with 'mental health conditions' and the threat they pose?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom