• 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!

Trump Backs Democrats Push to Ban No-Fly List from Purchasing Guns

#1. Obama, Hillary and other Big Govt loving Progressive Liberals have long histories of using Govt power against their political enemies. Using Due Process such as criminal conviction is fine for restricting gun ownership. The no fly list has no Due Process, and what would end up happening is every political opponent of Progressive Liberals would end up on the no fly list.

#2. Yes Good Citizenship and the ability to defend freedom.

#3. Citizens having guns prevents Totalitarianism is not an NRA concept it’s a US Founding Fathers concept and history has proven them right.

1. No argument; paranoia can't be argued against.

2. Defending freedom is what the military is fior. Good citizenship itself is all the domestic defense necessary.

3. The Founders concept was a "well regulated militia." But taking your interpretation, when has history proven it right?
 
Taking the absurdity of your arguments in no particular order:

1. Enforcement of a no fly list would not disarm the populace.

2. The strength of American democratic institutions does not depend on citizens possessing guns. It depends on good citizenship.

3. The notion that people having guns are a bulwark against totalitarianism is NRA simple minded propaganda. The opposite outcome would be more likely with a demoguge who captures the fantastical imaginations of enough gun enthusiasts.


big brother fan boys hate to think of anyone not bending to the will of their favorite God
 
1. No argument; paranoia can't be argued against.

2. Defending freedom is what the military is fior. Good citizenship itself is all the domestic defense necessary.

3. The Founders concept was a "well regulated militia." But taking your interpretation, when has history proven it right?


your understanding of the second amendment in general and "well regulated" specifically needs lots of work
 
1. No argument; paranoia can't be argued against.

2. Defending freedom is what the military is fior. Good citizenship itself is all the domestic defense necessary.

3. The Founders concept was a "well regulated militia." But taking your interpretation, when has history proven it right?

Such is the paranoia of the gun Prohibitionists....
 
With a well armed public a Totalitarian Dictatorship is impossible to establish. Without a Totalitarian Dictatorship a Holocaust, Gulag or similar situation is impossible to achieve. In a way that put guns on the same level as food.

Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq had no gun control and no reasonable person would argue that Saddam was not a totalitarian dictator
 
The Founders concept was a "well regulated militia." But taking your interpretation, when has history proven it right?

Of citizens with the right to keep and bare arms un-infringed and history proved them right.
 
Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq had no gun control and no reasonable person would argue that Saddam was not a totalitarian dictator

You actually just made my point. Yes, Saddam was a murderous dictator as were most of his opponents and almost anyone else in that part of the world. What is left out of your propaganda talking point is even in the high point of power Saddam had very little direct control over most of his country.
 
You actually just made my point. Yes, Saddam was a murderous dictator as were most of his opponents and almost anyone else in that part of the world. What is left out of your propaganda talking point is even in the high point of power Saddam had very little direct control over most of his country.

The fact that he had to use WMDs to fight the armed opposition proves that.
 
You actually just made my point. Yes, Saddam was a murderous dictator as were most of his opponents and almost anyone else in that part of the world. What is left out of your propaganda talking point is even in the high point of power Saddam had very little direct control over most of his country.

Saddam had very little direct control over most of Iraq???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom