• 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!

What gun control measures do you support?

What gun control measures do you support?


  • Total voters
    56
Seriously? You're still doing this?

You are attacking me instead of defending your own misuse of the language. It is YOU who are "still doing this".

So tell us, how does an inanimate object possess constitutional rights?
 
You are attacking me instead of defending your own misuse of the language. It is YOU who are "still doing this".

So tell us, how does an inanimate object possess constitutional rights?

It doesn't, of course. You're just being silly.

Gun rights simply refers to people's rights as they relate to guns. Didn't I explain this to you already?
 
It doesn't, of course. You're just being silly.

Gun rights simply refers to people's rights as they relate to guns. Didn't I explain this to you already?

You did NOT explain why somebody would use a term which is factually false on its face.

Throughout this discussion you have purposely and intentionally attempted to stay clear of narrowing any discussion to the Second Amendment and the rights that come from it. Instead, we get this oxymoron of "gun rights". YOu do NOT want to talk about people and if they do or do not limit Second Amendment rights. Instead, you want to broaden and change the actual issue to this silly concept of "gun rights". That, combined with your reluctance to properly discuss Second Amendment rights, is telling.
 
You did NOT explain why somebody would use a term which is factually false on its face.

Throughout this discussion you have purposely and intentionally attempted to stay clear of narrowing any discussion to the Second Amendment and the rights that come from it. Instead, we get this oxymoron of "gun rights". YOu do NOT want to talk about people and if they do or do not limit Second Amendment rights. Instead, you want to broaden and change the actual issue to this silly concept of "gun rights". That, combined with your reluctance to properly discuss Second Amendment rights, is telling.
If it will keep you from having future temper tantrums, rather than use the term gun rights, I'll use the term right to keep and bear arms. I don't see what difference it makes, but just look at what I do to make you happy.

Regarding second amendment rights, could your please explain to me how an amendment can have rights. ;)
 
If it will keep you from having future temper tantrums, rather than use the term gun rights, I'll use the term right to keep and bear arms. I don't see what difference it makes, but just look at what I do to make you happy.

Regarding second amendment rights, could your please explain to me how an amendment can have rights. ;)

Those would be the rights which come from the Second Amendment.

Since it was your own ally Turtle who introduced the death tax issue here, it has been well documented why it is used. Faris & Luntz decided there was political advantage in using that term as opposed to the actual term estate tax or inheritance tax.

Word have meaning and when used for political purposes, that meaning needs to be explained and exposed.

Now I am off to work.
 
Those would be the rights which come from the Second Amendment.
Okay, so you're fine with using the term "second amendment rights" as shorthand for "the rights which come from the second amendment", but you are completely flummoxed and can't understand how the term "gun rights" could possibly mean "right related to guns". Um, yeah, okay.

As an aside, you refer to "rights which come from the second amendment", but this is incorrect. No rights "come from" the second amendment. The second amendment simply prohibits the government from infringing upon our right to keep and bear arms.
 
So your 'excuse' for political hijacking of terms and their resulting misuse is that others do it too?

I hope you are never a defense attorney with a client accused of murder.

I don't fault others for doing it. It is the accepted norm. They aren't doing anything wrong when they do it, and neither are we when we do it.

"Gun-rights" is just a shorthand way of saying "personal rights related to firearm ownership".
 
What I am discovering in my old age is that there is this entire terminology invented by the right which in no way shape or form resembles reality and the actual meaning of words.

Guns cannot have rights because they are an inanimate object. Only people can actually have rights.

So the real question - why does a term like GUN RIGHTS come into usage when it is an oxymoron and blatantly false? What is behind that term? What are the users trying to do by using it and knowing it makes no actual sense?

I don't know, likely the same reason they same "pro-choice" even though they are not pro every choice. Gun rights refers to the individual's rights to keep and possess guns.
 
Okay, so you're fine with using the term "second amendment rights" as shorthand for "the rights which come from the second amendment", but you are completely flummoxed and can't understand how the term "gun rights" could possibly mean "right related to guns". Um, yeah, okay.

As an aside, you refer to "rights which come from the second amendment", but this is incorrect. No rights "come from" the second amendment. The second amendment simply prohibits the government from infringing upon our right to keep and bear arms.

I am well aware of the argument by some that rights are floating out there in the ether since the beginning of creation and all man had to do was reach out and take what they already had available to them or what was granted to them by a giant 500 foot purple Easter Bunny.

Sorry. Rights were not given to us by God or any other being.
Sorry. There are no natural rights.

People in a nation only have rights for one reason and only one reason: enough people decided they wanted a certain behavior accepted and protected by the government so they forced the government to accept that. If the government of your nation says you have the right - then you have it. If the government of your nation says you do NOT have that right - then you don't. Its pretty much basic reality that the musings of 18th century dillitentes cannot change.
 
I don't fault others for doing it. It is the accepted norm. They aren't doing anything wrong when they do it, and neither are we when we do it.

"Gun-rights" is just a shorthand way of saying "personal rights related to firearm ownership".

It is more than that and is done for the purpose of advancing gun culture and the power of gun people in our nation.
 
I am well aware of the argument by some that rights are floating out there in the ether since the beginning of creation and all man had to do was reach out and take what they already had available to them or what was granted to them by a giant 500 foot purple Easter Bunny.

Sorry. Rights were not given to us by God or any other being.
Sorry. There are no natural rights.

People in a nation only have rights for one reason and only one reason: enough people decided they wanted a certain behavior accepted and protected by the government so they forced the government to accept that. If the government of your nation says you have the right - then you have it. If the government of your nation says you do NOT have that right - then you don't. Its pretty much basic reality that the musings of 18th century dillitentes cannot change.

Interesting opinion.

It makes me wonder something. You mentioned that you are a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. I'm wondering why you support the idea that the government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Why is it important that this right be protected from infringement?
 
Interesting opinion.

It makes me wonder something. You mentioned that you are a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. I'm wondering why you support the idea that the government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Why is it important that this right be protected from infringement?

On balance, given the reality of America, its history, how it developed and the way it exists in 2012, it does more good than it does on the negative side.
 
Sorry. Rights were not given to us by God or any other being.
Sorry. There are no natural rights.

People in a nation only have rights for one reason and only one reason: enough people decided they wanted a certain behavior accepted and protected by the government so they forced the government to accept that. If the government of your nation says you have the right - then you have it. If the government of your nation says you do NOT have that right - then you don't. Its pretty much basic reality that the musings of 18th century dillitentes cannot change.

From the Declaration of Independence…

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
 
From the Declaration of Independence…

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

C'mon Bob, the Declaration of Independence was written by an 18th century dilletante. How can you take it seriously.
 
It is more than that and is done for the purpose of advancing gun culture and the power of gun people in our nation.

could you reference some citations to evidence supporting such a claim. As a supporter of the second amendment, you do support advancing the power of "gun people" and gun culture in our society?
 
could you reference some citations to evidence supporting such a claim. As a supporter of the second amendment, you do support advancing the power of "gun people" and gun culture in our society?

Supporting what claim? That the use of the term GUN RIGHTS is an oxymoron and has no basis in fact? Perhaps you can then explain to us how a inanimate object has rights?

I absolutely DO NOT WANT TO ADVANCE THE POWER OF GUN PEOPLE OR THE GUN CULTURE in our society as it perverts and distorts the true rights we have turning the issue into a political one which is subject to the whims and swings of political thought and power. One can support the right of people to keep and bear arms without being part of the gun culture.
 
C'mon Bob, the Declaration of Independence was written by an 18th century dilletante. How can you take it seriously.

Unfortunately this is common in the minds of many on the left, who hate many of the founders who they see as imperfect examples of those ideals. They further argue that the ideals of the founders were wrong, because they didn't apply to everyone of that day. Fortunately their hate for the founders no more nullifies the truth of those ideals, than their denials of this truth nullify what they know in their hearts to be true. They wish to end a simple matter of belief, that if people believe that a powerful Creator has endowed them with rights, then nothing else under that creator can take them away. And this is the centerpiece of the debate where right come from.....the Creator or the Government. Those who believe in the latter, know that if they can persuade the People to believe them, then there is unlimited power to manipulate and control rights. This is why I have said that without God/Creator, there are no unalienable rights.

And this is why John Adams said:

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.

--Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 11 October 1798, in Revolutionary Services and Civil Life of General William Hull (New York, 1848), pp 265-6. There are some differences in the version that appeared in The Works of John Adams (Boston, 1854), vol. 9, pp. 228-9, most notably the words "or gallantry" instead of "and licentiousness".
 
Supporting what claim? That the use of the term GUN RIGHTS is an oxymoron and has no basis in fact? Perhaps you can then explain to us how a inanimate object has rights?

I absolutely DO NOT WANT TO ADVANCE THE POWER OF GUN PEOPLE OR THE GUN CULTURE in our society as it perverts and distorts the true rights we have turning the issue into a political one which is subject to the whims and swings of political thought and power. One can support the right of people to keep and bear arms without being part of the gun culture.


ah now we are getting somewhere in understanding your often guarded and elusive views as to the rights of gun owners.

what is bad about the "gun culture" and gun people?
 
ah now we are getting somewhere in understanding your often guarded and elusive views as to the rights of gun owners.

what is bad about the "gun culture" and gun people?

Americans have rights. Gun owners have no more or no less than anyone else. As a class of people they have no rights that anyone else does not have. So any discussion about the rights of gun owners is flawed right out of the gate and I would ask why you would set it up that way in the first place?

Give an honest answer to your own usage and you have answered your own question.

It is a perversion of the actual Second Amendment rights that people have. Your own use of terms like gun rights and gun people and the evidence of a powerful gun culture is evidence of this.

It is not enough for someone to profess respect for the rights of Americans..... in the eyes of the gun culture, you have to be "one of them". It divides America into unnecessary camps and battling factions. And that sort of division is never good for Americans or for their actual rights. The Civil War showed us that.
 
How does attacking me change the reality that an inanimate object cannot have rights which only persons can have?

That is a LAME misdirection dude. Get over it. You thought it was clever...it wasn't. It is a non sequitur.
 
That is a LAME misdirection dude. Get over it. You thought it was clever...it wasn't. It is a non sequitur.

So it will be YOU who will explain how an inanimate object can have rights?

Excellent!!!!! Lets hear it.
 
Americans have rights. Gun owners have no more or no less than anyone else. As a class of people they have no rights that anyone else does not have. So any discussion about the rights of gun owners is flawed right out of the gate and I would ask why you would set it up that way in the first place?

Give an honest answer to your own usage and you have answered your own question.

It is a perversion of the actual Second Amendment rights that people have. Your own use of terms like gun rights and gun people and the evidence of a powerful gun culture is evidence of this.

It is not enough for someone to profess respect for the rights of Americans..... in the eyes of the gun culture, you have to be "one of them". It divides America into unnecessary camps and battling factions. And that sort of division is never good for Americans or for their actual rights. The Civil War showed us that.


1) increasing gun rights do not diminish the rights of anyone else

2) a powerful gun culture does not cause any harm to other people

3) you apparently believe your interests are diminished by the "gun culture" spreading

is that because "the gun culture" tends to be hostile to welfare socialism and the political agenda of your party

or do you believe that say getting rid of idiotic restrictions on gun rights-such as the chicago and DC handgun bans or the idiotic hughes amendment somehow decreases your rights
 
1) increasing gun rights do not diminish the rights of anyone else

2) a powerful gun culture does not cause any harm to other people

3) you apparently believe your interests are diminished by the "gun culture" spreading

is that because "the gun culture" tends to be hostile to welfare socialism and the political agenda of your party

or do you believe that say getting rid of idiotic restrictions on gun rights-such as the chicago and DC handgun bans or the idiotic hughes amendment somehow decreases your rights

I see nobody with any power to do so doing anything to weaken or diminish the rights of Americans under the Second Amendment.

The gun culture attempts to do just what you and Federalist and LA and many others here do: divide America into two camps and that in and of itself is harmful and damaging to us as one people and one nation.
 
Okay, so you're fine with using the term "second amendment rights" as shorthand for "the rights which come from the second amendment", but you are completely flummoxed and can't understand how the term "gun rights" could possibly mean "right related to guns". Um, yeah, okay.

As an aside, you refer to "rights which come from the second amendment", but this is incorrect. No rights "come from" the second amendment. The second amendment simply prohibits the government from infringing upon our right to keep and bear arms.
Even that is a little generalized. As Willie Orwontee pointed out the Tenth amendment actually bars the federal from gun legislation because it is not an enumerated power, the second reinforces that firearms are a right. The second actually more applies to the states by limiting their reserved powers to prohibit disbarring the bearing of arms, and when you further think about it, under the fourteenth the federal has the responsibility and power to bind all BOR codifications to the states.
 
Back
Top Bottom