• 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!

Why Attack the 2nd Amendment?

TurtleDude said:
LOL you just will do anything to cover up the fact that registration leads to people being deprived of their firearms

and some guns were confiscated

registration is contrary to the interests of honest gun owners

end of story
Click to expand...

do you have any data on guns that were actually confiscated by the NYPD? or are you just going to declare the debate over because you can't actualy substantiate your claim of New York City confiscating firearms?
 
Thunder said:
do you have any data on guns that were actually confiscated by the NYPD? or are you just going to declare the debate over because you can't actualy substantiate your claim of New York City confiscating firearms?
Click to expand...

I posted the number

why are you engaging in diversion?

until you start being honest in this thread I am not going to constantly repost the same stuff over and over

I have proven beyond any doubt that registration has been used to deprive people of their lawfully acquired firearms

you have not come close to disputing that but instead engage in dishonest evasions
 
Thunder said:
again you are being dishonest.

you never posted a number of how many guns were confiscated by the NYPD.
Click to expand...

doesn't matter-

he 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson)

2340 citizens of NYC were deprived of their rights. some may have had more than one weapon subject to that nonsense. that is the point, how many CITIZENS were subjected to such idiocy.

and the overall point is that you were dishonest You pretended that registration did not lead to confiscation or deprivation of firearms rights

you were clearly wrong and you continued to engage in such errors after you were thoroughly schooled about your errors
 
TurtleDude said:
doesn't matter-...
Click to expand...

how does it not matter, if you claimed to have answered the question?

if 2,400 NYers were ordered to turn in, disarm, or move their guns out of the city, and the NYPD only confiscated 20 guns, I am not very concerned.
 
Thunder said:
how does it not matter, if you claimed to have answered the question?

if 2,400 NYers were ordered to turn in, disarm, or move their guns out of the city, and the NYPD only confiscated 20 guns, I am not very concerned.
Click to expand...

of course you aren't. you don't support the right of people to own guns and you couldn't care less if people who lawfully owned and were then forced to register weapons were then deprived of those weapons through the THREAT of confiscation.

you are like a boss who tells 100 elderly employees that if they don't retire you will fire them and when an age discrimination suit is filed you defend by saying "THEY ALL RETIRED, I DID NOT FIRE ANYONE"
 
Thunder said:
sure I do. you're aware of that.
Click to expand...

that you don't care if 2 or 2340 people had guns confiscated sort of cuts against that claim
 
TurtleDude said:
that you don't care if 2 or 2340 people had guns confiscated sort of cuts against that claim
Click to expand...

I have ZERO problem with people owning most rifles & shotguns.

I think folks should be allowed to own a handgun on a case by case basis, taking into account a whole varety of factors.
 
TurtleDude said:
those who refuse to study history are doomed to repeat it

and since it has happened many times before anyone with a brain would guard against it happening again
Click to expand...

2nd amendment opponents do not want regular law abiding citizens owning firearms and know that a lot of times you have to resort to baby steps to get something outlawed and they have to as well as smear those who attempt to stop them. I do not believe for one second he is ignorant of history.He like every other 2nd amendment opponent is hoping that a lot of people are ignorant and its those people they will try to ease into accepting anti-2nd amendment laws one by one until guns are completely illegal.
 
If I wanted to attack the 2nd Amendment with several firearms, would I be creating a paradox?
 
Thunder said:
I have ZERO problem with people owning most rifles & shotguns.

I think folks should be allowed to own a handgun on a case by case basis, taking into account a whole varety of factors.
Click to expand...

In other words you don't support second amendment rights
 
Thunder said:
I have ZERO problem with people owning most rifles & shotguns.

I think folks should be allowed to own a handgun on a case by case basis, taking into account a whole varety of factors.
Click to expand...


This is where you depart from "reasonable restrictions" and enter the realm of authoritarianism and prior restraint, by most people's standards.


A law-abiding citizen doesn't need a reason YOU find acceptible to own a specific type of firearm.... YOU need a specific reason to deny him the right, on a case-by-case basis.

Otherwise it is prior restraint on a law-abiding person, which most jurisprudence has disdained in this country in most cases.
 
Goshin said:
...A law-abiding citizen doesn't need a reason YOU find acceptible to own a specific type of firearm.... YOU need a specific reason to deny him the right, on a case-by-case basis...
Click to expand...

that's why I was simply stating my personal opinion, not drafting a new law.
 
TurtleDude said:
doesn't matter-

The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson)

2340 citizens of NYC were deprived of their rights. some may have had more than one weapon subject to that nonsense. that is the point, how many CITIZENS were subjected to such idiocy.

and the overall point is that you were dishonest You pretended that registration did not lead to confiscation or deprivation of firearms rights

you were clearly wrong and you continued to engage in such errors after you were thoroughly schooled about your errors
Click to expand...

If 2340 gun owners were ordered to turn in, render inoperable, or take out of city their legally registered guns, and 20 were confiscated, it doesn't mean much. In the first place, I know more than a few gun owners, and I know no one that owns just one gun. I would put the number somewhere around 10,000, or about 4 per owner. In the second place, among these 10k guns, the perception that NYC now has less guns, or that these guns have been destroyed is a myth. The most likely outcome is that these guns have gone underground and are still in NYC, but are no longer on the radar screen. Some have probably left the city and are still in existence, and now cannot be accounted for. It is entirely possible that some are now for sale to all takers, and may now be in back the city in the hands of those with nefarious intent.

Myself, I have two sets of guns. Those that I have purchased through dealers and are known to the government, and those that I have purchased legally from private owners and whose whereabouts are unknown to the government. The second set is in anticipation of an attempt to confiscate based on registration.

Good job, Bloomie
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
I have ZERO problem with people owning most rifles & shotguns.

I think folks should be allowed to own a handgun on a case by case basis, taking into account a whole varety of factors.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how much these statements are in direct conflict? You cannot state that you have ZERO problem, then list the problems. Well, I guess you can, but you would be wrong.
 
jimbo said:
Do you realize how much these statements are in direct conflict? You cannot state that you have ZERO problem, then list the problems. Well, I guess you can, but you would be wrong.
Click to expand...

do I need to explain to you the difference between rifles, shotguns, and handguns?
 
Thunder said:
do I need to explain to you the difference between rifles, shotguns, and handguns?
Click to expand...


That handguns are the most commonly used firearm in crime? No.

Perhaps you need to have it explained to you that they are the kind of firearm most commonly used in self-defense?


The lowest of low-ball estimates on defensive gun use are 68,000 to 80,000, based on a study that isn't even intended to count such things. Many other studies and surveys have come up with figures in the hundreds of thousands. Some have come up with figures in the millions. Since most DGU's apparently end when the firearm is shown and no shots are fired, there are no hard stats on it.... but given the available estimates it is probably safe to say guns are used defensively hundreds of thousands of times a year. The majority of those will be handguns, because that's what concealed carry permits allow you to carry, and because they're also handy and convenient for homeowners and those travelling by vehicle.


I see no sense in depriving people of the firearm most commonly used for self-protection, and restricting it to a case-by-case basis (also known as "discretionary") would simply result in some states issuing NO handgun purchase permissions and others issuing LOTS of them. This sort of thing doesn't meet the smell-test for a restriction on a basic Constitutional right, either... it is neither essential to society nor does its burden fall chiefly on the ill-doer.
 
Goshin said:
That handguns are the most commonly used firearm in crime? No.

Perhaps you need to have it explained to you that they are the kind of firearm most commonly used in self-defense?....
Click to expand...

I'd love to see the numbers on how often a handgun is used in self-defense, every year in the USA.

oh, right...the numbers don't exist as the event is usually not reported. how covenient.
 
Thunder said:
I'd love to see the numbers on how often a handgun is used in self-defense, every year in the USA.

oh, right...the numbers don't exist as the event is usually not reported. how covenient.
Click to expand...


How often does anyone carry a rifle or a shotgun in town for self-defense purposes? Use your head.



This is australian, first stats I came across on crime at home vs crime elsewhere, but it shows that well over 3 times as much violent crime happens away from home, as AT home... and away from home, you're more likely to have a pistol than any long gun.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/location.aspx
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom