• 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?

Bob Blaylock said:
It should be no surprise that it can easily be observed that those who are most deeply involved in the third item in this list are the ones who most overwhelmingly support disarming the public.
Click to expand...

ah, so anyone in govt. who supports common-sense gun regulations, is corrupt & ineffective.

wow, your hatred for those who disagree with you knows no bounds.
 
Thunder said:
ah, so anyone in govt. who supports common-sense gun regulations, is corrupt & ineffective.

wow, your hatred for those who disagree with you knows no bounds.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between someone who merely disagrees with me, and someone who wishes to strip me of my most basic rights, under the fraudulent guise of “common sense”.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
There is a big difference between someone who merely disagrees with me, and someone who wishes to strip me of my most basic rights, under the fraudulent guise of “common sense”.
Click to expand...

the ability to own a Glock without any background check or permit, is a "basic right"?

spare us the lies & hyperbole.
 
Thunder said:
the ability to own a Glock without any background check or permit, is a "basic right"?

spare us the lies & hyperbole.
Click to expand...
Tell us about the lies and hyperbole.
 
Thunder said:
the ability to own a Glock without any background check or permit, is a "basic right"?
Click to expand...
I would argue that, yes, the ability to carry the same arms carried by a common soldier IS a fundamental right, one enjoyed, without permit or background check, by our founding fathers.
 
American said:
Tell us about the lies and hyperbole.
Click to expand...

I don't know that the term “lies and hyperbole” will always be used, but I think it can almost always be expected that any corrupt government official who seeks to exercise unjust control over “the little people” is going to use some similar terminology to disparage any legal principles which would seek to restrain this corrupt abuse of power.
 
Opteron said:
Looks like its words beyond your reading comprehension.
Click to expand...


Not at all, I have forgotten more about gun issues than most people will ever learn. And most of the posters on tis board who understand guns will note that I do know my stuff when it comes to these issues. Its the sort of expertise one gets from being a world class competitive shooter, a serious firearms collector and former general counsel for several major retail dealers, a Title II manufacturer (Class III weapons-machine guns etc) and the largest NRA affiliated club in the country (among other things)
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I don't know that the term “lies and hyperbole” will always be used, but I think it can almost always be expected that any corrupt government official who seeks to exercise unjust control over “the little people” is going to use some similar terminology to disparage any legal principles which would seek to restrain this corrupt abuse of power.
Click to expand...

wanting to enact common-sense gun control rules, does not make a government official corrupt.

nevermind the fact that many government officials agree with your silly ideas about the 2nd Amendment.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
wanting to enact common-sense gun control rules, does not make a government official corrupt.
Click to expand...

First of all, there is not a single violation of the Second Amendment that you have openly advocate that has anything whatsoever to do with any rational concept of “common sense”.

Second, any government official advocating any blatant violation of the Constitution does, in fact, indicate that official to be corrupt. In taking your government job, you swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. By advocating violations thereof, you are violating that oath; and indicating yourself to be an enemy of the Constitution.


Thunder said:
nevermind the fact that many government officials agree with your silly ideas about the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

That there are many other corrupt members of government does not, in any way, excuse your own corruption.

If you do not believe in the Constitution, if you are not willing to uphold it, then you have no business being in government. Too much damage has already been done to this nation by corrupt government officials who are willing to subvert the Constitution for their own purposes.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
False Nazi Quotations

GunCite - Gun Control: Bogus gun control quotes

Bogus Anti-Gun Quotes


yeah, you keep on on posting false-quotes, and I'll keep on laughing at the dishonesty of my opposition.

:lamo
Click to expand...

So Nazis didn't have firearm regulations? Tell that to the Jews. Why is it that people who bring up these kinds of things never actually do the research and find out the extent? Nazis liberalized the laws regarding firearms, making them slightly easier to aquire for the general population. Of course they still maintained regulation of handguns. But the WEIMAR REPUBLIC was very strict on firearms regulations and the Nazis did maintain a similar structure in regards to laws and regulations (only relaxed). The Nazis recgonized the importance of training their people in the use of firearms and did it with children...who they later forced into military service of course, but you would really have to understand German since the the Rise of Bismarck to even have the slightest clue as to the culture and personality of the nation...which most of you won't.

Of course I notice that on one of your sources is quite bogus. Just looking at some of the things written I can tell you that they really didn't understand how the Nazi government structure, the Weimar, or basically anything about German government save maybe the language they speak. BTW if you give me some time when I get back to my apartment I will give you some citations from ACTUAL history books written by people with PhDs in History and not the weekend wiki warriors.

Side Bar: The Nazis DID bar weapons that would be "militarily useful." Interesting. Of course back then that could have meant a realm of things, but considering the primary weapon of the Nazi Army WAS the K98k, a derrivation of the Mauser and was a bolt action rifle. Makes me wonder what "militarily useful" means to the Weimar.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
wanting to enact common-sense gun control rules, does not make a government official corrupt.

.
Click to expand...

AGAIN what actually causes crime? You seem to be ignoring this, and still on the same idiotic notion that guns cause violence.

I direct you to Grouch Marx

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Click to expand...

NOW you say:

nevermind the fact that many government officials agree with your silly ideas about the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Do you know who Will Rodgers is?

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Click to expand...
 
Bob Blaylock said:
...Second, any government official advocating any blatant violation of the Constitution does, in fact, indicate that official to be corrupt. In taking your government job, you swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. By advocating violations thereof, you are violating that oath; and indicating yourself to be an enemy of the Constitution....
Click to expand...

dude, do you REALLY take this stuff seriously?

I sure don't. Your posts are like Stephen Colbert multiplied by 1,000.

:lamo
 
Thunder said:
wow, I guess you didn't even have the honesty to read the links I posted for you.
Click to expand...


This is ironic, considering that you haven't responded to any actual arguments for approximately ten pages now... not that I find your behavior surprising, persay.
 
theangryamerican said:
This is ironic, considering that you haven't responded to any actual arguments for approximately ten pages now... not that I find your behavior surprising, persay.
Click to expand...



He's really just seeing how long he can keep people responding through pointless pot-stirring. Bad habit of his.
 
Thunder said:
wow, I guess you didn't even have the honesty to read the links I posted for you.
Click to expand...

I actually did. The part about the [Edit] Military Purpose Weapons [End Edit] being regulated...came from your links. Do you read the sources you cite thoroughly? I understand if you didn't. I was like that in high school, but once I understood how fact base writing actually works I stopped skimming and started reading.

Edit: The Firearms and Jews is actually a well known fact and a very simple google search should reveal this information to you.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

Start there. While I have not fully read the article, I have found some starting points for you to research the FACT that Nazis disarmed the Jews.

If you disagree with that, then you need to reevaluate your understanding of the Holocaust. See here is the thing, you need to tell me how you can take and put millions into internment camps and force them into wholesale slaughter without disarming them. Of course you could also tell me you don't believe in the Holocaust, because quite frankly the only way you could subject a massive group of people to a wholesale slaughter would be to disarm them because there is no way you could possibily do it without disarming them. Do you see where I am going with this? Or are you still lost?
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
wow, I guess you didn't even have the honesty to read the links I posted for you.
Click to expand...

And I would also like to note that you don't believe that Nazis had any firearm regulations at all? I just want to get this point made clear?
 
stonewall50 said:
And I would also like to note that you don't believe that Nazis had any firearm regulations at all? I just want to get this point made clear?
Click to expand...

another stupid claim. I have no reason to believe the Nazis had no firearms laws.

but the fact is strong firearms laws were passed under the previous Weimar Republic, and not by the Nazis till 1938........5 years after they took power.

but again, your Hitler quote is a lie. maybe you should research such things before you post them.

;)
 
Thunder said:
wanting to enact common-sense gun control rules, does not make a government official corrupt.

nevermind the fact that many government officials agree with your silly ideas about the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

to evaluate whether a gun law is based on common sense, the evaluator must have common sense when it comes to guns and laws. You have demonstrated that you really don't know much about gun laws etc.
 
Thunder said:
another stupid claim. I have no reason to believe the Nazis had no firearms laws.

but the fact is strong firearms laws were passed under the previous Weimar Republic, and not by the Nazis till 1938........5 years after they took power.

but again, your Hitler quote is a lie. maybe you should research such things before you post them.

;)
Click to expand...

Hey slick...did you ever see me quote hitler? EVER? I would like to point out that I specalized in 20th Century European History and have read DOZENS of books on Germany, Nazis, Bismarck, and HITLER. I am fully aware that he never said anything of the sort. That REALLY isn't the point though is it? Since you are not grasping what data is relevant I am going to put down exactly what you should be getting out of this. You better take notes because there WILL be an essay question about this at the end of the semester.

THE Weimar did have strict gun control, but was essentially useless in 1933 when the Nazi party decided that they could legislate without regard to the Constitution.* Of course the Weimar lasted only 14 years and was plagued with instability for numerous reasons. So essentially the Weimar discussion is POINTLESS unless we wish to go into an in depth debate on what "could have happened" had the bliss of the roaring 20s continued. That would be a giant time waste for both of us because quite frankly I don't have my books about the period after the First World War.

This fact does remain and you have NOT contradicted it. The Nazis did enact laws on the Jews. You cannot dominate a group of people without passing stringent laws on them and violating one of their most important rights. Ghandi was an anti-military and anti-firearm person and he recognized the dangers of such actions. This is seen in his statement

Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
Click to expand...

which references not allowing the Indians to serve in the military. The point is that the deprivation of arms, SOMETHING THE NAZIS DID DO TO THE JEWS AND YOU CANNOT REFUTE, is instrumental in oppression.

maybe you should research such things before you post them.
Click to expand...

You mean research what you say? Because you didn't research my statements. I never quoted hitler. I also didn't make an assumption that the Nazis took over in '38 either. They had essential national control in '33.

*This is in reference to above *'ed statement. Does that remind you of any bill passed in the American government recently?

 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
to evaluate whether a gun law is based on common sense, the evaluator must have common sense when it comes to guns and laws....
Click to expand...

this, coming from the guy who wants politicians who vote for gun-laws, to be killed.

TurtleDude said:
...If you advocate and work for laws that are designed merely to punish, hassle, infringe upon rights, confiscate property or are intended to cause people whose only sin is to own weapons that were once lawful to go to jail I believe it is legitimate for those so targeted to KILL YOU.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom