• 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 do liberals fail to apply the same "gun control" standards to the government?

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So, left-leaning citizens want the government to enact stricter gun control laws. I understand why. Other than making a constitutional or even pragmatic argument against this idea is to ask why these same people do not apply this "gun control" standard to the bearer of the largest and most deadliest weaponry on Earth - the government. It is the government that owns countless nuclear warheads, bombers, jet fighters, tanks, artillery, etc. It is the militarized police forces that own countless automatic AR-15's. These WMDs can and have caused 100,000's of deaths over the last several decades, FAR MORE than citizenry gun violence.

I will commit to disarming citizens if those who support gun control agree to disarm the government in the same fashion. What will be the typical response to this post? Will it be negative because "the government is there to protect us with their weapons"? If that were true, then they have absolutely failed to protect us or else these massacres would not have happened. And also, what purpose does the millions of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens serve (see underlined above). Will they shrug and say, "our government is a democracy not a totalitarian dictatorship". I say to that, just look at how easily a democracy can turn into a brutal dictatorship if you vote in the wrong party or candidate (*cough* Trump).

There is a massive outcry over citizen gun violence in this country, and rightly so. But there's a barely a peep from any mainstream media or gun control advocate about the countless thousands of innocent [foreign] civilians massacred by our own government in the name of nation-building and national security. A little consistency in action and thought is all I ask. Why not direct your passion for gun control on those owning and freely using the biggest, deadliest guns on Earth?

Thanks.
 

Exquisitor

Educator
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
7,593
Reaction score
1,193
Location
UP of Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So, left-leaning citizens want the government to enact stricter gun control laws. I understand why. Other than making a constitutional or even pragmatic argument against this idea is to ask why these same people do not apply this "gun control" standard to the bearer of the largest and most deadliest weaponry on Earth - the government. It is the government that owns countless nuclear warheads, bombers, jet fighters, tanks, artillery, etc. It is the militarized police forces that own countless automatic AR-15's. These WMDs can and have caused 100,000's of deaths over the last several decades, FAR MORE than citizenry gun violence.

I will commit to disarming citizens if those who support gun control agree to disarm the government in the same fashion. What will be the typical response to this post? Will it be negative because "the government is there to protect us with their weapons"? If that were true, then they have absolutely failed to protect us or else these massacres would not have happened. And also, what purpose does the millions of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens serve (see underlined above). Will they shrug and say, "our government is a democracy not a totalitarian dictatorship". I say to that, just look at how easily a democracy can turn into a brutal dictatorship if you vote in the wrong party or candidate (*cough* Trump).

There is a massive outcry over citizen gun violence in this country, and rightly so. But there's a barely a peep from any mainstream media or gun control advocate about the countless thousands of innocent [foreign] civilians massacred by our own government in the name of nation-building and national security. A little consistency in action and thought is all I ask. Why not direct your passion for gun control on those owning and freely using the biggest, deadliest guns on Earth?

Thanks.

Haven't you heard Obama talk about a nuclear free world?
 

Cameron

Politically Correct
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
5,158
Reaction score
3,603
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
So, left-leaning citizens want the government to enact stricter gun control laws. I understand why. Other than making a constitutional or even pragmatic argument against this idea is to ask why these same people do not apply this "gun control" standard to the bearer of the largest and most deadliest weaponry on Earth - the government. It is the government that owns countless nuclear warheads, bombers, jet fighters, tanks, artillery, etc. It is the militarized police forces that own countless automatic AR-15's. These WMDs can and have caused 100,000's of deaths over the last several decades, FAR MORE than citizenry gun violence.

I will commit to disarming citizens if those who support gun control agree to disarm the government in the same fashion. What will be the typical response to this post? Will it be negative because "the government is there to protect us with their weapons"? If that were true, then they have absolutely failed to protect us or else these massacres would not have happened. And also, what purpose does the millions of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens serve (see underlined above). Will they shrug and say, "our government is a democracy not a totalitarian dictatorship". I say to that, just look at how easily a democracy can turn into a brutal dictatorship if you vote in the wrong party or candidate (*cough* Trump).

There is a massive outcry over citizen gun violence in this country, and rightly so. But there's a barely a peep from any mainstream media or gun control advocate about the countless thousands of innocent [foreign] civilians massacred by our own government in the name of nation-building and national security. A little consistency in action and thought is all I ask. Why not direct your passion for gun control on those owning and freely using the biggest, deadliest guns on Earth?

Thanks.
1. I trust the government, which has checks and balances and is elected, more than all the crazies in the general population.

2. Disarming is only effective when it applies to everyone or you can keep those it doesn't apply to away from you. Otherwise you make those disarmed vulnerable. Disarming the U.S. would make it vulnerable to other countries.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Haven't you heard Obama talk about a nuclear free world?

Yea...at the same time he's ordering military strikes against populations in the Middle East. We do have the most nukes of any country. Lead by example...
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Camer☑n;1065974339 said:
1. I trust the government, which has checks and balances and is elected, more than all the crazies in the general population.

You trust a government with single digit approval ratings on the verge of electing a psychopath like Donald Trump? You trust a government that lies to the public in order to wage war against people in far away lands who pose zero threat to our national security? You trust a government that maintains CIA black sites across the globe while simultaneously telling the public it condemns torture? Talk to the Indian Nation about trusting our government. Always be skeptical of the government.

2. Disarming is only effective when it applies to everyone or you can keep those it doesn't apply to away from you. Otherwise you make those disarmed vulnerable. Disarming the U.S. would make it vulnerable to other countries.

And disarming civilians makes them what? More protected? Yet, what does gun control do for a culture that glorifies violence? What does it do for mental illness? The very same argument you used to ensure the government keeps its guns is the same argument legitimizing the 2nd Amendment, only for a free and private citizen. If organized government has killed millions, and deranged lunatics among millions have killed hundreds, what say you?
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
43,950
Reaction score
12,031
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So, left-leaning citizens want the government to enact stricter gun control laws. I understand why. Other than making a constitutional or even pragmatic argument against this idea is to ask why these same people do not apply this "gun control" standard to the bearer of the largest and most deadliest weaponry on Earth - the government. It is the government that owns countless nuclear warheads, bombers, jet fighters, tanks, artillery, etc. It is the militarized police forces that own countless automatic AR-15's. These WMDs can and have caused 100,000's of deaths over the last several decades, FAR MORE than citizenry gun violence.

I will commit to disarming citizens if those who support gun control agree to disarm the government in the same fashion. What will be the typical response to this post? Will it be negative because "the government is there to protect us with their weapons"? If that were true, then they have absolutely failed to protect us or else these massacres would not have happened. And also, what purpose does the millions of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens serve (see underlined above). Will they shrug and say, "our government is a democracy not a totalitarian dictatorship". I say to that, just look at how easily a democracy can turn into a brutal dictatorship if you vote in the wrong party or candidate (*cough* Trump).

There is a massive outcry over citizen gun violence in this country, and rightly so. But there's a barely a peep from any mainstream media or gun control advocate about the countless thousands of innocent [foreign] civilians massacred by our own government in the name of nation-building and national security. A little consistency in action and thought is all I ask. Why not direct your passion for gun control on those owning and freely using the biggest, deadliest guns on Earth?

Thanks.


Hm. I wonder if this poster has a agenda.

*reads post

Yep. And it's frankly a ridiculous agenda at that.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hm. I wonder if this poster has a agenda.

*reads post

Yep. And it's frankly a ridiculous agenda at that.

An agenda? I have an opinion, but unfortunately not organized or powerful enough to have an agenda.

Your response is a waste of space on this server. Elaborate on "ridiculous" in order to add value, otherwise you offer none.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
43,950
Reaction score
12,031
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
An agenda? I have an opinion, but unfortunately not organized or powerful enough to have an agenda.

Your response is a waste of space on this server. Elaborate on "ridiculous" in order to add value, otherwise you offer none.

The idea that the government needs to have "gun control" is ridiculous. The idea that said control needs to happen because foreign civillians have died, which always happens in wars and as a large part were the fault of one foreign dicatator or another is ridiculous. The whole premise is ridiculous.
 

Exquisitor

Educator
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
7,593
Reaction score
1,193
Location
UP of Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
An agenda? I have an opinion, but unfortunately not organized or powerful enough to have an agenda.

Your response is a waste of space on this server. Elaborate on "ridiculous" in order to add value, otherwise you offer none.

We're using up your first page.

That's OK, you want it to stick around don't you?

I think the poster does not understand the dynamics of self defense, war, potential and so forth.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
272,739
Reaction score
90,785
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Camer☑n;1065974339 said:
1. I trust the government, which has checks and balances and is elected, more than all the crazies in the general population.

2. Disarming is only effective when it applies to everyone or you can keep those it doesn't apply to away from you. Otherwise you make those disarmed vulnerable. Disarming the U.S. would make it vulnerable to other countries.

Just as gun control makes those who follow those stupid laws vulnerable to the criminals who don't

great point
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The idea that the government needs to have "gun control" is ridiculous. The idea that said control needs to happen because foreign civillians have died, which always happens in wars and as a large part were the fault of one foreign dicatator or another is ridiculous. The whole premise is ridiculous.

Governments (including our own democratic one) have killed tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or more, innocent civilians. While in the last 100 years, you may be able to name a hundred mass murderers who used small arms to kill perhaps 1-3,000 innocent civilians at the most. And you think a post raising concerns about WMDs and asking for restrictions on government WMDs is ridiculous? That's cheap, and it's a terrible failure to look at the proportion of scale of violence in this country.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We're using up your first page.

That's OK, you want it to stick around don't you?

I think the poster does not understand the dynamics of self defense, war, potential and so forth.

I do understand the dynamics of self-defense, war, etc. Your point? Or do you have one? Again, you're adding no value to this discussion.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
43,950
Reaction score
12,031
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Governments (including our own democratic one) have killed tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or more, innocent civilians. While in the last 100 years, you may be able to name a hundred mass murderers who used small arms to kill perhaps 1-3,000 innocent civilians at the most. And you think a post raising concerns about WMDs and asking for restrictions on government WMDs is ridiculous? That's cheap, and it's a terrible failure to look at the proportion of scale of violence in this country.

And look at what happens when there's no government, no law and order; you get Somalia. The central government had no real ability to control the country and there was immense suffering.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And look at what happens when there's no government, no law and order; you get Somalia. The central government had no real ability to control the country and there was immense suffering.

You're confusing this debate with a debate regarding anarchy. This is about WMDs and restricting the government's use of WMDs, not whether the government should exist in the first place.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
43,950
Reaction score
12,031
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You're confusing this debate with a debate regarding anarchy. This is about WMDs and restricting the government's use of WMDs, not whether the government should exist in the first place.

Who gets to define WMD? If your going off conventional definition of the term(nuclear, biological, or chemical) weaponry, the US government has highly restricted it's use.

Nuclear weapons haven't been used since the Second World War. You can debate whether Agent Orange and other defoliants really count as WMDs all day. Bioweapons haven't been used by the US gov ASFAIK ever.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2016
Messages
2,395
Reaction score
421
Location
Palatine, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Haven't you heard Obama talk about a nuclear free world?

Yes, we have. Which makes him a complete moron.

In a nuclear-free world, Germany could start a world war. Because Russia has the nukes, they won't.

Nukes are good.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom