• 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 Gun Control Doesn't Work In The USA

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,649
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

A knife crime is not a "MASSACRE". Likewise your other links don't adequately address the issue. In general, semi-automatic weapons or bombs are involved in massacres. The weapon of choice has been semi-automatic weapons, and the near daily/weekly massacres that we're seeing in the US are a product of those. They need to be OUTLAWED, and it is perfectly within the framework of the constitution to do so.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
27,452
Reaction score
17,501
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
A knife crime is not a "MASSACRE". Likewise your other links don't adequately address the issue. In general, semi-automatic weapons or bombs are involved in massacres. The weapon of choice has been semi-automatic weapons, and the near daily/weekly massacres that we're seeing in the US are a product of those. They need to be OUTLAWED, and it is perfectly within the framework of the constitution to do so.

Where does Congress get the power to regulate the arms of the People?

Are semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns "in common use for lawful purposes" or possess "a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia"?

What happens when the good guys turn in their semiautomatic weapons and the bad guys don't? If the US saw the same results as Australia there would still be 5 million "assault weapons", 24 million pistols and 10 million semiautomatic shotguns in the hands of criminals.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A knife crime is not a "MASSACRE". Likewise your other links don't adequately address the issue. In general, semi-automatic weapons or bombs are involved in massacres. The weapon of choice has been semi-automatic weapons, and the near daily/weekly massacres that we're seeing in the US are a product of those. They need to be OUTLAWED, and it is perfectly within the framework of the constitution to do so.

you're lying. the supreme court has already ruled handguns cannot be banned and most of them are semi automatic.
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,649
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
you're lying. the supreme court has already ruled handguns cannot be banned and most of them are semi automatic.

Supreme Court decisions come and go, but the text of the Second Amendment remains the same:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The intent of this statement is obvious, and states that a militia is necessary for the security of the United States, and that the citizens were that militia. The question that should be asked - Are armed citizens necessary for the military to keep the United States secure? - because that was the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
 

DebateChallenge

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
11,821
Reaction score
3,396
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
A knife crime is not a "MASSACRE". Likewise your other links don't adequately address the issue. In general, semi-automatic weapons or bombs are involved in massacres. The weapon of choice has been semi-automatic weapons, and the near daily/weekly massacres that we're seeing in the US are a product of those. They need to be OUTLAWED, and it is perfectly within the framework of the constitution to do so.

And my point is that you can't outlaw semi-automatic weapons in the USA because there is already so many of them owned and the USA has way too much of a gun culture for your pipe dream to ever become a reality.
 

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
42,834
Reaction score
14,966
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
1% ? I would have thought more like .05%
You're probably closer than me. I just tossed out a tiny number to emphasize these people are making a huge deal out of a tiny sliver of the issue.
 

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
42,834
Reaction score
14,966
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Bullseye you just went and pissed into the wind because these grabbers won't listen. Everything you said here is fact (also post 24) but sadly they listen only to each other and back-slap and high-five and go on their merry way.
Yeah, I know. Facts and logic don't have much effect on dedicated gun grabbers.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Supreme Court decisions come and go, but the text of the Second Amendment remains the same:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The intent of this statement is obvious, and states that a militia is necessary for the security of the United States, and that the citizens were that militia. The question that should be asked - Are armed citizens necessary for the military to keep the United States secure? - because that was the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

what was the natural right that pre-existed the constitution, that the founders intended to protect with the second Amendment?
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
27,452
Reaction score
17,501
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Supreme Court decisions come and go, but the text of the Second Amendment remains the same:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The intent of this statement is obvious, and states that a militia is necessary for the security of the United States, and that the citizens were that militia. The question that should be asked - Are armed citizens necessary for the military to keep the United States secure? - because that was the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

No, it wasn't the intent. SCOTUS has already shown that the right pre-exists the Constitution, isn't dependent upon it for existence and protects an individual right. You're tilting at windmills.
 

katiegrrl0

OWL Forever
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
4,172
Reaction score
1,960
Location
at the computer
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Socialist
credible proof required for this theory. btw what country do you reside in?
You don't believe Americans live in fear? You don't believe they are scared to death of Muslims, Mexicans, illegals, Russians, blacks, women, liberals/conservatives (depending on what side of the fence you are on) Iran, Iraq, how many years was the US terrified that the communists from Vietnam were going to take over the world? They are afraid of bacteria which they need Lysol or some such to destroy. They Take more antidepressant drugs than the rest of the world combined. Yellow alerts, red alerts, LGBTQP, anyone different. This is why there are so many protection guns in the US. Did you know there are shadows everywhere? Imagine all those shadows can get behind you in a well lighted room. Tell me Americans don't live in fear and have for probably have for closer to 100 years than 50. My country is of no consequence nor relevant to the answer.
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,649
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No, it wasn't the intent. SCOTUS has already shown that the right pre-exists the Constitution, isn't dependent upon it for existence and protects an individual right. You're tilting at windmills.

Not true. If that was the case, the text of the amendment would have covered it. One must go with the verbage of the actual amendment.
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,649
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And my point is that you can't outlaw semi-automatic weapons in the USA because there is already so many of them owned and the USA has way too much of a gun culture for your pipe dream to ever become a reality.

We've been through this before. Australia had a very active gun culture also. And they were able to make their "Pipe Dream" work.

Australia_Gun_Law_Opposition.jpg
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
27,452
Reaction score
17,501
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You don't believe Americans live in fear? You don't believe they are scared to death of Muslims, Mexicans, illegals, Russians, blacks, women, liberals/conservatives (depending on what side of the fence you are on) Iran, Iraq, how many years was the US terrified that the communists from Vietnam were going to take over the world? They are afraid of bacteria which they need Lysol or some such to destroy. They Take more antidepressant drugs than the rest of the world combined. Yellow alerts, red alerts, LGBTQP, anyone different. This is why there are so many protection guns in the US. Did you know there are shadows everywhere? Imagine all those shadows can get behind you in a well lighted room. Tell me Americans don't live in fear and have for probably have for closer to 100 years than 50. My country is of no consequence nor relevant to the answer.

In other words, you just made it up. thanks
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
27,452
Reaction score
17,501
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
We've been through this before. Australia had a very active gun culture also. And they were able to make their "Pipe Dream" work.

View attachment 67244649

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/26/gun-culture-in-us-different-says-australian-ambassador.html

When 3% of the population owns guns, you can't claim there is an active gun culture.

Confiscation of firearms in common use for lawful purposes would be unconstitutional in the US. Australia had no such protections.
 

katiegrrl0

OWL Forever
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
4,172
Reaction score
1,960
Location
at the computer
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Socialist
In other words, you just made it up. thanks

In other words you don't believe it because you are probably an American and are afraid to admit what you really do know. Thanks for proving what I say is correct. And no my country is of no consequence to this answer either. You want to know because you may be afraid of the country you think I might be from. The funny thing is you know what I am saying to the truth.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
In other words you don't believe it because you are probably an American and are afraid to admit what you really do know. Thanks for proving what I say is correct. And no my country is of no consequence to this answer either. You want to know because you may be afraid of the country you think I might be from. The funny thing is you know what I am saying to the truth.
your argument is of no consequence because its based on ignorance or disinformation. I am not afraid of any country. I find it funny you are afraid to tell us which country that is-its probably one that has massive issues
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
27,452
Reaction score
17,501
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
You don't believe Americans live in fear? You don't believe they are scared to death of Muslims, Mexicans, illegals, Russians, blacks, women, liberals/conservatives (depending on what side of the fence you are on) Iran, Iraq, how many years was the US terrified that the communists from Vietnam were going to take over the world? They are afraid of bacteria which they need Lysol or some such to destroy. They Take more antidepressant drugs than the rest of the world combined. Yellow alerts, red alerts, LGBTQP, anyone different. This is why there are so many protection guns in the US. Did you know there are shadows everywhere? Imagine all those shadows can get behind you in a well lighted room. Tell me Americans don't live in fear and have for probably have for closer to 100 years than 50. My country is of no consequence nor relevant to the answer.

You paint with a wide brush.

Anyone who claims to be a socialist in this day and age doesn't have a realistic of the world, either.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
27,452
Reaction score
17,501
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
In other words you don't believe it because you are probably an American and are afraid to admit what you really do know. Thanks for proving what I say is correct. And no my country is of no consequence to this answer either. You want to know because you may be afraid of the country you think I might be from. The funny thing is you know what I am saying to the truth.

Fear of hate crime:

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Fear-of-crime/Violent-hate-crime

US is behind France, Ireland, Sweden.

Worried about getting attacked:

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Fear-of-crime/Worries-about-being-attacked

US is behind Ireland, France, United Kingdom, Belgium.

Being mugged or robbed:

https://www.nationmaster.com/countr...of-crime/Worries-about-being-mugged-or-robbed

Behind Ireland, France, Italy, Belgium
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,649
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
https://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/294694-militia-only-interpretation-2nd-amendment.html

Given that Congress has complete control over the arms and organization of the militia under Article 1, Section 8, if the 2nd doesn't protect the arms of the people, it protects nothing. Why did the Framers even include it?

Of course the 2nd protected the rights of the people to carry firearms. That's exactly what I said. But that is only valid, if there is a militia requirement, per the first part of the statement. So a military need for armed citizens must be demonstrated, for this personal right to be true. Congressional powers to maintain and finance the military are unrelated to these personal rights, unless Congress (on advice from the Pentagon, etc.) decides to arm it's citizens, for Military support for a specific historical event (i.e. a military invasion of the country).
 

katiegrrl0

OWL Forever
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
4,172
Reaction score
1,960
Location
at the computer
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Socialist
your argument is of no consequence because its based on ignorance or disinformation. I am not afraid of any country. I find it funny you are afraid to tell us which country that is-its probably one that has massive issues
If you really believe it prove that those things I pointed out are wrong. How many military personal did the US lose protecting yourselves from the mighty Vietnam? Prove me wrong? You can't because I am correct.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
27,452
Reaction score
17,501
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
27,452
Reaction score
17,501
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Of course the 2nd protected the rights of the people to carry firearms. That's exactly what I said. But that is only valid, if there is a militia requirement, per the first part of the statement. So a military need for armed citizens must be demonstrated, for this personal right to be true. Congressional powers to maintain and finance the military are unrelated to these personal rights, unless Congress (on advice from the Pentagon, etc.) decides to arm it's citizens, for Military support for a specific historical event (i.e. a military invasion of the country).

The right of the People to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes is not dependent upon the existence or participation in a militia. It's been that way from before the Constitution was even written.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Of course the 2nd protected the rights of the people to carry firearms. That's exactly what I said. But that is only valid, if there is a militia requirement, per the first part of the statement. So a military need for armed citizens must be demonstrated, for this personal right to be true. Congressional powers to maintain and finance the military are unrelated to these personal rights, unless Congress (on advice from the Pentagon, etc.) decides to arm it's citizens, for Military support for a specific historical event (i.e. a military invasion of the country).

more nonsense that is unsupported by either the words of the founders or the current Supreme Court case law. Why do you avoid telling us what Natural right-a right that pre-exists the constitution-that the second amendment sought to guarantee?
 
Top Bottom