• 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 I don't Fear Obama taking away Guns

Who does gun legislation effect? Criminals who disregard laws completely? Or upstanding citizens who follow the law? Think about that REAL hard... it's a LAW being put in effect....
Click to expand...

I once heard a funny story:

When the Hanoverians were trying to pacify the highlands of Scotland with its high proportion of Jacobite clans they decided to disarm them. However as they couldn't easily enforce it what happened was the Hanovarian clans gave up their guns and the loyal clans kept theirs. So the highlands became even more dangerous for Hanovarians.

It is even more funny if you have Jacobite sympathies.

The same sort of thing will be repeated if the liberals have their way in the US.
 
I have serious doubts about the military firing on US Civilians in a civil war sitatuation.
 
Depends on how they would characterize these civilians. They ain't gonna refer to them as grandma and grandpa.
 
American said:
Depends on how they would characterize these civilians. They ain't gonna refer to them as grandma and grandpa.
Click to expand...

I don't know all that many soldiers who would go after their own citizens period.

Pit them against someone in another country and they'll do their job even if they disagree with it... But on the home-front? Nahhhhhh.
 
Shewter said:
I don't know all that many soldiers who would go after their own citizens period.

Pit them against someone in another country and they'll do their job even if they disagree with it... But on the home-front? Nahhhhhh.
Click to expand...
Are you telling me they wouldn't follow orders?
 
Its really going to come down to who has the better propoganda.

For a soldier to disobey an order like that is going to need some serious convincing and doubt. If the civilians are able to be described sufficiently as "antagonists" without much support then its not really an issue will the soldier fire as much as does the soldier think he has enough ammo to do the job.

On the other hand if the civilians receive enough notable support (active soldiers, senators, govenors, congressmen, etc) and large numbers then it could cause enough doubt that some soldiers would refuse. Combine this with a strong information campaign that is combining pragmatic law challenges to the government (spoken in layman terms) with a mix of emotion and things can really get going. Throw some dead baby TV propoganda and you might even have some full on mutinies.

But once again its all going to be situational.
 
I recall one high profile Democrat of Congress replying to concerns of gun bans replying, "don't worry, he won't take away your SHOTGUNS."

That tells me there will be increasing restrictions on firearms coming out of Washington.
 
Bonnie1988 said:
I recall one high profile Democrat of Congress replying to concerns of gun bans replying, "don't worry, he won't take away your SHOTGUNS."

That tells me there will be increasing restrictions on firearms coming out of Washington.
Click to expand...

That tells me that you're speculating.
 
I sure hope there are increasing restrictions on firearms coming out of Washington. I don't think there are any upstanding citizens who wish to excersise their freedom to bear arms that need THIS baby:

ak47.jpg
 
Why don't people just use tasers? If it's really about safety, you don't need to buy a gun that can kill someone. Yeah, tasers sometimes can kill people, but the risk is considerably less. I don't totally buy the self-defense argument. People just like their guns and like to shoot things.
 
BlueKC said:
I sure hope there are increasing restrictions on firearms coming out of Washington. I don't think there are any upstanding citizens who wish to excersise their freedom to bear arms that need THIS baby:

ak47.jpg
Click to expand...



what does "need" have to do with anything. this is america jack. :roll:
 
BlueKC said:
I sure hope there are increasing restrictions on firearms coming out of Washington. I don't think there are any upstanding citizens who wish to excersise their freedom to bear arms that need THIS baby:

ak47.jpg
Click to expand...


Need has nothing to do with rights. You don't NEED to be spewing hoplophobic nonsense on a message board either. I have a bunch of AK 47's (semi auto but the real russian things) and I have never hurt anyone with one.

Why shouldn't I be able to own one?
 
Orius said:
Why don't people just use tasers? If it's really about safety, you don't need to buy a gun that can kill someone. Yeah, tasers sometimes can kill people, but the risk is considerably less. I don't totally buy the self-defense argument. People just like their guns and like to shoot things.
Click to expand...

If I have a shotgun and you have a taser and we have a serious disagreement who is going to win? If you limit your response to an attack that has lethal possibilities with a non-lethal weapon you are going to lose almost every time.
 
BlueKC said:
I sure hope there are increasing restrictions on firearms coming out of Washington. I don't think there are any upstanding citizens who wish to excersise their freedom to bear arms that need THIS baby:

ak47.jpg
Click to expand...


If any law should come about with that picture in mind it would a law against letting your weapon fall into that state of disrepair. AK mud myths or not, that gun is just asking for an "in battery" failure to happen.

Tasers are not a guarantee. Against many is will incapacitate them for a minute or two in which time you will need to "secure" the individual, continue to reactivate the taser (and opening you up for a torture lawsuit), or run for your lives. For some it only produces extreme muscle contractions and pain but does not incapacitate them. Tasers only provide 1 shot per cartridge. Missing requires you to unlock and remove the cartridge unit in the front and go "hand to hand" in an attempt to make contact with his body using the probes on the front of the taser.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
If I have a shotgun and you have a taser and we have a serious disagreement who is going to win? If you limit your response to an attack that has lethal possibilities with a non-lethal weapon you are going to lose almost every time.
Click to expand...

The problem is that people like you consider shooting somebody an acceptable response to a serious disagreement.
 
BlueKC said:
The problem is that people like you consider shooting somebody an acceptable response to a serious disagreement.
Click to expand...




:lol: apparently you view a brutal rape as nothing more than a "serious disagreement"..... :roll:
 
BlueKC said:
The problem is that people like you consider shooting somebody an acceptable response to a serious disagreement.
Click to expand...

Serious means just that-someone is seeking to harm me or mine. What are you goinna do-open a jar of vaseline?:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
:lol: apparently you view a brutal rape as nothing more than a "serious disagreement"..... :roll:
Click to expand...

Apparently you lack the ability to comprehend what you read. The term "serious disagreement" was his term, not mine. And brutal rape was never implied by it.
 
BlueKC said:
Apparently you lack the ability to comprehend what you read. The term "serious disagreement" was his term, not mine. And brutal rape was never implied by it.
Click to expand...

My definition is clearly different than yours. Try again
 
TurtleDude said:
If I have a shotgun and you have a taser and we have a serious disagreement who is going to win? If you limit your response to an attack that has lethal possibilities with a non-lethal weapon you are going to lose almost every time.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify...

You are saying that the intended use of tasers is to be non-lethal, but that they still have lethal possibilities and so you can't have an intentional outcome?

Furthermore, are you saying that guns do not have lethal possibilities given the same intent of use?
 
Orius said:
Just to clarify...

You are saying that the intended use of tasers is to be non-lethal, but that they still have lethal possibilities and so you can't have an intentional outcome?

Furthermore, are you saying that guns do not have lethal possibilities given the same intent of use?
Click to expand...

No. What I am saying is that bringing a taser to a shotgun fight is not a winning strategy.
 
BlueKC said:
Apparently you lack the ability to comprehend what you read. The term "serious disagreement" was his term, not mine. And brutal rape was never implied by it.
Click to expand...




Yet if you see your daughter being brutally raped your answer is to call 911 and wait "8 minutes" for help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom