• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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 you personally should not carry.

jaeger19 said:
1. Are you answering for Calamity
and if so 2. Any idea the post number?
Click to expand...

I answered for Calamity because he actually was honest throughout the thread and I have to respect that. Starts at #6, 11, and the thread goes on. He felt he could not trust himself to use it "rightly" given his background. Fair enough as far as I am concerned. He does not seem to have a problem with others carrying. Not everyone is emotionally ready or able to carry. Fair enough.
What is funny is that the usual suspects were notably absent as pointed out by Fishing.
 
faithful_servant said:
I guess you missed the plural form of "firearm" in my post. I don't know anyone who carries who only owns one firearm...
Click to expand...

I know plenty of people who own just a self defense firearm.

And yes you said "firearms" but that is disingenuous since Kevin was talking about the cost of one self defense firearm and you responded with the bit about needing a gun safe.
 
ataraxia said:
Are you saying that a terrorist or convicted ex-con cannot just walk up to an unlicensed seller today and buy a gun with no questions asked?

They can. That's the loophole.
Click to expand...



that's dishonest. a Terrorist can freely travel throughout the united states without having to stop and show papers every time he crosses state lines. Is that a loophole? You gun banners want to pretend any freedom is a loophole. The federal government doesn't even have a real proper power to impose background checks in the first place
 
BretJ said:
We have a thread outlining why those who carry do so. It would be interesting to know why those that do not carry feel they should not carry. Assume need is not an issue.
Click to expand...

A lot of people who don't own guns or don't believe the version of 2nd put forth by the NRA and the gunnies will not respond to this because the gunnies go ape **** anytime their bubble is challenged and thus a civil or rationale conversation on this issue is impossible.
 
wolfman24 said:
A lot of people who don't own guns or don't believe the version of 2nd put forth by the NRA and the gunnies will not respond to this because the gunnies go ape **** anytime their bubble is challenged and thus a civil or rationale conversation on this issue is impossible.
Click to expand...

that's because the anti gun interpretations of the second amendment completely fly in the face of the foundation upon which the constitution and the bill of rights are based. Anti gunners want to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment so their scummy schemes aren't seen as high treason. why should anyone entertain such fraudulent and dishonest interpretations? since the anti gun side is coming from a position of dishonesty and deceit, and almost always refuses to give us their real reasons for what they want, its hard to have a "reasonable conversation" with them
 
ataraxia said:
That's fine. But I still don't understand what this has to do with The fierce resistance against closing the loophole on selling guns to known gang members and felons.
Click to expand...
Gang members and felons regularly pass NICS and buy firearms from FFLs legally. Requiring background checks for private transfers will not stop a single activity since NICS is broken (as it's designed to be, just like Obama'Care, so as to make the problem worse for controlling public opinion to favour a more drastic action).

  • Being a gang member does not flag you in NICS at all. There is no registry of unarrested gang members to furnish that information. Gang members with clean criminal histories legally buy firearms through FFLs and then gift them to their gang-banger buddies who cannot legally buy. There is no way to identify a gang member who has a clean criminal history and no visible gang tattoos.
  • Being a State'felon, that is being convicted of a felony by State law, likely will not flag you in NICS due to very poor reporting by the States to the FBI.
  • Being a Federal'felon, that is being convicted of a felony under Federal law, will get you flagged until you have a court restore your gun rights; then a felon will not be flagged.


NICS doesn't work in the first place, that we should worry about tuning the system to account for "loopholes". And your "loopholes" aren't even loopholes. The law was written to exclude private transfers on purpose. That's not a loophole, that's the stated function.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
Are you saying that a terrorist or convicted ex-con cannot just walk up to an unlicensed seller today and buy a gun with no questions asked?

They can. That's the loophole.
Click to expand...
That's not a loophole. A terrorist or ex-con buying a gun from an unlicensed seller is not a loophole. The GCA never intended to regulate all transfers in the first place. Only interstate transfers. The ex-con/terrorist and unlicensed seller are not conducting interstate commerce for the GCA's background check requirement to then apply and be loopholed around.
 
Last edited:
wolfman24 said:
A lot of people who don't own guns or don't believe the version of 2nd put forth by the NRA and the gunnies will not respond to this because the gunnies go ape **** anytime their bubble is challenged and thus a civil or rationale conversation on this issue is impossible.
Click to expand...

So.e have been honest and straight forward. Some not so much.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's because the anti gun interpretations of the second amendment completely fly in the face of the foundation upon which the constitution and the bill of rights are based. Anti gunners want to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment so their scummy schemes aren't seen as high treason. why should anyone entertain such fraudulent and dishonest interpretations? since the anti gun side is coming from a position of dishonesty and deceit, and almost always refuses to give us their real reasons for what they want, its hard to have a "reasonable conversation" with them
Click to expand...
Not really. They just see it differently than you do.
 
calamity said:
Not really. They just see it differently than you do.
Click to expand...

uh how can anyone pretend that the second amendment only is about the state being able to arm militias or that the second amendment somehow stops operating based on the number of rounds in a firearm? the second amendment was a blanket restriction upon a federal government that was never given-in Article One, Section 8 -any power to restrain, restrict or interfere with what arms Private citizens might own.
 
BlackBook said:
When good guys fight each other, something is very wrong.
Click to expand...

Rational reasoned discourse is a dying art. These days people choose a side, usually along partisan lines, and attack the opinions of others as "scummy schemes" which should be "seen as high treason" or "fraudulent and dishonest interpretations."
 
TurtleDude said:
uh how can anyone pretend that the second amendment only is about the state being able to arm militias or that the second amendment somehow stops operating based on the number of rounds in a firearm? the second amendment was a blanket restriction upon a federal government that was never given-in Article One, Section 8 -any power to restrain, restrict or interfere with what arms Private citizens might own.
Click to expand...

People have different opinions. I don't know what makes them tick any more than I know what makes you tick. I just respect that you and they have those opinions, and then I attack any holes I happen to find in them.
 
calamity said:
People have different opinions. I don't know what makes them tick any more than I know what makes you tick. I just respect that you and they have those opinions, and then I attack any holes I happen to find in them.
Click to expand...

why don't you tell me what other "reasonable" interpretations there are
 
TurtleDude said:
why don't you tell me what other "reasonable" interpretations there are
Click to expand...

How the hell should I know? I don't have those interpretations. But, I do know that those who do are not treasonous scum with nefarious schemes. They just see the issue differently than I do.
 
calamity said:
How the hell should I know? I don't have those interpretations. But, I do know that those who do are not treasonous scum with nefarious schemes. They just see the issue differently than I do.
Click to expand...

sorry, the "all opinions have equal merit" don't work with me
 
TurtleDude said:
sorry, the "all opinions have equal merit" don't work with me
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. Sheesh.

Someone can have a stupid opinion and not be treasonous scum with nefarious schemes. You do have a tendency to accuse people of deeper treachery than understanding that they maybe are just being stupid.
 
calamity said:
I didn't say that. Sheesh.

Someone can have a stupid opinion and not be treasonous scum with nefarious schemes. You do have a tendency to accuse people of deeper treachery than understanding that they maybe are just being stupid.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty good at delineating the ignorant from the stubborn dishonest
 
Crovax said:
I know plenty of people who own just a self defense firearm.

And yes you said "firearms" but that is disingenuous since Kevin was talking about the cost of one self defense firearm and you responded with the bit about needing a gun safe.
Click to expand...

Really?? Maybe I run with a different crowd. I can't think of one person who carries that only owns their personal firearm.
 
TurtleDude said:
I'm pretty good at delineating the ignorant from the stubborn dishonest
Click to expand...

I disagree. You have a blind spot for nuance and refuse to see the gray in these discussions.
 
calamity said:
I disagree. You have a blind spot for nuance and refuse to see the gray in these discussions.
Click to expand...

do you think the founders intended to have gray in this area? that's the whole problem these days
 
TurtleDude said:
do you think the founders intended to have gray in this area? that's the whole problem these days
Click to expand...

I personally do not see any gray in the Second. But subsequent legal decisions have introduced quite a bit of it. Felons cannot have guns, drug addicts cannot have guns, people possessing drugs cannot have guns, those who beat their wives cannot have guns, etc.
 
calamity said:
I personally do not see any gray in the Second. But subsequent legal decisions have introduced quite a bit of it. Felons cannot have guns, drug addicts cannot have guns, people possessing drugs cannot have guns, those who beat their wives cannot have guns, etc.
Click to expand...

hence my point. those are state issues
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom