- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
In response to your own claim that, "The problem isn't guns. It's people."
Meaning those who are intent upon harming others will find a way to do so. Many get a badge and gun, then, use it to push people around up to and including murdering them. And they have government at their back.
What is your goddamned obsession with government? You don't want to disarm mass shooters and rapists, just government? Very rational.
Their "authority" does not exist in Reality. I have no delusions about controlling other people. I can only do what I can do on an individual basis, to stop a mass shooter or a rapist. That does not include disarming everyone else, who is not actively seeking to do harm to others, and would do the same as I would in situations involving someone attempting to harm others.
Apparently you can't remember what your own claim was about.
So, you're okay with disarming everyone else, but leave those "in power" armed? Yeah, that always works out great. Check history, many tyrants did just that before they murdered millions of their own people.
So why did you say they don't? You said the problem isn't guns.
Only in the sense that they are used to commit acts of violence. I have not disputed that. And everyone has the potential to do that, given that they have free-will do make the choice to act in that way. So, the answer would be that everyone, including those in "government" should disarm? There are so many guns, that I don't think it would be possible. And those "in power" will certainly not, give theirs up. They are the worst actors of violence.
Of course they are, because that is what guns were invented for!! For taking life. Are we finally getting somewhere?
You can hardly be free if you have tyrants, willing to use guns, to take it from you. And to them, "might makes right". The whole purpose behind having an armed populace, is to protect against that very scenario. When you are facing them, and it comes down to kill or be killed, it is best to have such a thing as a gun to protect Life, yours.
For God's sake no it isn't accurate. Gun violence is gun violence. Gun control is gun control.
For Fuck's sake, it is accurate because in order to enforce the "gun control" gun violence must be used to seize those weapons, from those not willing to give them up.
You are repeating the exact same assertion I debunked. There was a handgun ban in the UK following the Dunblane Massace and no armed soldiers turned up at my door. It is your responsibility to follow the law because the government does not have the resources, manpower or inclination to check every single home to see if every single law is being followed. That's absolutely fucking RIDICULOUS!!! Do armed soldiers turn up at the weekend to check you aren't trafficking children from your basement? Or committing computer fraud through your laptop?
You haven't "debunked" shit, let alone disprove it. So, people willingly disarmed after that incident. An unjust law is no law at all. Which as far as I am concerned is all of man's laws. They obeyed "authority" and will suffer for it when they are kept from leaving their homes because that authority tells them not too, as if they are in a prison.
Also, I have mentioned incidents here in America, in the nineties. Ruby Ridge and Waco. People, including women and children, burned alive at Waco. They were both, done in the name of enforcing "gun control". So, tell me, how is that not gun violence?
I also, posted a link to a documentary that covered the gun confiscation, done by the National Guard, under orders of the New Orleans city government, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It has actual footage of the SOLDIERS going door to door, enforcing that order.
The things you are saying are nothing short of insanity.
That's funny. You claim that what I am saying is "nothing short of insanity", yet I have shown historical evidence of what I am talking about. Yet, you are willingly IGNORANT of what I have said. It is as if I am speaking to a rock. But you have nothing, you come back with emotional kneejerk reactions and insults for what I say. At least, the rock would be silent.
No, not fake. I don't like being rude to people but it is a fact that you are a stupid person. That is my dilemma.
I haven't seen much of anything productive from you, other than, "You are so stupid, blah, blah, blah." When you could explain your own position on this issue. I explained mine in depth. You said, "I feel strongly about this issue. . ." Okay, why? Please, explain. If you don't I will just figure you are attempting to think with your emotions. Good luck with that, if it is what you are doing.
Are you actually joking right now? You've just tried to argue that guns shouldn't be banned because "law-abiding citizens" will suffer.
Yeah, because a bloody armed conflict may ensue. You haven't paid any attention to what I have said, have you? Any one who truly values life, does not want to see that. But Freedom is worth laying down your life for, so that you and others may have a free life, rather than be subservient to others, like enslaved.
Oh, OK. So you admit that you want a gun so you can break the law?
Having a gun might be breaking the "law" soon, in this country. But I don't recognize "man's laws" as being legitimate. I recognize Natural Law and adhere to the Principles therein. But you don't know what that is, do you?
What I pointed out in my post, about helping to free the slaves, would have been breaking the "laws" of of that time. But it was the right thing to do. It was the same with those who hid Jewish people in their attics. "Man's laws" are typically, in contradiction to doing what is right.
Yes you would, moron. You'd have stood red-faced in front of an audience and expressed your outrage that the government is depriving you, a law-abiding citizen, of your main source of income.
So, I guess that apology you made for the "idiot comment" was fake?
No, I would have been one of those "law-breakers" who were helping slaves get to Freedom. Doing what's right and following the "law" does not always align. That is the point of what I posted, but I guess you missed that since you didn't really read it, did you?
Hey, I'm sorry for the idiot part.
I appreciate that. Apology accepted. I also, feel strongly about this issue. Probably, for different reasons. We all have biases. I cannot doubt that. It is difficult to escape them. And having an ego, it tends to get in our way.
I have been approaching such issues as, Freedom, Morality, and just living life, etc., from Natural Law Principles. I seek out the Truth and do my best to understand it, then, speak it through my perspective.
As for "media indoctrination", we all get information from somewhere. But I am not indoctrinated. I have broken myself out of that. I am working on self-educating and that is always a work in progress.
It seems to me that we differ on this issue because of our respective locations. Here, where I am (the midwest of the US) it used to be that young people were taught the proper use of firearms in school.
They had shooting teams to practice accuracy, which is just as important as other aspects of handling firearms. Mass shootings were unheard of. In my area, I do not know of any shootings to this day, taking place. They seem to typically happen in areas with very strict measures on guns. Cities, like Chicago, have very high rates of crime, like murder, and guns are "not allowed".
My own upbringing involved being taught how to handle firearms. And if we "played with one" we could face our father, who might kick our ass for doing it. We did not do that. Later, while in the military, I trained with firearms further.
Then, after that, I was hired as an armed security officer. I had continuous training on those weapons. I know and understand how to use them. I am Principled enough to know the difference between right and wrong. I will not act wrongly toward my fellow human-being.
You are talking to one who would work to stop mass murderers from committing such acts, with what I have to do that (preferably a firearm).
No, you have to ask yourself why you are so stupid. Two hundred years ago you'd have made the same argument that the government wants to deprive law-abiding citizens of their right to own slaves.
I most certainly would not have made that argument. Furthermore, historically speaking, slavery was protected by the Constitution, just one fatal flaw in that document, at it's establishment. They decided to let their posterior hash it out. Which resulted in a very bloody civil war; though it is debatable that slavery was the only issue. Lincoln, himself said that if it meant the Union would stay in tact, he would have kept slavery.
The reason it lasted for so long was that the Federal Government kept it going through enforcement. Other countries refused to go after runaways. In this country, it took people breaking the law through the Underground Railroad, that helped runaway slaves get to freedom. If it would not have been enforced, it would have died out.
The disarmament of a people is what leads to their enslavement. The Principles in the 2nd Amendment was meant for a Free and Principled people to be able to protect their Freedom by being armed against a tyrannical Government who would see them enslaved. History shows this to be true.
Hitler did it to the Jewish people in his country. All done by way of "laws". Then, he ordered theirs and others that were deemed unfit to their deaths. But it was the people in that country who obeyed his decrees that allowed it to take place. All as "law-abiding citizens" or his enforcers.
"Law-abiding citizen" means absolutely NOTHING, because people break the law for the first time EVERY SINGLE DAY. People with no criminal records walk into schools and shoot kids, and you want to defend their right to do that? On the basis that they haven't broken the law previously?
I am not defending someone going in and committing mass murder. I am defending someone having the means (a gun or equal force) to stop that person from doing it. As far as I know, every location where a mass murder took place, was a "gun-free zone".
The cops were slow to respond, and did not act to stop the person, but in one instance, was awaiting "orders" as to what to do. Those mass murderers knew these locations were gun-free. Human Predators will find those who are most vulnerable and prey upon them, with whatever means they have at hand.
The same way all other laws are enforced you rent-a-twit. If you get caught doing something illegal you go to jail. Do the cops stop you every morning on your way to work to establish that you're not carrying a nuke?
I just... I can't even...
No, but they are known to break into peoples homes based on those people having a plant, or other substance, such as marijuana. They also, have hit the wrong house, killed some of those inside, and getting a way with that.
There is a whole host of abuses by the cops, that go unaccounted for. Some of the most well known are two incidents from the nineties, Ruby Ridge and Waco. Both clusterfucks, and no one in the "government" was held accountable for their actions. And they were "enforcing" weapons violations.
And thanks for illustrating my point. Cops=men with guns, seizing property (guns), and kidnapping, throwing into a cage, or murdering those who resist, under the guise of "enforcing an assault weapons ban" (any weapon could be considered an "assault weapon" if used to assault someone).
You’re on the money again Burrito , I was quiet prepared to have a conversation with him until I read his response to my piece , the guy is only interested in ramming his idiotic ideas home he is not interested in dialogue he just wants to hear himself
Says the accuser, who is doing exactly what he is accusing the other of doing. The fact is, I welcome dialogue, but that is not what you have given. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.
Do you like living in a civilised society which has laws? Where people aren't allowed to rob you in the street or rape your wife?
I protect myself, and have taught my wife how to protect herself. I do not need others to provide that for me.
Because if you do, then the price you pay for that is government.
Idiots like you complain about guns being taken from "law-abiding citizens", but nobody is more "law-abiding" than the government, because they make the goddamned laws!!!
You have to ask yourself why do they want to disarm "law-abiding citizens"? If they, the so-called "government" are so "law-abiding", then, why are they doing this? It is for CONTROL, not because they are Principled or so much better than your average civilian.
What you just said there is seriously, laughable. Consider Obamacare. Congress is not under it, they voted themselves out of it. But they forced it down the throats of the rest of us, through the Supreme Court.
How about "taxes"? Ones such as Mitt Romney have off shore accounts that shelter them from paying into it. The list is endless. There are things that they could not do on an individual basis, but if done under the guise of "government" it is okay, like continuous unjust wars on other countries; nothing more than mass murder, etc.
Yep, "government" is the "most law-abiding". And you call me the idiot. Sheesh.