CreateDebate


Debate Info

23
6
Liberalism gone mad Laws are for conservatives
Debate Score:29
Arguments:11
Total Votes:33
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Liberalism gone mad (7)
 
 Laws are for conservatives (3)

Debate Creator

brontoraptor(28333) pic



California decided to leap frog the 2nd and disallow ammo

"California's 2018 Ammo Restrictions Act as Backdoor Gun Ban"

This now appears to be the method that liberals will use to attack our inherent natural rights that they oppose. California has written and passed law after law restricting gun rights for its law-abiding citizens. The state government, politicians, and liberal voters have somehow failed to comprehend that these laws will have no effect on criminals who ignore them anyway.

Murderers, robbers, terrorists, and other miscreants will still use their illegal and illicit methods of getting guns and ammo. In the meantime, the “good guys with guns” will be fighting bureaucratic battles and anti-gun administrators.

Liberalism gone mad

Side Score: 23
VS.

Laws are for conservatives

Side Score: 6
3 points

There is nothing liberal about regulating stuff.

Basically, the people who think they are liberal while trying to take away the firearms are a lot like the closet fascists who claim to be anarchists. Communists?

Really, we all know what taking the bullets is about. Taking the firearms. They aren't fooling anyone...

...Except for the people who actually think that these mobsters want to disarm the population for purely noble and altruistic reasons....

HEAR ME OUT, PEOPLE

If we relinquish our right to bear arms, it is the same as consenting to slavery. That is the way the constitution is written, and that is why it is important to be fiercely against the government encroaching on the right to bear arms WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD EVER OWN A FIREARM. It says "necessary for the security of a free state". What do you think is supposed to be regulating the militia?

Don't be a schmuck, they want to crush us with overwhelming force. It's not a joke, and people ought to be taking it more seriously.

Side: Liberalism gone mad
1 point

Amen. I couldn't say it any better. Peace, love, and good whiskey, you bastard.

Side: Liberalism gone mad
1 point

God damn it. Navy's sending me to Cali. I'm going to need to invest in a reloading press. How fucking far are these assholes allowed to go before we can take them to the supreme court?

I say we designate all of California a "safe space". That will attract the stupidest of the far left. Then we bomb the San Andreas fault line and let the entire state, and all of the retards in it, fall into the Pacific. Then line up everybody from NY, NJ, DE, MA, RI, CT, PA, DC, New Orleans, Chicago, etc. for a corrective bitch slap. Puerto Rico can be state number 50. Or Guam. Let them fight it out.

Side: Liberalism gone mad
NathanAllen(2227) Clarified
1 point

I am so fing close to starting a charity that all the money goes to the case that cali wants to leave the United States. Than put a million of my own money in. Cash all my stocks and invest in a charity to tell Cali to f off and America does not need you. They think their above federal laws and stuff mind as well be their own country.

NathanAllen! Be yourself and let no one tell you otherwise!

Find me on CreateDebate at http://www.createdebate.com/user/viewprofile

or at DebateIsland at http://www.debateisland.com/profile/NathanAllen

Proud Trump supporter and an American fighting war lord!*

Side: Liberalism gone mad
SexyJesus(217) Disputed
1 point

Sadly, the US government will never allow it. Put the money toward suing Cali for infringement on constitutional law, and you might have a chance.

Also, I don't know why this comment is bold and italicized. Just ignore that.

Side: Laws are for conservatives
1 point

Although I support some sensible restrictions on firearms I do not believe legally disallowing ammo has a leg to stand on. That's like saying you have a right to free speech but it can't be in a romance language. Or yes you can drive a car but wheels aren't allowed. The restriction violates the intent of having the right.

Side: Liberalism gone mad
3 points

Gun nut says: "I need 14 AR-15's with bump stocks in case I want to shoot a deer someday and I'll need a hundred thousand rounds of ammo cause I'm not a very good shot."

When the 2nd amendment was written the founders had MUSKETS in mind not AR-15's therefore I propose that the 2nd amendment be interpreted to mean that you can have all the muzzle loading MUSKETS you can carry PROVIDED you belong to a well regulated militia.

When you terrified, cowardly and paranoid gun nuts go to one extreme it just makes me want to go in the other direction.

Side: Laws are for conservatives
1 point

Yes. Laws ARE for conservatives that don't give a damn about citizens. Without them they'd rip U.S. off every chance they got, they love that some Americans run around with assault weapons ... even if they are registered felons or those nasty "Islamic terrorists"! We need MORE laws "for" conservatives that won't protect American citizens! California cares for its residents that conservatives imperil, that's a good thing!

Side: Laws are for conservatives
6 points

they love that some Americans run around with assault weapons

Which are usually by gangs, which are loaded with blacks and Mexicans. Any attempts by the right to slow this down are blocked by the left. You own the violence in sanctuary cities. The left created them and defends them. Don't blame gun violence on nonviolent groups while defending groups who use gun violence in mass.

Side: Liberalism gone mad
6 points

We need MORE laws "for" conservatives that won't protect American citizens

Defending sanctuary cities which are the Meccas of gun violence, and then codemning gun violence is very disingenuous.

Side: Liberalism gone mad
5 points

Yes. Laws ARE for conservatives that don't give a damn about citizens

Most gun homicides aren't committed by Conservatives. Maybe it's just nonconservatives that need disarmed.

Side: Liberalism gone mad