CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
So you tell me with each child dying from a drunk driver, why the Left is not all over the media pretending to be outraged over these innocent children's deaths? Do you have any idea how many more children are killed by drunk drivers than by guns in schools?
Where is the outrage and demand for alcohol regulations and back ground checks in public bars, nightclubs, etc.
If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why won't the Left propose laws mandating back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders?
I don't want this, but if your goal is to save lives with all your anti Gun rhetoric, you should be over joyed to save many thousands more lives by having background checks on people before buying alcohol in public places.
Do you have any idea how many times repeat DWI drivers continue to drink and drive? Approximately 40% of drunk drivers are repeat offenders! They drive even when their licenses are revoked!
The only way to prevent this is to do a background check before they buy that weapon of death.....ALCOHOL!
Wait, what you say? You say you don't want to be inconvenienced by background checks when buying alcohol? You say you are a law abiding citizen who would never drink and drive?
You say you don't want to pay more for alcohol to pay for those background checks for past DWI drivers?
I THOUGHT YOUR GOAL WAS TO SAVE LIVES? You expect law abiding citizens to pay more and put up with all the inconvenience from your anti gun legislation, but when it comes to your alcohol...... HANDS OFF?
A drunk driver behind the wheels of a car happens millions of times more often than some lunatic with a gun! The odds of you or your loved one being killed by a drunk driver is far higher than the odds of being shot at a concert or Church.
You are hypocrites and total jokes. You prove you could not care less about saving lives. You final goal is to take our guns.
You always spew your ludicrous reasoning why only guns should be singled out to save lives. A police state is just fine as long as it only controls one particular weapon of death..... the gun.
You say we already have alcohol restrictions? Yes, and we already have gun restrictions. You can't buy a gun under age, the same as alcohol. We can't shoot people, you can't hunt near public places and you can not drink and drive. BUT PEOPLE STILL DO IT!
IT'S NOT THE WEAPON OF CHOICE, BUT THE PERSON BEHIND THAT WEAPON. Use the brain God gave you and start addressing why people grow up to be criminals, or become irresponsible drinkers who have no problem drinking and driving.
Start addressing the core problem instead of their weapon of choice.
First of all, thanks for actually reading my post. To do so shows an intellect that far surpasses the many Liberals on this site who merely post insults rather then debating my points.
I have no problem with people who are non Christians, or having differences of opinions, etc.
We all have a right to our beliefs.
What I can not stand is when Liberals, LGBT activist groups, etc. constantly try and force Christians to twist our faith and sanction this Big Brother political correct ideology.
My analogy between guns and alcohol is plain to see, if you are not part of the Left wing activism trying to take our guns one step at a time.
You and I both know that it is far more likely our children are someday hit by a drunk driver, then shot by some madman.
It's obviously has nothing to do with saving lives.
activist groups, etc. constantly try and force Christians to twist our faith and sanction this Big Brother political correct ideology.
Hello From:
Wow.. Thanks for posting on my debate.. If this were YOUR debate, I couldn't post because you've PERMA-BANNED me..
Here's why. Your lips move when you're talking about the Constitution, but you don't BELIEVE in it.. Look at your post above.. You accuse the left of doing things that the Supreme Court did.. I've explained the 14th Amendment to you.. You don't like it.. Instead of engaging me in a Constitutional argument, you say I TWIST the words and then you call me a name..
What I LOVE about the Constitution is that it was written for dummies like me.. It's short, and doesn't use any big words.. So, let's examine some Constitutional "words", shall we?
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Simply put, it says that if YOU have a right, then I have that SAME right.. If married people have the right to deduct certain things from their taxes, then I have that SAME right.. That's NOT the left wing, or me saying that.. It's the Constitution.
So, if you want to pass Constitutional muster, you must GIVE gay people the right to get married, or TAKE away ALL the rights that come with marriage.. It's actually pretty simple.
That's the Constitution AND the law.. I INVITE you to debate the actual words..
You are correct since a marriage is nothing more than a government contract between two people it violates freedom from religion to exclude anyone over 18 (legally able to enter into a contract) from being able to enter that same contract. If the rule is based on religious morality then government is choosing a religious position which would be unconstitutional.
After reading your mind numbing hypocrisy when it comes to political correct issues, and ignoring the equal rights of even VIABLE UNBORN BABIES, you wonder why I ban you?
I guess the constitution is still too hard for dummies like you.
This is why I ban hypocrites, you waste all our time! You twist the Constitution to equate it's words of life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and equal rights to include "forcing every State to change their marriage laws", but when it comes to the lives of innocent human beings, YOU IGNORE THEIR RIGHT TO LIFE!
I will ban that type of delusional hypocrisy to the ends of my life until people like you admit your total barbaric hypocrisy when it comes to our most innocent lives!
You don't ban me because your goals are not bettering America. Your goals are to garner points. My posts draw many points to you.
Do you ever notice how many Liberals comes running to my every post to insult me. The Left is fixated on anyone who enlightens the world to their total hypocrisy.
That is what places like this should be about, people discussing their different points of view. Not name calling and abusive comments. It is true that Gun control is not about saving lives. There are so many things that could be changed that would save more lives than outlawing guns. As you say different policies for Auto safety would make a much larger impact.
On a side note you mention the LGBT groups. Have you noticed that TV commercials are getting so crazy with the Racial and Gender foolishness that many commercials have biracial and or gay couples to try and make is part of the norm. How crazy is that?
It is true that Gun control is not about saving lives.
No it isn't. That's a ridiculous thing to say.
There are so many things that could be changed that would save more lives than outlawing guns
30,000 lives are lost to guns in your country per year. Preventable deaths which could be stopped if people like you would only stop saying stupid things and embrace a bit of common sense.
You are making a number of wrong assumptions here. 30,000 gun deaths is an actual number. This however includes all gun related deaths like Suicide 40% of this number, law enforcement over 30% Which leaves 30% as a mix of accidental, domestic violence, self defense, gang violence, murder..
Let's start with the suicides if no gun was available would the outcome be the same? Since people without guns commit suicide every day I would say, YES
Let's look at Law enforcement are you lobbying to take the guns from them? If not then we can't count that 11,000 gun deaths per year (2017 figure) If that is your suggestion then how are they going to deal with all the criminals who have illegal guns once they are outlawed?
Now we are down to the people who you were referring to. What gun control measure is going to reduce this number substantially since there is no possible way to find all of the guns in the USA and eliminate them. Criminals will have guns and kill those who oppose them. You may get a small reduction in death in this area. Mass murder, as proven in other parts of the world there are other ways of mass murder than guns but maybe a slight reduction. Self defense - criminals win on this one is the reduction on this number a good thing? Accidental this number would be reduced but would people still die from accidents at the same rate? probably
The end result would be maybe 1 or 2 % success
What if the police put a person at every bar with a breathalyzer and anyone too drunk to drive safely they gave a ride home? That would save 100 times more people I've never heard a politician suggest that to save lives
You are making a number of wrong assumptions here.
The great irony of course is that I am not and you are.
30,000 gun deaths is an actual number.
You are assuming incorrectly that I do not believe 30,000 is an actual number. I was the one who gave you the number in the first place.
This however includes all gun related deaths like Suicide 40% of this number
People who shoot themselves are just as dead as those who are shot by other people. I made clear that I was giving you the approximate total number of deaths which guns are responsible for in the United States per year. Dividing those deaths on your own arbitrary terms detracts absolutely nothing from the fact that guns are responsible for all of them. Every single one. If guns are being used by suicidal people to kill themselves then that is obviously a fucking problem. It is not evidence that guns are safe.
Let's start with the suicides if no gun was available would the outcome be the same? Since people without guns commit suicide every day I would say, YES
No, this is useless speculation which contradicts your initial point about the extraordinarily high number of gun suicides. If people were prepared to use alternative means to kill themselves then why are they predominantly using guns instead of other methods? The exorbitant rate of gun suicides evidences extremely clearly that depressed people are most likely to kill themselves if you sell them a gun. You have absolutely no evidence that they would still kill themselves without such an easy and convenient way to do it, so you are outright making your assertion up to fill the obvious gap in your reasoning.
Indeed, the statistics illustrate very clearly that banning or restricting guns drastically reduces suicides, which is obviously consistent with common sense. The things you are writing are in no way consistent with common sense. They are -- frankly -- extremely stupid and premised upon a series of extraordinarily erroneous fallacies.
Now we are down to the people who you were referring to. What gun control measure is going to reduce this number substantially since there is no possible way to find all of the guns in the USA and eliminate them.
Again, you are being inconsistent with common sense, and it becomes obvious when one analogises your argument with other serious societal problems like rape and murder. At no point whatsoever is it a rational argument to say, "Well, it is going to be difficult to stop people murdering and raping each other, so let's just legalise and encourage these things." That's the precise opposite of rational. Hence, when you argue, "Well, it is going to be difficult to collect all the guns, so let's just keep selling them, worsen the problem, and ignore all the senseless deaths", I literally want to scream at you because you are being nothing shy of retarded.
So far you have offer no ideas for improvement I have one question it seems that you are full of reasons that you want government to regulate guns stricter than they do now. In your opinion what Government Intervention is your answer??
Great job spelling out the deception by these gun hating Liberals. They are deceptive on every issue and a total waste of time to debate. This is why I ban many of them.
You and me are seeing the exact same things. LGBT propaganda is all over the Liberal media.
If you watch shows like "The Voice", they will go out of their way to find Gay singers, and then use the platform to push the LGBT agendas. When Gay singers introduce themselves to the show, they spend most their time lifting up the Gay agendas. They even get their parents on board saying how natural and normal the homosexual lifestyle is.
Think about the millions of parents who do not agree, trying to watch a singing competition with their children, and then having Gay activists conditioning our children to an unnatural sexual orientation. Can you believe the arrogance to invade a parent's home with their political beliefs?
Just think what the Left would do if these singers were allowed to use the platform to give a salvation message to children watching the show. They would be outraged and would never allow it. These hypocrites only want it one way...THEIR WAY!
You might not agree with this, but I totally believe this Political correct movement is their war against our nation's Christian heritage and Christian values. They are consumed with indoctrinating our children to their humanistic beliefs.
No, I do not expect low end voters, who think they have the right to take our guns, to read anything unless it's some text on their phone.
Let me clarify... I do not write the truth of what Liberals are doing in this nation for the likes of you. You are a lost cause and willing to blindly believe the rhetoric from fake news rather then reading and grasping what the other side is saying!
You NEVER respond to the content of my posts because there is nothing you can say to deny the obvious. You therefore insult and demonize instead. Gee why do I ban you?
The point is that there are other people on this site who actually do read my debates, and actually respond to my debates without insults towards me for my opinions.
This is why I am on this debate. There have been people who told me how my debates have opened their eyes to the lies from the Left, and what they actually stand for, and have changed Parties because of it.
This is why I'm on this debate site. If we can open the eyes to ten people, and each of those people open the eyes of ten more people, it does not take long for a nation to open their eyes to the extremism of the Left and elect a Trump.
You are a lost cause and willing to blindly believe the rhetoric from fake news rather then reading and grasping what the other side is saying!
That's exactly what you do though. You are just a partisan poop licker. In reality both the republicans and democrats are part of the same system and use the same bullshit tactics.
Look up and see where Smilinbob read my post and thought it made good points. I guess intelligent people who actually want to discuss issues, do read my posts.
It seem that most people here don't truly understand what "Gun Control" is really about. It's like abortion, it's a ways for politicians to make money and keep the country divided. With either issue there is no strong desire to do much except "Show Boat" This gets folks riled up then lobby groups start on both sides of the issue. These lobby groups give the politicians loads of cash it works great for both sides so you must stir the pot regularly to keep the donations flowing. That is really what "Gun Control" is about. More assault style rifles were sold during the Obama admin than any other time in history. The NRA took in 10's of millions. It works
It's just like my AMEX card. Don't leave home without it. You might never need it, but it's better than needing it and not having it. Also, check the crime statistics. How many young women have been raped, who also carry a concealed firearm? Can anyone give me just one example of that happening? I've never heard of it happening.
Do you "cling" to your guns? I "cling" to mine. Is that bad?
I do. If you think the 2nd Amendment is about what the left says it's about, you don't understand the 2nd Amendment. It was to keep the government responsible to the people and other governments who want to invade too.
If you want to keep the 2nd, you'll need to vote Republican or Independent. The Democrat Party leadership is gone.
Yes, it is bad. If you cling to your gun your aim will become unsteady, your trigger control will suffer, and you will more easily fatigue. You should have a firm enough grip to maintain control of the weapon, but relaxed enough to place well aimed shots.
I HAVE …. but I don't "CLING". I have had guns for about 65 years. I love to shoot, I used to like to hunt. I have won matches and placed very well in others. That was then, this is now. I don't consider a gun a necessity. The only time I NEEDED one was in the military. Yes. To "cling" to a gun is bad. We wouldn't need to if we lived in any other "non-war zone" country. It's a shame what my old "associates", the NRA, has done to this country.
Are you so senile, that you can't even grasp what you are saying?
You just said you loved to shoot and hunt in your day before getting old, but now you would take guns from all those people who love to shoot and hunt.
Do you have any idea how fanatically controlling you have become? You are the low end voter who has been brainwashed by the Left.
Truly sickening what Liberals are doing to this nation.
You just said you loved to shoot and hunt in your day before getting old, but now you would take guns from all those people who love to shoot and hunt.
Shut up you cantankerous fanny biscuit. He never said he wanted to take guns away, he only implied that he wants more gun control. Gun control is not the same thing as taking everyone's guns away, it is about stopping lunatics like you from possessing military grade weapons to commit acts of terrorism against abortion clinics.
What is gun control? It is an act of making peaceful citizens who have a desire to own guns into criminals for doing so. The war on drugs which has outlawed hundreds of kinds of drugs has been so effective that you can literally go anywhere in the USA and purchase almost any of these illegal substances. If a person wishes to murder others do you think that a rule outlawing guns will stop those murders? I would argue that is like saying the laws have prevented all drug abuse.
Just an FYI an assault rifle is not a military grade weapon and if you look it up at the CDC statistics rifles (all including assault rifles) make up a very small portion of gun related deaths 600/yr vs handguns 20,000 per year. Fact don't care about political bias, LOL
You are blaming the NRA for the gang violence, and the criminal element that exists in the USA. That is crazy. I would love for you to give me the explanation as to how they are ruining the country by representing the peaceful masses right to gun ownership. Help me out with this!
You are blaming the NRA for the gang violence, and the criminal element that exists in the USA. That is crazy.
Brazenly false. Nobody is blaming the NRA for violence. We are blaming them for selling violent people guns, you deceitful little halfwit. Your premise is crazy because it is a straw man argument: a total -- and almost certainly deliberate -- misrepresentation of your opponent's position.
So are you going to explain how the NRA is selling violent people guns as you claim. The NRA doesn't sell guns at all. I can see that without the intellect to discuss your misguided position on the subject you resort to name calling and obscenity I expect that!
So are you going to explain how the NRA is selling violent people guns as you claim.
Sure buddy. The NRA proliferates logically false propaganda to sell to people the idea that guns are a good thing. In a society which believes guns are a good thing, violent people are going to find it extremely easy to buy them.
The NRA doesn't sell guns at all.
Well, that's not exactly true, is it? They are a political lobby group for the gun industry. See:-
Today's National Rifle Association is essentially a de facto trade association masquerading as a shooting sports foundation. So the NRA does the bulk of lobbying for the industry. You know, you hear the NRA talking about their opposition to an assault weapons ban, their opposition to raising the age for the purchase of a long gun from 18 to 21 years of age. And they try to frame it in terms of freedom and history and, you know, sort of the sacred nature of firearms.
Well, the reality is that's bad for the industry to pass those laws. If you ban assault weapons, that wipes out what they rely on as a recent profit center. If you raise the age for purchase of a long gun, which includes assault rifles, then you add three more years to the timeframe before a young person can buy a gun. So it's very important to understand the political battle in terms of the interests of the industry and in terms of marketing.
I can see that without the intellect to discuss your misguided position on the subject
No, you chose to attack my language because the point itself is solid. Your only options were accepting it or attacking semantics, and you chose the latter.
You are making an assumption that "Guns" are a bad thing. I would argue that guns are not good nor bad. I have been a gun owner since I was 12 when I got my 1st .22 cal rifle. In my youth during hunting and trapping season you could bring your gun into school and leave it in the principals office during school hours then get it so you could hunt on the way home. There was no school shooting. Almost everyone I know owns guns and NONE have harmed anyone. If guns are bad then surely there would have been at least one incident. Gun have always been prevalent in our society but not violent gun related crime. So guns aren't what changed.
You are making an assumption that "Guns" are a bad thing.
No, it is not an assumption. The data shows very clearly the negative effect guns have on society.
I would argue that guns are not good nor bad.
Guns have no innate moral alignment with either good or evil, but when people say that guns are bad what they mean is that they have a negative impact on society. Hence, you are distorting the meaning of the language being used.
It could be argued that weapons throughout history have impacted society some ways negatively, yet without them some in society would be victims and many societies have fallen victim to others having better weapons. In the world we live in the group with the best technology rules over the weaker ones less effective weapons. So guns exist through out the world in large quantities. This is an inconvenient truth, there is no possibility of preventing evil people who wish to use guns for evil purposes from obtaining them. If laws were the answer It would be impossible to buy heroin, cocaine, meth, ect. The truth is that were there is a demand there will be a supply. So with that as the reality of the situation why would anyone lobby to have guns regulated out of the hands of good peaceful people, The people who would abide by the laws?
It is true that the NRA is a lobby group which is supported by the gun manufacturers. Yet that has no bearing on the gun related violent crime situation. Most gun related violent crime is committed not by the person who went to the gun shop and purchased a shiny new gun. If you actually look at the stats most gun violence is committed with handguns which are stolen and passed from criminal to criminal. The NRA does nothing which supports this activity. In the recent past there have been some very publicized mass shootings where people have legally purchased the gun which they used to murder people. I would make the claim that if this person had the desire to commit this crime they could have just as easily purchased an illegal gun, or used an automobile, or created an explosive device, with creativity there are many ways to commit mass murders without a legally purchased gun. heroin is illegal yet I can go anywhere in the USA and purchase some.
It is true that the NRA is a lobby group which is supported by the gun manufacturers. Yet that has no bearing on the gun related violent crime situation.
Of course it does. Violent people find it much easier to acquire firearms in an environment in which powerful lobbyists are diligently defending their right to acquire firearms.
Most gun related violent crime is committed not by the person who went to the gun shop and purchased a shiny new gun.
The last data produced on this was by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2004, and it concluded -- based on a large scale survey of inmates in federal prisons -- that 48 percent of inmates involved in a gun related crime obtained their gun by legal means. Please see:-
If you actually look at the stats most gun violence is committed with handguns which are stolen and passed from criminal to criminal.
No, this is a myth. It is part of the NRA's incessant efforts to draw an arbitrary divide between legal and illegal guns. In reality no such divide exists. Guns are guns regardless of whether they were purchased legally or illegally. Saturating a society in guns not only makes them easier to acquire legally: it also makes them easier to acquire illegally.
Did you read the same article that you used as an example? It clearly states that what I stated is true
Faso says"The vast majority of crime that is gun related is committed by people who illegally are possessing that firearm"
The article says "We checked back with Cook for this story. He said the data on violent crimes supports Faso’s claim, People can differ on what constitutes a "vast majority." experts say most gun crime is likely committed by those who illegally possess guns."
His statement is accurate but needed additional information. We rate it Mostly True.
So what is your take on this, 96% of the mass murder shootings took place in gun free zones. The highest gun related violence occurs in areas where gun laws are the strictest. examples are DC, NYC, Chicago. Is it possible that the lack of guns in the hands of good peaceful people sets them up to be victims by those willing to ignore the laws and gain the tools necessary (guns) to pillage and plunder. where as in a place like where I live almost everyone owns a gun, and the incidence of violent crime is almost non existent. I would make the argument that it is like the USA and Russia or China vs the USA and Iraq or Afghanistan where we would be met with equal or greater resistance we maintain mutual peace. Where there is very little resistance we pillage and plunder.
They are NOT ruining the country by representing the peaceful masses, they are ruining it by not restricting gun ownership by terrorists or people who should not own a gun. Over 80% of the country wants stricter gun control and over 60% of NRA members want it! The NRA leaders won't allow what those "peaceful masses" WANT!
I am NOT blaming the NRA for the gang violence, I am blaming them for not allowing the "peaceful masses" to create SOME resistance against it!
I am, and always have been since my teens, a gun owner. I do NOT want guns taken from those "peaceful masses", I want it more difficult for those among us that shouldn't have them.
One thing I don't agree with is that people should have the RIGHT to own an assault weapon (including an AR or the like) OR an extended magazine OR a "suppressor"! Those that have them should be old enough and intelligent enough to NOT need the hubris that goes along with them!
Al I own two assault style rifles with many 30 round mags I have suppressors and yet I have never harmed anyone but I would defend my fellow Americans with these weapons if the need ever arose. Should I be subjected to force and or violence from our corrupt ruling class (Government) for nothing more than being prepared?
Al I own two assault style rifles with many 30 round mags I have suppressors and yet I have never harmed anyone
And were you to distribute biochemical weapons to the citizenry there would be people who would be able to say exactly the same thing. The problem is not the people who don't use them to harm others. The problem is that all the evidence proves there are an abundance of people who do use them to harm others.
And since guns were made to harm others in the first place, your excuse is transparently thin. You might as well argue that fires don't happen because you own 3 fire extinguishers and have never had to use them.
Of what use would biochemical weapons be the the citizenry? That makes no sense I use my AR's for hunting and varmit control If you have Raccoons killing your chickens at night you put the suppressor on so you don't wake the neighbors and shoot the coons. Guns are useful tools for people in Rural areas. I have had coyotes chasing my dog that had to be dealt with and I needed the thirty round clip because they can run pretty fast so it took a few shots. You look at the whole world through your tiny perspective and think your ideas are best for everyone. They are not they are just good for you. Peaceful people who harm no one should be permitted to own anything they want. If you cause harm to others you should be dealt with HARSHLY in our society the problem is not guns but the culture we have created which puts wealth and power at a higher value than life. That is what has changed in our society. Life has been devalued in our modern culture in the USA. Other parts of the world have throughout the years had this same issue. Usually it is the ruling class that has a complete disregard for life to gain wealth and power. Maybe we should look at why the people are committing violent crime rather than make laws which the people who commit the crimes aren't going to follow anyway
Of what use would biochemical weapons be the the citizenry?
They have exactly the same use as guns do buddy: killing other people. They just have better range.
That makes no sense I use my AR's for hunting and varmit control If you have Raccoons killing your chickens at night you put the suppressor on so you don't wake the neighbors and shoot the coons.
What makes no sense is shooting defenceless animals instead of simply moving your chickens somewhere where raccoons can't get hold of them.
Guns are useful tools for people in Rural areas. I have had coyotes chasing my dog that had to be dealt with and I needed the thirty round clip because they can run pretty fast so it took a few shots.
They may well be useful tools, but you neglect to acknowledge there are better tools for the jobs you are using them for. Meanwhile, your insistence on using an inferior tool for a job you should not be using it for is costing 30,000 people their lives each year. Given that fact, is it not extremely selfish to refuse to save 30,000 lives simply because you enjoy shooting coyotes?
Maybe we should look at why the people are committing violent crime
That would be a great idea, were you not simultaneously implying we arm these fuckers with assault rifles while we figure it out.
I guess that you are of the opinion that if you allow the greatest murder machine the world has ever known (government) Responsible for more murders than any other group in history. This remains true in current times (government) still racks up the highest body count in the world. You are asking them to control who has the right to defend themselves You are asking them to use force and violence if necessary against the peaceful masses because there are a few evil people who should not be permitted to own guns. This is what you consider the best solution to end violence. I guess Lincoln was thinking the same thing when he started the Civil War. By using force and violence it will make the country a better place to live. There are places in the world where the government feels the same way you do. Maybe you should think about becoming a citizen there instead of here where we have dangerous freedom rather than peaceful slavery.
I guess that you are of the opinion that if you allow the greatest murder machine the world has ever known (government)
Hang on. The irony here is palpable. Government is not a machine, so your assertion is clearly metaphorical. Meanwhile, you sit here defending what is literally the greatest murder machine ever invented. You don't see how bizarre that is?
This remains true in current times (government) still racks up the highest body count in the world. You are asking them to control who has the right to defend themselves
I am doing no such thing. Nature decides who can defend themselves and it is only by sanction of the government that you are permitted to balance nature's odds in the first place. Hence, your argument here is the precise opposite of the truth.
This is what you consider the best solution to end violence.
Taking away the preferred means to commit violence is a pretty good start to anybody with any common sense. Obviously we can discount you from that list.
we have dangerous freedom rather than peaceful slavery.
You are dangerously mad if you think you have freedom in America. In reality, your country has the highest incarceration rate on the entire planet, and has done for the last 16 years. America houses nearly a full quarter of the world's prison population.
I am afraid there are things which most Americans simply do not have the emotional capacity to grasp. For example, the fact that the rest of the world has not been bombarded with propaganda about how America is the only free country on Earth. We haven't been drinking the Kool-Aid buddy, so when you make emotional arguments about how you need guns to remain free we just laugh at you for being so monstrously naive.
I know that no one has a higher claim over my life and property than I do. Yet our government wants to pass laws which restrict my ability to protect my life and what is left of liberty. Even if the government uses it's might to remove guns they would fail. Most people with my mind set on the issue have many guns and they would get some but many guns would be hidden and groups would form to assassinate the individuals responsible for the tyranny. I would hope that at the end of the conflict that the evil masters would be defeated and the people would realize that they don't need masters. Nature doesn't decide who can defend themselves. Technology does, The native people of this land were victims of genocide due to the fact that the Europeans came here with better technology. This has been true throughout history. That is what makes the USA the current Super Power our (killing technology). Nature has nothing to do with that.
How can you take away the means as you describe without violence? If you must use violence on peaceful people to remove their possessions, how is that viewed as a positive act. That is much worse than an occasional lunatic using a gun to kill a few people, as the reality of that is that the lunatic would just use a car to kill the same amount of people without the gun. There is no way to prevent lunatics from murdering people if they have the mind to do so anyone who actually gives thought to this accepts this FACT.
You are correct about the fact that we Americans are not free but I will continue to resist further oppression like gun control by the government.
I know that no one has a higher claim over my life and property than I do. Yet our government wants to pass laws which restrict my ability to protect my life and what is left of liberty.
No, you are only looking at one side of a balanced equation because you very obviously have a gargantuan confirmation bias. When the government legalises guns it increases the danger on your life because every maniac within driving distance is armed with the means to kill you instantly from 400 metres away.
I guess Lincoln was thinking the same thing when he started the Civil War.
The South lacked a belief in basic human freedom. They were systematic governmental usurpers of Rights, and thus their Rights to self govern were forfeit. It doesn’t matter what pretenses the North used, they were Justified in waging war on the South.
The South had the Constitutional Right to secede, The North could have boycotted all things related to slavery. This would have saved the lives of around 700,000 United States citizens. Slavery was becoming unacceptable around the world and was phasing itself out due to the unpopularity of it. It would have ended on its own without bloodshed as it did in other parts of the world.
Once the South seceded, they were a foreign nation, and not under the protection of the Constitution. Their sovereignty must then be protected by their own means. They didn’t have the means obviously, and their status as slavers lost them any moral claim to their Rights.
Murderous practices don’t end without bloodshed, the bloodshed stops when they end.
I've been around for 81 years. The need has never arisen. We have police, we have a "well regulated militia", it's called the National Guard. Let the defenders of America defend! We won't elect a corrupt "ruling class", we elect representatives that are our neighbors. If Trump becomes King, as I'm sure he would like, THEN we have to worry. I think the recent election showed that is NOT LIKELY to happen. If you have that little trust in the American way, I suggest you go someplace else. Whatever YOU try to "defend" will likely get you killed by those trained to do it. They don't need your help. It's rather juvenile to think you would be needed.
I don't know if you have been keeping up with modern times and the government law enforcement but there are many incidences where they are the criminal that you need protection from. They kill innocent people they rob people. You will just be disappointed if you expect law enforcement to save you from criminal activity since their part is only to assess fines to increase revenue for the government and attempt to apprehend the perpetrator of your crime. I don't think you understand who we need protection from
They kill just shy of 1000 people per year nationwide. Very very rarely is it unwarranted. How many people do thy rob annually? How many do they murder? How many times each day do they respond to 911 and everything turns out fine because they were there?
I don't know if you have been keeping up with modern times and the government law enforcement but there are many incidences where they are the criminal that you need protection from.
So you are telling me you want a gun so you can shoot cops?
ust because police work for the government and wear a costume they are nothing greater than people, some evil some good. One always needs to protect themselves from evil people.
One always needs to protect themselves from evil people.
If you genuinely believe you are going to emerge victorious from a shootout against the police then you are a much bigger idiot than even I gave you credit for.
It would be good if any of your links could credibly show the evils of police. Rather than a list of locations, an angry blogger, an angry rapper, and a list of unverifiable stats (67% of police are part time clowns according to CATO).
The Washington Post got serious about tracking officer involved shootings after Ferguson. They are not specifically friendly to police (being angry gets more clicks). They have the best database I have come across. As I said before, the vast vast majority are justified (even when the court of public opinion disagrees).
The point the videos make as it is clear to see with your own eyes is not that cops rack up a death toll each year, but to actually witness what they are capable of and it's not just one or two it is a culture of violence. This is just a tiny portion of the abuses of law enforcement caught on video and shared on the internet. Just imagine the total amount that wasn't caught on video and shared. Thank you for the Washington Post DB I had overlooked that one.
Rather than showing snippets of contextless bits of violence, you should tell me exactly which cases are abuses, then we can discuss it. I’ve often found that specific instances are either shown to be not what they appear, or the officer involved was punished, as is appropriate. And of course sometimes a bad cop gets away with it. But very rarely.
They are NOT ruining the country by representing the peaceful masses, they are ruining it by not restricting gun ownership by terrorists or people who should not own a gun. Over 80% of the country wants stricter gun control and over 60% of NRA members want it! The NRA leaders won't allow what those "peaceful masses" WANT!
I am NOT blaming the NRA for the gang violence, I am blaming them for not allowing the "peaceful masses" to create SOME resistance against it!
I am, and always have been since my teens, a gun owner. I do NOT want guns taken from those "peaceful masses", I want it more difficult for those among us that shouldn't have them.
One thing I don't agree with is that people should have the RIGHT to own an assault weapon (including an AR or the like) OR an extended magazine OR a "suppressor"! Those that have them should be old enough and intelligent enough to NOT need the hubris that goes along with them!
Now according to CRAZY AL the NRA is the problem in the United States of America which is pure BULLSHIT fed to him by the media he consumes on a daily basis !!!!
I HAVE …. but I don't "CLING". I have had guns for about 65 years. I love to shoot, I used to like to hunt. I have won matches and placed very well in others. That was then, this is now. I don't consider a gun a necessity. The only time I NEEDED one was in the military. Yes. To "cling" to a gun is bad. We wouldn't need to if we lived in any other "non-war zone" country. It's a shame what my old "associates", the NRA, has done to this country.
Well look CRAZY AL toes the party line and puts blame on the NRA which has never produced one gun. AL you LEFTIST would not know SHIT if you were hit in the face with a sack full of it !!!!!!
