#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
What can Obama and Hillary say after 84 murdered people in France? More Truck control?
| Add New Argument |
|
1
point
So who in their right mind does not know many people die form guns? Just as many or more die from cars. More killers use the hammer as their weapon of choice over assault rifles! Why not put up the list of people who die from hammers, knives, swimming, boating, mountain climbing, ropes, drugs, alcohol, etc. etc. etc. IT MATTERS NOT THE MANY WAYS PEOPLE ARE MURDERED OR DIE FROM ACCIDENTS! We've got fanatical ideologs in the Democrat party who fixate on guns because their ultimate goal is to ban them as has Europe. They will use every tragedy to push their agendas.
Life happens and taking away the freedoms of Americans to protect themselves with guns is a pathetic over reach from ideological control fanatics. If Black gangs had no guns to kill each other, they would use bombs that would kill more innocent people. GET A BRAIN PLEASE! 1
point
Why not put up the list of people who die from hammers, knives, swimming, boating, mountain climbing, ropes, drugs, alcohol, Swimming, boating, mountain climbing, ropes etc. are not homocides. Those would be accidents, and they are in dangerous circumstances that people willingly put themselves into for whatever reason. But things like knives? That's a method of killing. Yep. But it's a lot harder to kill 10 people in a few seconds with a knife than an assault rifle. You seem to be ok with bombs being illegal. Why is that? Accidental gun deaths and suicides are not homocides. If you are worried about how easy it is for crazy people to kill people en mass, it is definitely a vehicle in a crowded place. Violent crime is at an all time low. If you want to reduce death, focus on cars and pools. If you want to reduce scary death that is tragic but overemphasized, educate and secure people. 1
point
The key point of the link I posted in my original post is this: "The common element in all these deaths is a gun. But the causes are very different, and that means the solutions must be, too." So yes, I agree. But my point is that mass shootings aren't the main reason why I think we need more regulations on guns. I think the argument of the left is often misrepresented as 'We need gun control to stop mass shootings." When in reality, it's so much more than that. 0
points
First off, gun control fanatics use the statistics of accidental gun deaths to push their gun regulations. They often include these accidental gun deaths in their statistics why decrying gun murders. This is why I use accidentental auto deaths as well as drunk driving deaths. You want to play games with numbers? We will use statistics in the same manner as do you. Drunk driving is not in a category with accidental deaths. It is a person deiberately choosing to have more than one drink while knowing he will have to drive home. The numbers of drunk driving deaths equals or excedes the number of murders by guns. Yes, I am ok with bombs and tanks and such being banned from civilians. These weapons have no use other than for war. You can't use these weapons for self defense in your home, or for hunting, or target shooting, etc. There have been mass murders with knives. In the old days, swords and knives is how armies fought each other. Lets ban them ok? As always, it's not the weapon that kills people, it's the evil person that does so. As you saw in France, one truck killed more than most gun massecres. Murderers will always find a weapon whether it be legal or not. STOP trying to take away the law abiding citizen's only means of protection against evil. 1
point
Yes, I am ok with bombs and tanks and such being banned from civilians. These weapons have no use other than for war. You can't use these weapons for self defense in your home, or for hunting, or target shooting, etc. I think this is important. Because this is the exact same argument liberals are making when they ask for tighter gun control. The only difference is that they don't see bombs and tanks as the only weapons that fit the criteria you described. 1
point
No, the argument(lie) Liberals put forth is to ban so called "Assault Rifles" which is code word for banning hunting rifles in our homes. They tried to make a law(The Safe Act) in New York State making our hunting rifles(holding more than seven rounds) in our homes ILLEGAL! They spew the same nauseating rhetoric you spew when saying they ony want to ban so called assaut rifles but NEVER tell the American people what that definition is. 1
point
But you said that bombs should be banned because "These weapons have no use other than for war. You can't use these weapons for self defense in your home, or for hunting, or target shooting, etc." Do you think that everything that fits that criteria is already illegal? If the answer is no, they why are you advocating for nothing to change? 1
point
1
point
Wait, so you said "the argument(lie) Liberals put forth is to ban so called "Assault Rifles" which is code word for banning hunting rifles in our homes." Are you implying that you would be ok with banning assault rifles if it meant banning assault rifles, but not if it meant banning hunting rifles? How would you suggest someone who supports banning assault rifles frame their argument? I didn't respond to your points about the 'safe act' because I'm not trying to argue one bill. Because, of course a bill can be flawed, or go to far. But you seem to be arguing that because you don't like the safe act, anyone trying to get any form of gun control is inherently in the wrong. I'll repeat my argument you so cleverly managed to avoid. But you said that bombs should be banned because "These weapons have no use other than for war. You can't use these weapons for self defense in your home, or for hunting, or target shooting, etc." Do you think that everything that fits that criteria is already illegal? If the answer is no, they why are you advocating for nothing to change? 1
point
I keep speaking to the total deception and lies from the Democrat party by using theSafe Act in New York. These are the same Democrats who constantly spewed rhetoric about assault rifles and then when it came to their gun control laws, THEY INCLUDED HUNTING RIFLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is not a word out of a Democrat's mouth that can be believed. This is why Republicans, and the NRA will not llow these liars to go after our hunting rifles. Democrats refuse to define what an assault rifle is. The few that have done so include hunting rifles. If some new military weapon comes along, I have no problem banning them if they are useless for protecting our homes, or hunting or target shooting. 1
point
Democrats refuse to define what an assault rifle is. The few that have done so include hunting rifles. So what would your definition be of a weapon that should be illegal, such as bombs or tanks. Is that they can't be used for hunting? You say: If some new military weapon comes along, I have no problem banning them if they are useless for protecting our homes, or hunting or target shooting. So long as anything can be used for protecting our homes, hunting, or target practice it must be legalized? 1
point
Each weapon is taken on it's own merit. I have no problem with automatic weapons being banned. We the people will decide whenever a new weapon comes along, if it is for military only. Assault rifles have no definition. Democrats in New York say they are our hunting rifles that hold more then seven rounds. CAN YOU GRASP THAT SIMPLE FACT? Newsflash....DEMOCRATS LIE ALL THE TIME! WE DON'T TRUST THEM AT ALL! Look what Hillary told us about her emails! SHE LIED CONSTANTLY! LOOK AT THE LIES OF OBAMACARE TO GET IT PASSED! THEY WILL SAY ANYTHING TO GET THEIR CONTROLLING HANDS ON OUR GUNS ONE STEP AT A TIME UNTIL THEY ARE GONE! Kind of like our laws on murder. Democrats and progressives decided to change our laws concerning the right's to life for our unborn babies. They made it legal to kill babies! Then they ignored what the courts said and made it legal to kill babies for any reason all the way up to birth. Do you see what happens when you allow Government to take away the right's of life for our babies? It starts out with life of mother abortions, then 1st trimester, 2nd trimester, 3rd trimester, NO RESTRICTION! Tell me why it is the Democrat Party has no problem with NO RESTRICTION ABORTIONS? Why won't they compromise on 20 week abortion limits(unless extreme case exceptions at later stages) proposed by the GOP? Funny how you want gun owners to compromise on our guns, but you refuse to compromise on the lives of viable babies when you vote for these extremists like Hillary. GET A CONSCIENCE AND SOME HUMANITY when it comes to something as important as purposely killing viable innocent life, before judging those who simply want to protect our families. Stop being such total hypocrites. Try grasping priorities. More people die each year from hammers than they do assault rifles! DO YOU CARE? Do you see why assault rifles are not priority one for Republicans? There is no stopping a corrupt government when you give them an inch. We will not give them an inch on our guns unless it makes perfect sense whereby we will not be left vulnerable to criminals who will get these illegal guns. 0
points
I said I had no problem with automatic guns being banned. Automatic weapons have been banned for as long as I have been alive. They are a militray created weapon and would have little use for private citizens. They would be very unsafe weapons to use. They are not a gun we already own in our homes, that would instantly become illegal at the whims of Democrats whose ultimate goal is to take all our guns. When a Democrat defines their idea of an assualt rifle, they are coming for our hunting rifles as they did in New York! They are coming for all our guns one step at a time. They are already making laws preventing the use of conceiled weapons that would give us protection from murderers, while keepng their body guards with conceiled weapons to protect their corrupt double standard lives. As always, they are above the law as we saw with Hillary's corruption with our classified government documents, with the clinton foundation, etc. and only they will be allowed conceiled weapons for protection. Abortion has been legal for as long as I have been alive, should I have no problem with it? (rhetorical question) There is nothing about hunting in the second amendment. All guns are very unsafe to use, perhaps none more than handguns, since one must remain more mindful of the direction it is pointed. The second amendment is there so that the American people can defend themselves. Defend against home invasion sure, but also against an oppressive government. Cannons were owned by private parties back then. If people wanted to rebel against the government, they could. Obviously this is no longer the case. The reason is because people cannot own automatic weapons, tanks, cannons, grenades, etc. Nobody could feasibly revolt in this country even though the second amendment was meant to ensure that ability. My point is not that people should own cannons, it's that the second amendment has been soundly rejected not only by the left, but by the right, as evidenced by your comfort with the banning of automatic weapons. If you want to keep your undefined assault rifle, you better define it, and then you better come up with an argument to keep it (especially since AR-15's and other assault rifles turn easily into automatic weapons). Your argument can't really be based on the Constitution. You've already given that position up. 0
points
I have given up nothing. There is such a thing as compromise in this world. Republicans have compromised on cannon's, machine guns, grenades, etc. because the Left CONSTANLY conditions the electorate with anti gun rhetoric. If the GOP never compromised on anything, they would NEVER get elected and ALL OUR GUNS would be taken by these extremist democrats. Maybe you have missed the past 30 years when the Democrats have pushed the narrative that the GOP hate women because they take the pro life stance. The GOP still has a conscience and have not caved on Abortion even though it would help them win more elections. I agree it is sad when our politicians are forced to either take a more moderate stance on our freedoms, or get thrown out of office. Democrats are responsible for this. They constantly tell Americans that republicans hate womem, hate old people, hate poor people, hate minorities, etc. etc. This is why Republicns have not gotten more serious on the debt because if they cut the insane spending, they will be crucified by the Left and thrown out of office. Did you see what happened when the GOP shut down the government to stop this madness in debt spending? The Liberal media crucified them and democrats totally blamed them for people losing their jobs. This is why the establishment republicans have lost their backbone! This is why Republicans want an outsider who does not worry about this political correct madness. Our nation is dieing from within. IT IS GOING BANKRUPT! We must make desparate changes before it is too late. You start this post by explaining the necessity for compromise and then go on to illustrate how compromise is killing the republican party. When you compromise food with poison, poison wins. When you compromise good ideas with bad ideas, bad ideas win. To bring this back around to the topic, we have already compromised on the Constitution. The Second Amendment is not and cannot be what it was originally intended. It has been changed into "Hunting being necessary for the leisure of a sizable demographic, the right to keep and bear certain arms at prescribed times shall not be infringed". You said as much yourself. Now we can argue about which arms and what times. 0
points
I agree with what you are saying...... and then I look at the real world of what Democrats have done to the electorate. They elected Obama twice! They are close to electing a proven corrupt criminal! All for the free stuff. The majority of our electorate has for decades been brainwashed by Democrats to believe that they are entitled to other's money. They have been conditioned to believe that Big Government redistributing our wealth is the answer to their problems. It's called socialism! It's easy to brainwash someone with other people's money. All they have to do is promise them free stuff without working for it, while telling them that the responsible adults in the room(republicans) hate the poor, hate women, hate everyone but rich people. With the help of the Liberal media they have won that battle and the American people are the losers. So what are we left with? A soon to be bankrupt would be socialist nation! We are seeing every election where the true Conservatives never get elected. Our Congress is filled with establishment republicans who chose to cave in on their principles to get elected. This is what's left of a Republican party that once stood strong for our freedoms and our nation's best interests. They are living the reality of an electorate pandered to by Democrats with our money. I have watched while most politicians who stay strong to conservative ideals lose their elections. I believe our nation will have to go bankrupt before the idiots on the Left are finally shown what corrupt morons they turly are. When the welfare checks bounce, and the riots in the streets subside, America will have to come out from the ashes once more. It's truly amazing how quickly and easily a Liberal party with the bully pulpit of a liberal biased media can censor the history of where our nation came from. Where we fought for SMALLER Government because the people knew how corrupt big government is. |
