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.
I don’t know why either. The Veit Cong thought so as did ISIS. But they should have learned from history that guarilla tactics by large swaths of the population across a vast land area is completely ineffective to conventional war methods...wait a minute.
But, the government WILL come for your guns.. It's only a matter of TIME.. How long do you think reasonable people will put up with the bull shit from the NRA??? You think FOREVER.. I think not long.
Will there be pockets of holdouts who'll fight to their dying breath?? Yeah.. We got a look at them during the Bundy fiasco.. Some of 'em are even posting on these boards. Hell, you might be one of 'em..
But, the government WILL come for your guns.. It's only a matter of TIME..
If that’s true, it’s a matter of a very long time. I’m not concerned in the slightest.
How long do you think reasonable people will put up with the bull shit from the NRA???
The NRA isn’t even in the top 50 rankings for organizational political donors, and their political power comes from their membership numbers, which is around 5 million. Despite this large number, they only represent about 6% to 7% of all gun owners in the US. With that in mind, neither myself nor the NRA have anything to worry about any time soon. Keep wishing though, it’s fun to watch.
neither myself nor the NRA have anything to worry about any time soon.
Hello again, A:
I don't disagree.. The numbers don't make the NRA powerful. Being good lobbyists do.. And, we can argue about WHEN the country will regain its sanity, but REGAIN it, it will..
The thought that those on the right want that for America boggles the mind! Let's see. They don't like paying for others health insurance ... even though others pay to fix their roads, plow them out, build their schools. That's what "insurance" is, a bunch of people putting money in the "kitty" to spend where it is needed. (Whether it is a "non profit" government or a private fund where billions OF that money are spent on executives and luxurious buildings to house them!) "I don't know why" an American would want to even uphold a militia overthrowing what has been the most successful government in the worlds history, kill millions of men, women children, endanger their own, just to get THEIR OWN WAY ... screw the rest of you Americans ..... wait a minute!
They don't like paying for others health insurance ... even though others pay to fix their roads, plow them out, build their schools. That's what "insurance" is
It's called taxes. Insurance is despised by Libtards so where is the kitty. Check under the sofa.
I know of NO liberals that despise insurance and I certainly don't. I, and most liberals think taxes are necessary. We just want our moneys worth, if we get that, we don't mind paying. If it makes America great again, we mind it even less.
Like taxes, insurance is paid into to help everyone within the company's (country's) scope. What we DO NOT like is when CEO's (or politicians), take the money that should go to the people that pay it in! Insurance=taxes=insurance, It SHOULD be the same principle, we (liberals) want OUR money's worth! The 1%, either executive or politician, should not take more than a responsible share! (And they should pay taxes on THAT!)
The thought that those on the right want that for America boggles the mind!
Yeah, but your mind is constantly boggled. Never mind that there aren't any sane people who advocate the overthrow of this country. The right is about 50% of the population, if they wanted to overthrow the government, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about it.
You irrelevantly talk about healthcare the way FromWithin irrelevantly talks about abortion...
The RADICAL right is about 27% of the population, that is the % that stood by Dubya even after he financially destroyed the country (or ALLOWED it to be destroyed)! Like Rmoney's 47%, they'll never vote for anything else but a white nationalist. They couldn't overthrow the government with their unregulated militia because the regulated one would be so much better equipped. Health care is NOT irrelevant to the other 70+%. I think Humpty Trumpty is about to find out. FromWithin?? You really know how to hurt a guy, don't you?? ;-)
Your overuse of the word “white nationalist” when referencing bush supporters leaves little room for thoughtful discussion concerning actual white nationalists.
It doesn’t matter if healthcare matters to people, it’s not relevant to this discussion. Just as abortion isn’t relevant to most discussions that FromWithin crams that topic into. Though he would remind you that abortion did matter to the millions of dead babies that result from the policy. Regardless of numbers or percents of people who care about a topic that is irrelevant to this topic, it is still irrelevant. So come off it.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The people being allowed to keep and bear arms is what regulates the militia. An unregulated militia, or one that cannot be kept in check by the people, is a danger to the security of a free state.
They always try to take the arms. Most of the country, you can't walk around with a sword. Did the people who wrote the second amendment have swords in mind? They sure did, but it is illegal to run around with a sharpened sword in most of the country.
It's got nothing to do with reducing violence and everything to do with compromising the free state.
If the supreme court were to do so, I would be of the opinion that they are in violation of the constitution.
A supreme court ruling that I disagree with is the one that says you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I would never do such a thing, and anyone who would do such a thing is worthy of contempt, but the first amendment reads, "No law shall abridge", which means that any law that limits free speech is technically and legally unconstitutional.
You need to get your facts straight, FactMachine. In the Weimar Republic which preceded the Nazis because of the terms of the Versailles Treaty, the private ownership of guns was banned and guns already in circulation were confiscated. When Hitler took over he immediately exempted all Nazi Party members from these restrictions. Furthermore, in 1938 Hitler completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition. Meanwhile, as well as Nazi party members, many more categories of people were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years. (Jews were not included in the deregulation.) So, you see, contrary to what you wrote, Hitler did not take away any guns but made then more accessible.
You keep saying this, other people (myself included) keep proving it isn't factually accurate and yet you keep saying it. Are you even aware that you are lying?
Recently, I was lucky enough to attend the world premiere of the stunning film, Enemy of the Reich, about young Muslim woman Noor Inayat Khan and her contribution to the Second World War.
It’s a fantastic story and one which left quite a few of the audience in tears; I’ll admit my own eyes welled too. What really hit home with me, however, were the words of the director before the movie. He pointed out that in almost all World War II movies, you hardly ever see a brown face, let alone a Muslim one.
That’s despite Winston Churchill himself admitting the Britain could not have won the war without the Indian army.
Somehow, however, the fact that millions of Muslims chose to fight the Nazis has been overlooked. Likewise, very little is heard about those Muslims who offered shelter to Jews around the world either.
Nevertheless, tell us about Winston Churchill, your dear leader who actually fought against the Nazis. Was he a liberal? Oh that's right...
Could you tell us what he thought of Islam? Last I checked he said it was like rabies in a dog.
Could you tell us what he thought of Liberals? Last I checked he said children were liberals. Adults living in reality were Conservatives.
That silly Brit. What could he have possibly known about Nazis, Islam, and Liberals?
I'll bet you're a big Margarette Thatcher fan aren't ya?
But let's not get distracted here. The fact is, Hitler praised Islam. The allies did not. You praise Islam. Churchill did not. Stalin did not. FDR did not. Now scurry back off to the Emerald City, where everything is free and Muhammed is your good friend...
Interesting. You think the Quran is fake news, and even delusional, yet want delusional "religious nutjobs", according to you, to flood your country. Makes sense. Liberal Brits are geniuses.... cough cough....
Even more interesting is that you ignored my Churchill point. That was an easy prediction.
Churchill lacked one thing. He forgot to teach the Brits about toothbrushes and baking soda. Can you trust a nation with rabid gingivitis?
Hmm... let's see here. You would have called Churchill a Nazi, so you would have opposed him, and Hitler was squeeling about Socialism, whether he was lying or being truthful. Pretty obvious to see who you would have fought with....
Interesting. You think the Quran is fake news, and even delusional, yet want delusional "religious nutjobs", according to you, to flood your country.
According to me? By all means quote where I have ever said I "want delusional religious nutjobs to flood my country." You can't of course, because you are a spectacular liar who is using his own words to mock his own argument. Why would I (or anyone) claim a bunch of people are "religious nutjobs" and then argue I (or they) want them to flood the country? This comprehensively contradicts itself.
The things you accuse people of are so false and so stupid that they are not even logically coherent with themselves, let alone with anything anybody else has said. You are a pathologically dishonest, stupid, insecure racist coward, and nothing you say should ever be taken seriously by anybody else on planet Earth.
So... you would have opposed Churchill, calling him a Nazi, and Hitler would have been lying or being honest about being a Socialist. It's not brain surgery to figure out who you would have fought with...the guy trying to sell Socialism...and ya know it too eh Quantum? You would have worn that swastika proudly, calling Churchill a Nazi, while killing Jews who were in your way...
You said Conservatives were Nazis. Churchill was no liberal. Would you have supported what he said about Islam? No. You've called me a Nazi for saying what he said. Hitler would have given your party line on socialism. And you would have fallen in line. I mean, you surely couldn't fight for a man who said Islam was a disease. But a man who preached socialism....
According to me? By all means quote where I have ever said I "want delusional religious nutjobs to flood my country
Now Quantum. Don't be racist. Those Arab refugees need to get safety in Britain, the land of rainbows and chocolate rivers. Are you going to turn them away? Gasp....you racist Nazi bastard.
No he didn't you ignorant halfwit. Do you genuinely get your information from Alex Jones? Are you that stupid? Guns were outright banned under the Weimar Republic and when Hitler arrived he relaxed gun laws in Germany.
NONE of them were democracies. We are headed for a one party system, largely because of right wing Gerrymandering (controlled voting results). When that happens, we are no longer a democracy .... THAT'S when your guns will disappear.... like Russia, China, Cuba. Do you think that an authoritarian government will want "the people" running around with guns, that might object to their keeping the most of the money for themselves??
The people being allowed to keep and bear arms is what regulates the militia. An unregulated militia, or one that cannot be kept in check by the people, is a danger to the security of a free state.
What you are saying is pretty much the opposite of this. You are saying that only the militia should have arms. This is not a regulated militia.
The "well regulated militia', today, is the National Guard. A bunch of white nationalist gun clubs led by Breitbart loyalists are NOT well regulated militia! (Yet) If they strengthen under a leader, like Steve Bannon, they WILL become America's "Brown Shirts" and America will LOSE the "security of a free state"!
In Germany people that hated the government developed a "militia". Result: Fascism.
In Cuba, people who hated the government developed a "militia". Result: communism
South American countries develop militias regularly. Result: CHAOS
America is a "free state" only because we have "free elections" ... STOP MESSING WITH THEM!
You mean the Second amendment that was written when most people NEEDED arms to put food on the table? To protect themselves from Indians? When we still COULD have been "taken over" by an England that was pissed!That was written when single shot muskets were military weapons, when a weapon firing at a rate of well over 500 rounds a minute couldn't be imagined? You don't think the dangerous technology of today should cause a "reconsideration" of a situation the founders couldn't imagine? Do you think maybe the founders had ANY "understanding" of today when they wrote the Second?? I don't think you've got it quite rig.....um, correct!
Oh no, in their day, the firearms of the time were terrifying super weapons. The people need some way to defend against this. The military uses weapons that are prohibitively expensive, which keeps then out of common circulation. Even still, people need some defense against this.
Otherwise, what gets in the way of the republic turning into empire?
The empire is still at work. The globalist empire which the sun never sets. They are doing everything they can to disarm The United States and regain total control. They already attack The United States on so many angles. They already have so many people in the government. If they have their way, they will kill The United States of America, and what replaces it may not be preferable. The people who want to confiscate the guns are the ones who want to institute empire.
If I were to say that is not a very American thing to surrender national sovereignty to a global government, but the truth is that Americans have a wide variance of opinions on the matter. The American thing is to have an opinion on the matter, not have an opinion on the matter, express your opinion on the matter, don't express your opinion on the matter.. It's down to you.
You have a right to say whatever you want, to propagate whatever message you wish to propagate, associate with whomever you wish to associate with, and to establish communication with the government.
Now all this all American religious business aside, the intent of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to make sure that the armed forces don't abuse the authorities they have been granted against the citizenry.
TsarPepe, I pegged you early as an internet plant, likely by a foreign government. This argument only reinforces that.
There are FEW people that want to "confiscate" guns in America, there are MANY who want to confiscate Assault weapons (weapons of war), and only people like yourself think a truly democratic government is working to become "empirical". Undermining the U,S, Government WAS from outsiders, now, with the internet as a brainwashing tool, and people like yourself, it is becoming a reality! Wake up America!
The argument above is designed to feed unrealistic ideas to those minds that have been subjected to the REAL fake news (Like FAUX news!) for years!
I consider Trump to be thee most dangerous person in the U.S today, ONLY because he is privy to the nuclear codes. If it wasn't for that fact, No.1 would be that purveyor of "empirical government", Steve Bannon!
Hey, the point is that you have the right. That doesn't mean you have to exercise that right. There is nothing imbecilic about having a gun. Armed robberies get stopped all the time in Texas by citizens who are armed.
Guns for the those who want them, no guns for those who don't. That's at least a third of the guns and dope party platform.
Really? From my cold dead hands... a war between the anti gunners and the pro gunners would last about oh...ten minutes. Maybe you guys should have learned to use a gun. We sure did.
Do you know why Trump won? The days of the liberal cult are? Over....*
This "WAR" would last long enough to kill thousands of American citizens that don't want an authoritarian government, and many that "think" the one we have IS ONE! You ARE right, it would last a short time ... until THEE "well regulated militia, the National Guard, settled the matter. Do you think American Generals would "stand down" while a "President" allowed the slaughter of their families?? The dangerous right aren't the only ones who own guns, they ARE the only ones who want to be a strict "Republic" .... like the Republic of China, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, The Republic of China, The Republic of Cuba, The People's Republic of N, Korea ...etc.!
Trump "won" by the strategic gerrymandering of the vote! THAT'S why 3,000,000 votes really didn't count!
I have known how to use a gun all my life! Have won several NRA sanctioned matches, and others (or placed very high on the list). Don't get the idea that the MANY "leftist veterans" have forgotten how to use them either ,,, or that they don't have them!
I do think that hundreds of thousands would die if mass gun confiscation was attempted in the U.S. If you try to take the guns of "preppers" and similar groups and individuals they will respond with force.
Constitutional rights supersede law, and the gun loving types are largely aware of this. Their allegiance is first to the constitution and second to the law (and rightly so, in my estimation).
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. NOT JUST A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BUT ALSO THE NON INFRINGEMENT OF OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. You can try and play with the words of the second amendment but it clearly says that you can't take our firearms because WE WILL NOT RELINQUISH THEM PIERCE.
This thread reminds me of when Alex Jones went full retard on Piers Morgan.
Americans are like children. They have the mentality of spoilt children. They think guns are toys and if a parent steps in to take away their toys they are gonna kick and scream and stamp their feet like the tantrum-throwing kids they are.
You don't understand the issue at all. It's not about a toy, it's about a means of self defense. The state is not a "parent" it's an institution which is supposed to work FOR THE PEOPLE. You have a stupid submissive slave mentality and you think it's okay for the government to have nukes and drones and chemical weapons but god forbid anyone who doesn't wear a uniform having a gun. If every jew during the holocaust had a gun maybe things would have gone a little differently? Your analogy shows what kind of mentality you have, you think the state is your daddy because you're a little cuck boy.
Arguments along the lines that "people need to be able arm themselves with military style weapons/arsenals because the government has these weapons and we need to be able to keep the government in check" to be patently absurd considering that the Government has the entire US Military forces on it's side including tanks, fighter jets, chemical and nuclear weapons, ect. Any argument along this line in favor of not restricting gun rights to any extent is the product of a mind that is egregiously delusional.
Now to expand on my point of where we disagree, although it is not possible to take on the Government as a whole by physical force, I can imagine situations where for instance a Police officer that is a loose canon were in your presence and having a weapon of similar force to such a Government agent could be beneficial and a "fundamental right" insofar as "if the officer is going to have a gun, than I can have a gun to protect myself from their misconduct". I concede a scenario such as that to you 100%. Now, in our current society, one would find themselves in tremendous legal trouble if a citizen "stood up for themselves with their fundamental right to defend themselves and family (by being armed) from a Government agent". I am not sure what your feelings are of a potential scenario like this (but would be interested to know where you stand on it and scenarios potentially similar to this) but if you said in this case, "the citizen is in the right and the law (government position is wrong)", then I would side with you. However, attempting to go from a small scale situation like this where each party has similar level of weapon power to fighting against the Government on large scale in any way that could hold them truly accountable and in check is not realistic through the use of physical force because the weapon power is so obviously slanted in the favor of the Government to a tremendous degree over the citizenry. Therefore, any large scale project of keeping the Government in check is going to have to come from a collective/broad scale consciousness raising/protesting effort by the citizens that reaches such a tipping point that it could not go ignored or unanswered in some form by the Government.
I meant in terms of a small scale situation. In terms of a totalitarian government takeover, the current civilian armament would not be able to match what a militarized task force would bring to bear. Opposing a large superimposed dictatorial power would be more of an intellectual challenge than one of physical aggression. The real question regarding a situation like this (And I presume you mean in the US) is would the armed forces resist or cooperate? How far would they be willing to go?
You've figured us out. Wasn't hard, was it? ........................
LOL.
I should add in fairness that whenever I say "Americans" followed by something negative, I'm really only talking about the American right wing. I view the left much differently, but I also see them as a minority in America.
