- 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.
Anyone who thinks that politicians and their enforcers are what determines whether or not kids use drugs or drink alcohol is an idiot. Government can pass a million stupid laws and the cops can kidnap and incarcerate all policy offenders and the people who wish to use these items will make them or acquire them and use them. There is no "STOP" in this situation, there is only education and influence which as parents are the main influence and providers of education about these things
A living wage is not part of what government can control. If the government raises minimum wages then the corporate sector raises the price of all goods so the end result is no benefit to the working class. Single payer healthcare, and education costs more than private, examples of this are in my state, Free Tuition at state colleges my daughter's first year was 12,300 then last year was the free tuition and her college bill was 15,200 I'm not sure how political math works. Our local school district has an annual budget which equates to 32,000 per child how is this more cost effective? Government can't do anything but war better than the private sector. Trump has been doing more for free trade in his 1st year than Obama did in 8 years.
As for the prochoice the GOP has had the presidency, house and senate and didn't legislate against abortion, it's just a talking point. I don't see where political party has anything to do with children being abuse by their parents or animal rights or violence against women. All of these things are currently illegal.
I have many guns which I use for many things yet none of them have ever been used to harm another human being so why shouldn't I be permitted to own and use them as I wish? I use my guns for hunting (supplying food for my family) I use them to control furry garden destroyers, The children and I use them competitively for entertainment instead of mind numbing video games. I fail to understand why the government should have the right to interfere with that. If indeed someone were to come to my home with the intention of harming me or my family my guns could be my only chance to save the lives of me and my family.
Your comment is the one that lack intelligence If a robber doesn't harm anyone than why would the victim be upset about being robbed? Of course a robber harm the person they have robbed. Just like a murderer harms the victim and the family of the victim. These are criminal acts which should be dealt with severely. I would contend that if "Gun Crime" were the only thing punished but in a way to prevent recurrences that would truly reduce gun crime.
As for statistics and the reality of stats the working class out number the ruling class by over 1000 to 1 if an organized effort was put forth an armed group could get to and eliminate the ruling class. It has happened many times through out history.
You are correct about the fact that even though government is the great evil of the world without great support I must remain the peaceful slave and deal or be kidnapped and locked up or killed it is proven to be the outcome.
As for the Nixon situation, The Natl Guard was under the authority of the Governor of Ohio Nixon had nothing to do with the events of May 4th 1970. I would not exclude the possibility that the Governor gave the order to use deadly force.
Guns are not bad they are not good they are just tools, toys and Art. Why doesn't anyone ever discuss harsh penalties for using Guns against fellow citizens. Most gun owners have never harmed anyone with their guns. The people who do harm others with guns should be the only ones punished. I would contend that if a mandatory death sentence for a 2nd murder conviction using a gun and 25 year min for violent crimes committed using guns with no time off just a straight 25 years. gun crime would decline faster than passing laws against guns.
The Government officials make up and extremely small population. They could easily be targeted by large groups of armed citizens. I personally am not a statist I find government to be the greatest evil in the world but that is a different debate. If the government became too oppressive certain sectors of the population would organize and make an attempt at a government overthrow.
FYI Nixon did NOT order the military to shoot protesters, The shooters were Natl. Guardsmen under the authority of the governor of Ohio #1 There was no official permission to fire on protesters. The only sad truth is that the murderers were never brought to justice.
As for 9-11 the general public (the sheeple) don't want to have to deal emotionally with the fact that their president, vice pres, and the nation of Israel were the ones responsible for the 9-11 attacks and the rest of us that do realize that know that without large numbers we don't stand a chance,, That is reality
Sadly this issue has made it to mainstream politics and the Government fears an armed nation as they are stealing the wealth of the citizens and fear that at some point the citizens will realize this and revolt. It is their best interest to ban Guns. So they try to us every shooting incident they can to convince the public that they are in danger because of guns while doing nothing to actually improve anyone's safety. I live in a rural area where 9 out of 10 people are gun owners. The murder by gun rate is about 1 every 3 years. In a three county area. Compare that to places with very strict gun laws like DC, Chicago, NYC, Los Angeles, ect. It's very provable that gun restrictions don't work.