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.
If you break the law you go to jail. That's how I plan on disarming them. If you carry a gun when it is against the law then you are breaking the law. Police presently have little trouble arresting people who are breaking the law, so your theory that this will all suddenly change if we stop permitting kids to walk around with machine guns is about as retarded and disingenuous as everything else you every say. Civilised countries do not base their laws on how criminal gangs are prepared to behave. That's ridiculous. Oh no, I better not make that law because the Cryps aren't going to like it? Wtf? Shut up you blathering imbecile. Stop writing stupid comments and go learn how math works.
You’re right that the gangs aren’t the problem for disarming the public. The problem is the 400 million other guns, most of which are legally owned. The cops will have trouble taking those away because it is contradiction to their oath, so they won’t do it.
stop permitting kids to walk around with machine guns
No one does that. What they carry, and what kills most people, are handguns. Kids aren’t allowed to walk around with those either. Cops arrest them. Judges set them free because, you know, we imprison and jail too many people.
You’re right that the gangs aren’t the problem for disarming the public. The problem is the 400 million other guns, most of which are legally owned. The cops will have trouble taking those away because it is contradiction to their oath, so they won’t do it.
Not exactly. You are being backwards. Civilised countries are supposed to make laws on the basis of what is morally right, not on the imaginary basis you are trying to create about how difficult they would be to implement.
How absurd it would be to say: well... I doubt everyone is going to obey this new murder law. We'd better back off.
Civilised countries are supposed to make laws on the basis of what is morally right, not on the imaginary basis
Precisely--which is why our Government historically took a realistic view at the world, noted that (a) evil & violence exist (b) governments cannot always be trusted and are prone to corruption. Therefore, they allowed citizens to arm themselves for self-defense against other citizens that intrude upon them, and/or the government (officials) becoming overly invasive or corrupt.
In modern America, the police & paramedics are 10-15 minutes away after the dispatcher has been notified, meanwhile the average incident occurs within a 2 minute window. Thus, you (the citizen) are not only your 'first line of defense' but, overwhelmingly are your only line of defense. Hence, the need for self-protection through defensive tools & emergency medical knowledge.
The problem is the 400 million other guns, most of which are legally owned.
Well no, that isn't a problem. Since once you ban them, they cease to be legally owned. You see how that works buddy?
The cops will have trouble taking those away because it is contradiction to their oath
Stopping people from doing illegal things is a contradiction to their oath? I like the fallacy, but nah.
No one does that.
Amarel, there are literally amusement parks in America dedicated to permitting teenagers to walk around firing machine guns. The way you turn reality upside down is as bizarre as it is irritating.
MACHINE GUN AMERICA: THE AMUSEMENT PARK WHERE TEENAGERS GO TO SHOOT A HUGE RANGE OF AUTOMATIC WEAPONS
We have a ban on illegal immigration and drugs. Guess how that's working
I see. Nice to see you reverting back to your familiar false association fallacy, Bronto. My car doesn't work, therefore my motorbike doesn't work. I am not going to bother explaining to you the sizeable difference between carrying around something designed to help you have a good time and carrying around something designed to kill large numbers of people quickly and efficiently. You are obviously not going to be interested in that.
You just carry on telling us how drugs are the same thing as guns. You don't even agree with legalising drugs in the first place, so you're a hypocrite as well as a (bad) con man.
Before I even engage in a substantive criticism of you arguments, I feel it necessary to point out that this is not your country--what business do you have telling America it needs to disarm itself?
Before I even engage in a substantive criticism of you arguments,
MathFan, thank you but I am not even slightly interested in your highly inaccurate description of your own rhetoric. To be blunt about it, I think you are a lowbrow imbecile with a complex narcissistic personality disorder.
I didn’t know about that park. The article says it’s our “first and only”. Not really the root of our problem.
Also, you can’t just ban guns the way you can just pass other kinds of laws. It’s unconstitutional. Which means it’s unenforceable by police. Any discussion of a gun ban must first address the legal mechanism through which a ban could occur. Without an amendment, it can’t.
Anyway, you aren’t even relevant to the conversation, nor is the conversation relevant to you. You’re just the entertainment, as always. But becoming boring.
Honestly, at this point, I would be comfortable with the country being united under a single flag, military, and general economic system, though with the individual states looking very different in regards to self-defense weapons, taxes, etc. etc.
That is, for instance, if some 5 states or so want to get rid of guns, have extremely restrictive knife laws, etc.--go for it. And so with the entire spectrum of freedom of arms vs restriction. Then, people can voluntarily move to the states they feel best suit them. Attempting to get a group of politically motivated people to take away rights from the entire country is absurd, and would have disastrous consequences. Let them take away their own rights, not others.
I would be comfortable with the country being united under a single flag, military, and general economic system, though with the individual states looking very different in regards to self-defense weapons, taxes, etc.
That's actually a good idea in a way, for the same reason as the communities we were talking about several days ago are. It would allow us to observe how different set-ups operate in the real world without implementing them on a nation wide scale, and then we could have a practical basis for deciding what really works and what doesn't. Then hopefully the best systems would be adopted by the other states as well until we come up with an entirely new and better over all system built from taking the best of each state and implementing it nation wide.
The only possible exception may be that humans are born onto a spectrum, and it seems to me entirely plausible that after one has deviated from one end to another significantly (relative to others), they may in fact enjoy an alternate system more. That is, there may not be one ultimate system for humans to organize under, rather several, varied, independent system that people voluntarily join (and leave, if desired, to join another).
In the US, that could manifest exactly how you suggested, with popular systems taking hold in particular states, and then spreading as more people voluntarily decide they would want to live under such governance.
I am 100% cool with that project. In fact, I think it is superior to the state of things how they are at the moment.
there may not be one ultimate system for humans to organize under, rather several, varied, independent system that people voluntarily join (and leave, if desired, to join another).
Yeah that is true. There is no such thing as a perfect system and people will never agree about everything. That is why there must always be progress and there will always be new circumstances to adapt to, there is no such thing as a "utopian" model for civilization. There is however the possibility for humans to agree enough and to achieve a "perfect enough" system for major conflicts, exploitation and the like to be prevented from occurring. As we are now, those things are an inherent part of the system. It is for this very reason that we don't see more independent systems within the system, whether they be state systems or more local communities taking root. The big state is preventing the individual states and communities from deviating from the over-arching structure enough to do there own thing and find more new ways of doing things. The ruling class wants to hold onto power and perpetuate their system, failing to realize that it is in even their own best interests to let civilization undergo change. That is how we advance as a species and even those at the top would be able to live in a better world because of that, if only they would let go of their pathological need to hoard power and wealth and to protect the system that gives them their free ride on the backs of the tax payers and working class. Ultimately it comes down to waking people up, because the only reason people don't go their own way is because they are brainwashed to think they can't.
I agree with that, although it is important to note that there are many "average joe/average jane" type people who fall into the same model--however, do not wield nearly as much power. 'The fight' has to be directed toward both 'the top', as you suggest, and the bacteria from 'within'.
it is important to note that there are many "average joe/average jane" type people who fall into the same model--however, do not wield nearly as much power.
As I think we discussed several months ago it is largely due to conditioning that these "sheep" types exist. Even an average level person is not at their full potential of thought in most cases. Political power is a social construct, and once we reach a certain level of reason on a cultural level we will no longer have need of it. Self governance will become a part of our culture, and only subnormal people will not be responsible or intelligent enough to handle it, in the same way that most adults are expected to be able to drive in 1st world countries but some can't be trusted behind the wheel because they are literally retarded. The difference is that in the future we will be at a level of technology that prevents people from being retarded because we will know how to fix mental disorders and remedy a low IQ.
'The fight' has to be directed toward both 'the top', as you suggest, and the bacteria from 'within'.
Another issue is that much of the "bacteria" has risen to the top. Those with true wisdom rarely have the power because the current system is not based on "what is best" it is instead based on "what is best for me". The ones who can be reasoned with are usually those in the middle, not the "serfdom" or the beorgiose. The lower classes tend to either be ravenous or totally enslaved and indoctrinated, the upper classes tend to be either lazy and decadent or downright evil. Most of the genuinely smart and hard working people are in the middle class in capitalism, although most of them are either sheep or just reasonably intelligent and there are people in all classes who are at least decent.
I’m all for keeping as much authority as possible as local as possible. But what you’re suggesting would still require a repeal of the 2nd. If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, no state can take away the rights under its protection.
I was discussing this exact matter with a good guy from a different forum who knows a lot more about the Constitution then I do--I can link you to the page.
He argued that the Constitution is a restriction on the federal governments ability to mandate laws which subvert the document, however does not intrude upon states rights to govern their own as they please. In which case, what I suggested would not only be consistent with the constitution, but the driving premise behind it. However, if your take is correct, than what I suggested would clearly be illegal.
First off, there is no bill of rights. If anyone wants to produce anywhere where that term is used in the document that has the first ten amendments, in the debates of the First Congress other than Madison's first proposal--which was rejected as a declaration of rights for restrictions on the federal government, or anytime in the eighteenth or nineteenth century as descriptive of the first ten amendments, that would be miraculous.
States have the power to do what they want because the first ten amendments are only restrictions on the federal government. This means the first ten amendments have the distinct purpose of preventing another government akin to the British government.
xMathFanx said:
@Jimmyb
Interesting, you are submitting that most 'rights' people point to are in fact restrictions to ensure that the federal government does not become overly tyrannical and intrude upon state & local governances. To me, that implies, as i think should be the case, that we are a people united under one flag, military, generalized economic system--however, with individual states & communities that are organized very, very differently. That way, people have more control over their own personal reach without over-reaching onto others territory.
Jimmyb said:
Exactly. The preamble to the first ten amendments states that explicitly:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
I believe the word "right" is only used once in the first ten amendments regarding trial by jury.
You described the federalism of the Constitution perfectly.
Article VI paragraph 2 established the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. However, it was the 14th Amendment following the civil war that made individual citizenry to the US supreme over state citizenship. The 14th further saysthat “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This has been interpreted in case law as extending all federal constitutional restrictions to all governmental bodies.
The federal government had to do this with the 14th Amendment to make the 13th Amendment (banning slavery) enforceable. Otherwise the 13th would have merely meant that the federal government cannot enslave you, while Georgia can.
You make a good case, I will clearly have to look into it more. I will bring up that objection with Jimmy also, see what his thoughts are.
Irrespective of how it may be established currently, do you view that as a viable option or highly problematic? That is, the idea of highly independent states bound to the Federal government in few ways.
do you view that as a viable option or highly problematic? That is, the idea of highly independent states bound to the Federal government in few ways.
That’s essentially how we started and theoretically how we are supposed to be today. Various states have different state tax structures, state benefits, and state laws. Further down we have local option taxes and local ordinances.
I have no problem with a federal document which bars all smaller governments from infringing on certain, fundamental rights (such as self defense). I do not like the federal government directing affairs from afar (as they do with so much regulation) or taking on roles beyond their proper function, such as with social security.
Much of what they do could be challenged on Constitutional grounds, but for various reasons has not, or has been established under the “necessary and proper” clause or the “commerce” clause. Consider the war on drugs. If said substance does not cross a State line, the federal government have no Constitutionally applicable role to play, which is why prohibition required an Amendment.
Here is some more of Jimmyb's argument on this topic:
Jimmyb said:
Post #1
Each state has a declaration of rights before the Constitution. The citizens of the states were and are protected by the state constitutions. That is how our government is structured. The Federalist's argument against a bill of rights was that creating a bill of rights or a set of restrictions would give the federal government an avenue to regulate and take away rights. That is what the federal govenment has done and the Federalists were right.
People get confused between the difference between a unitary government and a compact between the states.
Post #2
If anyone wants to discover that a state is restricted from taking away rights, just read any state Constitution. I would recommend reading the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The difference is that the states's constitutions are written in libertarian language, which is actual protection of rights rather than restrictions on government.
Here is the contrast between a libertarian protection of rights and a restriction on government. The first ten amendments were created to prevent the federal government from taking away the rights protected in the states' constitutions:
Virginia Declaration of Rights:
That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
The preamble to the first ten amendments:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
February 12 Taxi driver Bulent Kabala, 41, shot dead on a roundabout in Enfield
March 8 Kelvin Odunuyi, 19, shot in Wood Green amid escalating gang warfare
March 14 Joseph Williams-Torres, 20, shot dead in a stationary car in Walthamstow
March 17 Student Russell Jones shot and stabbed to death near Ponders End station in Enfield.
March 25 Abraham Badru, 26, shot in Dalston, East London, without warning
April 2 Tanesha Melbourne, 17, gunned down by drug gang in Tottenham
April 2 Amaan Shakoor, 16, shot in the face outside Walthamstow Leisure Centre
April 9 An armed man was shot dead by police in Romford after threatening people with a gun near a petrol station
May 1 A 30-year-old man died outside Queensbury Tube station in North London after being found with serious injuries
May 5 Rhyhiem Ainsworth Barton was gunned down in a drive by shooting near his home in Kennington, South London
May 6 Man, 22, is shot in New Cross, South East London
May 6 Boy, 13, blasted in head with shotgun while walking with his parents in Wealdstone, near Harrow, in North West London, as 15-year-old also injured in the head in the shooting
June 1 A 24-year-old man is fighting for his life after being shot with a "machine gun" in Brent, north-west London
June 3 Oluwafemi Omosuyi, 22, airlifted to hospital in Southwark, South London, after witnesses reported he was shot in the face with a shotgun. another man, 25, suffered non-life-threatening injuries
June 6 A teenage boy was left fighting for his life after he and two others were shot in Brixton at around 11pm
July 9 Gunman shoots three times at woman, but misses
July 27 Four men aged between 20 and 22 were arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after exchanging gun fire with police in Forest Gate
August 20 Armed police swarm a school in Maida Hill, West London, after "shots fired" as terrified staff cower in classroom cupboard
August 20 A woman, 30, and two men - aged 18 and 24 - were rushed to hospital following a drive-by shooting outside Kingsbury Tube station
September 20 A 34-year-old woman and a 40-year-old man were left injured, following a shooting on Essex Road, Islington
September 23 A 19-year-old man died after being gunned down in the street in Walthamstow
Hay BOY when you can solve the problem of gun violence then get back to us otherwise shut the fuck up !!!!!!!!!!!!
Timeline of shootings
February 12 Taxi driver Bulent Kabala, 41, shot dead on a roundabout in Enfield
March 8 Kelvin Odunuyi, 19, shot in Wood Green amid escalating gang warfare
March 14 Joseph Williams-Torres, 20, shot dead in a stationary car in Walthamstow
March 17 Student Russell Jones shot and stabbed to death near Ponders End station in Enfield.
March 25 Abraham Badru, 26, shot in Dalston, East London, without warning
April 2 Tanesha Melbourne, 17, gunned down by drug gang in Tottenham
April 2 Amaan Shakoor, 16, shot in the face outside Walthamstow Leisure Centre
April 9 An armed man was shot dead by police in Romford after threatening people with a gun near a petrol station
May 1 A 30-year-old man died outside Queensbury Tube station in North London after being found with serious injuries
May 5 Rhyhiem Ainsworth Barton was gunned down in a drive by shooting near his home in Kennington, South London
May 6 Man, 22, is shot in New Cross, South East London
May 6 Boy, 13, blasted in head with shotgun while walking with his parents in Wealdstone, near Harrow, in North West London, as 15-year-old also injured in the head in the shooting
June 1 A 24-year-old man is fighting for his life after being shot with a "machine gun" in Brent, north-west London
June 3 Oluwafemi Omosuyi, 22, airlifted to hospital in Southwark, South London, after witnesses reported he was shot in the face with a shotgun. another man, 25, suffered non-life-threatening injuries
June 6 A teenage boy was left fighting for his life after he and two others were shot in Brixton at around 11pm
July 9 Gunman shoots three times at woman, but misses
July 27 Four men aged between 20 and 22 were arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after exchanging gun fire with police in Forest Gate
August 20 Armed police swarm a school in Maida Hill, West London, after "shots fired" as terrified staff cower in classroom cupboard
August 20 A woman, 30, and two men - aged 18 and 24 - were rushed to hospital following a drive-by shooting outside Kingsbury Tube station
September 20 A 34-year-old woman and a 40-year-old man were left injured, following a shooting on Essex Road, Islington
September 23 A 19-year-old man died after being gunned down in the street in Walthamstow
He wouldn't. He would support what the Democrat Party supports which is putting activist Liberal Justices in court so they can force their anti Gun agenda on all law abiding citizens.
The criminals will of course still get guns as did the criminals getting alcohol during prohibition.
