PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     don't like guns?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
ironcourage

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

guns


the right to owning a gun is in the constitution it's a RIGHT not to be debated or infringed. those of you who don't want guns don't buy them its very simple. if your afraid to be shot by a gun i have two choices you could walk around in full body armor for the rest of your life or you can buy a gun.
its a fact owning a gun increases your chance of killing yourself or a family member by 2x. owning a car increases your chances of killing a person or yourself 500x maybe more. if you argue your a good driver im just going to tell you I'm a good gun owner. if you care so much about making a impact on saving lives ride a bike.


 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 09:56 AM on January 20, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Gun ownership is not a right.

The constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This is the vocabulary, of the time, for stating in simplest reasonable terms, that people will-by-right in order to defend themselves. Consider this a way of saying that the mechanisms for self preservation in any human will, at some time, in circumstances of certain mortal threat, motivate the individual to act by any/all means necessary to prevent loss of life.

The word gun is not in the constitution, because the gun is not the only means, and therefore not the necessary means, for an individual to bear arms.

The statement 'bear arms' has been bastardized; the roots of the meaning have been obscured by the complexities of modern language and confused by the idioms of modern idiots.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 2:54 PM on January 20, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Read the constitution.

www.usconstitution.net

If you have any quetions, feel free to ask.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 2:56 PM on January 20, 2008 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am not sure what your point is.

Are you saying we don't have a right to anything more than a pointy stick?

Or are you saying we have the right to own weapons more powerful than firearms?

Second, while the 2nd amendment was written to include self defense I think the framers of the constitution would have included runaway governments as part of what the people may need to defend themselves against.
 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 11:12 PM on January 21, 2008 | IP
stuntman-aus

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

America
You will have a woman or a black leader hopefully very soon. Maybe one of them will have the intelligence to once and for all start ridding the community of guns. Women, children and honest law abiding citizens are the real victims of not only guns, but the gun laws that allow them. Why rave on about a centuries old amendment that can be as misconstrued as much if not more than the bible?


-------
stuntman australia
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 05:13 AM on February 8, 2008 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you read the second amendment and the federalist papers it is clear what the founding fathers ment by the amendment. Only politicans and lawyers twist it out of shape trying to make it fit in to their agenda. The honest law abiding citizens, women and children that have suffered were in nations that had gun control to the tune of 56 million murdered by governments in the last century.  


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 8:35 PM on February 10, 2008 | IP
Stunt_Pirate

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from stuntman-aus at 05:13 AM on February 8, 2008 :
America
Women, children and honest law abiding citizens are the real victims of not only guns, but the gun laws that allow them. Why rave on about a centuries old amendment that can be as misconstrued as much if not more than the bible?


The criminals that murder with guns are not obeying laws, as is evident by them murdering people with guns. Please explain how making it more illegal for them to murder with guns will help the situation.

If your argument is one of convenience for criminals obtaining guns, do you think they will stop committing violent crimes with other weapons if guns become harder to obtain? Criminals will be criminals no matter what tool is available to use. Crimes are about inequality of force. Criminals attempt to tip the balance in their favor however possible. If there is a great disparity of force between the victim and the criminal, the crime will likely succeed. There is a reason guns are called "the great equalizer".

Guns are tools that people can use for useful purposes or harmful purposes, like almost every other tool.  
 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 4:55 PM on February 14, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I wonder, what do you mean, stunt_pirate, by the word criminal?
Are people considered criminal in the 'eyes of the law'?

Stuntman-aus refers to law abiding citizens which cannot be criminal in any way. One must consider themselves somehow above or beyond the law in order to consider anyone, including themselves, to be criminal.

You may say a criminal is a criminal is a criminal... That is, of course, due to the self-perpetuated, artificial, origin of the 'ideal criminal'. A criminal is as does, just as all ideas represent a dynamic of means-to-end (and vice versa).

Be careful when you say guns are tools, because that makes then seem as acceptable as a screwdriver. Screws will not drive themselves, as bullets will not fire themselves, and screwdrivers are not masters of their own devices, as a gun will not pull it's own trigger.  

Guns are a specific classification of tool, called weapons. Weapons are instruments of attack or defense, which are the two main phases of war; war being the result of mutual betrayal and intent of inequity (often confused for the impossible cause for inequality), the weapon used as instrument of war (not necessarily a gun or firearm) is only intended to rectify, or render inequity, and never can achieve useful ends.

If you have any enemies, they are representative of your own faults, or self-determined weaknesses. The people that personify your weaknesses will not be your equal until you surrender yourself to being as you are.

The death of another, no matter the reason, excuse, or means will not bring you to a state of self awareness or acceptance; If you shoot another person, you will always be the cause of death, like a disease, only you are not just a harm to yourself, you are harmful to all life, like a sort-of social disease.

Give up your gun(s) if you cannot realize that inequality is impossible, and inequity is only the illusion that makes the artificial allowance for inequality. If you are foolish enough to value anything artificial, then you are foolish enough to be tricked by inequities of privilege, and this foolishness may someday become motive for murder.

There are reasons (and only reasons) for the bullets in loaded guns.

(Edited by forfunt1 2/21/2008 at 9:25 PM).


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 8:46 PM on February 17, 2008 | IP
Ethmi

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 2:54 PM on January 20, 2008 :
Gun ownership is not a right.

The constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This is the vocabulary, of the time, for stating in simplest reasonable terms, that people will-by-right in order to defend themselves. Consider this a way of saying that the mechanisms for self preservation in any human will, at some time, in circumstances of certain mortal threat, motivate the individual to act by any/all means necessary to prevent loss of life.

The word gun is not in the constitution, because the gun is not the only means, and therefore not the necessary means, for an individual to bear arms.

The statement 'bear arms' has been bastardized; the roots of the meaning have been obscured by the complexities of modern language and confused by the idioms of modern idiots.



Comment: There is another phrase from that era: "A man takes change from a woman to look upon her bueaty." which is an obvious reference to pornography.  Does it use the word "porn"?


-------
I like Swedish women.
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 5:18 PM on March 26, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, a man is paid to look upon the beauty of a woman... What in the world are you trying to say?

The word beauty may be ambiguous, but not often to the extent that it is used to mean lurid, sensational or sexually explicit.

Do men not look upon the beauty of women if not paid?


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 5:09 PM on March 27, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from stuntman-aus at 05:13 AM on February 8, 2008 :
America
You will have a woman or a black leader hopefully very soon. Maybe one of them will have the intelligence to once and for all start ridding the community of guns. Women, children and honest law abiding citizens are the real victims of not only guns, but the gun laws that allow them. Why rave on about a centuries old amendment that can be as misconstrued as much if not more than the bible?



Should we also ban cars, because of all deaths and injuries caused by people driving badly. Guns are incapable of killing anybody unless a person were to pull the trigger.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 12:16 AM on March 30, 2008 | IP
Ethmi

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from stuntman-aus at 05:13 AM on February 8, 2008 :
America
You will have a woman or a black leader hopefully very soon. Maybe one of them will have the intelligence to once and for all start ridding the community of guns. Women, children and honest law abiding citizens are the real victims of not only guns, but the gun laws that allow them. Why rave on about a centuries old amendment that can be as misconstrued as much if not more than the bible?



Yeah.  And many men and women who are victims of guns would not have been if they had a gun to defend themselves.


-------
I like Swedish women.
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 6:09 PM on March 30, 2008 | IP
Stunt_Pirate

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry to keep you waiting Forfunt, I don't check here often. With regards to what I meant by criminal, I would direct you to a dictionary, I apologize for assuming you could find one. I was responding to stuntman-aus argument that women, children and law abiding citizens are the victims of guns, due to the gun laws that allow them. Now, assuming that he was not talking about accidental deaths, that would leave people being victim of violent crimes due to the gun laws that allow guns. I was saying that the gun laws that allow guns do not make murder any more legal than it is, so it will not reduce the amount of victims of violent crimes as criminals, refer to dictionary, will commit crimes regardless of the legality of firearms.

As for your argument about the 2nd amendment, it doesn't matter how many times you re-type it, it still makes no sense. Here's the 2nd amendment...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.

What is a militia? One definition is a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

The way I read it, as citizen soldiers are sometimes needed, the government shouldn't infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. I know that it is difficult to support your argument without changing the meaning of words, but please try. I don't really see the point in constantly correcting you.

 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 8:36 PM on April 2, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no difference between a "citizen soldier" and a "professional soldier".

Both are idiots with guns and bombs, united for some foolish cause, invented by people (not nature), that use their cause as an excuse to get away with murder, and the destruction of nature.

The criminal is an illusion. I hope you see this sooner than later.

People make actions "criminal" in order to avoid suffering the consequences of their own actions. As long as the reasons are valid or acceptable, any @$$hole, as a member of any army, can march right into another country, another town, and even someone else's home, murder every one inside for being enemies, steal everything they can get their bloody hands on, and get a ride home with the rest of the army! The "enemies" are the "criminals" that don't get away with their actions because some soldier (syndicate gunman) put a bullet through their head! And the murderer gets away because somebody gave him/her the order to shoot, and made a promise that as long as orders were followed, he/she would not have to worry about suffering for the death of those innocent people!

Wake up young man! Someday you will look back on your life and have to see everything you have done, and you won't have a chance to defend yourself as "right", and your apologies won't mean a damn thing when what's done is done!



(Edited by forfunt1 4/3/2008 at 7:27 PM).


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 7:04 PM on April 3, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dictionaries do not make sense of words; they serve as record of progress in the negotiation of reasonable terms.

Have you forgotten the sense your words are rooted in?

You may like the idea that you know something about living, and you may find security in the certainty of your "facts", but you are in for a shock when you realize that nothing really is fact, and fact really is nothing! For this reason, humanity can (and will) make anything of it (fact) as seems fit.

You still seem to think that there are such entities as non-people, and that these things are serving in the u.s. military. If this is so, then I feel you might not see the difference between men and machines... or for that matter, that there is no difference.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 8:42 PM on April 7, 2008 | IP
Stunt_Pirate

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all, why the tangent on the military? It really has nothing to do with what we were talking about. I'll wait while you actually read my posts. There are some big words in there, so don't feel rushed. Alright, I won't bother discussing the irrelevant portions of your posts, which doesn't leave me much to respond to, but here goes.

You said: "The criminal is an illusion. People make actions "criminal" to avoid suffering the consequences of their own actions. "

So there actually aren't any criminals? They are illusions according to you (and robots apparently, as they are no different from machines).

In actuality, people make actions "criminal" in order to avoid suffering the consequences of criminal actions. Laws are deterrents. Making laws because you are guilty of something and are trying to avoid consequences would make for a legal system that made less sense than your posts thus far.

You still have yet to make an argument for or against gun control. I'm done trying to help you get your point across. Time to try walking on your own.

The thing that I find hilarious is your perception of me. If you tried to describe me I can guarantee you would be wrong in every detail. I would say you would get a few things right, but I'm not so sure about your reading comprehension, so I'm betting no.
 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 03:52 AM on April 8, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So is the right to free speech, the free press, the right to remain silent (the 5th) not really rights as well?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 8:42 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
Hespero

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I cant say that I "like guns".  Actually I dont much like cars, either.

I presently dont own a car.  Lucky me!  But I do have a gun.  Two actually, one is a shotgun the other a 38 pistol.  

What i really dont like is that there are people who would do whatever they like to me if I could not defend myself.  When they disappear i will happily throw guns in the river.
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 12:39 PM on December 11, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not me, I will only get rid of my guns when their is nothing left to shoot.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:01 AM on January 7, 2009 | IP
punksoab

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I honestly think that gun control is good. I mean honestly if you want to have a gun, okay. Own one. But keep it safe and secure and keep it away from ANYBODY else. Hide it as best you can, double, triple maybe even quadruple lock your guns up so that you're the only one that can get it. And if someone kills or hurts someone else with you're gun, it should be considered assisted homicide or assault with a deadly weapon. I know a lot about guns okay, trust me. My past profession since four years ago to last year was illegal gun trafficking so I know more than an 18 year old should. I used to be a member of a gang so I honestly know what guns can do and that's why I'm so against it.

I quit that life though and I've become against civilian use of weaponry, most of all guns. I believe that they should be available but not as easily accessible or available. People should go through extensive psychiatric analysis and intense judicial review before being able to get a gun


-------
A strong body with a weak mind is like a fort with no soldiers to protect it. A weak body with a strong mind is like a battalion out in the open. To solve all situations, one must moderate themselves.

Personal quote
 


Posts: 17 | Posted: 01:44 AM on January 12, 2009 | IP
frank

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the 2nd has lost its purpose after the last indian was put on reservation.
it MUST be striken and the constitution changed as there is NO freedom of speech,
no free press and anyone is guilty until he/she
proves him/herself inosent.

gunownership should be a privilege written in the criminal code.
mendatory safety training, safe storage, licensing of owner, federal registration of gun.
(gunowner pays)
NO assault rifls, NO .50 BMG cal arms,
NO rifle magazine with more than 5 rounds,
NO pistol magazine more than 10 rounds.
NO 'saturday night specials for sale nation wide.
Mendatory sentensing for gun crimes.
NO lethal force for self defene against humans
(use pepper spray)
NO stun guns for private hands,
MORE police on the street.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 5:36 PM on July 16, 2010 | IP
Big-Boss

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wait so... Frank you prepose that people should not be allowed to use lethal force, yet you also want to limit their options of non-lethal force? I have an idea to solve this if you dont like guns, you can put a sign on your door that declares your hatred of guns, and if you do like guns, put a sign on your door proclaiming how you own guns, And then we go our merry ways and see how that works out.


-------
Yo no hablo espanol, and i dont speak english either
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 8:41 PM on April 6, 2011 | IP
Big-Boss

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Also a not to forfunt gun ownership is a right. Its the second amendment in someything called the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of privledges. And if the founding fathers ment anything other than firearms, they would have said somthing about it. People owned guns then, so they probably would have clarified what they ment. But since there is no written document saying that they ment somthing else when they wrote the second amendment, we can only assume they ment firearms.


-------
Yo no hablo espanol, and i dont speak english either
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 8:50 PM on April 6, 2011 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 1:54 PM on January 20, 2008 :
Gun ownership is not a right.

The constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This is the vocabulary, of the time, for stating in simplest reasonable terms, that people will-by-right in order to defend themselves. Consider this a way of saying that the mechanisms for self preservation in any human will, at some time, in circumstances of certain mortal threat, motivate the individual to act by any/all means necessary to prevent loss of life.

The word gun is not in the constitution, because the gun is not the only means, and therefore not the necessary means, for an individual to bear arms.

The statement 'bear arms' has been bastardized; the roots of the meaning have been obscured by the complexities of modern language and confused by the idioms of modern idiots.



according to the supreme court, "the right to keep and bear arms" does mean that i get to keep my guns. when it involves the constitution you can debate the meaning up untill the supreme court makes a ruling.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 1:30 PM on April 10, 2011 | IP
Rosie_ODonnell_Sucks

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guns secure freedom.  Self Defense is a GOD GIVEN right.  Guns are not only a right, but they are a NECESSITY to defend yourself, as well as to secure your freedom.  If you are so deluded that you think the police will ALWAYS be there to "rescue you" (even though they always show up AFTER the crime has occured), then you just go ahead and believe that.  

I'll keep my guns, my ammo, and my money, you can keep the "change".

Guns are not going anywhere, they are here to stay, regardless of what idiot politician says, does, or signs.  As long as there are metal works, welding, and of course ammo making supplies (which pretty much means until the world ends), there will be guns.  The only way to defend against an armed assailant, is with a gun.

If you had kids, keep your guns secured and out of the kids reach until they are old enough to be taught how to use them safely.  That's about all I can say.  Gun control is not about safety it is about restricting our rights.  That is what Hitler said when he decided to remove the Jews weapons from them, before exterminating millions of them.  

So you wanna put ALL of your trust in our federal gov?  go ahead.  I'm keeping my guns.  


-------
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 02:32 AM on April 25, 2012 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.