Presidential Debate

On the left, we (supposedly) have more civil rights , less economic freedom
on the right, we have less civil rights (excluding gun ownership, for whatever reason), and (supposedly) more economic freedom.

there is no victory in 2008

 

All I can say is thank god you're not in control of our weapon policies.

Call me insane, but I'm a bit more afraid of criminals with easy access to high-powered weapons then I am of having to give up buying that AK-37 I wanted for Christmas

 

It would be a much closer race if there wasn't voter fraud or media. Barack Obama has given Acorn over $800,000 in donations. Acorn has been found guilty of paying homeless people to vote for Obama

 

If it's yourself you're afraid for, then know that the more access the population have to guns, the more likely it is that a violent criminal will think twice before harming anybody.

In any case, I don't see why you have the right to march into my home and take away my guns. Can I take away some of your things? Have we abandoned personal property?

 

Barack Obama's campaign paid a completely different voter registration organization to register voters. Only $80,000 of that went to acorn, without Obama's consent - his hired voter registration organization in turn hired ACORN to do some of their work.

ACORN pays people $8 an hour to register voters. The so-called "voter-registration fraud" actually involved some of these underpaid temps filling out fake voter registration forms so they could earn more money. This was actually fraud against ACORN itself, who alerted voter registration officials to the questionable forms

The population does and always will have access to GUNS. What the population SHOULDN'T have access too is automatic weapons and armor-piercing bullets. If you think putting these in gun shops for anyone to buy will lower violence rates, you're sadly mistaken.

Nobody is going to "take away your guns". If anything, we're going to make sure that the gun restriction laws that are already in place will stay there..

 

Yet you're coming in, interposing yourself between the seller and the buyer, and proclaiming that the sale may not take place. How do you justify this? How does this fit in with your (hopefully objective) worldview on ownership rights?

Well if you don't want civilians to own dangerous combat weapons, then my guns probably will be taken from me.

 

Please explain to me why you believe the right to own "dangerous combat weapons" should be protected. I see no value in their legalization or protection under law.

This is an example of where government law is made to protect the COMMON GOOD. Kind of like the reason killing people is also illegai.

 

The burden of proof is upon the one who proposes a positive statement. In the absence of laws, the gun trade would flourish.

Why do people have rights?

 

I've already given you my proof. If all you have to justify your argument is that it would let gun manufacturers make money, then I'm not sure if you even know why you feel the way you do.

I'm sure if crack was legalized, the crack "trade would flourish" as well. Give me a break.

To protect our freedoms, to the limit that they do not infringe on the freedoms of others. Somehow, it seems to me that idiots walking around with automatic weapons would somehow infringe on our right to safety

 

Call me insane, but an AK-47 is not a "high-powered" rifle.

Most AK's these days aren't even that. They're WASR-10's, and the etc.
And it's AK-47, not -37..

Here's a picture.


The rifle round on the far left, is a 30-06 round.
Used for taking down deer.

The rifle round on the far right, is 7.62x39. The rifle round that the AK-47 Fires.

If anything, it's underpowered.

Doesn't help that the AK-47 is a REALLY inaccurate firearm.

And I got a shotgun for my birthday, so what?

You aren't allowed to walk on the street with anything but a pistol or revolver, anywase.

And automatic-weapons, Ha! Do you know how much they even cost? I don't think it would infringe on my safety. It's not like the firearm is going to jump out of the guys hand and kill me.

 

That is not my justification. It is an observation.

I'm not speaking of what benefits the greatest number of people. I'm speaking of basic rights. Can you explain why you have the right to interpose yourself between the gunsmith and his customer? For example, one can argue that one has the right to walk around at night due to the self-ownership principle.

Actually, yes, it would. Are you joining my side?

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

Let us agree that I have a right to walk around, purchase goods, and generally do with myself what I please. Let us also agree that I do not have the right to infringe upon another's right to do this. To physically stop me from owning automatic guns, then, you must partially infringe my right to do this. Why can you do this? If it is because the end justifies the means, then where is the line drawn? How do you objectively draw this line?

 

This seems true in theory, but I really don't believe it's true in practice. If the public is open to have nearly-instant killing devices, yes, it's true that burglars may be more frightened, but any crazy, disturbed, angry, or irrational person who feels like killing someone can. I suggest you watch the movie, Bowling For Columbine by Michael Moore. Also, if the civilian population is more open to arms, the criminal population is also going to acquire this upward trend of arms ownership, and things will most likely become MORE dangerous, not less. Think about it. The more freely guns are able to circulate the population, the more killings (both of criminals and civilians) there are going to be.

Examples of this: Seung Hui Cho, The Columbine kids, and several others you will find out about given you watch the movie I suggested.

 

Bowling for Columbine is all spliced and edited.

No thanks.

But I think the best gun control law out there, is no firearms to ANYONE convicted of a felony, or anybody "not fit" (mentally damaged) cannot legally own a firearm.

 

Then why have them at all? If criminals cannot acquire them, whom will the civilians need to defend themselves against?

 

Government has the right to interpose between the manufacturers of high-powered weapons and ordinary citizens because, like crack, it's a fact that it can add nothing to our society but violence and death.

Read above, I know you know what I'm talking about.

I objectively draw the line because as of right now most high-powered guns are ILLEGAL for private citizens to own. It should stay that way.

 

Wrong.

In Oregon, you can buy a license, and you can own a fully-automatic weapon.

(Background check included.)

That's just 1 of many states.

 

The government is not an entity in and of itself. It is an term for a number of individuals. Why do these individuals have the right to do this? Why do we not have the right to do similar activities?

You didn't answer my question(s):

http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw

Statistics seem to disagree.

 

interesting, I would actually have never considered this. Still, I personally don't feel safe with my family members and neighbors owning guns...

 

The government IS an entity, made up of citizens. In living where we are and paying our taxes, we agree to live by the rules of our country. Don't like it? Move to the Middle East. I'm sure you'll find more then enough automatic weapons there.

The is no LINE. It's a judgement call, is it worth the risk of making automatic weapons available so gun freaks can have their lawlz target shooting? I believe the answer is NO.

 

Practically the same law in Switzerland as well.


Can't find my graph, but it has very similar results.