frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Should America have gun control?

13468912



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    @CYDdharta

    "The 2nd Amendment belongs to the people who wish to arm themselves in defense of the innocent and the country.  That is the whole point and purpose of the amendment.

    I'd say stop trying to lump law-abiding gun owners in with mass shooters, but you apparently don't see a difference between the two."

    Where are yours, AppleSauce, and Zombieguys names at? 

    I asked you, if the Second Amendment belongs to some of the pro gun extremists, and you said: (Yes, yes it does.)

    You still haven't provided that proof yet? 

    The Second Amendment belongs to the public as a whole.

    Just as "The United States Constitution" belongs to that same public, as a whole as well.

    Zombieguy1987
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    TTKDB said:
    @Evidence

    "Should America have gun control?

    I find this ironic since the question is directed at the most heavily armed country in the world!"

    Can you show one news article, where an offender or a criminal used a NAVY ship, to commit a crime or a mass shooting with?

    Please, where is your evidence, to support your individual commentary? 

    Here is my "Evidence" @TTKDB

    NAVY Ships used by criminals to commit crimes against humanity: (Gulf War)

    Command Ships

    Aircraft carriers

    Battleships

    Submarines

    Amphibious assault ships

    Guided missile cruisers

    Destroyer tenders

    Destroyers

    Guided missile destroyers

    Frigates

    Amphibious transport docks

    Ammunition ships

    Dock landing ships

    Tank landing ships

    Fast sealift ships

    Fleet oilers

    Combat stores ships

    Fast combat support ships

    Replenishment oiler ships

    Minesweepers

    Repair ships

    Rescue and salvage ships

    Sealift ships

    .. and more.

    Related image

    Worth noting: Look at the crater in the water that the ISS Iowa BB-61 Battleship created just firing its guns over the water, so you Globetard's still think AZ Crater

    Image result for az meteor crater  Meteor Crater AZ.

    was; millions and billions of years ago made by some imaginary meteor from sci-fi space?
    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @Applesauce

    @CYDdharta

    Applesauce said:
    @CYDdharta 
    "every citizen has that right, until it is lost.
    If I use my speech to get someone killed, which is a crime, do I loose my right to talk?

    In a sense, yes.  If you're in jail you can't host a television or radio show.  You can talk, but not many people will hear you."

    What does the above have to do with the theme of the forum?

    "Should America have gun control?"




  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    @Evidence

    "Should America have gun control?


    "I find this ironic since the question is directed at the most heavily armed country in the world!"

    Can you show one news article, where an offender or a criminal used a NAVY ship, to commit a crime or a mass shooting with?

    Please, where is your evidence, to support your individual commentary? 

    Here is my "Evidence" @TTKDB

    NAVY Ships used by criminals to commit crimes against humanity: (Gulf War)

    Command Ships. 

    Are you maybe an anti war oriented individual? 

  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    @Evidence

    Do you have the specific names of those supposed (Gulf War) criminals, that your evidence is based on? 
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Zombieguy1987 - you keep marking ALL my posts "irrelevant" .. why? Take a look at your posts that either I, or @Erfisflat marked as "irrelevant" and after that you will see our full, detailed response why we found your comment "irrelevant"
    By the way, .. how old are you? Maybe you just like to click on things you find fascinating? Go for it kid, have fun. I'll even collect them in my profile.
    Zombieguy1987
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    TTKDB said:
    @CYDdharta

    "The 2nd Amendment belongs to the people who wish to arm themselves in defense of the innocent and the country.  That is the whole point and purpose of the amendment.

    I'd say stop trying to lump law-abiding gun owners in with mass shooters, but you apparently don't see a difference between the two."

    Where are yours, AppleSauce, and Zombieguys names at? 

    I asked you, if the Second Amendment belongs to some of the pro gun extremists, and you said: (Yes, yes it does.)

    You still haven't provided that proof yet? 

    The Second Amendment belongs to the public as a whole.

    Just as "The United States Constitution" belongs to that same public, as a whole as well.


    LOL, and I guess you think the right to assembly belongs to agoraphobics.

    Zombieguy1987Applesauce
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    TTKDB said:
    @Evidence

    "Should America have gun control?

    I find this ironic since the question is directed at the most heavily armed country in the world!"

    Can you show one news article, where an offender or a criminal used a NAVY ship, to commit a crime or a mass shooting with?

    Please, where is your evidence, to support your individual commentary? 

    Here is my "Evidence" @TTKDB

    NAVY Ships used by criminals to commit crimes against humanity: (Gulf War)

    Command Ships

    Aircraft carriers

    Battleships

    Submarines

    Amphibious assault ships

    Guided missile cruisers

    Destroyer tenders

    Destroyers

    Guided missile destroyers

    Frigates

    Amphibious transport docks

    Ammunition ships

    Dock landing ships

    Tank landing ships

    Fast sealift ships

    Fleet oilers

    Combat stores ships

    Fast combat support ships

    Replenishment oiler ships

    Minesweepers

    Repair ships

    Rescue and salvage ships

    Sealift ships

    .. and more.

    Related image

    Worth noting: Look at the crater in the water that the ISS Iowa BB-61 Battleship created just firing its guns over the water, so you Globetard's still think AZ Crater

    Image result for az meteor crater  Meteor Crater AZ.

    was; millions and billions of years ago made by some imaginary meteor from sci-fi space?

    This debate is about gun control, not military ship control

    Evidence
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    Evidence said:
    @Zombieguy1987 - you keep marking ALL my posts "irrelevant" .. why?

    This has nothing to do with gun control N.E.X.T.!

     Take a look at your posts that either I, or @Erfisflat marked as "irrelevant" and after that you will see our full, detailed response why we found your comment "irrelevant"

    Right, because I want to go back to that warzone again... (Just came back, and you and @Erfisflat only marked 3 of my 12 arguments as irrelevant and gave no reason why, so yeah...)


    By the way, .. how old are you? 

    Irrelevant N.E.X.T.!

    Maybe you just like to click on things you find fascinating? Go for it kid, have fun. I'll even collect them in my profile.




  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    @Zombieguy1987 - you keep marking ALL my posts "irrelevant" .. why? Take a look at your posts that either I, or @Erfisflat marked as "irrelevant" and after that you will see our full, detailed response why we found your comment "irrelevant"

    Just a guess, but I'd say he marks posts like yours "irrelevant" because there is no moronic button.
    Zombieguy1987ApplesauceEvidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    CYDdharta said:
    TTKDB said:
    CYDdharta

    "More than likely, it's a law enforcement officer.  Either way, there's no need for it to be your concern."

    Either way, it's all of everyone's concern.

    And the next time, I see an individual, like that individual walking around where kids and parents, and others that were around this or another individual like them while in a store shopping, casually walking around with a gun stuck in their pants pocket again, I'll call the police, and they can deal with the individual, you view as this?  
    "Either way, there's no need for it to be your concern."

    IMO, it's a senseless overreaction, but whatever gets you thru the day.  Just don't be surprised if the cops don't show up (they usually have important things to do) or if they do show up, they do nothing (the person carrying the gun is doing so legally).

    It's rather apparent you've never touched a real gun.
    @CYDdharta
    Not only that, but as opposed to guns as @TTKDB is, he could call (911) in a way that could put the safe-licensed gun owner in great danger. With our NASA.gov militarized police, they are just waiting for a chance to gun you down.
     
    "Man in Costco Shooting had Concealed Weapons Permit!"
    https://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/man-in-costco-shooting-had-concealed-weapons-permit/77994610

    Police: "FREEZE!"
    TTKDB: "WATCH OUT, HE HAS A GUN!" is like music to their ears, and next thing you know, is that the licensed-gun owner drops to the ground just from the weight of the lead put into him by the NASA-militarized COPS, besides other victims who were unfortunate enough to be in his vicinity. Which of course NASA.gov will most likely frame it on the safe-licensed-gun owner.
    IMO, .. anti-gun lobbyists can be far more dangerous than licensed concealed weapons owners.
    Zombieguy1987
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    TTKDB said:
    @CYDdharta

    Does the Second Amendment, exclusively, belong to you and some of the other pro gun extremist's? 

    "Yes, yes it does."

    Prove it.

    Show me where, from the language of the Second Amendment itself, where your name is, where AppleSauces, or Zombieguy1987, names are on the Second Amendment as well, and it explicitly states that it belongs to the pro gun extremist's only? 

    And can you show as well, where the Second Amendment belongs or belonged, to the mass shooters as well, while you're looking for your names to be factually written within the language of the Second Amendment, that in reality belongs to the United States of America, and not to the three of you explicitly? 

    Please, prove that the Second Amendment belongs to you and those mass shooters? 
    @TTKDB said "Mass shooters", .. you mean like the Vegas so called "Massacre", or the Florida Gay-bar shootings? Or is it the Boston Marathon bombing all "brought to you by, and directed by the "anti-gun lobbyists" who actually run the biggest militarized, heavily armed country in the world, our US of A.

    HELP WANTED:
    Crisis actors, pay $21 p/h

    "I see your true colors shining through"  TTKDB, .. only "that's not why I love you".
    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    "LOL, and I guess you think the right to assembly belongs to agoraphobics."

    What does this have to do with the theme of the forum?

    "Should America have gun control?"


    Overview

    Agoraphobia (ag-uh-ruh-FOE-be-uh) is a type of anxiety disorder in which you fear and avoid places or situations that might cause you to panic and make you feel trapped, helpless or embarrassed. You fear an actual or anticipated situation, such as using public transportation, being in open or enclosed spaces, standing in line, or being in a crowd."

  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    What does this from you, have to do with the theme of the forum? 

    "Should America have gun control?"


    "@CYDdharta
    Not only that, but as opposed to guns as @TTKDB is, he could call (911) in a way that could put the safe-licensed gun owner in great danger. With our NASA.gov militarized police, they are just waiting for a chance to gun you down.
     
    "Man in Costco Shooting had Concealed Weapons Permit!"
    https://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/man-in-costco-shooting-had-concealed-weapons-permit/77994610

    Police: "FREEZE!"
    TTKDB: "WATCH OUT, HE HAS A GUN!" is like music to their ears, and next thing you know, is that the licensed-gun owner drops to the ground just from the weight of the lead put into him by the NASA-militarized COPS, besides other victims who were unfortunate enough to be in his vicinity. Which of course NASA.gov will most likely frame it on the safe-licensed-gun owner.
    IMO, .. anti-gun lobbyists can be far more dangerous than licensed concealed weapons owners."

  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    TTKDB said:
    @Evidence

    "Should America have gun control?


    "I find this ironic since the question is directed at the most heavily armed country in the world!"

    Can you show one news article, where an offender or a criminal used a NAVY ship, to commit a crime or a mass shooting with?

    Please, where is your evidence, to support your individual commentary? 

    Here is my "Evidence" @TTKDB

    NAVY Ships used by criminals to commit crimes against humanity: (Gulf War)

    Command Ships. 

    Are you maybe an anti war oriented individual? 

    Oh no, I am waring person, only my fight isn't fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high AND low places like these poor guys here:
    CYDdharta said:
    Evidence said:
    @Zombieguy1987 - you keep marking ALL my posts "irrelevant" .. why? Take a look at your posts that either I, or @Erfisflat marked as "irrelevant" and after that you will see our full, detailed response why we found your comment "irrelevant"

    Just a guess, but I'd say he marks posts like yours "irrelevant" because there is no moronic button.

     .. taking up the full armor of God, so as you can see the day of evil has come, so I may be able to stand my ground, and having done everything, to stand.… not fall for the likes of this "gun-control' by NASA.gov agenda, or any other MK-mind-bending, soul robbing Space Odyssey they come up with.

    Like I said, it's ironic to have the heaviest armed government in the whole world talk about gun-control, .. don't you think? What are you, or our government afraid of? They went in with Apache helicopters to break up Drug Cartels in both the Mexican and Colombian Jungles, took over and guard the poppy fields in Afghanistan,  and we both know they can use these same weapons (including the Navy arsenal I shown you) against our own citizens, so IMHO, this "gun-control' is a joke, .. a diversion and an excuse to turn this country into their New North Korea.
    Matter of fact, it has NOTHING to do with some gun epidemic, but painting the general public as evil, out of control, dangerous, .. and yes: "Need to be under Marshall Law' at all times. That's what this is all about, putting up the wall, the barbed wire fences:

    The Puppets:

     Related image

    The fences:
    Related image Tijuana, Mexico,    

      Related image N. Korea




    Zombieguy1987
  • I would respectively disagree the United States Constitution and United States Declaration of Independence form a union to set legal precedent for those who wish to hold a common defense, by use of Fire-arm with an armed international force. The United States 2nd Amendment is for the right that the private individuals who owns said fire-arm can in fact gather as a peaceable assemble, as so stated in the 1st Amendment. The order is 1, then 2, and what comes next after 2, any-one? Its extra credit?

    The idea is that politicking can expose the general welfare, and its common defense to tyranny. Exposing a republic to danger. The legal Precedent not remembered is Military is not a democracy and an officer can relieve a commander of their position. Under articles of United State Constitution, they are expected to uphold United States constitution.

  • It should be noted this process is evaluated by a ability displayed, not use of crime.
  • Evidence………..………….long time no see. How’s the Time? lol …………….Proportionate or relative? Loved the whole gun control video.

    Evidence
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    TTKDB said:
    @Evidence

    What does this from you, have to do with the theme of the forum? 

    "Should America have gun control?"


    "@CYDdharta
    Not only that, but as opposed to guns as @TTKDB is, he could call (911) in a way that could put the safe-licensed gun owner in great danger. With our NASA.gov militarized police, they are just waiting for a chance to gun you down.
     
    "Man in Costco Shooting had Concealed Weapons Permit!"
    https://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/man-in-costco-shooting-had-concealed-weapons-permit/77994610

    Police: "FREEZE!"
    TTKDB: "WATCH OUT, HE HAS A GUN!" is like music to their ears, and next thing you know, is that the licensed-gun owner drops to the ground just from the weight of the lead put into him by the NASA-militarized COPS, besides other victims who were unfortunate enough to be in his vicinity. Which of course NASA.gov will most likely frame it on the safe-licensed-gun owner.
    IMO, .. anti-gun lobbyists can be far more dangerous than licensed concealed weapons owners."


    I thought I cleared that up for you pretty well?
    Today, it is more dangerous to carry a concealed weapon with a permit in public, then facing a thief robbing you at gun point. Read what I wrote.
    Applesauce
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    TTKDB said:
    @Evidence

    Do you have the specific names of those supposed (Gulf War) criminals, that your evidence is based on? 

    You want names, start here,


    Count how many times he says "weapons of mass destruction" which he couldn't find with the axis of evil, and this after 9-11 where he claimed 2 planes demolished three buildings in NYC (in less than 2 hours). We know where the "Axis of evil" reside, and those who possess the weapons of mass destruction, .. the ones that shown mass destruction with Ooohs and Aaahs!



    Zombieguy1987
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    @Zombieguy1987 - you keep marking ALL my posts "irrelevant" .. why?

    This has nothing to do with gun control N.E.X.T.!

     Take a look at your posts that either I, or @Erfisflat marked as "irrelevant" and after that you will see our full, detailed response why we found your comment "irrelevant"

    Right, because I want to go back to that warzone again... (Just came back, and you and @Erfisflat only marked 3 of my 12 arguments as irrelevant and gave no reason why, so yeah...)


    By the way, .. how old are you? 

    Irrelevant N.E.X.T.!

    Maybe you just like to click on things you find fascinating? Go for it kid, have fun. I'll even collect them in my profile.





    @Zombieguy1987 ; You don't understand what I'm saying?
    Go ask Squidward 
    Image result for squidward patrick

    Hey Squidward, we have a question for you?

    Squidward: "Irrelevant! Now get away!"

    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    @Evidence

    Does your apparent anti war protest, have anything to do with the theme of the forum?

    Because your individual narrative, reads like a presumption of mass distraction? 

    Do you know of any Guld War veterans who are eating your anti war protest up, plate by plate? 

    You're their anti war anchorman of choice? 




  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Evidence said:
    @Zombieguy1987 - you keep marking ALL my posts "irrelevant" .. why?

    This has nothing to do with gun control N.E.X.T.!

     Take a look at your posts that either I, or @Erfisflat marked as "irrelevant" and after that you will see our full, detailed response why we found your comment "irrelevant"

    Right, because I want to go back to that warzone again... (Just came back, and you and @Erfisflat only marked 3 of my 12 arguments as irrelevant and gave no reason why, so yeah...)


    By the way, .. how old are you? 

    Irrelevant N.E.X.T.!

    Maybe you just like to click on things you find fascinating? Go for it kid, have fun. I'll even collect them in my profile.





    @Zombieguy1987 ; You don't understand what I'm saying?
    Go ask Squidward 
    Image result for squidward patrick

    Hey Squidward, we have a question for you?

    Squidward: "Irrelevant! Now get away!"



  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    TTKDB said:
    @Evidence

    Do you have the specific names of those supposed (Gulf War) criminals, that your evidence is based on? 

    You want names, start here,


    Count how many times he says "weapons of mass destruction" which he couldn't find with the axis of evil, and this after 9-11 where he claimed 2 planes demolished three buildings in NYC (in less than 2 hours). We know where the "Axis of evil" reside, and those who possess the weapons of mass destruction, .. the ones that shown mass destruction with Ooohs and Aaahs!




    You do realize you're mixing up Operation Desert Storm with Operation Iraqi Freedom, right?  The battleship and half of the carriers you listed were decommissioned by the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  WMDs and the "axis of evil" had nothing to do with Operation Desert Shield/Storm.

  • ApplesauceApplesauce 243 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    @CYDdharta
    every citizen has that right, until it is lost.
    If I use my speech to get someone killed, which is a crime, do I loose my right to talk?

    In a sense, yes.  If you're in jail you can't host a television or radio show.  You can talk, but not many people will hear you.
    people do interviews, write books and get on tv while in prison all the time, so I would respectfully disagree with you that they loose their freedom of speech.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    @Evidence

    "You do realize you're mixing up Operation Desert Storm with Operation Iraqi Freedom, right?  The battleship and half of the carriers you listed were decommissioned by the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  WMDs and the "axis of evil" had nothing to do with Operation Desert Shield/Storm."

    Do either one of you have the specific names of those supposed (Gulf War, or the othe Gulf War)  criminals, that your evidence is based on?

    Or that your commentary is based on? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  

    people do interviews, write books and get on tv while in prison all the time, so I would respectfully disagree with you that they loose their freedom of speech.

    They can only give a TV interview with the permission of the warden and/or prison staff.  They can write a book, again only with the permission of the warden and/or prison staff, as it's very difficult to write a book if you're not allowed to have so much as a pen and paper.  Additionally, they won't profit from such a book as the proceeds will go to settle the wrongful death suits inevitably filed by relatives of the victims.  If they haven't lost their freedom of speech, it has been reduced to something we do not recognize.

    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    (Should America have gun control?)


    What does the below have to do with the theme of the forum? 

    Applesauce said:

    "people do interviews, write books and get on tv while in prison all the time, so I would respectfully disagree with you that they loose their freedom of speech."

    @CYDdharta "They can only give a TV interview with the permission of the warden and/or prison staff.  They can write a book, again only with the permission of the warden and/or prison staff, as it's very difficult to write a book if you're not allowed to have so much as a pen and paper.  Additionally, they won't profit from such a book as the proceeds will go to settle the wrongful death suits inevitably filed by relatives of the victims.  If they haven't lost their freedom of speech, it has been reduced to something we do not recognize."

    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @Zombieguy1987

    Can you explain why you view the below as irrelevant, when the below points of view are irrelevant to the theme of the forum? 


    "You do realize you're mixing up Operation Desert Storm with Operation Iraqi Freedom, right?  The battleship and half of the carriers you listed were decommissioned by the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  WMDs and the "axis of evil" had nothing to do with Operation Desert Shield/Storm."

    Do either one of you have the specific names of those supposed (Gulf War, or the othe Gulf War)  criminals, that your evidence is based on?

    Or that your commentary is based on?  

    Zombieguy1987
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 243 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:

    people do interviews, write books and get on tv while in prison all the time, so I would respectfully disagree with you that they loose their freedom of speech.

    They can only give a TV interview with the permission of the warden and/or prison staff.  They can write a book, again only with the permission of the warden and/or prison staff, as it's very difficult to write a book if you're not allowed to have so much as a pen and paper.  Additionally, they won't profit from such a book as the proceeds will go to settle the wrongful death suits inevitably filed by relatives of the victims.  If they haven't lost their freedom of speech, it has been reduced to something we do not recognize.

    it has been reduced but not lost, the only 2 I can think of that can actually be lost are the 2a and right to vote.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @Applesauce

    What does your below shared rhetoric, have to do with GUN control? 

    CYDdharta said:

    They can only give a TV interview with the permission of the warden and/or prison staff.  They can write a book, again only with the permission of the warden and/or prison staff, as it's very difficult to write a book if you're not allowed to have so much as a pen and paper.  Additionally, they won't profit from such a book as the proceeds will go to settle the wrongful death suits inevitably filed by relatives of the victims.  If they haven't lost their freedom of speech, it has been reduced to something we do not recognize.

    "it has been reduced but not lost, the only 2 I can think of that can actually be lost are the 2a and right to vote."
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 243 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    let's get back on track here
    https://abc7chicago.com/man-fatally-shot-by-woman-in-fernwood-previously-accused-of-attacking-cops/5045750/
    Investigators said 19-year-old LaAvion Goings approached the 25-year-old woman, pulled out a gun and announced a robbery. The woman then shot and killed him with her gun.

    now when you go back to the inane o.p. "My factual right to live outwerighs your alleged right to shoot me."  If humans have a right to live, how can that right not also come with the right to defend it?  You can't call something a right if you can't use or defend it.  We have the right to fly to Pluto bfd since no one was the actual ability to do so, not much of a right.....it's not a real right.

    @TTKDB
    oh little troll, you silly boy I have no interest in explaining such simple things to you, try someone else, I don't get paid to educate you.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190109/bloomberg-backed-lawmakers-launch-all-out-attack-on-your-second-amendment-rights-gun-control-bills-pre-filed-for-2019-legislative-session

    Some excerpts from the article:

    MENU
    NRA ILA
    ×

    Bloomberg-Backed Lawmakers Launch All-Out Attack on Your Second Amendment Rights: Gun Control Bills Pre-Filed for 2019 Legislative Session

    First on the list are two bills regarding "universal" background checks similar to those which legislators rejected in 2017 – House Bill 8,sponsored by Rep. Debra Sarinana, and its counterpart Senate Bill 8, sponsored by Senators Richard Martinez and Peter Wirth. These measures would ban all private firearms sales between law-abiding individuals. Gun owners will be forced to pay undetermined fees and obtain government approval before selling firearms to family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers, or fellow hunters, competitive shooters and gun club members. Such proposals will have no impact on crime and are unenforceable without gun registration.  House Bill 40, by Representative Miguel Garcia, would require criminal records checks on private firearms sales at gun shows – a favorite target of the gun control crowd. 

    House Bill 83, extreme risk protection order or “red flag” legislation, sponsored by Representative Damon Ely, would authorize the seizure of firearms and ammunition from individuals without due process. Unchallenged statements made by a petitioner before a judge, alleging that someone is a danger to themselves or others in an ex parte proceeding -- prior to any formal court hearing at which the respondent can be represented by counsel and present counter evidence -- would be sufficient for law enforcement to enter that person's home and confiscate their private property.

    House Bill 130, sponsored by Rep. Linda Trujillo, proposes to make gun owners criminally and civilly liable if a child gains unsupervised access to an unsecured firearm. New Mexico already has a first degree felony child abuse statute on the books to hold adults accountable for putting children's lives or health at risk in any manner. The tools exist to charge and prosecute parents or guardians in appropriate cases. Education is the key to protecting gun owners and their kids, not a state mandate on how one stores a firearm in his or her home.

    Don't sit idly by and watch your freedoms disappear. Sign up as an NRA Frontlines volunteerand get at least three fellow gun owners to also sign up to receive timely legislative alerts on firearm-related bills during this upcoming session. Make plans to attend committee hearings on these bills at the Roundhouse when NRA-ILA notifies you of the place and location. And contact your state lawmakers before and during session urging them to OPPOSE these measures. 

    A large number of freshman State House members have not taken office yet and do not currently have contact information at the Roundhouse. The make-up of the State Senate basically remains the same as last session. Please begin contacting your State Senators and urge them to OPPOSE bills that ban private gun sales between law-abiding individuals, OPPOSE red flag legislation that allows for the confiscation of firearms without due process and to OPPOSE proposals that duplicate the current child abuse statute to create specific, lesser offenses involving access to firearms in the home.  Make sure you put bill numbers in the subject line of your emails."

    Here's an idea for a BILL, amending the Second Amendment, so that it addresses the offenders and criminals who used their weapons in an illegaI manner, thus abusing their second amendment rights? 

    That addresses, those gun owners who lawfully purchased their weapon, but then used that lawfully purchased gun to commit gun violence with it? 

    This way the victims of gun violence and the families, are recognized within the preamble of the Second Amendment, just as the first time offenders and criminals are for their crimes of gun violence? 

    Fair and equal representation, being represented within the dialogue of the Second Amendment itself? 

  • ApplesauceApplesauce 243 Pts   -  
    @TTKDB
    Here's an idea for a BILL, amending the Second Amendment, so that it addresses the offenders and criminals who used their weapons in an illegaI manner, thus abusing their second amendment rights? 
    That addresses, those gun owners who lawfully purchased their weapon, but then used that lawfully purchased gun to commit gun violence with it? 
    This way the victims of gun violence and the families, are recognized within the preamble of the Second Amendment, just as the first time offenders and criminals are for their crimes of gun violence? 
    Fair and equal representation, being represented within the dialogue of the Second Amendment itself? 

    You have offered no "idea"

    ok, what would the bill/amendment say?

    What would be the wording to "address offenders and criminals who used their weapons in an illegaI manner"  Now mind you, you some how have to apply this to rights, and somehow distinguish it from laws that already exist to address everything you said in the quote.

    Perhaps you should familiarize your self with some federal criminal laws on guns.

    Fair and equal representation

    what does that even mean?

    let me save you the typing, you have no answer, you'll ask some other clueless questions LOL

    do you actually have any opinions and thoughts of your own?  just wondering.

    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    TTKDB said:

    Here's an idea for a BILL, amending the Second Amendment, so that it addresses the offenders and criminals who used their weapons in an illegaI manner, thus abusing their second amendment rights?


    That's already addressed by the criminal justice system.  That's what the term illegal means.  Using guns illegally is already, you know, illegal.

    ApplesauceZombieguy1987
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 471 Pts   -  
    TTKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    Can you explain why you view the below as irrelevant, when the below points of view are irrelevant to the theme of the forum? 

    Last I heard this is about gun control not The Iraq War

    "You do realize you're mixing up Operation Desert Storm with Operation Iraqi Freedom, right?  The battleship and half of the carriers you listed were decommissioned by the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  WMDs and the "axis of evil" had nothing to do with Operation Desert Shield/Storm."

    Do either one of you have the specific names of those supposed (Gulf War, or the othe Gulf War)  criminals, that your evidence is based on?

    Or that your commentary is based on?  


  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    @Applesauce

    The below is self explanatory to your posed questions.

    Here's an idea for a BILL, amending the Second Amendment, so that it addresses the offenders and criminals who used their weapons in an illegaI manner, thus abusing their second amendment rights? 
    That addresses, those gun owners who lawfully purchased their weapon, but then used that lawfully purchased gun to commit gun violence with it? 
    This way the victims of gun violence and the families, are recognized within the preamble of the Second Amendment, just as the first time offenders and criminals are for their crimes of gun violence? 
    Fair and equal representation, being represented within the dialogue of the Second Amendment itself? 

    You have offered no "idea"

    ok, what would the bill/amendment say?

    What would be the wording to "address offenders and criminals who used their weapons in an illegaI manner"  Now mind you, you some how have to apply this to rights, and somehow distinguish it from laws that already exist to address everything you said in the quote.

    Perhaps you should familiarize your self with some federal criminal laws on guns.

    Fair and equal representation

    what does that even mean?

    let me save you the typing, you have no answer, you'll ask some other clueless questions LOL

    do you actually have any opinions and thoughts of your own?  just wondering.

    This is add point of view, is in regards to the gun control conversation.

    What's peculiar about how some of the pro gun crowd, go about using the second amendment to platform their individual pro gun narratives with?

    It's nearly mirroring, some of the pro weed crowd with their narratives, and how some of them have used the internet itself to provide a platform to help promote their pro weed legalization narratives with? 

    Because in some states, the question about using medicinal marijuana, while owning a weapon, has become questioned since the legalization of recreational weed has been ongoing.


    ApplesauceZombieguy1987
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 243 Pts   -  
    @TTKDB

    I'll give this one last try
    Would it be accurate to say that we agree that violent criminals shouldn't have guns?
    Do we also agree that people shouldn't use guns in an illegal or careless manner?
    Zombieguy1987
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    TTKDB said:
    @Applesauce

    The below is self explanatory to your posed questions.

    Here's an idea for a BILL, amending the Second Amendment, so that it addresses the offenders and criminals who used their weapons in an illegaI manner, thus abusing their second amendment rights? 
    That addresses, those gun owners who lawfully purchased their weapon, but then used that lawfully purchased gun to commit gun violence with it? 
    This way the victims of gun violence and the families, are recognized within the preamble of the Second Amendment, just as the first time offenders and criminals are for their crimes of gun violence? 
    Fair and equal representation, being represented within the dialogue of the Second Amendment itself?

    It's really not explanatory.  You may know what you're trying to say, but neither @Applesauce nor I (nor, i suspect @Zombieguy1987) know just what you're trying to get across.  Precisely how would you rewrite the 2nd Amendment?  Exactly how do you think it should be worded?


    What's peculiar about how some of the pro gun crowd, go about using the second amendment to platform their individual pro gun narratives with?

    It's nearly mirroring, some of the pro weed crowd with their narratives, and how some of them have used the internet itself to provide a platform to help promote their pro weed legalization narratives with? Because in some states, the question about using medicinal marijuana, while owning a weapon, has become questioned since the legalization of recreational weed has been ongoing.


    This is an odd tangent to go off on, coming from someone who keeps complaining about people going off-topic.  Firearms and weed, legal weed in particular, have nothing to do with each other.  More to the point, so what?  You'd have to give examples of what you mean by some of the pro gun crowd mirroring some of the pro weed crowd's narratives to prove your point, but even giving you the benefit of the doubt, what difference does that make?  As far as mixing weed and firearms, that seems like significantly less of a problem than mixing firearms and alcohol, so there's already a template as to how to define the do's and the don'ts.

    ApplesauceZombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @Applesauce

    I'll agree, with the below being amended into the Second Amendment: 

    He's an idea for a BILL, 

    Amending the Second Amendment, so that it addresses the offenders and criminals who used their weapons in an illegaI manner, thus abusing their second amendment rights? 

    That addresses, those gun owners who lawfully purchased their weapon, but then used that lawfully purchased gun to commit gun violence with it? 

    This way the victims of gun violence and the families, are recognized within the preamble of the Second Amendment, just as the first time offenders and criminals are for their crimes of gun violence? 

    Fair and equal representation, being represented within the dialogue of the Second Amendment itself?  

    I think, that some of the the families who have been affected by the offenders and criminals gun violence, might appreciate the above additions to the preamble, being added to the Second Amendment? 

    Zombieguy1987Applesauce
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 243 Pts   -  
    @TTKDB

    fine since we can't agree I shall ignore you, have a nice life.  Please don't respond or tag me in any further posts and I shall do the same.
    Zombieguy1987
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    @CYDdharta

    In response to this point of view from you:

    "This is an odd tangent to go off on, coming from someone who keeps complaining about people going off-topic.  Firearms and weed, legal weed in particular, have nothing to do with each other.  More to the point, so what?  You'd have to give examples of what you mean by some of the pro gun crowd mirroring some of the pro weed crowd's narratives to prove your point, but even giving you the benefit of the doubt, what difference does that make?  As far as mixing weed and firearms, that seems like significantly less of a problem than mixing firearms and alcohol, so there's already a template as to how to define the do's and the don'ts."

    It's not an odd tangent:

    It's a fair and equal conversation point.

    Because alternative points of view, like mixing gun ownership and medical weed use, is another conversation, that some could become educated on, via the theme of the forum.

    Or mixing gun ownership and alcohol use, as another educational point of view? 


    https://multiplesclerosisnewstoday.com/2018/07/13/ms-patients-beware-medical-cannabis-marijuana-gun-license/

    Some excerpts from the article:

    "Medical Marijuana Could Mean Trouble for Gun Owners

    States may say yes, but the feds say no

    The problem is this: The medical marijuana laws are state laws. Possession of marijuana is still illegal under federal law.

    In 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) made that very clear in an open letter addressed “To All Firearms Licensees.” In it, the ATF leaves no doubt that it views the simultaneous possession of a gun and marijuana as a crime, even if you’re using marijuana medically and are a registered MMJ user in your state.

    Discuss the latest research in the MS News Today forums!

    In January 2017, the ATF went a step further by revising its Form 4473. That’s the form you need to complete when you buy a gun from a dealer. The revision adds a warning to Question 11.e, the question that asks you whether you use an illegal drug. It now reads (emphasis in the original text):

    “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
    Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.” 

    Your MMJ card could be a ‘smoking gun’

    Reg Wydeven is an attorney who writes a column for Appleton, Wisconsin’s Post Crescentnewspaper. Curious about this medical marijuana and gun problem, Wydeven asked the ATF’s regional office in Dallas about it. He received this no-doubt-about-it response from Dallas-based ATF Public Information Officer Meredith Davis:

    “[U]sing a controlled substance is a prohibitor [to gun possession], similar to being convicted of a felony offense. If you hold a license to use marijuana for medical use, there’s no exception for that prohibition under federal law.” 

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    TTKDB said:
    @CYDdharta

    In response to this point of view from you:

    "This is an odd tangent to go off on, coming from someone who keeps complaining about people going off-topic.  Firearms and weed, legal weed in particular, have nothing to do with each other.  More to the point, so what?  You'd have to give examples of what you mean by some of the pro gun crowd mirroring some of the pro weed crowd's narratives to prove your point, but even giving you the benefit of the doubt, what difference does that make?  As far as mixing weed and firearms, that seems like significantly less of a problem than mixing firearms and alcohol, so there's already a template as to how to define the do's and the don'ts."

    It's not an odd tangent:

    It's a fair and equal conversation point.

    Because alternative points of view, like mixing gun ownership and medical weed use, is another conversation, that some could become educated on, via the theme of the forum.

    Or mixing gun ownership and alcohol use, as another educational point of view? 


    https://multiplesclerosisnewstoday.com/2018/07/13/ms-patients-beware-medical-cannabis-marijuana-gun-license/

    Some excerpts from the article:

    "Medical Marijuana Could Mean Trouble for Gun Owners

    States may say yes, but the feds say no

    The problem is this: The medical marijuana laws are state laws. Possession of marijuana is still illegal under federal law.

    In 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) made that very clear in an open letter addressed “To All Firearms Licensees.” In it, the ATF leaves no doubt that it views the simultaneous possession of a gun and marijuana as a crime, even if you’re using marijuana medically and are a registered MMJ user in your state.

    Discuss the latest research in the MS News Today forums!

    In January 2017, the ATF went a step further by revising its Form 4473. That’s the form you need to complete when you buy a gun from a dealer. The revision adds a warning to Question 11.e, the question that asks you whether you use an illegal drug. It now reads (emphasis in the original text):

    “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
    Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.” 

    Your MMJ card could be a ‘smoking gun’

    Reg Wydeven is an attorney who writes a column for Appleton, Wisconsin’s Post Crescentnewspaper. Curious about this medical marijuana and gun problem, Wydeven asked the ATF’s regional office in Dallas about it. He received this no-doubt-about-it response from Dallas-based ATF Public Information Officer Meredith Davis:

    “[U]sing a controlled substance is a prohibitor [to gun possession], similar to being convicted of a felony offense. If you hold a license to use marijuana for medical use, there’s no exception for that prohibition under federal law.” 


    That isn't a gun control issue, that's a states rights vs federal powers issue.  Considering cities and states that approve use of marijuana are already flaunting federal laws, they may be willing to add this to the laws they're willing to ignore.
    Applesauce
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    If medical weed users own a gun at the same time, that's a conflict of interest.

    That makes it, a part of the gun control conversation.

    If a drug dealer has an illegal gun on their person, and illegal drugs on their person as well, that's another conflict of interest, and also another page, to the gun control conversation.
    Zombieguy1987
  • gabegabe 4 Pts   -  
    Sensible gun control is what we need. There should be mandatory background checks and a course to own a gun. When trump outlawed bumb stocks that was smart as it was unneeded for the population. This stays within the guidelines of the constitution as it says “well regulated” in the text. This will save lives and stay within the constitution. 
    Zombieguy1987ApplesauceCYDdharta
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 243 Pts   -  
    gabe said:
    Sensible gun control is what we need. There should be mandatory background checks and a course to own a gun. When trump outlawed bumb stocks that was smart as it was unneeded for the population. This stays within the guidelines of the constitution as it says “well regulated” in the text. This will save lives and stay within the constitution. 
    rights are not "needs" based and don't require a needs test, they wouldn't be rights if that were the case.
    Define "sensible gun control"
    Background checks are already mandatory, how do you not know this?
    Banning bump stocks did nothing to make anyone safer.
    If laws save lives why are we complaining about all the murders?
    Zombieguy1987
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    gabe said:
    Sensible gun control is what we need. There should be mandatory background checks and a course to own a gun. When trump outlawed bumb stocks that was smart as it was unneeded for the population. This stays within the guidelines of the constitution as it says “well regulated” in the text. This will save lives and stay within the constitution. 

    um, right, because there's no way to bumpfire without a bump stock;







    ApplesauceZombieguy1987
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 243 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    great now we'll need to ban fingers :(
    I find their faith in the law disturbing.
    It appears no one was harmed in that video, could it be it's not the object but the person/sicko that's the problem?!?!?! say it ain't so.
    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts   -   edited January 2019
    So basically, some of the pro gun extremist's, would become offended, if the Second Amendment was changed from it's (currently observed and written status,)
    If it was rewritten to look like the below?

    Here's an idea for a BILL:

    Amending the Second Amendment, so that it addresses the offenders and criminals who used their weapons in an illegaI manner, thus abusing their second amendment rights? 
    That addresses, those gun owners who lawfully purchased their weapon, but then used that lawfully purchased gun to commit gun violence with it? 
    This way the victims of gun violence and the families, are recognized within the preamble of the Second Amendment, just as the first time offenders and criminals are for their crimes of gun violence? 
    Fair and equal representation, being represented within the dialogue of the Second Amendment itself? 

    Is that the issue? 

    The Second Amendment being changed to reflect gun violence, via how the offenders and the criminals killed innocent people with their guns?

    Wouldn't it be educational to see if some of the pro gun organizations, in the United States, conducting any poll, studies, or surveys, to see how the United States public as a whole, would feel about the Second Amendment being amended, or changed, to reflect the modern days and age, that we currently live with, and in? 
    Zombieguy1987Applesauce
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    great now we'll need to ban fingers :(
    I find their faith in the law disturbing.
    It appears no one was harmed in that video, could it be it's not the object but the person/sicko that's the problem?!?!?! say it ain't so.
    LOL. assault fingers.  Guess which one is my assault finger.
    Zombieguy1987Applesauce
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch