[Bigcat_hunter]

Originally Posted by Yunus

I think most of these posts are missing the point. The guy is part of a debate and he must take the pro side. Most of the info provided helps the other side. He's not saying he is for gun control, just that he must debate the pro's of it.

To the OP. I suggest reading the dissenting opinions on Heller and McDonald.

The pro side of gun control is that the knife and baseball bat industry could reap good benefits for investors. Crowbars and tire irons may soon follow.

Lowly hunters will have to resort to archery which could also be an investment opportunity for the new investor, although that could soon be outlawed due to the scary looking broad heads which make people feel uncomfortable and are definitely politically incorrect.

Only government officials and police will have lethal weapons (not criminals!). The average american will be safe because there is no way a bad guy can get a gun now since people cant buy them legally.

The world will be full of rainbows, hugs and peace. No one will eat meat and we will save the Earth. Cars will run on solar power and rich people will pay for their evil greediness. No one will work and the government will send us checks every month. It will be grand.

[FreedomFighter69]

To keep it short and sweet, HELL NO !
Screw the U.N. , Screw the Gun Control Lobbists, and Screw The Liberals who want to Instill it ! NO ! NO ! NO ! NO!
I think the United States should adopt a form of Liberal Nut Job Control !!!

[JTJ]

The pro side of gun control is a tough subject as the truth is against you. Perhaps you can turn it around by using the Swiss gun control model. Every (I believe it is still male) citizen of fighting age is issued a military grade weapon and required to maintain an issued battle pack of ammunition. As the battle packs are updated and the old packs are used for encouraged practice. There are severe penalties for anyone stealing weapons and ammunition or not maintaining their battle gear. This is a simplistic explanation so you should research it. This is your assignment and we should not be doing the work for you.

Another possibility is to take the corrupt government point of view as expressed by the quote of Mao Tse Tung in my signature. That should really hit it off with the teachers. Just change the wording a little by substituting Government for Communist Party.

[vezpa]

If you need any other evidence that gun restrictions fail please research the city of Chicago and Cook county.

It is like the wild west here with murders galore, crime out of control and we have no provision for Carry of any kind. Until last june we had a ban on any handgun in the city. That obviously meant less crime... right...?

Wrong.

The governor even debated bringing in the national guard to stifle crime it got so bad this past Spring.

All this in a state with the strictest gun control and no right to carry.

Criminals don't care what gun control laws are being enacted, they simply don't follow them which is why they are criminals in the first place. Gun control laws only affect law abiding citizens. This is such an easy concept to understand, but yet so many don't.

[TexasPatriot]

Originally Posted by prsabordo

Hey everyone, i have a debate on this topic and i had to be on the pro side of it, that means i am for the proposition that the U.S should adopt a form of gun control. Now I know many people are against it, but its a debate for my communications class. Thing is i can't seem to find any evidence to support the pro side. I was wondering does anyone have any hard evidence (court cases, reputable statements, proper research studies) that can support the pro of gun control and does anyone know where i can find this stuff?

This is an easy one. The answer lies within the language of the Founders as applied to the Second Amendment.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the Peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you break this down into base components and define each one as it applies here, you will see that the People themselves are the intended control structure intended from the beginning. Proper arms control measures can be had through simple educational programs. Teaching people from a young age the intimate importance of safe firearms handling and deployment methods.

On the extreme end of the ideology is the tendency to use firearms in criminal and dangerous methods. This can be eliminated through a solid family concept in The United States. In other words, teaching children the importance of respecting fundamental laws and respect for others right and property.

In my opinion, it is the governmental interference into this basic concept that has eliminated the ideology of fundamental respect. Accidents can and will happen. But can be eliminated for the most part through a comprehensive program designed to teach safety, first and foremost.

One must ask oneself why any government would want to deny a population firearms ownership. Yet, maintain an armoury of their own on a domestic police level. When, in history, has this ever ended well for any population?

If public safety were the primary reason behind arms control, simply because firearms were dangerous, then ownership controls would be implemented for any number of other tools available to the general population. Auto mobiles, power saws, knives, ball bats, the list goes on.

Anyhow, that is simply my own take on the matter, for what it's worth...

[JonM]

the more i think about this issue the more i come to terms with it and i think the govt should adopt control.

the feds should set aside 5% of each individual's fica after tax ammount and income tax after tax ammount as a subsidy so that each person in the US legal to own guns (non-felons) may do so. each person should be required to own at least one gun. each person should be issued with current military issue rifles and allowed to purchase specialized non-explosive based projectile weapons and ammunition the military uses. each us citizen should be encouraged to carry weapons daily everywhere.

that is the only gun control we need

[TexasPatriot]

Originally Posted by Bigcat_hunter

The pro side of gun control is that the knife and baseball bat industry could reap good benefits for investors. Crowbars and tire irons may soon follow.

Lowly hunters will have to resort to archery which could also be an investment opportunity for the new investor, although that could soon be outlawed due to the scary looking broad heads which make people feel uncomfortable and are definitely politically incorrect.

Only government officials and police will have lethal weapons (not criminals!). The average american will be safe because there is no way a bad guy can get a gun now since people cant buy them legally.

The world will be full of rainbows, hugs and peace. No one will eat meat and we will save the Earth. Cars will run on solar power and rich people will pay for their evil greediness. No one will work and the government will send us checks every month. It will be grand.

Where do I sign up?? I want in!!

[gatopardo]

Originally Posted by prsabordo

Hey everyone, i have a debate on this topic and i had to be on the pro side of it, that means i am for the proposition that the U.S should adopt a form of gun control. Now I know many people are against it, but its a debate for my communications class. Thing is i can't seem to find any evidence to support the pro side. I was wondering does anyone have any hard evidence (court cases, reputable statements, proper research studies) that can support the pro of gun control and does anyone know where i can find this stuff?

We already have gun control, so far it excludes irresponsible individuals as well as felons.
Furthermore not gun ownership but gun possession is highly regulated by the states, not the Federal government.
From the second amendment as a base, I would go to your state laws. and then BATF site. for federal regulations on manufacturing, import, export, etc.

Good luck. Gato

[TexasPatriot]

Originally Posted by gatopardo

We already have gun control, so far it excludes irresponsible individuals as well as felons.
Furthermore not gun ownership but gun possession is highly regulated by the states, not the Federal government.
From the second amendment as a base, I would go to your state laws. and then BATF site. for federal regulations on manufacturing, import, export, etc.

Good luck. Gato

A question...in regards to felon ownership, since the courts have ruled that the police do not have the liability of affording protection to individuals, who protects the people who have been convicted of a felony, but have paid their dues and did their time? I have yet to see a statement in the Constitution, or even the Federalist Papers that precludes someone being stripped of their God given right to protect themselves due to any legal standpoint. In fact, it appears to me that the statement, "Shall not be infringed", pretty much says it all.

The consensus in my mind is, we have all these rules and regs, yet they have served no purpose in preventing any appreciable amount of criminal activity. Yet, the program still moves forward towards a full ban. That is the problem when you allow one single regulatory instance to get a hold. It never stops moving forward from there. It is never enough.It goes from, well, we just want this segment of society to be banned, to, hmmm, it isn't working, so we need to move ahead to this level, right? I mean, just a little common sense control. The thing is...who decides who doesn't have their rights any longer?

Remember...those who refuse to afford others their rights under the law, soon find that the law doesn't protect them any longer either...

Not to mention the fact that all the laws in the history of humankind cannot prevent any one from breaking them. The law can say so and so can't own something, yet they will still go get it if they want it bad enough. This pretty much negates the argument concerning so-called 'common sense' rules. it makes absolutely no sense to regulate ownership when ownership can't be regulated to begin with.

[gatopardo]

Originally Posted by TexasPatriot

A question...in regards to felon ownership, since the courts have ruled that the police do not have the liability of affording protection to individuals, who protects the people who have been convicted of a felony, but have paid their dues and did their time? I have yet to see a statement in the Constitution, or even the Federalist Papers that precludes someone being stripped of their God given right to protect themselves due to any legal standpoint. In fact, it appears to me that the statement, "Shall not be infringed", pretty much says it all.

The consensus in my mind is, we have all these rules and regs, yet they have served no purpose in preventing any appreciable amount of criminal activity. Yet, the program still moves forward towards a full ban. That is the problem when you allow one single regulatory instance to get a hold. It never stops moving forward from there. It is never enough.It goes from, well, we just want this segment of society to be banned, to, hmmm, it isn't working, so we need to move ahead to this level, right? I mean, just a little common sense control. The thing is...who decides who doesn't have their rights any longer?

Remember...those who refuse to afford others their rights under the law, soon find that the law doesn't protect them any longer either...

Not to mention the fact that all the laws in the history of humankind cannot prevent any one from breaking them. The law can say so and so can't own something, yet they will still go get it if they want it bad enough. This pretty much negates the argument concerning so-called 'common sense' rules. it makes absolutely no sense to regulate ownership when ownership can't be regulated to begin with.

That is what freedom is all about, is a risk yes but a risk worth taking. However you cannot save a man from himself.

What of sex offenders and the alienation they are victims of, after serving their sentence? Unfair? I think so. Unpopular measure? Probably not.

See it from this perspective: We are victims of ourselves and our own prejudices, when the masses demand blood there is no way of saying whose blood will run.

When people demand more control over anything in their lives is because they cannot or don't want to take responsibility, the end result however is the need for more control. Everyone loves a dictator friend.

The difference between the constitution and every state law is simple:
The constitution is focused on the individuals as a base of the Republic.
State law principal focus is to protect private property, whomever has more property consequentially controls state law.
Especially in Texas