Debate Thread: Countering Gun Control

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Vikingdad, Mar 30, 2014.

  1. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    Seems there is a need here for this. If you are getting all butt-hurt over something in the Countering Gun Control thread then bring it here. At the moment there is some contention regarding comparative data between countries. Here is what I have to contribute on that:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
     
  2. Ez2b

    Ez2b New Member

    1,799
    0
    0
    Ah a good place for Pierce Morgan to keep picking our brain lol

    Alias +++++
     

  3. John_Deer

    John_Deer New Member

    6,624
    1
    0
    One thing Manta is correct about is anti gun people do not want to argue statistics. I told a liberal about the FBI crime database. I even loaded the FBI crime database so he could see for himself. He refused to look at my laptop. One would have thought I was trying to burn his eyes out with a laser beam.
     
  4. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,029
    49
    48
    Probably a good idea. :) I have no issue with people posting pro gun posters and articles supporting their position. But I do have a problem when I see some of it is misleading and just wrong and people doint like it being challenged. I see similar on anti gun sites misleading and wrong information, something that is challenged on this forum all the time. You would get the impression that its OK to challenge anti gun information that's incorrect but not pro gun information that is incorrect. I like to think for myself and not blindly unquestionably follow one view even if it supports my view if the information is wrong. Posting pro gun information that is questionable and insulting to others,( Example if you doint like my view get out of the country. ) Is no better than the anti gun lobby doing the same.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2014
  5. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    even if someone is pro-gun and they are giving false or misleading information, andi know it's false, i will be one of the first ones to show them them the error of their ways. simply because it does the cause for our gun rights no good. the best defence we have against the liberal gun haters, and those wanting to bring about more gun control are using the facts and nothing but the facts.

    and simply put, those who want gun control can get out as far i'm concerned. they are more than welcome to move to a country that has strict gun control or bans guns altogether. America was founded on the citizens being able to defend themselves for tyranny and oppression from the government.

    i'm not going to force my opinion on others, but will simply state my feelings about such things. after all, i do believe in the 1st amendment as well.
     
  6. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    If there is false or misleading information posted on the other thread then point it out as such and if its bad enough I would also report the post.

    What you and others were doing there was debating your own opinions and thoughts on the info posted more than pointing out errors. That was not keeping in the stated spirit of the thread.

    As to your other post
    You did not correctly understand the instructions on the thread. There is absolutely nothing preventing you from pointing out incorrect material. As a matter of fact I would say that it is encouraged. It does our advocacy no good to be throwing around incorrect or false information. Point it out when you see it. Posting a thread and making it clear as to what the purpose of that specific thread is supposed to do in the creator's mind is perfectly fine. You can do exactly the same thing. For example, I created this thread here for the purpose of debating things posted there! Viola! A few painless keystrokes and BOOM! Done!.:eek:

    No need to get all pissy and compare America to Russia or China. That is just uncalled for (or is it? Lets debate!):cool:

    Seeing as its the Mods who did decide you were off topic I would say that you were out of line! :p
     
  7. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,029
    49
    48
    I understand what you are saying. People are quick to point to the American constitution regards the right to bear arms, I am sure there is something in the constitution about the right to free speech and to think and believe what you want, I am sure it doesn't end with unless its anti gun in that case you can get out of the country. I think that people have just as much right to have a anti gun view as I have to have a pro gun view. And I think I can convince some to my point of view by talking to them and question their view. Not by putting up the same rubbish that you would see on anti gun sites only a pro gun version of the same.
     
  8. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 New Member

    614
    0
    0
    The antis are not interested in fact, they simply want to disarm law abiding citizens.
     
  9. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0
    Nothing wrong with them having a different point of view, it is a problem when they try to force that point of view on others. The constitution clearly states that the people have a natural right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. Everyone in political office and military service took an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies. Any body trying to take away my constitutional rights is an enemy. Nothing complicated about this. We don't need to convince these idiots of anything, it's already written for them to see and myself and many many others have taken an oath to defend the constitution from them.
     
  10. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    yes i believe in the 1st amendment, and a person is allowed to speak their thoughts and opinions, and i too if i disagree, with those thoughts and opinions, then i am allowed to speak against them in opposition.

    if you will notice the 2nd amendment follows the 1st and for very good reason. the founding fathers knew that to uphold the rights of the 1st, that there had to be a 2nd. and the citizens needed to be armed to be able to defend the rights of the first, and all the other amendments that followed. to restrict the power of the government.

    and yes, the anti gun people are allowed to have an opinion, but my opposing thought is they need to move elsewhere where they don't have guns or have stricter gun control laws. just because i have that opinion does not mean i would physically force them to move or attempt to make them move. it's strictly an opinion based on the the viewpoint they have in regards to guns and our Constitution.

    very simply put, This Is America. Love It, Or Leave It.
     
  11. WonderingMind

    WonderingMind New Member

    295
    0
    0
    For those you who live overseas and don't understand us, the Second Amendment is the WARRANTY on the rest of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. We can't simply take our rights down to the mechanic when they break down, we have to fix them ourselves. Without the Second, there is no way we can counter the coercive use of force by our Glorious Leaders and their minions.

    We as Americans expect a higher level of personal liberty then we actually have, and what we THINK we have is much different then the reality of the situation. As soon as the roughly 100 million Americans who are armed realize this, then our Glorious Leaders will be in some serious trouble.

    I think this is the main reason for "Gun Control", fear that our Glorious Progressive Leaders have for their power, and their lives. As long as we fear them they are safe.

    But Soon we will all understand that there is more of us then there are of them:

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    The Founders were a great deal more savvy than you are apparently. You see where the Second Amendment says:
    That is where the phrase you are looking for sits. "shall not be infringed" says that even if you disagree with the right, you do not have the power or the right to infringe upon the rights of those who do choose to exercise their rights.

    Or, in other words, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Anti gunners are attempting to change that fact.
     
  13. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    i love those words, "Shall Not Be Infringed" the most beautiful words ever written into the Constitution!:D
     
  14. vincent

    vincent New Member

    4,123
    0
    0
    Feel free to point out the 'rubbish' in the aforementioned thread...please...

    I'll wait...
     
  15. TennTrucker

    TennTrucker New Member

    82
    0
    0
    My usual reply.
     

    Attached Files:

  16. John_Deer

    John_Deer New Member

    6,624
    1
    0
    I don't know of any rubbish in our thread but my email inbox is full of rubbish every day. I have Dudley Brown and Rand Paul sending an email every day saying Hillary is going to take our guns via the UN small arms treaty. Yet 64 senators signed a letter stating the treaty is DOA in the senate over six months ago.

    Recently we had a thread right here at FTF stating that every Democratic senator voted for ratification of the UN small arms treaty. The small arms treaty has never been voted on by the senate. The small arms treaty will never be voted on by the senate. It would not be ratified if only democrats voted on the treaty. Obama is willing to piss all over the constitution to win on gun control.

    The rest of the Democratic party is not going to set such a dangerous precedent. If we allow the UN to regulate small arms what is next? What other types of trade does the UN want to regulate? Will our TVs need UN approval?
     
  17. JimRau

    JimRau Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,028
    73
    48
    I guess the opposite of 'gun control' would be dropping your gun or just plain missing what you are shooting at!:p
    PLEASE stop using the progressive narrative and use the proper terminology!
    This is about PEOPLE CONTROL not 'gun control!:(
     
  18. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,130
    119
    63
    No other US rights group is as fragmented as gunowners. Gunowners get wrapped around the axle with feel good stuff not related to gun rights. Folks worry too much about Soros, Bloomberg and others and forget to contribute to the gun rights organizations. Only about ten percent of NRA members ever contribute to the ILA and PVF. There is too much misinformation and conspiracy trash related to gun rights: Many gunowners concentrate on stuff they prefer to hear rather than on the reality of the gun rights battle.

    i've been doing this stuff since 1968 and have a good handle on real threats to our gun rights. When it comes to electing politicians the only thing that matters to me is that persons stand on the Second Amendment. The supporter of gun rights gets my vote every time, nothing else matters. If neither candidate supports my gun rights, neither gets my vote. Ain't doing the lesser of two evils trash anymore.

    There is this pervasive myth that Republicans in congress support our Second Amendment rights. Republican in congress see themselves as the lesser evil: "Either vote for us or get overwhelmed with the awful gun hating Democrats". For years Bush II and the Republicans ran the US government. They could have rolled back some gun control laws but chose to do nothing for gunowners.

    For years we were told that a Republican president would appoint SCOTUS justices who support our gun rights. We see how that played out last week in the Castleman ruling.
     
  19. Mercator

    Mercator Active Member

    11,342
    13
    38
    In fairness: Congress did allow the Clinton ban roll into the sunset on Bush's watch.

    The Supreme Court are judges first and advocates second, or at least should be. It is not fair to expect a Republican nominated Justice to rule the way you or I like every time.
     
  20. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,130
    119
    63
    It was supposed to expire: No thanks to Bush who promised to sign an extension of the AWB if congress passed same. The US senate voted to extend the AWB; it passed with 10 Republicans voting aye and six Democrats voting nay. House speaker Dennis Hastert single handidly saved us from an extension of the AWB by refusing to schedule a vote: It would have passed the Republican run house.

    i totally agree. Was simply pointing out the hyporcisy in the Republican claim that a Republican president will appoint justices who support our 2nd amendment rights. Support for our gun rights is not on the chart when it comes to vetting candidates for SCOTUS.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2014