Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should we ban people?
Yes 40 74.07%
No 14 25.93%
Voters: 54. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-21-2013, 02:57 PM
 
2,548 posts, read 2,157,600 times
Reputation: 729

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
Democrats and other assorted liberals want to ban guns because they mistakenly believe that the tool causes people to die rather than the person wielding the weapon.

Since banning guns will do next to nothing to prevent gun violence why don't we do something that is 100% effective.

Should we ban people?
Until the 2nd amendment is overturned and guns are banned, your analogy is ridiculous and falls flat. What you have done is created a strawman, and some have taken your bait.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-21-2013, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,095 posts, read 25,918,733 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missy.Rivers View Post
I don't advocate for full removal of guns. But there should be some control. Like, one per customer.

And I don't see the need for anyone to have a gun that can spray 16-20 bullets in 4 seconds. Having that kind of weaponry available makes murderous people more successful.
O.K., if you feel that way then I recommend attempting to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Until you do, what you propose is unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,095 posts, read 25,918,733 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frugality View Post
Until the 2nd amendment is overturned and guns are banned, your analogy is ridiculous and falls flat. What you have done is created a strawman, and some have taken your bait.
Strawman? Not at all.

You mentioned the 2nd Amendment.

How does Senator Feinstein's bill not violate the 2nd Amendment?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 03:02 PM
 
2,548 posts, read 2,157,600 times
Reputation: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
Strawman? Not at all.

You mentioned the 2nd Amendment.

How does Senator Feinstein's bill not violate the 2nd Amendment?
Her bill does violate it, her bill will not pass, even if it does, over 900 types of guns are exempt. Kinda silly to claim guns are banned when over 900 types are legal
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Clayton, MO
1,159 posts, read 1,834,378 times
Reputation: 1549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
O.K., if you feel that way then I recommend attempting to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Until you do, what you propose is unconstitutional.
I'd rather see a revision to the second amendment than continually worry that a nut case is going to get his lunatic hands on one of these types of weapons that our second amendment currently protects.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 03:06 PM
 
6,137 posts, read 4,847,506 times
Reputation: 1516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missy.Rivers View Post
And I don't see the need for anyone to have a gun that can spray 16-20 bullets in 4 seconds. Having that kind of weaponry available makes murderous people more successful.
This is really getting tiresome.

You have no clue what you're talking about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 03:08 PM
 
2,548 posts, read 2,157,600 times
Reputation: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow View Post
This is really getting tiresome.

You have no clue what you're talking about.
This is a thread about banning people, and this is the post that you find tiresome???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 03:09 PM
 
6,137 posts, read 4,847,506 times
Reputation: 1516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frugality View Post
This is a thread about banning people, and this is the post that you find tiresome???
It's a dumb analogy but unlike leftists who don't understand the difference between full and semi auto, I don't have to deal with it every single freakin day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 03:26 PM
 
8,391 posts, read 6,273,973 times
Reputation: 2314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
Democrats and other assorted liberals want to ban guns because they mistakenly believe that the tool causes people to die rather than the person wielding the weapon.

Since banning guns will do next to nothing to prevent gun violence why don't we do something that is 100% effective.

Should we ban people?
Since the core of conservatism is exclusion of the wrongs kinds of people. This is an idea that most conservatives would get behind.

Already many conservatives support tracking the mentally ill even though that greatly expands the power of the government.

I think if a conservative politician suggested tracking groups of Americans perceived to be more violent many conservatives would consider that to common sense violence prevention.

So while you may have meant this as a joke. conservatives by large numbers would support gun control legislation that tracked certain groups of Americans to prevent gun violence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2013, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,095 posts, read 25,918,733 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
Since the core of conservatism is exclusion of the wrongs kinds of people. This is an idea that most conservatives would get behind.

Already many conservatives support tracking the mentally ill even though that greatly expands the power of the government.

I think if a conservative politician suggested tracking groups of Americans perceived to be more violent many conservatives would consider that to common sense violence prevention.

So while you may have meant this as a joke. conservatives by large numbers would support gun control legislation that tracked certain groups of Americans to prevent gun violence.
The core of conservatism is liberty.

You need to turn off Rachel Maddow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top