The debate "Guns should never be banned" was started by
October 4, 2016, 8:16 am.
33 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 23 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
RogueAmerican posted 11 arguments, neveralone posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 12 arguments, historybuff posted 7 arguments to the disagreers part.
TheDebator9000, neveralone, dalton7532, RogueAmerican, DrBanner, blakelovesjesus, Blue_ray, jack_tim_45, razzy00, nellie11iah and 23 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, historybuff, harshita, Rajat, smv2005 and 18 visitors disagree.
How would they account for a concealed weapon?
no one said anything about genocide. I don't know how you thought I had.
Are you then taking about mass genocide?
you are trying to compare extremely different scenarios. Vietnam was a completely alien environment. the soldiers didn't understand their enemy. they couldn't understand the population their enemies were hiding in. there simply was no way to get information about the insurgents.
modern America is absolutely nothing like Vietnam in the 60s. there is simply no comparing the two scenarios.
He is talking about unconventional warfare. You would have to kill millions of people to ensure security. One hit job is all it takes.
not to mention the soldiers couldn't speak to the Vietnamese. telling friend from for when you have nothing in common with your enemies is extremely difficult.
we can't. they were in the jungle, the urban jungle is not quite as effective.
but we would be able to hide in plain sight. that has a major psychological effect on soldiers when anyone could be the enemy.
also, we were invading a foreign country on the other side of the world. like I said, our full military might is minutes away in your scenario. also tanks kinda suck in the jungle.
it would be a different kind of war too. unlike what buff is saying, they aren't gonna missile and bomb us. this isn't an invasion. they want to suppress us and gain control without destroying their own nation. it will probably involve tanks and seiges. time will be on their side. unlike veitnam.
So technologic advances didnt end it quickly?
I'm guessing he means the Vietcong. they were able to fight an insurgency because the Americans and the their puppet south Vietnamese government were pretty well universally despised by the people. therefore they could hide in pretty any village because the locals all supported them.
they also had alot of jungle to hide in. good luck finding a jungle to hide in in the US.
best result on Google I got for VC was venture capital, followed by voice chat.... neither of which is relevant here.
What about about the VC?
not all disadvantages are equal.
our fathers had many advantages too. it was their land, and the British forces main force was weeks to months away in England.
also that was was bayonets vs more, better trained bayonets. now it's assault rifles and shotguns vs tanks and drones, with the main force minutes away, it's hardly and equivalent situation.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/11a.asp for that first part.
ur wrong. even back then we knew that we were at a disadvantage so we did something no one had thought of. got rid of standing in lines to get shot and went into the woods nearby and took down supply lines and troops. it could happen and I would fight to keep my freedom as would u I imagine if it had to come to that.
the difference between your army and the British army during the revolution was just training.
the difference between American citizens and the US army now is about a trillion dollars worth of ordinance that can kill you without you ever seeing the drone or plane that fired it. no gun could possibly save you from the US military. the idea that gun rights could prevent tyranny if the military backed the government is childish.
actually we defended off our gov. before. in the beginning at the American revolution a bunch of untrained layman went up against the best army at that time and won.
who you gonna shoot? drones? tanks?
i dont think any nation can fend off its own military. the best thing is to make sure the government doesn't do that. and the best way to do that is to keep trump out of power.
It is a deterrent. A "good luck not getting shot by millions of guns"
do you think the defense will be effective considering the weapons the army has?
Every country has thought the United States was absurd at some point. But we do have historical success in our favor to show we are civilized and developed. Not many countries are exposed to our social diversity.
No problem. It was to always be a safeguard. If the federal government went after states, the people would be armed and could form militias. If the state turns against the people, the people could form a militia and defend (or atleast defend themselves). It is somewhat a subconscious check as well as serving a practical purpose.
If we were to say, the people could defend themselves, it is rather ambiguous. We know people can defend themselves as a right, but how? Without saying they may bear arms, it is left entirely up to the reader, and that is not what was intended.
can I ask you to go into details?
why do we have to keep them to maintain a free state?
and how do guns prevent confusion in deliberations?
I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought.
and literally no other country on earth believes guns are a right. and most of the developed world thinks that your views on them are rediculous.
It was an actualization of personal protection. Arms im the past were swords or rocks. Now, they're guns. We have the right to keep these in order to maintain a free state. The specifics are to protect peoe from bearing arms for defense. Without it, there would be huge confusion on what the deliberation was during the convention (beyond what there is now if people actually ruled that way cough cough). Protection must be specified.
the second ammendment was a right given by the government....
it's hardly a right that is universal internationally, only in America is gun ownership considered "a right" so it's hardly God given. so I really don't understand how your last 2 posts aren't contradictory.
What free movement? I believe that the government has nothing to do with creating rights. Anything the government makes isnt a right, its a privilege. And the government making policy over rights may act as benevolent, as all tyrannies do, until rights are gone.
someone people consider free movement across the earth should be a right, you are against that...
It is a right. It should be emotional and a no-brainer.
I disagree with the motion,
First the law in this status quo right now is independence for every state, of course all the country wants to be free right? The people have due for life, can you emagine if one of country attack another country with their guns, what happened to the society? Eventhough their object is no society but its sure one the people die,,
Second, the factory should closing that tools better , because its not bring benefit for every people except for people who working in that factory, i think better they must inovating the other stuff to sell for economic development it self.
I back oppose
I agree with you. guns shouldn't be banned. my point was that the NRA and the right have made it such an emotional issue that people don't even think about it.
I'm more stressing the never part than the gun part. they can even visualize that in some distant future, under a different scenario, never ever will they get ma gun lol.
there is definitely a benefit to gun ownership right now. particularly for those who live far from other help... but the casual bypass of an ultimate word like "never" or "always" is so.... ignorant.
had the word never not been in the title, I would be on the agree side.
the American right has preached so hard for so long that guns are greatest thing ever that most people won't even consider the idea that they might not be super important.
I love how many people simply agree despite the ultimate word never in the title. just goes to show the ignorance and short sightedness of masses.
cause nuance is part of the liberal NWO lmao.
never is a powerful word. not good for intellectual discussions.