[DEBATE] Presidential Election - 2016 (closing Nov 22)

Citizens can purchase weapons if they're on the no fly list. The Orlando shooter was on the list.

Oh gosh, I can't debate with ignorance.

I think what Lance is trying to say is that whether guns were legal or not, he would of still gotten weapons one way or another (it wouldve been especially easy if he was in relations to a group who have such resources to give out such as Isis). Kinda like how drugs are illegal but people still get their hands on them, just for a incredible increase on the price due to the risk of dealers now getting artested. There would still always be people selling guns illegally and making it possible for people on these lists to still get firearms. Though it would cut down on the percentage of shootings there were due to the fact it wouldnt be as easy as just walking into a store and buying a gun and also due to the fact, if seen with a gun, these offenders would now be arrested/killed on sight.

Politics......

1. The right to have an abortion doesn't mean that you will. The debate over when life begins is a non-descript excuse. Personally, I feel that the point in which the fetus (unborn) is capable of sustaining life without heroic measures, then it is alive. This places it at about 23 weeks (5 months and 3 weeks). Even then, it generally requires a NICU full time.

2. The 2nd Amendment was instituted to help provide for a militia army for the country. At a time when there was no funding for a full time army, the militia's were a way to raise an army and not have to shoulder the burden of the cost of arming it. It was more a requirement that every male of a certain age have a rifle capable of shooting a set distance and the supplies to fire a certain number of musket balls.

3. As far as the AR-15 - it is a stripped down version of the M-16. Both are capable of firing a 5.56 calibre round, but the AR is able to change your Upper Receiver and thereby change the rounds that it shoots. The mainstream differece after this is the 30 round magazine for each. The AR will take 10 trigger pulls to empty the magazine, since it limits it to 3 rounds per pull, while the M16 is able to empty out in 1, full auto. Of course only Lt's and movies will use the Full Auto option, since it decreases accuracy.

4. Hillary, despite all her flaws, will most likely win the election. She will make a fine President. No worse than anyone else in this day and age. The Republicans will mount a 1 and done campaign, similar to what they tried with Obama. Her husband will be a huge benefit. Bill having been in the office, and a generally well like politician, will enable Hillary to get things done domestically as well as globally.

5. The 2 parties in the US are both inept with regards to weapon safety. Chicago is a prime example. Regardless of which party holds office, Chicago is a very bloody city. To date for the year. 1810 people have been shot. 1530 were wounded and 310 were homicides. On average, there is a shooting every 2 hours and 17 minutes and a murder every 13 hours and 16 minutes. How many of these weapons were illegally purchased?

Americans scream about their Constitutional Rights every chance they can. But most will forget the Obligations that comes with those Rights. The hypocrisy is troubling.

The government clearly doesn't want gun control. Four logical bills were presented to the Senate, the NRA made sure all were denied.

I'm not quite, I don't know the right word, shallow? enough to change what I think just because I'm outnumbered. I've always been told by a bunch of people I respect to stand up for what I think is right even if I'm standing alone, so Ima go ahead and do that. So yes I'm in the minority and yes its still an argument.

I nearly cried when I read this. Very well-said my man.

I don't understand how these gun control arguments gain any support from otherwise rational individuals, probably people putting too much faith in propaganda from The Young Turks or Vox. I think it's time for some new points of discussion.

First of all, any restriction on firearms, ANY, is in direct conflict with the second amendment. It clearly says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
1. But wait, the first clause means that the amendment only applies to a "Well regulated militia," and because we have a professional army nowadays there's no need for a militia anymore, right?
No, this argument is senseless. Why would the founding fathers think that it was necessary to protect the right of the militia to bear arms? what militia wouldn't have the right to use weapons? the fact that there's no evident purpose for that amendment should render it useless to any debate.
2. maybe that's true, but still the founding fathers were referring to the guns of their time period, there's no way they would include the second amendment if they knew about rapid fire, high capacity firearms that we have today.
Ok, this argument is one of the weakest I've ever heard. To believe this is to believe that the founding fathers were so ignorant that they couldn't foresee any technological progress. And besides that point, many high capacity, rapid fire weapons existed in the times of the constitutions writing. Guns like the Belton Flintlock which fired 20 shots in 16 seconds or the Puckle Gun, a precursor to the Gatling gun which existed 73 years before the constitution. I find it highly ironic that the people making these arguments are using their 1st amendment rights, which btw, existed well before whatever device they use to make forum posts.

A simple investigation into the history of the founding fathers would reveal the purpose of the 2nd amendment as they envisioned it.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, 1788

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, 1st draft of the Virginia constitution

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, 1788

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams 1788

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759

One can argue that the 2nd amendment isn't necessary, however there exists few if any substantiated arguments that the purpose of the second amendment was anything other than to secure the rights of American citizens to be armed.

Are you serious?

^^The thing is, as all of us rational people have worked out, the second amendment is flawed.

And anyway, you're completely happy to take away the other rights of terrorists and criminals, so why not this right?

Bought by the NRA.

Yes, I don't see how anyone would think it necessary for a militia to be guaranteed the right to bear arms. Without arms a militia wouldn't be a militia.

You see, in the U.S. legal system there's a thing called due process, It means that somebody's rights or property can't be taken away without being charged with a crime and found guilty by a jury of their peers. (It's amendment 6 if you're counting ) Criminals are by definition people who have been provided due process and found guilty, therefore their rights are subject to some particular infringements.

and I'd love to hear your arguments on the 2nd amendment being flawed

The militia isn't organised by the government. The militia would be makeshift and made of civilians in case of invasion. The civilians needed the right to bear arms, not some government-sponsored militia. The point of a militia was the United Colonies/United States didn't have the money to support a proper army, so they'd need their civilian manpower to be used instead.

Yes, you've got it now. The militia (us, the citizens of the United States) need(ed) the right to bear arms, that's the first clause. The second clause specifically mentions the people so that the first clause, about why we need to be armed isn't used to undermine the fact that the entire population of the country was/is the militia and thus had the right to bear arms regardless of weather or not the militia had been called upon to fight or was completely inactive (how it is now). The second amendment isn't guaranteeing to militia to right to bear arms, it's guaranteeing the people the right to bear arms because we ARE the militia.

In short, the second clause explains the right we as citizens have, the first clause explains why we have that right.

I care more about lives of people than suspected terrorists' second amendment rights.

Quoting is painful on mobile :/ sorry if this ends up looking strange.

Unfortunately, while that might be what exists officially, the world has really created a guilty until proven innocent system. During the Cold War, people were outraged at the idea of due process for Sovit spies, and I don't think much has changed in terms of public opinion about criminals since then.

As your post above shows, you're using 200 year old logic to try to justify the need to solve a problem (lack of military) that doesn't exist anymore. You're agreeing with Soul that the purpose of the second amendment was to create an interim militia force. Now that the US defence force consists of tens of millions of people, don't you think that your agreed definition of the purpose of the second amendment is now outdated and its use as a justification for preventing gun control is no longer valid?

Well that's a different argument. I understand that belief, especially in light of recent events. However, I don't think restricting firearms is the solution. The United States has a higher rate of firearm ownership than any other country, yet we rank 6th in deaths from mass shootings. I know that comparing crime rates across countries is almost impossible because different countries define different crimes in different ways, but within the United States there is no correlation between gun ownership and overall homicide. I'll admit that the U.K. with much stricter gun laws does have a lower rate of mass shooting deaths, but Norway has strict gun laws as well and their mass shooting death rate is WAY above any other country in western society at 15.3 per 100,000 as opposed to the U.S. at .72 per 100,000. I want to stop these killings as much as anyone else, but we need to find a way to do so effectively, and preferably without infringing on anyone's right to self preservation. I want everyone to work together to stop mass murders, however events like Sandy Hook, The Boston Bombing, 9/11, San Bernardino, and the Orlando Nightclub shooting only have one thing in common, an evil person.

I agree with all those events having the evil person. What we are allowing is for that person to get a rifle such as an AR15 and kill dozens of people within seconds. It's legal for someone on the terrorist watch list to go into a gun dealership and come out in 30 minutes with a firearm. That's what this gun control debate is about. I think it should be stricter, but let's pass common sense laws first.

(Actually 2.5 million if you count reservists)

No, you see the founding fathers, just coming out of a tyrannical government, wished to prevent being taken over by another one (hence the 2nd amendment), however they were wise and humble enough to recognize that foreign armies aren't the only ones who may come to take the rights of the free people. They recognized the possibility (or maybe even inevitability) that the citizens freedoms might be taken by their own government. Hitler was a democratically elected leader who was democratically given complete control over Germany, and as soon as he came into power he began stripping the rights of the citizens. Free press, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and the right of citizens to own firearms were either totally abolished or severely restricted. I don't think this will happen but hypothetically the U.S. congress could at any time revoke any amendment to the constitution. If this happens it will be the sole responsibility of the armed citizens to "alter or abolish" that government.