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

I think your figures are a bit off. Firstly, those figures are per 1,000,000 people. Secondly, I've found one website that lists Norway as 1.8 instead of 15.3. So there is a problem somewhere.

However, there is a reason for Norway to have a larger statistic. They've got a significantly smaller population than the US, however they were target of the worst mass shooting ever in 2011 (all statistics are 2009 to 2015).

And as we've discussed above. If such a hypothetical situation were to occur, the resources available to such a government and their supporters would crush any civilian militia.

There are now multiple international institutions (UN and others) to avoid such an outcome.

I would be fine with a no gun purchasing list so long as you can't be put on it without due process. The president can at any time put somebody on the terrorist watch list, if we prevented people on the list from obtaining firearms we would be taking their constitutional rights away without due process. And in the U.S., many states (including Florida) have mandatory waiting periods as well as time consuming background checks, It's nearly impossible to get a firearm of any kind within 30 minutes legally.

Someone pointed out earlier, the United States citizens would never be able to overthrow the government. Republicans want to spend nearly the entire national budget on the military - the same military we would have to beat if we were to rebel. We'd have no chance. The overthrowing of government reason is invalid.

It's better to be safe than sorry. I think reasonable suspicion is enough, this is terrorism and peoples' lives we're talking about. It's fine if a person can't buy a firearm as long as it potentially saves the lives of people.

As there are more guns in the U.S. than citizens and a total of 120025000 fit for service citizens compared to 2.5 million U.S. military solders, citizens outrank them by a factor of 48.1. with those number differences the U.S. military has little chance of winning, especially since they will lose all production capacity.

And the U.N. does very little, and the fact that the U.S. contributes to the U.N. (22% of funding) more than anyone else might make them hesitant to act. just like they're hesitant to act in other countries that commit massive violations of human rights such as Saudi Arabia.

I and Ben Franklin Disagree.

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

I don't think he or anyone else knew that we would have airplanes flown into our buildings. I don't think he or anyone else knew 50 innocent people would be killed at a nightclub. Terrorism is a threat and saving lives is more important than someone's right to own a gun. We're fighting a war against terrorism but we're arming potential terrorists right here in the homeland.

But still, the amount they have produced in the past would make it self sustaining for years. Besides that, the chances of this hypothetical government occurring is highly unlikely. And judging by history, more likely under a government that supports gun rights at least initially.

And I think the UN (and more specifically international courts) would be more willing to acts against a corrupt US government because it would pose significant risk to the rest of the world and as you mentioned supplies more funding. It's likely be removed anyway under a our hypothetical government and so it would be in their interest to restore it.

The reason Saudi Arabia can continue under its current regime is because it is so deep rooted and systematic that removing it could cause more issues than it solves (as many recent attempts to democratise the Middle East has shown).

I'm going to have to disagree here. Reasonable suspicion is just as dangerous as guns themselves. If they have reasonable suspicion, then due process can be sought. However we should attempt to uphold the basic premise of the justice system, being innocent until found guilty.

Where I live, the whole idea of reasonable suspicion was tried on people who ride motorbikes because of a few criminal motorcycle gangs. This very quickly descended into chaos.

alot of people uneducated in firearms are talking about specific weapons bans in a reactionary period. the same damage the shooter in orlando did with a rifle he could of done just as easily with an extended mag desert eagle or other high caliber pistol. the weapon has nothing to do with mans ability to create mass violence and death. i think a person should have the ability to protect ones household in whatever civillian way they see fit.
the second amendment is not talking about the army, that is not the definition of the word militia otherwise george washington was a terrorist.

what needs to be had is unbias, non party driven discussion about a national policy protecting people from both infringement and harm simultaneously. the most important things this should include is the two following traits:

The root of most violence comes from inequity, people are radicalized because they exist in a system that prevents them from moving upward. if this werent the case you would see alot more rich people shooting up places (since almost every rich person owns firearms). the systems put in place 20+ years ago as safeguards to prevent people falling through the cracks into poverty are no longer working. not only this but our education system has declined just as severely as our gdp. To top those two off even with obamacare mental health awareness in america is lower then some third world nations, you cant really put addendums into gun laws about sociopaths not being able to own guns if noone is diagnosing them. inequity in all forms needs to be addressed and solved.

Following those discussions honest discourse needs to be had about what citizens rights should be. this goes even further then limiting magazine capacities or such nonsense. this is where the discussion should turn to thing like, whether a man has a right to resist police violence and if not at what point do police need to be answerable to civilian justice for violating their own rules? where does stand your ground stop? what makes a man a law abiding citizen and what does not? do citizens have the right to gift their guns or should a man surrender his gun to the government to gift it elsewhere to a person that has not passed all the requirements he has? things of that general nature need to be made federally mandated.

only after all of this is hashed out should we talk about civilian weapons bans, or magazine sizes.


as far as whoever brought up abortion, thats your right to not get an abortion, but you cannot limit someone elses bodily autonomy. impressing your rights on someone else is infringing on their's. at no point should a woman not have access to that procedure in any part of america. it is literally stupid to say otherwise because sometimes fetuses kill their parent from the inside.

I don't think people are against abortion because they want to impress their rights on anyone else. The democratic party supports abortion after 20 weeks, at this point most mothers will confirm that there is a child inside of them. Many in the democratic party support abortion up until the time of birth, well after the baby is viable. pregnancy is optional 99% of the time. It's only in the other 1% that I see an argument, there are steps that can be taken directly after conception that can be taken. If you deal with the problem within a week or so then that's your prerogative, how even after a short amount of time it becomes the infants prerogative as well. To put it simply, if you choose to get pregnant you should deal with the consequences of you actions, if you didn't choose you should act quickly before is becomes a more complicated issue. If the child is likely to harm the mother I'll concede that sacrifices must be made, however late term abortion in my opinion shouldn't be legal except in fringe cases.

Let's all appreciate this: https://youtube.com/watch?v=lf6w8aYFwwI

Reminds of the the Jimmy Fallon show a couple nights ago.

A similar stunt was done with a kid impersonating Trump.

In addition to your comment about diagnosing sociopaths, roughly 2/3 of guns deaths in the US are suicide/self inflicted. If that alone doesn't say something about our mental health crisis than I don't know what could.

It's the same kid, lol

Hmm, I wouldn't have known that. Video quality was not on my side this time... :\

Clinton does not know how to politic.

Warning, may contain language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJErIRjAdEs

Don't know if any of you watch NBC Nightly News, but I got a good taste of political violence in my city today...

White supremacists were protesting outside the state capital, and then a counter protest happened, then because of basic human nature, violence ensued...

I'm sorry, I don't know if this is related to Orlando, or the presidential election and/or whatnot, but this was very disappointed. I know that racism and what not exists in my state, but I didn't think that the residents of my state would result to sheer violence like other states would have over white supremacy...

California has never been a slave state, and it never will be. No need to resort to barbarism just because someone says otherwise...

So the recent Brexit I feel is a perfect example of failed "our nation first" policy that a specific candidate is promoting.

We are in a global society, we must solve problems togeather as a globe, gone are the days where it was country vs. country. It's now humanity vs. itself. If we divide we will only destroy ourselves. Washington D.C. is a perfect example of it. They are tearing each other apart over gun control. I'm not expressing my opinion on gun control. However, this Brexit shows how dangerous isolationist policy can be. The UK's market is crashing and are predicted to now go into recession. Scotland wants to declare their independence, The Euro is falling against the dollar and you know what? The Syrian refugee crisis is still going on! Greece is still in over it's head in debt. None of these problems have been solved. When the going get's tough I guess we just quit. I don't think that is the America I was raised in though. So I strongly condemn the position of isolationists. The United States will suffer like the UK if we back down from NATO, UN, Immigration which our nation was founded on. We are a nation of immigrants. I beesech you all. use the UK Brexit as a warning. We must unite not divide.