Should Assault Weapons be banned in the USA? [{BHC}Warman888 vs. Viking Prince] Commentary Thread

[Viking Prince]

This is the commentary thread for the debate:

Should Assault Weapons be banned in the USA? Debate Thread[{BHC}Warman888 vs. Viking Prince]

Please post your comments to this debate here.

[Osceola]

Yet another epic loss for the people who really in' hate guns, approaches.

*rubs hands in glee*

However I think the "details" part of the OP is flawed. Actual fully automatic "assault weapons" (which are legal in several major European countries (France, and Germany for example) as long as one has a license, the same exact kind of strict licensing required in the US) are not widespread enough to even warrant a debate, and the kind of "Assault Weapons" talked about by the American politicians are little more then novelty items capable of no more rapid fire then most hunting rifles or shotguns.

Thus they neither make Americans more safe, nor do they make American's less safe. So any positions saying "they make Americans more safe" is redundant, most legally defined "assault weapons" differ little from less politically incorrect civilian firearms.

[Manoflooks]

Damnit Viking, this debate was mine!

This should turn out interesting...

[Viking Prince]

Damnit Viking, this debate was mine!

This should turn out interesting...

You can be a key advisor.

[Osceola]

If you plan on taking Con, I'll debate it with you. I mean , why not?

[seal]

...eh, it should be a slam dunk.

Private ownership of weapons is a key part of ensuring that a government is subservient to the people. The threat of armed insurrection, though never mentioned out loud, will always be an extension of an armed people's will.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

...eh, it should be a slam dunk.

Private ownership of weapons is a key part of ensuring that a government is subservient to the people. The threat of armed insurrection, though never mentioned out loud, will always be an extension of an armed people's will.

So power is decided by the gun?

[Osceola]

So power is decided by the gun?

.. How the hell can someone who started a group about the Hungarian Revolution ask that question?

Yes, regardless of how much you blindly hate on the idea of objects that can be used to kill people, guns do mean power. If they didn't we wouldn't have militaries, armed police and people with out better callings in life wouldn't sit around demanding they be banned, like a bunch of soccer moms screaming about GTA IV.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

.. How the hell can someone who started a group about the Hungarian Revolution ask that question?

Missed. Read up on the subject before you troll.

Yes, regardless of how much you blindly hate on the idea of objects that can be used to kill people, guns do mean power. If they didn't we wouldn't have militaries, armed police and people with out better callings in life wouldn't sit around demanding they be banned, like a bunch of soccer moms screaming about GTA IV.

I don't blindly hate "on the idea of objects that can be used to kill people", I just simply deny that it would be necessary in everyday use for anybody.

[Osceola]

Missed. Read up on the subject before you troll.

Dont accuse me of trolling, you'll know when I'm trolling, that wasn't me trolling, that was me being bloody serious.

I don't blindly hate "on the idea of objects that can be used to kill people", I just simply deny that it would be necessary in everyday use for anybody.

I wasn't aware were talking about every day use for anybody. I last used mine almost a year ago, and by used I mean shot.

Besides if you were talking about simply licensing/restricting use to only people who demonstrate competency and responsibility with them, that'd be a different thing entirely, but I've read your posts on this before, and your not, your an advocate of gun banning, not control, and I find that disgusting.

Especially when several European countries have gun legislation I'd actually be completely comfortable with (maybe a little less taxes for each damn weapon) I find it hilarious how countries like Germany, France, Czech Rep. and Norway seem to be free of the irritating remarks about gun ownership, while America is not.

If you want total gun banning, then go about the countries I just named.

[seal]

So power is decided by the gun?

Can it be denied? All authority is derived from force. The more potential force a civilian population has, the more authority it has. This keeps a government subservient to the people. Any attempt by a government to "severly control" weapons is an attempt to assert its own authority by denying or hampering a populace's ability to overthrow it.

Speech is a similar concept, and can be just as dangerous, if not more so, than guns. Yet, there is no debate that a government should severly control free speech.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Can it be denied?

If by power you mean the possibility of raw force, then no, it can't be denied. This also means you agree with the vulgar opinion of Mao (or of Hitler for that matter):

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

If you have a more sophisticated notion of power (which has to be legitimate for example), then it can be denied, yes. Try to think about this: what distinguishes a gang of criminals who point guns at you and take your money and the state? In your view, they all have "power". But what's the difference?

All authority is derived from force.

False.

The more potential force a civilian population has, the more authority it has.

Therefore this is a false statement too.

This keeps a government subservient to the people. Any attempt by a government to "severly control" weapons is an attempt to assert its own authority by denying or hampering a populace's ability to overthrow it.

This whole "resisting the government" as a pro-gun argument is long outworn, and only becomes valid when there is an actual tyranny to resist.

Speech is a similar concept, and can be just as dangerous, if not more so, than guns. Yet, there is no debate that a government should severly control free speech.

False, speech is a different concept.

[seal]

If by power you mean the possibility of raw force, then no, it can't be denied. This also means you agree with the vulgar opinion of Mao (or of Hitler for that matter):



If you have a more sophisticated notion of power (which has to be legitimate for example), then it can be denied, yes. Try to think about this: what distinguishes a gang of criminals who point guns at you and take your money and the state? In your view, they all have "power". But what's the difference?

I agree with many people on a variety of subjects, but that doesn't make me necessarily a kindred spirit. Since this is your most interesting argument, at the point when criminals are pointing a gun at me, they now have authority over me, hence the reason that I will probably hand them my money. All forms of government are legitimate, it's a question of whether they are free and fair. To that extent, an armed civilian population is a fundamental part (along with transparent government and justice system, freedom of speech, etc) of keeping a government from becoming tyrannical.

False.

You gotta give me something more than "nuh-uh." Show me how it is false.

This whole "resisting the government" as a pro-gun argument is long outworn, and only becomes valid when there is an actual tyranny to resist.

The point is prevent tyranny from happening, not fighting it when it comes.

False, speech is a different concept.

Freedom of speech is basic human right. As is, in my opinion, gun ownership. Therefore the concept is the same.

[Saturn]

No they shouldn't be banned because I would have to get rid of a lot of guns...

[Manoflooks]

Please note that I am against the weapons being allowed to be with people...If I recall who is on debating what correctly, I am against VP.

[Viking Prince]

You are correct. this is precisely why you would make such a key advisor for me to win such a debate.

[Surgeon]

Arguing from the perspective that it'll help keep the government in check usually gets you scoffed at because most people seem to be of the opinion that "the government will roll over your assault weapons with tanks" and "tyrannical dictatorships don't happen in civilized countries lol!"

It's usually far simpler to argue why assault weapons should be banned at all, because other than blind fear there's absolutely no reason.

[Haxiel]

"tyrannical dictatorships don't happen in civilized countries lol!"

Tyrannic dictators are put in governments by the so called "civilized countries", actually... So they're right, it'll never happen.

[seal]

Coming from a guy who is in one of the tanks, innsurection has the ability to tie down government resources and limits economic growth. You throw in to the mix that it is your countrymen that you are fighting against, and you are talking about a serious morale problem for government troops.

Plus, tyrannical dictatorships are often democratically elected initially. They just evolve into that form.

[Surgeon]

I don't follow your train of thought?