Which side makes a better case?
avatar
16 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
    • 2 years ago

      @burnsstephen16 So on the first one. That is not Bush ordering confiscation of weapons, it is the local New Orleans city police that gave that order and were asked to enforce it.

    • 2 years ago

      @burnsstephen16 Jade helm was definitely not a practice for martial law etc... as the conspiracy-minded claimed. Though I get that the Texas officials took some such theories at face value and made some show of being ready to defend texas. But it was not a case of the government taking any kind of tyranical action nor a demonstration that if they did, it could be effectively resisted.

    • 2 years ago

      @burnsstephen16 I'm generally against hate speech laws, but I'm still sympathetic towards them. People who go around slandering other groups of people in an aggressive fashion are right assholes in my book. I can't stand them. I'd prefer to deal with them on a social level, rather than a state level, but I'm not sad when people like that are fined for being dicks or especially worried it represents some tyrannical impulse for state authoritarianism. If anything it is just an over ambitions effort to protect innocent people from hatemongering by fellow citizens.

      Problematic for me? Yes. An example of encroaching Tyranny, I don't see that.

      When the state starts jailing the press for political speech when they start confiscating peoples private property (lawful taxes excluded) I get itchy for sure.

      Right now, I think the biggest threat to real liberty in America is the militarization of police departments and the training of officers to have hair triggers when dealing with the public. I'm a lot more afraid of a paniced cop right now than the US military knocking on my door.

    • 2 years ago

      @burnsstephen16 The Canadian law does not criminalize wrong gender pronouns. It ads gender status as a list of classes of people protected in the hate speech legislation. It does not specify any specific language that is prohibited. I find it higly dubious that this would included mistakenly useing the wrong gender pronoun. That is not what any sane person would consider hate speach.

    • 2 years ago

      @burnsstephen16 The Scottish police were really dumb to post that tweet! I'll agree that that is problematic coming from any police group in a free country.

    • 2 years ago

      @burnsstephen16 I also find the twitter-facebook arrests problematic. Hate speach laws do bother me some. While I don't feel sorry for folks that treat others like crap, I'm not comfortable with laws that police the internet for wrong thinkers. So, I'll always vote agaisnt such laws, and I suggest other Americans should as well.

  • 2 years ago

    @burnsstephen16 So, I got a little carried away there I think. Sorry if I was overbearing and ate up the lion's share of time.

    I thought you acquitted yourself very well, I just find a lot of the arguments preposterous and out of step with the reality of the world as I've come to know it. And that gets me all fired up.

    I'd suggest a dive into the history of the Russian Revolutionary period.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution

    When you read a breadth of the history, you are not going to find that any gun confiscations were pivotal moments. Its a history of violent political struggle between multiple armed factions for political control of the country. Its only after such control is truly consolidated and all the rebels are defeated is there really any real control over civilian arms.

    • 2 years ago

      Don't like the title of this debate at all.

      • 2 years ago

        @bronsonkaahui we would love to watch a Sigfried vs Bronson debate, any topic really..!

      • 2 years ago

        @bronsonkaahui Burn wanted to debate that the second amendment should have no restrictions so that's what I set up for him.

        Is your issue that it is too broad, thus doesn't represent a real position? I've had a few debates where people have made this claim, that it means any kind of armament.

        I think arguing on the boundaries of what is currently legal is often the most challenging. Automatic weapons are a pretty good ground where there is a legit military use, and it fits in the Militia vein, but where the courts seem to support limitations on the grounds I was arguing.

      • 2 years ago

        @sigfried so was he arguing that private citizens should be able to develop nuclear weapons?

      • 2 years ago

        @bronsonkaahui We didn't get that far. In principle, he thinks it should include at least artillery, military aircraft, etc... though he admitted high tech jets are unlikely due to their cost. But his words in the previous debate were "unlimited". Mind you we spent more time talking about automatic weapons than aircraft and tanks in the debate.

        Mostly he is arguing that the 2nd amendment is primarily about protecting from Federal Tyrany (to which I agree mostly). To do that, he reasons we need arms similar to those held by the military.

        I argue it is a hopeless and unworkable defense against tyranny in the modern US state due to the incredible scope of the US military plus very minimal organized state militias. And I try to lay out that we have a lot of layers of defense against outright tyrant baked into the political process and military culture that are far more likely to put the breaks on. By the time the US president, Congress, courts, and military are all lined up in support of Tyranny, we're screwed. The best we could do is make a lot of trouble before we are hunted down by Hydra.

        I still support the second amendment as a measure for personal self-defense even though I'd argue that was not it's original focus.

      • 2 years ago

        @bronsonkaahui No I think nukes are a bit different... and I know the US government would be foolish to use them on their own citizens so I don't see them as even a potential threat. But I do stand by that US citizens should be able to purchase SBR's, Suppressors, and Fully Automatic firearms. I believe an argument could be made for Tanks and Jets but I can see that it is unlikely for that to ever happen... in a practical sense, I would like to see the NFA repealed as it is a federal firearms law which violates the 2nd amendment. Now if certain states want to ban them that's fine because I can see @sigfried argument that the states can make more regulations and it technically not violate the 2nd amendment. But the ban on Fully automatic weapons has actually had no significant decrease in yearly deaths from them so then why can't regular citizens have them? and the Tax stamp on SBRs and Suppressors is so stupid and I think most all of us should be able to agree on that.

    • 2 years ago

      My only disagreement with the pro is about the civil war. The south did almost win, so we can't really pretend the federal government was overwhelmingly dominant. If the south had a better economy to hold out for the long hall, the outcome could have ended up much different

      • 2 years ago

        @nikoforthepeople Fair point. The north was not overwhelmingly dominant. Mostly I wanted to show that state militias were not the kind of forces that Madison had envisioned they would be in such a situation. And individual states don't stand much of a chance without creating a larger body politic of their own.

        The whole second half of the debate I got a little excited and undisciplined in my argument. I feel a little bad about that.