https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=User+136Conservapedia - User contributions [en]2026-09-25T00:43:19ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Which_is_a_more_powerful_ideology,_Islam_or_communism%3F&diff=56838Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?2007-03-22T09:22:19Z<p>User 136: /* Apples and Oranges */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Apples and Oranges ==<br />
[[User:Phist|Phist]]Well, one is a religion and one is a societal structure, so to a degree we are compairing apples and oranges here. You could, in THEORY have a country that is both communist and islamic. While religion was of course banned in communist russia, by that point they were so far from the ideal of communism that it really should have been called something else. <br />
<br />
For the record, I like apples better.<br />
<br />
Islam is more powerful. Commumism was a good idea in theory but it has failed enough times in real world countries that I'm ready to discount it as a valid possibility. It simply doesn't address some aspects of human nature, and I think it's only real power right now is as an alternative to capitalism for a working class tired of being poor. But one only has to point to the still-smoking ruin of the USSR to discount the validity of that ideal.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, Islam carries a supernatural message of hope to an entire continent of anti-american people raised with extremism being a daily reality. When a man with complete hatred of something is told that destroying his enemies is holy, and that there is a place in heaven for those who die fighting, the man is turned into a weapon. Islam is volatile like no other religion in the world, and though I try to avoid bias any of us can turn on the news any day of the week to see turmoil in the middle east. In fact, I cant even think of the last time in history the middle east went 15 years without a major armed conflict.<br />
<br />
Considering that there are over 1.4 billion Muslims I'd say it was Islam that is the more powerful ideology. Communism is like third, and the second is Secular Humanism for the most powerful ideology. Unless you consider that Secular Humanism is new age communism? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 23:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
Actually, the Soviet Union never banned religion. It suppressed religion quite severely, especially in the 1920s and 1930s. However, the Soviet constitutions always included nominal guarantees of religious freedom. Also, Stalin made a point of restoring the legal position of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Second World War (part of his wartime efforts to appeal to Russian nationalism).<br />
<br />
--------<br />
<br />
Islam. Communism is fundamentally flawed.<br />
<br />
--------<br />
<br />
A more accurate characterization of Soviet religious policy would be to say that the regime persecuted and clamped down on official churches, religious leaders and the like, but that its main efforts focused on making religious leaders, priests, imans, etc. agents of the state, and to dissuade religious practice through education. This reflected an official belief (which many scholars would argue had its origins in Enlightenment ideals about reason and progress) that with improved education, scientific achievement and general social progress, Soviet citizens would come to recognize the falsity of religion and would thus turn their backs on religion of their own accord.<br />
<br />
Moreover, while many term the Soviet Union an "atheistic regime," this is perhaps technically accurate, but wildly misleading. The Soviet government was "atheistic" in the sense that it did not have an established religion (such as the Russian Orthodox Church), but in this respect it was no more atheistic than the U.S. government has always been, or how any number of other states are, where the separation of church and state prevents the official establishment of a particular religion.<br />
<br />
Religious belief and practice never ceased to exist in the Soviet Union, nor did the Soviet government ever formally proscribe it. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 03:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)<br />
----<br />
"Islam is volatile like no other religion in the world, and though I try to avoid bias any of us can turn on the news any day of the week to see turmoil in the middle east. In fact, I cant even think of the last time in history the middle east went 15 years without a major armed conflict." -Orion Blastar<br />
<br />
This is an interesting statement. Does anyone remember history? What about the Christian crusades from 1095 to 1270 that accomplished little more than death and destruction? The third crusade was even focused on ransacking Constantinople, a fellow Christian state, for little more than funding further crusades. The crusades even turned internal targeting parts of southern France and the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II after he was excommunicated from the church by the Pope for returning to port after becoming ill on his way to accomplish the 5th crusade (which he later accomplished through peaceful means). There are many examples of volatility as well as many current examples of radicalism in Christianity.<br />
<br />
"Considering that there are over 3 billion Muslims, and a good number of them are radicals or terrorists, I'd say it was Islam that is the more powerful ideology." -Orion Blastar<br />
<br />
Also an interesting statement. Islam is the second largest religion in many European countries and only 20% of Muslims are from the Middle East. If Islam were so innately hate filled and "a good number of them" were radicals, why aren't more areas of the world with prominent Muslim populations "anti-American?" Just as an example, the two largest Muslim nations in the world are India and Indonesia - non-Arab. What is going on here is a gross generalization of Muslims and Islam. Think back to our very recent history here in the US. The KKK (Klu Klux Klan) was a very heavily religious organization. What religion did they espouse? Christianity of course. The KKK was responsible for many murders and terrorist acts and is still alive today. Should we generalize all Christians and Christianity to match the KKK? Should we say that "a good number of" Christians are radicals or terrorists because of the actions of the KKK? I would hope not and I'm sure you feel the same way. --[[User:Blubuster|Blubuster]] 02:18, 11 March 2007 (PST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
I vote Islam. Or Communism. Wait...what was the question? Who's got the oil? Mmmm....oil.<br />
----<br />
Islam. We haven't seen many Communists blow themselves up to go to that great workers paradaise in the sky which they don't believe exists anyway. And Communism as a civil government lasted about 70 years, whereas Islam as a civil government has lasted 1400 years. That is 70/1400, or 5%. Not much comparison. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Islam is NOT an ideology, it is a religion.<br />
-----<br />
Ideology holds no power without behavior to support it. One may think that it is perfectly okay to strap a bomb to themselves or take private property for the sake of the government, however; until it is actually done, the ideology has no objective power.<br />
-----<br />
To answer the question, look at the effects. How many people follow the ideology for how long ? It is pretty clear that Communism did not the have adherence, of all of those under it. Contrawise, Islam persists mainly because it is adhered to by its followers. Communism in Russia and China failed, those governments changed, while Islam is alive and well today. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 15:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
-----<br />
Islam. Relgions have a bad habit of hanging around longer that political philosophies. But its an absurd question.</div>User 136https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Which_is_a_more_powerful_ideology,_Islam_or_communism%3F&diff=56837Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?2007-03-22T09:21:57Z<p>User 136: /* Apples and Oranges */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Apples and Oranges ==<br />
[[User:Phist|Phist]]Well, one is a religion and one is a societal structure, so to a degree we are compairing apples and oranges here. You could, in THEORY have a country that is both communist and islamic. While religion was of course banned in communist russia, by that point they were so far from the ideal of communism that it really should have been called something else. <br />
<br />
For the record, I like apples better.<br />
<br />
Islam is more powerful. Commumism was a good idea in theory but it has failed enough times in real world countries that I'm ready to discount it as a valid possibility. It simply doesn't address some aspects of human nature, and I think it's only real power right now is as an alternative to capitalism for a working class tired of being poor. But one only has to point to the still-smoking ruin of the USSR to discount the validity of that ideal.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, Islam carries a supernatural message of hope to an entire continent of anti-american people raised with extremism being a daily reality. When a man with complete hatred of something is told that destroying his enemies is holy, and that there is a place in heaven for those who die fighting, the man is turned into a weapon. Islam is volatile like no other religion in the world, and though I try to avoid bias any of us can turn on the news any day of the week to see turmoil in the middle east. In fact, I cant even think of the last time in history the middle east went 15 years without a major armed conflict.<br />
<br />
Considering that there are over 1.4 billion Muslims I'd say it was Islam that is the more powerful ideology. Communism is like third, and the second is Secular Humanism for the most powerful ideology. Unless you consider that Secular Humanism is new age communism? --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 23:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
Actually, the Soviet Union never banned religion. It suppressed religion quite severely, especially in the 1920s and 1930s. However, the Soviet constitutions always included nominal guarantees of religious freedom. Also, Stalin made a point of restoring the legal position of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Second World War (part of his wartime efforts to appeal to Russian nationalism).<br />
<br />
--------<br />
<br />
Islam. Communism is fundamentally flawed.<br />
<br />
--------<br />
<br />
A more accurate characterization of Soviet religious policy would be to say that the regime persecuted and clamped down on official churches, religious leaders and the like, but that its main efforts focused on making religious leaders, priests, imans, etc. agents of the state, and to dissuade religious practice through education. This reflected an official belief (which many scholars would argue had its origins in Enlightenment ideals about reason and progress) that with improved education, scientific achievement and general social progress, Soviet citizens would come to recognize the falsity of religion and would thus turn their backs on religion of their own accord.<br />
<br />
Moreover, while many term the Soviet Union an "atheistic regime," this is perhaps technically accurate, but wildly misleading. The Soviet government was "atheistic" in the sense that it did not have an established religion (such as the Russian Orthodox Church), but in this respect it was no more atheistic than the U.S. government has always been, or how any number of other states are, where the separation of church and state prevents the official establishment of a particular religion.<br />
<br />
Religious belief and practice never ceased to exist in the Soviet Union, nor did the Soviet government ever formally proscribe it. --[[User:SmithHall|SmithHall]] 03:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)<br />
----<br />
"Islam is volatile like no other religion in the world, and though I try to avoid bias any of us can turn on the news any day of the week to see turmoil in the middle east. In fact, I cant even think of the last time in history the middle east went 15 years without a major armed conflict." -Orion Blastar<br />
<br />
This is an interesting statement. Does anyone remember history? What about the Christian crusades from 1095 to 1270 that accomplished little more than death and destruction? The third crusade was even focused on ransacking Constantinople, a fellow Christian state, for little more than funding further crusades. The crusades even turned internal targeting parts of southern France and the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II after he was excommunicated from the church by the Pope for returning to port after becoming ill on his way to accomplish the 5th crusade (which he later accomplished through peaceful means). There are many examples of volatility as well as many current examples of radicalism in Christianity.<br />
<br />
"Considering that there are over 3 billion Muslims, and a good number of them are radicals or terrorists, I'd say it was Islam that is the more powerful ideology." -Orion Blastar<br />
<br />
Also an interesting statement. Islam is the second largest religion in many European countries and only 20% of Muslims are from the Middle East. If Islam were so innately hate filled and "a good number of them" were radicals, why aren't more areas of the world with prominent Muslim populations "anti-American?" Just as an example, the two largest Muslim nations in the world are India and Indonesia - non-Arab. What is going on here is a gross generalization of Muslims and Islam. Think back to our very recent history here in the US. The KKK (Klu Klux Klan) was a very heavily religious organization. What religion did they espouse? Christianity of course. The KKK was responsible for many murders and terrorist acts and is still alive today. Should we generalize all Christians and Christianity to match the KKK? Should we say that "a good number of" Christians are radicals or terrorists because of the actions of the KKK? I would hope not and I'm sure you feel the same way. --[[User:Blubuster|Blubuster]] 02:18, 11 March 2007 (PST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
I vote Islam. Or Communism. Wait...what was the question? Who's got the oil? Mmmm....oil.<br />
----<br />
Islam. We haven't seen many Communists blow themselves up to go to that great workers paradaise in the sky which they don't believe exists anyway. And Communism as a civil government lasted about 70 years, whereas Islam as a civil government has lasted 1400 years. That is 70/1400, or 5%. Not much comparison. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Islam is NOT an ideology, it is a religion.<br />
-----<br />
Ideology holds no power without behavior to support it. One may think that it is perfectly okay to strap a bomb to themselves or take private property for the sake of the government, however; until it is actually done, the ideology has no objective power.<br />
-----<br />
To answer the question, look at the effects. How many people follow the ideology for how long ? It is pretty clear that Communism did not the have adherence, of all of those under it. Contrawise, Islam persists mainly because it is adhered to by its followers. Communism in Russia and China failed, those governments changed, while Islam is alive and well today. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 15:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
-----<br />
Islam. Relgions have a bad habit of hanging around longer that political philosophies.</div>User 136https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Is_gun-control_the_answer_to_crimes_involving_guns%3F&diff=56834Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?2007-03-22T09:09:29Z<p>User 136: /* Yes */</p>
<hr />
<div>== No ==<br />
<br />
No!!!!<br />
<br />
[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]<br />
<br />
If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok<br />
NOOO!!!!!!!!<br />
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts teh Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)<br />
<br />
Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Yes ==<br />
<br />
No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?<br />
<br />
With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. <small>-- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)</small><br />
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.<small>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].</small><br />
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)<br />
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.<br />
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.<br />
<br />
However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "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." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making. [[User:Paul|user_136]] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EST)</div>User 136https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Is_gun-control_the_answer_to_crimes_involving_guns%3F&diff=56833Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?2007-03-22T09:08:40Z<p>User 136: /* Yes */</p>
<hr />
<div>== No ==<br />
<br />
No!!!!<br />
<br />
[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]<br />
<br />
If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok<br />
NOOO!!!!!!!!<br />
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts teh Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)<br />
<br />
Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Yes ==<br />
<br />
No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?<br />
<br />
With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. <small>-- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)</small><br />
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.<small>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].</small><br />
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)<br />
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.<br />
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.<br />
<br />
However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "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." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making.[[User:user_136]] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EST)</div>User 136https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Is_gun-control_the_answer_to_crimes_involving_guns%3F&diff=56832Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?2007-03-22T09:08:08Z<p>User 136: /* Yes */</p>
<hr />
<div>== No ==<br />
<br />
No!!!!<br />
<br />
[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]<br />
<br />
If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok<br />
NOOO!!!!!!!!<br />
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts teh Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)<br />
<br />
Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Yes ==<br />
<br />
No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?<br />
<br />
With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. <small>-- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)</small><br />
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.<small>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].</small><br />
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)<br />
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.<br />
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.<br />
<br />
However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "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." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making.[[User:Paul]] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EST)</div>User 136https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Is_gun-control_the_answer_to_crimes_involving_guns%3F&diff=56831Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?2007-03-22T09:06:39Z<p>User 136: /* Yes */</p>
<hr />
<div>== No ==<br />
<br />
No!!!!<br />
<br />
[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]<br />
<br />
If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok<br />
NOOO!!!!!!!!<br />
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts teh Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)<br />
<br />
Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Yes ==<br />
<br />
Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making.<br />
<br />
No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?<br />
<br />
With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. <small>-- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)</small><br />
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.<small>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].</small><br />
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)<br />
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.<br />
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.<br />
<br />
However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "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." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)</div>User 136