• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama taps Biden to craft new policies to curb gun violence in wake of shooting

KevinKohler said:
Moot has a point. My right to own guns are, according to many, important towards defending my other rights. That right, backed and vehemently supported primarily by republicans, ironically...does little to preserve my other rights against the encroachment by those very same republicans. FCC, patriot act, drug laws, selective voter registration, all republican babies.
Click to expand...

You site these as republicant laws yet they could not have passed, or remained, without demorat support. Be very careful throwing stones in that glass house of yours. BTW, what is "selective" voter registration? Voting is supposed to be limitted to only once per person per election and only in the district assigned by your actual residence - both of which are enhanced by positive voter ID laws. I may easily own multiple residences, thus have multiple utility bills in my name for each, but still may legally vote only using one of them.
 
KevinKohler said:
Welcome to the land of federal government, in which we elect representatives to impose our wills upon others on a reg basis. Get over it already.
Click to expand...
Actually we elect representatives who should first uphold and defend the Constitution.
If they act outside the framework of the Constitution, They should be removed from office.
One of the requirements is that the Federal Government not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.
 
TaraAnne said:
Gun Control Polls Shift After Tragic Shootings But Party Affiliation Is Key

I think a good number of people want to look at tighter gun control laws. So you are wrong here. Also he wants to look at other areas where we can improve. So our President is doing his job. I am sick to death of hearing about the 2nd amendment and how it give right to unlimited gun ownership. Plus ask any rational person why they need a 30 or 100 clip and the best they can come up with is maybe target practice. Bottom line the President is doing his job. I guess he had the pusle of right wing America more than most of us thought. Cling to guns and religion, and that scares the crap out of a majority of Americans
Click to expand...

The proposed limit on maximum magazine capacity is 10 rounds which would make even the following, personal defense, pistol "illegal" : The Taurus PT638 Pro SA .380 ACP Review
 
KevinKohler said:
Who are you defending yourself from, that you need 100 round drums?
Click to expand...

The bill of rights, does not state that one must need to speak freely about everything.
You just can, because a right is not based on need.

Why do you think I don't want a 100 rd drum, when I've never killed and will not kill anyone?
 
TaraAnne said:
Let me know when a Ferrari opens fire on 5-10 year olds then we can have that talk. Again I would lve an answer to my question what does a person need with a 30 round or 100 round clip? You are not being rational. Just making dumb comparisons in hope that some gun nuts run to your aide
Click to expand...

You don't need to vote, nor do you need to speak freely.
I sure hope you don't consume alcohol, because a lot of deaths are related to that and you don't need it.

America wasn't based on rights, that only extend to what you need.
 
KevinKohler said:
Welcome to the land of federal government, in which we elect representatives to impose our wills upon others on a reg basis. Get over it already.
Click to expand...

The arrangement is a limited one. The states, when the established their compact, only agreed to giving the federal government certain limited powers. For the federal government to exercise any other power over the people of the states in in violation of that agreement.
 
Alot of anti gun nuts saying you don't need an "assault rifle" for home protection, just use your hunting rifle inside your house at close quarters. Look at the pics and see the difference and figure out why for yourselves.

1500_bushmaster.jpg


X-Bolt-Hunter-MID-035208-m.jpg
 
Moot said:
The point is that Republicans tried to take people's voter rights away by putting up obstacles to make it harder to vote. But you don't seem to care about that unless it happens to you. So why should anyone care about your gun rights if it doesn't effect them?



"...There were voting issues in November in numerous states. Some Miami-Dade County, Fla., voters, in line at the 7 p.m. poll closing time, didn't cast their ballots until after 1 a.m. Democratic operatives brought pizza to keep them from leaving.

There were long lines in several urban Tennessee counties and in South Carolina. In some places in Virginia, final votes were not cast until after 11 p.m. Long lines also were reported in Rhode Island, Montana and other states.....
Voting Problems To Be Examined By Congress

Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearing on voter suppression - latimes.com
Click to expand...

I disagree with your interpretation of the motivation for voter ID laws which do vary from state to state. I'll reserve the rest of my thoughts on this thread to avoid further hijacking.
 
Federalist said:
The arrangement is a limited one. The states, when the established their compact, only agreed to giving the federal government certain limited powers. For the federal government to exercise any other power over the people of the states in in violation of that agreement.
Click to expand...

Only if the majority of our nine, robed umpires honor that challenge. Many federal laws, even entire, cabinet level, departments are on very thin (non-existant?) Constitutional grounds, yet are allowed to stand. :)
 
KevinKohler said:
No. Just something semi related bouncing around my head.

To answer yours, who are we HURTING by imposing limited clip capacities? I honestly don't know. To me, it seems like having five 12 round clips is pretty close to the same as having two 30 round clips, in terms of capacity to murder. Doesn't seem like it would take too long to swap clips, specially in an environment where no one is shooting back at you. But then, what, exactly, are high capacity clips for? What's the purpose of a 100 round drum?


Personally? I'm hoping technology will get us out of this mess. Guns that recognize fingerprints...crap like that.
Click to expand...

Come on, dude...you know that wasn't my question, so your answer is worthless to me.

Don't waste my time. Either answer me or ignore me.
 
Moot said:
Imo, it's the difference between shooting one bullet into a child as opposed to 10 or 11 and then going on to the next child and doing the same without having to change clips in a matter of seconds. Understand now?


Darn, we're still at 55mph in my superduper red state.

We should try and do everything we can to prevent these tradgedy's from happening again. If Lanza didn't have easy access to guns this never would have happened. Yes, he might have killed his mother and himself by other means, but he wouldn't have been able to commit mass murder like he did.
Click to expand...

The guns were his mom's. so how would you eliminate "easy access".
Yes it was a tragic event. Yes, we should do everyting that is reasonable to reduce the changes of this type of event happening again.
The reasonable part is what is up for discussion. For what you may think is reasonable, I may not.
 
notquiteright said:
And you have no RATIONAL justification for keeping the 30's. You admit the chances of a tyrannical Gubmint or conventional invasion are extremely low but they are used... :roll:

YOU used the 'justification' of the unorganized militia but that was defined with an age limit. What say you? When you are no longer part of that untrained, unorganized, unaccountable mass do you turn in the weapons?

We have had so few terrorist attacks most of us can't name the date of the first World Trade Center attack or the biggest citizen attack on a Gubmint building yet go to the airport and see all manner of security measures. it isn't the number of attacks, it is the brutality, the old NRA talking points won't hold this time. The NRA shills can't use the same tired arguments.


As for 'them' restricting mag cap to below 20, (like BushI did) yes I will stand up. The Supreme Court has said reasonable restrictions- 20 round max cap is reasonable.

As much as many like to rant the true power lies in the vote. Not our firearms, not online ranting... the ballot box.
Click to expand...
Look at you all defiant and stuff. 20 is worth fighting over because YOU believe it is...but 30 isn't because you feel that is excessive. Tough ****. When 'they' decide you don't need anything more than 7 you already lost because YOU decided to join them to take the 30 round magazine because you thought it was excessive. Oh...sure...you cant even begin to demonstrate how it would prevent the mass shootings and there is no way in hell you could defend your 20 round magazines after your capitulation...but look at you...you are just another "WEEEEEEEEEE...we passed a gun ban that wont do a damn thing! Its a good start!"
 
The Man said:
I mostly agree with you, but your post has nothing to do with what I asked.

Why is it ok, to some people, to infringe on a constitutional right (the right to bear arms), but not ok to infringe on another constitutional right (the right to vote)?
Click to expand...

Oh, you want the simple answer? Because republicans and the right are not after freedom, the right to vote, or even choice. They want themselves to own guns, but want no one else to have any sort of power because they are weak and hypocritical. It is a simple double standard. they get to vote, carry guns, and even shoot people. however, if anyone but a white christian republican wants to vote, own guns, walk down the street and buy skittles without being harassed then they get all uppity and want ID, background checks, and to make stuff as difficult as possible. this is the way they keep minorities down and keep themselves in power. It is really not that hard to see the benefit for them of their obvious double standard. It gets them money and power, and that is why.
 
VanceMack said:
Almost as good as the drug ban! Huzzah! And then...you will still have to deal with the reality that the vast majority of spree killings were actually committed with handguns. "WTG! WEEEEEE....we passed a ban!"
Click to expand...

To you, because a measure that only reduces needless deaths but doesn't stop them completely means we shouldn't try to reduce needless deaths? I think you are out of sync with where the majority of the public is at.
 
Catawba said:
To you, because a measure that only reduces needless deaths but doesn't stop them completely means we shouldn't try to reduce needless deaths? I think you are out of sync with where the majority of the public is at.
Click to expand...
To me I'd be impressed if you actually gave a **** about gun deaths and aggressively went after the 11-12000 deaths that occur in cities with typically strict gun laws rather than mindlessly dance in the blood of children to further a worthless political and ideologically driven goal. But that's just me. The fact that you mindlessly attack magazine capacity or scary weapons which you cant even define while ignoring the day to day reality (as well as ignoring your bans would accomplish precisely jack ****) pretty much says everything about you that I will ever need to know.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Alot of anti gun nuts saying you don't need an "assault rifle" for home protection, just use your hunting rifle inside your house at close quarters. Look at the pics and see the difference and figure out why for yourselves.

View attachment 67139649


View attachment 67139651
Click to expand...
No worries, man. Since they already don't have a clue what an assault weapon really 'is' at least one of the gun banners has already said he is just fine with you using this...
Remington R-25
To meet the growing demand for a big-game AR-pattern rifle, Remington developed its R-25 to be chambered in .308 Win., 7 mm-08, and .243 Win. It then augmented that key variation with a host of design features, including a flat-top upper receiver and matching gas block that makes it easily adaptable to mounting optics, and six longitudinal flutes forward of the gas block that increase rigidity, reduce weight and enhance barrel cooling.

Advantages: Among the best blends of accuracy, fast follow-up and light recoil in an AR that is chambered for three widely available short-action hunting cartridges suitable for deer and big game. The R-25's 20-inch ChroMoly barrel within its 39 1/4-inch overall length and 8 3/4-pound weight makes it light enough to tote and durable enough to take a pounding.

11_150.jpg

As long as it isn't the ColtAR15 death machine. This .308 hunting rifle would do nicely.
 
Federalist said:
You are hurting people in other states over whom you have no legitimate sovereignty but over whom you apparently wish to rule.
Click to expand...

People are coming to the realization that the rights of innocent people to not be actually slaughtered by cowards with military style guns overrides a person's right for protection from his imagined fears.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is a non issue-the magazine ban was substantive

You fail again
Click to expand...

Gun nuts have been telling me for years that large capacity mags give no advantage to criminals or the deranged. They say it only takes 1 sec to change mags. They also say you can put high capacity mags on any gun. VanceMack told me that you could put a high capacity mag on your shotgun. So don't try to claim hardship.
 
Deuce said:
So buy a ten round magazine. If you haven't taken down your attacker in 10 rounds, you should have been running instead of shooting.
Click to expand...

Easier, and a whole lot cheaper, to simply load only 10 rounds into the existing magazine. But that is not really the point, imagine requiring governors on automobiles to limit them to the maximum allowable speed limits. It is perfectly possible, and logical, to simply impose varying speed limits on the highways rather than to limit the maximum performance of all vehicles. If you are not committing a crime with your gun/vehicle, then what difference does its maximum capability have? Most gun crime does not involve the capability of the firearm but the use that it is put to by its operator. ;)
 
Catawba said:
Gun nuts have been telling me for years that large capacity mags give no advantage to criminals or the deranged. They say it only takes 1 sec to change mags. They also say you can put high capacity mags on any gun. VanceMack told me that you could put a high capacity mag on your shotgun. So don't try to claim hardship.
Click to expand...

I can tell you anything I want as long as it does not violate the rules and since you are completely clueless about competitive shooting or self defense you have no concept what "hardship is"

the purpose of magazine bans is to incrementally get rid of any weapon that can fire more than one or two shots

first a limit of 10 than 6 than less than that

any weapon that can accept a detachable magazine can hold dozens of rounds
 
Catawba said:
Gun nuts have been telling me for years that large capacity mags give no advantage to criminals or the deranged. They say it only takes 1 sec to change mags. They also say you can put high capacity mags on any gun. VanceMack told me that you could put a high capacity mag on your shotgun. So don't try to claim hardship.
Click to expand...
You KEEP proving the point. You blather and spout rhetoric about **** which you know nothing about. You parrot the 'evil assault weapon' rhetoric and then make allowances for high capacity rifles and these babies...
479_untitled.JPGKSG_3357.jpgTrent Swanson SHOT 11-0835.jpg

Oh...and pop quiz...which weapon did James Holmes use to shoot the most people in a crowded theater with?
 
Catawba said:
People are coming to the realization that the rights of innocent people to not be actually slaughtered by cowards with military style guns overrides a person's right for protection from his imagined fears.
Click to expand...

more dishonesty-your dishonest choice does not exist. banning honest people from owning stuff does not increase public safety

that was proven during the ten years of the clinton gun ban
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom