• 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 unveils $500 million gun violence package

Kal'Stang said:
Registration is not going to stop gun violence. A person that has a registered gun in their name is just as capable of committing a crime with that gun as a criminal. Might be rare but it is still a possibility. A background check is not going to stop someone that has never been considered mentally unstable from buying a gun.
Click to expand...

Being required to register a weapon and having a background check completed should not be a problem for a non violent weapon owner, what it may do is prevent a gun owner from selling a weapon to a known felon or to a person who has a mental problem
 
Lutherf said:
So I should simply presume that everyone around me is a criminal? That's asinine.
Click to expand...

You will not be expected to presume any thing, you will be required to sell or buy your weapon from a licensed gun dealer who will do a background check on anyone purchasing a weapon
 
Mr. E said:
To your first point, you're wrong. You can already privately sell your firearm through an FFL (as anyone who has sold online is fully aware of). This should be a federal law (and has broad support). As to your second point, addressing mental health in this country and talking openly about it does address what transpired at Sandy Hook. And finally your last point really highlights the truth in this debate (though not directly). Conservatives don't believe in any regulation on gun control. Feel free to vilify the President. But to suggest that he is merely capitalizing on an event and not following through with his true beliefs is very misguided.
Click to expand...

I agree Obama really believes in strict gun control, but in my eyes he is capitalizing on it with the schmarmy "little johnny wrote to me that he wants everyone to live" garbage. Come on man, you know it was lame.
 
EarlzP said:
You will not be expected to presume any thing, you will be required to sell or buy your weapon from a licensed gun dealer who will do a background check on anyone purchasing a weapon
Click to expand...

But why just guns?

If you are going to encumber me with the burden of having to jump through all kinds of hoops to dispose of a personal item within my own state then you had better have a damned good reason to do so. What reason is that?
 
Lutherf said:
But why just guns?

If you are going to encumber me with the burden of having to jump through all kinds of hoops to dispose of a personal item within my own state then you had better have a damned good reason to do so. What reason is that?
Click to expand...

All kinds of hoops? Is that what you would consider it if the weapon you sold was used to kill you or yours or in the commission of a crime? My damned good reason is that the world does not stop at the Arizona border that weapon you sold to some one could be used to kill me or mine in NJ.
 
Pilot said:
The Associated Press: Obama unveils $500 million gun violence package


Overall, it seems to be on par with the speculation. Realistically, the legislative proposals will not make it through Congress. I would have liked to see more focus on increasing security at soft targets such as malls and schools. I don't see how any of it will stop another mass shooting from taking place.

Update: More info

Obama unveils gun-control proposals - The Washington Post
Click to expand...



Its a great example of the screwed up priorities of conservatives that didn't bat an eye over $3 trillion for the needless GOP war in Iraq, but oppose just $500 million to reduce gun violence in our own country.
 
BMCM said:
I can agree with that. On the flip side if a gun is found at the scene of a violent crime or maybe just laying in the street somewhere the police have a place to start looking for the owner or the criminal which ever the case may be.
Click to expand...

Oh well if this is all about solving crime then why not just put RFID chips in everyones brain the day they are born? Wouldn't that make finding the killers easier also?

Point being that this country is suppose to be a country where the innocent are innocent until proven guilty. That people have a right to guns and privacy. And when you start treating everyone as if they are all criminals or potential criminals then something is seriously wrong and we are no longer that type of country were freedom is the most important thing.
 
EarlzP said:
Being required to register a weapon and having a background check completed should not be a problem for a non violent weapon owner, what it may do is prevent a gun owner from selling a weapon to a known felon or to a person who has a mental problem
Click to expand...

Bold: Key word there..."May". You're basing laws on what "may" happen. It's not that hard to take a gun apart, file off all the serial numbers and rebore the gun so that ballistics will not match what was registered.

Underlined: And I can't believe you just used the ole' "if you're not doing anything wrong then you should have no problem with this law" arguement. That line has been used to justify alot of infringments on rights. Sorry but not this time. My rights are far more important, especially in this case since it is about defense not only from criminals but also about defense from a tyrannical government.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Um, what exactly does the CDC have to with studying ANY crime?
Click to expand...
They study all sorts of other injuries. Why not gun related ones?
Not all firearm related injuries are crimes btw.
 
EarlzP said:
All kinds of hoops? Is that what you would consider it if the weapon you sold was used to kill you or yours or in the commission of a crime? My damned good reason is that the world does not stop at the Arizona border that weapon you sold to some one could be used to kill me or mine in NJ.
Click to expand...

There you go again assuming the worst just because we're talking about guns.

I'm going to assume that you don't feel the same way about giving a gift of a bottle of wine. How do you know that the person you're giving it to won't drink it and then get in the car and kill someone?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
They study all sorts of other injuries. Why not gun related ones?
Not all firearm related injuries are crimes btw.
Click to expand...

No firearm injury/death is a disease! You, And Obama, simply see them as Center for _____ Control, and allow the _____ to be anything that is a "crisis", as long as it results in some more "control". Get real!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
No firearm injury/death is a disease! You, And Obama, simply see them as Center for _____ Control, and allow the _____ to be anything that is a "crisis", as long as it results in some more "control". Get real!
Click to expand...

I would imagine the CDC is being used to find ways to detect mentally unstable people that are more prone to violence easier. There are diseases which affect the mind and causes people to become violent. I admit that it would be nice if we could detect these diseases sooner and apply that knowledge to restricting guns from them.

However I do object, like you, that the CDC should have nothing to do with guns in their studies. They are suppose to detect diseases and find cures for diseases. Guns are not a disease and cannot cause diseases. The fact that the CDC was called in makes me wonder if they are trying to link gun ownership to some sort of disease just so they can find a way to ban guns legally.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I would imagine the CDC is being used to find ways to detect mentally unstable people that are more prone to violence easier. There are diseases which affect the mind and causes people to become violent. I admit that it would be nice if we could detect these diseases sooner and apply that knowledge to restricting guns from them.

However I do object, like you, that the CDC should have nothing to do with guns in their studies. They are suppose to detect diseases and find cures for diseases. Guns are not a disease and cannot cause diseases. The fact that the CDC was called in makes me wonder if they are trying to link gun ownership to some sort of disease just so they can find a way to ban guns legally.
Click to expand...

That is precisely what the Obamatrons have in mind. They seek to "predetermine" what "may be" signs of "mental instability" (like voting incorrectly or being a racist?) that show "clear indications" that one should not be allowed to buy a gun, for now. You will, of course, be given a "fair" hearing (perhaps after a long, long, cooling off period) in front of an "impartial" jury (of their peers?) and be presented "valid evidence" of government approved "experts" and, just as a "reasonable precaution", be denied buying a gun until the verdict (and any appeals) are concluded. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is precisely what the Obamatrons have in mind. They seek to "predetermine" what "may be" signs of "mental instability" (like voting incorrectly or being a racist?) that show "clear indications" that one should not be allowed to buy a gun, for now. You will, of course, be given a "fair" hearing (perhaps after a long, long, cooling off period) in front of an "impartial" jury (of their peers?) and be presented "valid evidence" of government approved "experts" and, just as a "reasonable precaution", be denied buying a gun until the verdict (and any appeals) are concluded. ;)
Click to expand...

Anyone else think this has undertones of the film Minority Report? Here's the preview for anyone who hasn't seen it:

 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is precisely what the Obamatrons have in mind. They seek to "predetermine" what "may be" signs of "mental instability" (like voting incorrectly or being a racist?) that show "clear indications" that one should not be allowed to buy a gun, for now. You will, of course, be given a "fair" hearing (perhaps after a long, long, cooling off period) in front of an "impartial" jury (of their peers?) and be presented "valid evidence" of government approved "experts" and, just as a "reasonable precaution", be denied buying a gun until the verdict (and any appeals) are concluded. ;)
Click to expand...

Even if found innocent you still have places like NYC who deny gun ownership for a simple thing like a traffic ticket so....:shrug:
 
Catawba said:
Its a great example of the screwed up priorities of conservatives that didn't bat an eye over $3 trillion for the needless GOP war in Iraq, but oppose just $500 million to reduce gun violence in our own country.
Click to expand...

Well Lets remember those Facts of all the Democrats that voted for Iraq and the funding of it. Leaving only a very scant few that didn't.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Even if found innocent you still have places like NYC who deny gun ownership for a simple thing like a traffic ticket so....:shrug:
Click to expand...

Yep, that is a "clear indication" that you buck authority, have no respect for the rule of law and will abuse any privilege (the new definition of "unpopular" Constitutional rights), so that is indeed a "reasonable restriction". ;)
 
MMC said:
Well Lets remember those Facts of all the Democrats that voted for Iraq and the funding of it. Leaving only a very scant few that didn't.
Click to expand...

The facts are 60% of Democrats voted against AOF in Iraq vs less than 3% of Republicans that voted against it.

"# 82 (40%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
# 6 (<3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution"

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Catawba said:
The facts are 60% of Democrats voted against AOF in Iraq vs less than 3% of Republicans that voted against it.

"# 82 (40%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
# 6 (<3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution"

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Yeah and now looks up all those Leaders of the Democrats. You will find each and every Notable Democrat that did. That's all their Front line faces. Other than maybe one or two that didn't. Still took Congress to Back Bush.
 
MMC said:
Yeah and now looks up all those Leaders of the Democrats. You will find each and every Notable Democrat that did. That's all their Front line faces. Other than maybe one or two that didn't. Still took Congress to Back Bush.
Click to expand...

If you wish to support the party that less than 3% voted against AOF in Iraq, knock yourself out. For myself, I'll support the party of which 60% voted against it.
 
Catawba said:
If you wish to support the party that less than 3% voted against AOF in Iraq, knock yourself out. For myself, I'll support the party of which 60% voted against it.
Click to expand...

Well considering it is done and over with.....you can be my guest and hold on to it. Course don't forget the US was not the only one to go in. Despite whatever reasons.

Just remember to throw Afghanistan under Obamas' Belt since All criticized Bush for not putting resources and manpower there. Course there is also those EPs he has been throwing out all over the Place. So make sure you note the doubling of the spenditures Under Team Obama's Belt. I wouldn't want you to miss those all important stats.
 
MMC said:
Well considering it is done and over with.....
Click to expand...

You missed the point - that it is the same party that almost unanimously voted for the $3 trillion dollar needless war in Iraq are the same ones saying we shouldn't spend $500 million to reduce the gun violence in our own country.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is precisely what the Obamatrons have in mind. They seek to "predetermine" what "may be" signs of "mental instability" (like voting incorrectly or being a racist?) that show "clear indications" that one should not be allowed to buy a gun, for now. You will, of course, be given a "fair" hearing (perhaps after a long, long, cooling off period) in front of an "impartial" jury (of their peers?) and be presented "valid evidence" of government approved "experts" and, just as a "reasonable precaution", be denied buying a gun until the verdict (and any appeals) are concluded. ;)
Click to expand...
The paranoia is thick in here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom