• 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

None of what he proposes would have stopped Sandy Hook.

None of it.

So its just the liberal slimery using the blood of 27 innocent victims to perpetuate a long standing liberal dream.

To disarm or attempt to disarm the American public.

Very true, it will just be another failed attempt to control an arms trade that can easily get around the system just due to the vast availability of guns. The only way to handle this situation is a complete ban and a concerted effort to severly limit the amount of firearms there are in the US.
 
Studies show that more guns have not reduced gun deaths.

Show those studies please. Because last I looked those states with less gun control have far less deaths due to a gun than those states with more gun control.

The US has more guns than any country on the planet yet we have the most gun deaths of innocents.

Yes the US does have more guns than any other country. But the rest of that sentence you're going to have to prove.

And there has been no court ruling that an AW and HCM ban restricts anyone's rights.

No court ruling doesn't mean squat. A law that is unconstitutional is still unconstitutional.
 
Studies show that more guns have not reduced gun deaths. The US has more guns than any country on the planet yet we have the most gun deaths of innocents. Dead people forfeit all their freedoms permanently. And there has been no court ruling that an AW and HCM ban restricts anyone's rights.

I believe more guns in the right places with users that are trained would be better than taking from those that use them lawfully. Besides wouldn't my idea cover us in case we have someone who is not supposed to have a gun come into a school or movie theater? Better to be covered completely? I had a lengthy conversation with three local police officers. They all agreed that having an armed guard in every school is better than banning weapons. They all three have children around the same age as those lost in Sandy Hook. All three also volunteered to post once a week at no charge on their day off. I assume many others would also do the same.

My opinion is that a ban that effects law abiding gun owners who may want to buy an AR is restricting rights. Right now there is no ban so we are not restricted. If they pass a ban then it will restrict.
 
I believe more guns in the right places with users that are trained would be better than taking from those that use them lawfully. Besides wouldn't my idea cover us in case we have someone who is not supposed to have a gun come into a school or movie theater? Better to be covered completely? I had a lengthy conversation with three local police officers. They all agreed that having an armed guard in every school is better than banning weapons. They all three have children around the same age as those lost in Sandy Hook. All three also volunteered to post once a week at no charge on their day off. I assume many others would also do the same.

My opinion is that a ban that effects law abiding gun owners who may want to buy an AR is restricting rights. Right now there is no ban so we are not restricted. If they pass a ban then it will restrict.

Perhaps you should take your legal challenge to court, if the ban passes. The 1994 ban was never challenged in court.
 
Show those studies please. Because last I looked those states with less gun control have far less deaths due to a gun than those states with more gun control.

Harvard School of Public Health » Harvard Injury Control Research Center » Homicide

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

guncontrol.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/.../moregunsmoredeaths2012.pdf


Yes the US does have more guns than any other country. But the rest of that sentence you're going to have to prove.

"In 2010, 13,186 people died in terrorist attacks worldwide; in that same year, in America alone, 31,672 people lost their lives in gun-related deaths, according to numbers complied by Tom Diaz – until recently, a senior analyst at the Violence Policy Center. "
More Americans killed in gun deaths than in terrorist attacks – Amanpour - CNN.com Blogs


No court ruling doesn't mean squat. A law that is unconstitutional is still unconstitutional.


It means under US rule of law, the 1994 ban has never been ruled unconstitutional. If you want to change the rule of law, that is another discussion.
 
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

I don't believe we need more security... The truth is that gun violence really hasn't gone up - it's just the media sensationalizing anomalies...
 
Harvard School of Public Health » Harvard Injury Control Research Center » Homicide

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

guncontrol.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/.../moregunsmoredeaths2012.pdf




"In 2010, 13,186 people died in terrorist attacks worldwide; in that same year, in America alone, 31,672 people lost their lives in gun-related deaths, according to numbers complied by Tom Diaz – until recently, a senior analyst at the Violence Policy Center. "
More Americans killed in gun deaths than in terrorist attacks – Amanpour - CNN.com Blogs





It means under US rule of law, the 1994 ban has never been ruled unconstitutional. If you want to change the rule of law, that is another discussion.

One of those links is from an obviously biased site. The other is from a .org journal. Worthless. The one that might have saved you is nothing more than a list of books and journals and whats in them, with no conclusion mentioned in each of them beyond what the title says. No way of knowing how any of those methods were conducted or anything. Indeed most of those journals and books are done by the same people. Each and everyone of them gun control activists no doubt.
 
Perhaps you should take your legal challenge to court, if the ban passes. The 1994 ban was never challenged in court.

It was challenged twice once in 1999 ( Navegar vs US) and once in 2002 ( Olympic Arms vs Buckles). I can't explain why we didn't see more challenges during the last ban as I was not very politically motivated and busy trying to start a family. I have no doubt there will be challenges this time around.
 
It was challenged twice once in 1999 ( Navegar vs US) and once in 2002 ( Olympic Arms vs Buckles). I can't explain why we didn't see more challenges during the last ban as I was not very politically motivated and busy trying to start a family. I have no doubt there will be challenges this time around.

Link please.
 



Nothing there about a 2nd Amendment case against the 1994 federal ban. But there was this:

"The federal courts have not given much previous guidance on whether a federal assault weapons ban would pass Second Amendment muster, but Winkler says he suspects one would be upheld by the Supreme Court."

and this:

"I suspect that many judges, like many other people, would believe you don’t need an assault weapon for self-defense.”

and this:

“In the 1990s, the NRA was determined to avoid a Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment and refused to bring Second Amendment challenges,”
 
Nothing there about a 2nd Amendment case against the 1994 federal ban. But there was this:

"The federal courts have not given much previous guidance on whether a federal assault weapons ban would pass Second Amendment muster, but Winkler says he suspects one would be upheld by the Supreme Court."

and this:

"I suspect that many judges, like many other people, would believe you don’t need an assault weapon for self-defense.”

and this:

“In the 1990s, the NRA was determined to avoid a Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment and refused to bring Second Amendment challenges,”


You are right it was not fought under the 2nd Amendment banner but the law itself was challenged.

In Navegar v. U.S., the law was challenged under the Commerce Clause and Bill of Attainder Clause, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Oct. 1999 upheld it 3-0.

In August 2002, an appeals court upheld the law 3-0 again. This time, in Olympic Arms v. Buckles, the ban was (unfruitfully) challenged under the Fifth Amendment equal protection clause.

I believe many law abiding citizens will regard a ban as an infringement of their right to bear arms regardless of what a judge says. I can understand why the NRA didn't want it to go to court. It is basically a roll of the dice on how it will be interpreted by these judges. It will be a bigger challenge these days.
 
You are right it was not fought under the 2nd Amendment banner but the law itself was challenged.

That's all I was claiming. Thanks!

In Navegar v. U.S., the law was challenged under the Commerce Clause and Bill of Attainder Clause, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Oct. 1999 upheld it 3-0.

In August 2002, an appeals court upheld the law 3-0 again. This time, in Olympic Arms v. Buckles, the ban was (unfruitfully) challenged under the Fifth Amendment equal protection clause.

I believe many law abiding citizens will regard a ban as an infringement of their right to bear arms regardless of what a judge says. I can understand why the NRA didn't want it to go to court. It is basically a roll of the dice on how it will be interpreted by these judges. It will be a bigger challenge these days.


They are welcome to challenge the ban in court if it passes, just as they were during the decade of the 1994 ban when it was never found to be in violation of 2nd Amendment rights.
 
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

Congress can squash it with 2/3rds the vote.
 
If Obama keeps his shenanigans up he will be impeached....

That little punk has absolutely no idea what his limitations are. If he even attempts to pass a "comprehensive gun reform" executive order his ass is impeached on charges of treason.

You can bet republicans are just waiting for that to happen...

Let's just see how daring and stupid our president actually is.
 
If Obama keeps his shenanigans up he will be impeached....

That little punk has absolutely no idea what his limitations are. If he even attempts to pass a "comprehensive gun reform" executive order his ass is impeached on charges of treason.

You can bet republicans are just waiting for that to happen...

Let's just see how daring and stupid our president actually is.



LOL! What specifically has the president proposed that you think is impeachable?
 
Well executive orders that defy the Bill of Rights is a start.

Post the executive order proposed on reducing gun violence that you believe defy the bill of rights?
 
Post the executive order proposed on reducing gun violence that you believe defy the bill of rights?

How did I guess that not only do you buy into the AGW fraud, now you push this fraud that guns are bad... Anyway...

1- information for background checks: this is vague, depends on the information and where that information comes from.

2- health insurance information available: this is contrary to ones right to privacy, an also puts doctors into servitude to the state, spying on their patients.

3- Interstate information exchange incentives. Sounds reasonable, but it depends on how this is done.

14- CDC tracking: the CDC already knows the contraindications of SSRI medication. Not unconstitutional as its written, just wanted the comment.

15- the tech is prohibitively expensive and barely effective...

16- doctors asking about guns... Drs are not spies for the government and should be focused on helping people.... And this threatens other rights.

So, there's a few of them that are clearly unconstitutional, some that depends on how it's done, and all the rest are completely ineffective and will do nothing but make it harder for good people to get guns for their own legitimate uses.

Also, since virtually every human trait has a psychological designation, it's possible to deem seeking gun ownership as a psychological disorder that as reason to deny access to a gun.
 
How did I guess that not only do you buy into the AGW fraud, now you push this fraud that guns are bad... Anyway...

1- information for background checks: this is vague, depends on the information and where that information comes from.

2- health insurance information available: this is contrary to ones right to privacy, an also puts doctors into servitude to the state, spying on their patients.

3- Interstate information exchange incentives. Sounds reasonable, but it depends on how this is done.

14- CDC tracking: the CDC already knows the contraindications of SSRI medication. Not unconstitutional as its written, just wanted the comment.

15- the tech is prohibitively expensive and barely effective...

16- doctors asking about guns... Drs are not spies for the government and should be focused on helping people.... And this threatens other rights.

So, there's a few of them that are clearly unconstitutional, some that depends on how it's done, and all the rest are completely ineffective and will do nothing but make it harder for good people to get guns for their own legitimate uses.

Also, since virtually every human trait has a psychological designation, it's possible to deem seeking gun ownership as a psychological disorder that as reason to deny access to a gun.



What proposal has been ruled to be unconstitutional?
 
Well executive orders that defy the Bill of Rights is a start.

Which of the Presidents executive order proposals to reduce gun violence do you have proof defy the Bill of Rights?
 
Which of the Presidents executive order proposals to reduce gun violence do you have proof defy the Bill of Rights?

Gun violence have noting to do with it.

I suppose that is the meat of the issue.
 
LOL! What specifically has the president proposed that you think is impeachable?

Well circumventing the Bill of Rights is a good start, not to mention his Second Amendment attacks.

Do you really want to get into this? Do you want to see your Jesus destroyed?

He's dong a damn good job with at attempt to emulate Mao et al.
 
Back
Top Bottom