• 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!

'Enough is enough,' Feinstein says in proposing new gun ban [W:93]

TurtleDude said:
Look to NYS for your answer.

1) a suicidal nutcase commits capital murder to steal legally registered guns. He then commits 24 more cases of capital murder in a Gun Free zone using feloniously acquired weapons in violation of federal and state laws. He kills himself. Most of the deaths were inflicted with a 30 round magazine rifle

2) a convicted felon premeditates an ambush of firefighters using a magazine that was banned in NY. Being a convicted felon, he was not legally able to own any firearm

what does the anti gun NY governor and his party do along with the help of cowardly Republicans? THEY BAN 10 round magazines and limit honest people to 7 shots in their guns.

I think that answers the question

Crime control has nothing to do with gun banner's real motivation

cuomoron proved that
Click to expand...


Oh I understand that but why do they continue to insist a law will stop violence? It is so frustrating.
 
TurtleDude said:
It is for those of us who support gun rights: when one party has so many of its heavyweights supporting either confiscation or steps that are clearly designed to facilitate confiscation, that is more than enough warning
Click to expand...

If you're prone to overreacting.
 
Skunked_Ape said:
Oh I understand that but why do they continue to insist a law will stop violence? It is so frustrating.
Click to expand...

Because they are dishonest politicians. They have to convince LIVs and sheeple that their schemes are designed to make people safer and keep little kids from being slain. IN reality its designed to put pro gun groups and voters on the defensive and waste money fighting for rights we already have rather than getting rid of left wing politicians who are wrong on guns and most other issues as well
 
Boo Radley said:
If you're prone to overreacting.
Click to expand...

As I noted, those who support the incremental approach to gun banning constantly claim those of us who point out the incremental approach are "overreacting"

furthermore-Feinstein's nonsense is designed to make less extreme but still disgusting encroachments on our rights look "more reasonable

its like a plaintiff's attorney litigating a broken leg of a desk bound worker making an opening demand for several million dollars when in reality the case might be worth 100K max. Its an attempt to drive the settlement or compromise figure higher
 
TurtleDude said:
As I noted, those who support the incremental approach to gun banning constantly claim those of us who point out the incremental approach are "overreacting"

furthermore-Feinstein's nonsense is designed to make less extreme but still disgusting encroachments on our rights look "more reasonable

its like a plaintiff's attorney litigating a broken leg of a desk bound worker making an opening demand for several million dollars when in reality the case might be worth 100K max. Its an attempt to drive the settlement or compromise figure higher
Click to expand...

Like I said, overreacting.
 
Boo Radley said:
Like I said, overreacting.
Click to expand...

Opinion noted not shared. Since it is my right at issue, I think my opinion is the one I will go by. I also suspect that if some of her idiocy is adopted and in 10 years the Democrats go for more restrictions, I doubt you will admit I was right. It happened before. Long before I joined this board, I noted in Cincinnati, that if Sarah Brady (who came to our city to help support a waiting period that was thrown out with a preemption bill at the state level) got her waiting period she would want more. She claimed that was not true to my face and her supporters said I was "OVERREACTING"

well the minute the brady law was passed, Sarah was out campaigning for assault weapons bans including one our city adopted (which was also thrown out but at least it tracked what the police handguns had-15 rounds)

and when I went to the council people who said I was overreacting-rather than being honest and admitting Brady lied, they claimed "things have changed" and she changed her mind-a complete lie because the brady bill was passed less than a couple months before the AWB was being proposed.
 
I note that Arne Duncan-part of the Obama Cabinet is on TV right now saying that the Feinstein Ban is a starting point-not an ending point. Tell me what that means.
 
TurtleDude said:
Opinion noted not shared. Since it is my right at issue, I think my opinion is the one I will go by. I also suspect that if some of her idiocy is adopted and in 10 years the Democrats go for more restrictions, I doubt you will admit I was right. It happened before. Long before I joined this board, I noted in Cincinnati, that if Sarah Brady (who came to our city to help support a waiting period that was thrown out with a preemption bill at the state level) got her waiting period she would want more. She claimed that was not true to my face and her supporters said I was "OVERREACTING"

well the minute the brady law was passed, Sarah was out campaigning for assault weapons bans including one our city adopted (which was also thrown out but at least it tracked what the police handguns had-15 rounds)

and when I went to the council people who said I was overreacting-rather than being honest and admitting Brady lied, they claimed "things have changed" and she changed her mind-a complete lie because the brady bill was passed less than a couple months before the AWB was being proposed.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has been established by precedence that some limitations can be placed. Precedence has also been set that limits how much they can regulate. So, remain calm.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, it has been established by precedence that some limitations can be placed. Precedence has also been set that limits how much they can regulate. So, remain calm.
Click to expand...

again opinion noted not shared. and that was really not responsive

You claimed I was overreacting and I demonstrated that history has proven that the incrementalist gun banners never stop and continually lie or refuse to say what their end goals

as is the case of those who support their goals
 
TurtleDude said:
again opinion noted not shared. and that was really not responsive

You claimed I was overreacting and I demonstrated that history has proven that the incrementalist gun banners never stop and continually lie or refuse to say what their end goals

as is the case of those who support their goals
Click to expand...

No, you have demonstrated nothing. I, however, referred to actual precedence.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, you have demonstrated nothing. I, however, referred to actual precedence.
Click to expand...

opinion noted and rejected as being contrary to historical fact

brady told congress all she wanted was a waiting period and background check. the minute that was passed she was back campaigning for gun bans.
 
TurtleDude said:
opinion noted and rejected as being contrary to historical fact

brady told congress all she wanted was a waiting period and background check. the minute that was passed she was back campaigning for gun bans.
Click to expand...

This means nothing. Thinking it does is part of the overreacting I speak of.
 
Boo Radley said:
This means nothing. Thinking it does is part of the overreacting I speak of.
Click to expand...


Just because YOU think the argument against the unconstitutional decrees of gun laws is over reaction doesn't make it true. Your opinion is noted, and dismissed.
 
j-mac said:
Just because YOU think the argument against the unconstitutional decrees of gun laws is over reaction doesn't make it true. Your opinion is noted, and dismissed.
Click to expand...

No, I think being scared of a clear minority who can do anything they say is hyperbolic.
 
j-mac said:
Apparently you are of the delusion that I must satisfy you with what I say or something.....Now that is funny....:lamo
Click to expand...

Nope. But you do seemed to be bothered by people calling nonsense nonsense. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I think being scared of a clear minority who can do anything they say is hyperbolic.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it goes further than that...These are people that have been in, and continue to be in our congress, whereas over time, and shifts in minority/majority their views could become reality. That we know how they think, is just as important as what they can do.
 
j-mac said:
Yes, but it goes further than that...These are people that have been in, and continue to be in our congress, whereas over time, and shifts in minority/majority their views could become reality. That we know how they think, is just as important as what they can do.
Click to expand...

Not remotely likely. Couldn't hold up in the courts even if they could beat the fantastic odds and pass something. And there is nothing someone doesn't think, so you have a lot to fear by that reasoning.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not remotely likely. Couldn't hold up in the courts even if they could beat the fantastic odds and pass something. And there is nothing someone doesn't think, so you have a lot to fear by that reasoning.
Click to expand...


Think about where fear comes from Joe....Would you agree that fear, rational, or not, comes from a loss of control, or power?
 
j-mac said:
Think about where fear comes from Joe....Would you agree that fear, rational, or not, comes from a loss of control, or power?
Click to expand...

Or change in general.

But, you have not lost much, and nine of us can control everything. We just can't. You could rm yourself to the teeth, and it will still take someone no work at all to take you out. Guns too often just give a false sense of security.
 
Boo Radley said:
Or change in general.

But, you have not lost much, and nine of us can control everything. We just can't. You could rm yourself to the teeth, and it will still take someone no work at all to take you out. Guns too often just give a false sense of security.
Click to expand...


So we agree that at least part of the problem is a loss of control, or power. I assert that it is this loss of control, primarily over the government that are supposed to answer to us, we the people, but no longer feel the need to do so, that moves people to own increasing numbers of firearms.

You say I "haven't lost much".... I would argue that any infringement is a loss and should be fought against.
 
j-mac said:
So we agree that at least part of the problem is a loss of control, or power. I assert that it is this loss of control, primarily over the government that are supposed to answer to us, we the people, but no longer feel the need to do so, that moves people to own increasing numbers of firearms.

You say I "haven't lost much".... I would argue that any infringement is a loss and should be fought against.
Click to expand...

Again not true. If there was no public support for restrictions, not even your most liberal or liberals would do either an EO or try to pass legislation. So they are being accountable to the public. Th biggest trouble you ace is that much of the public is changing their views. But, the Constitution and the courts have set limits on what can be done.

The point is, government isn't your biggest problem
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom