• 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!

Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

Yes, he is my Senator. He's probably feeling a bit conflicted right now. NV has been over-run with refugees from CA. CAlifornians love regulation so he might just join the anti-gun movement.

NV has fairly liberal gun laws. Handguns must be registered with the police. CCW permits are what they are in any state.

Beretta was going to open a store and range here but they have already backed out of the deal. We have a gun store here that rents the use of full automatic firearms and what a business they do!






AlabamaPaul said:
I really don't envision Harry doing anything to rile the gun lobby. He is a Senator from NV, correct?
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
Yes, he is my Senator. He's probably feeling a bit conflicted right now. NV has been over-run with refugees from CA. CAlifornians love regulation so he might just join the anti-gun movement.

NV has fairly liberal gun laws. Handguns must be registered with the police. CCW permits are what they are in any state.

Beretta was going to open a store and range here but they have already backed out of the deal. We have a gun store here that rents the use of full automatic firearms and what a business they do!
Click to expand...

I'll bet they do. They're not very practical, but they're a hell-of-a-lot of fun to shoot...
 
Catawba said:
I did not argue what current interpretation is.
Click to expand...
You said that my source did not counter or contradict you source.

Yes it does. My source counters and contradicts your source.

The Supreme Court did not say what your source claimed it said. I linked to SCOTUS's own words proving this.

Your source is wrong. This invalidates your argument.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
The Bandwagon Fallacy


In other words, 92% support does not matter at all. You make an error whenever you bring it up.
Click to expand...

Meh, believe what you want to Jerry! Some denied the edge Obama had in the election campaign too.

If it makes you feel better to ignore support that large, knock yourself out!
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Try again. I asked for one within the past week (seven days). As time goes by sentiment will revert towards the norm, and from your link, we have the following...

"The sentiment that gun laws are too weak is at a 12-year high, according to Gallup, but remains under 40 percent."
Click to expand...



Dude, that poll is only 2 weeks old. But do stick your head in the sand if it makes you more comfortable.
 
Jerry said:
Your sources demonstrated to be wrong, your arguments proven to be fallacious: your opinions stand in ruin.
Click to expand...

Then answer this: why has the ATF been without a appointed leader for over 6 years? Why is the ATF always the target of spending cuts when it has a important job to do?
 
Catawba said:
Dude, that poll is only 2 weeks old. But do stick your head in the sand if it makes you more comfortable.
Click to expand...

The reason for asking for a recent poll is to see the shift in the results. For a broader look at the sentiments surrounding this issue review this...

Guns

While I'll agree at this time your 92% number is close, there is more to the issue than background checks, and in two or three months, the numbers will return to their norms...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
The reason for asking for a recent poll is to see the shift in the results. For a broader look at the sentiments surrounding this issue review this...

Guns

While I'll agree at this time your 92% number is close, there is more to the issue than background checks, and in two or three months, the numbers will return to their norms...
Click to expand...


My poll showed 92% support for background checks for all gun sales, and your poll showed 91% support. We'll go with your poll! :cool:
 
Catawba said:
My poll showed 92% support for background checks for all gun sales, and your poll showed 91% support. We'll go with your poll! :cool:
Click to expand...

The hope was you would read more deeply... :shock:
 
Catawba said:
Quote the part you wanted me to see.
Click to expand...

"Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?"

Support Oppose Unsure
% % %


1/10-13/13
88 11 1


5/00
92 6 2


8/30 - 9/2/99
90 9 1


5/99
89 11 -

This probably won't show up very well, but it shows the change in sentiment over time. Background checks have always been popular when polled as a single question, but it's actually a tad lower recently than in 1999...
 
Catawba said:
Gun Poll: Background Checks Supported By 92% Of Americans
Click to expand...

92% support the concept but how many know how Obama intends to implement it? For that matter, does a bill even exist? As usual polls that are about concepts are far different from polls about actual legislation. Consider the "magic" of the current NICS background check policy (for 90% of gun buyers); it is "free", meaning that the shelf price (or your negotiated discount price) of the gun (say $350) at the FFL dealer's store is not changed, the NICS paperwork is filled out, the is call made and the sale is completed within about 20-25 minutes. You like that CONCEPT very much.

Now consider that the FFL dealer is asked to do all of that for no profit at all, you simply wish to sell your used gun to your work buddy Jim for $200 and the FFL "gets to" do all that NICS paperwork and make the BG check call, a 20-25 minute deal just because Obama asked them nicely to do so; the FFL dealer, a businessman, will obvioulsy ask you for money, perhaps $40, for using his Obama directed REQUIRED services. You hate that IMPLEMENTATION REALITY very much because Jim says no deal, he will pay $200 not $240, so you either part with that gun for only $160 (net) or tell your buddy Jim to find another gun to buy.
 
Black Manta said:
Former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head more than two years ago during a mass shooting in a Tucson parking lot, opened the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing Wednesday with a call to action on gun violence.

"Speaking is difficult but I need to say something important," she said in a slow, deliberate voice to the dais of senators. "Violence is a big problem, too many children are dying, too many children. We must do something.
"Americans are counting on you," she said. - Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

As I was reading the article I came across a perfect example of what I feel the problem is with the "gun restriction" crowed...

Giffords husband astronaut Mark Kelly, added this statement paraphrased...

"Called for legislators to close the loophole that allows private sellers to sell their guns without background checks, strengthen gun trafficking penalties for trafficking, and eliminate limitations on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study gun violence.

He also called for "a careful and civil conversation about the lethality of the firearms we permit to be legally bought and sold."

What does the center for disease control have to do with gun crime? This should worry people as they are trying to use a completely unrelated government body to manufacture, yes manufacture another reason to strip our 2nd amendment rights.

The last highlighted statement is just beyond stupid as far as I am concerned. If I am at the point where I am actually aiming a weapon at someone in defense of my life, loved ones or even property I want it to be as lethal as possible if it has come to that point. So only police and government should have "lethal" firearms?

This whole gun restriction mess is getting out of hand.
Click to expand...


I for one am sick of hearing "The children!!! Oh, sweeet merciful Jesus the CHILDREN!!!!!!, do it for the children!!"

As if I'm going to give up my right to defend myself or my family for the "chiiiiiiiildren!!!"

No, it is expressly for the children that I won't give up my right to bear arms, it is for the children that I will continue to fight against all forms of tyanny, it is expressly for the children that I will fight to my dying day against anyone or anything that would try to enslave me. Who would seek to impose its will over mine, who would attempt to tell me what's best for me or my CHILDREN.

Anyone who throws "the children" in your face should be reviled. You're pimping out "the children" Your argument from there on out will fall on deaf ears and you'll be considered anethema.
 
Spring99 said:
Nobody needs a 100-round drum magazine.

Such toys are useful for two things: ripping **** apart like a damn fool, or killing lots of people in a small amount of time.
Click to expand...

educate us on your understanding of firearms. Actually lots of three gun competitors use highly tuned BETA mags to save time on high round count stages
 
Mustachio said:
I don't agree. Some of those kids could have escaped while Lanza was reloading - if he had been using his mother's handgun. But it doesn't matter, we'll never know. But, like I said to Mr. Mack, if two people were going into separate rooms, both filled with 100 people, and they had 5 minutes to kill as many people as possible, and one had a 7 round 9mm and the other had a 30 round bush master, who do you suppose would kill more people? Is there really any doubt as to the answer of that question?

What amazes me is how dedicated opponents of gun control are to pretending that handguns are just as deadly as a bush master. You cite different circumstances as though comparing apples and oranges means anything. This is such a stupid debate that takes all the focus away from where it should be going. Ya'll need to give it up. I'd give it up, but I have a hard time doing so because it's so obvious that I'm right.
Click to expand...
when I see an idiotic assertion like that I know I am dealing with someone who is really ignorant about weapon usage.

deadly is a silly term and is based on ignorance

different environments make one weapon more "deadly than others"

for example an AR 15 is pretty worthless in a very close quarters like an elevator. Its hard to sneak up on a well guarded politician with an AR 15. Its also pretty worthless past about 600 yards unless you have a real expert.

a thousand yards away, a Tubbs 6mm target rifle with a good scope is far more deadly than an AR 15

at two feet in a crowded room, a 38 special is far more deadly as well

defending a room by covering the door-a 12 G shotgun with #4 buck is more deadly


YOu are obviously wrong
 
Mustachio said:
Every one of those suggestions has a detrimental effect on the citizens of this country. Banning certain types of guns (not "banning guns," adopting new regulations which include the prohibition of a certain few types of firearms) does no harm to anyone. Sorry, I know you love to shoot big, powerful guns, and I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that you don't need them - no citizen needs them - and they can fall into the hands of a disturbed individual who uses them to kill dozens of people (or more). So the result is nobody is worse off, everybody is better off. That's what is very different from any of your oh-so-hilarious suggestions.
Click to expand...

well to a gun hater like you banning guns means nothing. You have no ability to claim that it harms no one.

Banning Homosexual sodomy wouldn't harm me or most people. So your argument is just as specious. And it will harm you to if they are banned because if the government takes them away people will die and people who have advocated seizing those guns are going to be primary targets to some gun owners.

You don't need most of what you have. YOu don't need a computer, free speech or much of anything beyond water, food, air and shelter.

and My freedoms are not going to be taken away just so you can feel better.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Then answer this: why has the ATF been without a appointed leader for over 6 years? Why is the ATF always the target of spending cuts when it has a important job to do?
Click to expand...

The ATF should be shut down. it has no legitimate constitutional function to start with. real law enforcement can deal with real crimes.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
"Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?"

Support Oppose Unsure
% % %


1/10-13/13
88 11 1


5/00
92 6 2


8/30 - 9/2/99
90 9 1


5/99
89 11 -

This probably won't show up very well, but it shows the change in sentiment over time. Background checks have always been popular when polled as a single question, but it's actually a tad lower recently than in 1999...
Click to expand...


None of your polls show support less than 88% going all the way back to 1999. The support is even more longstanding than I originally thought. Thanks for bringing that to our attentions! :cool:
 
Catawba said:
None of your polls show support less than 88% going all the way back to 1999. The support is even more longstanding than I originally thought. Thanks for bringing that to our attentions! :cool:
Click to expand...

You're hopeless. Just read the damn thing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom