• 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!

The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks...[W: 349]

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Tom_Joad said:
For example, I consider the desire to own or posses an assault rifle by a civilian as prima facie evidence that said individual is mentally unstable and should be barred from owning or possessing any kind of firearm.
Click to expand...

And you would be wrong. Allot of us X military and law enforcement want and do own civilian semi auto versions of military style weapons. We have not been judged mentally deficient. So you would take away someones right because of a tool they want or own? I guess the thought police would like you. :roll:
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Take a deep breath and think for a minute. Turn off your right-wing propaganda. No one is coming after your guns. You can stop the hysteria. Despite what FauxNews is telling you....there was nothing about gun grabbing schemes going on.
Click to expand...

The goal of Fascist Liberal Democrats is to disarm lawful Americans

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid calls weapons bill 'anti-gun legislation' - Washington Times
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Zyphlin said:
Does it matter though? Haven't you for years on this forum been proclaiming how popular opinion shouldn't dictate what restrictions are placed on Civil Rights? Or is that only the case in terms of civil rights you agree with?
Click to expand...

If it somehow actually unduly curtailed the rights of gun owners, then I would agree with you Zyph. I don't support all out gun bans. If 93% of the population supported a ban on all guns then I would agree that popular option shouldn't dictate what WOULD be an unconstitutional infringement of a civil right.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Black Manta said:
And you would be wrong. Allot of us X military and law enforcement want and do own civilian semi auto versions of military style weapons. We have not been judged mentally deficient. So you would take away someones right because of a tool they want or own? I guess the thought police would like you. :roll:
Click to expand...

The fact that you would WANT to own a semi-automatic military style weapon speaks otherwise.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Tom_Joad said:
I would most certainly be in favor of more gun control than we have now.

For example, I consider the desire to own or posses an assault rifle by a civilian as prima facie evidence that said individual is mentally unstable and should be barred from owning or possessing any kind of firearm.
Click to expand...

This is like the way they used to determine if you were a witch. If you float, you're a witch and they burn you. But, if you sink and drown, you're okay. Lose lose situation.

A great way for a fascist government to work. Sure, we are not banning an "assault" rifle. But if you even try to get one, we now label you as mentally ill. Maybe they put you away somewhere until you get better. Wow, all of a sudden, nobody even tries to get these, legal, protected, firearms. Alas, 100% compliance.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
The fact that you would WANT to own a semi-automatic military style weapon speaks otherwise.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It says I have been trained on the real thing and I like it. I like to take it to the range and shoot it and my many other weapons. The fact is your fear is what is unreasonable.

How does it feel to live in fear?

Oh and nice sour grapes on the loss in the senate, hehehe.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Tom_Joad said:
I would most certainly be in favor of more gun control than we have now.

For example, I consider the desire to own or posses an assault rifle by a civilian as prima facie evidence that said individual is mentally unstable and should be barred from owning or possessing any kind of firearm.
Click to expand...
As long as the ban only specifies bonafide assault rifles (M-16, AK-47 etc) no big problem. But as soon as you make semi-automatic, large magazine, folding stock, flash suppressor, bayonet stud, pistol grip or any other cosmetic design to suggest those are assault rifle descriptions, it becomes a stupid and repressive law.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
That is nothing more than more of your paranoia propoganda. Take a deep breath and get over your hysterics.
Click to expand...

Dodge noted

This is laughable. Liberals have spent months exploiting a tragedy with paranoid propaganda attacking the 2nd Amendment and The Constitution claiming anyone who didn't agree with their radical gun grabbing legislation basically wanted to kill children. You're engaging in projection. It's the ultimate in paranoia to believe that guns in the homes of law abiding Americans pose a threat.

Criminals don't do background checks. Nothing in any of this legislation would have stopped Sandy Hook. Obama and the Democrats have done nothing more than stand on the corpses of children and exploited the grieving families to push their radical agenda. Instead of focusing on the Economy and Jobs, extremists on the Left have wasted months trying to guilt trip law abiding Americans with their anti gun propaganda and paranoia.

Pathetic attempts at mocking/humiliation/ad hominems is all can do. Won't work.

Oh and

Majority of Americans say guns make homes safer

gunsafer.jpg


Have a nice day :2wave:
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
That is nothing more than more of your paranoia propaganda. Take a deep breath and get over your hysterics.
Click to expand...
Who are the paranoid? He who is afraid because I own semi-automatic firearms! I own several semi-automatic firearms; 1 auto-5 Browning 20 gauge shot gun I use for woodcock; 1 auto-5 12 gauge I use for dove with one barrel (Cylinder bore) and with the rifled barrel I use it for wild hogs and deer; 1 Remington 30-06 I use for long range shooting (antelope, sheep, elk); 1 9mm Luger I have hanging on the wall and do not shoot; 1 22 cal Colt Woodsman I use for target practice and plinking.

Any one who objects to my keeping and bearing those firearms IAW the 2nd is the paranoid one. The real issue here is the typical left winger claims they don't want to eliminate all private firearms yet given the opportunity that is exactly what they want.

Incremental gun control to get rid of all lawful private firearm ownership is the goal. Daily Kos: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term processAn article in the daily Kos, a left wing site.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
That is nothing more than more of your paranoia propoganda. Take a deep breath and get over your hysterics.
Click to expand...

Pot meet Kettle.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

I think someone will need to post the survey question asked, that 93% of
Americans agreed to, before I place any value in that number.
or where the poll was taken.
93% of people coming out of the Whole Foods in San Francisco said we need expanded background checks.
Or Maybe the question was, " Do you think the mentally insane should be allowed to buy guns?"
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
If it somehow actually unduly curtailed the rights of gun owners, then I would agree with you Zyph. I don't support all out gun bans. If 93% of the population supported a ban on all guns then I would agree that popular option shouldn't dictate what WOULD be an unconstitutional infringement of a civil right.
Click to expand...

Which basically comes down to if your personal opinion regarding the constitutionality of a particular limitation on a civil right is that it's okay, then it's fine to look towards the popular opion. In this case, the limiting of ones ability to engage in their civil right is one you agree with and feel is constitutional, so you have no issue pushing public opinion to support your case. In other cases, the limiting of ones ability to engage in their civil rights is one you disagree with and so you oppose. In all cases though, it's still a matter of whether or not you subjectively decide whether or not the limitation is one you agree with or not.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
The fact that you would WANT to own a semi-automatic military style weapon speaks otherwise.
Click to expand...

Wait, so you're basically agreeing with the ignorant notion put forward by another poster that WANTINg to own a semi-automatic military style weapon is a sign of being mentally unstable or as Black manta put it "mentally deficient"?

Funny, proclaiming that something that no reasonable scientific body has ever declared a mental issue as a mental issue as a methodology for denying a person from engaging in their civil rights....could've swore you get all huffy puffy and up in arms about such things normally.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Tigger said:
Even then, the American Gun Owner is not going to blithly walk up to the police station with a bag full of firearms and turn them over simply because the Government doesn't like him or her having them. Nor is the American Gun Owner going to ever give the Government a list of those firearms. Nor are we going to allow the Government to oversee PRIVATE transactions that they have no need nor right to oversee.

I understand that many in the gun control crowd see the actions of governments in England, Scotland, Australia, and even Canada as wonderful ideals to strive towards. What these individuals need to understand is that the American Gun Owner is not like the citizenry of those nations. We will not walk up and disarm ourselves like good little sheep. Nor will we allow the Government of this nation, which many of us trust little, if at all, to gather information on what we have in terms of firearms and other self-defense apperatus.
Click to expand...

Is it your impression or belief that the bill rejected yesterday asks these things to be done as part of the bill?

Could you link to the bill with identified parts of it which do these things?
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Zyphlin said:
Which basically comes down to if your personal opinion regarding the constitutionality of a particular limitation on a civil right is that it's okay, then it's fine to look towards the popular opion. In this case, the limiting of ones ability to engage in their civil right is one you agree with and feel is constitutional, so you have no issue pushing public opinion to support your case. In other cases, the limiting of ones ability to engage in their civil rights is one you disagree with and so you oppose. In all cases though, it's still a matter of whether or not you subjectively decide whether or not the limitation is one you agree with or not.
Click to expand...
No. There is no legitimate question about the Constitutionality of background checks.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Zyphlin said:
Wait, so you're basically agreeing with the ignorant notion put forward by another poster that WANTINg to own a semi-automatic military style weapon is a sign of being mentally unstable or as Black manta put it "mentally deficient"?

Funny, proclaiming that something that no reasonable scientific body has ever declared a mental issue as a mental issue as a methodology for denying a person from engaging in their civil rights....could've swore you get all huffy puffy and up in arms about such things normally.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The mentality of an individual who desires to have military style weapons is highly suspect.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Absolutely. The mentality of an individual who desires to have military style weapons is highly suspect.
Click to expand...

It's now a "Thought Crime" to want a semi automatic weapon that looks scary to Liberals
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

haymarket said:
Is it your impression or belief that the bill rejected yesterday asks these things to be done as part of the bill?
Click to expand...

It is my personal impression and belief that the bill which was defeated yesterday was a stepping stone towards those sorts of things.

The bill would have created additional paperwork, available on demand to BATFE or the State, which could have been used in the future as the foundation for a state or national gun registry of one sort or another. It required private individuals engaged in legitimate free enterprise, but not in commercial activities, to undertake a NICS check which has not been required of them in the past. It is my belief that was a stepping stone towards ALL firearms transfers requiring that check, and a means to make gun ownership/transfer more expensive for people as a means to limit those transfers.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Bronson said:
It's now a "Thought Crime" to want a semi automatic weapon that looks scary to Liberals
Click to expand...

I never said it was a "crime"...more of your hysterics and paranoia on display.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
I never said it was a "crime"...more of your hysterics and paranoia on display.
Click to expand...

Laughable

You're whining about hysterics and paranoia while at the same time claiming anyone who wants a semi automatic weapon with a few cosmetic adjustments is "HIGHLY SUSPECT"
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Bronson said:
Laughable

You're whining about hysterics and paranoia while at the same time claiming anyone who wants a semi automatic weapon with a few cosmetic adjustments is "HIGHLY SUSPECT"
Click to expand...

Sorry...but I'm not the one running around screaming propoganda about "OMG....they're coming to take our guns!!!!!" and hysterics such as "OMG!...they are going to make us all criminals"
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Absolutely. The mentality of an individual who desires to have military style weapons is highly suspect.
Click to expand...

Wonderful to see what a hypocritically transparent thing your signature line is then. So you actually expect people to buy the faux "I don't support taking guns away from people" claims when it's been clear you've support the notion of removing guns from mentally unstable people and then turn around and proclaim that the very nature of WANTING to own certain guns inherently makes ones mental status "highly suspect"...thus creating a scenario where simply WANTING to own a particular gun makes one inelligable to participate in their civil rights.

You are no better and no less of a crusader against individual liberty than those who proclaim it's okay to ban two men from being married because they can both still marry women. You even delude yourself into believing that you somehow standand for "liberty and justice for all" like they do. But you're not better...just like them you pick and choose based on your POLITICAL agenda and opinions and don't give two ****s about "liberty".

The singular act of desiring to own a firearm, ANY firearm, is in no way...shape...or form a reliable, reasonable, or understandable means of determining ones mental faculties. To suggest such is pure bigotry, nothing less. It's just excused bigotry because it's against people who you deem worthy of discriminating and being prejudiced against.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Sorry...but I'm not the one running around screaming propoganda about "OMG....they're coming to take our guns!!!!!" and hysterics such as "OMG!...they are going to make us all criminals"
Click to expand...

Such as?? But no one has ever said that, correct?

Don't get so hysterical. This too shall pass.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Zyphlin said:
Which basically comes down to if your personal opinion regarding the constitutionality of a particular limitation on a civil right is that it's okay, then it's fine to look towards the popular opion.
Click to expand...
Keeping and bearing firearms is not just a civil right; it is an inherent right affirmed by the 2nd amendment.
In this case, the limiting of ones ability to engage in their civil right is one you agree with and feel is constitutional, so you have no issue pushing public opinion to support your case. In other cases, the limiting of ones ability to engage in their civil rights is one you disagree with and so you oppose. In all cases though, it's still a matter of whether or not you subjectively decide whether or not the limitation is one you agree with or not.
Click to expand...
If it is an inherent right, even if I don't like that right, I will enforce it to the hilt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom