• 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!

White House to Push Gun Control

Guy Incognito said:
How early is early? Unless you're placing a gun in the hands of a newborn baby without the safety on then you believe in some form of gun control.
Click to expand...

The fact that juveniles are denied certain rights based on age has nothing to do with the rights of an adult citizen. We don't let children vote, and supporting that doesn't mean I favor restricting adult voting rights.
 
apdst said:
The fact that juveniles are denied certain rights based on age has nothing to do with the rights of an adult citizen. We don't let children vote, and supporting that doesn't mean I favor restricting adult voting rights.
Click to expand...

Not letting children vote is voting control. Not letting children have guns is gun control.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
All are potentially dangerous situations. No one in any of those categories has any business gun shopping. If I had a family member that had depression or suicide issues I'd have to be really cold to allow them to go out a buy a gun.
Click to expand...




Ignoring all the hot air, borderline personal attacks, and unsubstantiated BS, I'll address the only substantive point in the post:

You think anxiety attacks are sufficient reason to deny someone a gun? Really?

Do you even know what anxiety attacks are?

Most vets have some form or degree of PTSD. Many choose to go untreated. Most are perfectly functional in civilian life. You aren't even distinguishing between the guy whose PTSD simply manifests as difficulty sleeping, vs the guy whose PTSD involves actual waking hallucinations.

You don't seem to have much knowlege about this topic, and you leave me wondering why we should pay any attention to opinions that appear to be born from sheer ignorance.
 
apdst said:
I'll go along with this rediculous, "what if", and say that I believe we should let babies sleep with a gun in their crib, to get used to being around it. Unloaded, of course, until they're capable of loading and unloading it themselves.
Click to expand...

What are you, some sort of commie?
 
Guy Incognito said:
Not letting children vote is voting control. Not letting children have guns is gun control.
Click to expand...



Then you support restrictions on sexual activity between consenting adults, because we don't let minors under a certain age have sex? :mrgreen:
 
Goshin said:
Ignoring all the hot air, borderline personal attacks, and unsubstantiated BS, I'll address the only substantive point in the post:

You think anxiety attacks are sufficient reason to deny someone a gun? Really?

Do you even know what anxiety attacks are?

Most vets have some form or degree of PTSD. Many choose to go untreated. Most are perfectly functional in civilian life. You aren't even distinguishing between the guy whose PTSD simply manifests as difficulty sleeping, vs the guy whose PTSD involves actual waking hallucinations.

You don't seem to have much knowlege about this topic, and you leave me wondering why we should pay any attention to opinions that appear to be born from sheer ignorance.
Click to expand...


Out of all the mental issues you orginally cited you stuck with just anxiety attacks? Me thinks you realized you didn't have a good argument for the rest.

BTW being an Army brat, and a veteran myself, and father that dealt with PTSD for years after coming back from Vietnam, I can assure you veterans already have guns at home. So it's mute issue about shopping for guns which is what I was discussing.

I apologize if you thought I made personal attacks but your arguments hit a sore spot with me.
 
Goshin said:
Then you support restrictions on sexual activity between consenting adults, because we don't let minors under a certain age have sex? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Off topic Mr. Moderator. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
I'll be damned if someone tries to tell me I can't own a fully automatic AK-47!!! It's what the founding fathers intended, for us all to own the biggest and baddest weapons available.
 
TurtleDude said:
what moronic nonsense--thousands of those magazines were made before the ban and were available

cocaine is banned for how many decades and this country is full of it

if there is no rational reason for such magazines to exist why do so many police departments have such magazines in various weapons/

the problem with you gun banners is you want to ban a 30 round magazine today-a 20 round magazine tomorrow and a 10 round magazine next week

ANYTHING CIVILIAN POLICE DEPARTMENTS USE HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE USEFUL FOR CIVILIANS TO USE IN SELF DEFENSE

THUS OTHER CIVILIANS OUGHT TO HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE THINGS
Click to expand...

I thought you were an attorney, and thus a student of precision in language. Kindly tell me where in my post that I said I was a gun banner. I am not. I merely stated that everyone is in favor of some form of gun control, we just argue about where to draw the line. Jumping to conclusions is not very attorney like. You must have spent time as a prosecutor, they tend to do that.

The idea of banning the clips is not new. I was part of the Federal Assault Weapon ban of 1994, which was allowed to expire. Now, even Dick Cheney, one of the most staunch gun advocates in America, suggests that a ban on the size of a magazine is reasonable. Given that sanction, it is unreasonable for you to think I am a gun banner, unless you think Dick is one as well.

Dick Cheney | Gun Control | Video | Mediaite

Now, I will accept one of your corrections. I said that had the magazine ban existed he would not have been able to get one. You are correct that banning something does not prevent possession. I misspoke and should have been more precise in my assertion. The correct assertion should have been that with the ban, it would have been far more difficult to get the extended magazine. After all if, to use your illustration, its more difficult (and dangerous) to get cocaine (which is illegal) than beer (which is no longer illegal). Given that he made a retail purchase of his gun and ammo, it is unlikely he would have had the extended clip, or more precisely, it is certainly less likely.

As to your argument of incrementalism, this is a tired and rather juvenile NRA position.... if we give one inch, they will take everything. That approach is unreasonable at every level. Some things require fixing, and to fix those things more often results in fortifying one's position, not weakening it.
 
Last edited:
EnigmaO01 said:
Out of all the mental issues you orginally cited you stuck with just anxiety attacks? Me thinks you realized you didn't have a good argument for the rest.

BTW being an Army brat, and a veteran myself, and father that dealt with PTSD for years after coming back from Vietnam, I can assure you veterans already have guns at home. So it's mute issue about shopping for guns which is what I was discussing.

I apologize if you thought I made personal attacks but your arguments hit a sore spot with me.
Click to expand...


So then denying someone the right to buy a gun, based on being a vet with PTSD, would accomplish what? If they already have guns as you stated. You're practically making my point for me...

If someone had an episode of depression twenty years ago, was treated with meds and declared ok after six months, would you deny them 2A rights still?

How will you get all this info? Will we have a database with everyone's psyche profile up in Washington DC?

Who will judge who is sane enough to exercise a Constitutional right? Their own shrink? A panel of Government-employed shrinks? Slippery slope anyone?


The point I'm trying to make is this is a more complex issue than some want to paint it, and that there are implications and unintended consequences galore for going very far down this path.

As I said though, I'm all for adding "involuntarily committed" as a red flag on NICS. I don't think it will help very much at all, but since it would be minimally intrusive to 2A rights I'd be okay with it.
 
BCR said:
I'll be damned if someone tries to tell me I can't own a fully automatic AK-47!!! It's what the founding fathers intended, for us all to own the biggest and baddest weapons available.
Click to expand...

Yeah like they even had automatic weapons back then. :lamo Hell we didn't even get the repeating rifle until the Civil war didn't we?
 
upsideguy said:
Now, I will accept one of your corrections. I said that had the magazine ban existed he would not have been able to get one. You are correct that banning something does not prevent possession. I misspoke and should have been more precise in my assertion. The correct assertion should have been that with the ban, it would have been far more difficult to get the extended magazine. ... Given that he made a retail purchase of his gun and ammo, it is unlikely he would have had the extended clip, or more precisely, it is certainly less likely.
Click to expand...

Extended mags were "banned" during the Clinton-era AWB. I bought several during that ban. :mrgreen:



As to your argument of incrementalism, this is a tired and rather juvenile NRA position.... if we give one inch, they will take everything. That approach is unreasonable at every level. Some things require fixing, and to fix those things more often results in fortifying one's position, not weakening it.
Click to expand...

There isn't a legislative fix for everything. There isn't one which would likely have stopped this massacre or mitigated it to any significant degree. In the absence of extended magazines, he could have brought more 10-rounders. In the absense of a handgun, he could have used a sawn-off pump shotgun. To infringe on a fundamental right, the infringement must be necessary, effective, and not infringe on the law-abiding more than on the criminal, at a minimum.

Most of the suggestions that have been made regarding this incident would be extremely intrusive and have far-reaching consequences, like involving government in your mental health care.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
If you're crazy hell yeah. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Who gets to say whose crazy and who isn't? What if a citizen, who has never broken a law before, fails his psycho-babble analysis? What if one of the people doing the psyhco-babble thinks that no one should own a gun and fails every person they analize?

There's no way to do something like this and it be fair and sure as hell no way to do and it be constitutional.
 
BCR said:
I'll be damned if someone tries to tell me I can't own a fully automatic AK-47!!! It's what the founding fathers intended, for us all to own the biggest and baddest weapons available.
Click to expand...

It's not illegal to own an automatic weapon.
 
apdst said:
Who gets to say whose crazy and who isn't? What if a citizen, who has never broken a law before, fails his psycho-babble analysis? What if one of the people doing the psyhco-babble thinks that no one should own a gun and fails every person they analize?

There's no way to do something like this and it be fair and sure as hell no way to do and it be constitutional.
Click to expand...

I concur. Revoking a citizen's civil rights because his is a criminal is one thing but revoking a law-abiding citizen's civil rights because of the content of his thoughts is quite another.
 
Goshin said:
So then denying someone the right to buy a gun, based on being a vet with PTSD, would accomplish what? If they already have guns as you stated. You're practically making my point for me...

If someone had an episode of depression twenty years ago, was treated with meds and declared ok after six months, would you deny them 2A rights still?

How will you get all this info? Will we have a database with everyone's psyche profile up in Washington DC?

Who will judge who is sane enough to exercise a Constitutional right? Their own shrink? A panel of Government-employed shrinks? Slippery slope anyone?


The point I'm trying to make is this is a more complex issue than some want to paint it, and that there are implications and unintended consequences galore for going very far down this path.

As I said though, I'm all for adding "involuntarily committed" as a red flag on NICS. I don't think it will help very much at all, but since it would be minimally intrusive to 2A rights I'd be okay with it.
Click to expand...

Well if you can show me where I specifically said PTSD disqualifies one to OWN a firearm I'll stand corrected. It wouldn't fly anyway because we'd have to disquality thousands of active duty members.
 
apdst said:
It's not illegal to own an automatic weapon.
Click to expand...


Class III license. But regardless, full-auto weapons are so very rarely used in actual crimes that the point is moot.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Yeah like they even had automatic weapons back then. :lamo Hell we didn't even get the repeating rifle until the Civil war didn't we?
Click to expand...

By that logic, only flintlock muzzleloaders should be legal.

I know you're probably thinking, "good!". But, think about all the loose black powder that would be available to fire those weapons. A 1 pound can of black powder can be created into some really nasty toys.
 
apdst said:
Who gets to say whose crazy and who isn't? What if a citizen, who has never broken a law before, fails his psycho-babble analysis? What if one of the people doing the psyhco-babble thinks that no one should own a gun and fails every person they analize?

There's no way to do something like this and it be fair and sure as hell no way to do and it be constitutional.
Click to expand...


I already went through this with character references but since you ignored it I won't waste my time repeating it.
 
Goshin said:
Then you support restrictions on sexual activity between consenting adults, because we don't let minors under a certain age have sex? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're talking about. I support voting control and to a limited extent I support gun control. And as you point out with your example, you and I both support a form of sexual control; namely in the form of the government's ability to protect minors. Government coercion is necessary sometimes. My point is if you support those things be honest about it.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
By that logic, only flintlock muzzleloaders should be legal.

I know you're probably thinking, "good!". But, think about all the loose black powder that would be available to fire those weapons. A 1 pound can of black powder can be created into some really nasty toys.
Click to expand...


No I merely stated that our forefathers couldn't have known about auto weapons back then. But please be silly. Be my guest.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
No I merely stated that our forefathers couldn't have known about auto weapons back then. But please be silly. Be my guest.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one being silly. Next, we're going to hear from the anti-gun, or at leas the, "I'm-not-so-wild-about-guns", crowd that it should be OK to own a nuke; since the pro-gunners oppose gun control.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Well if you can show me where I specifically said PTSD disqualifies one to OWN a firearm I'll stand corrected. It wouldn't fly anyway because we'd have to disquality thousands of active duty members.
Click to expand...

I listed some things, among them anxiety attacks, depression and PTSD. Ah hell, let me find the exact quotes....





EnigmaO01 said:
Goshin said:
But where do we draw the line, regarding "mental illness" as barring someone from certain Constitutionally enumerated fundamental rights? Anxiety attacks? One episode of depression? Two? Vets with PTSD?
Click to expand...


All are potentially dangerous situations. No one in any of those categories has any business gun shopping. If I had a family member that had depression or suicide issues I'd have to be really cold to allow them to go out a buy a gun.
Click to expand...


Now if you misspoke, okay then, but it sure sounded like you meant anyone with anxiety attacks, any previous episode of depression, or PTSD shouldn't be able to buy a gun...
 
upsideguy said:
As to your argument of incrementalism, this is a tired and rather juvenile NRA position.... if we give one inch, they will take everything. That approach is unreasonable at every level. Some things require fixing, and to fix those things more often results in fortifying one's position, not weakening it.
Click to expand...

And don't forget the NRA has to insure the income that makes it's office holders fat and sassy keeps coming in. It's so trite the national organizations that lose site of their missions, dupe their members, get fat salaries, and their first priority is perpetuating the organization at all costs. If people would only look at how much their donations go into "administrative costs" they would be outraged. Funny I did a cursory look for admin costs of the NRA and couldn't find them. That's a red flag folks.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom