• 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

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Here we go Obama playing politics and using a tragedy to forward his agenda

This will cause more disdain toward Obama from conservatives.

Gun-Control Effort Coming Soon From White House - Newsweek

At the beginning of his State of the Union address, President Obama tipped his hat to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who’s now recuperating in a Houston medical facility. But throughout the hourlong speech, he never addressed the issue at the core of the Giffords tragedy—gun control—and what lawmakers would, or should, do to reform American firearm-access laws.

That was intentional, according to the White House. An administration official says Obama didn’t mention guns in his speech because of the omnipresent controversy surrounding the Second Amendment and gun control. Tuesday’s speech was designed to be more about the economy and how, as Obama repeated nine times, the U.S. could “win the future.”

But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.
 
So you think it is bad to stop mentally imbalanced people from obtaining assault rifles?
 
Here we go Obama playing politics and using a tragedy to forward his agenda

This will cause more disdain toward Obama from conservatives.

Gun-Control Effort Coming Soon From White House - Newsweek

At the beginning of his State of the Union address, President Obama tipped his hat to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who’s now recuperating in a Houston medical facility. But throughout the hourlong speech, he never addressed the issue at the core of the Giffords tragedy—gun control—and what lawmakers would, or should, do to reform American firearm-access laws.

That was intentional, according to the White House. An administration official says Obama didn’t mention guns in his speech because of the omnipresent controversy surrounding the Second Amendment and gun control. Tuesday’s speech was designed to be more about the economy and how, as Obama repeated nine times, the U.S. could “win the future.”

But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.

Don't know what he'll unveil....but certainly no one except the most avid and blind supporter of gun rights could object to background checks. How about character references? I'd have absolutely no problem with that one either.
 
So you think it is bad to stop mentally imbalanced people from obtaining assault rifles?
So you think MORE laws instead of enforcing and reinforcing current ones is good?
 
Don't know what he'll unveil....but certainly no one except the most avid and blind supporter of gun rights could object to background checks. How about character references? I'd have absolutely no problem with that one either.

Hey, here's an idea, how about we not let one nut case change our country.
 
Don't know what he'll unveil....but certainly no one except the most avid and blind supporter of gun rights could object to background checks. How about character references? I'd have absolutely no problem with that one either.

This is an excuse to make it harder for citizens like me to get and own guns
 
So you think it is bad to stop mentally imbalanced people from obtaining assault rifles?
You think tightening laws or even banning guns would stop people from accessing them if they wanted? Have you learned nothing from prohibition? It seems to be working pretty well with drugs right?
 
So you think MORE laws instead of enforcing and reinforcing current ones is good?

Answer a question with a question...hmmm. Anyway, it is against the laws for "nuts" to own guns, but the only way to tell is if they check the I am crazy box on the application. Thus if we need new laws there Tex, I am all for it. I realize many right wingers are afraid of this for some of their zeal maybe misinterpreted as crazy.;)
 
So you think it is bad to stop mentally imbalanced people from obtaining assault rifles?

I agree with you, but don't you think it's a tad ridiculous for people to have to submit to a psychological examination to determine their mental health before purchasing a gun? I'm all for it if they can figure out a plausible way of regulating it.
 
You think tightening laws or even banning guns would stop people from accessing them if they wanted? Have you learned nothing from prohibition? It seems to be working pretty well with drugs right?

Murder is illegal, but people still commit murder, so by your logic, murder should not be illegal. That line of argument is ridiculous.
 
Hey, here's an idea, how about we not let one nut case change our country.

One nut case? Surely you jest. I can understand why strong supporters of gun rights see every regulation as the camel's nose under the tent; but, in reality, mentally unstable people should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms. Argue that point, and one just looks foolish.
 
Hey, here's an idea, how about we not let one nut case change our country.

I wouldn't want us to overreact. So, we might take a deep breath. Ture. But I also wouldn't reject anything off hand either. If what is proposed reasonable, OK. So, I'll listen, take it in, consider it, and encourage my representative accordingly. Sound reasonable?
 
Answer a question with a question...hmmm. Anyway, it is against the laws for "nuts" to own guns, but the only way to tell is if they check the I am crazy box on the application. Thus if we need new laws there Tex, I am all for it. I realize many right wingers are afraid of this for some of their zeal maybe misinterpreted as crazy.;)

See, you have this false impression that I support crazies with guns. No, I support enforcing current laws and taking a look at current laws that need adjustment rather then "new laws". The difference is hardly trivial and is the crux of the issue.
 
OMG. Those socialists are coming for your guns. Time to lock and load.


















In all seriousness, i'm not pro-gun control, but the predictable responses in this thread are pretty funny.

Nobody's taking your guns, boys. You have a republican majority in congress. Try not to panic.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't want us to overreact. So, we might take a deep breath. Ture. But I also wouldn't reject anything off hand either. If what is proposed reasonable, OK. So, I'll listen, take it in, consider it, and encourage my representative accordingly. Sound reasonable?

Completely reasonable. A wait and see what is proposed is ALWAYS a good idea, however, my commentary was what I see as the better approach to begin with. "Hey let's review our current laws, see if any need some altering, and go forward". "New laws first" IMHO is not the best response to any situation.

(the forum is gonna crash, Boo and I just found common ground... ;) )
 
OMG. Those socialists are coming for your guns. Time to lock and load.

Care to add anything intelligent... oh wait, it's Catz. You reinforce your grey user name with every post you know that?
 
See, you have this false impression that I support crazies with guns. No, I support enforcing current laws and taking a look at current laws that need adjustment rather then "new laws". The difference is hardly trivial and is the crux of the issue.

Why do Conservatives resist any type of gun control in this country. Everytime the issue comes-up they all do the "sky is falling" routine where they think it will be some slippery slope of eradicating gun ownership.

For christsake, even Dick Cheney said last week we should do something about high-round clips and keep guns out of crazies hands, and he voted against legislation banning the cop killer bullets and plastic guns.

Oh, and once again, there is only one law regarding mentally unstable gun ownership and they must confess to being crazy at purchase.
 
Last edited:
Why do Conservatives resist any type of gun control in this country. Everytime the issue comes-up they all do the "sky is falling" routine where they think it will be some slippery slope of eradicating gun ownership.

For christsake, even Dick Cheney said last week we should do something about high-round clips and keep guns out of crazies hands, and he voted against legislation banning the cop killer bullets and plastic guns.

Oh, and once again, there is only one law regarding mentally unstable gun ownership and they must confess to being crazy at purchase.

Because gun control isn't the answer.
 
Then what is?

Actually, crime stats suggest that it probably involves incarcerating violent offenders for long periods of time. Our violent crime rate has dropped drastically since we started doing so.
 
Actually, crime stats suggest that it probably involves incarcerating violent offenders for long periods of time. Our violent crime rate has dropped drastically since we started doing so.

Thats because the one's doing the shooting are locked up I suppose?
 
Back
Top Bottom