• 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

While liberals would argue that the existence of such situation would be drastically decreased if guns weren't as freely proliferated as they are now.

Gun laws only affect people who follow laws. Having said that, I am completely in favor of law enforcement strategies designed to get guns out of the hands of criminals.

By that, I mean more searches by law enforcement officers of suspected criminals based upon probable cause. Shake the right tree, and apples will fall out. Somehow, though, liberals never seem to be in favor of these kinds of approaches. They prefer to take the IRS approach: Go after the people who actually bother to try to follow the law.
 
Last edited:
Got a source for that buddy? A speech or anything that supports such a claim? Even if he were anti-gun personally he would never express those sentiments publicly or in terms of policy.

Post # 37 !!!
 
Gun laws will mean people buy guns on the streets and only criminals will have guns. I have guns and a concealed weapons license but I fear Obama will try to take that away. it does not mean he will succeed but it does mean stirring up the issue

The issue will continue to be stirred up regardless. I think a lot of the fear people have is unnecessary, though. There are far too many powerful people who are pro-gun. Not to mention the fact that this will never make it past the senate. I honestly don't know why Obama is even bothering with it.
 
Gun laws will mean people buy guns on the streets and only criminals will have guns. I have guns and a concealed weapons license but I fear Obama will try to take that away. it does not mean he will succeed but it does mean stirring up the issue

Your fears are unjustified. I'm sure you will be allowed to keep your guns. For Obama to even bring up such an issue would mean political suicide.
 
You have to practice with a dart board and aim for the jugular.

Oh, so they will help against armed buglars, just takes practice!;)

And besides, most break-ins are for drug money purposes, I could just give them some drugs and they would throw away their gun and we would sing Kumbaya!:peace
 
And besides, most break-ins are for drug money purposes, I could just give them some drugs and they would throw away their gun and we would sing Kumbaya!:peace

I'm not sure the bolded part is factual, but I'd be careful with this approach. Don't give them your meth.
 
I'm not sure the bolded part is factual, but I'd be careful with this approach. Don't give them your meth.

Of course not, just shrooms. And according to stats, drug crime is the major driving force behind violent crime. I could look it up if you like, I just heard that on television the other night.
 
We had a problem in the past with involuntary admission to the mental wards. We must not go back to that.
If it's done correctly - an involuntary evaluation seems appropriate. Even if the hospital cannot hold the person there - the person is flagged and cannot purchase a firearm. That sounds like common sense legislation to me.

Let's not go stupid because of a mass murder. They happen quite frequently and are seldom carried out by the certifiably insane. Just ban the 30 round clips and be done with it. That will at least make the shooter purchase 3 Glock 40s.
Your solution of banning inanimate objects is a solution? So instead of mentally unstable people killing 5, killing just 2 is acceptable, while you poo-poo the solution which would have saved all of the people in AZ from dying.
 
Gun laws only affect people who follow laws. Having said that, I am completely in favor of law enforcement strategies designed to get guns out of the hands of criminals.

By that, I mean more searches by law enforcement officers of suspected criminals based upon probable cause. Shake the right tree, and apples will fall out. Somehow, though, liberals never seem to be in favor of these kinds of approaches. They prefer to take the IRS approach: Go after the people who actually bother to try to follow the law.

I know i'm going to get slammed for saying this, but I personally believe that gun ownership should be a privilege and is not a natural or human right. And I believe that upholding the professed right to gunownership just isn't worth the cost to society. That being said, it is just my personal opinion and I don't believe in taking away anyone's guns.
 
Of course not, just shrooms. And according to stats, drug crime is the major driving force behind violent crime. I could look it up if you like, I just heard that on television the other night.

Maybe in Mexico, but not in the U.S. FWIW, our stats aren't collected like that federally, so I'd be interested to see what sort of research basis that claim had. Violent crime is driven by different factors in different cities and in specific high-crime neighborhoods. Criminals tend to be opportunistic, so drugs become a factor if there is availability of drugs, but there are other factors that can be just as significant.
 
What the hell has this to do with anything?

It address you're concern that he would still be in his parents house, complaining about the government. You're allowed to do that ... just so you know. That you knew, was not apparent.
 
Maybe in Mexico, but not in the U.S. FWIW, our stats aren't collected like that federally, so I'd be interested to see what sort of research basis that claim had. Violent crime is driven by different factors in different cities and in specific high-crime neighborhoods. Criminals tend to be opportunistic, so drugs become a factor if there is availability of drugs, but there are other factors that can be just as significant.

So the gangs you worked with were not slinging drugs?
 
It address you're concern that he would still be in his parents house, complaining about the government. You're allowed to do that ... just so you know. That you knew, was not apparent.

The point you missed was that if he had been unable to buy a guy, he would still be in his parents house ranting about the government and masterbaiting to guns and ammo glock centerfolds.
 
The issue will continue to be stirred up regardless. I think a lot of the fear people have is unnecessary, though. There are far too many powerful people who are pro-gun. Not to mention the fact that this will never make it past the senate. I honestly don't know why Obama is even bothering with it.

You mean the House. Democrats still have a majority in the Senate
 
I know i'm going to get slammed for saying this, but I personally believe that gun ownership should be a privilege and is not a natural or human right. And I believe that upholding the professed right to gunownership just isn't worth the cost to society. That being said, it is just my personal opinion and I don't believe in taking away anyone's guns.

It's an opinion, and you have every right to it.

I don't own a gun. I don't feel a need for it. I own a pit bull and a baseball bat. I don't believe that I will ever need to use a gun in self defense, but when I was doing a more dangerous job than I do now, I felt it would be hypocritical for me to carry a gun for self protection and then tell my clients that they couldn't. At this point, there are maybe a couple of seconds every five years where I wish I owned a gun (like the last time a rattlesnake was on my deck). Not sufficient to warrant the risk when I have kids. I have a close friend whose daughter shot herself in the head with his service revolver (he's a cop). I also had two friends in high school who suicided using their parents' weapons. Having a gun in the home increases the risk of a child using it to commit an act of violence against himself.

However, I also don't believe that gun laws are an effective way to reduce violent crime. The average law-abiding gun owner isn't committing violent crimes, and the average criminal doesn't care what the law says.
 
The point you missed was that if he had been unable to buy a guy, he would still be in his parents house ranting about the government and masterbaiting to guns and ammo glock centerfolds.

Do you really think that not being able to legally purchase a weapon will deter a really committed crazy person? Do you believe that the majority of violent crimes in your community are committed with legal guns? If so, I'd encourage you to do some research on teh subject. Most guns used in teh commission of a violent crime are illegally obtained.
 
So the gangs you worked with were not slinging drugs?

Some individuals in some gangs were, but there is very little research behind the idea that there are massive drug gangs in the U.S. that control the street level trafficking of narcotics. This is true in Chicago, and it's true to some extent in parts of California, but it's generally not true elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom