• 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 said:
No they better stay away from my house. I have 3 hand guns and a concealed weapons license. I want no laws that come against my rights to have these
Click to expand...

Stricter gun control =/= taking away your second amendment rights. You'll be fine ptif.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I see....and how exactly is it possible to create regulations without the approval of congress?
Click to expand...

He has already done it with the EPA it will continue to other departments heads, There is a reason Obama has all these Czars
 
StillBallin75 said:
I see....and how exactly is it possible to create regulations without the approval of congress?
Click to expand...

Yeah. The Executive Order is one example of how a President can legislate through the executive office. It's maybe not the best thing to allow to go unchecked.
 
ptif219 said:
Yes just like legal abortion would never happen and we will never see legal gay marriage?
Click to expand...

This is my thing, Republicans want everything their way. You want guns so guns should be protected. You don't like abortion or gays so that should be illegal. If you support freedom, support freedom. Otherwise just say you want everything your way like a child does.

Conservatives say they don't want government telling them what to do, but they do want government telling everybody they don't like what to do!
 
tlmorg02 said:
They become illegally obtained because guns are so prevalent in this culture that I can break into a house and steal a gun, or go buy one, file off the serial number and sell the gun to a crook, report it stolen and I am off the hook.
Click to expand...
Filing off the serial number? Off the hook? You're aware that such serial number removal is not an effective way to disguise a weapon's orgins and hasn't since the 1950's. Acid etching has been around since the 1950's and has been used on cars and firearms. Been watching Jimmy Cagney and Humphrey Bogart movies again? :lamo

tlmorg02 said:
If guns were not everywhere, it would not be so easy to have millions of them floating around to be obtained illegally.
Click to expand...
Good idea. Let's get rid of cars too. Cars kill 30,000 people a year, and injure 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers every year and is the leading cause of death of those ages 5-35 in the United States. If cars were not everywhere, it would not be so easy for people to have accidents and kill themselves and others in them. We need to ban all moving vehicles immediately!

CDC - Motor Vehicle Safety
 
Ikari said:
Yeah. The Executive Order is one example of how a President can legislate through the executive office. It's maybe not the best thing to allow to go unchecked.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about this, but I don't think the executive order gives the President the ability to regulate something on a scale as large as this. And again, even if he did, it would be political suicide so I'm not sure if he would even want to. If anything happens it's going to be done through Congress.
 
jamesrage said:
Isn't it funny that the same people who want to **** on the 2nd amendment are the same ones trying to say that your just paranoid or that you have nothing to dear.
Click to expand...

Thats what they always do and then when it is to late they get their way
 
MrVicchio said:
Gun Control's goal, of denying criminals guns is laudable. I don't like criminals with guns anymore then you do. However, making guns harder to obtain for honest, law abiding citizens merely empowers criminals.

The incident in Az was not a case of lack of laws, but a case of the current laws needing a simple tweak. Had the Police and the School been able to report his mental state, that might have red flagged him from buying a gun legally. However it would not have PREVENTED him from buying a gun. Does anyone really believe that being denied a pistol purchase would have really stopped this nut job? He would have found another way. Black market gun sales, maybe he would have driven a car into the crowd instead, or made a pipe bomb...

No "gun control" would have stopped him from acting the way he did. And new laws "aimed at stopping people liek him" aren't really productive, just exercises in political showmanship at the cost of our rights.
Click to expand...

Best argument yet! Thank you. :applaud
 
MrVicchio said:
Gun Control's goal, of denying criminals guns is laudable. I don't like criminals with guns anymore then you do. However, making guns harder to obtain for honest, law abiding citizens merely empowers criminals.

The incident in Az was not a case of lack of laws, but a case of the current laws needing a simple tweak. Had the Police and the School been able to report his mental state, that might have red flagged him from buying a gun legally. .
Click to expand...


Loughner could have been committed under Arizona law - USATODAY.com
"The state laws are some of the best in the country," said Jack Potts, a forensic psychiatrist in Phoenix. "The follow-up is not."

Under Arizona law, anyone can call the county or regional health authorities with concerns about a person's mental health, and authorities are required to send out mobile units to assess the person's condition, said Brian Stettin, policy director at the Treatment Advocacy Center in Arlington, Va., which advocates for involuntary commitment for mental illness.

The person who files a request for commitment must list the names of two witnesses who can attest to the subject's behavior, although they don't have to sign the document themselves, Potts said.
 
tlmorg02 said:
This is my thing, Republicans want everything their way. You want guns so guns should be protected. You don't like abortion or gays so that should be illegal. If you support freedom, support freedom. Otherwise just say you want everything your way like a child does.

Conservatives say they don't want government telling them what to do, but they do want government telling everybody they don't like what to do!
Click to expand...

Nice spin to avoid my point By the way I am a independent conservative I do not belong to a political party
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
Good idea. Let's get rid of cars too. Cars kill 30,000 people a year, and injure 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers every year and is the leading cause of death of those ages 5-35 in the United States.
Click to expand...

You just don't get it! Look at how many insane people get guns and shoot up civilian areas! There was VT several years ago and now the dude in AZ. I mean, here you are bringing up things which have well greater impact on our probabilities of survival, but don't you see that through draconian methods and government force against our rights we can make a negligible probability even more negligible? Sheesh, some people just don't get it.
 
ptif219 said:
Says the liberal that supports Obama
Click to expand...

Alright ptif. If the ATF ever comes to your house and tries to take away your guns just shoot the **** outta them with whatever you got. stock up on whatever you need, and take all those nasty Feds out or go out in a blaze of glory.
 
jamesrage said:
Isn't it funny that the same people who want to **** on the 2nd amendment are the same ones trying to say that your just paranoid or that you have nothing to dear.
Click to expand...

So I take it you feel that the Constitution should be taken exactly how it was and left unchanged, ever?
 
StillBallin75 said:
Stricter gun control =/= taking away your second amendment rights. You'll be fine ptif.
Click to expand...

Hmm... the U.K. and Australia thought that too. Didn't work out too well for them.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I'm not sure about this, but I don't think the executive order gives the President the ability to regulate something on a scale as large as this. And again, even if he did, it would be political suicide so I'm not sure if he would even want to. If anything happens it's going to be done through Congress.
Click to expand...

If government has shown us anything, it's to not underestimate their ability to usurp power.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Neither of those issues are so deeply rooted in the Bill of Rights as gun ownership.
Click to expand...

Yet no one years ago ever thought they would be legal. Liberals at that time did the same thing as you are doing now. It is okay don't worry it will not happen
 
StillBallin75 said:
Alright ptif. If the ATF ever comes to your house and tries to take away your guns just shoot the **** outta them with whatever you got. stock up on whatever you need, and take all those nasty Feds out or go out in a blaze of glory.
Click to expand...

You gotta watch out for the ATF. They've shown that they are more than willing to set fire to your compound and watch everyone inside burn to death.
 
jamesrage said:
Loughner could have been committed under Arizona law - USATODAY.com
"The state laws are some of the best in the country," said Jack Potts, a forensic psychiatrist in Phoenix. "The follow-up is not."

Under Arizona law, anyone can call the county or regional health authorities with concerns about a person's mental health, and authorities are required to send out mobile units to assess the person's condition, said Brian Stettin, policy director at the Treatment Advocacy Center in Arlington, Va., which advocates for involuntary commitment for mental illness.

The person who files a request for commitment must list the names of two witnesses who can attest to the subject's behavior, although they don't have to sign the document themselves, Potts said.
Click to expand...

Hindsight my friend. He "could have" "might have" had enough people acted. But they didn't. And the police and college folks had both the ample power and reason to get the ball going and dropped it. I don't believe hindsight is wisdom.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
He lacks the capacity, as a president, to pass legislation impacting gun rights, when he does not have control of the house. Try to stop panicking.
Click to expand...

That lack of capacity didn't seem to hinder Health Care from getting passed... other things did like a lack of citizens support - but not a Presidential lack of capacity.
 
Middleground said:
Osama Bin Laden certainly did.
Click to expand...

More dishonest, and predictable fails from MG.

Obama is not one lone man. He's a figure head, albeit an important one of a large diverse organized effort to attack western civilization. How about you refrain from posting till you have something substantive to add.
 
Ikari said:
You just don't get it! Look at how many insane people get guns and shoot up civilian areas! There was VT several years ago and now the dude in AZ. I mean, here you are bringing up things which have well greater impact on our probabilities of survival, but don't you see that through draconian methods and government force against our rights we can make a negligible probability even more negligible? Sheesh, some people just don't get it.
Click to expand...

The answer is to commit these people not make anti gun laws
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom