• 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

Boo Radley said:
They are not charged with being in on every operation.
Click to expand...

the attorney general is bottom line responsible for every action that goes on in his doj, as is the president

why did melson testify to house judiciary on july 4 that holder's dept tried to "limit his communication" with congress
 
Boo Radley said:
No. They are not charged with being in on every operation. They are held accountable to properly deal with those who make mistakes. If they pull a Bush, and go good job Brownie, that would be incompetent. But you are mistaken that people at the very top know every operation in complete detail. It's an unreasonable expectation.
Click to expand...


They are briefed and know what is happening. Something as big as this they would know about and have to approve
 
TurtleDude said:
Do you own a gun? I could say the same thing about gay marriage-I am not gay and gay marriage has absolutely no relevance to my life.

same with abortion-my wife is too old to have any more kids so its not an issue that affects us either
Click to expand...
I don't think restrictions on who can own a gun, based on capacity and/or a violent history, and/or restrictions on the type of guns you can buy, are the same as restrictions on who you can marry or whether you can be forced to bear a child. The right to bear arms was undoubtedly fundamental in the days of Red Coats and Indians and when you had to shoot your own pheasant for dinner. Today, it is probably the only explicit constitutional right that would be really difficult to defend as fundamental. The only argument it has going for it is tradition . . . much like the opposite-sex requirement of marriage.

Also, just because I do not own a gun does not mean the issue doesn't affect me. A lunatic with a gun can affect me on a far more serious level than seeing two men kissing on the street.

And as a side note, I always thought that abortion argument was pretty stupid. I may not be a woman, but all of us were once fetuses.
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
They are briefed and know what is happening. Something as big as this they would know about and have to approve
Click to expand...

You have to prove that, not just assume it. That's why i say it is you who are letting your partisan side get the better of you. Prove the briefing, that they were completely inform, and you may have a point. Without that proof, you're just a partisan wanting to believe something.
 
Boo Radley said:
you're just a partisan wanting to believe something
Click to expand...

and you are just a...

WHO is mister melson, that's the question that matters

why did the sitting atf, appointed by obama, testify in the house that doj wanted to limit his communication?
 
Krhazy said:
I don't think restrictions on who can own a gun, based on capacity and/or a violent history, and/or restrictions on the type of guns you can buy, are the same as restrictions on who you can marry or whether you can be forced to bear a child. The right to bear arms was undoubtedly fundamental in the days of Red Coats and Indians and when you had to shoot your own pheasant for dinner. Today, it is probably the only explicit constitutional right that would be really difficult to defend as fundamental. The only argument it has going for it is tradition . . . much like the opposite-sex requirement of marriage.

Also, just because I do not own a gun does not mean the issue doesn't affect me. A lunatic with a gun can affect me on a far more serious level than seeing two men kissing on the street.

And as a side note, I always thought that abortion argument was pretty stupid. I may not be a woman, but all of us were once fetuses.
Click to expand...


its illegal to own a gun if you are a lunatic

but I think you missed the point-

you don't find guns to be useful to you and you claimed that discussions on gun control issues don't really matter now

my point was your view seemed to be colored by the fact that the right is not one you find important just as I could argue that there should be no emphasis about rights I don't find useful to me

but you did hint that you think gun rights should be restricted and are not as important as "other rights" so that is the answer I expected
 
Thunder said:
comparing religions to guns, is very silly.
Click to expand...

only to those whose arguments are specious when it comes to partial versus total elimination of constitutional rights
 
Krhazy said:
I don't think restrictions on who can own a gun, based on capacity and/or a violent history, and/or restrictions on the type of guns you can buy, are the same as restrictions on who you can marry or whether you can be forced to bear a child. The right to bear arms was undoubtedly fundamental in the days of Red Coats and Indians and when you had to shoot your own pheasant for dinner. Today, it is probably the only explicit constitutional right that would be really difficult to defend as fundamental. The only argument it has going for it is tradition . . . much like the opposite-sex requirement of marriage.

Also, just because I do not own a gun does not mean the issue doesn't affect me. A lunatic with a gun can affect me on a far more serious level than seeing two men kissing on the street.

And as a side note, I always thought that abortion argument was pretty stupid. I may not be a woman, but all of us were once fetuses.
Click to expand...

Then again a person like me with a concealed weapon license may save your life.
 
ptif219 said:
Then again a person like me with a concealed weapon license may save your life.
Click to expand...

Or take it, as we're statisitcally more likely to shoot ourselves or someone close to us. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
You have to prove that, not just assume it. That's why i say it is you who are letting your partisan side get the better of you. Prove the briefing, that they were completely inform, and you may have a point. Without that proof, you're just a partisan wanting to believe something.
Click to expand...

So you continue to say Obama is incompetent and has no idea what his dept heads are doing. Another words you think Obama knows nothing about being a leader or President.
 
ptif219 said:
So you continue to say Obama is incompetent and has no idea what his dept heads are doing. Another words you think Obama knows nothing about being a leader or President.
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm saying you are factually wrong in what you think happens in government.
 
Boo Radley said:
Or take it, as we're statisitcally more likely to shoot ourselves or someone close to us. :coffeepap
Click to expand...
wrong

that sort of nonsense comes from the idiotic belief that the only way a gun is used to stop a crime is when a criminal is shot

hundreds of thousands of crimes -maybe up to two million a year-are stopped by people with guns.

how many people are accidentally shot

and "close to us" means what? a prostitute shooting the pimp that is beating her? a woman shooting an ex who is stalking her? one drug dealer who cannot legally own a gun shooting his competition?

we get the fact you are afraid of people owning guns but lets not trot out BS claims
 
ptif219 said:
Show proof of that
Click to expand...

he cannot-the "study" he cited counted a "gun in the home" when a crook brought a gun to an unarmed home and shot someone

guess what-its hard to get shot if there is no gun around. the problem is that gun bans tend to mean honest people are disarmed and crooks go unchallenged.
 
Thunder said:
SCOTUS protects the right of cities, towns, and states..to implement common-sense gun regulations.
Click to expand...

where did it say that in some place other than dicta?

common-sense was not the standard.
 
TurtleDude said:
where did it say that in some place other than dicta?

common-sense was not the standard.
Click to expand...

let us know when SCOTUS strikes down NYC's gun laws.

let us know when SCOTUS strikes down ANY big cities gun restrictions that do not outright ban gun ownership (handguns or long-guns).
 
Thunder said:
I would love to see 20 years of murder-rate history of a city that had very relaxed gun laws, and then in a year or two tightened the gun laws very strongly.

do we have ANY examples of this?
Click to expand...

Don't have one .. and don't need one .. . look up Washington DC history of crime .... then compare it to other cities that didn't have a gun ban .... you can make your own decision on what the numbers sayl.
 
Thunder said:
let us know when SCOTUS strikes down NYC's gun laws.

let us know when SCOTUS strikes down ANY big cities gun restrictions that do not outright ban gun ownership (handguns or long-guns).
Click to expand...

that hasn't come before them. lets see what happens

the evidence that continues to be developed is killing any argument that such restrictions have even a rational basis for their existence
 
ptif219 said:
Show proof of that
Click to expand...

Anyone who has been in any gun control debate in the last decade has heard the numbers:

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
Journal of Trauma, 1998

Stop Handgun Violence: The Facts
 
Boo Radley said:
Anyone who has been in any gun control debate in the last decade has heard the numbers:

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
Journal of Trauma, 1998

Stop Handgun Violence: The Facts
Click to expand...

Thats your proof a site that wants to ban hand guns? They even include suicide.

Nice try but not credible

What no response to the links in post 916?
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Anyone who has been in any gun control debate in the last decade has heard the numbers:

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
Journal of Trauma, 1998

Stop Handgun Violence: The Facts
Click to expand...

Kleck and Lott-both of whom started as gun restrictionists have rejected that bunk

1998? You just cut your own throat

you said to injure or kill in self defense

if I drive off a perp with a gun or capture one (as I have) without shooting him I have protected myself

limiting the study to actual discharges of weapons is biased and stupid

how many times do cops shoot criminals as opposed to use a gun to arrest them without injury?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom