• 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!

Joe Manchin says on verge of gun deal

Henrin said:
Giving in at all is unacceptable.

This entire debate has no reason to exist since the constitution is very clear on the topic. There is no wiggle room that exists. Yes, I'm not willing to give in one little bit on our rights. Cry if you want about it.
Click to expand...

Only in your imagination is the constitution that clear on the topic.

In fact, the idea of the individual right of ownership of firearms wasn't even established until five years ago.... because, the constitution isn't that clear on the subject. Let's start with the notion that 'infringement' does mean unlimited. Heller v DC was the landmark case that established gun ownership as an individual right AND explicitly stated that "...the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".

Fine to argue your opinion on this... but to state the Constitution is "very clear on this topic" is an idea that lives in the forest between ignorance and "disingenuousness."
 
Henrin said:
How in the hell is it possible there there is bipartition support on gun control?
Click to expand...


Because only the far right oppose background checks for gun sales.
 
Catawba said:
Because only the far right oppose background checks for gun sales.
Click to expand...

Then only the far right understands what the words "shall not be infringed" means. How very sad for the country. Why do people fail at english so badly?
 
Henrin said:
Then only the far right understands what the words shall not be infringed means. How sad for the country.
Click to expand...

Only the far right doesn't understand what the word, "regulated" means in the the 2nd Amendment. How unhealthy for the country!
 
Catawba said:
Only the far right doesn't understand what the word, "regulated" means in the the 2nd Amendment. How unhealthy for the country!
Click to expand...

Please enlighten me on what the word regulate means in the second amendment then. Go ahead and turn the sentence into a cluster**** by picking the modern definition of the word. It is alway enjoyable watching liberals try to figure out how the sentence still works after they do such nonsense.
 
Henrin said:
Please enlighten me on what the word regulate means in the second amendment then. Go ahead and turn the sentence into a cluster**** by picking the modern definition of the word. It is alway enjoyable watching liberals try to figure out how the sentence still works after they do such nonsense.
Click to expand...

Under the Constitution, "Congress, according to Article I, Section 8, has the mandate to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States..." The "Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" is reserved to the states."

Exploring the Constitution, Part 21: The Second Amendment and a Well Regulated Militia
 
Catawba said:
Under the Constitution, "Congress, according to Article I, Section 8, has the mandate to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States..." The "Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" is reserved to the states."

Exploring the Constitution, Part 21: The Second Amendment and a Well Regulated Militia
Click to expand...

That is such a stupid argument.Tell me you didn't just use article 1 section 8 when talking about the militia that is mentioned in the second amendment? Oh my god. :doh

You just turned the sentence into a cluster**** with your broken ass logic. Congrats.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
Sooo its okay for "mentally unstable people" to have firearms at will?
Click to expand...

There is not any one person on earth who is not—at least to some degree—“mentally unstable”. It's part of being human.

It is true that there are some people whose minds are so defective that they pose a danger to themselves and others, but these are a very tiny minority, even among those who could be honestly said to be more “mentally unstable” than average. The only effective and ethical means of dealing with such, once proper due process has been followed, is to remove them from free society. As long as they are free, attempting to enact and enforce laws that prohibit crazy people from doing crazy things is futile, at best.

I find it very dangerous to use the criteria of “mentally unstable” as a broad basis for depriving people of any of their basic rights. There is a long history of government declaring their enemies to be mentally unstable, or insane, and on this basis, imprisoning them, or otherwise depriving them of their rights. Dianne Feinstein herself has openly called for war veterans in general to be considered mentally unstable, due to a potential for post-traumatic stress syndrome, and on that basis, to be broadly denied their Second Amendment rights.

Of all the basic rights which the Constitution affirms, the right to keep and bear arms is the one right which government has most solidly proven that it cannot be trusted to uphold or respect. Any power that government is allowed to claim to pick and choose who may or may not exercise this right will[/b[ be abused, and has already been abused, to an outrageous degree.
 
Catawba said:
Under the Constitution, "Congress, according to Article I, Section 8, has the mandate to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States..." The "Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" is reserved to the states."

Exploring the Constitution, Part 21: The Second Amendment and a Well Regulated Militia
Click to expand...

Henrin said:
That is such a stupid argument.Tell me you didn't just use article 1 section 8 when talking about the militia that is mentioned in the second amendment? Oh my god. :doh

You just turned the sentence into a cluster**** with your broken ass logic. Congrats.
Click to expand...

I guess I should say a bit more. Your logic is ****ed beyond belief. Your argument wouldn't lead to the congress being able to regulate guns in the modern sense, but to maintain access to them in 1780's sense. Your dumb argument wouldn't lead to the government being able to regulate away guns but instead would ensure that they protect the peoples right to bear arms. Do you even have the ability to understand english? Do you honestly believe that the modern definition of regulate makes any sense at all in that sentence? Your argument and your source only help me, but you are so caught up in your nonsense use of a modern definition in the second amendment you are blinded to all reason.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Only the far right doesn't understand what the word, "regulated" means in the the 2nd Amendment. How unhealthy for the country!
Click to expand...

"A well-Regulated militia" is one that is well-trained and in good order. It has nothing to do with legislative action.
 
Henrin said:
Giving in at all is unacceptable. This entire debate has no reason to exist since the constitution is very clear on the topic. There is no wiggle room that exists. Yes, I'm not willing to give in one little bit on our rights. Cry if you want about it.
Click to expand...

What do you mean - the Constitution is CLEAR about it?

As to your use of the accusation of "cry if you want about it" - that seems silly as I clearly said I could well understand why any gun industry supporter would nto want to give an inch on this issue.
 
upsideguy said:
Prevented Sandy Hook? No. On the other hand, if had restrictions on magazine sizes, the number of deaths at Sandy Hook, Aurora and Tuscon, in all probability would have been much less. But we aren't going down that make sense path. Instead, we are left with the half-assed approach that, at best, will retard the acquisition of firearms by some people. It might have prevented Columbine, for example, as those guns were purchased by a surrogate at a gun show and could prevent Arlington.
Click to expand...
Columbine was carried out using 10rnd magazines, not 30rnd magazines. The shooters brought 18 10rnd mags and fired over 130rnds before it was over. Also, California had an assault-weapon ban in force at the time; the weapons used were not assault weapons. And one last thing, the legal owners of those weapons could pass NICS, so even if background checks were required at gun shows it wouldn't have made any difference.

Adam Lansa did not use all of his ammunition. He didn't kill himself because he was running out of amo, he killed himself because the police were arriving.

The complete ban on explosives didn't stop the CO shooter or Columbine, either.

Gun bans and and background checks aren't the answer. Targeting mental illness is the answer.
 
Henrin said:
Your argument wouldn't lead to the congress being able to regulate guns in the modern sense..........
Click to expand...


They have! Just look at all the gun regulation enacted by Congress since 1934.
 
You already have to do a background check when you buy a gun online. If you see a gun you want online, and you buy it, the seller has to send the gun to an FFL in your area, not to your house, and that FFL will do an ATF form 4473 and NICS to transfer it to you. I don't see what a new law would change about online purchases.
 
The big news today -

[h=1]Gun Control Bill Clears First Hurdle In Senate[/h]
"The first national gun control legislation since the Dec. 14 school shooting in Newtown, Conn., is going to be debated on the floor of the Senate and appears headed for a vote sometime next week.
Supporters in the Senate on Thursday morning rounded up more than the 60 votes necessary to clear a procedural hurdle that could have held up consideration of the Democratic-crafted package. The vote was 68-31 in favor of blocking a bid by some Republicans to filibuster the legislation."

Gun Control Bill Clears First Hurdle In Senate : The Two-Way : NPR
 
Catawba said:
The big news today -

Gun Control Bill Clears First Hurdle In Senate


"The first national gun control legislation since the Dec. 14 school shooting in Newtown, Conn., is going to be debated on the floor of the Senate and appears headed for a vote sometime next week.
Supporters in the Senate on Thursday morning rounded up more than the 60 votes necessary to clear a procedural hurdle that could have held up consideration of the Democratic-crafted package. The vote was 68-31 in favor of blocking a bid by some Republicans to filibuster the legislation."

Gun Control Bill Clears First Hurdle In Senate : The Two-Way : NPR
Click to expand...
How would this bill have prevented the Sandy Hoot shooting?
 
Jerry said:
How would this bill have prevented the Sandy Hoot shooting?
Click to expand...

You are thinking about the large capacity magazine ban. That is not being voted on, unless it is added as an amendment. The purpose of the background checks is to reduce the number of guns sold across the country with no questions asked.
 
Catawba said:
You are thinking about the large capacity magazine ban. That is not being voted on, unless it is added as an amendment. The purpose of the background checks is to reduce the number of guns sold across the country with no questions asked.
Click to expand...
Your link mentions Sandy Hook. How is Sandy Hook relevant to the deal being struck? The guns Adam Lansa used were not bought online or at gun shows, so I don't see the connection.
 
Jerry said:
How would this bill have prevented the Sandy Hoot shooting?
Click to expand...

It would have had ZERO affect, but it is "gun control", so it is "good" anyway for those seeking to create national gun registration database. This bill makes it a crime to sell (transfer) any gun not via a FFL dealer "recorded" transaction 180 days after its passage.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It would have had ZERO affect, but it is "gun control", so it is "good" anyway for those seeking to create national gun registration database. This bill makes it a crime to sell (transfer) any gun not via a FFL dealer "recorded" transaction 180 days after its passage.
Click to expand...
The rifle Lansa used was bought from an FFL, was assault weapon ban compliant, and was registered to it's lawful owner.

Yet all that gun control didn't stop the Sandy Hook shooting.

How is applying the same failed rules elsewhere any kind of answer to Sandy Hook?
 
Jerry said:
The rifle Lansa used was bought from an FFL, was assault weapon ban compliant, and was registered to it's lawful owner.

Yet all that gun control didn't stop the Sandy Hook shooting.

How is applying the same failed rules elsewhere any kind of answer to Sandy Hook?
Click to expand...

It is not about preventing anything; it is about forcing ALL private gun sales to go through a FFL dealer (for a TBD fee). It is designed to create a national database of all gun sales/ownership. Once you are the gun "owner of record" you then must report loss/theft within 24 hours and can only legally sell/transfer that gun through a FFL dealer. This will be said to prevent "straw purchases" only, yet has the potential to put the squeeze on any gun owner that no longer has their gun "of record", yet did not sell that gun "legally" via a FFL dealer recorded tansaction.
 
Catawba said:
They have! Just look at all the gun regulation enacted by Congress since 1934.
Click to expand...

Your argument and the source your provided would only allow the congress to keep arms available to the people. That would more or less be in line with the later part of the sentence. However, if you go with the modern definition of the term like you desire and for some weird reason your sources you provide don't defend, it would be in direction opposition to the later part of the sentence leaving it in a state of contradiction or as I put it earlier a cluster****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom