• 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!

Liberal Gun Control Activist Caught Packing Gun[W:188]

Hatuey said:
So then we are in agreement that neither of the laws presented a gun control laws and the OP is wrong. Yes?
Click to expand...

They laws do reflect anti-gun sentiments, as the OP stated.

The 72 hour reporting is up to the gun owner - just like a car owner who has had their vehicle stolen.

Personally, I would report the stolen weapon in the hope of recovery.

Regarding the schools, what part of 'it's none of their business' do you consider agreement?

Never done that, and I never will.

It is none of the schools business.
 
Hatuey said:
Do kids have to report the parents of kids with peanut allergies? No. Moving on. Next ridiculous scenario, please!
Click to expand...

Yes...let's move on from supporting that legislator's attempts to require student to inform their school that there are guns in their home.
 
Mycroft said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

You're lying. They don't. Hell, the first thing that comes in my kid's agenda after "Allergies" is parents must warn the school of any allergies their children may have. So again, I ask: How does this law restrict your gun ownership?

https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNFim7H6GS0RmlrWvldv5MdUdubguA

Again, here is the form. Parents are told notify of their children. Not of others. Are those forms anti-allergy? Anti-peanut? Anti... strawberry?
 
Last edited:
SMTA said:
They laws do reflect anti-gun sentiments, as the OP stated.

The 72 hour reporting is up to the gun owner - just like a car owner who has had their vehicle stolen.

Personally, I would report the stolen weapon in the hope of recovery.
Click to expand...

So laws which tell people to report stolen cars... are anti-car? No. That's silly.

Regarding the schools, what part of 'it's none of their business' do you consider agreement?
Click to expand...

Personally? None. I just don't agree that it's anti-gun in any way shape or form. Schools have policies which tell parents that educators will not be held responsible if a child's allergy is not reported. The same goes for this, parents who don't report that they have firearms at home should be held responsible if the child uses their gun in a school shooting.
 
Deuce said:
Yeah, what a bitch. Trying to require people to notify a school if the child owns a gun. Trying to require people to report a stolen gun within 72 hours, which is apparently "de-facto gun registration" (wait, what?). Bitch.

She clearly wants to come into your home and take your guns.
Click to expand...

How many children own guns?
 
Hatuey said:
So laws which tell people to report stolen cars... are anti-car? No. That's silly.



Personally? None. I just don't agree that it's anti-gun in any way shape or form. Schools have policies which tell parents that educators will not be held responsible if a child's allergy is not reported. The same goes for this, parents who don't report that they have firearms at home should be held responsible if the child uses their gun in a school shooting.
Click to expand...

Well bully for you.

It would make more sense to go after parents with children with untreated mental conditions, exactly like Adam Lanza.

The common thread in school shootings is usually some deranged moron.

I know exactly what my kids do and think because I care about them.
 
Deuce said:
I agree. But this hardly makes her an "anti-gun zealot." It's reactionary bull**** to school shootings, and, given the lack of any actual penalty, is largely symbolic. The real thrust of that provision was actually punishing parents who leave guns unsecured which are then used by their child to kill someone. Again, hardly zealous behavior.
Click to expand...

Really? I call it government intrusion.
 
SMTA said:
Well bully for you.

It would make more sense to go after parents with children with untreated mental conditions, exactly like Adam Lanza.
Click to expand...

Mental conditions are a lot harder/more expensive to diagnose than simply making the school aware that there is a gun in your household. :shrug:

The common thread in school shootings is usually some deranged moron.
Click to expand...

With access to weapons. In some cases, those owned by their parents:

Samuel Epps, 11, shoots himself dead with father's gun after argument over chores | Daily Mail Online
Portland father of 11-year-old who used his gun in carjacking attempt should spend 21 months in prison, prosecutor recommends | OregonLive.com
Kao Xiong, accidental child shooting death: A 4-year-boy killed his 2-year-old brother and the father was convicted of manslaughter. Good.
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hortly after 9:35 am, using his mother's Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle,[29][30][31] Lanza shot his way through a glass panel next to the locked front entrance doors of the school.[32][33][34] He was wearing black clothing, yellow earplugs, sunglasses,[35] an olive green utility vest, and was carrying magazines for the rifle.[36] Initial reports that he had been wearing body armor were incorrect.[37] Some of those present heard initial shots on the school intercom system, which was being used for morning announcements.[20]
Click to expand...

Again, this isn't as draconian a policy as you make it out to be. There are shootings, and the school should be made aware that there are certain kids with access to guns.

I know exactly what my kids do and think because I care about them.
Click to expand...

Good for ya. I never attack good parenting. However, this isn't a control measure in the least. There are absolutely zero restrictions to gun ownership within the laws cited. It's funny that Turtle couldn't simply admit that.
 
Hatuey said:
Mental conditions are a lot harder/more expensive to diagnose than simply making the school aware that there is a gun in your household. :shrug:



With access to weapons. In some cases, those owned by their parents:

Samuel Epps, 11, shoots himself dead with father's gun after argument over chores | Daily Mail Online
Portland father of 11-year-old who used his gun in carjacking attempt should spend 21 months in prison, prosecutor recommends | OregonLive.com
Kao Xiong, accidental child shooting death: A 4-year-boy killed his 2-year-old brother and the father was convicted of manslaughter. Good.
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Again, this isn't as draconian a policy as you make it out to be. There are shootings, and the school should be made aware that there are certain kids with access to guns.



Good for ya. I never attack good parenting. However, this isn't a control measure in the least. There are absolutely zero restrictions to gun ownership within the laws cited. It's funny that Turtle couldn't simply admit that.
Click to expand...

Surely his concern is the gathering of a list of gun owners, and potential future repercussions, which I agree with.

The difference is terminology driven by beliefs.

Call it whatever you want, but I absolutely disagree with giving away any personal information to anyone - there is safety in privacy.

Several years ago in Florida, they passed a law that did not allow physicians to ask patients if they had guns in the home.

I find that law to be completely ridiculous, because all you have to do is say 'none of your business'.

More laws are bad, and more bad laws is much worse.
 
SMTA said:
Surely his concern is the gathering of a list of gun owners, and potential future repercussions, which I agree with.

The difference is terminology driven by beliefs.

Call it whatever you want, but I absolutely disagree with giving away any personal information to anyone - there is safety in privacy.

Several years ago in Florida, they passed a law that did not allow physicians to ask patients if they had guns in the home.

I find that law to be completely ridiculous, because all you have to do is say 'none of your business'.

More laws are bad, and more bad laws is much worse.
Click to expand...

If you ever filled out a census form, you have given the government plenty of information about you that it can use.
 
SMTA said:
Surely his concern is the gathering of a list of gun owners, and potential future repercussions, which I agree with.
Click to expand...

Gun owners who have children attending the school and whose children could bring guns to school. That's a pretty specific law to pass. However, after 14 pages nobody has shown how it restricts the right of those parents to own the guns.

The difference is terminology driven by beliefs.

Call it whatever you want, but I absolutely disagree with giving away any personal information to anyone - there is safety in privacy.

Several years ago in Florida, they passed a law that did not allow physicians to ask patients if they had guns in the home.

I find that law to be completely ridiculous, because all you have to do is say 'none of your business'.

More laws are bad, and more bad laws is much worse.
Click to expand...

Different issue altogether. Whenever you have privacy concerns, it's up to you to decide how much information the school can disclose:

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

Schools may disclose, without consent, "directory" information such as a student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance. However, schools must tell parents and eligible students about directory information and allow parents and eligible students a reasonable amount of time to request that the school not disclose directory information about them.
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
Is having a homosexual in the household a similar potential danger to the other schoolchildren?
Click to expand...

So anyone who owns a gun is a potential danger to a school?

Sheer lunacy...
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
If you ever filled out a census form, you have given the government plenty of information about you that it can use.
Click to expand...

Of course - they get the minimum from me.
 
Hatuey said:
Gun owners who have children attending the school and whose children could bring guns to school. That's a pretty specific law to pass. However, after 14 pages nobody has shown how it restricts the right of those parents to own the guns.



Different issue altogether. Whenever you have privacy concerns, it's up to you to decide how much information the school can disclose:

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
Click to expand...

Don't care - the less they have, the better off I am.
 
Deuce said:
Right. And a gun in the household is more likely to cause harm than No Gun in the household.
Click to expand...

Maybe you shouldn't have a car in your garage because they cause many more injuries and deaths than guns.
 
GRC said:
Private information. People should have the right to silence about what is in their own household, it's nobodies business.
Click to expand...

And I thought liberals want the government out citizen's bedrooms?
 
Flamethrower said:
How would I know?

Anyway, what gun control laws do you support? I do believe you mentioned background checks for gun purchases and transfers and gun registrations.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe we should take simple measures to prevent a violent felon from purchasing a gun. Clearly this means I want to take every gun on the planet away from people and also take away anything that makes loud, gun-like noises.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063905587 said:
Maybe you shouldn't have a car in your garage because they cause many more injuries and deaths than guns.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you shouldn't have a gun in the household. Man, everything is so black and white with the ammosexuals.
 
Hatuey said:
Mental conditions are a lot harder/more expensive to diagnose than simply making the school aware that there is a gun in your household. :shrug:
Click to expand...

That describes your anti-gun logic perfectly - it is too hard to identify mental illness, so attack the lawful gun owners because it is easier.

Better plan on taking the correct and difficult steps for identification of mental illness, because US gun owners will not stand for your persecution just because it is easier.

What a load of garbage that is.
 
SMTA said:
That describes your anti-gun logic perfectly - it is too hard to identify mental illness, so attack the lawful gun owners because it is easier.

Better plan on taking the correct and difficult steps for identification of mental illness, because US gun owners will not stand for your persecution just because it is easier.
Click to expand...

SMTA said:
That describes your anti-peanut logic perfectly, it's too hard to identify who is allergic to peanuts so attack the unhealthy peanut eating people because it is easier.
Click to expand...

That's how ridiculous your statement sounds.

1. Nobody is attacking you. That's hyperbole.
2. Nobody is persecuting you. That is hyperbole.
3. The reason people are asked about whether they own guns is because of possible situations. Nobody is comin' ta take ya guns once you tell the schools.
 
Deuce said:
I didn't say you shouldn't have a gun in the household. Man, everything is so black and white with the ammosexuals.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension appears to be a problem for you.

You stated having a gun in the household is more likely to cause harm than no gun in the household.

I stated maybe you shouldn't have a car because they cause more injury and deaths, i.e. harm, than guns. Now do you get it?

I'll bet you keep your car though.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063905655 said:
Reading comprehension appears to be a problem for you.
Click to expand...
Nah, I think that would be you.

You stated having a gun in the household is more likely to cause harm than no gun in the household.
Click to expand...
This statement is accurate. But it doesn't lead to notion that nobody should have a gun in the household. That was your leap, not mine. Like I said, you see things in black and white. For some reason, you jumped to this idea that anything with any amount of risk should be ejected from the household. But if that is your standard, you should stop taking a shower because that kills people sometimes too.
 
Hatuey said:
You're lying. They don't. Hell, the first thing that comes in my kid's agenda after "Allergies" is parents must warn the school of any allergies their children may have. So again, I ask: How does this law restrict your gun ownership?

https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNFim7H6GS0RmlrWvldv5MdUdubguA

Again, here is the form. Parents are told notify of their children. Not of others. Are those forms anti-allergy? Anti-peanut? Anti... strawberry?
Click to expand...

ummm...I should have followed your lead and partially quoted you. Then you would not have misunderstood what I was saying.

I wasn't answering your question with a yes...I was agreeing that we should move on.

I apologize for causing you to waste a post.
 
Deuce said:
Nah, I think that would be you.


This statement is accurate. But it doesn't lead to notion that nobody should have a gun in the household. That was your leap, not mine.
Click to expand...

Didn't think you would get it...

I was right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom