• 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!

Why won't GOP act on gun control?

haymarket said:
Yes - we all know that. The key question then becomes when does that happen? What action would cause the right to keep an bear arms to be infringed?
Click to expand...
I realize you believe you have crafted a clever argument here. But in reality a definition of the word "infringe", already exists. Look it up, and you'll have your answer. But you already knew that.
 
NonoBadDog said:
blah blah blah nonsense more nonsense.
Click to expand...

IT IS CRIMINAL NONSENSE!

The Democrats didn't act on gun control when they had all three houses and if they had all three again they still wouldn't. If they did they know they would be out of a job in most states.
Click to expand...

Just ask Tom Foley, Jack Brooks, and every other criminal that voted for the Brady Bill.

Time for ice cream.
Click to expand...

I do like Bluebell.
 
imyoda said:
I think they could be either but written by an adult who understand the need to stem the unbelievable gun violence in this country
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as gun violence. A gun ( I prefer the word firearm ) has no capacity for violence. Criminals using guns are violent. Lock them up for life or 'deep six' them and the problem is solved.
 
imyoda said:
Now lets talk about what a "well regulated militia" means
Click to expand...

It's obvious what it means using the nomenclature of the time - Washington uses the phrase as well, in his various letters - but who cares?

They could have said "Because we all need to go back to Monticello and run a train on Sally Hemmings, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and the legal weight would be the same.


Obviously, it would sound a little more crass than reminding folks that in order for the militia - the common people - to be a fighting force in proper working order, the people needed to own and be familiar with their weapons.
 
imyoda said:
Why won't GOP act on gun control?
Why won't GOP act on gun control? (Opinion) - CNN.com


“…………………..The Republican Party, led by their presidential aspirants, is increasingly out of touch with the safety and security needs of the American people.

“……….. But when it comes to the weapons that are all too easy to obtain by not only Islamic extremists but also anti-abortion extremists and anti-government extremists who pose serious threat to American lives, Republicans show none of the "leadership" they say our nation so desperately needs.

Republicans are reacting to a scary but relatively small handful of terrorist attacks by Muslims on U.S. soil as though they're a daily occurrence. Yet Republicans won't do anything on the daily occurrence of gun violence in America.

This is not leadership. This is cowardice. Republican politicians are putting the demands of the NRA ahead of the safety and security of the American people. And even the conservative Supreme Court appears to think they've gone too far. …………”

“……………………Never mind that we know that weapons kept for self-defense are 12 times more likely to hurt family members than intruders. And never mind that a retired Air Force medic who survived the San Bernardino shooting said that even with a weapon he couldn't have done anything to prevent the bloodshed. ……………

“……………….. even a strong majority of those gun owners support common sense reforms like mandatory background checks and closing gun law loopholes.

Gun reform can't fix everything, but that doesn't mean we should do nothing. The Supreme Court has just tacitly paved the way for more local jurisdictions to take steps to curb guns and if Republicans in Congress won't act, more cities and counties and states should do so on their own. No more excuses.”

It is a word I have use several time regarding the GOP…………Cowards
Click to expand...

i have a different word for them

constitutionalists

a little piece of paper you guys on the left try to forget exist whenever it goes against what you want or think
 
imyoda said:
You believe that baloney you're dealing out?..............THE WORD IS COWARDS................

BTW

No one is looking to take away your guns..............folks with a brain just want some common sense regulations ......like banning the gun sales to suspected terrorists.........Is that too much to ask?
Click to expand...


sure

define terrorist

and who gets to determine who is a terrorist?

and is the list public?

and if on the list, who can you go to complain to....because your rights have been denied....you know....that 14th amendment thing

see....the idea behind the law isnt bad....but it wasnt thought out, or complete

and there has to be a way to fight it IF you end up on the list, and believe the government has wronged you
 
imyoda said:
Am I to conclude you do not agree with common sense gun regulation?
Click to expand...
Ah, the language of anti- gun extremists.

What laws do you propose that would have prevented San Bernadino?
 
imyoda said:
• Universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the suspected terrorists

• More responsibility on the part of manufacturers for producing safer guns………..who was it that has a gun on the market which fires when the safety is engaged…………fixing stuff like that

• Lean on gun dealers to do much more to prevent “straw purchases,”

To name but a few…………………..

Any problems with those?
Click to expand...
So you support stripping away someone's constitutional rights without due process?
 
imyoda said:
Why won't GOP act on gun control?
Why won't GOP act on gun control? (Opinion) - CNN.com


“…………………..The Republican Party, led by their presidential aspirants, is increasingly out of touch with the safety and security needs of the American people.

“……….. But when it comes to the weapons that are all too easy to obtain by not only Islamic extremists but also anti-abortion extremists and anti-government extremists who pose serious threat to American lives, Republicans show none of the "leadership" they say our nation so desperately needs.

Republicans are reacting to a scary but relatively small handful of terrorist attacks by Muslims on U.S. soil as though they're a daily occurrence. Yet Republicans won't do anything on the daily occurrence of gun violence in America.

This is not leadership. This is cowardice. Republican politicians are putting the demands of the NRA ahead of the safety and security of the American people. And even the conservative Supreme Court appears to think they've gone too far. …………”

“……………………Never mind that we know that weapons kept for self-defense are 12 times more likely to hurt family members than intruders. And never mind that a retired Air Force medic who survived the San Bernardino shooting said that even with a weapon he couldn't have done anything to prevent the bloodshed. ……………

“……………….. even a strong majority of those gun owners support common sense reforms like mandatory background checks and closing gun law loopholes.

Gun reform can't fix everything, but that doesn't mean we should do nothing. The Supreme Court has just tacitly paved the way for more local jurisdictions to take steps to curb guns and if Republicans in Congress won't act, more cities and counties and states should do so on their own. No more excuses.”

It is a word I have use several time regarding the GOP…………Cowards
Click to expand...

The problem with the anti-gun propaganda is that it tends to revolve around the sensationalism of emotional events. In essence, its goal is to get the individual to react emotionally rather than intellectually. I’m always suspect of arguments that rely on emotionalism. If we look at this subjectively, we see that the vast majority of guns in this country are not used in crimes, the vast majority of gun owners are not criminals. To keep and bear arms is a specifically enumerated Right, and for the sake of the Republic, it is important to uphold all our rights to the fullest.

And that’s the rub, to uphold our rights, to push for freedom, means that there is a certain risk involved. Not everyone will handle the freedom responsibly, some will even strike out against others. That’s why our laws are reactive (not proactive) and punish the individual for the crime they committed, not the lot of people who may have practiced similar dynamics but did nothing wrong.

It’s often said that freedom isn’t free. But most of the time, that is said in reference to blowing up people thousands of miles away from us. It’s rarely discussed in the context that we assume additional risks and dangers and probabilities when we choose to live in a free state. Yes, having guns means that perhaps terrorists get them and shoot up a place. Yes, having guns means that there will be some percentage of crime that is accomplished through the use of a gun, yes there are definite risks that we all assume by having guns in our culture. All freedom comes at the cost of security, freedom is not free. To be free we collectively assume greater risk. And while there may be some reasonable levels of regulation that we can perhaps look at to reduce certain probabilities, we can never remove the danger that freedom brings. It’s a fundamental. You cannot be 100% secure and free simultaneously.

Live free or die, death is not the greatest of sins.
 
imyoda said:
You believe that baloney you're dealing out?..............THE WORD IS COWARDS................
Click to expand...

Yep correct word but as we see this very aptly describe gun control advocates

cow·ard
ˈkou(ə)rd/
noun
noun: coward; plural noun: cowards

1.
a person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.
synonyms: weakling, milksop, namby-pamby, mouse; More
informal chicken, scaredy-cat, yellow-belly, sissy, baby, candy-ass, milquetoast
"the cowards were the first to give up"
antonyms: hero

Like refuse to defend themselves and demand government do it for them. Those who do defend themselves showing up the cowardice must be silenced.

adjective
adjective: coward

1.
literary
excessively afraid of danger or pain.

That would be gun control advocates who keep shouting do you want this to happen to you, to cover up that cowardice..

2.
Heraldry
(of an animal) depicted with the tail between the hind legs.



BTW

No one is looking to take away your guns..............folks with a brain just want some common sense regulations ......like banning the gun sales to suspected terrorists.........Is that too much to ask?
Click to expand...

It most certainly is when common sense regulation are not and serve no proven purpose except appease gun control advocates fears.

WTF is a suspected terrorist? Is it like a suspected murderer, suspected rapist, suspected paedophile, suspected robber, suspected house breaker, suspected mugger, suspected kidnapper......

Government has a watch list of suspected terrorists how many are terrorists?

Your fear and oppressive nature are showing when you would harass millions of firearm owners because you are frightened. That however is the nature of gun control advocates.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Turning the mere possession or carrying (keeping and bearing) of a gun into a crime would surely qualify, with one clearly defined exception - the violation of well defined probation or parole conditions following a criminal conviction. We lack no laws which make it illegal to commit criminal acts with a gun. The only thing that the 2A does is to establish a basic individual right to keep and bear arms - neither of which cause any harm to others.
Click to expand...

Why would a law making the carrying of a gun a crime be a violation of the Amendment since you clearly do not have a right to carry a weapon anywhere you want to?
 
imyoda said:
Is that what you think the problem is?

Tell the Founding Fathers you don't like the SCOTUS which was designed by them to settle issues of law............And please stop with the redefining of the constitution BS...........you have not one wit of an idea of what you speak..................Hasn't anyone filled you ion on the principle of the constitution being a living document.............and if it was not so.............we would still have slaves
Click to expand...


Horse Crap! In double spades. Nothing has ever decided it is a living document. It can only be changed by amendment which is what banned slavery. A little amendment known as the thirteenth, which BTW, was passed by forcing the South to acquiesce to it's ratification ( unconstitutionally, I might add ) to regain it's position as sovereign states within the ungodly national government.

Might I add, if you will, that in spite of your self appointed proclamation of being a conservative, you FAIL.
 
imyoda said:
Why won't GOP act on gun control?
Why won't GOP act on gun control? (Opinion) - CNN.com


“…………………..The Republican Party, led by their presidential aspirants, is increasingly out of touch with the safety and security needs of the American people.

“……….. But when it comes to the weapons that are all too easy to obtain by not only Islamic extremists but also anti-abortion extremists and anti-government extremists who pose serious threat to American lives, Republicans show none of the "leadership" they say our nation so desperately needs.

Republicans are reacting to a scary but relatively small handful of terrorist attacks by Muslims on U.S. soil as though they're a daily occurrence. Yet Republicans won't do anything on the daily occurrence of gun violence in America.

This is not leadership. This is cowardice. Republican politicians are putting the demands of the NRA ahead of the safety and security of the American people. And even the conservative Supreme Court appears to think they've gone too far. …………”

“……………………Never mind that we know that weapons kept for self-defense are 12 times more likely to hurt family members than intruders. And never mind that a retired Air Force medic who survived the San Bernardino shooting said that even with a weapon he couldn't have done anything to prevent the bloodshed. ……………

“……………….. even a strong majority of those gun owners support common sense reforms like mandatory background checks and closing gun law loopholes.

Gun reform can't fix everything, but that doesn't mean we should do nothing. The Supreme Court has just tacitly paved the way for more local jurisdictions to take steps to curb guns and if Republicans in Congress won't act, more cities and counties and states should do so on their own. No more excuses.”

It is a word I have use several time regarding the GOP…………Cowards
Click to expand...

Are they cowards because they refuse to take away a fundamental right of all Americans? Or because they realize that gun control is a solution looking for a problem?

It's painfully obvious to anyone who would just look that "easy access to guns" is not increasing crime in this country. In fact, if you want to use the logic that most people apply to most situations, i.e. equating correlation with causation, then it would be "obvious" that easy access to guns is decreasing crime in this country.

070113graph2.gif

Now before you go off, I am not promoting the practice above. However, I am pointing out that the oft repeated, long ago debunked bull **** that more guns lead to more crime is completely and demonstrably false. Anyone who believes that is not ignorant, they're stupid. After all, ignorance is simply not knowing. Stupid is when you know but you continue to barf up the same garbage again and again, facts be damned.
 
haymarket said:
Why would a law making the carrying of a gun a crime be a violation of the Amendment since you clearly do not have a right to carry a weapon anywhere you want to?
Click to expand...

If the law seeks to limit everyone from carrying a gun in a given place, e.g. a courtroom, prison or other "secure" facility. then that is far different from saying that only government approved folks may carry a gun anywhere. That "by permit" nonsense essentially converts a right into a mere state issued privilege.
 
imyoda said:
Why won't GOP act on gun control?
Why won't GOP act on gun control? (Opinion) - CNN.com


“…………………..The Republican Party, led by their presidential aspirants, is increasingly out of touch with the safety and security needs of the American people.

“……….. But when it comes to the weapons that are all too easy to obtain by not only Islamic extremists but also anti-abortion extremists and anti-government extremists who pose serious threat to American lives, Republicans show none of the "leadership" they say our nation so desperately needs.

Republicans are reacting to a scary but relatively small handful of terrorist attacks by Muslims on U.S. soil as though they're a daily occurrence. Yet Republicans won't do anything on the daily occurrence of gun violence in America.

This is not leadership. This is cowardice. Republican politicians are putting the demands of the NRA ahead of the safety and security of the American people. And even the conservative Supreme Court appears to think they've gone too far. …………”

“……………………Never mind that we know that weapons kept for self-defense are 12 times more likely to hurt family members than intruders. And never mind that a retired Air Force medic who survived the San Bernardino shooting said that even with a weapon he couldn't have done anything to prevent the bloodshed. ……………

“……………….. even a strong majority of those gun owners support common sense reforms like mandatory background checks and closing gun law loopholes.

Gun reform can't fix everything, but that doesn't mean we should do nothing. The Supreme Court has just tacitly paved the way for more local jurisdictions to take steps to curb guns and if Republicans in Congress won't act, more cities and counties and states should do so on their own. No more excuses.”

It is a word I have use several time regarding the GOP…………Cowards
Click to expand...

banoid nonsense. assumes facts not in evidence and is nothing more than hoplophobic idiocy

why didn't the democrap party push stuff when they had complete control

I KNOW-they didn't want 1994 repeated.
 
imyoda said:
I think they could be either but written by an adult who understand the need to stem the unbelievable gun violence in this country
Click to expand...

what is unbelievable is the banoids claiming gun crime is so bad we have to rape the rights of millions but when gun owners buy guns for self defense, the banoids will pretend gun owners are paranoid

we get the fact that banoids will use any tragedy to claim more gun bans are needed

but we all know its not about crime control. Its about banning guns
 
imyoda said:
Am I to conclude you do not agree with common sense gun regulation?
Click to expand...

we don't agree that any of the crap the banoids push has any relationship to common sense other than what they are a common sense way to harass gun owners

as crime control -there is nothing legitimate about the banoid suggestions
 
imyoda said:
Now lets talk about what a "well regulated militia" means
Click to expand...


are you claiming the founders wanted to limit a natural right they saw as pre-existing the formation of the government by making that right subject to a government institution?

Oh btw if you are going to pretend that shows an intent to actually regulate private arms in the hands of private citizens-tell me how Commerce Among the states actually means a federal power over individual citizens' arms

no constitutional scholar even tries your game anymore. Even Stevens admitted it when he claimed the 2A should be changed to make it contingent on military duty which shows he was clueless about natural rights
 
TurtleDude said:
are you claiming the founders wanted to limit a natural right they saw as pre-existing the formation of the government by making that right subject to a government institution?

Oh btw if you are going to pretend that shows an intent to actually regulate private arms in the hands of private citizens-tell me how Commerce Among the states actually means a federal power over individual citizens' arms

no constitutional scholar even tries your game anymore. Even Stevens admitted it when he claimed the 2A should be changed to make it contingent on military duty which shows he was clueless about natural rights
Click to expand...

As to the bold part: when I was in the Army oh, so many, many moons ago, we had a saying to the effect there was always that 10% that never got the word. Very apropos here :lamo
 
imyoda said:
Can you name any of these anti-second amendment folks you speak of...........OH YES.............if there are such beings...........they lost......
Click to expand...

Every politician that is pushing for an assault weapons ban and other anti-2nd amendment laws are anti-2nd amendment. Of course you being a 2nd amendment opponent will falsely claim that those people are not anti-2nd amendment.

second amendment right has been affirmed by SCOTUS........
Click to expand...

Having a 2nd amendment doesn't stop you people from trying to infringe on the 2nd amendment. .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom