• 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!

One question you will never hear at Republican debates

Captain Adverse said:
Yes, I misspoke on that (underlined) point, only realizing it later after some fact checking.

However, AFTER doing some fact checking I discovered a couple of the Nine reasons I should have cited instead. The most prominent being #3 "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." You don't even need to be convicted of any offense to fall into this category.

I understand the concerns about violent felony convictions but I would be more accepting of a restriction for repeat violent offenders rather than a blanket prohibition. Even then, there should be some way to remove the restriction without major (and almost impossible to achieve) requirements like a pardon. Perhaps a period of years without re-offense?
Click to expand...
Agreed. I wouldn't have a problem with allowing for extenuating circumstances or a lighter prohibition period for a first offense. If a person gets past the recidivism timeframe, say, 5-10 years and stays clean legally any prohibition should expire.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Agreed. I wouldn't have a problem with allowing for extenuating circumstances or a lighter prohibition period for a first offense. If a person gets past the recidivism timeframe, say, 5-10 years and stays clean legally any prohibition should expire.
Click to expand...

Why complicate that which should be simple? Once the sentence including any parole or probation period, meted out by due process of law, has expired then all individual constitutional rights should be reinstated. We already have built in sentence enhancements (extensions?) for repeat offenders so there is no need to invent more of them applicable only to 2A rights.
 
LaMidRighter said:
The '68 GCA is not a good bill, but it's not what I would consider a horrible one. I don't have a problem with due process based restrictions on the right to bear, due process being the most important part of that equation, only should effect those who have committed crimes.

That said, I disagree with non-violent felony prohibition and always will. A person who got nailed on some BS regulatory charge is not a danger on the level of someone who went to prison for robbery, rape, murder, or felony battery. I agree with the misdemeanor domestic violence prohibition charge being a disqualifier though, pretty much anything with a component based upon violence. Voluntary admission to a mental health facility does not apply according to the law, court ordered commission does, I am okay with that. All of those factors though should have an easier process to restore rights, it should not require a presidential pardon, full clemency, or dependence on the ATF. There should be some automatic way towards restitution and I have shared ideas on that before.




This is unquestionably true.



I have heard one good argument for requiring the driver to wear a seatbelt, that of being in control of the vehicle in an accident, being thrown out would be a problem with a vehicle still in motion. For passengers, I don't feel that the law is under any obligation to protect one from their decisions.
Click to expand...

I have 2 big problems with the DV dis-qualifier. The fact that it is retroactive (and some states refuse to expunge DV) and given the past casual regard to such charge, the ones most wrongly affected by this, the woman who pleads guilty to simple assault in order to quickly move-on, are the ones most needing right to arms. It was looked at with the same view of a traffic ticket - pay the fine, forget, and move on with little thought of any future impact. Especially on a constitutional right level.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why complicate that which should be simple? Once the sentence including any parole or probation period, meted out by due process of law, has expired then all individual constitutional rights should be reinstated. We already have built in sentence enhancements (extensions?) for repeat offenders so there is no need to invent more of them applicable only to 2A rights.
Click to expand...

There should never ever be automatic punishments. There is no president for this in the constitution or human rights laws. One has the right to face and counter any charges laid. If you are a public danger this must be shown to be true. Is justice to much to ask for?
 
Last edited:
I think the response should be

"Since both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders agree that the vetting process blows, Trumps comments were probably pretty spot on...stop bringing in people until they can be properly vetted...something both leading Rat candidates agree with.

As for gun violence...since the vast majority of gun violence involves the day to day violence that occurs in every major city across the country (and is responsible for the deaths of children including a 3 year old in Cleveland and a 9 year old executed in Chicago recently...something you NEVER hear liberal presidential candidates or anti-gun hactivists talking about), obviously we need to enforce existing gun laws and impose mandatory minimum sentencing laws on all violent felons. As for school shootings...ending 'gun free zones' is a good start (since the only people you dont want to have guns there are criminals and THEY DONT GIVE A **** ABOUT YOUR LAWS). Allowing teachers to be qualified and armed if they choose would allow for immediate response to a school shooting as opposed to the Sandy Hook incident where the teachers and students were sitting ducks waiting for 12 minutes for law enforcement to respond, similar to the VA Tech shooting where 1 gunman armed with standard capacity handguns spent a half hour killing people with no intervention from law enforcement. THOSE celebrated incidents...tragic occurrences anti-gun hacks drag out on a regular basis to parade as a cause celebre to promote new gun laws PROVE registration doesn't work. background checks dont work. Mag cap bans dont work. Military style weapons bans dont work. Waiting periods dont work. Trigger lock laws dont work. Imposing ANY new gun ban or law wont work. So...better enforcement of existing law and empowering citizens to protect themselves is the best and most sure response we can make. Teaching people how to not be crippled dependent pets like the Rats want them to be doesnt work. I know you are smart enough to see just how stupid the anti-gun hacks are and how foolish and useless their proposals are. I welcome your support and vote."
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why complicate that which should be simple? Once the sentence including any parole or probation period, meted out by due process of law, has expired then all individual constitutional rights should be reinstated. We already have built in sentence enhancements (extensions?) for repeat offenders so there is no need to invent more of them applicable only to 2A rights.
Click to expand...
I agree that the sentence should end at release, however a lot of folks get out before they should thanks to the courts so this is about as far as I go towards middle ground.
 
MACS-24 said:
I have 2 big problems with the DV dis-qualifier. The fact that it is retroactive (and some states refuse to expunge DV) and given the past casual regard to such charge, the ones most wrongly affected by this, the woman who pleads guilty to simple assault in order to quickly move-on, are the ones most needing right to arms. It was looked at with the same view of a traffic ticket - pay the fine, forget, and move on with little thought of any future impact. Especially on a constitutional right level.
Click to expand...
Very good point. I forgot to add that extenuating circumstances absolutely should invalidate a DV conviction and there is a major difference between a false charge, a simple situation, and a serial beater. In the case of no doubters where there is a heavy chain of evidence it fits, but yeah, for BS charges and something that happens once then banning their possession and ownership is not okay.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yep - blame the victim! That's the ticket!
Click to expand...

I am not blaming anyone but your liberal slant is showing. I offered a solution and you turn everyone into a victim. I guess for you it is about the drama more than solving a problem.
 
VanceMack said:
I think the response should be

"Since both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders agree that the vetting process blows, Trumps comments were probably pretty spot on...stop bringing in people until they can be properly vetted...something both leading Rat candidates agree with.

As for gun violence...since the vast majority of gun violence involves the day to day violence that occurs in every major city across the country (and is responsible for the deaths of children including a 3 year old in Cleveland and a 9 year old executed in Chicago recently...something you NEVER hear liberal presidential candidates or anti-gun hactivists talking about), obviously we need to enforce existing gun laws and impose mandatory minimum sentencing laws on all violent felons. As for school shootings...ending 'gun free zones' is a good start (since the only people you dont want to have guns there are criminals and THEY DONT GIVE A **** ABOUT YOUR LAWS). Allowing teachers to be qualified and armed if they choose would allow for immediate response to a school shooting as opposed to the Sandy Hook incident where the teachers and students were sitting ducks waiting for 12 minutes for law enforcement to respond, similar to the VA Tech shooting where 1 gunman armed with standard capacity handguns spent a half hour killing people with no intervention from law enforcement. THOSE celebrated incidents...tragic occurrences anti-gun hacks drag out on a regular basis to parade as a cause celebre to promote new gun laws PROVE registration doesn't work. background checks dont work. Mag cap bans dont work. Military style weapons bans dont work. Waiting periods dont work. Trigger lock laws dont work. Imposing ANY new gun ban or law wont work. So...better enforcement of existing law and empowering citizens to protect themselves is the best and most sure response we can make. Teaching people how to not be crippled dependent pets like the Rats want them to be doesnt work. I know you are smart enough to see just how stupid the anti-gun hacks are and how foolish and useless their proposals are. I welcome your support and vote."
Click to expand...

If gun control does not work what is the sense of enforcing any gun control law other than to give justification to such stupid laws? Do you not think the money wasted on gun control laws could be better spent? This is not some trivial amount but BILLIONS per year.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I agree that the sentence should end at release, however a lot of folks get out before they should thanks to the courts so this is about as far as I go towards middle ground.
Click to expand...

That is the problem with making excuses and expediency it tilts the system until it no longer functions as it is supposed to. Here we are trying to keep people who have access to guns via so many other routes from having guns just so we can have a law that puts them back in jail. We have truly bought into this absolute idiocy of guns causing crime. Apparently feeling good is more important than solving the problem or educating the public.
 
Crimefree said:
That is the problem with making excuses and expediency it tilts the system until it no longer functions as it is supposed to. Here we are trying to keep people who have access to guns via so many other routes from having guns just so we can have a law that puts them back in jail. We have truly bought into this absolute idiocy of guns causing crime. Apparently feeling good is more important than solving the problem or educating the public.
Click to expand...
Oh I know, and it is up to people who actually know the issue to try to salvage what's left with that broken system.
 
Crimefree said:
If gun control does not work what is the sense of enforcing any gun control law other than to give justification to such stupid laws? Do you not think the money wasted on gun control laws could be better spent? This is not some trivial amount but BILLIONS per year.
Click to expand...

Not sure as to your point or who your comments are directed.
 
VanceMack said:
Not sure as to your point or who your comments are directed
Click to expand...

As for gun violence...since the vast majority of gun violence involves the day to day violence that occurs in every major city across the country (and is responsible for the deaths of children including a 3 year old in Cleveland and a 9 year old executed in Chicago recently...something you NEVER hear liberal presidential candidates or anti-gun hactivists talking about), obviously we need to enforce existing gun laws and impose mandatory minimum sentencing laws on all violent felons

 
Crimefree said:
As for gun violence...since the vast majority of gun violence involves the day to day violence that occurs in every major city across the country (and is responsible for the deaths of children including a 3 year old in Cleveland and a 9 year old executed in Chicago recently...something you NEVER hear liberal presidential candidates or anti-gun hactivists talking about), obviously we need to enforce existing gun laws and impose mandatory minimum sentencing laws on all violent felons
Click to expand...
Still dont know what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting their should be no gun laws?
 
VanceMack said:
Still dont know what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting their should be no gun laws?
Click to expand...

Only the ones that can be shown to work repeatedly anywhere they are applied are needed.

The current gun laws do not work. Have not seen one crime prevented or increased public safety, give me a reason to enforce them. I gave you a reason to toss them and that is the huge cost which government carefully hides. What could that same money, manpower and resources do if applied to known working solutions? Gun control advocates keep saying we must do something well what better than what is known to work?

I am not sure what enforcing useless laws will achieve, maybe you know? Somebody must know as I see it suggested current laws should be enforced all over. Nobody wants to tell me what that will do so I have to guess. -- Justify useless gun control? Feel good stuff? We are doing something stuff?

What I wrote

If gun control does not work what is the sense of enforcing any gun control law other than to give justification to such stupid laws? Do you not think the money wasted on gun control laws could be better spent? This is not some trivial amount but BILLIONS per year.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Still dont know what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting their should be no gun laws?
Click to expand...

I don't know about Crimefree, but I would suggest that there be no gun laws.

On the other hand, I think there should be very, VERY stiff consequences if guns are used in a criminal manner...like mandatory execution.
 
Mycroft said:
I don't know about Crimefree, but I would suggest that there be no gun laws.

On the other hand, I think there should be very, VERY stiff consequences if guns are used in a criminal manner...like mandatory execution.
Click to expand...
I think gun laws like providing a firearm for criminal enterprise should be strictly enforced. I agree with the stiff penalty and consequence for commission of a crime involving a weapon. Absolutely.
 
Mycroft said:
I don't know about Crimefree, but I would suggest that there be no gun laws.

On the other hand, I think there should be very, VERY stiff consequences if guns are used in a criminal manner...like mandatory execution.
Click to expand...

I don't know of a gun control law that can work. I'm leaving the door open if one is ever found. One has to be reasonable.

Crime is deterred by the swiftness and certainty that it will be punished, so anything that detracts from either of those is not helping the problem but is part of the problem.
 
VanceMack said:
I think gun laws like providing a firearm for criminal enterprise should be strictly enforced. I agree with the stiff penalty and consequence for commission of a crime involving a weapon. Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Aiding a crime is a crime it requires no gun control law. Stiff penalties beyond what is reasonable simply are very inefficient. What is the greatest deterrent is knowing you are GOING TO BE CAUGHT and punished. Swiftness and certainty.
 
VanceMack said:
I think gun laws like providing a firearm for criminal enterprise should be strictly enforced. I agree with the stiff penalty and consequence for commission of a crime involving a weapon. Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Is there a law against providing a firearm to someone who then uses it for a criminal action? If so, I'd like to know about it. Would that be a federal law...or is it a law in some particular state?

What else do you know about such a law?
 
Crimefree said:
I don't know of a gun control law that can work. I'm leaving the door open if one is ever found. One has to be reasonable.

Crime is deterred by the swiftness and certainty that it will be punished, so anything that detracts from either of those is not helping the problem but is part of the problem.
Click to expand...

In order for something to be punished or even determined a crime, there must be an actual law.
 
Crimefree said:
I don't know of a gun control law that can work. I'm leaving the door open if one is ever found. One has to be reasonable.

Crime is deterred by the swiftness and certainty that it will be punished, so anything that detracts from either of those is not helping the problem but is part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Gun control laws work all over the world, it is only in 21st century America that extremist notions have gone so far as to roll back the clock on civilized behavior.

Crime is not deterred by certainty of punishment, or severity of punishment, and this has been historically the case. Texas executes almost more people per year than some crazed regimes in the third world. Has this slashed murder rates? Gun crime rates?

Many that commit crimes to not think about long term consequences, indeed that is exactly why they find themselves in the situation they are in- rationality is not their strong suit. They do not look at medium or long term consequences. How many think: I'm going to shoot my cheating spouse/SOB boss/dangerous looking black guy by my car/stupid 7-11 clerk who won't empty the till for me/faggot that wants to screw me/whatever, and think, hey, the next 50 years should good for me, my chances are excellent.....excellent man!

The difference is, if they have a gun, consequences can be dire. If they do not have a gun, consequences can be bad, but not of the same order of magnitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom