• 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!

Missouri woman says gun rights prevented tragedy

Jerry

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,259
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Missouri woman says gun rights prevented tragedy
Harrison Keegan, The News Leader, Springfield, Mo. 10:23 a.m. EST January 5, 2016

"On Sunday evening, Katie Claxton was sitting in a car with her four young children while her husband was pumping gas, when a man wielding a large knife approached her vehicle...Claxton said she reached over to try to lock the doors as the man approached, but she accidentally rolled down the window. Claxton said the man opened the door, leaned into the car and brandished a long knife.

Claxton said she yelled for her husband Matt to get his gun, and the man then began to leave.

"He said 'You're lucky he has a gun,'" Claxton said. "And then he shut the door and started to back away."
 
Jerry said:
Missouri woman says gun rights prevented tragedy
Harrison Keegan, The News Leader, Springfield, Mo. 10:23 a.m. EST January 5, 2016

"On Sunday evening, Katie Claxton was sitting in a car with her four young children while her husband was pumping gas, when a man wielding a large knife approached her vehicle...Claxton said she reached over to try to lock the doors as the man approached, but she accidentally rolled down the window. Claxton said the man opened the door, leaned into the car and brandished a long knife.

Claxton said she yelled for her husband Matt to get his gun, and the man then began to leave.

"He said 'You're lucky he has a gun,'" Claxton said. "And then he shut the door and started to back away."
Click to expand...

Im an outsider to this whole thing but i dont see Obama or anyone on the ´´left´´ trying to stop people like this man from having a gun. I see people calling for better regulation, better background checks etc. Surely the desired outcome should be that people like Matt should be abe to acess guns but homocidal maniacs shouldn´t?
 
Red_Dave said:
Im an outsider to this whole thing but i dont see Obama or anyone on the ´´left´´ trying to stop people like this man from having a gun. I see people calling for better regulation, better background checks etc. Surely the desired outcome should be that people like Matt should be abe to acess guns but homocidal maniacs shouldn´t?
Click to expand...
Tell that to the states which don't let the average person carry. I'm thinking of New York, California, Hawaii and Main, to start with.

And background checks don't work because criminals don't run background checks. Even England's total ban failed to get guns away from criminals.
 
Red_Dave said:
Im an outsider to this whole thing but i dont see Obama or anyone on the ´´left´´ trying to stop people like this man from having a gun. I see people calling for better regulation, better background checks etc. Surely the desired outcome should be that people like Matt should be abe to acess guns but homocidal maniacs shouldn´t?
Click to expand...

While you are right at the federal level, you are very wrong at the state/local level. The 2A is a compound individual constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This (violent?) criminal, armed assault, act occurred not in one's home but out in public spaces, where much of such crime occurs.

If the right to carry becomes the crime of carrying without renting prior permission from the state then is the 2A a right or merely a state issued privilege?

The criminal (thug?), in this case, did not need (or use) a gun, so "gun control" would have had ZERO effect on anyone except the potential victim(s). This is what folks simply refuse to see. The right to buy a gun avails you nothing if it does not come with the right to carry that gun for self defense purposes.

Did that gas station become the "wild west", as is so often asserted, because a gun was carried by a (potential?) crime victim? Is "I occasionally pump gas" a valid reason to be issued a CCW permit or a CHL in your state/city?
 
Jerry said:
I don't catch your meaning.
Click to expand...

On the other hand there are many states were you can buy a gun regardless of your psychiatric or medical history. Recent experience would suggest this is probably not ok.
 
Red_Dave said:
On the other hand there are many states were you can buy a gun regardless of your psychiatric or medical history. Recent experience would suggest this is probably not ok.
Click to expand...
All of the gun banning states being among them.

And you're under the impression that one injustice balances the other injustice?

You're arguing that it's ok for one state to ban guns as long as another state allows mentally unstable people to own them?

What planet are you from again? I'm from Earth, you should come visit sometime.
 
Last edited:
Where is the injustice in being deemed sane enough to not massacre the neighbours? Or in being held accountable if YOUR gun turns up at a crime scene?
 
Manc Skipper said:
Where is the injustice in being deemed sane enough to not massacre the neighbours? Or in being held accountable if YOUR gun turns up at a crime scene?
Click to expand...
Who is this post addressed to?
 
It's a generalisation covering the objectors to a rational approach to gun ownership.
 
Red_Dave said:
On the other hand there are many states were you can buy a gun regardless of your psychiatric or medical history. Recent experience would suggest this is probably not ok.
Click to expand...

This is a false statement. Totally false. It is an absolutely and totally inaccurate statement. It is wrong too.
 
Jerry said:
Missouri woman says gun rights prevented tragedy
Harrison Keegan, The News Leader, Springfield, Mo. 10:23 a.m. EST January 5, 2016

"On Sunday evening, Katie Claxton was sitting in a car with her four young children while her husband was pumping gas, when a man wielding a large knife approached her vehicle...Claxton said she reached over to try to lock the doors as the man approached, but she accidentally rolled down the window. Claxton said the man opened the door, leaned into the car and brandished a long knife.

Claxton said she yelled for her husband Matt to get his gun, and the man then began to leave.

"He said 'You're lucky he has a gun,'" Claxton said. "And then he shut the door and started to back away."
Click to expand...

Good for them. Obama has never said that he wants to take guns away from lawful citizens. That is just NRA and gun industry propaganda who have a very strong interest in the $$$$. Got that?
 
Glowpun said:
Good for them. Obama has never said that he wants to take guns away from lawful citizens. That is just NRA and gun industry propaganda who have a very strong interest in the $$$$. Got that?
Click to expand...
Where in that post did I say anything about Obama?
 
NonoBadDog said:
This is a false statement. Totally false. It is an absolutely and totally inaccurate statement. It is wrong too.
Click to expand...

The guy selling guns to pretty much anyone in the video appears to disagree
 
Red_Dave said:
The guy selling guns to pretty much anyone in the video appears to disagree
Click to expand...

I didn't watch the video. I know the laws however so if you want to discuss a particular situation I am willing to do that. It is true that people that are mentally ill can buy guns but not legally. So it is already covered by law. To sell a gun to a person that is declared mentally unfit is a felony. It is a felony to lie on the 4473. If we pass another law is it twice as illegal? So we have established the fact that it is illegal to buy or sell if one is mentally unfit. How about 20 more laws? Is it twenty times more illegal?

Edit:
I watched the video. If the scenario that was described were to happen it would be a felony. It would require the person to lie and in possessing that weapon it would be a felony. If there were a law, which there already is, would that make it twice as illegal?
 
Last edited:
NonoBadDog said:
Edit:
I watched the video. If the scenario that was described were to happen it would be a felony. It would require the person to lie and in possessing that weapon it would be a felony. If there were a law, which there already is, would that make it twice as illegal?
Click to expand...

Would a law requiring the guy selling the gun to actually check not be a step in the right direction?
 
Red_Dave said:
Would a law requiring the guy selling the gun to actually check not be a step in the right direction?
Click to expand...

Nope.
I used to be a licensed gun dealer so I have some experience here. I sold 500,000 in guns gross each year. I lost 3,000 in my last year because the competition on prices was so tight after expenses.
There are two situations involved here.
1. There aren't very many private dealers. There is a value to guns and people that own guns know what that value is. They will ask for the market value of that gun. If an AR-15 is worth 1000 then they will ask 1000. A private dealer, in theory, will buy low and sell high. That doesn't work with guns. People want what they are worth. Guns are in high demand. People know that. The guy you saw on the video would most likely be a guy selling off his private collection. He only had one table. The guns on his table were hunting rifles. He was an older guy. When I did a show I had five tables. The math doesn't work out when they talk about "private dealers" because money can't be made being a private dealer. Other gun dealers will slit your throat if they get a chance so if someone does something illegal there will be a wad of complaints to one of the BATF agents that walk around the shows. Believe me, there are a ton of federal agents that go monitor anything suspicious at every show.
2. The law Obama is trying to enact violates the interstate commerce clause.
Both state and federal governments will continue to look to regulate the sale of firearms. They both will attempt to use the Constitution as a basis for their right to regulate this industry. However, when we look at the Commerce Clause of the Constitution it appears that the right to regulate commerce within their borders makes this a state’s rights issue. The role of the federal government is to regulate interstate commerce, and therefore should leave the gun control debate to the states and focus their efforts on the interstate sales of this industry.
Click to expand...
Gun Control Facts: The Commerce Clause Makes Gun Control a State Question - Mic
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom