• 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!

Should we just give it all to gun control?

You are simply wrong. California, New York, and other leftist states pass gun laws that are often proposed by morons on the left in more conservative states that never see the light of day. Other states are indeed 'winning'. The majority of Californians want stricter gun laws. I feel as a citizen of this country and one that respects the law of the land that they have a right as a state to define their gun laws...even the laws I disagree with. The minority in the state has the right to challenge them and I believe should. But that's on them. Perhaps after the Supreme Court is filled they will do just that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just like the Jewish citizens of Germany had. You seem to think giving up their constitutional rights is something they have reasoned and decided. It has not occurred to you that it was not a free choice and it very well should. I could point to the prohibition of alcohol and ask you how the heck you think that happened? In fact I will. Was it the citizen of the US woke up one day and decided of free choice alcohol was a bad idea? How could so many millions of people think that? Does this have anything to do with gun control? Are they similar?

Let me know what kind of thinking that gets you to do please.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1066668867 said:
You give the NRA way too much credit.
Not really. There's been many times Wayne LaPierre came out to announce ways that the NRA thinks certain matters be taken care of. Remember the time when Wayne first expressed that guns stay away from schools and then after Sandy Hook he changed his mind and wanted guns be in schools; that was a classic flip-flop. :roll:
 

Commie-fornia is a lost cause. Its densely populated by left wing loonies who keep electing left wing loonies.Unless all the liberal supreme justices croak or retire and Trump replaces them all with 30 something year old die hard 2nd amendment supporters and or congress and Trump enact laws stripping the states of their ability to infringe on the 2nd amendment the 2nd amendment is defacto dead in California. Ohio and Nevada there might be some hope for.
 
Why are you not campaigning for these measures you want applied to the "fingered" people not being applied to every one. Should crazy people be allowed to drive? Operate machinery? You afraid that might be unconstitutional?
Believe it or not the law is already taking care of these acts, which are not constitutional rights, by removing driver's licenses and not permitting people at companies to run machinery. Nothing SCOTUS can do about that. :shrug:
 
why is it the NRA's job to tell law enforcement how to deal with criminals rather than protecting innocent citizens from criminal government?
TD: Wayne LaPierre has got involved before--he stood in front of Congress and said that guns should not be in schools and then after the Sandy Hook incident retracted that statement. Don't you think it would be an unprecedented move for the NRA to just step away from all of this now?



You gun banners think that if the NRA doesn't have plans for criminals, that justifies criminals in government raping the constitutional rights of millions. The concrete plans I have are to continue to elect people who are going to appoint pro rights judges who will overturn the crap that the socialist pro criminal enclaves in the country impose
I'm not a gun banner; I own two guns. But like I said, the NRA has been involved in the past on issues--telling the public their opinions on stopping school shootings--so why jump away from it now?
 
Lock them up - problem solved. Putting them on "no gun" lists, letting them roam freely among us and expecting that to work is foolish - they can either steal a gun or buy one from another criminal. BTW, how did Adam Lanza buy a gun? Oh, that's right... he never did.
I agree. Nothing is perfect but if it was up to me they couldn't go to a gun store to buy one. And who knows, the culprits might get caught in the process.
 
Just like the Jewish citizens of Germany had. You seem to think giving up their constitutional rights is something they have reasoned and decided. It has not occurred to you that it was not a free choice and it very well should. I could point to the prohibition of alcohol and ask you how the heck you think that happened? In fact I will. Was it the citizen of the US woke up one day and decided of free choice alcohol was a bad idea? How could so many millions of people think that? Does this have anything to do with gun control? Are they similar?

Let me know what kind of thinking that gets you to do please.

In almost all debates, as soon as you start voting the Jews and Nazis...you lose.

The people of California decide in their politicians and by association, their laws. Battle. Don't. It's on them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TD: Wayne LaPierre has got involved before--he stood in front of Congress and said that guns should not be in schools and then after the Sandy Hook incident retracted that statement. Don't you think it would be an unprecedented move for the NRA to just step away from all of this now?



I'm not a gun banner; I own two guns. But like I said, the NRA has been involved in the past on issues--telling the public their opinions on stopping school shootings--so why jump away from it now?

The fact is, guns don't belong in schools unless they are being used by properly instructed individuals-be it kids on a shooting team or armed adults. But we know that criminals don't care about that and tend to seek out areas with lots of disarmed individuals. Given we cannot stop armed criminals from coming to schools the only defense is armed counterforce
 
Bob seems to have fallen for the gun control lie that violent criminal will be rehabilitated by legally preventing firearm ownership. It must come as a surprise to such people that a person willing to commit murder is not going to be stopped by such pathetic antics. What is prevented is citizens who may have made a mistake who now obey the law from defending themselves.

I just cannot get over how much fear there is for violent criminals running around on our streets. Surely this points to government not doing its job in remove them. Is that not governments duty? Why do we allow government to deflect from its duty in order to disarm us while ignoring those violent criminals?

Only two things stop violent criminals

1) incarceration

2) lead poisoning
 
Only two things stop violent criminals

1) incarceration

2) lead poisoning

:lol:

I was thinking of more long term plans which address the root causes of crime rather than wasting billions on useless gun control.

I mean how stupid are we because we know guns have nothing to do with causing crime. Then along comes gun control and says hey you cannot let those crazies all two or ten of them have legal firearms. All deemed crazy whatever that means as nobody here has defined it must not be allowed. Lets make this as wide as possible because no citizens are going to figure out we cannot predict who will go postal in the future. They will believe this because they are afraid and think this happens daily. All gun control has to do is hit the media hard with so many concocted facts and no opposition to that. Job done. Propaganda is a breeze when there is no opposing views.

There's that lack of education thing again. Amazing how often it crops up. Must just be a coincidence.

Yet probably 30% of firearm owners already think gun control is a good idea.
 
Last edited:
TD: Wayne LaPierre has got involved before--he stood in front of Congress and said that guns should not be in schools and then after the Sandy Hook incident retracted that statement. Don't you think it would be an unprecedented move for the NRA to just step away from all of this now?



I'm not a gun banner; I own two guns. But like I said, the NRA has been involved in the past on issues--telling the public their opinions on stopping school shootings--so why jump away from it now?

Sandy Hook and the NRA is a nice example Bob let me explain why.

First the NRA takes a week to comment while the media and gun control go bananas

Then they offer armed guards which conveniently can be trained by the NRA. This is a slap in the face for all those parents who are disarmed because of this mass murder friendly law. Money in NRA coffers is more important than citizens rights

At no time does the NRA condemn this idiotic schools gun free act as establishing gun free zones as the place of choice for nuts and criminals. In fact the NRA is in talks with government on supporting registration and increased background checks

The NRA has a history of being a sell out organisation and the NRA will continue that as long as members allow the NRA to put personal ambitions and money before members rights and safety. Remember the NRA is predominantly a sporting organisation that would rather work with government than oppose it in the cowardly belief government may make it harder for sports.

And no you are not a gun banner yet. Which way are you going Bob increased gun control or decreased gun control because you know common sense and all evidence show gun control to be a complete lie. It has to be because guns do not cause crime they cannot be a route to decreased crime.
 
In almost all debates, as soon as you start voting the Jews and Nazis...you lose.

The people of California decide in their politicians and by association, their laws. Battle. Don't. It's on them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Does this apply to the Jews of Nazi Germany, the Tutsi of Rwanda or the citizens of the US who voted for the prohibition of alcohol. Simple question really and requires no more than a yes or no. If you cannot see the similarity that is not my fault.

Muck racking does not work with me either you can prove me wrong or you cannot. Which is it?
 
I agree. Nothing is perfect but if it was up to me they couldn't go to a gun store to buy one. And who knows, the culprits might get caught in the process.

The Brady bill showed conclusively that was not going to happen. Millions inconvenienced large sums of money down the drain. Tens of thousands denied and a few hundred who nobody could say what they were going to do in future. How much are you willing to spend on a plan that cannot do what is claimed for it? Do you think billions of public funding should be wasted on what has to fail.

Why will it fail Bob do you know because I have already told you. Surely you are not going to support something that is impossible unless government has some clairvoyants.
 
It's a problem of our government controlled education system to promote the supremacy of government and obedience. To never question or object.

The majority of Californians want gun control, and those that don't have experienced years of beat down from the 9th Circuit Court of Rubberstamp. Once a Constitutionally focused SCOTUS starts knocking those rulings out, there will be a lot more opposition to gun control. If SCOTUS doesn't start protecting our rights then we're doomed, as the Republicans won't hold Congress and the White House for long.
 
Sandy Hook and the NRA is a nice example Bob let me explain why.

First the NRA takes a week to comment while the media and gun control go bananas

Then they offer armed guards which conveniently can be trained by the NRA. This is a slap in the face for all those parents who are disarmed because of this mass murder friendly law. Money in NRA coffers is more important than citizens rights

At no time does the NRA condemn this idiotic schools gun free act as establishing gun free zones as the place of choice for nuts and criminals. In fact the NRA is in talks with government on supporting registration and increased background checks

The NRA has a history of being a sell out organisation and the NRA will continue that as long as members allow the NRA to put personal ambitions and money before members rights and safety. Remember the NRA is predominantly a sporting organisation that would rather work with government than oppose it in the cowardly belief government may make it harder for sports.

And no you are not a gun banner yet. Which way are you going Bob increased gun control or decreased gun control because you know common sense and all evidence show gun control to be a complete lie. It has to be because guns do not cause crime they cannot be a route to decreased crime.

what do you think WOULD HAVE HAPPENED if the NRA came out a day after Sandy Hook and ripped into the idiocy of gun free school zones?


seriously
 
what do you think WOULD HAVE HAPPENED if the NRA came out a day after Sandy Hook and ripped into the idiocy of gun free school zones?


seriously

It would have taken the wind out of gun controls basking in the blood of victims shifting the blame to where it belongs very easily and with stats to prove it.
 
How easy it is to wash ones hands and move on having learnt nothing. Let me use bigger letter and bolded. If we cannot win in California we cannot win anywhere else.


Seriously we do this time and time again and never ask why are we losing in California? Do we have to lose? Can we do something to prevent such loss. When will it be our turn and what then?

We really have to change our mindset of acceptance and literally saying nothing we can do and moving on. Gosh how successful do we expect that to be?

The problem is, you don't understand California.

Victory can be had in 49 other states, but it will not happen in California for generations. The popular vote margin for Hillary Clinton was 4.4 million people. Over 60% of the voters picked her. What does that tell you about the mindset of the voters?

It would be a waste of time and effort to attempt to change the radical views of those in control of California, and those who are dependent on them. Those in control are rabid liberal/socialist progressives who use fear, hate, and bigotry as methodology to control it's citizens. And they have succeeded.

Were else can politicians pass laws and put forward regulations that destroy business, and harm the most vulnerable families, and yet get complete support and votes for them? What kind of people do you think live here?

Trying to win in California is like going to a School for the Blind to try and find the next Indianapolis 500 winner. It's a fools errand.

Better to focus on what can be achieved, rather than what can't be achieved.
 
Bob seems to have fallen for the gun control lie that violent criminal will be rehabilitated by legally preventing firearm ownership. It must come as a surprise to such people that a person willing to commit murder is not going to be stopped by such pathetic antics. What is prevented is citizens who may have made a mistake who now obey the law from defending themselves.

I just cannot get over how much fear there is for violent criminals running around on our streets. Surely this points to government not doing its job in remove them. Is that not governments duty? Why do we allow government to deflect from its duty in order to disarm us while ignoring those violent criminals?

Having several liberal anti gun family members (thanksgiving dinner is always lovely for me), I can tell you that they don't think like this. They don't expect the law to stop the lawless from TRYING to get a gun...what they want is fewer guns produced, fewer guns in existence. And therefor much harder to come by.
 
The problem is, you don't understand California.

Victory can be had in 49 other states, but it will not happen in California for generations. The popular vote margin for Hillary Clinton was 4.4 million people. Over 60% of the voters picked her. What does that tell you about the mindset of the voters?

It would be a waste of time and effort to attempt to change the radical views of those in control of California, and those who are dependent on them. Those in control are rabid liberal/socialist progressives who use fear, hate, and bigotry as methodology to control it's citizens. And they have succeeded.

Were else can politicians pass laws and put forward regulations that destroy business, and harm the most vulnerable families, and yet get complete support and votes for them? What kind of people do you think live here?

Trying to win in California is like going to a School for the Blind to try and find the next Indianapolis 500 winner. It's a fools errand.

Better to focus on what can be achieved, rather than what can't be achieved.

I agree, and frankly, we should all be THANKING these places, like Cali, or Chicago, where very strict gun laws are in place. They serves as object lessons, bonafide examples that we can hold up to those that think we're nuts.
 
I agree, and frankly, we should all be THANKING these places, like Cali, or Chicago, where very strict gun laws are in place. They serves as object lessons, bonafide examples that we can hold up to those that think we're nuts.

Good point. I hold California up as the example of what happens when liberal/socialist progressivism runs unchecked. Holding it up as an example is far more productive than thinking these laws can be changed.
 
It would have taken the wind out of gun controls basking in the blood of victims shifting the blame to where it belongs very easily and with stats to prove it.

This assumes that in situations of duress and heavy emotional mindsets, people retain logic.



This is not true, and results in failed strategy. You cannot appeal to a persons reason when they are emotionally distressed. Imagine, if you will, a Christian mother and father, who's 4 year old child just died. And their pastor told them to rejoice, and be merry, with a big smile on his face, because, logically, the child is now in heaven, a place far better than here. Now, as Christians, that's true, and logic dictates that the pastor is correct. How, though, do you think those parents will take that comment?
 
It would have taken the wind out of gun controls basking in the blood of victims shifting the blame to where it belongs very easily and with stats to prove it.

The NRA will never convince the anti's of anything, with any amount of factual data and analysis.
 
Having several liberal anti gun family members (thanksgiving dinner is always lovely for me), I can tell you that they don't think like this. They don't expect the law to stop the lawless from TRYING to get a gun...what they want is fewer guns produced, fewer guns in existence. And therefor much harder to come by.

Indeed. They don't trust the law-abiding to own guns, as they think any one of us can turn rogue at a moment's notice.
 
Indeed. They don't trust the law-abiding to own guns, as they think any one of us can turn rogue at a moment's notice.

lightbulb.jpeg

A light bulb moment and it is all thanks to gun controls propaganda we do absolutely nothing about. We foolishly think who the heck will believe that. Now we have our answer. Propaganda works if it did not not one genocide would have taken place, there would have been no slave laws, anti-woman laws, anti-pornography laws. anti-gun laws, anti-drug laws, anti-alcohol laws......

The longer we sit and give gun control a free hand to indoctrinate people the worse it will become until we reach the point of no return and that point is not far off.

We simply do not want to see our faults and we cannot win by making mistakes. We have to learn to examine and adapt.
 
Back
Top Bottom