• 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?

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,623
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
They want to secede...they'll be their own defenseless little country.
 
I believe that this is happening because Mr. LaPierre is not addressing the concerns of the citizens of this country on taking away guns from known felons and the mentally ill. We need concrete plans from the NRA on stopping known violent offenders and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms. What are they? :confused:
 
I believe that this is happening because Mr. LaPierre is not addressing the concerns of the citizens of this country on taking away guns from known felons and the mentally ill. We need concrete plans from the NRA on stopping known violent offenders and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms. What are they? :confused:

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 believe that this is happening because Mr. LaPierre is not addressing the concerns of the citizens of this country on taking away guns from known felons and the mentally ill. We need concrete plans from the NRA on stopping known violent offenders and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms. What are they? :confused:
Known violent offenders (by 'known we have to assume you mean convicted of a violent crime) if they are felons are already prohibited from owning firearms. That was easy. Now...on the 'mentally ill'. Perhaps you would be better served to define that. Its something often thrown out but when it is challenged as a discussion point, well...theres not much substance behind the talking point.

You need to have foundation to deny someone their constitutional rights. Even people that have been forced into a secure psych facility due to concern over their well being as representing a threat to themselves or others can only be held until it is deemed they are no longer a threat. At that time they are released. Where would your justification be to deny them their constitutional rights at that point? Would you also deny them their right to own a car? Access to dangerous chemicals? What about custody/care of children? Surely if you think someone is such a threat that the mere presence of firearms makes them a threat to harm self or others you would also deny them access to children...right? Who determines what level of incapacity must be in place before you attempt to deny someone a Constitutionally protected right? And for how long?
 
Known violent offenders (by 'known we have to assume you mean convicted of a violent crime) if they are felons are already prohibited from owning firearms. That was easy. Now...on the 'mentally ill'. Perhaps you would be better served to define that. Its something often thrown out but when it is challenged as a discussion point, well...theres not much substance behind the talking point.

You need to have foundation to deny someone their constitutional rights. Even people that have been forced into a secure psych facility due to concern over their well being as representing a threat to themselves or others can only be held until it is deemed they are no longer a threat. At that time they are released. Where would your justification be to deny them their constitutional rights at that point? Would you also deny them their right to own a car? Access to dangerous chemicals? What about custody/care of children? Surely if you think someone is such a threat that the mere presence of firearms makes them a threat to harm self or others you would also deny them access to children...right? Who determines what level of incapacity must be in place before you attempt to deny someone a Constitutionally protected right? And for how long?

The point is that many consider the 2A to be a mere state issued privilege, akin to driving, such that laws requiring taking classes, paying fees and getting a license (and registration?) are simply "reasonable restrictions".
 
I believe that this is happening because Mr. LaPierre is not addressing the concerns of the citizens of this country on taking away guns from known felons and the mentally ill. We need concrete plans from the NRA on stopping known violent offenders and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms. What are they? :confused:

why is it the NRA's job to tell law enforcement how to deal with criminals rather than protecting innocent citizens from criminal government? 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
 
The point is that many consider the 2A to be a mere state issued privilege, akin to driving, such that laws requiring taking classes, paying fees and getting a license (and registration?) are simply "reasonable restrictions".
Thos that advocate those 'reasonable restrictions' are just trying to find a more palatable argument to pass gun control. They dont apply any thought to what they are actually arguing...but that doesnt stop them from making the argument.
 
why is it the NRA's job to tell law enforcement how to deal with criminals rather than protecting innocent citizens from criminal government? 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
Its telling that they will ignore the 99.5% of all incidents of gun violence to focus on law abiding citizens and maybe .5% of violent crimes committed by mentally ill individuals. Rather than target the day to day gun violence occurring in every major city across the country, they want to play future cop.

I wonder why that is? (Not really...I KNOW why that is)
 
Its telling that they will ignore the 99.5% of all incidents of gun violence to focus on law abiding citizens and maybe .5% of violent crimes committed by mentally ill individuals. Rather than target the day to day gun violence occurring in every major city across the country, they want to play future cop.

I wonder why that is? (Not really...I KNOW why that is)


almost no one who has been a serious student of the gun control debate believes that the gun control leaders even care about crime control. They pretend they do to pander to the low information voters and the caterwauling hysterics in the press but their real goal is to destroy the lobbying and voting power of the NRA and gun owners who vote for their gun rights.
 
I believe that this is happening because Mr. LaPierre is not addressing the concerns of the citizens of this country on taking away guns from known felons and the mentally ill. We need concrete plans from the NRA on stopping known violent offenders and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms. What are they? :confused:

I would object to this gun control generated BS as well. This country does not have a gun problem. It has a crime problem and it has a living condition problem. Such mental problems are caused and not genetically linked. There can be no better indicator of social problems that that. Why are the social problems on the back burner and instead we have this unjustified obsession with guns? Are we just dancing to gun controls foul agenda like puppets on the end of a string.

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?

You honestly believe that is is possible to predict what people will do in the future? Why? Did gun control say it was possible and would save lives?
 
almost no one who has been a serious student of the gun control debate believes that the gun control leaders even care about crime control. They pretend they do to pander to the low information voters and the caterwauling hysterics in the press but their real goal is to destroy the lobbying and voting power of the NRA and gun owners who vote for their gun rights.
Right...and of course they will bleat on about all manner of other unrelated bull****...oh...its healthcare! Its inadequate access to mental healthcare Ronald Reagan!!! Auuuuuuuugh! All the while ignoring the fact that in the cases where mental illness WAS involved thoughout the last 3 decades (an average of 1-2 a YEAR out of 120 MILLION legal gun owners), the individuals ALL had adequate mental health care coverage. Its all just bull**** smoke and mirrors.
 
almost no one who has been a serious student of the gun control debate believes that the gun control leaders even care about crime control. They pretend they do to pander to the low information voters and the caterwauling hysterics in the press but their real goal is to destroy the lobbying and voting power of the NRA and gun owners who vote for their gun rights.

On this I have to agree but it is not the power the NRA has which is in fact very little. For example the NRA cannot control voting to any significant degree. Therefore it has little power no matter how many quite complacent apathetic members it has.

Political power is the ability to change politics by demand with removal of support or addition of support.

I'll repeat this first principle

The only currency of politics is power.

Therefore the only way of political persuasion is to have power to change a political outcome.

The low wattage types are those we never bothered to educate and let gun control do it for us. That is probably the most serious neglect that can be hung from the HRA's neck. Gun control has been allowed with impunity too slander and lie our fantastic good record and name and turn firearm owners into the blamed, hated and despised. People who can be treated with contempt. Stomped on and their possessions taken from them.

We do not even get angry any more but just accept because the NRA does and says nothing. If our leaders do it well....
 

California is a lost cause, and a cesspool of liberal/socialist progressive agenda's.

It is unique and shouldn't be considered an example of anything. It is destined to fail, so things may change at some point many years down the road.
 
On this I have to agree but it is not the power the NRA has which is in fact very little. For example the NRA cannot control voting to any significant degree. Therefore it has little power no matter how many quite complacent apathetic members it has.

Political power is the ability to change politics by demand with removal of support or addition of support.

I'll repeat this first principle

The only currency of politics is power.

Therefore the only way of political persuasion is to have power to change a political outcome.

The low wattage types are those we never bothered to educate and let gun control do it for us. That is probably the most serious neglect that can be hung from the HRA's neck. Gun control has been allowed with impunity too slander and lie our fantastic good record and name and turn firearm owners into the blamed, hated and despised. People who can be treated with contempt. Stomped on and their possessions taken from them.

We do not even get angry any more but just accept because the NRA does and says nothing. If our leaders do it well....

well I spend a few hundred hours a year educating people and paying out of my own pocket for the ammo and targets to do so. we need more shooters to do that. the more people who end up liking shooting, the more allies we have
 
I believe that this is happening because Mr. LaPierre is not addressing the concerns of the citizens of this country on taking away guns from known felons and the mentally ill. We need concrete plans from the NRA on stopping known violent offenders and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms. What are they? :confused:

You give the NRA way too much credit.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1066668867 said:
You give the NRA way too much credit.

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?
 
well I spend a few hundred hours a year educating people and paying out of my own pocket for the ammo and targets to do so. we need more shooters to do that. the more people who end up liking shooting, the more allies we have

That is not true TD. They still have absolutely no idea what to do to win this fight. They are still subjective to gun controls propaganda. You see numbers do not count unless they can actually do something to show their presence. As it stands the NRA probably could not get more than a few hundred to protest the California laws in California. That would help a help of a lot more than anything they are doing now. Organisation of your troops. Training of your fighters, helping and aiding by supply and leadership this fight. If you cannot get people to protest and object you cannot get them to vote, you have no power.

Leadership obtains its power from the members not a membership list.
 
Last edited:
Right...and of course they will bleat on about all manner of other unrelated bull****...oh...its healthcare! Its inadequate access to mental healthcare Ronald Reagan!!! Auuuuuuuugh! All the while ignoring the fact that in the cases where mental illness WAS involved thoughout the last 3 decades (an average of 1-2 a YEAR out of 120 MILLION legal gun owners), the individuals ALL had adequate mental health care coverage. Its all just bull**** smoke and mirrors.

Never let it be said that gun control cannot take a rare event and convince people it is going to happen to them. And gun control can do it with virtually no opposition.
 
Never let it be said that gun control cannot take a rare event and convince people it is going to happen to them. And gun control can do it with virtually no opposition.

There is plenty of opposition. Even in California. The problem in California is that the state is a liberal festering cesspool and the festering liberals have the majority. I blame Californians. Fight for your rights or don't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The point is that many consider the 2A to be a mere state issued privilege, akin to driving, such that laws requiring taking classes, paying fees and getting a license (and registration?) are simply "reasonable restrictions".

It's a problem of our government controlled education system to promote the supremacy of government and obedience. To never question or object.
 
California is a lost cause, and a cesspool of liberal/socialist progressive agenda's.

It is unique and shouldn't be considered an example of anything. It is destined to fail, so things may change at some point many years down the road.

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?
 
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?

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
 
There is plenty of opposition. Even in California. The problem in California is that the state is a liberal festering cesspool and the festering liberals have the majority. I blame Californians. Fight for your rights or don't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh! It most certainly is California's firearm owners fault and I have no doubt there are pockets of resistance. What I am say it is uncoordinated not focused on the important aspects of their own safety, that of their loved ones and the very rights that allow them to live as free people.

These guys should be responding to every media mention of these idiotic laws by explaining to people why they object to having their safety messed with by government. If need be they should be out in the parks or streets making their voice heard. You do not get festering cesspools to listen by remaining silent.

Nothing on this earth makes a politician foul his pants quicker than a bunch of angry people baying for his blood ;-)
 
Back
Top Bottom