• 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!

Gun Control

Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 39.9%
  • No

    Votes: 74 50.0%
  • Others

    Votes: 15 10.1%

  • Total voters
    148
As someone who deals with the writing of legislation on a weekly basis, loopholes do not happen by accident. It was intended to do all the things it actually does and one of which is to provide a way for people to buy weapons without background check.

uh wrong, many congress members who voted to impose such duties on those required to keep a log of all firearms they receive and transfer in commerce decided not to impose those requirements on those not so required because they understood it could not be enforced
 
why are you calling it a loophole-have you been reading the lies of the anti gunners? a loophole suggests someway of evading a uniform law. The law was never intended to cover those who do not have a legal duty to maintain log books of all weapons received and sold in the course of business

Good point. I should not adopt the language of the hoplophobes.

And none of them have addressed the issue I raised. Would it be possible to enact their universal background check scheme without a federal gun registry?

Their silence is very telling indeed.
 
Good point. I should not adopt the language of the hoplophobes.

And none of them have addressed the issue I raised. Would it be possible to enact their universal background check scheme without a federal gun registry?

Their silence is very telling indeed.

its so obvious to us who understand the issue how completely dishonest the ARC is on these topics

they refuse to state their real goals because it would alarm lots of people who are LIVs or are not really rigorous thinkers. Their goal is to give the government (their wellspring) and criminals (people they often identify with) a complete monopoly on firearms
 
uh wrong, many congress members who voted to impose such duties on those required to keep a log of all firearms they receive and transfer in commerce decided not to impose those requirements on those not so required because they understood it could not be enforced

And the evidence for this statement?
 
its so obvious to us who understand the issue how completely dishonest the ARC is on these topics

they refuse to state their real goals because it would alarm lots of people who are LIVs or are not really rigorous thinkers. Their goal is to give the government (their wellspring) and criminals (people they often identify with) a complete monopoly on firearms

It is far easier for some to pretend that you are battling vicious demons who would destroy your rights and those of Americans rather than simply deal with the reality of a persons position.

That is called battling a strawman of their own creation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
 
And the evidence for this statement?

Well unlike some, I was actually watching the discussion on cable as it happened. I also met with a couple congressional leaders on tis matter as well

so tell me Haymarket, why do you think the brady supporters did not extend the law to private sellers
 
It is far easier for some to pretend that you are battling vicious demons who would destroy your rights and those of Americans rather than simply deal with the reality of a persons position.

That is called battling a strawman of their own creation.

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we have constantly demonstrated the plethora of lies spewed by both ARC posters on this board and the politicians they support such as Bloomberg and DIFI
 
Well unlike some, I was actually watching the discussion on cable as it happened. I also met with a couple congressional leaders on tis matter as well

so tell me Haymarket, why do you think the brady supporters did not extend the law to private sellers

So you have no verifiable evidence to present.

Thank you for clarifying that.
 
we have constantly demonstrated the plethora of lies spewed by both ARC posters on this board and the politicians they support such as Bloomberg and DIFI

I did not realize that Bloomberg was a member here and posted.

As for you demonstrating lies - you have repeatedly and frequently stated that i do not state my position. I have repeatedly and frequently stated my position on the Second Amendment.

Why do you keep persisting in the very word you used - LIES - about that?

I realize its easier to battle a cartoon strawman of your own creation than it is to deal with the subtle and complex intracies of a real person with a real position that defies traditional stereotyping. But that indeed is your challenge.
 
So you have no verifiable evidence to present.

Thank you for clarifying that.


Actually you could go back and read all of that -its called the legislative history-as well as the news reports that were written about the bill's passage

I know what the facts are, I really don't care if you were not aware of the facts surrounding the debate over the background check

and most of the people who actually understand this issue and make it a priority to understand the issue before arguing about it know I am correct
 
I did not realize that Bloomberg was a member here and posted.

As for you demonstrating lies - you have repeatedly and frequently stated that i do not state my position. I have repeatedly and frequently stated my position on the Second Amendment.

Why do you keep persisting in the very word you used - LIES - about that?

I realize its easier to battle a cartoon strawman of your own creation than it is to deal with the subtle and complex intracies of a real person with a real position that defies traditional stereotyping. But that indeed is your challenge.

did you read what I said. I said the posters here and THE POLITICIANS THEY SUPPORT
 
as to lies-one poster claimed that gun shows are where criminals get most of their guns

try this on for size if you believe that

Gun Control - Just Facts

A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends
 
Actually you could go back and read all of that -its called the legislative history-as well as the news reports that were written about the bill's passage

I know what the facts are, I really don't care if you were not aware of the facts surrounding the debate over the background check

and most of the people who actually understand this issue and make it a priority to understand the issue before arguing about it know I am correct

It is your job to back up any claims and allegations of fact you make with verifiable evidence. That is always the way debate works. It is incumbent upon the maker of the claim to back it up when challenged.

And you are FAILING to do that.

If you continue to FAIL to do that, then your claims and allegations of fact are worthless.
 
did you read what I said. I said the posters here and THE POLITICIANS THEY SUPPORT

Baloney. I do not intentionally misrepresent your positions here and I would respectfully ask that you not intentionally misrepresent mine. I speak for me. I do not speak or defend anybody in elected office. So please do not pretend otherwise.

You want to attack people here for their views? Then present their views. Attacking some politician somebody may vote for is really rather lame instead of speaking directly to the views of the poster.

Of course, when one intentionally engages in perverting and distorting the actual views of the poster, and cannot defend that underhanded tactic, it then becomes easier to attack a surrogate for them who cannot defend themselves.

That is blatantly intellectually dishonest as well as has no part in actual debate.
 
Last edited:
as to lies-one poster claimed that gun shows are where criminals get most of their guns

try this on for size if you believe that

Gun Control - Just Facts

A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends

Instead of foolish concentration on where criminals get their tools, and seeking a tool ban, why not permanently take violent criminals out of society? The poster child for gun control is usually a mass murdering (often deceased) mentally challenged (is that PC enough?) person. Why can't we stick to reality an use a young, urban (often minority), uneducated punk that has commited prior (often violent) criminal offenses? Carreer criminals are reponsible for most crime (gun or no gun), yet are allowed by "compassionate" folks to serve very little (if any) time for those criminal acts.

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/PSATSFV.PDF

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp.pdf

Council on Crime and Justice

Given the slant of the following Pew study, incuded for "fairness", it is still, IMHO, insane the the average violent offense incarceration time is now only five years.

http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Prison_Time_Served.pdf
 
It is your job to back up any claims and allegations of fact you make with verifiable evidence. That is always the way debate works. It is incumbent upon the maker of the claim to back it up when challenged.

And you are FAILING to do that.

If you continue to FAIL to do that, then your claims and allegations of fact are worthless.


NO I can do what I want and I clearly state what my position is and why

No one has come close to proving anything I have asserted is in error

and I should note that I do not avoid topics or fail to take stands on this issue
 
NO I can do what I want and I clearly state what my position is and why

No one has come close to proving anything I have asserted is in error

and I should note that I do not avoid topics or fail to take stands on this issue

Whenever he's saying you failed to do something, that means you're spot on.
 
NO I can do what I want and I clearly state what my position is and why

No one has come close to proving anything I have asserted is in error

and I should note that I do not avoid topics or fail to take stands on this issue

Your error is in intentionally, deliberately and purposely grossly lying about what my position is and then attacking that false position. You claim freedom to do so? Go for it. But it will be exposed each and every time.

News bulletin: nobody in the history of the world nor this site takes a position on EVERYTHING.

What confounds some here is that my position is not what they want it to be so it fits into their preconceived notions and standard talking points. They simply do not know what to do with it.
 
its so obvious to us who understand the issue how completely dishonest the ARC is on these topics

they refuse to state their real goals because it would alarm lots of people who are LIVs or are not really rigorous thinkers. Their goal is to give the government (their wellspring) and criminals (people they often identify with) a complete monopoly on firearms

I'd like to see one of them address the question of how any universal background check scheme would be implemented or enforced. Let's say that federal agents raid a home and find a gun. How do they know whether or not the owner had a background check performed on him prior to being given that particular gun?

The fact that they rant about wanting registration but are impotent to explain exactly how such a scheme would actually work is very telling indeed.
 
Whenever he's saying you failed to do something, that means you're spot on.

It is cute that you provide a shoulder for support. It would be more helpful if you actually had an idea of what you were supporting and could provide some evidence of that.

Allow me to guide you through.

1- Turtle made a claim of fact that congressmen who voted for the gun show loophole did so for certain reasons. 1401
2- I challenged him to provide some verifiable evidence for this. 1404
3- he failed to do so instead going on the attack. 1407
4- I pointed this out and asked for the verifiable evidence. 1408
5- you jumped in to support that he did something that I said he failed to do. 1417

So now all you have to do is provide the post number in which Turtle did indeed provide the verifiable evidence of his claim of fact to back up your so far hollow support.
 
Last edited:
It is far easier for some to pretend that you are battling vicious demons who would destroy your rights and those of Americans rather than simply deal with the reality of a persons position.

Unfortunately for many of us, the reality is that there are far too many authoritarian control freaks out there that DO want to control, rule, and dominate us. That is not pretending; that is reality.
 
Unfortunately for many of us, the reality is that there are far too many authoritarian control freaks out there that DO want to control, rule, and dominate us. That is not pretending; that is reality.

Then you should find them and debate them where your prepared and prepackaged talking points may fit better.
 
Then you should find them and debate them where your prepared and prepackaged talking points may fit better.

Unanswerable talking points, apparently, judging by your inability to address them.
 
Why ?
Could it be that the Swiss are far more civilized that us ?
Or is it "we" ?
And "we" have already been thru "less restrictions", thanks to the conservatives...
The first thing we must do is have 100% background checks for 100% of potential gun owners....the liberty lovers will NOT like this......
The next step is to ban the assault weapon ownership for civilians....
Think I am angry now ?
If I were a parent of a murdered child..........

More regulation is much different than a complete ban, but either way we would also need to fund more enforcement programs which would impossibly try to watch every person that cant buy a gun. They will try, one way or the other. If everyone were armed, no one would want to mess with each other. Your comment about murdered children, what happened was a tragedy which is exactly why we need to prevent it from happening again.
 
Mandatory military service does have its merits, if instilled, another tax hike, but, maybe worth it...this may help with the "better people" thing of mine.
Included would be how to handle and respect a weapon, also, our government would know a lot more about its people....
Maybe our voluntary military is not the best way of doing things.

To a degree, instead I think if government were to invest in this they should just sponsor compulsory classes that teach people how to respect a weapon. For example, every citizen can take 10 day classes by age 18. I dont agree with compulsory service or drafts for that matter.
 
Back
Top Bottom