• 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
To what end other than to impact it's applicability? I agree that mental health issues should be a bar to firearm possesion, however I worry at the potential abuse of such a measure.



I agree with both of these. In fact, in regards to #2, like you...I brought this up several days before La Pierre did.



Right, and it's mainly number one that we disagree on.

Glad to see we agree on a couple things Mac. Like Jim Steinman wrote and Meat Loaf sang - two out of three ain't bad. ;)

We need a national discussion to help determine what it is the American people believe about the Second Amendment and its role in our society. For far too long now we have not had any such national discussion. Instead, the agenda and everything about it including the definition of terms has been determined by the gun lobby and the gun culture around it.

For example: should technology be the determining factor in what weapons are going to be in America?

Is Justice Scalia correct in his off bench comments that some weapons may indeed be removed and not allowed?

Are guns an the proliferation of them part of the problem or are they being scapegoated?

Do we want people to be armed on a level with the police and military in case we need another revolution and need to fight them in the streets of our cities and towns?

Are present laws on things like gun shows working or do they need to be revisited?

All that needs to be part of a national conversation. And I believe Wayne La Pierre just helped start it on Friday.
 
We need a national discussion to help determine what it is the American people believe about the Second Amendment and its role in our society. For far too long now we have not had any such national discussion. Instead, the agenda and everything about it including the definition of terms has been determined by the gun lobby and the gun culture around it.

It hasn't been all that long...

For example: should technology be the determining factor in what weapons are going to be in America?

No.

Is Justice Scalia correct in his off bench comments that some weapons may indeed be removed and not allowed?

Yes.

Are guns an the proliferation of them part of the problem or are they being scapegoated?

They're being scapegoated. Everyone wants to "do something" about what occured in Newtown and elsewhere. The easy target, the red herring, is the firearm itself....despite every indication that limiting them is ineffective.

Do we want people to be armed on a level with the police and military in case we need another revolution and need to fight them in the streets of our cities and towns?

For the most part, yes, and that is very much in keeping with the second amendment.

Are present laws on things like gun shows working or do they need to be revisited?

Certain loopholes, like private sale, should be addressed if they are proven to being abused.

All that needs to be part of a national conversation. And I believe Wayne La Pierre just helped start it on Friday.

I agree, and it should be an indication that the NRA supports the LEGAL use of firearms.
 
The faulty thinking is that a weapon is only suited for one purpose. :shrug:

I believe the faulty thinking is that one particular weapon is the only one that can be used for a purpose and you have a right to it despite a buffet table filled with others that will do the job.

Yes, some people scapegoat weapons. Some people hate guns and are anti-gun. Both ends of the spectrum has adherents. We need to involve the greater majority of people in the middle who I think believe that guns are part of America and people need them for a variety of reasons including
self defense
home protection
sports
hunting
recreation

But at the same time they are concerned about a nation where there now may be as many guns as people and there seems to be much negative side effects from their use - or abuse if your prefer.

And I do think the issue of fighting the government so you need an armory is a legit issue that should be debated. Yes, I understand how we got here as a country. Yes, I understand that people had guns as a last resort against a tyrannical government. I also want it discussed and asked that with that in mind, do the American people believe that we should use that as the rationalization/reason/excuse to allow people to have high powered weaponry in our society or can we make some accommodation and compromise where we stand firmly behind ownership of some weapons and do not allow others as having no real purpose in our society?

I think this needs a thorough and public discussion.

I agree, and it should be an indication that the NRA supports the LEGAL use of firearms.

And it needs to include what firearms should indeed be LEGAL.

Like the implications or not - guns are different. I abuse liquor and I make an ass of myself and have to get my suit dry cleaned from vomit. I watch too much porn and I get horny and maybe a bit obnoxious. I abuse guns and people can and do die.
 
Last edited:
I believe the faulty thinking is that one particular weapon is the only one that can be used for a purpose and you have a right to it despite a buffet table filled with others that will do the job.

The weapons the police use are selected for the very same reason that they are perfectly applicable to home/self defense. So, we disagree.
 
The faulty thinking is that a weapon is only suited for one purpose. :shrug:

Or that the purpose of bearing arms differs for law enforcement officers and law abiding civilians; as they are exactly the same - detering crime by the use of deadly force in appropriate situations. One may, rightly, argue that the legal use of dealy force for civilians is more limitted than for that of LEOs, in that LEOs may act on legal warrants, rather than only in the immediate response to current threats, but that is a minor distinction at best.
 
Last edited:
I believe the faulty thinking is that one particular weapon is the only one that can be used for a purpose and you have a right to it despite a buffet table filled with others that will do the job.

Yes, some people scapegoat weapons. Some people hate guns and are anti-gun. Both ends of the spectrum has adherents. We need to involve the greater majority of people in the middle who I think believe that guns are part of America and people need them for a variety of reasons including
self defense
home protection
sports
hunting
recreation

But at the same time they are concerned about a nation where there now may be as many guns as people and there seems to be much negative side effects from their use - or abuse if your prefer.

And I do think the issue of fighting the government so you need an armory is a legit issue that should be debated. Yes, I understand how we got here as a country. Yes, I understand that people had guns as a last resort against a tyrannical government. I also want it discussed and asked that with that in mind, do the American people believe that we should use that as the rationalization/reason/excuse to allow people to have high powered weaponry in our society or can we make some accommodation and compromise where we stand firmly behind ownership of some weapons and do not allow others as having no real purpose in our society?

I think this needs a thorough and public discussion.



And it needs to include what firearms should indeed be LEGAL.

Like the implications or not - guns are different. I abuse liquor and I make an ass of myself and have to get my suit dry cleaned from vomit. I watch too much porn and I get horny and maybe a bit obnoxious. I abuse guns and people can and do die.

While we're at it, should we limit the sale of cars that exceed 55 mph? No-one needs a vehicle that goes faster than that....except the police of course.

What do you mean by "hi powered weaponry" Calliber? Range?
 
How about all the 2nd Amendment advocates join a well regulated militia which controlled the weaponry?

Have you forgotten well regulated militia?

Why do advocates conclude that gun ownership is an INDIVIDUAL right?

How do they justify that this amendment was written in a completely different time and is likely outdated? Can this be interpreted to mean that the well regulated militia can own tanks, and fighter jets etc?

Nothing but hyperbole.

The second amendment was never meant to be just "a well regulated mammalia." "Shall not be infringed" was the key as the militia is the people...

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. - George Mason

The US Supreme Court agree's...

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

2008 and 2010. Hmmmm? Does not look outdated to me?

As for the last part. The 2nd amendment covers small arms only. Explosives etc are covered by a completely different set of laws. This includes biological/Nuclear as well.
 
I believe the faulty thinking is that one particular weapon is the only one that can be used for a purpose and you have a right to it despite a buffet table filled with others that will do the job.

Yes, some people scapegoat weapons. Some people hate guns and are anti-gun. Both ends of the spectrum has adherents. We need to involve the greater majority of people in the middle who I think believe that guns are part of America and people need them for a variety of reasons including
self defense
home protection
sports
hunting
recreation

But at the same time they are concerned about a nation where there now may be as many guns as people and there seems to be much negative side effects from their use - or abuse if your prefer.

And I do think the issue of fighting the government so you need an armory is a legit issue that should be debated. Yes, I understand how we got here as a country. Yes, I understand that people had guns as a last resort against a tyrannical government. I also want it discussed and asked that with that in mind, do the American people believe that we should use that as the rationalization/reason/excuse to allow people to have high powered weaponry in our society or can we make some accommodation and compromise where we stand firmly behind ownership of some weapons and do not allow others as having no real purpose in our society?

I think this needs a thorough and public discussion.



And it needs to include what firearms should indeed be LEGAL.

Like the implications or not - guns are different. I abuse liquor and I make an ass of myself and have to get my suit dry cleaned from vomit. I watch too much porn and I get horny and maybe a bit obnoxious. I abuse guns and people can and do die.


District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

"Justice Breyer moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering “interest-balancing inquiry” that “asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.” Post, at 10. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."
 
While we're at it, should we limit the sale of cars that exceed 55 mph? No-one needs a vehicle that goes faster than that....except the police of course.

What do you mean by "hi powered weaponry" Calliber? Range?

Cauton is needed here, as you, like the lefties, make no distictintion between a Constitutional right and a state issued privilege. That is a very key legal difference, as nowhere in our Constitution is "the right of the people to keep and drive vehicles shall not be infringed" stated.
 
While we're at it, should we limit the sale of cars that exceed 55 mph? No-one needs a vehicle that goes faster than that....except the police of course.

What do you mean by "hi powered weaponry" Calliber? Range?

Why is it that one tactic used by the gun culture on these sites is to almost always try to get the conversation steered to technical matters?

Cars are indeed limited by law and not by technology.
 
Why is it that one tactic used by the gun culture on these sites is to almost always try to get the conversation steered to technical matters?

Cars are indeed limited by law and not by technology.

What was the AWB, if not a "technical" matter? The AWB was a list of features, of which a semi-automatice rifle could have no more than one and remain legal to produce.
 
There is much wisdom in the collective intelligence of average Americans. I have long suspected that the American people want two things on this issue
1- they want guns as part of individual protection and sporting activity and want them to be protected as a Constitutional right
2- they want limits placed on weaponry that are based on common sense and what belongs or does not belong in a safe civilized society

My local paper - the Detroit Free Press - has a large letters to the editor section today expressing just this feeling

Letters: Find a safer balance on gun laws | Letters to the Editor | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

I think it is a good snapshot of what average Americans believe and think about this issue.
 
i just think the government is overstepping here, relieved that Obama is in Hawai, at least he cant do too much damage to our country from there
 
There is much wisdom in the collective intelligence of average Americans. I have long suspected that the American people want two things on this issue
1- they want guns as part of individual protection and sporting activity and want them to be protected as a Constitutional right
2- they want limits placed on weaponry that are based on common sense and what belongs or does not belong in a safe civilized society

My local paper - the Detroit Free Press - has a large letters to the editor section today expressing just this feeling

Letters: Find a safer balance on gun laws | Letters to the Editor | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

I think it is a good snapshot of what average Americans believe and think about this issue.

Stop, take a deep breath, and consider for a moment what the use of an "assault weapon" really permitted in the few instances that they have been used to commit "mass murder". They allowed more unarmed, unprotected victim's lives to be taken in a shorter amount of time (due mainly to the total number of rounds available, magazine size x number of magazines). So in these few cases, in which the victim count exceeded 4, it was possible to use a firearm instead of a bomb, fire or other WMD to achieve a higher victim count (including the perp). Limitting the choice/availability of these legal "assault weapons" does not make them disappear nor change the motives/opportunities to commit mass murder (and suicide) significantly. We must remember that, in reality, criminal use of "assault weapons" is, and will remain, very, very rare. Most criminals do not intend to commit suicide, and prefer weapons that allow escape and reuse, not simply to achieve high victim counts (incuding themselves). Once we accept "reasonable" arms limits to mean the maximum number of rounds of ammo available, it will naturally be incrementally decreased until all criminal use ceases; in other words, it could be dropped to one round and "gun" crime would still exist (but, naturally, criminals would still ignore that one round limit).
 
"Machine guns have been banned in this country for decades. Even as it found an individual right to gun ownership in the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court made the following observation: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," that it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever" and noted "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.' " That opinion wasn't written by some wild-eyed liberal - it was written by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia."

Read more: Feinstein presses for assault weapons ban - SFGate

its fun seeing you quote scalia, he was wrong on that issue. and the supreme court has been hardly something worthy of complete devotion since they prostituted themselves during the time of FDR
 
It's not my personal opinion man, it is a fact. You just want to remain ignorant on the subject and talk out of your ass. That's cool with me man.

Like I said 12 years in the military and a cop, but what the hell do I know about guns.

Your credibility can't really get any lower anyway, so it's not like it's a big deal.

catawba's only information is that he dislikes the politics of gun owners. all of his posts on the subject is fueled by that. consistency, logic or facts play no role. when I asked him what experience he had with guns he reflexively went with emotion-merely posting a picture of what appeared to be a memorial to CRIME Victims
 
A fact can be documented. You have provided only your opinion.

actually Blackdog's comments are factually. Yours are contrary to known reality
 
How about all the 2nd Amendment advocates join a well regulated militia which controlled the weaponry?

Have you forgotten well regulated militia?

Why do advocates conclude that gun ownership is an INDIVIDUAL right?

How do they justify that this amendment was written in a completely different time and is likely outdated? Can this be interpreted to mean that the well regulated militia can own tanks, and fighter jets etc?

ah the discredited moronic claim from a newbie that has been womped stomped and giftwrapped by almost every reputable legal scholar and the Court.

those who do not read prior posts are doomed to get napalmed again when they repeat stupidity
 
The weapons the police use are selected for the very same reason that they are perfectly applicable to home/self defense. So, we disagree.

exactly a gun that is most suitable for a somewhat trained police officer to use against criminal attack in an urban environment is often the most suitable for other somewhat trained civilians to use when confronting similar criminal attacks in the same neighborhood
 
Or that the purpose of bearing arms differs for law enforcement officers and law abiding civilians; as they are exactly the same - detering crime by the use of deadly force in appropriate situations. One may, rightly, argue that the legal use of dealy force for civilians is more limitted than for that of LEOs, in that LEOs may act on legal warrants, rather than only in the immediate response to current threats, but that is a minor distinction at best.

actually in most cases when Police engage criminals, the police were the initiators of the confrontation while when OTHER civilians are engaged in a gun fight with criminals, the criminals initiated the confrontation. Police generally go into a dangerous situation knowing it is dangerous, while other civilians have far less time to react or prepare. there are very few cases where cops are actually ambushed by criminals while every active shooting, mugging, home invasion or armed robbery of a business is essentially an ambush
 
While we're at it, should we limit the sale of cars that exceed 55 mph? No-one needs a vehicle that goes faster than that....except the police of course.

What do you mean by "hi powered weaponry" Caliber? Range?
Its a "loose cannon thing"..
I fully know what this is like...no loose cannon should be allowed to own lethal weapons.....period....Automobiles are far safer.
Its ludicrous to allow gun ownership without a 100% background check, as we do not know where all the loose cannons are.....and who they are...
Automobile-wise, we have made huge strides - no more Pontiac Tempest GTO with 6 cylinder brakes and handling (one example)..
However, I thinks that it is impossible to sell "gun safety/regulation" to the NRA and its lackeys, the tea bagging conservatives...
Not any more than lead can be talked into being gold..
 
Its a "loose cannon thing"..
I fully know what this is like...no loose cannon should be allowed to own lethal weapons.....period....Automobiles are far safer.
Its ludicrous to allow gun ownership without a 100% background check, as we do not know where all the loose cannons are.....and who they are...
Automobile-wise, we have made huge strides - no more Pontiac Tempest GTO with 6 cylinder brakes and handling (one example)..
However, I thinks that it is impossible to sell "gun safety/regulation" to the NRA and its lackeys, the tea bagging conservatives...
Not any more than lead can be talked into being gold..



this makes no sense whatsoever, and how are you going to enforce background checks on people who are banned from owning guns in the first place-ie criminals who ignore other laws.

I suspect if we got the anti gun extremists to tell the truth, they would claim anyone who wants to own a gun for self defense is a "loose cannon" in the minds of the gun haters
 
i just think the government is overstepping here, relieved that Obama is in Hawai, at least he cant do too much damage to our country from there

Hawaii is part of our country.
 
Stop, take a deep breath, and consider for a moment what the use of an "assault weapon" really permitted in the few instances that they have been used to commit "mass murder". They allowed more unarmed, unprotected victim's lives to be taken in a shorter amount of time (due mainly to the total number of rounds available, magazine size x number of magazines). So in these few cases, in which the victim count exceeded 4, it was possible to use a firearm instead of a bomb, fire or other WMD to achieve a higher victim count (including the perp). Limitting the choice/availability of these legal "assault weapons" does not make them disappear nor change the motives/opportunities to commit mass murder (and suicide) significantly.

What happened to events like this when they made the changes in Australia - a nation with a similar frontier culture as the USA?
 
My position is NOT based on SCOTUS. It is based on the meaning of the Second Amendment as it was written.

btw - you mentioned HINDERED as part of the definition.... here is that definition from the same 1828 source



That goes hand in hand with my position that the right must be stopped or defeated to be INFRINGED.

You ignored impeded and retarded.
 
Back
Top Bottom