• 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
Why are you being insulting? All I was doing is trying to find out if you were stating your own personal opinion based on your own personal belief system supporting your own personal political view or if you were providing an official legal principle that is beyond dispute and is considered as fact.

Thank you for making it crystal clear that it is only your own opinion.

You are posting, simply to be posting, which is silly, and certainly requires no reply with quote.

Here is your clue: when I am refering to a law, or "fact" I tend to post supporting links. Most of your posts, as this babble that I am replying to, are simply your opinion and are intended to rile or bait; not to make any point, or convey any information, they are simply intended to egg on a poster. You are, normally, far to clever to get sufficiently blatant, in that regard, to receive a warning, yet persist in using this tactic. Much of the comentary on a political debate website is of the nature of personal opinion; why else would we be here? Please refrain from replying with quote to my posts, if you offer no opinion, information or counter argument. I have yet to employ the ignore option, yet will look into its use. To convey the simple message of "thank you", for a reply, most simply use the "like" feature; try it and you (and I) might like it. ;)
 
Switzerland actually has the system we used to have. They have a real ****ing militia! So you are ready to sign up for government service to get your military issue rifle?

No to be honest I had no idea that Switzerland has compulsory military service, Israel does and they also have a low crime rate.
 
You are posting, simply to be posting, which is silly, and certainly requires no reply with quote.

Here is your clue: when I am refering to a law, or "fact" I tend to post supporting links. Most of your posts, as this babble that I am replying to, are simply your opinion and are intended to rile or bait; not to make any point, or convey any information, they are simply intended to egg on a poster. You are, normally, far to clever to get sufficiently blatant, in that regard, to receive a warning, yet persist in using this tactic. Much of the comentary on a political debate website is of the nature of personal opinion; why else would we be here? Please refrain from replying with quote to my posts, if you offer no opinion, information or counter argument. I have yet to employ the ignore option, yet will look into its use. To convey the simple message of "thank you", for a reply, most simply use the "like" feature; try it and you (and I) might like it. ;)

Baiting is a violation here. I assume you know what to do about it.

Discussing the merits of an issue and posing questions is not baiting. Plenty have found out the hard way.
 
You're the one proposing a federal law requiring background checks on personal transfers. If you can't be bothered to explain how your proposal would actually work, then don't expect to be taken seriously.

I favor this proposal, its even surprising that it is not in effect now..I'd tie it in with a national ID system (immigration status, medical, gun ownership, vehicle operation).
How to do this ?
Ask Europe, they are probably 20-40 years ahead of us on this one....they pay the innovation price, and we learn from their mistakes.
The key is "learning".
 
I favor this proposal, its even surprising that it is not in effect now..

How would we know whether or not a check was actually done if someone sells a firearm to his brother?
 
No to be honest I had no idea that Switzerland has compulsory military service, Israel does and they also have a low crime rate.

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.
 
How would we know whether or not a check was actually done if someone sells a firearm to his brother?
Good question..
Easy answer....obvious....
But, if a gun is "under the table" given to another , then little to nothing practical can be done..
Nothing is 100% ...nothing...
Law breakers will increase costs, as usual.....

And, as to "Democracy..........................and liberty.....
Are we animals or men ???
 
Turtle - I am willing to wager $1,000.00 that this statement is factually true: a person can purchase a firearm at a gun show without a background check.
I am willing to wager and additional $1,000.00 that this reality is commonly referred to as a gun show loophole.

Ready to take the wager?

why are you asking to bet something when I know that in some states you can buy a gun from a PRIVATE seller without undergoing a background check. I have stated at least TWENTY TIMES that the LAW was never designed to cover PRIVATE SELLERS.

and yes the anti gun forces use LOTS OF TERMS THAT ARE NOT ACCURATE

the anti gun left assumes that all sales should require a background check even though most ones involving felons never will no matter what the laws

You can also bet me that many anti gun democrats will call common semi automatic sporting rifles

"assault weapons" "assault rifles" or even MACHINE GUNS

being wrong is a common characteristic of that group
 
Good question..
Easy answer....obvious....

The answer isn't obvious to me. Under your proposed universal background check scheme, what is to stop someone from transferring a gun to his brother without going through the required background check?
 
How would we know whether or not a check was actually done if someone sells a firearm to his brother?

there you go raising practical issues with this issue. As I noted, its like demanding that pushers only sell crack or crank to those with prescriptions. What I do know is that the more proactive thinkers in the anti gun movement want complete registration of all weapons so the government can do spot checks to see what you have and if you sold something
 
Lol what? We should have less gun restrictions, Switzerland is an example of a country with little restriction.

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..........
 
why are you asking to bet something when I know that in some states you can buy a gun from a PRIVATE seller without undergoing a background check. I have stated at least TWENTY TIMES that the LAW was never designed to cover PRIVATE SELLERS.

and yes the anti gun forces use LOTS OF TERMS THAT ARE NOT ACCURATE

the anti gun left assumes that all sales should require a background check even though most ones involving felons never will no matter what the laws

You can also bet me that many anti gun democrats will call common semi automatic sporting rifles

"assault weapons" "assault rifles" or even MACHINE GUNS

being wrong is a common characteristic of that group

And nobody is addressing how this loophole they want closed is actually going to get closed. If federal legislation is enacted that requires a background check in all transfers, how would it be enforced? How would anyone even be able to know whether or not Alan did a background check on Bob prior to selling him one of his firearms?
 
why are you asking to bet something when I know that in some states you can buy a gun from a PRIVATE seller without undergoing a background check. I have stated at least TWENTY TIMES that the LAW was never designed to cover PRIVATE SELLERS.

and yes the anti gun forces use LOTS OF TERMS THAT ARE NOT ACCURATE

the anti gun left assumes that all sales should require a background check even though most ones involving felons never will no matter what the laws

Glad we have cleared up that there is indeed a gun show loophole where you can buy a gun without a background check.
 
And nobody is addressing how this loophole they want closed is actually going to get closed. If federal legislation is enacted that requires a background check in all transfers, how would it be enforced? How would anyone even be able to know whether or not Alan did a background check on Bob prior to selling him one of his firearms?

That is why I referred you to the states which already do this so you can do your own research and answer your own questions.

Or since you are so concerned about this sale to ones brother and you seem to envision problems that others simply do not see, perhaps you could design a system which meets your own concerns?
 
there you go raising practical issues with this issue. As I noted, its like demanding that pushers only sell crack or crank to those with prescriptions. What I do know is that the more proactive thinkers in the anti gun movement want complete registration of all weapons so the government can do spot checks to see what you have and if you sold something

Good point. It sounds doubtful that this loophole could be closed without also implementing a federal gun registration scheme. That may be why its proponents clam up when asked for the gory details.
 
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..........

so what you are saying is that you base your views on gun control through an extremely emotional lens?

what we need to do is make sure if our weapons are taken by force we use them on those who instigated the oppression

and if cops have assault weapons (whatever those are) we should have them too
 
Good point. It sounds doubtful that this loophole could be closed without also implementing a federal gun registration scheme. That may be why its proponents clam up when asked for the gory details.

its amazing so many of them are intimately familiar with the failure of the war on drugs and expect it to be any different.

dishonesty is the main stock in trade we get from the anti rights coalition members
 
Glad we have cleared up that there is indeed a gun show loophole where you can buy a gun without a background check.

Its not a loophole-the law was intended only to apply to those who have to keep records of weapons they receive in the course of business.
 
Good point. It sounds doubtful that this loophole could be closed without also implementing a federal gun registration scheme. That may be why its proponents clam up when asked for the gory details.

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
 
Its not a loophole-the law was intended only to apply to those who have to keep records of weapons they receive in the course of business.

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.
 
there you go raising practical issues with this issue. As I noted, its like demanding that pushers only sell crack or crank to those with prescriptions. What I do know is that the more proactive thinkers in the anti gun movement want complete registration of all weapons so the government can do spot checks to see what you have and if you sold something
I do agree with the fears of the level of trustworthiness of our federal government....I also see that the states have failed with English instruction.
Our government can do a lot more in improving their trust and honesty..
This will have to occur before we get carried away with adequate gun regulation, including "national ID" .
 
I am emotional - YES
Being human does this.
What we need is for the people to have trust in our government....and the police.....if we do not have this, "we in trouble"...
I do not like the idea of taking.....and I have NEVER advocated this....
I do advocate the complete background checks and future prevention of the insane owning guns.....
Insane means , in this case, anything off center....
And the determination of this is very difficult....I think....
 
I am emotional - YES
Being human does this.
What we need is for the people to have trust in our government....and the police.....if we do not have this, "we in trouble"...
I do not like the idea of taking.....and I have NEVER advocated this....
I do advocate the complete background checks and future prevention of the insane owning guns.....
Insane means , in this case, anything off center....
And the determination of this is very difficult....I think....

complete background checks-so you want to get rid of the privacy act, doctor client privilege etc

and do you think people who know they cannot pass such a check will not be able to buy a gun

just like people who don't have prescriptions for Oxy or Vicodin cannot get the stuff?
 
From thread on authoritarian governments.

Man must prove to his government that he can handle freedom and liberty.
I wonder, at times, if our people can do the right thing with these things which the conservatives love so..
Justification ?
The people under a fairly benevolent government living in peace and harmony....more or less.....our national interests have to be secondary to the people....this could be, oddly enough, where Russia is ahead of us...

Thank you sir for proving exactly how much those who love freedom need guns, the more capable the better. That this kind of attitude can and does exist among the American voters is a stronger argument in support of others in America owning military firearms than I could of ever thought of.
 
Back
Top Bottom