• 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!

Why are the Dems NOW pushing for severe restrictions upon lawful gun owners

WHy Are the Dems now Pushing Severe Gun Restrictions


  • Total voters
    53
Well who made laws against tobacco companies? I'm sure the recent tragedy is a catalyst to enforce stricter laws and why shouldn't it be? What specific reason do you need to have extended clips or semi automatics? Also I've been out of the loop due to family and having a life, what are the dems specifically saying now OG?

What specific reason do you need to have gay homo butt sex?

EDIT:... I don't mean you, specifically.... but in general.
 
Well who made laws against tobacco companies? I'm sure the recent tragedy is a catalyst to enforce stricter laws and why shouldn't it be? What specific reason do you need to have extended clips or semi automatics? Also I've been out of the loop due to family and having a life, what are the dems specifically saying now OG?

I asked the same question. This was the response from TurtleDude:

Yesterday, 08:52 PM
Thread: ABC and the War on gun rights
by TurtleDude

Re: ABC and the War on gun rights

TurtleDude - "I noted dozens of times that the idiotic gun ban cost competitive shooters lots of money because we tend to go through magazines far quicker than casual shooters and replacing them went from 20 bucks a magazine to over 100"

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-media/146432-abc-and-war-gun-rights-11.html#post1061276532
 
Last edited:
Then start making this argument as responsible gun control, as a way to go forward with an alternate solution than just banning or restricting firearms based on just what kind of firearm or what features it has.

I find it pretty crazy, that I have to make the argument that the government should enforce the laws on the books.
That's their job, they're supposed to do that.

Yet we have people here, that are pretty ignorant on the regulations and laws in existence, proposing new laws.
Instead of me, asking the gov to do it's job, why don't those who don't know jack crap about guns laws, first learn what laws actually exist.
 
Is it the massacre or is it political expediency or just plain pandering

It's very telling that you didn't check "because of the school massacre" in your poll, TD.....whereas you did for all the other so called options. Nah, you don't have an agenda to stick it to the gun control crowd at the expense of innocent lives. :roll:
 
It's very telling that you didn't check "because of the school massacre" in your poll, TD.....whereas you did for all the other so called options. Nah, you don't have an agenda to stick it to the gun control crowd at the expense of innocent lives. :roll:

Prove innocent lives will be costed..... yawn.......
 
Its NOT just "now", the Democrats have been pushing for gun control legislation for many years, even decades. The conservatives , as we all know, oppose them, just as the NRA tells them to. Maybe something will finally get done as the cons die off - the only way they can "change" their so-called minds.
 
What specific reason do you need to have gay homo butt sex?

EDIT:... I don't mean you, specifically.... but in general.
This should be an adults only discussion, we do not need children of any age here.
Having said this, does it make me feel better..
NO
I am tempted to think that we have a sick society..
 
This should be an adults only discussion, we do not need children of any age here.
Having said this, does it make me feel better..
NO
I am tempted to think that we have a sick society..

So, no answer as to why someone needs to have gay homo butt sex?

Hint: The answer to that question and the answer to the specific reason why someone "needs to have" semi automatic and automatic weapons are one in the same.
 
They aren't pushing it, the American people are pushing it. The Democrats are just doing what representatives are supposed to do, representing the people.
 
What specific reason do you need to have gay homo butt sex?

EDIT:... I don't mean you, specifically.... but in general.
Sodomy actually is illegal in some states, but not enforced regularly. The laws are still on the books, they were written as moral codes prohibiting "unnatural sex acts" but really were nothing more than laws put on the books to harrass homosexuals. I don't agree with laws barring consentual sex acts among consenting adults, but they have more constitutional standing than many gun laws on the books. I keep telling people they need to drop assaults on the bill of rights, because when that goes they will have laws against something that matters to them eventually, like soda bans/limits, prohibition of behaviors they enjoy that hurt no one, etc.
 
They aren't pushing it, the American people are pushing it. The Democrats are just doing what representatives are supposed to do, representing the people.
Bull ****. Even if "the american people are pushing it" which doesn't bear out in gun sales, it doesn't matter because there is this thing called the U.S. constitution which protects the RTKBA and prohibits the federal government from passing laws they have no authority over as spelled out in the constitution. But hey, why do things the right way right?
 
Bull ****. Even if "the american people are pushing it" which doesn't bear out in gun sales, it doesn't matter because there is this thing called the U.S. constitution which protects the RTKBA and prohibits the federal government from passing laws they have no authority over as spelled out in the constitution. But hey, why do things the right way right?


You are wrong once again!

"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."

Feinstein presses for assault weapons ban - SFGate
 
You are wrong once again!

"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."

Feinstein presses for assault weapons ban - SFGate
Actually, I'm not wrong at all. The court is not infallible, unless you want the same body that passed the "3/5ths rule" and upheld "seperate but equal" to be an appropriate counter to the plain english of the amendment. Thanks for playing, but you lose again.
 
You are wrong once again!

"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."

Feinstein presses for assault weapons ban - SFGate

Nothing "unusual" about an AR15 other than the fact that it is "GASP" SCARRRRRYYY LOOOOOOOoOOOOoOOoooOoOOOKING
 
Nothing "unusual" about an AR15 other than the fact that it is "GASP" SCARRRRRYYY LOOOOOOOoOOOOoOOoooOoOOOKING


If that were the case, the courts would have overturned the 1994 - 2004 ban on assault weapons just as they did the ban on handguns.
 
If that were the case, the courts would have overturned the 1994 - 2004 ban on assault weapons just as they did the ban on handguns.
Correct me if I am wrong... but the courts don't just go grabbing up laws and deciding, "We are going to overturn this shizzznit all on our own".
 
Actually, I'm not wrong at all. The court is not infallible, unless you want the same body that passed the "3/5ths rule" and upheld "seperate but equal" to be an appropriate counter to the plain english of the amendment. Thanks for playing, but you lose again.

During slavery. And that was never overturned was it? LOL!
 
Correct me if I am wrong... but the courts don't just go grabbing up laws and deciding, "We are going to overturn this shizzznit all on our own".
All he has left is appealing to SCOTUS authority, nevermind that the only thing viable about court decisions is that they uphold law, not constitutionality. The same body that said it was okay for states to consider slaves 3/5ths of a person for census purposes, upheld "seperate but equal", and severely ****ed the commerce clause during the FDR era isn't exactly all that credible on the truth of constitutional matters. The only significance they have is effecting law.
 
Correct me if I am wrong... but the courts don't just go grabbing up laws and deciding, "We are going to overturn this shizzznit all on our own".

The ban was challenged in the lower courts and lost. The USSC ruled to let their decision stand.
 
During slavery. And that was never overturned was it? LOL!
And? It was an incompetent decision wasn't it? So when the court let's you get away with something it's fine? It doesn't call credibility into question at all? You're done man, you've got nothing.
 
And? It was an incompetent decision wasn't it? So when the court let's you get away with something it's fine? It doesn't call credibility into question at all? You're done man, you've got nothing.

Right, all I've got behind me is the rule of law and the support of the majority of the country. Nothing compared to your personal opinion! LOL!
 
Right, all I've got behind me is the rule of law and the support of the majority of the country. Nothing compared to your personal opinion! LOL!
Try again, the constitution is the supreme law of the land, justifying violating it doesn't win an argument for you. If you are proud of violating the law for your agenda whatever, but don't try to pass it off as legal. BTW, you do realize politicians who violate the constitution willingly can be impeached for perjury right?
 
Try again, the constitution is the supreme law of the land, justifying violating it doesn't win an argument for you. If you are proud of violating the law for your agenda whatever, but don't try to pass it off as legal. BTW, you do realize politicians who violate the constitution willingly can be impeached for perjury right?

Under the rule of law, according to the Constitution, the courts are the only body with the authority to interpret the Constitution. You are not a believer in the rule of law?
 
Under the rule of law, according to the Constitution, the courts are the only body with the authority to interpret the Constitution. You are not a believer in the rule of law?
Nope, sorry. The courts decided they had final authority in Marbury v. Madison and it was not challenged by Congress or the executive. Give up, until that decision SCOTUS rulings were less binding.
 
Nope, sorry. The courts decided they had final authority in Marbury v. Madison and it was not challenged by Congress or the executive. Give up, until that decision SCOTUS rulings were less binding.

Hate to break it to you but that was done under the rule of law, and it has never been successfully challenged since 1803. You are confusing what you personally would prefer the rule of law to be, rather than what it actually is.
 
Back
Top Bottom