• 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!

26 reported killed in Newtown [W:72/89]

j-mac said:
This is true...We need to do a better job in the area of mental health.
Click to expand...

That has been my point all along.

I can not understand why avid rational gun owners would not want the same thing.

What rational human being would want crazy people to have the right to buy guns?

I do not have the answers but I am sure with all the intelligent people not only in the NRA, BUT THE POLITICAL ARENA AS WELL AS SOCIETY ITSELF, SOMEBODY MIGHT AT LEAST HAVE AN IDEA, OR AT LEAST LOOK INTO IT.:peace
 
Moot said:
That's probably because you didn't bother to read the links or follow the discussion before chiming in. Don't blame me.
Click to expand...
This is true, I was simply responding to your last line.
 
The Mark said:
I suspect that I look at it this way:

The chance that increased gun control laws and gun purchasing/ownership restrictions might prevent one or two events such as this is not enough to justify those increased restrictions.
Click to expand...

I look at it this way, if increased gun control can save one life while rational people still have the right to buy and own guns. it is well worth it.

Going through a little more red tape is that not worth a person's life, a child's life?

Besides increased background checks would not increase restrictions on people that have nothing to hide.:peace
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Laws already exist making that act illegal (should the BATFE/police decide to enforce the law) assuming that you meant this "visit" was to result in harmful intent. How are we doing enforcing the all out ban on recreational drug possession and sales? Think hard and don't hurt yourself.
Click to expand...

We both know that drugs is a self inflicted arena, people that take drugs have a chioce.

Crazy people that buy guns leagally kill innocent people the innocent have no choice.

The drug war continues because of smuggleing drugs or growing drugs or making drugs illegally. that law inforcement is working on.

When a crazy person buys a gun LEGALLY and kills innocent people it is only after someone dies then law inforcement gets involved.
Society is told time after time use preventive measures , yet when some crazy person gets his hands on a gun , kills innocent people and somebody ask "what can be done to prevent this" we hit a brick wall and people saying just move on ,nothing to be done, all that can be done is, 2nd amendment ya know ect ect ect:peace
 
presluc said:
We both know that drugs is a self inflicted arena, people that take drugs have a chioce.

Crazy people that buy guns leagally kill innocent people the innocent have no choice.

The drug war continues because of smuggleing drugs or growing drugs or making drugs illegally. that law inforcement is working on.

When a crazy person buys a gun LEGALLY and kills innocent people it is only after someone dies then law inforcement gets involved.
Society is told time after time use preventive measures , yet when some crazy person gets his hands on a gun , kills innocent people and somebody ask "what can be done to prevent this" we hit a brick wall and people saying just move on ,nothing to be done, all that can be done is, 2nd amendment ya know ect ect ect:peace
Click to expand...

The "crazy people" issue is more of a 5th and 14th amendment issue, IMHO. Nobody seriously argues that the criminally insane be allowed to have guns legally, but many insist upon a clear definition of, and process to certify anyone as, being placed into that group in the NICS database. We have a very clear definition of a convicted felon, even a fairly clear definition of a domestic abuser, yet no clear defintion (or procedure to certify) one as being "crazy". So it is not the 2nd amendment that protects the crazy (keeps them out of the NICS database), but the 5th and 14th amendments. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The "crazy people" issue is more of a 5th and 14th amendment issue, IMHO. Nobody seriously argues that the criminally insane be allowed to have guns legally, but many insist upon a clear definition of, and process to certify anyone as, being placed into that group in the NICS database. We have a very clear definition of a convicted felon, even a fairly clear definition of a domestic abuser, yet no clear defintion (or procedure to certify) one as being "crazy". So it is not the 2nd amendment that protects the crazy (keeps them out of the NICS database), but the 5th and 14th amendments. ;)
Click to expand...
Current law sets the standard regarding people with mental health issues, which requires a legal proceeding before the right to arms can be taken away - this satisfies the due process clause of the 5th.

If you have been judged as "crazy" thru that process, then you do not have the right to arms; if not, then the 5th amendment protects you.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The "crazy people" issue is more of a 5th and 14th amendment issue, IMHO. Nobody seriously argues that the criminally insane be allowed to have guns legally, but many insist upon a clear definition of, and process to certify anyone as, being placed into that group in the NICS database. We have a very clear definition of a convicted felon, even a fairly clear definition of a domestic abuser, yet no clear defintion (or procedure to certify) one as being "crazy". So it is not the 2nd amendment that protects the crazy (keeps them out of the NICS database), but the 5th and 14th amendments. ;)
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is if a crazy person gets a gun leagaly and kills innocent people nobody can look into ways to prevent this because of WHAT? the NCIS database, THE 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS OR NO CLEAR DEFINITION??

Come on man, I know a spin job when I see one ;you should have kept to the excuses at least that was honorable.:peace
 
Am I to believe that amendments to the Constitution prohibits even looking into the background checks made by questionable people that bought guns until after the crime of killing innocent people has been committed???:peace
 
presluc said:
So, what you're saying is if a crazy person gets a gun leagaly and kills innocent people nobody can look into ways to prevent this because of WHAT? the NCIS database, THE 5TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS OR NO CLEAR DEFINITION??

Come on man, I know a spin job when I see one ;you should have kept to the excuses at least that was honorable.:peace
Click to expand...

I said no such thing. What I said was that we now lack a clear procedure/process to identify these "crazy" folks. Give me your definition of what would it would take to place a person on the "no gun list" based on being "crazy". You shout down those that would ask simple and logical questions, or assert that other Constitutional rights must be considered in relation to restricting 2nd amendment rights. I simply asserted that due process and equal protection of the law rights must apply while getting one placed on the "no gun list".
 
presluc said:
Am I to believe that amendments to the Constitution prohibits even looking into the background checks made by questionable people that bought guns until after the crime of killing innocent people has been committed???:peace
Click to expand...
What?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I said no such thing. What I said was that we now lack a clear procedure/process to identify these "crazy" folks. Give me your definition of what would it would take to place a person on the "no gun list" based on being "crazy". You shout down those that would ask simple and logical questions, or assert that other Constitutional rights must be considered in relation to restricting 2nd amendment rights. I simply asserted that due process and equal protection of the law rights must apply while getting one placed on the "no gun list".
Click to expand...

I shout down people that ask simple questions????
I have tried to negoiate on this thread more than once, first it was why not have strickter gun control
Response; too difficult 2nd amendment.

From there it went to a question "CAN WE DO BETTER"
Response; NOT MUCH

Then to a pultry "CAN GUN CONTROL BE LOOKED INTO AT ALL"

Response; Well it looks like you're getting into the NCIS DATABASE to consider plus the 5th and 14th amendment, plus we have no clear definition of a crazy as of yet.

We both know that the Patriot Act is in force and if you don't know what that means WELL WE GOT NO MORE TO TALK ABOUT .
Try that spin on the LOVE GENERATION THEY MIGHT GO FOR IT BUT NOT ME.:peace
 
presluc said:
I shout down people that ask simple questions????
I have tried to negoiate on this thread more than once, first it was why not have strickter gun control
Response; too difficult 2nd amendment.

From there it went to a question "CAN WE DO BETTER"
Response; NOT MUCH

Then to a pultry "CAN GUN CONTROL BE LOOKED INTO AT ALL"

Response; Well it looks like you're getting into the NCIS DATABASE to consider plus the 5th and 14th amendment, plus we have no clear definition of a crazy as of yet.

We both know that the Patriot Act is in force and if you don't know what that means WELL WE GOT NO MORE TO TALK ABOUT .
Try that spin on the LOVE GENERATION THEY MIGHT GO FOR IT BUT NOT ME.:peace
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should start by understanding what the current handgun purchase/carry laws are:

Handgunlaw.us
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Perhaps you should start by understanding what the current handgun purchase/carry laws are:

Handgunlaw.us
Click to expand...

Been there done that, after the VT shooting and the law was changed a little.

A question was ask can we look deeper into gun control?
Response ; the same response before the VT KILLINGS NOT REALLY

NOW AFTER 20 KIDS KILLED, AND 6 ADULTS ARE SHOT AND KILLED .

A QUESTION CAN WE LOOK INTO THE CURRENT GUN CONTROL?
RESPONSE; THE CURRENT GUN CONTROL IS FINE AS IT IS

THE SAME RESPONSE WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE VT KILLINGS.:peace
 
presluc said:
Been there done that, after the VT shooting and the law was changed a little.

A question was ask can we look deeper into gun control?
Response ; the same response before the VT KILLINGS NOT REALLY

NOW AFTER 20 KIDS KILLED, AND 6 ADULTS ARE SHOT AND KILLED .

A QUESTION CAN WE LOOK INTO THE CURRENT GUN CONTROL?
RESPONSE; THE CURRENT GUN CONTROL IS FINE AS IT IS

THE SAME RESPONSE WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE VT KILLINGS.:peace
Click to expand...
You're repeating yourself.

When I look at the idea of gun control (which is an extremely general phrase), I don't see it helping prevent incidents such as this.

Perhaps my idea as to what “gun control” constitutes is different from yours, but I cannot see how more restrictions on who buys guns, what they must go through to get them, how much ammo they can buy, what types of guns they can purchase, what features those guns can have, etc., etc., would in any way have prevented this incident.
Someone owned and (apparently) legally purchased those weapons, this mad/insane person had access to them, and he used them to kill people for some reason I’m not sure anyone will ever know.
So what would stop that?
You keep screaming (or so I interpret your prolific use of the capslock key) that we need to look a gun control, but what do you mean when you say that?
 
presluc said:
sorry didn't know you wore glasses , i'll use caps next time.
Click to expand...
I understood the words individually, but the combination and form you used them in I did not:
presluc said:
Am I to believe that amendments to the Constitution prohibits even looking into the background checks made by questionable people that bought guns until after the crime of killing innocent people has been committed???:peace
Click to expand...
What the hell does that even mean?
Are you asking if “questionable people” did background checks, and if a constitutional amendment prevents examining their procedures?
Are you asking if a constitutional amendment prevents examining the background checks of people who passed such and purchased weapons, but are for some reason now “questionable people (what a vague parameter)”, until or unless a crime has been committed by them?
Now, I don’t know the answer to either of those possible questions, but I do know enough to say that your sentence was vague and confusing at best.
 
presluc said:
Been there done that, after the VT shooting and the law was changed a little.

A question was ask can we look deeper into gun control?
Response ; the same response before the VT KILLINGS NOT REALLY

NOW AFTER 20 KIDS KILLED, AND 6 ADULTS ARE SHOT AND KILLED .

A QUESTION CAN WE LOOK INTO THE CURRENT GUN CONTROL?
RESPONSE; THE CURRENT GUN CONTROL IS FINE AS IT IS

THE SAME RESPONSE WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE VT KILLINGS.:peace
Click to expand...

Same old song and dance. What changes to the "gun laws" would have prevented the CT shooting? And no, it is not up to "others" to define them, as you seem to have it all figured out. Simply tell us what you would suggest.
 
The Mark said:
You're repeating yourself.

When I look at the idea of gun control (which is an extremely general phrase), I don't see it helping prevent incidents such as this.

Perhaps my idea as to what “gun control” constitutes is different from yours, but I cannot see how more restrictions on who buys guns, what they must go through to get them, how much ammo they can buy, what types of guns they can purchase, what features those guns can have, etc., etc., would in any way have prevented this incident.
Someone owned and (apparently) legally purchased those weapons, this mad/insane person had access to them, and he used them to kill people for some reason I’m not sure anyone will ever know.
So what would stop that?
You keep screaming (or so I interpret your prolific use of the capslock key) that we need to look a gun control, but what do you mean when you say that?
Click to expand...

First of all if no change in gun control does not help prevent incidents , then why was the gun control law changed after the VT killings?

Second of all my last ditch effort to negociate fairly on Gun Control was not the purchase of guns , nor the guns purchased but mearly to look into all aspects of gun control, but somebody said that would be no use to even look into the aspect of gun sales ?

I'd like to know why?

I am an American citizen I have nothing to hide on what or how I purchase anything. run a background on me until the day I was born. look into my life from top to bottom, as I said I have nothing to hide
Question ; do the gun dealers or gun purchasers have something to hide, cause for some reason they don't want to be looked into.:peace
 
The Mark said:
I understood the words individually, but the combination and form you used them in I did not:

What the hell does that even mean?
Are you asking if “questionable people” did background checks, and if a constitutional amendment prevents examining their procedures?
Are you asking if a constitutional amendment prevents examining the background checks of people who passed such and purchased weapons, but are for some reason now “questionable people (what a vague parameter)”, until or unless a crime has been committed by them?
Now, I don’t know the answer to either of those possible questions, but I do know enough to say that your sentence was vague and confusing at best.
Click to expand...

Not only am I asking if questionable people did background checks , but if the background was complete.

Don't try that privacy ****, we both know that ship sailed after the Patriot Act was passed as law.:peace
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Same old song and dance. What changes to the "gun laws" would have prevented the CT shooting? And no, it is not up to "others" to define them, as you seem to have it all figured out. Simply tell us what you would suggest.
Click to expand...

You don't read my post much do you?

I have stated that I do not have the answers .
I have stated that I support the 2nd amendment for the right the buy and bear arms and the defend one's self if neccassary for rational responsible people.
I do not support selling guns to unstable people.

It is my wish that the mater of Gun Control be looked into from the dealer to the background checks and how accurate they are by the lawmakers of this country.

I'm not talking about the past shootings and killings I'm talking about how and if a preventitive measure can be taken for the future shootings and killings,

If after an investagation of the gun control laws is made , and nothing can be changed, so be it, I will follow the law.

However to stand around and say no negoiation, no investigation is even needed, while innocent people continue to get shot and killed,
I will ASK WHY NOT?:peace
 
presluc said:
First of all if no change in gun control does not help prevent incidents, then why was the gun control law changed after the VT killings?
Click to expand...
Firstly, that’s a double negative – No change doesn’t help = A change does help.
You’re asking me: “if a change in gun control law would help prevent incidents, then why was gun control law changed after the VT incident?” That makes no sense, given the context. Hell, even without the context.
I can only assume you meant to ask me: “If a change in the gun control laws does not help prevent incidents, then why was the gun control law changed after the VT killings?

But on to answer what I assume was your question: Just because something WAS changed, does not mean that it NEEDED to be changed, or even that changing it in any way improved on the situation. Your argument is illogical because it assumes both are the case, without any proof or reason.

presluc said:
Second of all my last ditch effort to negotiate fairly on Gun Control was not the purchase of guns , nor the guns purchased but merely to look into all aspects of gun control, but somebody said that would be no use to even look into the aspect of gun sales?

I'd like to know why?
I am an American citizen I have nothing to hide on what or how I purchase anything. Run a background on me until the day I was born. Look into my life from top to bottom, as I said I have nothing to hide.
Question; do the gun dealers or gun purchasers have something to hide, because for some reason they don't want to be looked into. :peace
Click to expand...
I frankly haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about here.
 
presluc said:
Not only am I asking if questionable people did background checks, but if the background was complete.
Click to expand...
So you’re asking two questions about some undefined group of persons.
  1. Are the persons/organization who performed the background checks legitimate?
  2. Were the background checks completed?

Well actually that’s the same question, since if the persons doing said background checks are corrupt or something, by default that means the background checks are invalid/incomplete.

But again I’m wondering: Who the **** are these “questionable people”? That’s so vague it could have anyone included. Hell I find you a questionable person.

presluc said:
Don't try that privacy ****, we both know that ship sailed after the Patriot Act was passed as law. :peace
Click to expand...
What?
I have no idea what this line is about.
 
The Mark said:
Firstly, that’s a double negative – No change doesn’t help = A change does help.
You’re asking me: “if a change in gun control law would help prevent incidents, then why was gun control law changed after the VT incident?” That makes no sense, given the context. Hell, even without the context.
I can only assume you meant to ask me: “If a change in the gun control laws does not help prevent incidents, then why was the gun control law changed after the VT killings?

But on to answer what I assume was your question: Just because something WAS changed, does not mean that it NEEDED to be changed, or even that changing it in any way improved on the situation. Your argument is illogical because it assumes both are the case, without any proof or reason.

I frankly haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about here.
Click to expand...

And that answer is an assumption .
"Just because something was changed does not mean it needed changing " well somebody thought it did.

"or even that changing it in anyway improved on the situation" unless you have a database of everyone that tried to buy a gun after the law was passed then you too are assuming, gun control only hits the news after somebody is shot and killed.
To say that no new prevenative measures was taken after the new law was passed is saying your gun dealers are a little lax on following the law, if by following the new law they have may prevented some crazy person getting a gun an killing innocent people without even knowing it.
Of course that is an assumption , but you have your assumptions I'll have mine.:peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom