• 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!

Obama taps Biden to craft new policies to curb gun violence in wake of shooting

TaraAnne said:
Let me know when a Ferrari opens fire on 5-10 year olds then we can have that talk. Again I would lve an answer to my question what does a person need with a 30 round or 100 round clip? You are not being rational. Just making dumb comparisons in hope that some gun nuts run to your aide
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you missed the point because you are against a certain size accessory to a weapon. To me it is like the gas tank in the Ferrari. If anything, I was being overly rational. Why did you avoid my point about locking up crazy people since they commit so many of these mass crimes. Where is your outrage when so many people are killed each day or is it just 5-10 year olds that you care about?

Have any gun buyback programs actually been successful in reducing the rate of crime committed with a gun? Are there instances where existing gun laws have not been enforced? I think one potential area for tightening the laws is to ban straw purchases.

As for your question of why someone needs a 30 or 100 round clip, here is an answer: If a weapon is effective in protecting your family or your property, then a weapon with that many rounds is more effective.
 
The Man said:
I mostly agree with you, but your post has nothing to do with what I asked.

Why is it ok, to some people, to infringe on a constitutional right (the right to bear arms), but not ok to infringe on another constitutional right (the right to vote)?
Click to expand...
People will still have the right to bear arms and defend themselves....just not with military grade weapons and high velocity impact bullets. But how many people lost their right to vote because of the red states new voting laws and obstacles?
 
VanceMack said:
Almost as good as the drug ban! Huzzah! And then...you will still have to deal with the reality that the vast majority of spree killings were actually committed with handguns. "WTG! WEEEEEE....we passed a ban!"
Click to expand...

Drugs are an unfair comparison since they are illegal and not mentioned in the Constitution. Plus, most people like drugs and people don't like when laws are passed and enforced against them. Drugs aren't dangerous except when used by people.
 
Moot said:
People will still have the right to bear arms and defend themselves....just not with military grade weapons and high velocity impact bullets. But how many people lost their right to vote because of the red states new voting laws and obstacles?
Click to expand...

No one loses their right to vote because of photo ID requirements. So why is it ok to infringe upon one constitutional right but not another?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Have any gun buyback programs actually been successful in reducing the rate of crime committed with a gun?
Click to expand...
Yes, Australia. Their gun buy back program dropped their suicide rate down by 80% and an almost equal number of homicides.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...GZlQYo&sig=AHIEtbQsYan-w6g_zXd5ODMrqrrDOeiXcg


Are there instances where existing gun laws have not been enforced? I think one potential area for tightening the laws is to ban straw purchases
Click to expand...
Yes, falsifying gun applications. It's a federal offense up to 10 years. In 1999, 175,000 known felons were caught falsifiying on their gun applications but only 3.2% were prosecuted....

"... Of the 204,000 attempted purchases stopped by NICS in 1999, the BJS report states that 71 percent of the rejections were for a felony conviction or indictment, 12 percent were for a disqualifying domestic violence conviction and three percent were rejected because the applicant was a fugitive from justice. Thus, 86 percent (approximately 175,440 persons) of those rejected by the instant check system had de facto committed another felony by falsifying ATF Form 4473. However, federal firearm prosecutions in aggregate totaled only 6,728. Although the report indicated the statistics for 1999 are preliminary data, that is a prosecution rate of only 3.29 percent. To put it another way, for every thirty rejected applications for a firearm transfer, there was only one prosecution..."
http://dingell.house.gov/sites/dingell.house.gov/files/documents/letters/reno.doc

I agree with you about stopping the straw purchases, but I would also add closing the gunshow loophole and cracking down on corrupt federally licensed gun dealers who contribute to over 60% of illegal guns sold to criminals.


As for your question of why someone needs a 30 or 100 round clip, here is an answer: If a weapon is effective in protecting your family or your property, then a weapon with that many rounds is more effective.
Click to expand...
If you can't defend yourself with 5 or 10 rounds then maybe you should get training.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
No one loses their right to vote because of photo ID requirements. So why is it ok to infringe upon one constitutional right but not another?
Click to expand...
Senior citizens did. Because they were old, a lot of them didn't have drivers licenses or the money or the stamina to stand in line for 6 hours just to get their IDs so they could vote and a lot of them didn't have the stamina to stand in line for 8 hours to vote. Did you have to wait that long to vote and if you did, would you have?
 
Who are you defending yourself from, that you need 100 round drums?
 
Moot said:
Yes, Australia. Their gun buy back program dropped their suicide rate down by 80% and an almost equal number of homicides.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...GZlQYo&sig=AHIEtbQsYan-w6g_zXd5ODMrqrrDOeiXcg


Yes, falsifying gun applications. It's a federal offense up to 10 years. In 1999, 175,000 known felons were caught falsifiying on their gun applications but only 3.2% were prosecuted....

"... Of the 204,000 attempted purchases stopped by NICS in 1999, the BJS report states that 71 percent of the rejections were for a felony conviction or indictment, 12 percent were for a disqualifying domestic violence conviction and three percent were rejected because the applicant was a fugitive from justice. Thus, 86 percent (approximately 175,440 persons) of those rejected by the instant check system had de facto committed another felony by falsifying ATF Form 4473. However, federal firearm prosecutions in aggregate totaled only 6,728. Although the report indicated the statistics for 1999 are preliminary data, that is a prosecution rate of only 3.29 percent. To put it another way, for every thirty rejected applications for a firearm transfer, there was only one prosecution..."
http://dingell.house.gov/sites/dingell.house.gov/files/documents/letters/reno.doc

I agree with you about stopping the straw purchases, but I would also add closing the gunshow loophole and cracking down on corrupt federally licensed gun dealers who contribute to over 60% of illegal guns sold to criminals.


If you can't defend yourself with 5 or 10 rounds then maybe you should get training.
Click to expand...

You did respond to my question about gun buybacks, a more relevant geography would be in the US. In my area, in Camden, NJ, they just had another gun buyback program that brought in about 1,000 "guns", we'll see how that does in a less friendlier place than Australia.

I have mixed feelings about the "gun show loophole" since it really isn't even about gun shows, but a private transaction between two people. My understanding is that it does not counter any law regarding the authorization to own a gun, permit, license, or whatever.

If you can't defend yourself with 5 or 10 rounds against 30 people, then you shouldn't take advice from others about clip sizes. I believe that people have the right to irrational fears as well as real ones and if that's what they want to have, then it is none of my business. If they break the law, then I expect government to enforce the law. If the numbers that you post are correct, and I have no reason to believe they aren't, then government officials should be prosecuted.
 
Moot said:
Senior citizens did. Because they were old, a lot of them didn't have drivers licenses or the money or the stamina to stand in line for 6 hours just to get their IDs so they could vote and a lot of them didn't have the stamina to stand in line for 8 hours to vote. Did you have to wait that long to vote and if you did, would you have?
Click to expand...

This is an over generalization. Pennsylvania has the 2nd largest senior citizens population and also had the most extensive list of acceptable ID's, including those from nursing homes, and a voter ID from the state is free. We also didn't experience the lines described in places like Florida and we didn't have early voting. Even still, people who viewed any ID as an infringement on anyone got a stay against implementing voter ID for the past election only, which is fine, but it is still the law for all upcoming elections. Maybe older Pennsylvanians are hardier people, and the person who asked for my ID (optional this time) at the polling place was 85 years old.
 
The Man said:
No one loses their right to vote because of photo ID requirements. So why is it ok to infringe upon one constitutional right but not another?
Click to expand...

Because the left "ranks" rights according to their own scale. The ones they (ab)use are important, and not even an ID can be requested, the others must be "controlled" and classes, tests and large fees added to properly "infringe" upon their use. The fact that gun crime is already illegal is not enough, they demand that "preconditions" be added to those "bad" rights in the hopes that if some are OK, then more are even better. The prior (temporary) AWB did basically nothing to reduce gun crime but that is the first thing leftists wish to "re-instate" (but with added restrictions, no expiration date and, possibly, no "grandfather" clause).

Note that the demorats do not wish to reduce gun crime (in general), as that is easily measurable and concentrated in those big blue urban centers - they wish to stop those "mass killings" which vary from none to 50 or more in any given year so, comming off of a record year, any firearms law change can now (using that single staistic) likely be said to have "worked".

The prior AWB in a nutshell: Everything you need to know about the assault weapons ban, in one post
 
KevinKohler said:
Who are you defending yourself from, that you need 100 round drums?
Click to expand...

A better question would be:

Who are you helping by outlawing 100 round drums?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
You did respond to my question about gun buybacks, a more relevant geography would be in the US. In my area, in Camden, NJ, they just had another gun buyback program that brought in about 1,000 "guns", we'll see how that does in a less friendlier place than Australia.
Click to expand...
Yes, it will remain be to be seen. Gun buybacks are happening all over the country now and people are lining up to turn their guns in. I don't think it will do much good, but it's a nice gesture...and too, a lot of people probably just need the money more than they need a gun.

I have mixed feelings about the "gun show loophole" since it really isn't even about gun shows, but a private transaction between two people. My understanding is that it does not counter any law regarding the authorization to own a gun, permit, license, or whatever.
Click to expand...
Well, with private dealers going to every gunshow and they don't have to do back ground checks then it's a loophole that should be closed....

•Gun Shows and private gun sales: Gun shows have been called “Tupperware parties for criminals” because they attract large numbers of prohibited buyers. A loophole in federal law allows unlicensed or “private” sellers, many of whom work out of gun shows, to lawfully sell or transfer guns without conducting a criminal background check. Gun show dealers have been known to advertise to criminals with signs that read “no background checks required here.”
Fact Sheet: Illegal gun trafficking arms criminals & youth « Gun Victims Action Council


If you can't defend yourself with 5 or 10 rounds against 30 people, then you shouldn't take advice from others about clip sizes. I believe that people have the right to irrational fears as well as real ones and if that's what they want to have, then it is none of my business. If they break the law, then I expect government to enforce the law. If the numbers that you post are correct, and I have no reason to believe they aren't, then government officials should be prosecuted.
Click to expand...
What, are you going to take on the mob or MS13? If you have to defend yourself against 30 people then you have a lot more problems than just defending yourself against a home invasion.

If someone has irrational fears around me, I'm going to make it my business and find out just how irrational they are. People not doing anything when they notice someone acting irrationally is exactly how a lot of these mass murders were allowed to occur.
 
Mycroft said:
Are you saying that your question is a better question than mine?
Click to expand...

No. Just something semi related bouncing around my head.

To answer yours, who are we HURTING by imposing limited clip capacities? I honestly don't know. To me, it seems like having five 12 round clips is pretty close to the same as having two 30 round clips, in terms of capacity to murder. Doesn't seem like it would take too long to swap clips, specially in an environment where no one is shooting back at you. But then, what, exactly, are high capacity clips for? What's the purpose of a 100 round drum?


Personally? I'm hoping technology will get us out of this mess. Guns that recognize fingerprints...crap like that.
 
KevinKohler said:
To answer yours, who are we HURTING by imposing limited clip capacities?
Click to expand...

You are hurting people in other states over whom you have no legitimate sovereignty but over whom you apparently wish to rule.
 
Federalist said:
You are hurting people in other states over whom you have no legitimate sovereignty but over whom you apparently wish to rule.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the land of federal government, in which we elect representatives to impose our wills upon others on a reg basis. Get over it already.
 
Moot said:
Senior citizens did. Because they were old, a lot of them didn't have drivers licenses or the money or the stamina to stand in line for 6 hours just to get their IDs so they could vote and a lot of them didn't have the stamina to stand in line for 8 hours to vote. Did you have to wait that long to vote and if you did, would you have?
Click to expand...

Even if what you state is true, they are not losing their right to vote, it's just more hassle to exercise their right. It's being infringed upon, according to some. So, why do those people have no problem with infringing on citizens' right to bear arms?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
This is an over generalization. Pennsylvania has the 2nd largest senior citizens population and also had the most extensive list of acceptable ID's, including those from nursing homes, and a voter ID from the state is free. We also didn't experience the lines described in places like Florida and we didn't have early voting. Even still, people who viewed any ID as an infringement on anyone got a stay against implementing voter ID for the past election only, which is fine, but it is still the law for all upcoming elections. Maybe older Pennsylvanians are hardier people, and the person who asked for my ID (optional this time) at the polling place was 85 years old.
Click to expand...
The point is that Republicans tried to take people's voter rights away by putting up obstacles to make it harder to vote. But you don't seem to care about that unless it happens to you. So why should anyone care about your gun rights if it doesn't effect them?



"...There were voting issues in November in numerous states. Some Miami-Dade County, Fla., voters, in line at the 7 p.m. poll closing time, didn't cast their ballots until after 1 a.m. Democratic operatives brought pizza to keep them from leaving.

There were long lines in several urban Tennessee counties and in South Carolina. In some places in Virginia, final votes were not cast until after 11 p.m. Long lines also were reported in Rhode Island, Montana and other states.....
Voting Problems To Be Examined By Congress

Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearing on voter suppression - latimes.com
 
VanceMack said:
Does ANY of that have any bearing on the worthless nature of a magazine capacity ban? And since you can't demonstrate any semblance of defense against your magazine capacity ban to a 'cause' you are left attacking the rights of law abiding citizens because approx 2 people per year since 1982 have committed an act of multiple killings...and only 32 of those 62 involved "assault style weapons". (32 in 30 years compared to how many hundreds of millions of responsible gun owners during that time)

The courts haven't indicated individuals should turn in their "military style weapons" at age 65. Perhaps because the courts recognize the Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights trumps the specifics enumerated in the US Code.

When they ban 20, will you then find a voice or will you join that mindless crusade as well?
Click to expand...

And you have no RATIONAL justification for keeping the 30's. You admit the chances of a tyrannical Gubmint or conventional invasion are extremely low but they are used... :roll:

YOU used the 'justification' of the unorganized militia but that was defined with an age limit. What say you? When you are no longer part of that untrained, unorganized, unaccountable mass do you turn in the weapons?

We have had so few terrorist attacks most of us can't name the date of the first World Trade Center attack or the biggest citizen attack on a Gubmint building yet go to the airport and see all manner of security measures. it isn't the number of attacks, it is the brutality, the old NRA talking points won't hold this time. The NRA shills can't use the same tired arguments.


As for 'them' restricting mag cap to below 20, (like BushI did) yes I will stand up. The Supreme Court has said reasonable restrictions- 20 round max cap is reasonable.

As much as many like to rant the true power lies in the vote. Not our firearms, not online ranting... the ballot box.
 
Moot has a point. My right to own guns are, according to many, important towards defending my other rights. That right, backed and vehemently supported primarily by republicans, ironically...does little to preserve my other rights against the encroachment by those very same republicans. FCC, patriot act, drug laws, selective voter registration, all republican babies.
 
The Man said:
Even if what you state is true, they are not losing their right to vote, it's just more hassle to exercise their right. It's being infringed upon, according to some. So, why do those people have no problem with infringing on citizens' right to bear arms?
Click to expand...
Well, according some their gun rights are being infringed upon, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. Take TD for instance, he's probably got more guns than he knows what to do with and certainly more than he would ever need or use for self defense and no one's taken his gun rights away. So exactly whose gun rights have been infringed upon? At least I could show you evidence of voter suppression, all I've seen from gun righty's is a slippery slope fallacy.
 
Catawba said:
You did not answer the question. "How does a gun that you claim only has cosmetic differences, protect you better than other guns available?
Click to expand...

that is a non issue-the magazine ban was substantive

You fail again
 
KevinKohler said:
Moot has a point. My right to own guns are, according to many, important towards defending my other rights. That right, backed and vehemently supported primarily by republicans, ironically...does little to preserve my other rights against the encroachment by those very same republicans. FCC, patriot act, drug laws, selective voter registration, all republican babies.
Click to expand...

IF FDR had not expanded the commerce clause and if his judges had not allowed that, there would be no current constitutional basis for most of the stuff you complain of
 
TaraAnne said:
I think a good number of people want to look at tighter gun control laws. So you are wrong here. Also he wants to look at other areas where we can improve. So our President is doing his job. I am sick to death of hearing about the 2nd amendment and how it give right to unlimited gun ownership. Plus ask any rational person why they need a 30 or 100 clip and the best they can come up with is maybe target practice. Bottom line the President is doing his job. I guess he had the pusle of right wing America more than most of us thought. Cling to guns and religion, and that scares the crap out of a majority of Americans
Click to expand...

Then maybe you folks need to leave, because Guns and Religion are two of the main things this nation was FOUNDED ON. As for why we need high capacity ammunition devices.... because there are people like Obama, Biden, and the current AG out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom