• 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!

'Enough is enough,' Feinstein says in proposing new gun ban [W:93]

Boo Radley said:
Again not true.
Click to expand...

Which part, be specific.

If there was no public support for restrictions, not even your most liberal or liberals would do either an EO or try to pass legislation.
Click to expand...

Wrongly using stats, or cherry picking based on misleading questions in a poll do not equal the assertion of majority support for restricting guns from legal ownership by responsible citizens.

So they are being accountable to the public.
Click to expand...

No, they are not. What they are doing is trumping up phony stats, based on knee jerk reaction to a tragedy, and falsely claiming that it is a crisis.

The biggest trouble you face is that much of the public is changing their views. But, the Constitution and the courts have set limits on what can be done.
Click to expand...

If that is indeed the case then, the avenue liberals have to change the constitution is to go through the amendment process....Why do I think that will not be the case?

The point is, government isn't your biggest problem
Click to expand...

I prefer the wisdom of Reagan in answer to this assertion....

"Government isn't the answer to your problem, Government IS the problem...."
-Ronald Reagan
 
j-mac said:
Which part, be specific.



Wrongly using stats, or cherry picking based on misleading questions in a poll do not equal the assertion of majority support for restricting guns from legal ownership by responsible citizens.



No, they are not. What they are doing is trumping up phony stats, based on knee jerk reaction to a tragedy, and falsely claiming that it is a crisis.



If that is indeed the case then, the avenue liberals have to change the constitution is to go through the amendment process....Why do I think that will not be the case?



I prefer the wisdom of Reagan in answer to this assertion....

"Government isn't the answer to your problem, Government IS the problem...."
-Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...

You do realize I went on to explanation what wasn't true?

Nor have I cherry picked a poll. It is largely all honest polls.

And no, you being closed to the stats and the actual arguments don't make anything phones. In fact, TD used very phones stats in deafening having a gun when he used hose saying people prevented more crime than anything else. That bit had no objective numbers at all to back it.

As there is no likelihood of an amendment, as the support is for restrictions and not out right ban, there is nothing that can be done but what has been. The debate s not banning, but where he lone is concerning restrictions.

And, yes, Reagan had a good platitude. Lacked any real meaning, but plays well.
 
Boo Radley said:
You do realize I went on to explanation what wasn't true?
Click to expand...

Answering a question with a question of your own is a dodge.

Nor have I cherry picked a poll. It is largely all honest polls.
Click to expand...

I didn't say "YOU" now did I? I was referring to the polls you cite that over sample, and ask purposely leading questions to cherry pick later to skew the true sentiment of the country in an issue.

And no, you being closed to the stats and the actual arguments don't make anything phones. In fact, TD used very phones stats in deafening having a gun when he used hose saying people prevented more crime than anything else. That bit had no objective numbers at all to back it.
Click to expand...

I am not here to make TD's argument for him, I am quite sure that he can handle himself against your pap. You'd do better focusing on my objections to your argument.

As there is no likelihood of an amendment
Click to expand...

Why not? I mean if there is such an overwhelming support for it? Or are you just blowing smoke?

as the support is for restrictions and not out right ban, there is nothing that can be done but what has been. The debate s not banning, but where he lone is concerning restrictions.
Click to expand...

Well, you prefer that the populace remain focused on the present day, whereas those of us concerned, are looking at the end goal. We are on to your incremental placement.

And, yes, Reagan had a good platitude. Lacked any real meaning, but plays well.
Click to expand...

Not platitude, truism......There is a difference....
 
j-mac said:
Answering a question with a question of your own is a dodge.



I didn't say "YOU" now did I? I was referring to the polls you cite that over sample, and ask purposely leading questions to cherry pick later to skew the true sentiment of the country in an issue.



I am not here to make TD's argument for him, I am quite sure that he can handle himself against your pap. You'd do better focusing on my objections to your argument.



Why not? I mean if there is such an overwhelming support for it? Or are you just blowing smoke?



Well, you prefer that the populace remain focused on the present day, whereas those of us concerned, are looking at the end goal. We are on to your incremental placement.



Not platitude, truism......There is a difference....
Click to expand...

The question was rhetorical. You asking what you asked made no sense.

Polls are a snap shot, and there are many. But I have no doubt that is assault weapon restrictions were put to a direct vote, the restrictions would pass.

Read carefully j, no one sad there was support for either a total ban or an amendment. Only support for limitations.

J, we can someone fr any end goal you can think of. You have to show not that a few hold a goal, but that there some reasonable path to accomplishing it. This is a simple point.

Nope, platitude.
 
Boo Radley said:
The question was rhetorical. You asking what you asked made no sense.
Click to expand...

If you can't make sense of a simple question, maybe it is time for you to look inward.

Polls are a snap shot, and there are many. But I have no doubt that is assault weapon restrictions were put to a direct vote, the restrictions would pass.
Click to expand...

Too bad your liberal/progressive leaders don't share in your confidence. If they did, then they would indeed put it to a vote, but they won't....Explain that.

Read carefully j, no one sad there was support for either a total ban or an amendment. Only support for limitations.
Click to expand...

I think you misjudge, and misread the American public on this, as well as much else.

J, we can someone fr any end goal you can think of.
Click to expand...

What? I've asked you to proof read before, now you are just not making any sense.

You have to show not that a few hold a goal, but that there some reasonable path to accomplishing it. This is a simple point.
Click to expand...

Feinstein appeared with Durbin, and Schumer by her side, and I would expect that the entire "progressive caucus" is behind this unconstitutional steaming pile of hers.

Nope, platitude.
Click to expand...

heh, heh.....You don't know what you're talking about. That is clear.
 
j-mac said:
If you can't make sense of a simple question, maybe it is time for you to look inward.



Too bad your liberal/progressive leaders don't share in your confidence. If they did, then they would indeed put it to a vote, but they won't....Explain that.



I think you misjudge, and misread the American public on this, as well as much else.



What? I've asked you to proof read before, now you are just not making any sense.



Feinstein appeared with Durbin, and Schumer by her side, and I would expect that the entire "progressive caucus" is behind this unconstitutional steaming pile of hers.



heh, heh.....You don't know what you're talking about. That is clear.
Click to expand...

Explaining us easy, there s no serious banning all weapons movement. We also don't have a direct democracy, but our politicians do respond to public opinion and can be voted out if they don't.
 
Zyphlin said:
Which does not necessarily one can not believe reasonably that it is unconstitutional. A lack of legal challenge does not inherently declare something constitutional in nature. You are absolutely correct that hte law has not been ruled unconstitutional. That doesn't disallow people from proclaiming a belief that it is. Restricting marriage to Same Sex Couples has not been deemed unconstitutional by the court that has the primary say on such a thing, and that does not keep hordes of people claiming (correctly imho) that the laws are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


People may believe whatever they wish. The fact remains the law was never struck down for being unconstitutional. That was my only point.
 
DVSentinel said:
She is right, enough is enough, so we should ban Whineswine, not guns.
Click to expand...

may she go to her grave knowing her goal failed. I doubt she runs again in 2016-she's close to 80 and starting to lose it mentally. She wants this big bill as her legacy. She's a hypocrite and a liar but her plan is to float something that would justify a civil war in order to make other unconstitutional turds submitted by her fellow travelers look "reasonable"
 
Catawba said:
People may believe whatever they wish. The fact remains the law was never struck down for being unconstitutional. That was my only point.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter. bottom line the DC law was not struck down for years. Nor was chicago's Both got baked recently
 
TurtleDude said:
It really doesn't matter. bottom line the DC law was not struck down for years. Nor was chicago's Both got baked recently
Click to expand...


That doesn't change the fact that the AWB and HCM law was never stuck down.
 
Catawba said:
That doesn't change the fact that the AWB and HCM law was never stuck down.
Click to expand...

and that doesn't change the fact that such a statement has absolutely no relevance given two major USSC decisions came out after the silly law died
 
TurtleDude said:
may she go to her grave knowing her goal failed. I doubt she runs again in 2016-she's close to 80 and starting to lose it mentally. She wants this big bill as her legacy. She's a hypocrite and a liar but her plan is to float something that would justify a civil war in order to make other unconstitutional turds submitted by her fellow travelers look "reasonable"
Click to expand...

Makes on wonder about people that vote for people like her, Waxman, and Pelosi. One visit to California and it becomes easier to understand.
 
Rocketman said:
Makes on wonder about people that vote for people like her, Waxman, and Pelosi. One visit to California and it becomes easier to understand.
Click to expand...

Its like the bar scene in the original star wars movie
 
Apparently...enough is only enough when it is a cute pink little child and an eeeevil assault weapon you can blame to foster ideological goals. Otherwise...

CHICAGO – Chicago authorities say seven people were killed and six wounded in gun violence in one day.

Among those killed Saturday was a 34-year-old man whose mother had already lost her three other children to shootings. Police say Ronnie Chambers, who was his mother's youngest child, was shot in the head while sitting in a car.


Read more: 7 people killed in shootings during bloody Chicago day | Fox News
 
TurtleDude said:
may she go to her grave knowing her goal failed. I doubt she runs again in 2016-she's close to 80 and starting to lose it mentally. She wants this big bill as her legacy. She's a hypocrite and a liar but her plan is to float something that would justify a civil war in order to make other unconstitutional turds submitted by her fellow travelers look "reasonable"
Click to expand...

She was just re-elected in 2012, so it will be 2018 before she would come up again.
 
Catawba said:
You still haven't bothered to read the proposed bill I see. Once again, for your edification, the guns you already own are grandfathered.
Click to expand...

OK, let;s try this. Why do you think there would be a ban on new production of firearms with a grandfathering of existing ones but a requirement to register them? How does that do anything at all for situations like Sandy Hook?

I'll save you a few pages of twisting in the wind. It doesn't. As it stands the government has no provision for federal registration except for Class III stuff. So what would be the purpose for registering guns that are already out there? And why would we tie this registration to medical records? Do you think it's out of convenience, or do you think that certain medical situations may lead to confiscation? Something like treatment for depression? And do you honestly think these cases will be ruled on a case by case basis or do you think it might be something broader than that?\

For instance, I have had marriage counselling. Does that simply mean a check mark in the "has received psychological treatment" box which might preclude gun ownership?

Now consider how many people who own guns who might not seek advice based on this. Do you want people refusing counselling because they are afraid of having thousands of dollars of equipment confiscated? Because you know there will be no offset for the expenses. It's about time we got honest about this, don't you think?
 
tech30528 said:
OK, let;s try this. Why do you think there would be a ban on new production of firearms with a grandfathering of existing ones but a requirement to register them? How does that do anything at all for situations like Sandy Hook?

I'll save you a few pages of twisting in the wind. It doesn't. As it stands the government has no provision for federal registration except for Class III stuff. So what would be the purpose for registering guns that are already out there? And why would we tie this registration to medical records? Do you think it's out of convenience, or do you think that certain medical situations may lead to confiscation? Something like treatment for depression? And do you honestly think these cases will be ruled on a case by case basis or do you think it might be something broader than that?\

For instance, I have had marriage counselling. Does that simply mean a check mark in the "has received psychological treatment" box which might preclude gun ownership?

Now consider how many people who own guns who might not seek advice based on this. Do you want people refusing counselling because they are afraid of having thousands of dollars of equipment confiscated? Because you know there will be no offset for the expenses. It's about time we got honest about this, don't you think?
Click to expand...

And that is if they don't just outright lie. I for one will not comply with a national registration on guns I currently have and when seeing the shrink, I will simply say that I don't own any if she asks.
 
The short story is that it makes no difference if someone says "hey, nobody has said they are taking away your guns". The fact is our government (and especially this administration) is known for lying to us. It is clear that the measures being taken now will do nothing to address the shooting we have seen which begs the question "why do it then?" And "Oh, but you get to keep whatever you have now" is just a softened approach with the intent of getting to people to believe that this will only affect "the other guy". You know, like "we are only going to raise taxes on the top 2%" or "your health care costs will go down by $2500 a year" or if we pass this stimulus unemployment will stay below 8%".

Any of this getting any clearer yet? In each of these instances the exceptions that were promised never happened. And when people saw their paychecks shrink at the beginning of the year, we even had people who were affected by the new higher tax rates defending it, claiming that it wasn't actually an increase, it was just some reductions that expired. The fact is in December your check was bigger, and ain January when it got smaller it was because a higher portion went to the government. Paint it any color you like, if the amount you employer pays for your service is the same, and the government gets more of it it's a tax increase.

So here is where we are:

The government lies and we can prove it.

Historically gun registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation

Members of the current administration have gone on record in the past clearly stating that they would have an all out ban if they could get away with it.


So there you go. This is why you will get NO movement on this issue from us on the right who understand history. No small step, to big step, no reframing about what the supposed intent is. If you are against guns, don't buy one. If you are afraid of others who own guns, move to a gun free zone like New York or Chicago where there are none and there is no gun violence. We will not be giving ours up. Not a little, not ever.
 
tech30528 said:
OK, let;s try this. Why do you think there would be a ban on new production of firearms with a grandfathering of existing ones but a requirement to register them? How does that do anything at all for situations like Sandy Hook?

I'll save you a few pages of twisting in the wind. It doesn't. As it stands the government has no provision for federal registration except for Class III stuff. So what would be the purpose for registering guns that are already out there? And why would we tie this registration to medical records? Do you think it's out of convenience, or do you think that certain medical situations may lead to confiscation? Something like treatment for depression? And do you honestly think these cases will be ruled on a case by case basis or do you think it might be something broader than that?\

For instance, I have had marriage counselling. Does that simply mean a check mark in the "has received psychological treatment" box which might preclude gun ownership?

Now consider how many people who own guns who might not seek advice based on this. Do you want people refusing counselling because they are afraid of having thousands of dollars of equipment confiscated? Because you know there will be no offset for the expenses. It's about time we got honest about this, don't you think?
Click to expand...


Honestly, I think your premise is coo-coo for cocoa puffs. I also don't think Feinstein's bill is even likely to pass. I'm thinking Lautenberg's HCM ban bill is much more likely to pass, which is just reestablishment of the 1994 HCM ban.
 
Catawba said:
Honestly, I think your premise is coo-coo for cocoa puffs. I also don't think Feinstein's bill is even likely to pass. I'm thinking Lautenberg's HCM ban bill is much more likely to pass, which is just reestablishment of the 1994 HCM ban.
Click to expand...


Well, I think going after guns to "save the children" is a seriously flawed premise when we are paying Planned Parenthood to murder 334,000 of them a year. I'm more than willing to save as many children as possible, and now that the liberals have brought it up I think we need to defund PP immediately. For the children.

See, I was perfectly willing to let you guys continue to behave immorally and kill your kids for convenience. After all, no one is forcing me to participate (short of ignoring where my tax money is going). As for the guns issue if you guys don't want them around then you could establish gun free zones where you live and work. The problem is the left doesn't work like this. Rather than try to come up with a solution that works for everyone they prefer to decide what they want (while being intellectually dishonest about whether or not what they are suggesting is likely to work) and then push their opinion on everybody else as well. It's the arrogance that gets in the way. The left think they are not only the more informed and intelligent side (wrong on both counts) but also know what is better for everybody even if they don't have a clue what the other side is thinking. And given the opportunity to simple ASK the other side what they think and want they simply draw their own conclusions because anyone who does not agree with them can not possibly have a valid perspective.
 
Catawba said:
Honestly, I think your premise is coo-coo for cocoa puffs. I also don't think Feinstein's bill is even likely to pass. I'm thinking Lautenberg's HCM ban bill is much more likely to pass, which is just reestablishment of the 1994 HCM ban.
Click to expand...

Then why even present it?

In 1994 this passed because it was not challenged. In other words no ruling, regardless of if the legislation fits with the Constitution or not means it stands. Because of the incremental push the left has been using lately, expect even a redo of the previous ban to be challenged.

As for Feinstein's bill, it may not be intended to pass. But then the idea would be to propose something so over the top that it couldn't possibly stand, then use that as a starting point to lead to something less offensive but still wrong. Well, considering the tactics used so far I would expect her bill to get shot down and when the "alternative" is offered up expect a counterproposal that is even less restrictive than what we have now. Coming back to the center has not helped with you guys. honest compromise just results in more pressure, more dishonest distraction, more reframing, along with a healthy dose of " save the children " to try to guilt people in to accepting it.

So lets look at a liberal perspective pushed aaaalllllll the way out to the extreme. Let's consider that if abortions were free, even more available and the right would stop pointing out that IT IS MURDER that ALL children could be aborted and there would be no school shooting because there would be no children in the schools. From a logical point of view this fits with the left. See how I did that? No live children means no children to be killed. And isn't that the point? Because if you honestly want to SAVE the children you might consider not killing them by the hundreds of thousands with the government's full blessing and support. Do you honestly think a government that supports and in fact aids in killing children cares about 20 of them in a school?

It is not the children they are trying to save, it is themselves. They know that more and more people are upset with their power grabs and skirting of the Constitution, they want to disarm the people before they get fed up and take out the REAL criminals, the politicians and bankers. It's coming people, and it isn't going to be pretty.
 
tech30528 said:
Then why even present it?

In 1994 this passed because it was not challenged. In other words no ruling, regardless of if the legislation fits with the Constitution or not means it stands. Because of the incremental push the left has been using lately, expect even a redo of the previous ban to be challenged.

As for Feinstein's bill, it may not be intended to pass. But then the idea would be to propose something so over the top that it couldn't possibly stand, then use that as a starting point to lead to something less offensive but still wrong. Well, considering the tactics used so far I would expect her bill to get shot down and when the "alternative" is offered up expect a counterproposal that is even less restrictive than what we have now. Coming back to the center has not helped with you guys. honest compromise just results in more pressure, more dishonest distraction, more reframing, along with a healthy dose of " save the children " to try to guilt people in to accepting it.

So lets look at a liberal perspective pushed aaaalllllll the way out to the extreme. Let's consider that if abortions were free, even more available and the right would stop pointing out that IT IS MURDER that ALL children could be aborted and there would be no school shooting because there would be no children in the schools. From a logical point of view this fits with the left. See how I did that? No live children means no children to be killed. And isn't that the point? Because if you honestly want to SAVE the children you might consider not killing them by the hundreds of thousands with the government's full blessing and support. Do you honestly think a government that supports and in fact aids in killing children cares about 20 of them in a school?

It is not the children they are trying to save, it is themselves. They know that more and more people are upset with their power grabs and skirting of the Constitution, they want to disarm the people before they get fed up and take out the REAL criminals, the politicians and bankers. It's coming people, and it isn't going to be pretty.
Click to expand...



Love the imagination you use in your scenarios! :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom