• 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!

Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

so of the senate fails to pass the idiotic Feinswine bill I guess you will be trumpeting its the will of the people?

I think the purpose of the Feinstein bill was to get people of the ultra conservative persuasion to make fools of themselves to convince the majority of the public that extending background checks were needed to reduce accessibility to guns by criminals and crazies. Appears to be working too! Public support for background checks for all gun sales is now at 92%.

Thanks for a job well done!
 
The Supreme Court is the only one established by the Constitution. All other courts are merely creations of Congress and Congress can easily disband those at anytime of their choosing...

Correct.....!
 
The House ain't gonna pass any new AWB, so who cares.

But hopefully they will pass universal background checks and new magazine limits.

The House won't limit magazines anytime soon either, although many magazines should be limited to seven or less pages five of which should be advertisements...
 
why do you want a magazine limit-so the rest of the country has to suffer the same stupidity people in NY are under?

Nobody needs a 100-round drum magazine.

Such toys are useful for two things: ripping **** apart like a damn fool, or killing lots of people in a small amount of time.
 
That is your interpretation. Constitutional scholars say the right to bear arms is for a militia regulated by the state and disciplined by Congress.

Ultimately, it will be up to the courts to decide.

The Courts already decided on the 2nd Amendment...

District of Columbia vs Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.

And the following applied the 2nd to the States along with reaffirming that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals also...

McDonald v. Chicago

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Sorry but your "constitutional scholars" just got owned.
 
Nobody needs a 100-round drum magazine.

Such toys are useful for two things: ripping **** apart like a damn fool, or killing lots of people in a small amount of time.

And no gun owner that knows anything buys them either (okay, maybe the person who has to have at least one of everything). They are highly unreliable and of no use in any tactical situation...
 
4 years undergrad, 3 in law school, another 2 for the masters of law.

Puleeze. It doesn't take thousands of dollars to attend some school for X amount of years to become a Cosntitutional Scholar. It just takes studying the Constitution and those who wrote it along with studying the history that led to the Constitution being made.
 
The House won't limit magazines anytime soon either, although many magazines should be limited to seven or less pages five of which should be advertisements...

Sharp and droll as ever, I see - goodafternoon V1.1 - have fun
 
Thats simply not realistic. 10 minutes. 10 minutes with no police response. Do you know how many rounds you can fire in 10 minutes? Do you know how long it takes to reload a handgun? This inane drive to target 'assault rifles' is nothing more than a 'cause'. Its the same inane cause extremist leftists have been in pursuit of for decades. They dont CARE that it is irrelevant. They dont CARE about the facts. The NYPD Commissioner, a FAN of banning guns, came out this week and stated that in the nearly 1400 shootings that occurred in NYC only THREE could be balistically matched to a long rifle of ANY kind. I can cite you facts, incident reports, case studies that show conclusively that the TYPE of weapon used in mass shootings since 1980 is IRRELEVANT to numbers of deceased. It wont make a difference. You will cling to the rhetoric because you support the 'cause'. The cause isnt 'saving lives'...it is attacking a specific style of firearm legally owned and responsibly used by the VAST majority on gun owners (and vast is of course a DRAMATIC understatement).

Never let facts get in the way of your zeal to promote an ideological cause.

There may be people who say that banning certain types of guns will solve the problem, or just solve a problem. You can argue with them, because I'm not one of those people. I believe that we have a huge, complicated problem with gun violence in this country and it has to do with a lot of things - the media, our treatment of mental health issues, health care in general, economic disparity, the existence of sociopaths, and the unknown. And the gun culture we have doesn't help. A lot of Americans are so afraid that they're going to be attacked by a group of gang members who want nothing more than to kill a random person. That's paranoid and delusional thinking which has no basis on reality.

My argument is pretty simple. If you were going to kill a lot of people, do you think you would want to use handguns or a bush master? Or if your family was being attacked by a hundred mafia members with tommy guns, which gun would you choose?

The latter doesn't ever happen, but the former does. That's it. Common sense. You're arguing as though I'm proposing that banning certain types of guns will solve a problem, and my argument is that it could prevent a horrible, horrible tragedy - or rather, it could change a horrible, horrible tragedy into a horrible tragedy.
 
The Courts already decided on the 2nd Amendment...

District of Columbia vs Heller



And the following applied the 2nd to the States along with reaffirming that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals also...

McDonald v. Chicago



Sorry but your "constitutional scholars" just got owned.

Not exactly since states can still use many things such as CCW permits and CHLs to limit the right to bear arms independently of the right to keep arms. It makes no sense to me that you can buy/keep a gun that you are not leaglly able to carry. Much like saying that a carpenter may own tools yet not take them to the job site without state permission. The 2A, and federal law, makes no distinction between keep and bear yet the SCOTUS allows it (so far) to be done by the states.
 
I think the purpose of the Feinstein bill was to get people of the ultra conservative persuasion to make fools of themselves to convince the majority of the public that extending background checks were needed to reduce accessibility to guns by criminals and crazies. Appears to be working too! Public support for background checks for all gun sales is now at 92%.

Thanks for a job well done!


Nah, not at all as Feinstein has always wanted Bans on Guns. Which she wouldn't have went thru a list of guns for nothing trying to see if she could get some sort of agreement from Moderates. So I doubt you can spin it that way. Was that some sort of Demo Underground talking point? Trying to fall back to an issue in which people agree that Criminals and people with Mental Handicaps should be restricted from firearms is not any type of political victory for the left. Nor will the Democrats be allowed to spin it any other way. Face the facts Feinstein's Bill with any type of ban is DOA on Capitol Hill. Which means Obama and his deflection with this issue. Loses!

Did you forget that the L.E. Agencies are also part of the NRA and other Gun Groups? You do understand about those Unions.....Correct?
 
No, it wouldn't have. The killer in Newtown shot children MULTIPLE times at point blank range to make sure they were dead. Meaning he took his sweet ass time in doing so. A so called "assault weapons ban" would not have prevented the deaths that occured by that sick individual.

I don't agree. Some of those kids could have escaped while Lanza was reloading - if he had been using his mother's handgun. But it doesn't matter, we'll never know. But, like I said to Mr. Mack, if two people were going into separate rooms, both filled with 100 people, and they had 5 minutes to kill as many people as possible, and one had a 7 round 9mm and the other had a 30 round bush master, who do you suppose would kill more people? Is there really any doubt as to the answer of that question?

What amazes me is how dedicated opponents of gun control are to pretending that handguns are just as deadly as a bush master. You cite different circumstances as though comparing apples and oranges means anything. This is such a stupid debate that takes all the focus away from where it should be going. Ya'll need to give it up. I'd give it up, but I have a hard time doing so because it's so obvious that I'm right.
 
what could have saved lives

1) getting rid of Miranda

2) getting rid of bail and bond

3) stop providing free attorneys to criminal defendants

4) getting rid of innocent until proven guilty

5) jailing all male blacks until the age of 40


every one of those silly suggestions would actually save more lives than your idiotic suggestion of banning guns

Every one of those suggestions has a detrimental effect on the citizens of this country. Banning certain types of guns (not "banning guns," adopting new regulations which include the prohibition of a certain few types of firearms) does no harm to anyone. Sorry, I know you love to shoot big, powerful guns, and I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that you don't need them - no citizen needs them - and they can fall into the hands of a disturbed individual who uses them to kill dozens of people (or more). So the result is nobody is worse off, everybody is better off. That's what is very different from any of your oh-so-hilarious suggestions.
 
Funny how you ignore SCOTUS when it suits you yet run to it the second you think it will "help" your arguement.

I was about to say the same about you! :cool:
 
I wasn't talking about agreeable to you personally. Our laws are not made to only consider an individual. They are made to what best serves the majority of the population. The majority via their representatives will decide which laws best address the problems, and then the courts will determine if those laws are constitutional or not. That is how US rule of law works.
Boy talk about being off-topic. Your post has nothing to do with anything I've said.

What about my proposal isn't agreeable?
 
There may be people who say that banning certain types of guns will solve the problem, or just solve a problem. You can argue with them, because I'm not one of those people. I believe that we have a huge, complicated problem with gun violence in this country and it has to do with a lot of things - the media, our treatment of mental health issues, health care in general, economic disparity, the existence of sociopaths, and the unknown. And the gun culture we have doesn't help. A lot of Americans are so afraid that they're going to be attacked by a group of gang members who want nothing more than to kill a random person. That's paranoid and delusional thinking which has no basis on reality.

My argument is pretty simple. If you were going to kill a lot of people, do you think you would want to use handguns or a bush master? Or if your family was being attacked by a hundred mafia members with tommy guns, which gun would you choose?

The latter doesn't ever happen, but the former does. That's it. Common sense. You're arguing as though I'm proposing that banning certain types of guns will solve a problem, and my argument is that it could prevent a horrible, horrible tragedy - or rather, it could change a horrible, horrible tragedy into a horrible tragedy.
Since the facts prove that Heung Cho killed more ADULTS with a handgun at a college campus than children were killed by Adam Lanza in 10 minutes with a Bushmaster, I would say that a thinking man would actually have his answer. Unless of course you were intent on making this be about the assault rifle. If THAT were the case you would ignore the facts about Cho...and Holmes...and Kinkel...and Columbine..and cling to the eeeevil assault rifle rhetoric.
 
What does the center for disease control have to do with gun crime? This should worry people as they are trying to use a completely unrelated government body to manufacture, yes manufacture another reason to strip our 2nd amendment rights.
Sorry if said already, but it's my understanding Liberals were abusing government (imagine that), basically using taxpayer dollars via the CDC, to promote the gun control agenda.
Congress agreed they were misbehaving and agreed to prohibit them from using taxpayer dollars there, as a result.

They want to resume using taxpayer dollars to promote their agenda and create junk science based on political/emotional rhetoric, to then drive stricter gun law legislation. I wonder if they should be doing the same for the environmental research.....
 
Every one of those suggestions has a detrimental effect on the citizens of this country. Banning certain types of guns (not "banning guns," adopting new regulations which include the prohibition of a certain few types of firearms) does no harm to anyone. Sorry, I know you love to shoot big, powerful guns, and I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that you don't need them - no citizen needs them - and they can fall into the hands of a disturbed individual who uses them to kill dozens of people (or more). So the result is nobody is worse off, everybody is better off. That's what is very different from any of your oh-so-hilarious suggestions.

Who are you to determine what I need to protect my family and property? Each person has there unique needs and preferences when it comes to firearms or any other defense mechanism. To make a blanket statement of "you don't need them" is the height of arrogance showing a complete lack for situational preferences. You may not like some of the choices available and that's fine, but you have no right deny others from making their own choices...
 
I don't agree. Some of those kids could have escaped while Lanza was reloading - if he had been using his mother's handgun. But it doesn't matter, we'll never know. But, like I said to Mr. Mack, if two people were going into separate rooms, both filled with 100 people, and they had 5 minutes to kill as many people as possible, and one had a 7 round 9mm and the other had a 30 round bush master, who do you suppose would kill more people? Is there really any doubt as to the answer of that question?

What amazes me is how dedicated opponents of gun control are to pretending that handguns are just as deadly as a bush master. You cite different circumstances as though comparing apples and oranges means anything. This is such a stupid debate that takes all the focus away from where it should be going. Ya'll need to give it up. I'd give it up, but I have a hard time doing so because it's so obvious that I'm right.

Besides the obvious argument, that criminals do not obey laws, especially the suicidal ones, you leave out an important, still legal, weapons option; using multiple semi-automatic handguns. They are much easier to conceal allowing one to gain entry appearing to be "normal", and with a loaded backup gun (or two) at the ready, you can more confidently choose when to attempt a brief pause for a magazine swap. Note that you still have the ability to use the backup handgun(s) for covering fire. Pistol ammo is smaller and lighter so you may also carry more total rounds. The bottom line is that without confiscation of the existing "scary looking" weapons and the larger capacity magazines they will likely still remain readily available for at least 50 years.
 
Back
Top Bottom