• 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 has the confiscation of smokeless powder firing firearms. Most handguns have a greater than 10 round magazine. Tell me when they seize weapons that aren't using standard magazines. This is all just phrasing. High capacity being an arbitrary term not actually being realistic here. High capacity should imply greater than the standard round count, here it just means more than 10. 15 rounds or 13 is hardly high capacity.

Thanks for sharing your opinion!
 
Bipartisan effort to expand background checks quietly gains steam

"A bipartisan coalition of senators is working on a proposal to strengthen and expand background checks for potential gun purchasers in an attempt to break the partisan gridlock holding up regulations on gun ownership.

Members of the group, which includes Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Mark Kirk of Illinois and Democrats Charles Schumer of New York and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, have declined to discuss specifics of the talks or of a potential bill. …

The nation must improve the system to encourage states to report the mentally ill and install protections for doctors to enable them to report patients who are “obviously psychotic” to prohibit them from buying guns, Coburn said. …

Last weekend, Manchin told a West Virginia radio station he was working with Democratic and Republican senators, as well as the National Rifle Association, on something gun rights supporters could back. Such a bill, Manchin said, “basically says that if you’re going to be a gun owner, you should be able to pass a background check.”

This looks like a fallback position for the Senate, and a fairly safe one. Recent polling consistently shows broad support for expanding background checks. A recent CBS poll showed 92% of respondents in favor of universal background checks, which include 89% of Republicans, 93% of respondents living in gun-owning households, and 85% of respondents either belonging to the NRA or living with an NRA member. (The question was fairly straightforward — “Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?”) That’s as close to consensus as one is likely to see on a political topic. If a CBS poll isn’t to your taste, last week’s Rasmussen poll showed 53% of likely voters favoring background checks on existing gun owners, not on new sales but on being allowed to keep the firearms already owned."

Bipartisan effort to expand background checks quietly gains steam « Hot Air
 
Despite, your red color, you are wrong:

In Virginia, high-yield clip seizures rise

I was referring to Chicago.....that's where you are wrong. As that's even with Chicago confiscating the most firearms more than any other city in the Country. Nice try tho considering I had put up all those Facts with Chicago and it's Gun Laws. Including the Mental health issue, and the fact that Emanuel has helped Obama with his failing push to ban assault weapons.
 
Bipartisan effort to expand background checks quietly gains steam

"A bipartisan coalition of senators is working on a proposal to strengthen and expand background checks for potential gun purchasers in an attempt to break the partisan gridlock holding up regulations on gun ownership.

Members of the group, which includes Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Mark Kirk of Illinois and Democrats Charles Schumer of New York and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, have declined to discuss specifics of the talks or of a potential bill. …

The nation must improve the system to encourage states to report the mentally ill and install protections for doctors to enable them to report patients who are “obviously psychotic” to prohibit them from buying guns, Coburn said. …

Last weekend, Manchin told a West Virginia radio station he was working with Democratic and Republican senators, as well as the National Rifle Association, on something gun rights supporters could back. Such a bill, Manchin said, “basically says that if you’re going to be a gun owner, you should be able to pass a background check.”

This looks like a fallback position for the Senate, and a fairly safe one. Recent polling consistently shows broad support for expanding background checks. A recent CBS poll showed 92% of respondents in favor of universal background checks, which include 89% of Republicans, 93% of respondents living in gun-owning households, and 85% of respondents either belonging to the NRA or living with an NRA member. (The question was fairly straightforward — “Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?”) That’s as close to consensus as one is likely to see on a political topic. If a CBS poll isn’t to your taste, last week’s Rasmussen poll showed 53% of likely voters favoring background checks on existing gun owners, not on new sales but on being allowed to keep the firearms already owned."

Bipartisan effort to expand background checks quietly gains steam « Hot Air

Yeah I know I'm the one that put it up. :lol:

Course Rasmussen shows 53 despite the CBS Poll and for those into CBS. Tho the one stat that is missing is concerning about those who already own firearms being put on a National Registry. Myself I think it should only include those going forward. But that the State doesn't need to relinquish the Rights of it's Citizen to the Fed.

As the Law was in effect and those peoples Rights cannot be infringed upon.
 
I was referring to Chicago.....that's where you are wrong. As that's even with Chicago confiscating the most firearms more than any other city in the Country. Nice try tho considering I had put up all those Facts with Chicago and it's Gun Laws. Including the Mental health issue, and the fact that Emanuel has helped Obama with his failing push to ban assault weapons.

The point I made was that federal bans work better than local bans because of the ease of buying guns outside the locality. All you have done is make the case for federal gun control.
 
Former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head more than two years ago during a mass shooting in a Tucson parking lot, opened the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing Wednesday with a call to action on gun violence.

"Speaking is difficult but I need to say something important," she said in a slow, deliberate voice to the dais of senators. "Violence is a big problem, too many children are dying, too many children. We must do something.
"Americans are counting on you," she said.
- Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

As I was reading the article I came across a perfect example of what I feel the problem is with the "gun restriction" crowed...

Giffords husband astronaut Mark Kelly, added this statement paraphrased...

"Called for legislators to close the loophole that allows private sellers to sell their guns without background checks, strengthen gun trafficking penalties for trafficking, and eliminate limitations on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study gun violence.

He also called for "a careful and civil conversation about the lethality of the firearms we permit to be legally bought and sold.
"

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.

The last highlighted statement is just beyond stupid as far as I am concerned. If I am at the point where I am actually aiming a weapon at someone in defense of my life, loved ones or even property I want it to be as lethal as possible if it has come to that point. So only police and government should have "lethal" firearms?

This whole gun restriction mess is getting out of hand.



It amuses me how democrats accuse others of taking positions on issues out of fear yet these idiots are the biggest fear mongers around...

Giffords clearly doesn't see that she is being used as a prop....

The tyrannical "left" is doing everything in its power to give the US public the illusion that every place you go in the United States is dangerous because there are guns. Of course there is epic gun violence everywhere isn't true, they're blatant liars and they know that. Their deception is absolutely mind boggling. They're lying because they don't want individuals to have the ability to petition their nanny state agenda with fire power (which is the entire purpose of the Second Amendment).

These idiot democrat politicians who want to ban guns don't care about anyone but themselves and their power. A gun is nothing more than a threat to their power, guns prohibit them from ruling this nation like an authoritarian dictatorship. Sure democracy is all nice and dandy but the ability to say no with an AR-15 seems scary to them.
 
The point I made was that federal bans work better than local bans because of the ease of buying guns outside the locality. All you have done is make the case for federal gun control.

Not quite I have made the case for the State to stand on existing laws and changing some that aren't working without the use of the FED. As there is no need for the Fed to know who has already bought firearms nor what type. Just because some states like Illinois and cities like Chicago got it wrong and have been going at the problem the wrong way. Doesn't mean it is the Right of the FED to come in and Dictate anything.

The only Database the Fed should have are those of Criminals which the State shares with them. Just as the Fed should share theirs with the State over Federal Crimes. So they can be on the same page who has weapons that are Criminals.
 
Not quite I have made the case for the State to stand on existing laws and changing some that aren't working without the use of the FED. As there is no need for the Fed to know who has already bought firearms nor what type. Just because some states like Illinois and cities like Chicago got it wrong and have been going at the problem the wrong way. Doesn't mean it is the Right of the FED to come in and Dictate anything.

The only Database the Fed should have are those of Criminals which the State shares with them. Just as the Fed should share theirs with the State over Federal Crimes. So they can be on the same page who has weapons that are Criminals.


You present a false choice. We should both enforce existing laws as well as make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally disturbed to buy guns.
 
You present a false choice. We should both enforce existing laws as well as make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally disturbed to buy guns.

No not quite.....I present a Clear choice of keeping Government out of the Rights of the people. It is you that presents a false choice. The law is of the people and for the People. The Law was not meant for the Right of Government.
rulez.gif


Illinois already has laws concerning the mentally disturbed being able to purchase or have a fire arm. Or did you fall for that false and misleading fact. Considering other states have such laws too.
rolleyes.png
 
It amuses me how democrats accuse others of taking positions on issues out of fear yet these idiots are the biggest fear mongers around...

Giffords clearly doesn't see that she is being used as a prop....

The tyrannical "left" is doing everything in its power to give the US public the illusion that every place you go in the United States is dangerous because there are guns. Of course there is epic gun violence everywhere isn't true, they're blatant liars and they know that. Their deception is absolutely mind boggling. They're lying because they don't want individuals to have the ability to petition their nanny state agenda with fire power (which is the entire purpose of the Second Amendment).

These idiot democrat politicians who want to ban guns don't care about anyone but themselves and their power. A gun is nothing more than a threat to their power, guns prohibit them from ruling this nation like an authoritarian dictatorship. Sure democracy is all nice and dandy but the ability to say no with an AR-15 seems scary to them.

You hit on a good point. Why haven't more gun fanatics "petitioned their Govt. with firepower"? That is what is missing in this debate. They keep saying they want to, but never do. We could settle this once and for all if they just put their lives where their mouth is. Could they really be just cowards and "chickens" who need guns to build their egos?

Edit: Here's one gun owner who is taking on the Govt. Gun freaks should all be cheering him on I guess.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/us/alabama-child-hostage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
 
Last edited:
Canada just got rid of its "long gun" registry, a promise that was part of the campaign of the Conservative Party who won a majority government in the last federal election here. The registry basically made law abiding rural citizens feel like criminals while actual criminals were not affected at all.

It was a billion dollar bureaucratic liberal wet dream and most sane people saw it for what it is/was.

How come we never hear about this crazy **** going on in Canada down here? We thought all Canadians were liberal until you showed up.
 
You hit on a good point. Why haven't more gun fanatics "petitioned their Govt. with firepower"? That is what is missing in this debate. They keep saying they want to, but never do. We could settle this once and for all if they just put their lives where their mouth is. Could they really be just cowards and "chickens" who need guns to build their egos?

Well, we haven't exactly come to the "breaking point" just yet.

The second SS troopers go house to house searching property for guns is when your government will get a bullet in the brain.

It's not "doomsday" just yet, however there is a word - it's called: precedence and what these scared little snot nosed idiots are doing in DC is playing with that word.

I suppose congress could write all the laws they want - that doesn't mean I, or anyone else has to abide them. Laws are useless unless they're enforced. Until they're enforced there would be no need to fight.

No matter how much progressives want to destroy the Bill of Rights - they need people (or Nazi's) to do their bidding and I don't see those who are capable of doing their bidding doing it..

Do you really think the military or local law enforcement will actually partake in tyranny???

I'm not at all concerned about the gun debate nor do I believe the government would ever attempt to take guns, however it's the symbolism or the mere suggestion that they do take guns away that really pisses people off.

With that said, if they want the guns then they're more than welcome to try and take them via force - oh yeah - no one will.

If Giffords, Clinton, Jackson, Pelosi et al want my guns then they can come take them away from me themselves - that goes for every tyrannical anti-Second Amendment progressive out there. The notion you think you have the manpower to do so is absolutely laughable.

The real ego-minded fools are the ones in The Beltway who live their prissy rich lives, who have never held a gun in their lives and who sit there and believe they're aristocrats who try to play mommy or daddy to 300,000,000 US citizens, and who ironically have armed guards and who ironically believe they can somehow intimidate gun owners with government employed mercenaries (FBI,military, local law enforcement etc) and nonsense legislation - that if passed - would be tyrannical - not to mention legislation that would be ignored by state and local governments and potentially the majority of our military.
 
Last edited:
You hit on a good point. Why haven't more gun fanatics "petitioned their Govt. with firepower"? That is what is missing in this debate. They keep saying they want to, but never do. We could settle this once and for all if they just put their lives where their mouth is. Could they really be just cowards and "chickens" who need guns to build their egos?

Edit: Here's one gun owner who is taking on the Govt. Gun freaks should all be cheering him on I guess.

Standoff drags into third day as man holds boy in underground bunker - CNN.com

What a idiotic post and statement. Gun owners do not endorse breaking the law like that guy in the link. If this is what you think gun owners are like then perhaps you need to step back from this subject because only idiots make such a F****** idiotic comparison.
 
What a idiotic post and statement. Gun owners do not endorse breaking the law like that guy in the link. If this is what you think gun owners are like then perhaps you need to step back from this subject because only idiots make such a F****** idiotic comparison.
Taking on the Govt. IS breaking the law and that is the excuse for unlimited firepower that I keep hearing. What do they really mean then?
 
Taking on the Govt. IS breaking the law and that is the excuse for unlimited firepower that I keep hearing. What do they really mean then?

Taking on tyranny, isn't.
 
What a idiotic post and statement. Gun owners do not endorse breaking the law like that guy in the link. If this is what you think gun owners are like then perhaps you need to step back from this subject because only idiots make such a F****** idiotic comparison.

Yep they do...

These prissy anti-Bill of Rights clowns actually believe most gun owners are redneck hillbillies with insecurity issues that look like Larry the Cable Guy.

They're unable to understand that the Second Amendment and guns are an equilibrium and those who get that idea could be anyone...

If you ask me, these tyrannical anti-Bill of Rights fools are too stupid to grasp the ideas that made this nation the most free in the history of human civilization and choose to live in lala land or believe their tyrannical opinions mean a damn thing in the face of civil liberties.
 
No not quite.....I present a Clear choice of keeping Government out of the Rights of the people. It is you that presents a false choice. The law is of the people and for the People. The Law was not meant for the Right of Government.
rulez.gif


Illinois already has laws concerning the mentally disturbed being able to purchase or have a fire arm. Or did you fall for that false and misleading fact. Considering other states have such laws too.
rolleyes.png


What federal gun laws have been ruled to be an infringement of rights?
 
Taking on the Govt. IS breaking the law and that is the excuse for unlimited firepower that I keep hearing. What do they really mean then?

No it's not..

The Second Amendment exists to "take on the government."

The founding fathers gave us the right to keep and bear arms just so we could say "NO", just like the Tenth Amendment exists so states have the right to say "NO."

The founding fathers basically manifested: "if our government gets too tyrannical or authoritarian take us out with your guns - you need guns to keep us in line."

Guns aren't legal to hunt for food, they're legal to create a balance between the people and the government.

Hell, attacking the government is no more treasonous than a patriot attacking the British during the Revolutionary War, or the Confederates fighting the Union during the Civil War.
 
What federal gun laws have been ruled to be an infringement of rights?

There are no federal gun laws yet, however the ones proposed certainly do infringe on the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower. Besides, even to put limits would require an amendment to the constitution. The idiots in DC and write all the gun laws they'd like however they would be moot because the laws would violate the Second Amendment - hence make the laws moot - unless the SCOTUS approves them, which they cant.
 
No it's not..

The Second Amendment exists to "take on the government."


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.
 
There are no federal gun laws yet, however the ones proposed certainly do infringe on the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower. Besides, even to put limits would require an amendment to the constitution. The idiots in DC and write all the gun laws they'd like however they would be moot because the laws would violate the Second Amendment - hence make the laws moot - unless the SCOTUS approves them, which they cant.

We had a federal AWB for 10 years. And we still have the Brady Gun law still in effect. Were they ever ruled to be an infringement of 2nd Amendment rights?
 
We should both enforce existing laws as well as make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally disturbed to buy guns.
Absolutely. So, let's repeal the Hughes Amendment, and at the same time have the ATF make a "shall issue" licence which will require a 16hr class (including qualification), knowledge test, fingerprinting, and a background check every moth for the entire life of the permit. If you want a class-3 item, no problem, you just have to complete an additional approved class on that kind of firearm, have the endorsement put on your licence, and you're good to go.

As for ammunition, you would need to present this licence at the point-of-sale. If you reload your own ammunition, then you just need to present your licence when you buy supplies or equipment. We could even make it an offence to possess ammunition if you don't have a licence.

We would nee a junior version of this licence, though, just like there's a junior version of a hunting licence.

I agree and support allowing more medical agencies report a person to NICS. If someone becomes flagged, the licence will be suspended and the licence holder will have to remove the items from their possession. I know that I would be willing to hold my buddy's items if there were a problem he needed to address.

Also, we should require firearms to be stored in safes rated to prevent theft of the firearm.

I think all of this is perfectly reasonable, but the Obama Administration isn't heading in that direction. Obama is looking to disarm the public, and that's a danger to all the other rights.
 
Last edited:
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.

Don't even try to claim "all" constitutional scholars agree with that position when many don't. Besides, our Bill of Rights is extremely blunt and direct. The fact of the matter is progressives hate the Bill of Rights and will do anything to turn it into a paradigm. The truth is that our Bill of Rights is about as simple as a Dr. Seuss book, however the idiots that hate the Bill of Rights want the Cat In The Hat to read like Green Eggs and Ham - same author different stories.

Also, what constitutes a "constitutional scholar" anyways? I can recite the entire Bill of Rights via memory, does that make me a "scholar?" or do I have to go to law school to understand simplistic and blunt civil liberties to over complicate simple ideas?
 
We had a federal AWB for 10 years. And we still have the Brady Gun law still in effect. Were they ever ruled to be an infringement of 2nd Amendment rights?
A mag limit is like telling a woman she can only have 1 abortion every few years. Now there's very few women who will ever need more than 1 abortion within a 2-3 year time frame, but of those who do, why do you need to deny them?

There are many more people who need 30rnd mags for perfectly lawful uses then there are women who will need more than one abortion in a 2-3 year time frame.

A mag limit is also like limiting someone to a sex to marry. If they are otherwise obeying the law and are peaceable people, why do you need to limit their right to marry to only the opposite sex? Likewise, if they are otherwise obeying the law and are peaceable people, why do you need to limit the amount of ammunition a rifle will hold?
 
Last edited:
We had a federal AWB for 10 years. And we still have the Brady Gun law still in effect. Were they ever ruled to be an infringement of 2nd Amendment rights?

Wow a background check to buy a gun... That doesn't infringe on the Second Amendment.

Anyone can buy a gun - gun regulations don't work.
 
Back
Top Bottom