• 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

I am sorry. I gave you credit for keeping up with what you were posting, I guess not. No problem. I will ignore you then.
…and you continue to not answer my questions. Again, the ‘?’ are there to help you figure out which sentences are question if that is the problem. If you are instead willfully ignoring my questions, as increasingly seems likely, I guess just carry exposing yourself as a raging hypocrite fool.
 
that's the problem
they are filled with NON-violent 'offenders'

On that we agree. I don't believe ANYONE should be jailed solely for things like drug use, prostitution, etc.
 
hopefully, by that time we will have released those convicted of victimless crimes so that there will be ample room for those who violate the stiffer and better enforced gun laws

yes, we need to release those convicted of victimless crimes to make room for more people convicted of new and improved victimless crimes.
 
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.


Oh don't be silly. SOmeone who doesn't mind murdering a federal judge and a bunch of innocent bystanders and crippling a beautiful and smart well liked congresslady is going to obey gun laws if they just would pass a few more
 
that's the problem
they are filled with NON-violent 'offenders'

which is a funny comment coming from a guy who supports turning millions of gun owners into non violent offenders
 
Oh don't be silly. SOmeone who doesn't mind murdering a federal judge and a bunch of innocent bystanders and crippling a beautiful and smart well liked congresslady is going to obey gun laws if they just would pass a few more

A proper NICS system, which included mental health records, would have prevented Laughner from buying his handguns.
 
A proper NICS system, which included mental health records, would have prevented Laughner from buying his handguns.

Maybe so-but it wasn't the NRA or GOA that prevented that sort of information from being in NICS in Arizona or Virginia.

Of course, unless he was detained after being denied by NICS we have no idea if he would have actually been prevented from his murderous rampage

now me, I wouldn't mind if he was publicly broken on the wheel on prime time tv. He didn't have the decency to shoot himself and hopefully he will get DEATH BY BONGO!!
 
Can Giffords please explain her own state's "lax" gun laws having a violent crime rate ranked 18th and Illinois ranked at 11th with some of the nation's strictest gun laws? What matters is not gun control but criminal control.

States' crime rates show scant linkage to gun laws - Washington Times

FBI Violent Crime Stats--Gun Ownership Up/Crime Rates Drop - Handguns

Criminals are getting guns, and they're not guns that are manufactured in people's basements. So clearly it's a problem that guns purchased and owned legally are winding up being used to slaughter innocent people. The articles you're talking about are virtually meaningless because they're all studying correlation and that doesn't prove causation. Besides, there are a number of laws regarding gun ownership and registration and "lax" is a subjective term.

What gun did Adam Lanza use to kill all those children? Where did it come from? Are situations like Newtown preventable? My opinion is that they are not, but if we put limitations on what kind of guns were legal to purchase, there could very well be 5-10 children still alive who died that day. We can't prevent tragedies but we can minimize them.
 
A proper NICS system, which included mental health records, would have prevented Laughner from buying his handguns.
like it stops heroin users from buying heroin? Coke users from scorin that rock? Pot smokers from buying a lid?

You just say **** without really thinking about it, dont you?
 
Criminals are getting guns, and they're not guns that are manufactured in people's basements. So clearly it's a problem that guns purchased and owned legally are winding up being used to slaughter innocent people. The articles you're talking about are virtually meaningless because they're all studying correlation and that doesn't prove causation. Besides, there are a number of laws regarding gun ownership and registration and "lax" is a subjective term.

What gun did Adam Lanza use to kill all those children? Where did it come from? Are situations like Newtown preventable? My opinion is that they are not, but if we put limitations on what kind of guns were legal to purchase, there could very well be 5-10 children still alive who died that day. We can't prevent tragedies but we can minimize them.
Really? Read much about the VA Tech shootings? Kip Kinkel? Columbine? You think ANY shooter walking around unhindered for 10 minutes would kill fewer people with a handgun or shotgun then an AR? Cuz...the facts...they kinda disprove that.

(for good measure, lets throw James Holmes and the Aurora shooting into that equation as well. He proved pretty clearly that after his AR jammed less than a third of the way into a magazine that his handgun made a more than adequate suitable substitute. Of course...that doesnt fit the 'assault weapon' rhetoric...so lets not talk about 'facts')
 
Criminals are getting guns, and they're not guns that are manufactured in people's basements. So clearly it's a problem that guns purchased and owned legally are winding up being used to slaughter innocent people. The articles you're talking about are virtually meaningless because they're all studying correlation and that doesn't prove causation. Besides, there are a number of laws regarding gun ownership and registration and "lax" is a subjective term.

What gun did Adam Lanza use to kill all those children? Where did it come from? Are situations like Newtown preventable? My opinion is that they are not, but if we put limitations on what kind of guns were legal to purchase, there could very well be 5-10 children still alive who died that day. We can't prevent tragedies but we can minimize them.

What you say is true, however we must look at reality. The mass shootings, such as AL, occur about two times per year in this nation of 310 million people. If your estimate is correct, and I'll be generous here, then to save 20 lives per year we must limit the avalable NEW legal firearms based on magazine capacity. Assuming that we will add very few (if any) new magazines that hold over 10 rounds, and also not remove any now in private hands, then the existing stock will be depleted in about 100 years, so expect no changes until then.

With that in mind, this is obviously simply round one in limitting guns/magazines; because I do not believe, for one minute, that the "gun grabbers" are going to settle for this as the "last step". What is being sought is much more than that. What is desired is a federal registry of all existing and new guns, under the guise that it will limit the sales/transfers to criminals, however, as you noted, AL got those guns by killing their owner and taking them, so that also will likely have no impact on the nation's two mass shootings per year.

The talk of universal background checks for all gun/ammo sales is also being done, yet in a bass ackwards way; the Obama proposal is to require use FFL dealers as "middlemen" for all future "private" transfers. This is not enforcable UNLESS all guns are registered, since otherwise how can it possibly be enforced? Yep - creating another "need" for federal registration. The real goal.

The answer, of course, is so simple and we do it now for driving cars; make a state issued, photo ID with the privilege indicated - a drivers license. We test each driver only ONCE, if they pass then issue the ID and let them use that to prove they are legal to drive upon our roadways. The same can be done for NICS background checks, do them ONCE for each adult US citizen and indicate "GUN OK" on that same state issued, photo ID (if they pass the BG check) otherwise the ID is issued w/o that designation. Then ANY sale of guns/ammo at a FFL dealer, public gunshow, Walmart, bait/tackle shop or the typical private sale can simply require that the buyer show their "GUN OK" ID to assure that the sale is legal. No more need for point of sale NICS background checks, which save lots of time and money too.
 
Really? Read much about the VA Tech shootings? Kip Kinkel? Columbine? You think ANY shooter walking around unhindered for 10 minutes would kill fewer people with a handgun or shotgun then an AR? Cuz...the facts...they kinda disprove that.

(for good measure, lets throw James Holmes and the Aurora shooting into that equation as well. He proved pretty clearly that after his AR jammed less than a third of the way into a magazine that his handgun made a more than adequate suitable substitute. Of course...that doesnt fit the 'assault weapon' rhetoric...so lets not talk about 'facts')

Here is the problem. Many lefties really have no use for gun owners or gun rights. so they really don't need much or any evidence to support legislation that will hassle honest people even if it only has a 1 percent chance of stopping crime. In many cases, harassing legal gun owners is an ADDED OR PRIMARY BENEFIT rather than a cost. On the other hand, they could have Kennedy, Clinton, Jesus, Allah and Moses tell them that the death penalty deters crime (no one executed has ever killed again) and they still won't support it because killing even charlie Manson upsets their sensibilities.
 
Before they make any new laws they need to make the present laws have a real bite.

For instance the guy who shot Gifford and killed the little 9 yr old girl is still alive.
Why is that puke still alive? What the hell people.
Unless it is only circumstantial evidence somebody who starts killing people left and right with that many witnesses should be destroyed in one week. Period. Like a rabid dog.

Both sides of the arguement should agree to that , right?

Caught with a gun in crime and do life.

I realize alot of these murderers don't have a record and we will only catch them after the fact. I don't know if this would be a deterrent or not. But quick punishment would prevent some from basking in their fame.
 
Before they make any new laws they need to make the present laws have a real bite.

For instance the guy who shot Gifford and killed the little 9 yr old girl is still alive.
Why is that puke still alive? What the hell people.
Unless it is only circumstantial evidence somebody who starts killing people left and right with that many witnesses should be destroyed in one week. Period. Like a rabid dog.

Both sides of the arguement should agree to that , right?

Caught with a gun in crime and do life.

I realize alot of these murderers don't have a record and we will only catch them after the fact. I don't know if this would be a deterrent or not. But quick punishment would prevent some from basking in their fame.

Loughner needs to be the star of Bob and Tom's PRISONER OF LOVE (aka Prison Bitch)
 
Yes, it does. Chicago today released a report that showed that 75% of the perpetrators of violent crimes in their fair city are repeat offenders. Thats a ****ing AWESOME place to start. When people satrt to realize there is no longer a revolving door then they might think twice about committing ANY violent act with a weapon. If they dont get the memo...they wont be released to re-offend til they are old and grey. Its a HELLUVA lot better place to start than making excuses for them, building new schools that are going to get trashed while the bodies continue to pile up, and targeting the inanimate objects or law abiding citizens. But then...people like you would have to run the risk of actually be seen attacking the perpetrators....

There is no reason not to do both increased enforcement as you suggest as well as limiting access to criminals and crazies.
 
Before they make any new laws they need to make the present laws have a real bite.

For instance the guy who shot Gifford and killed the little 9 yr old girl is still alive.
Why is that puke still alive? What the hell people.
Unless it is only circumstantial evidence somebody who starts killing people left and right with that many witnesses should be destroyed in one week. Period. Like a rabid dog.

Both sides of the arguement should agree to that , right?

Caught with a gun in crime and do life.

I realize alot of these murderers don't have a record and we will only catch them after the fact. I don't know if this would be a deterrent or not. But quick punishment would prevent some from basking in their fame.

It would be nice to enforce our gun laws , unfortunately the ATF has been without a appointed leader for 6 years, and the ATF is a regular target for deregulation.
 
"But by the end, one thing seemed clearer: A consensus is emerging among lawmakers for an expansion of background checks for gun buyers, a proposal with far more bipartisan support than a reinstatement of the federal assault-weapons ban.

“Universal background checks is a proven, effective step we can take to reduce gun violence,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said at the hearing. “And I believe it has a good chance of passing.”

The purpose of the hearing was to shape gun legislation that can pass a splintered Congress. Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said he expects the panel to craft a bill by next month."

Gabrielle Giffords speaks at Senate hearing on gun violence: ‘You must act. Be bold.’ - The Washington Post
 
The mandate of the CDC, founded under the Public Health Service Act, is for general public health. This includes studying injury and safety concerns.

There are more people killed by car wrecks and more kids killed by accidental poisonings every year than from gun crimes. Why aren't their hearings about banning Liquid Plumber?
 
There is no reason not to do both increased enforcement as you suggest as well as limiting access to criminals and crazies.
By all means...do both. As soon as you figure out how to limit access make sure you pass that word to the DEA folks. Limiting access to heroin, rock, and pot has been a dismal failure. See...criminals...they figure that whole 'access' thing out.
 
There are more people killed by car wrecks and more kids killed by accidental poisonings every year than from gun crimes. Why aren't their hearings about banning Liquid Plumber?
Because they don't give a **** about saving lives or reducing violence. All they care about is exploiting the death of cute little victims to further their ideological cause of banning assault weapons.
 
Back
Top Bottom