• 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

Crosscheck said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because there are too many Libbos in this country that oppose the death penalty.

Caught with a gun in crime and do life.
Click to expand...

Gun crimes should automatically get the death penalty.
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

Damn right, bro! It's all their interested in and nothing else.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I didn't see Ms. Giffords' "testimony" but I'm sure it was very touching. I do wonder, however, if she spoke at length to the issue of mental illness and how it consumed the young man who shot at her and killed the others.

At the risk of sounding uncharitabl, I also find it sad to the point of irritating when a "victim" of a crime goes on to make a career out of that victimhood.
Click to expand...
I think you just became my favorite Canadian.
 
Catawba said:
"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
Click to expand...

I agree with Catawba amazingly on this. I have no problem at all with background checks or a small wait because of a background check. Again we already go through this with buy's from a dealer so I see no reason not to go forward with that aspect.

Where I have a problem is what will happen with the information...

#1 Will they keep this record on some listing someplace?
#2 Will it be public or private record?
#3 Who will control this information?
#4 Will this register a gun to me and anyone I pass it to?

I have more of a problem is with bans. No need for them.
 
VanceMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Brady bill reduced access so far to 1.9 million people that could not pass the background check, mostly felons. Extending the background check to all gun sales in the 40 remaining states where it is not required will reduce access even further.
 
Catawba said:
The Brady bill reduced access so far to 1.9 million people that could not pass the background check, mostly felons. Extending the background check to all gun sales in the 40 remaining states where it is not required will reduce access even further.
Click to expand...

Really? So there must have been 1.9 million arrests and convictions for that illegal activity...right? Sorry pal....bull**** talking points rhetoric is just bull**** talking points rhetoric no matter how many times it is parroted.
 
VanceMack said:
Really? So there must have been 1.9 million arrests and convictions for that illegal activity...right? Sorry pal....bull**** talking points rhetoric is just bull**** talking points rhetoric no matter how many times it is parroted.
Click to expand...

FACT - Since 1994, the NCIS background checks required by the Brady Law has stopped over 1.9 million criminals and other prohibited people from purchasing firearms from licensed dealers.

Source U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2009: Statistical Tables (October 2010)
 
Jerry said:
I think you just became my favorite Canadian.
Click to expand...

Thank you sir - we're not all bad up here, you know, just as you're not all bad down there either.

And I can tell you're a conservative - makes you accepting and respectful of differing opinions - as a Politico refugee, my experience has been that the most hateful, race baiting, xenophobes always either self-identify as liberal/Democrats or expose themselves as such through their words and thoughts.
 
Black Manta said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think all the conservative senators should walk in carrying. Democrats are using Gifford as a political prop. They are making a laughingstock out of her. They'll use any means to get their agenda passed, any means!! It makes me sick.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Thank you sir - we're not all bad up here, you know, just as you're not all bad down there either.

And I can tell you're a conservative - makes you accepting and respectful of differing opinions - as a Politico refugee, my experience has been that the most hateful, race baiting, xenophobes always either self-identify as liberal/Democrats or expose themselves as such through their words and thoughts.
Click to expand...

I'd carry a gun if I were you. They don't like your type up there. As far as they're concerned, everything you say is crazy talk.
 
American said:
I'd carry a gun if I were you. They don't like your type up there. As far as they're concerned, everything you say is crazy talk.
Click to expand...

Nah, don't need a gun - actually never held a gun or seen a gun in person - wouldn't know where to get one or how to use it if I did - but I don't let my needs or experiences dictate how others live their lives and possess what they choose to possess, provided they're civilized and don't commit any crimes with or for those possessions.

I do find it curious that some feel they have a constitutional right to end life through abortion without limit but feel others have no or very limited constitutional rights to own a weapon because that weapon may end a life.
 
Catawba said:
FACT - Since 1994, the NCIS background checks required by the Brady Law has stopped over 1.9 million criminals and other prohibited people from purchasing firearms from licensed dealers.

Source U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2009: Statistical Tables (October 2010)
Click to expand...
SO...its REPEATING the same mindless talking point that is the 'debate' tactic du joir. Well...then I will ALSO ask again...SINCE you claim there have been 1.9 million felons denied access to weapons through background checks then there must have been 1.9 million arrests and convictions for attempting to illegally purchase a firearm...right? So...how many have their been? And how many of those 'felons' purchased guns illegally?
 
Catawba said:
FACT - Since 1994, the NCIS background checks required by the Brady Law has stopped over 1.9 million criminals and other prohibited people from purchasing firearms from licensed dealers.

Source U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2009: Statistical Tables (October 2010)
Click to expand...

stop lying-all it did was deny those people a sale at a FFL-since less than one tenth of one percent were actually PROSECUTED for lying on the form, you have no idea if they were actually stopped from further criminal activities.
 
Catawba said:
FACT - Since 1994, the NCIS background checks required by the Brady Law has stopped over 1.9 million criminals and other prohibited people from purchasing firearms from licensed dealers.

Source U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2009: Statistical Tables (October 2010)
Click to expand...

Fact: Chicago with the Strictest gun laws in the Country. Fact: Chicago confiscates more Guns than any other City in the US. Fact: Chicago back to being the Murder Capitol of the Nation. Fact: Chicago with the most Shootings in the Country. Fact: Chicago with the Most kids killed in the Country and the majority of them being Black. Fact: Chicago and Illinois have laws concerning the mentally handicap and laws with mental health issues and the owning of a firearm, and or purchasing of one.


Wheres Gabby? Doesn't she want to make an impact? Why doesn't Gabby come here and play on the families who have lost their kids? Why hasn't Gabby started her Gun Campaign speaking out in the State of Arizona where her constituients are? Why isn't Gabby speaking in front of her very own people she grew up around?

Why has Gabby singled out just the NRA when there are over 36 Pro gun Groups? Why doesn't Gabby want to bring up those others who have money and have city and state workers in their group?

Why hasn't Gabby heard the news that Feinsteins Bill is DOA on Capitol Hill? What did Debbie Schultz forget all of a sudden to tell her?

Fact: Violent crime in the Country has gone down. Fact: Crime has gone down.

Do you think that Gabby should have to hear from the Multitude of Americans that we do not appreciate her dishonest argument of we have to do something Right.....na-na-na now?
 
VanceMack said:
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')
Click to expand...

Sure, you can kill a lot of people with a handgun. The most deadly attacks are the ones committed in a closed environment that's crowded. But that doesn't change the fact that if a gun fires twice as many bullets in the same time, it is capable of twice as many casualties in the same time. I've heard your argument from a million people a million times, and I'm never impressed because I've never had anybody convince me that there is an advantage to maintaining production and sales of weapons like the Bushmaster. Disadvantage - a killer using the weapon instead of a handgun in otherwise identical circumstances will kill more people. Advantages - civilians will be able to better defend their families from large groups of organized criminals in cases of involvement with drug manufacturing/trafficking, the mafia, or ancient aliens. I mean, come one! Paranoid Americans trump common sense?

Will it save the world? No. But it could have saved some of the children who died in Newtown, and that alone would be worth making some paranoid guys in Texas angry.
 
Mustachio said:
Sure, you can kill a lot of people with a handgun. The most deadly attacks are the ones committed in a closed environment that's crowded. But that doesn't change the fact that if a gun fires twice as many bullets in the same time, it is capable of twice as many casualties in the same time. I've heard your argument from a million people a million times, and I'm never impressed because I've never had anybody convince me that there is an advantage to maintaining production and sales of weapons like the Bushmaster. Disadvantage - a killer using the weapon instead of a handgun in otherwise identical circumstances will kill more people. Advantages - civilians will be able to better defend their families from large groups of organized criminals in cases of involvement with drug manufacturing/trafficking, the mafia, or ancient aliens. I mean, come one! Paranoid Americans trump common sense?

Will it save the world? No. But it could have saved some of the children who died in Newtown, and that alone would be worth making some paranoid guys in Texas angry.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mustachio said:
No. But it could have saved some of the children who died in Newtown, and that alone would be worth making some paranoid guys in Texas angry.
Click to expand...


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.
 
VanceMack said:
SO...its REPEATING the same mindless talking point that is the 'debate' tactic du joir. Well...then I will ALSO ask again...SINCE you claim there have been 1.9 million felons denied access to weapons through background checks then there must have been 1.9 million arrests and convictions for attempting to illegally purchase a firearm...right? So...how many have their been? And how many of those 'felons' purchased guns illegally?
Click to expand...

Deny the facts I've documented if that works for you Vance. Making it harder and more expensive for criminals and crazies to get guns is what it is all about.
 
Catawba said:
Deny the facts I've documented if that works for you Vance. Making it harder and more expensive for criminals and crazies to get guns is what it is all about.
Click to expand...
So...tell us again how many of those 1.9 million people that "committed a crime" have been arrested and prosecuted. Should be a simple thing to do. You have all those 'facts'. Or...didnt they give you THAT talking point?

OH...and BTW...Im ON YOUR SIDE. Those 1.9 million...if they committed a crime and by your offering...they DID...then they should be arrested tried and with all that evidence, found guilty and given max sentences. So...help us all share in the glorious 'success' of the brady bill...tell us...HOW MANY were arrested, tried and convicted of illegally attempting to purchase firearms?
 
TurtleDude said:
you have no idea if they were actually stopped from further criminal activities.
Click to expand...

No one expects to stop it, its all about making them more expensive/harder to get for criminals and crazies.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Nah, don't need a gun - actually never held a gun or seen a gun in person - wouldn't know where to get one or how to use it if I did - but I don't let my needs or experiences dictate how others live their lives and possess what they choose to possess, provided they're civilized and don't commit any crimes with or for those possessions.

I do find it curious that some feel they have a constitutional right to end life through abortion without limit but feel others have no or very limited constitutional rights to own a weapon because that weapon may end a life.
Click to expand...

Get yourself a compound bow or crossbow and do some target practice with it. At least you'll have some kind of weapon with which to defend your home.
 
VanceMack said:
So...tell us again how many of those 1.9 million people that "committed a crime" have been arrested and prosecuted. Should be a simple thing to do. You have all those 'facts'. Or...didnt they give you THAT talking point?
Click to expand...

You made the claim, you provide the documentation. I am happy to support making it a little harder and more expensive for criminals and crazies to get guns.
 
Catawba said:
Deny the facts I've documented if that works for you Vance. Making it harder and more expensive for criminals and crazies to get guns is what it is all about.
Click to expand...

How does a Federal Gun Registry Database make it harder for criminals and crazies to get guns?!!!! Answer it doesn't!

Do states have a Database on criminals? Do the states know which crimes are State Crimes as opposed to Federal?

What need is there for a Federal Database on those who already own guns legally and have nothing to do with crime? Why would the Federal government need to know who already owns guns?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom