• 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

TurtleDude said:
and now the legal definition of a standard capacity magazine is whatever is issued with the weapon

so ten years of arbitrary stupidity does not overrule 100 years of sanity
Click to expand...



Thanks for your opinion. Once you locate an attorney to take your case, let me know how you make out in court!
 
TurtleDude said:
none-other than saving gas which I believe was established. The Interstates were designed to be safe at 70 MPH
Click to expand...



And I believe the basis in 1994 was saving lives, which has been established. The guns were designed to kill many more people without changing mags.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The law was allowed to "sunset" and you know why the NRA, or any other group/person with a brain, did not sue - the makeup of the SCOTUS virtually assured that it would stand forever. Many stated at the time that this was "step one", thus an affirmation of the AWB/MCL laws by the SCOTUS would have meant an immediate "step two". As you can see, they are at it again, even though gun crime continued to drop after this law had faded out of existance. The vast majority of gun crime does not depend on AWs or HCMs, it is gang/drug thug related, most often by repeat offenders and committed mainly with handguns.

A reasonable attempt should be made, as I have said often, to designate "GUN OK" on all state issued, photo IDs after a check of the NICS database - that would allow EASY and efficient point of sale checks for guns and ammunition for both big, little and occasional sellers of these items. Universal point of sale access to the NICS database is not a good, or efficient, idea and without a very expensive and invasive national gun registration program one can never assure that no sales/transfers to criminals will occur. Beteer to have a better 90% solution at lower cost, than our current 60% solution at higher cost.
Click to expand...


Your excuses for SCOTUS are noted.

I think you should submit your proposals for consideration in development of the new background check system.
 
Catawba said:
The numbers show the problem has grown worse since the ban. If it were up to me, both assault weapons and high capacity magazines would be banned. However, I am a realist, and realize that may not happen until we get more progressives in the House. For now, it appears that getting the background checks expanded to all gun sales is all that is politically likely. I am very happy about this as I think it will have the biggest effect on reducing the access by criminals and crazies to cheap guns in this country.
Click to expand...

Then it is a good thing.....that it is not up to you. Perhaps the Demo Underground and the DNC can find some more stats with some talking point to argue with that actually is worth noting.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The law was allowed to "sunset" and you know why the NRA, or any other group/person with a brain, did not sue - the makeup of the SCOTUS virtually assured that it would stand forever. Many stated at the time that this was "step one", thus an affirmation of the AWB/MCL laws by the SCOTUS would have meant an immediate "step two". As you can see, they are at it again, even though gun crime continued to drop after this law had faded out of existance. The vast majority of gun crime does not depend on AWs or HCMs, it is gang/drug thug related, most often by repeat offenders and committed mainly with handguns.

A reasonable attempt should be made, as I have said often, to designate "GUN OK" on all state issued, photo IDs after a check of the NICS database - that would allow EASY and efficient point of sale checks for guns and ammunition for both big, little and occasional sellers of these items. Universal point of sale access to the NICS database is not a good, or efficient, idea and without a very expensive and invasive national gun registration program one can never assure that no sales/transfers to criminals will occur. Beteer to have a better 90% solution at lower cost, than our current 60% solution at higher cost.
Click to expand...

Yes, Drivers Licenses could include "gun ok" in their magnetic strip.

Or our DMV records could simply list "gun ok" and gun dealers could run our licenses through a reader and this simple firearm certification system would tell you if the buyer is ok or not ok to buy a gun.

But the fact is the only folks who are opposed to universal background checks are folks who want it to remain easy for criminals to get guns through private sales.
 
Catawba said:
Your excuses for SCOTUS are noted.

I think you should submit your proposals for consideration in development of the new background check system.
Click to expand...

I have sent that proposal to both of my state's (Texas) US Senators but, as yet, have received no reply. ;)
 
Vice-President Joe Biden himself admits that a new assault-weapons ban will NOT stop mass-shootings.

Biden says gun curbs won't end mass killings - Yahoo! News

If that is the case, then why the **** are they seeking to pass this bill????????????????

Just so they can pat themselves on the back and say "we did something"????????

Such ****ing bull****!!!!! Don't seek to pass a bill that you KNOW will have very few results, but WILL unneccessarily incovenience the lives of millions!!!
 
Spring99 said:
Yes, Drivers Licenses could include "gun ok" in their magnetic strip.

Or our DMV records could simply list "gun ok" and gun dealers could run our licenses through a reader and this simple firearm certification system would tell you if the buyer is ok or not ok to buy a gun.

But the fact is the only folks who are opposed to universal background checks are folks who want it to remain easy for criminals to get guns through private sales.
Click to expand...

"GUN OK" should be in big red letters on the face of the ID, that way anyone selling a gun (or ammo) can quickly determine if the sale is legal, simply by looking at the potential buyer's ID. The FFL dealers, Walmarts, the gunshow folks, the clerk at the bait/tackle/ammo strore and the private citizen selling a gun to work buddy could then all rest easy that they did their patriotic duty to keep guns out of the hands of known bad (or underage) folks. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
"GUN OK" should be in big red letters on the face of the ID, that way anyone selling a gun (or ammo) can quickly determine if the sale is legal, simply by looking at the potential buyer's ID. The FFL dealers, Walmarts, the gunshow folks, the clerk at the bait/tackle/ammo strore and the private citizen selling a gun to work buddy could then all rest easy that they did their patriotic duty to keep guns out of the hands of known bad (or underage) folks. ;)
Click to expand...

So after someone is convicted of a felony, they will have to renew their DL so that it says "no gun" on it?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I have sent that proposal to both of my state's (Texas) US Senators but, as yet, have received no reply. ;)
Click to expand...

Texas huh? That might help explain why you've heard nothing back, but hey, nothing ventured, nothing gained!
 
Spring99 said:
So after someone is convicted of a felony, they will have to renew their DL so that it says "no gun" on it?
Click to expand...

Yep. Upon felony conviction (at least one year sentence), being adjudged legally insane or having been served with a judge's restraining order (domestic abuse) that would trigger a mandatory surrender of your "GUN OK" ID and cause the NICS database to be updated, preventing its re-issue as "GUN OK". This is often now done for a DWI/DUI arrest. Even if you turn 18 you may want to renew it, or if you change your address and of course before it expires.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep. Upon felony conviction (at least one year sentence), being adjudged legally insane or having been served with a judge's restraining order (domestic abuse) that would trigger a mandatory surrender of your "GUN OK" ID and cause the NICS database to be updated, preventing its re-issue as "GUN OK". This is often now done for a DWI/DUI arrest. Even if you turn 18 you may want to renew it, or if you change your address and of course before it expires.
Click to expand...

Yes, adding "gun ok" info to one's DL data strip, would make things more convenient.

However, I think gun extremists would oppose this, simply because it would stand in the way of criminals being able to buy guns.

Only two groups of people would be seriously affected by Universal Background checks: criminals and the seriously mentally impaired. These are the folks pushing for no new gun laws.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I said proof. Not blogs. The only proof that you can bring is court cases since you are claiming that the courts ruled that the 2nd only applied to militias. Try again.
Click to expand...

Decided to ignore the question huh Catawaba?
 
Spring99 said:
Yes, adding "gun ok" info to one's DL data strip, would make things more convenient.

However, I think gun extremists would oppose this, simply because it would stand in the way of criminals being able to buy guns.

Only two groups of people would be seriously affected by Universal Background checks: criminals and the seriously mentally impaired. These are the folks pushing for no new gun laws.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of the words "black market"? Most criminals do not go to your local gunstore to buy guns.
 
Catawba said:
By your logic, murder shouldn't be illegal because criminals still murder people.

The purpose of the magazine limitation is to reduce the number of people being killed in mass murders in the US. Are you aware there were a record number last year?
Click to expand...

No, the laws are meant to punish the murderers and separate them from society. Laws do NOT prevent crime. Laws are for after you get caught for punishment purposes. Therefore, your little laws and limitations on OUR second amendment rights are NOT going to prevent any criminals from murdering anyone.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The current gun laws are unenforcable because the organization in charge of enforcing gun laws, the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms, has been gutted and rendered ineffective because of spending cuts imposed on it by conservatives who believe the organization serves no purpose.
Click to expand...

You can't just make claims like that without backing them up with a link. Well, you can, but they don't mean anything to anyone. You could be any internet bozo making up any claims you want for all I know.

Also, what makes you people think that the republicans are in charge of everything? Isn't Congress made up of both republicans and democrats? Both are probably responsible, but I know you partisans are blind to that fact.
 
ChrisL said:
You are wrong. Rights, at the time they were established, were thought to be granted by God. This was to prevent tyranny. God-given rights, not man-given rights. In this way, MEN (such as those who run our government) were not supposed to be able to infringe upon those God-given rights. That is the concept.
Click to expand...

So then all drugs should be legal, as should pedophilia. What right have we to judge what God would want? We should have no laws, because if you do something wrong, God will give you pestilence or plague, or you can go by the bible and kill your neighbor's oxen. And it's weird that God didn't want women to vote or black people to be free. Unless you're mormon and then you believe that God changed his mind about black people. In which case I can't argue with that!
 
Kal'Stang said:
Decided to ignore the question huh Catawaba?
Click to expand...


I don't make a habit of responding to irrelevant comments. I find their irrelevancy stands on its own! :cool:
 
ChrisL said:
No, the laws are meant to punish the murderers and separate them from society. Laws do NOT prevent crime. Laws are for after you get caught for punishment purposes. Therefore, your little laws and limitations on OUR second amendment rights are NOT going to prevent any criminals from murdering anyone.
Click to expand...

Federal law requiring background checks by licensed dealers have been in effect since 1994, would you please cite the case when it was found to be in violation of the 2nd?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Mustachio said:
So then all drugs should be legal, as should pedophilia. What right have we to judge what God would want? We should have no laws, because if you do something wrong, God will give you pestilence or plague, or you can go by the bible and kill your neighbor's oxen. And it's weird that God didn't want women to vote or black people to be free. Unless you're mormon and then you believe that God changed his mind about black people. In which case I can't argue with that!
Click to expand...

Let's not go off on a tangent now. Focus. You have not legitimately addressed anything in my post. Drugs, pedophilia, etc. are not rights, are they? God never said women couldn't vote. That was men. You see how that works?
 
Catawba said:
Federal law requiring background checks by licensed dealers have been in effect since 1994, would you please cite the case when it was found to be in violation of the 2nd?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

How does this question relate to my post? It has absolutely nothing to do with my post. But now that you bring it up, has that prevented school shootings or other mass shootings?
 
ChrisL said:
How does this question relate to my post? It has absolutely nothing to do with my post. But now that you bring it up, has that prevented school shootings or other mass shootings?
Click to expand...

You claimed background checks were a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I was pointing out to you that since they were required under law in 1994, they have never been found to be in violation of the 2nd.

I have already posted a study in this thread that shows the kills in mass shootings were higher both before and after the 10 year ban. Look it up. 2012, had a record number of people injured and killed in mass shootings.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
You claimed background checks were a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I was pointing out to you that since they were required under law in 1994, they have never been found to be in violation of the 2nd.

I have already posted a study in this thread that shows the kills in mass shootings were less both before and after the 10 year ban. Look it up. 2012, had a record number of people injured and killed in mass shootings.
Click to expand...

I read her post.. I couldn't find where she stated background checks were a violation of the 2nd
 
Catawba said:
You claimed background checks were a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I was pointing out to you that since they were required under law in 1994, they have never been found to be in violation of the 2nd.

I have already posted a study in this thread that shows the kills in mass shootings were less both before and after the 10 year ban. Look it up. 2012, had a record number of people injured and killed in mass shootings.
Click to expand...

But I'm the one who asked YOU a question. How would your laws prevent murders with guns?

And if mass shootings occurred less often before the ban and after the ban, then what's your point?
 
ChrisL said:
But I'm the one who asked YOU a question. How would your laws prevent murders with guns?

And if mass shootings occurred less often before the ban and after the ban, then what's your point?
Click to expand...



No one has suggested they will prevent all murders with guns. Its about reducing the numbers.

Typo, see the corrected edit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom