• 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!

Upstate New York Shooting Update [W:90; 131]

They may try, but you do not have to fall for that trap.
See what I just wrote about being on an emotional plantation. NOBODY is holding you back. Stop making excuses.

No one held me back. My comment is the exact opposite of what you are trying to imply.

I said...

It would be ignorant white folks that somehow think blacks cannot or will not be able to compete on a level playing field. So instead of getting out of the way and letting us succeed or fail on our own, they offer racist programs that for years have eroded our morals and family structure to the point where it no longer exists in some cases. Teaching us to depend on the government hand out rather than ourselves. Teaching us that personal responsibility is now a bad word because it is always someone else's fault.

Liberalism? Please. More like dumb asses who think they are doing good but instead only hurt.


So I can only come to the conclusion you somehow did not understand what I wrote, or you are just trying to lie. So I will give you a second chance.
 
If it had been your family member(s) gunned own with AR-15's, would you think again about limiting their access?

A gun is just a gun. A pathetic appeal to emotion is just a pathetic appeal to emotion. The fact is most school shootings occur with handguns, not semiautomatic rifles. The fact is of the 1400 rounds fired in murders or violent crimes in NYC only 3 came from ANY type of a rifle, with none verifiably attributed to an AR15 (as stated by the NYPD police commissioner). The fact is that in he Aurora Co shooting the AR weapon jammed and Holmes proceeded to shoot 70 people with a shotgun and handgun. The Amish school shootings several years back involved a shotgun and a 30.06. The VaTech shooter used a handgun. The Giffords shooter used a handgun. The columbine shooters used shotguns, 22lrs and handguns. Kip Kinkel in Oregon used a 22lr. Frivolous foolish emotional appeals are frivolous and foolish.
 
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Do you honestly think republicans care about the inner cities at all? The inner cities need community organizers. Oh wait...

Great idea, let's continue to let criminals roam freely among us, just try to disarm everyone to make them easier prey. If these inner city morons will not obey laws against assault, battery, robbery and murder then what makes you think that they will obey gun laws? Recreational drugs are now illegal and banned nationwide, yet they abound in your, much loved, inner cities.
 
The standard was established by the Surpreme Court. Argue it with them if you wish.

The point is society could not function with every Joe owning nukes or weaponized anthrax. It would collapse.

Obviously that is not the case with common weapons.

And thinking that banning law abiding persons from owning certain types of weapons will prevent mass slaughters is obviously wrong. The biggest mass murder in US history excluding 9-11 was carried out using a fertilizer bomb. The biggest school massacre was carried out using a bomb as well, in 1927. Bombs and bomb-making materials are already restricted btw.

SCOTUS has ruled that saving many lives is consistent with the "strict scrutiny" requirement that the laws be "necessary or crucial"

And the govt now does regulate the sales of fertilizers
 
SCOTUS has ruled that saving many lives is consistent with the "strict scrutiny" requirement that the laws be "necessary or crucial"

SCOTUS has also ruled that severe restrictions on common arms are Unconstitutional.

The question is, how many lives and at what cost? Far more people die in automobile accidents than by guns... yet no one is advocating banning cars, restricting everyone to cars that only go 35mph, background checks to buy a car, etc.

Hell if we just did away with 18 wheel trucks and cars on the same roads we'd probably cut traffic fatalities by thousands... but the economic cost would be staggering.

Saving lives is great, but there are always limits to how far we can practically go in so doing.

There are also unintended consequences... like making criminals safer and therefore bolder.
 
4 people are dead.

My heart goes out to their families. We seem to say that too often nowadays.
 
SCOTUS has also ruled that severe restrictions on common arms are Unconstitutional.

The question is, how many lives and at what cost? Far more people die in automobile accidents than by guns... yet no one is advocating banning cars, restricting everyone to cars that only go 35mph, background checks to buy a car, etc.

Hell if we just did away with 18 wheel trucks and cars on the same roads we'd probably cut traffic fatalities by thousands... but the economic cost would be staggering.

Saving lives is great, but there are always limits to how far we can practically go in so doing.

There are also unintended consequences... like making criminals safer and therefore bolder.

SCOTUS has also ruled that te govt can restrict some people from owning weapons and regulate the sale of firearms.

Strict scrutiny doesn't have a minimum threshold as far as the # of lives or cost, only that the means be the least restrictive while acheiving the sought after benefit. And cars are highly regulated, in their manufacture, their sale, and their use. Trucks are subjected to even more regulation than cars.

As far as strict scrutiny goes, the only limit to how far we can go is that the means be the "least restrictive" means of achieving the goal. This does not eliminate "highly restrictive" regulations, unless it can be shown that "less restrictive" means would achieve the same goals.

And criminals don't commit crimes because they feel safe and bold. I've never bought that article of faith
 
4 people are dead.

My heart goes out to their families. We seem to say that too often nowadays.

Actually we say it far less than we did even 10 years ago. Nice hyperbole though.
 
Well...at least he followed Bidens advice and used a shotgun...
 
Nope.

Someone I loved was shot dead with a .44 magnum revolver. I didn't respond by calling for a ban on 44's.... I held the man who pulled the trigger responsible.

How would he have killed your friend without a gun?

Just curious.

That's like blaming the crack pipe instead of the crack.
 
SCOTUS has also ruled that severe restrictions on common arms are Unconstitutional.

The question is, how many lives and at what cost? Far more people die in automobile accidents than by guns... yet no one is advocating banning cars, restricting everyone to cars that only go 35mph, background checks to buy a car, etc.

Hell if we just did away with 18 wheel trucks and cars on the same roads we'd probably cut traffic fatalities by thousands... but the economic cost would be staggering.

Saving lives is great, but there are always limits to how far we can practically go in so doing.

There are also unintended consequences... like making criminals safer and therefore bolder.

I can't understand why pro gunners don't know the difference between a car and a gun.

Here's a hint. Cars don't have triggers.Cars have brakes.
 
False.

Most conservatives favor some limit by age. Most conservatives favor not allowing felons to purchase. Most conservatives do not want certifiable loonies or known criminals getting guns legally.

The dispute tends to come about when Certain Parties propose laws that will accomplish none of these things but merely impede the law abiding.

Is there any proof of your assertion?
 
How would he have killed your friend without a gun?

Just curious.

That's like blaming the crack pipe instead of the crack.

More like blaming the crack instead of the person smoking it.

But to answer your first question, by hitting him in the head with a rock, choking him, poisoning him with the chemicals under the home sink. Driving over him with a car, putting a bomb on the plane he was in, any number of other options, all of which have been used.
 
More like blaming the crack instead of the person smoking it.

But to answer your first question, by hitting him in the head with a rock, choking him, poisoning him with the chemicals under the home sink. Driving over him with a car, putting a bomb on the plane he was in, any number of other options, all of which have been used.

That's a forgone conclussion.
 
The standard was established by the Surpreme Court. Argue it with them if you wish.

The point is society could not function with every Joe owning nukes or weaponized anthrax. It would collapse.

Obviously that is not the case with common weapons.

And thinking that banning law abiding persons from owning certain types of weapons will prevent mass slaughters is obviously wrong. The biggest mass murder in US history excluding 9-11 was carried out using a fertilizer bomb. The biggest school massacre was carried out using a bomb as well, in 1927. Bombs and bomb-making materials are already restricted btw.

Most of the mass shooters were "law abiding" citizens before they went on their killing rampages.

You assume incorrectly.
 
4 people are dead.

My heart goes out to their families. We seem to say that too often nowadays.
This case is old news already. See the incident at Florida State U where the perp killed himself before he murdered everyone else in his dorm.
 
We (me, Jerry, others) have posted tons of sourced stats supporting our position.... you lot ignore them and keep right on blathering nonesense.


I'm tired of watering the horse that won't drink.
 
Back
Top Bottom