• 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!

Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

ttwtt78640 said:
For a basic, individual Constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms, of course. No price is too big to own/carry a gun and any price is too big for guaranteed medical care, food, clothing and shelter (if one simply has a dependent). The thinking on the left is that the Constitution really means that those who work must help support those that do not, yet must also spend much more to make the "wrong" choice to buy/carry a gun.
Click to expand...

But don't we already have that right?
 
Want to hear a liberal scream? Apply the same logic and barriers to voting that they want to apply to 2nd Amendment rights.

All rights have limitations, yeah?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Currently, In Texas, it costs about $240 to get a permit to legally carry (concealed only) a handgun, that was already legally purchased and required passing an NICS BG check. That is clearly well beyond being merely inconvenient since a driver's licence, in Texas, costs $24 including the written/practical testing required. Inconvenient is like requiring getting a state issued, photo ID which is considered, by many, to be a discriminatory burden when required in order to vote.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about concealed carry, I'm talking about purchasing the gun in the first place. Your decision to carry concealed is a decision you make and is not a right protected under any section of the Constitution.

Things such as a background check for all purchases, training required before obtaining a gun, a gun registry, etc. are all inconvenient, but none of them, on their own, prohibit you from obtaining a firearm legally (if you pass).
Henry David said:
A small price to pay for what, exactly?
Click to expand...
Safety.
OpportunityCost said:
Want to hear a liberal scream? Apply the same logic and barriers to voting that they want to apply to 2nd Amendment rights.

All rights have limitations, yeah?
Click to expand...
Many of them do, actually. For example, you have to show proof of identification to vote. If you don't have ID, then you don't get to vote.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I'm not talking about concealed carry, I'm talking about purchasing the gun in the first place. Your decision to carry concealed is a decision you make and is not a right protected under any section of the Constitution.

Things such as a background check for all purchases, training required before obtaining a gun, a gun registry, etc. are all inconvenient, but none of them, on their own, prohibit you from obtaining a firearm legally (if you pass).

Safety.
Many of them do, actually.
Click to expand...

Safety? Geez, too bad that law wasn't passed before yesterday. It might have provided some "safety" to those folks at Boston.
 
Henry David said:
Safety? Geez, too bad that law wasn't passed before yesterday. It might have provided some "safety" to those folks at Boston.
Click to expand...
Your comment makes no sense to me. It appears to be nothing but empty rhetoric which does not advance the discussion in any meaningful way. I'd hate to assume this is what you posted, so could you please clarify, so that I may respond more appropriately?
 
Slyfox696 said:
I'm not talking about concealed carry, I'm talking about purchasing the gun in the first place. Your decision to carry concealed is a decision you make and is not a right protected under any section of the Constitution.

Things such as a background check for all purchases, training required before obtaining a gun, a gun registry, etc. are all inconvenient, but none of them, on their own, prohibit you from obtaining a firearm legally (if you pass).

Safety.
Many of them do, actually. For example, you have to show proof of identification to vote. If you don't have ID, then you don't get to vote.
Click to expand...

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" makes it clear that the 2A right is not simply to buy and store arms in one's home, but to carry them as well. I specifically addressed the "application fee" and not the requirement to first prove oneself "not unworthy" of keeping their individual Constitutional rights. If these tests and conditions are required, for basic Constitutional rights, then their costs should be covered by general taxation, not by "user fees". Is it equally "fair" if states decide to raise "extra" revenue by requiring go to church permits or have an attorney present during police questioning permits?
 
Slyfox696 said:
I find many of the comments in this thread to be quite disgusting. The fact you are so concerned about your inanimate object you are willing to demonize a mother who lost a child who is trying to help prevent other mothers from losing children, and the President who is giving her a platform to express herself, is appalling to me.

You can disagree with her and the President on gun control. But to demonize them in such a manner for disagreeing with you is something I'll never understand, and to me, just reeks of illogical fear over losing an inanimate object.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

I am just stunned at the comments that are being made on here. This goes beyond politics. All I can say is that I'm praying for you all. I look at my son every morning and still feel sadden about these parents loss because I try to imagine my life without my son and maybe some of you guys should to.

Sure, gun control is a "Liberal" agenda and I know many of you conservatives believe that anybody who disagrees with you are pimps and whores. But unless your son or daughter took a bullet to the head or chest then you shouldn't act like you know the motives of these parents. By the way, these parents along with others demanded that the President do something about gun control after this incident unless you guys forgotten....

If these parents feel this strongly about gun control then "respectfully disagree", but calling this mother a political whore is going way out of bounds.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Your comment makes no sense to me. It appears to be nothing but empty rhetoric which does not advance the discussion in any meaningful way. I'd hate to assume this is what you posted, so could you please clarify, so that I may respond more appropriately?
Click to expand...

Yes, perhaps I was too quick to reply, and perhaps I am not familiar enough with your position.

If safety is the goal, as well it should be, it seems a rather ambitious goal. Can government legislation really make us more safe?

I am doubtful of that.

It seems that gun control regulations put in place since RFK's death have done precious little to make anybody at all any safer from the mayhem caused by misuse of firearms. There are many many many examples, but a big example is that of the 'suicidal Vietnam Vet' who started a fire at his house in New York state a few weeks after Newtown, and then planned and executed the killing of several responding firemen. As a convicted felon, the laws prohibit him from having firearms, yet he did, and mayhem and murder ensued. Simply because he was determined to do so.

Apparently at Newtown, assuming one believes the story, NO gun laws were violated. Legal purchases, we are told.

Safety was not assured for those involved, as safety was not assured for those at Boston yesterday. Simply put, experience and history teach us that government rules and regulations sound nice, but they do not provide safety.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" makes it clear that the 2A right is not simply to buy and store arms in one's home, but to carry them as well.
Click to expand...
But it is NOT to carry them hidden from everyone's view.

I specifically addressed the "application fee"
Click to expand...
To the concealed carry, which is not what I was talking about.

and not the requirement to first prove oneself "not unworthy" of keeping their individual Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
Having the right doesn't mean unfettered access to it. I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I can't question a rape victim's sexual history. I can't vote without proof of identification.

If these tests and conditions are required, for basic Constitutional rights, then their costs should be covered by general taxation, not by "user fees".
Click to expand...
Okay. I'm fine with that. I have no problems with raising taxes to meet the needs of society, nor do I have a problem paying a little extra in taxes to prevent crimes being committed.

Is it equally "fair" if states decide to raise "extra" revenue by requiring go to church permits or have an attorney present during police questioning permits?
Click to expand...
Are those situations a matter of safety and/or ensuring justice?
 
Slyfox696 said:
But it is NOT to carry them hidden from everyone's view.

To the concealed carry, which is not what I was talking about.

Having the right doesn't mean unfettered access to it. I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I can't question a rape victim's sexual history. I can't vote without proof of identification.

Okay. I'm fine with that. I have no problems with raising taxes to meet the needs of society, nor do I have a problem paying a little extra in taxes to prevent crimes being committed.

Are those situations a matter of safety and/or ensuring justice?
Click to expand...

The state first made open carry of a handgun totally illegal, thus not an "option". Your example of "yelling fire" still requires no advance permit or permission, simply imposes a penalty, after due process, for a violation of the law.
 
Henry David said:
Yes, perhaps I was too quick to reply, and perhaps I am not familiar enough with your position.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

If safety is the goal, as well it should be, it seems a rather ambitious goal. Can government legislation really make us more safe?
Click to expand...
It is a rather ambitious goal. There's a quote I've read once and I think it's a great quote about ambitious goals:

""It is better, I think, to grab at the stars than to sit flustered because you know you cannot reach them...At least he who reaches will get a good stretch, a good view, and perhaps even a low-hanging apple for his efforts."

This is just a random quote from a book, not written by anyone famous, but I think it's a great outlook on life.

I am doubtful of that.
Click to expand...
I'd like to think government legislation has already made us safer. For example, I'd first point you to government regulation of the food industry.

It seems that gun control regulations put in place since RFK's death have done precious little to make anybody at all any safer from the mayhem caused by misuse of firearms. There are many many many examples, but a big example is that of the 'suicidal Vietnam Vet' who started a fire at his house in New York state a few weeks after Newtown, and then planned and executed the killing of several responding firemen. As a convicted felon, the laws prohibit him from having firearms, yet he did, and mayhem and murder ensued. Simply because he was determined to do so.
Click to expand...
But how did he get the gun? Too many people who should not be having guns are getting guns, because there is no real reason for straw buyers to not provide weapons.

Apparently at Newtown, assuming one believes the story, NO gun laws were violated. Legal purchases, we are told.
Click to expand...
Everything I have heard says this is the case. However, I've also heard the mother legally obtained them by traveling to another state to purchase them, which is something that could not happen under a federal law.

I'm not sure if that's true or not.

Safety was not assured for those involved, as safety was not assured for those at Boston yesterday. Simply put, experience and history teach us that government rules and regulations sound nice, but they do not provide safety.
Click to expand...
As I said earlier, we'll never be able to completely end violence or murder. But the goal is to minimize the risk as much as possible. Those who want to purchase a gun can still do so, but it should help crack down on those who would acquire the guns for illegitimate purposes.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The state first made open carry of a handgun totally illegal, thus not an "option".
Click to expand...
Then it appears as if your complaint would go to that, not the fact you have to pay to carry concealed.

Your example of "yelling fire" still requires no advance permit or permission, simply imposes a penalty, after due process, for a violation of the law.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It is a limitation upon my right of expression. That's the point.
 
rcart76 said:
I agree 100%.

I am just stunned at the comments that are being made on here. This goes beyond politics. All I can say is that I'm praying for you all. I look at my son every morning and still feel sadden about these parents loss because I try to imagine my life without my son and maybe some of you guys should to.

Sure, gun control is a "Liberal" agenda and I know many of you conservatives believe that anybody who disagrees with you are pimps and whores. But unless your son or daughter took a bullet to the head or chest then you shouldn't act like you know the motives of these parents. By the way, these parents along with others demanded that the President do something about gun control after this incident unless you guys forgotten....

If these parents feel this strongly about gun control then "respectfully disagree", but calling this mother a political whore is going way out of bounds.
Click to expand...

it also appears that emotional based appeals tend to be a liberal SOP too. nothing that your side wants would have stopped Lanza. using what Lanza did to pass stuff that only punishes lawful gun owners is not only pathetic, it is illogical
 
Slyfox696 said:
But it is NOT to carry them hidden from everyone's view.
Click to expand...

Local Soldier Says Police Violated His Guns Rights - kcentv.com - KCEN HD - Waco, Temple, and Killeen

Army Master Sergeant and well known blogger CJ Grisham says he never should have been arrested and his guns never should have been taken away.
On March 16, Grisham was on a Boy Scout hike with his son on a country road in west Temple.
He had a loaded assault style rifle strapped across his chest.
It was legal for him to carry, but a concerned citizen called police.
Click to expand...

At some point, the cop drew his own weapon and pinned Grisham until backup arrived.

The officers then cuffed him, took his rifle, plus a concealed weapon with valid permit, and took him to jail.
Grisham's lawyer says Grisham wasn't told at that point what he was being arrested for.

"An officer has a right to disarm you for his safety if there is a problem, and what we're maintaining is that there was no problem," Glass said.
But a Temple Police spokesman says the officer did what he had to do to ensure his own safety.
CPL Chris Wilcox said, "Officers are people too. They have families, they want to go home and see those families. It would be very difficult for an officer to determine immediately who's a threat and who's not a threat when there's a gun involved, especially a high powered weapon, like an assault rifle."
He also says Grisham should have complied.

"The actions of the individual are what led to the arrest. If he feels that the officer acted inappropriately or acted in error, there is a judicial process that he's free to follow," Wilcox said.

In Sec. 411.207, state law says, "A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder."
Click to expand...

Openly carrying, legally, committing no crime. Arrested, disarmed, weapon confiscated simply because he was carrying it.

You guys are full of **** about open carry.
 
TurtleDude said:
it also appears that emotional based appeals tend to be a liberal SOP too. nothing that your side wants would have stopped Lanza. using what Lanza did to pass stuff that only punishes lawful gun owners is not only pathetic, it is illogical
Click to expand...

How does universal background checks punish lawful gun owners???
 
Fletch said:
Oh look, a crying mom. Who could argue with that? Lets do whatever she thinks is best.
Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of the right-wing at their very worst. The efforts of the pro-gun wackos and the right-wing to silence people has gone beyond vigliance and turned downright vicious. Did this woman forfeit her right to speak out because she is a victim of gun violence? I have seen the NRA and the right-wing engage in some pretty disgusting and slimey stuff in the past, but these efforts take the cake.
 
rcart76 said:
How does universal background checks punish lawful gun owners???
Click to expand...

any law that does not have constitutional foundations but is still enacted is harmful because it sets a precedent for other unconstitutional laws

making me pay a fee for a BGC if I want to transfer a gun to a friend or a family member is harmful since it costs me money

the law is a feel good measure that will not be enforced nor will it increase public safety. its failure will be used by people like you to demand registration and other harmful legislation in order to make up for the failures of this law if passed

criminals in possession of weapons are exempt from this proposed law due to fifth amendment concerns
 
disneydude said:
This is a perfect example of the right-wing at their very worst. The efforts of the pro-gun wackos and the right-wing to silence people has gone beyond vigliance and turned downright vicious. Did this woman forfeit her right to speak out because she is a victim of gun violence? I have seen the NRA and the right-wing engage in some pretty disgusting and slimey stuff in the past, but these efforts take the cake.
Click to expand...

as opposed to using emotion to drown out logic and reason>

LOL
 
TurtleDude said:
as opposed to using emotion to drown out logic and reason>

LOL
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't she have her say? Who better to speak about the direct effects of gun violence than the victims themselves? The right-wing has no tact or morals. They call this woman a prostitute and a whore because she has the courage to stand up and speak out. That is just plain sick and disgusting.
 
disneydude said:
This is a perfect example of the right-wing at their very worst. The efforts of the pro-gun wackos and the right-wing to silence people has gone beyond vigliance and turned downright vicious. Did this woman forfeit her right to speak out because she is a victim of gun violence? I have seen the NRA and the right-wing engage in some pretty disgusting and slimey stuff in the past, but these efforts take the cake.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, this is a perfect example of liberals at their pathetic worst.

Never let a tragedy go to waste. Emotion, emotion, emotion. Get people to give up their rights when they feel bad. Take advantage of every tragedy to its fullest!!
 
disneydude said:
Why shouldn't she have her say? Who better to speak about the direct effects of gun violence than the victims themselves? The right-wing has no tact or morals. They call this woman a prostitute and a whore because she has the courage to stand up and speak out. That is just plain sick and disgusting.
Click to expand...

what relevance does she have and why should her emotional rants be used to deprive other people of their rights

you want to drown out the fact based arguments against the scheme to punish people for being conservatives through gun control

there is nothing this woman can say that justifies what she wants. Lanza didn't buy the gun legally, he committed CAPITAL murder to get it

the gun was bought after a background check was registered to its owner (who had no record) and complied with an "assault weapon ban" in place in CT
 
disneydude said:
Why shouldn't she have her say? Who better to speak about the direct effects of gun violence than the victims themselves? The right-wing has no tact or morals. They call this woman a prostitute and a whore because she has the courage to stand up and speak out. That is just plain sick and disgusting.
Click to expand...

Once again, you focus on words. Inconsequential, emotional words that have nothing to do with the issue at all.

Meanwhile, we look at the issue in its broadest, most global implications.

There's the difference between conservatives and liberals right there.
 
Erod said:
On the contrary, this is a perfect example of liberals at their pathetic worst.

Never let a tragedy go to waste. Emotion, emotion, emotion. Get people to give up their rights when they feel bad. Take advantage of every tragedy to its fullest!!
Click to expand...

Of course....the cheerleaders of the radical right-wing are out in full force trying to justify and legitimize their sleeze. The right-wing has simply shown that they will stop at nothing...even calling the mother of a child killed at Sandy Hook a whore and a prostitute. They have shown their true colors for America to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom