• 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!

The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks...[W: 349]

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Higgins86 said:
So whats the plan now for you Americans? Wait and see and talk about it again after the next school shooting?
Click to expand...

What are you folks going to do about your violent crime rate that is THREE times as high as the US?
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Henrin said:
Open up a dictionary, learn english, and learn logic.
Click to expand...

LOL...it takes more than a dictionary and speaking English to become a Supreme Court Justice my friend....but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't stop trying to educate yourself sometime, especially if you want to speak intelligently about a topic.

Here is a VERY basic start to understanding Constitutional analysis. You'll need to take it quite a few steps further if you truly want to engage in an informed conversation:
Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Pick up a Constitutional Law Textbook....any of them that are used at any law school in the United States and you might learn something. You might actually find out a thing or two about Constitutional Law and the analysis that the SCOTUS undergoes when reviewing laws to see whether they pass Constitutional muster.
Click to expand...

Yawn..I'm well aware of how justices claim english and intent don't matter.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Absolutely. But that's something that a lot of the people on this site do not understand. They think ANY restriction automatically is unconstitutional. They refuse to be educated.
Click to expand...

That's when it becomes a question of if it is actually reasonable or not. Plus too many "reasonable" laws can effectively get rid of a Right or at least make that Right essentially useless to be on the books.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Kal'Stang said:
That's when it becomes a question of if it is actually reasonable or not. Plus too many "reasonable" laws can effectively get rid of a Right or at least make that Right essentially useless to be on the books.
Click to expand...

In extreme instances, rarely the norm. And as to your first point, you are absolutely correct. The exact question that the SCOTUS would take up on a challenge is the "reasonableness" of the restriction and the state interest involved. That said, I doubt highly that things like background checks, registration and waiting periods would have much difficulty passing Constitutional muster. Things like an assault weapon ban would be a closer case.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
LOL...it takes more than a dictionary and speaking English to become a Supreme Court Justice my friend....but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't stop trying to educate yourself sometime, especially if you want to speak intelligently about a topic.

Here is a VERY basic start to understanding Constitutional analysis. You'll need to take it quite a few steps further if you truly want to engage in an informed conversation:
Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Yawn...give me something I don't already know. How about where there is an opening in an absolute statement. Enlighten me on how that makes sense.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Let's face facts. This was all kabuki. What I don't understand is why the Dems forced the Senate to kill it rather than the House.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Henrin said:
Yawn...give me something I don't already know. How about where there is an opening in an absolute statement. Enlighten me on how that makes sense.
Click to expand...

You obviously DON'T already know, because if you did, you wouldn't be making the statements that you have. They clearly displayed that you have little to no idea of what goes on when the SCOTUS takes up a case.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
You obviously DON'T already know, because if you did, you wouldn't be making the statements that you have. They clearly displayed that you have little to no idea of what goes on when the SCOTUS takes up a case.
Click to expand...

Lol! Did you ever wager I'm challenging them on their bull****? English matters and when someone makes an absolute statement it is ABSOLUTE! There is no way around that. If I write a contract barring a certain activity it is BARRED. There is no doubt about it or way around it. It is BARRED absolutely. Learn logic.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

wbcoleman said:
Let's face facts. This was all kabuki. What I don't understand is why the Dems forced the Senate to kill it rather than the House.
Click to expand...

The Republicans snookered them, but you won't hear the media suggest that Democrats got outsmarted at their own game.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

wbcoleman said:
Let's face facts. This was all kabuki. What I don't understand is why the Dems forced the Senate to kill it rather than the House.
Click to expand...

Votes.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Henrin said:
Lol! Did you ever wager I'm challenging them on their bull****? English matters and when someone makes an absolute statement it is ABSOLUTE! There is no way around that. If I write a contract barring a certain activity it is BARRED. There is no doubt about it or way around it. It is BARRED absolutely. Learn logic.
Click to expand...

Okie Dokie....try winning that argument in a court. You would be laughed out of the courtroom.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

wbcoleman said:
Let's face facts. This was all kabuki. What I don't understand is why the Dems forced the Senate to kill it rather than the House.
Click to expand...

I imagine the original idea was to get gun control through the Senate and then when it failed in the house to blame everything on the republicans. In the end however, they realized they didn't have the votes in the Senate either, so they were left with no choice, but to simply look like they tried. The voting public as we all know is a bunch of puppets, so it was worth it for all involved to have the vote.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Okie Dokie....try winning that argument in a court. You would be laughed out of the courtroom.
Click to expand...

I'm not in the court room. :neutral: What am I doing is supposedly talking to a man of reason, and someone that speaks the english language.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Henrin said:
I'm not in the court room. :neutral: What am I doing is supposedly talking to a man of reason, and someone that speaks the english language.
Click to expand...

Sorry....but you ARE supposedly discussing whether a restriction would pass Constitutional muster. I'm sorry if you failed to realize that. Carry on with your base level discussion. If you wanna play with the big boys, pick up a textbook and come back.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Sorry....but you ARE supposedly discussing whether a restriction would pass Constitutional muster. I'm sorry if you failed to realize that. Carry on with your base level discussion. If you wanna play with the big boys, pick up a textbook and come back.
Click to expand...

These big boys you talk of are dishonest assholes that ignore basic logic to grow the power of the state. I expect that thinking men and women would know better than to simply be a puppet to such nonsense. The rules of english dictate that absolute language is absolute. Anyone that says otherwise is either being dishonest or they are stupid.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Freedom won

Fascism lost
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Henrin said:
What are you folks going to do about your violent crime rate that is THREE times as high as the US?
Click to expand...


some recent murder stats....Keep spinning it mate.

In the US – population 311.5 million (1) – there were an estimated 13,756 murders in 2009 (2), a rate of about 5.0 per 100,000 (3). Of these 9,203 were carried out with a firearm.

In the UK – population 56.1 million (4) – there were an estimated 550 murders in 2011-12 (5), a rate of about 1.4 per 100,000. Of these 39 were carried out with a firearm


p.s our violent crime rate is measured very differently to Americas.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

AlabamaPaul said:
Explain to me, if you can, how this amendment would have changed anything about what happened at Sandy Hook? The perp murdered his mother and used her weapons to commit the crime...
Click to expand...

I believe many people in the US saw this bill as a step in the right direction and a compromise, from what I read no one was saying it was going to stop mass shootings but it would of got the ball moving in some peoples eyes. The fact that this bill was shot down just confirms to me that the right are unwilling to even to meet the left anywhere near the middle and nothing will ever change in the US. Its sad for people like my wife's family who's opinion and views get ignored under the weight of the NRA and their millions of dollars.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

I was just wondering, has there been any project/issue that VP Biden has been put in charge of over the past 4 plus years that has actually been successful?
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Higgins86 said:
I believe many people in the US saw this bill as a step in the right direction and a compromise, from what I read no one was saying it was going to stop mass shootings but it would of got the ball moving in some peoples eyes. The fact that this bill was shot down just confirms to me that the right are unwilling to even to meet the left anywhere near the middle and nothing will ever change in the US.
Click to expand...

So,now IYV, anyone who voted the bill is a member of the "right"? What would this bill have done to prevent a criminal from getting a weapon? You see, criminals don't obey laws, hence the label criminals
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Higgins86 said:
I believe many people in the US saw this bill as a step in the right direction and a compromise, from what I read no one was saying it was going to stop mass shootings but it would of got the ball moving in some peoples eyes. The fact that this bill was shot down just confirms to me that the right are unwilling to even to meet the left anywhere near the middle and nothing will ever change in the US. Its sad for people like my wife's family who's opinion and views get ignored under the weight of the NRA and their millions of dollars.
Click to expand...

I think you are looking at this wrong. The constitution guarantees the right of the individual to bear arms. Not to have that right taken away by incrementalism. The way this works is background checks today, gun registration tomorrow, then having to obtain government permission to buy a gun the day after followed by gun confiscation the day after that.

I have seen too many what looks like common sense compromises today on different issues lead to loss of rights later. It is called incrementalism and that is what was at play here.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

jonny5 said:
Says a poll of 1000 americans. Did you actually ask 100%? Of course not. Why don't you put it to a real vote, and try and get a constitutional amendment passed?
Click to expand...

polls based on poor information have no validity

I can guarantee if people knew as much as I did, far less would support that turd of a law

information including

1) that the government has prosecuted less than 300 people who have committed perjury on the Form 4473-a number that is close to TWO MILLION

2) that its basically a strict liability offense--if you claim you can legally own a gun and you have a felony, a dishonorable discharge, are a fugitive from justice, an illegal alien, etc, you have PERJURED YOURSELF and the government can put you in prison for FIVE years

3) the turd of a law cannot be enforced unless all gun owners are forced to keep a log-open to government inspection, of all arms owned, purchased or sold and the dates and destinations of such sales

4) that everyone who wants registration, gun bans and magazine restrictions supports this turd of a law
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Reasonable restrictions don't require a Constitutional Amendment. An Amendment would only be necessary for infringments that could not be supported by a compelling governmental interest. Not the case here.
Click to expand...

for someone to discuss reasonable restrictions they have to be reasonable. Your posts demonstrate you are a hard core gun hater who wants to ban guns and harass gun owners every chance you can. Thus your concept of what is reasonable really has no merit to most of us who support gun rights
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Absolutely. But that's something that a lot of the people on this site do not understand. They think ANY restriction automatically is unconstitutional. They refuse to be educated.
Click to expand...

if the constitution was properly interpreted and the tenth amendment enforced as it should be then all federal gun control legislation is unconstitutional. Not only because of the second amendment but more importantly, the tenth
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom