• 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!

White House to Push Gun Control

Boo Radley said:
Those guys are great. No wholey accurate but great. I have before and can again if you need it link thosen with credentials who disagree. We can do that. Just let me know.
Click to expand...



given the history of... well, we've been warned, so, if I don't have anything nice to say. :shrug:



How are they not accurate? Please by all means. :roll:
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, the reason for people having the right to bear arms. But those words allow for regulation.
Click to expand...

Regulation of the militia, not of the right to own firearms, hence the reason it also says that, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Militias shall be regulated, gun ownership shall not.
 
Boo Radley said:
Rev, Rev, Rev, . . . .No, No, No. We do not have the same situation as we had back then...
Click to expand...

The law is the law. You are a member of the militia whether you take that duty seriously or not.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
The law is the law. You are a member of the militia whether you take that duty seriously or not.
Click to expand...

We actually have an army now. We do. They don't run through town and gather up males to meet the native threat, or move folks to the fort. Times really have changed. Our founding fathers could not have seen this far into the future, but it is foolish not to recognize that the world is different.

The courts have ruled more than a few times that weapons can be regulated, and as long as I've been alive, there have been regulations. So, that horse has left the barn.
 
Boo Radley said:
We actually have an army now. We do. They don't run through town and gather up males to meet the native threat, or move folks to the fort. Times really have changed. Our founding fathers could not have seen this far into the future, but it is foolish not to recognize that the world is different.

The courts have ruled more than a few times that weapons can be regulated, and as long as I've been alive, there have been regulations. So, that horse has left the barn.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS gave us the Dred Scott decision, too.
 
apdst said:
The SCOTUS gave us the Dred Scott decision, too.
Click to expand...

That's true. But when something is ruled one way over and over, there is some reasonable acceptance that this is the case.
 
DC vs Heller may be the first step to injecting some Constitutionality into what has been severe violations of the 2A. The horse just might come back to the barn...
 
Goshin said:
DC vs Heller may be the first step to injecting some Constitutionality into what has been severe violations of the 2A. The horse just might come back to the barn...
Click to expand...

It might, but I wouldn't count on it.

BTW, I dn't think anything has been unconstitutional about so far.
 
Goshin said:
Yeah, that doesn't surprise me that you'd think that.
Click to expand...

Maybe not. But that doesn't make me wrong. This has been debated for decades. It's not new. If we wanted, we both could pull up scholars who say completely different things. if those who study this can come up with differing opinions, is it really surprising that two novices would disagree.

That said, the laws will be the laws, and the couorts will rule on them. That is how this works here. I'm OK with that.
 
Boo Radley said:
Maybe not. But that doesn't make me wrong. This has been debated for decades. It's not new. If we wanted, we both could pull up scholars who say completely different things. if those who study this can come up with differing opinions, is it really surprising that two novices would disagree.

That said, the laws will be the laws, and the couorts will rule on them. That is how this works here. I'm OK with that.
Click to expand...

Yup, and if DC vs Heller is any indication, a lot of cities and states with excessively restrictive laws are going to get pushed back in the near future.
 
Goshin said:
Yup, and if DC vs Heller is any indication, a lot of cities and states with excessively restrictive laws are going to get pushed back in the near future.
Click to expand...

They may be, and I'm OK with that. But that isn't the main point. The point is they can be regulated. I suspect the line will change from time to time. That's the nature of our country. And I'm OK with that as well.
 
Well hang on to your hat, then, because a whole lot of de-regulation is probably on the way.
 
Goshin said:
Well hang on to your hat, then, because a whole lot of de-regulation is probably on the way.
Click to expand...

we'll see. and if it does, and we see the same tyupe of effect that deregulation had on the economy, it'll swing back the other way. As I've said, I have no emotional attachment to a tool. This argument is not a new one. we've all been down these roads before.
 
Boo Radley said:
we'll see. and if it does, and we see the same tyupe of effect that deregulation had on the economy, it'll swing back the other way. As I've said, I have no emotional attachment to a tool. This argument is not a new one. we've all been down these roads before.
Click to expand...

Violent crime in the USA has been falling for a long time, at the same time as gun ownership has increased...

When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2009 estimated violent crime total was
5.2 percent below the 2005 level and 7.5 percent below the 2000 level.
Click to expand...

Violent Crime - Crime in the United States 2009
Coinciding with a surge in gun purchases that began shortly before the 2008 elections, violent crime decreased six percent between 2008 and 2009, including an eight percent decrease in murder and a nine percent decrease in robbery.1 Since 1991, when violent crime peaked, it has decreased 43 percent to a 35-year low. Murder has fallen 49 percent to a 45-year low.2 At the same time, the number of guns that Americans own has risen by about 90 million.
Click to expand...

Over the last quarter-century, many federal, state and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. The federal “assault weapon” ban, upon which gun control supporters claimed public safety hinged, expired in 2004 and the murder rate has since dropped 10 percent. The federal handgun waiting period, for years the centerpiece of gun control supporters’ agenda, expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported national Instant Check, and the murder rate has since dropped 21 percent.
Click to expand...

NRA-ILA :: More Guns, Less Crime Again
 
Boo Radley said:
have you ever heard of the causal relationship fallacy? There may be no connection whatsoever between the two things. I suspect there isn't. but, in any case, you need more evidence than a time line.
Click to expand...


I am perfectly aware of that. My point is that your implication that relaxing gun regulations would result in negative outcomes have not been shown to be probable, and that existing data indicates that the results would probably be positive, or at worst no-change.
 
the problem people like Boo and other gun haters have is that they only have one possible argument supporting gun restrictions-that such laws will objectively make us safer. There is absolutely no other argument that flies on this subject for their side. we on the other hand have many arguments-the vast majority are not defeated even if the gun haters could prove more restrictions actually made society safer.

and since the gun haters have never come close to meeting their burden, their position fails
 
Goshin said:
I am perfectly aware of that. My point is that your implication that relaxing gun regulations would result in negative outcomes have not been shown to be probable, and that existing data indicates that the results would probably be positive, or at worst no-change.
Click to expand...

I don't think I said that. But I did see someone once make the same causal relationship error when he noted crime went down after the Brady bill. Crime is more complicated than gun laws alone. And I'm not sure the data tells us anything at all. The fact is a regulation has be judged on it's merit, the logic behind it. This is the same with all regulations. There is nothing different as it relates to gun regulations. And when we measure effectieness, we have to define the purpose accurately, and actually show a causal relationship.
 
TurtleDude said:
the problem people like Boo and other gun haters have is that they only have one possible argument supporting gun restrictions-that such laws will objectively make us safer. There is absolutely no other argument that flies on this subject for their side. we on the other hand have many arguments-the vast majority are not defeated even if the gun haters could prove more restrictions actually made society safer.

and since the gun haters have never come close to meeting their burden, their position fails
Click to expand...

Not a gun hater. I've actually been know to hunt with one. But, hey, don't let a good false sterotype slow you down. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Not a gun hater. I've actually been know to hunt with one. But, hey, don't let a good false sterotype slow you down. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

I'm a shooter, hunter and reloader who sees America's handgun fetish as a cruel fascination with a phallic symbol that unjustifiably kills thousands of its children annually.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not a gun hater. I've actually been know to hunt with one. But, hey, don't let a good false sterotype slow you down. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

your evasive little game has been seen by many

I have been involved in this issue both as an interested amateur and a well known professional for 35 years. I know all the arguments, facades, evasions and excuses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom