• 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!

Obama eyes 'common sense' US gun control

Jerry said:
EDITORIAL: Guns decrease murder rates - Washington Times
Click to expand...

this has nothing to do with Down Under, (which is what Councilman was talking about in his link), it's referring to Washington.

i support responsible gun ownership, and of course agree with the founding fathers that if they so desire, all Americans have the right to hang a pair of bear arms in their home.

see, i'm really not that difficult to get along with :lol:
 
jamesrage said:
Apparently Obama wants to use the Arizona tragedy to **** on the 2nd amendment. Of course I am sure all the anti-2nbd amendment loons will try to argue that this is not true. They will also try to say that the 2nd amendment proponents are being paranoid.


Obama eyes 'common sense' US gun control - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama says it's time for US lawmakers to tackle the divisive issue of gun control in hopes of preventing tragedies like the Tucson shooting spree that killed six people.

In an opinion column published Sunday in the Arizona Daily Star, the main Tucson newspaper, Obama argued that improving the system of background checks on gun purchasers should be the first "common sense" step that neither side of the gun debate should oppose.

"I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides," Obama wrote in a rare public commentary on the gun control issue.

"However, I believe that if common sense prevails, we can get beyond wedge issues and stale political debates to find a sensible, intelligent way" to make the nation "a safer, stronger place."

Tucson was the location of a January 8 shooting spree that killed six people, including a federal judge and a nine-year-old girl.

US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was among the wounded, shot in the head while holding an open-air political event when alleged gunman Jared Loughner opened fire.

Following the attack, Americans largely "refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain," Obama wrote.
Click to expand...


"Common sense gun control" has become a favorite phrase among those who wish to increase government controls on guns.

I'm all for common sense.... the problem is, gun control advocates all too often define "common sense gun control" as "whatever new gun laws we can get for now, as a stepping stone towards banning handguns and assault weapons and eventually everything." :roll:
 
DiAnna said:
You don't know squat about me. Unfortunately, I know much too much about you.
Click to expand...

You always leave the thread whenever your arguments are challenged, so I'm not to concerned about your opinion on any matter.
 
Jerry said:
The Harvard study was international, which is probably why you're ignoring it.
Click to expand...

Australia wasn't mentioned in the Study.
 
I don't think any background checks would prevent what happened in AZ. If a crazy wants to kill a governor, then they will find the weapons, legal or not.

I would be in favour of background checks if it didn't require the government to have access to all your personal details. Rewarding states that "provide the most data" is a couched way of saying that states will be rewarded for wanton surveillance and databasing of citizens who are doing nothing wrong. The Fed has no business obtaining my personal information or using it to prevent me from purchasing a gun. That's up to my home state, and even then they better have a damn good reason for doing it.

Whenever the Fed wants to streamline anything, it usually involves stepping on state sovereignty. Yes, it's true, one state could require a background check while the other doesn't require anything, so I could just cross the border. That's just something we have to live with in a system that is supposed to respect state sovereignty.

In AZ the governor made a public appearance and got shot. Maybe we should stop governors from appearing in public without bulletproof glass around them, a la the pope.
 
Serenity said:
Australia wasn't mentioned in the Study.
Click to expand...
Councilman's source on Australia was sour. However, your conversation was not centered on Australia, but internationally.

Here's a reminder of the argument you're objecting to:
Councilman said:
This story by it's title alone would fit nicely in Media Bias.

When Are the Conservatives going ro just state the facts when wackos like Obama attack the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

More guns means safer for and it's overlooked and lied about every time this comes up.
Click to expand...

Councilman gave a bad source, so I stepped in and gave a good source, demonstrating that more guns = less crime, thereby validating his argument.
 
Last edited:
Temporal said:
I don't think any background checks would prevent what happened in AZ. If a crazy wants to kill a governor, then they will find the weapons, legal or not.

I would be in favour of background checks if it didn't require the government to have access to all your personal details. Rewarding states that "provide the most data" is a couched way of saying that states will be rewarded for wanton surveillance and databasing of citizens who are doing nothing wrong. The Fed has no business obtaining my personal information or using it to prevent me from purchasing a gun. That's up to my home state, and even then they better have a damn good reason for doing it.

Whenever the Fed wants to streamline anything, it usually involves stepping on state sovereignty. Yes, it's true, one state could require a background check while the other doesn't require anything, so I could just cross the border. That's just something we have to live with in a system that is supposed to respect state sovereignty.

In AZ the governor made a public appearance and got shot. Maybe we should stop governors from appearing in public without bulletproof glass around them, a la the pope.
Click to expand...

Obama wants to reward the reporting of data which is illegal to collect in my state.
 
Obama talks a smooth game. But like a magician he distracts his audience while his hands are doing something entirely different.

He might REALLY mean well this time, but his track record is leads to other conclusions.
 
Temporal said:
I don't think any background checks would prevent what happened in AZ. If a crazy wants to kill a governor, then they will find the weapons, legal or not

HTML: 
Since if they want to they are going to lets make it easier for them

I would be in favour of background checks if it didn't require the government to have access to all your personal details. Rewarding states that "provide the most data" is a couched way of saying that states will be rewarded for wanton surveillance and databasing of citizens who are doing nothing wrong. The Fed has no business obtaining my personal information or using it to prevent me from purchasing a gun. That's up to my home state, and even then they better have a damn good reason for doing it.


HTML: 
Yes lets do background checks without checking the background

Whenever the Fed wants to streamline anything, it usually involves stepping on state sovereignty. Yes, it's true, one state could require a background check while the other doesn't require anything, so I could just cross the border. That's just something we have to live with in a system that is supposed to respect state sovereignty.

HTML: 
Let's do it by city or town, hey why even bother

In AZ the governor made a public appearance and got shot. Maybe we should stop governors from appearing in public without bulletproof glass around them, a la the pope.

HTML: 
So let me see if I have this right, you want background checks that limit the scope of the check, the federal government can not have the results of the background check, if a person wants to hold public office they should not appear in public without a bullet proof glass enclosure. 

I am in favor of robo-cop technology. A fine for any person who ever leaves home without their AK47, an extra magazine of ammunition and their bullet proof light weight glass enclosure.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
chevydriver1123 said:
Other than keeping a weapon out of someone who is actually mentality screwed up there is no such thing as reasonable control. Who are you or anyone else to do decide if we lowly citizens cant have AK-47s? Government thugs can get copies, gang bangers, mobsters can get them but the lowly citizen cant? Why should a man who has served his debt to society get his right to defend himself be taken away from him?




Fixed for you
Click to expand...

Every family in Iraq was afforded one AK-47 in their household for self-defense. Where were the liberal anti-gunners protesting against that policy? The selective outrage over firearms is astounding.
 
DiAnna said:
Pity you're so uninformed. Still.
Click to expand...

Pity you have to use ad hominem attacks without any real arguments. It betrays the weakness of your position.
 
American said:
Every family in Iraq was afforded one AK-47 in their household for self-defense. Where were the liberal anti-gunners protesting against that policy? The selective outrage over firearms is astounding.
Click to expand...

Not really a liberal, but everyone seems to enjoy responding to your idiotic partisan rants, so I figure I might as well give it a try. :lol:

1) They didn't know.

2) It's Iraq so I don't care.
 
Temporal said:
Then it will remain illegal in your state, right? At least I hope so.
Click to expand...

Hopefully it will become illegal on the Federal level. Forget rewarding the reporting of that data, it should instead be severely punished.
 
MrVicchio said:
Obama talks a smooth game. But like a magician he distracts his audience while his hands are doing something entirely different.

He might REALLY mean well this time, but his track record is leads to other conclusions.
Click to expand...

On gun control, what track record do you refer to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom