• 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!

Trump Says Florida Students Should Have Done More To Prevent Deadly Shooting

MSgt said:
These are two different issues. Rolling back an Obama-era rule about the nutcases amounts to allowing the nutcases to legally purchase weapons. A nut case does not get to share my rights, thereby increasing the likelihood of me losing mine.
Click to expand...

It isn't about "nutcases." I already told you what it's actually about.

I won't repeat it; you just don't care to know.


Let's take a look at the record of what I exactly stated....



Notice he word assault is in quotes, to signify what others like to classify it as. Notice that my definition was confined to it being a civlianized version of the M-16. What followed was me defining what the purpose of an M-16 is. Your response to define how an M-16 is civilianized was pointless and had nothing to do with arguing against anything I stated.

So **** your sad idea of what truth is. **** your sad little need to impress me with what an M16 is. And **** your unnecessary insults to my integrity.
Click to expand...

I acknowledged that it's a civilanized version of the M16, and then explained 1) that it doesn't matter, and 2) that the oonly reason to make the connection is to spook people who don't know better.

As you should know that, and considering all else you've done here, the dishonesty and disingenuousness is obvious.
 
MSgt said:
For me, this whole thing started with Columbine in 1999. Before that we saw the occasional mass shooting and regarded it as a "postal" issue because it was always within the adult world where some person just really got pissed off and was finished with his life. And the Kennedy assassination was an isolated and precise targeting issue.

But now? After we now have preschools, movie premiers, Vegas concerts, and plenty of other high schools involved, we certainly turned a corner along the way. Monkey see, monkey do. In Europe the radicals like driving cars and trucks into crowds of people. Somebody started it. In China, knife wielding kooks like to slash kids in schools. Somebody started it. For us, we like to slaughter kids and adults with guns. Who/what started this?

This thread, and others like it, will do exactly what society does: it will be pointless and result in nothing. Corners in America have been turned only after major events (Civil War, Great Depression). Quite simply, we haven't personally suffered nearly enough to care about our neighbor and his contribution to the whole.

* And I absolutely love the Colt .45 (1911 model).
Click to expand...


I saw a chart some years ago, beginning with two cases ion the 1920's which could have been mob, the line doesn't move. Then that clock tower shooting. and how they were at one point very far apart, but began merging as time went on.

One strikes my mind as a Canadian criminologist was involved were two men in a converted car shooting from the rear and killing people at random in the DC area.

What happened at Columbine was the first where mental illness was clearly involved, and the first with 'low hanging fruit" teens and children. From there all types begin to escalate.

Now here's an issue for me. A Muslim tries to kill some people, the nation goes nuts and laws are changed etc.

but this just keeps happening and the same debate keeps taking place. I'd suggest people need to look at that
 
MSgt said:
Oh...it confirmed part of it, right? The only part you wish to be the "truth" so you can argue around the whole gun control point of it.
Click to expand...

What part of what I said wasn't confirmed?

Yes, when you deal in partisan hack jobs, you will always be wrong. You were the one that argued against it having to do with mentally ill gun issues. And when it was rolled back, it was the NRA that publicly applauded, meaning that it was absolutely about guns. You...were...wrong.
Click to expand...

I didn't "deal" with any "partisan hacks." The only group I mentioned was the ACLU. Again, if you think that because gun rights advocates opposed the regulation, what I said about what it does is wrong, then that is indeed daft, ignorant, disingenuous, and dishonest.
 
I'm surprised Trump didn't hand out MAGA hats to all the survivors ............
 
Fearandloathing said:
I saw a chart some years ago, beginning with two cases ion the 1920's which could have been mob, the line doesn't move. Then that clock tower shooting. and how they were at one point very far apart, but began merging as time went on.

One strikes my mind as a Canadian criminologist was involved were two men in a converted car shooting from the rear and killing people at random in the DC area.

What happened at Columbine was the first where mental illness was clearly involved, and the first with 'low hanging fruit" teens and children. From there all types begin to escalate.

Now here's an issue for me. A Muslim tries to kill some people, the nation goes nuts and laws are changed etc.

but this just keeps happening and the same debate keeps taking place. I'd suggest people need to look at that
Click to expand...

That's because "the Muslim" has taken place of "the communist." Everything else -home-grown terrorism, social developments, globalization, Constitutional progression- is too messy and takes too much time from our favorite television show.

As a people, we are notorious for defining everything in the simplest terms possible. National Security Strategies (NSS) (or "Foreign Policy" because even that must be reduced to a simple term) have long sought to define the world and our place in it as a vague slogan that allows for a wide interpretation. This is where I tend to digress into my strong suit so I will spare you and the thread. But, my core point is that we avoid the real issues for our desired ideologies. When it comes to our guns, we prefer the simple Second Amendment argument to the mess of sorting through how best to celebrate that right responsibly.
 
BigRob said:
Yes - and your constitutionally protected rights are no more forfeit if it happens again too.


"Liberal" is used here to describe a typical reaction among self-identified Democrats that is everywhere in the news and social media at the moment.



I think that is the argument already being made - and I think it is idiotic. My constitutionally protected rights are not forfeit because a lunatic went nuts with a gun. If you want to change the 2nd amendment there is a process spelled out to do just that. The simple fact is that the country doesn't want to do that...period.

Sitting there screeching "shove the 2nd amendment up your ass" might make you feel better - but short of just ensuring that the majority of the country ignores you I'm not sure what else you actually accomplish.



They do - and this lunatic will hopefully be put to death. But none of that negates what the Constitution says. Do we expect to forfeit our 1st amendment rights because someone said something stupid? Do we throw away our 4th amendment rights if crime ticks up? No - the premise is absurd - just as the premise is absurd that a lunatic with a gun negates the 2nd amendment for millions of law abiding, responsible gun owners.
Click to expand...


Well, now that we have seen the usual irrational rants based on ignorance, why not try some common sense (and I know I am asking the impossible). Just as a point, the majority of the people support stricter gun control laws.

There are quotes by the Founders, and I believe Sam Adams was one, that the people should be armed just as the military is armed. This would prevent the military from being able to overcome the people with missiles, bazookas, etc. However, over time the government has banned such weapons from civilian ownership. Yet the foolish ones do not consider this an "infringement". Why? Public safety is the main reason.

Now we have yet another case where public safety is at risk. And we have one of two ways to go. Either ban the most dangerous of weapons, or arm more people. Common sense would tell the sane person that arming more people will only create a greater threat. However, common sense is not the rule of the land anymore. Only fear mongering, and lies. Maybe you should consider arming your children/grandchildren so they can "protect themselves" since you cannot do so 24/7. Maybe a small .25 semi auto for ther little ones, then graduate to a .380, then the 9mm.

The Constitution does not guarantee that you can own an AR, or any semi-automatic weapon. Under the convoluted ruling of Heller you are only guaranteed the right to own a weapon be it a single shot, a bolt action, or a pump, period. If that is not good enough then tough ****. YOU change the Constitution, or the rulings of SCOTUS.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ult-weapons-en-banc-4th-circuit-idUSKBN1612PU

"But that is not the big news from Judge King’s opinion, which was joined in full by nine of the 14 judges who heard the en banc appeal. The 4th Circuit held that Maryland’s ban on military-style assault rifles is constitutional regardless of the standard of scrutiny because the Second Amendment does not give civilians a right to own such weapons.....

Gun rights advocates are not going to like this decision at all, not least because it turns the words of their favorite U.S. Supreme Court ruling, 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, against them. In the Heller opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia struck down the District’s ban on handguns, holding that the Second Amendment gives citizens a right to own weapons “in common use at the time.” Justice Scalia said, however, that not every gun meets that definition. “The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” he wrote in Heller. Specifically, the Heller opinion cited “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,’” such as “weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like.”"
 
Old Trapper said:
Well, now that we have seen the usual irrational rants based on ignorance, why not try some common sense (and I know I am asking the impossible). Just as a point, the majority of the people support stricter gun control laws.

There are quotes by the Founders, and I believe Sam Adams was one, that the people should be armed just as the military is armed. This would prevent the military from being able to overcome the people with missiles, bazookas, etc. However, over time the government has banned such weapons from civilian ownership. Yet the foolish ones do not consider this an "infringement". Why? Public safety is the main reason.

Now we have yet another case where public safety is at risk. And we have one of two ways to go. Either ban the most dangerous of weapons, or arm more people. Common sense would tell the sane person that arming more people will only create a greater threat. However, common sense is not the rule of the land anymore. Only fear mongering, and lies. Maybe you should consider arming your children/grandchildren so they can "protect themselves" since you cannot do so 24/7. Maybe a small .25 semi auto for ther little ones, then graduate to a .380, then the 9mm.

The Constitution does not guarantee that you can own an AR, or any semi-automatic weapon. Under the convoluted ruling of Heller you are only guaranteed the right to own a weapon be it a single shot, a bolt action, or a pump, period. If that is not good enough then tough ****. YOU change the Constitution, or the rulings of SCOTUS.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ult-weapons-en-banc-4th-circuit-idUSKBN1612PU

"But that is not the big news from Judge King’s opinion, which was joined in full by nine of the 14 judges who heard the en banc appeal. The 4th Circuit held that Maryland’s ban on military-style assault rifles is constitutional regardless of the standard of scrutiny because the Second Amendment does not give civilians a right to own such weapons.....

Gun rights advocates are not going to like this decision at all, not least because it turns the words of their favorite U.S. Supreme Court ruling, 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, against them. In the Heller opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia struck down the District’s ban on handguns, holding that the Second Amendment gives citizens a right to own weapons “in common use at the time.” Justice Scalia said, however, that not every gun meets that definition. “The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” he wrote in Heller. Specifically, the Heller opinion cited “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,’” such as “weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like.”"
Click to expand...

Assault rifles, including M-16s, are not legal today (at least, not without a special permit). You won't find more than a very narrow group supporting a change in this. Note that the weapon used in Florida was neither. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle, and is not used by the military. It is cosmetically similar, but not the same thing.
 
HenryChinaski said:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-shooting-students_us_5a8591f9e4b0ab6daf468ba3 No comment from me, I'm just sitting here shaking My head.
Click to expand...

Being clinically labeled as mentally ill - has to include "a danger to self and others" - and such a diagnosis is required for a person to be reported. If no such diagnosis was made it's unlike intervention by any law enforcement would happen.

There's a lot of homeless folks who have fairly serious forms of mental illness, but there's no long-term institution to place them.
 
Removable Mind said:
Being clinically labeled as mentally ill - has to include "a danger to self and others" - and such a diagnosis is required for a person to be reported. If no such diagnosis was made it's unlike intervention by any law enforcement would happen.

There's a lot of homeless folks who have fairly serious forms of mental illness, but there's no long-term institution to place them.
Click to expand...
You’re right and Reagan got the ball rolling on that.
 
Old Trapper said:
Well, now that we have seen the usual irrational rants based on ignorance, why not try some common sense (and I know I am asking the impossible). Just as a point, the majority of the people support stricter gun control laws.

There are quotes by the Founders, and I believe Sam Adams was one, that the people should be armed just as the military is armed. This would prevent the military from being able to overcome the people with missiles, bazookas, etc. However, over time the government has banned such weapons from civilian ownership. Yet the foolish ones do not consider this an "infringement". Why? Public safety is the main reason.

Now we have yet another case where public safety is at risk. And we have one of two ways to go. Either ban the most dangerous of weapons, or arm more people. Common sense would tell the sane person that arming more people will only create a greater threat. However, common sense is not the rule of the land anymore. Only fear mongering, and lies. Maybe you should consider arming your children/grandchildren so they can "protect themselves" since you cannot do so 24/7. Maybe a small .25 semi auto for ther little ones, then graduate to a .380, then the 9mm.

The Constitution does not guarantee that you can own an AR, or any semi-automatic weapon. Under the convoluted ruling of Heller you are only guaranteed the right to own a weapon be it a single shot, a bolt action, or a pump, period. If that is not good enough then tough ****. YOU change the Constitution, or the rulings of SCOTUS.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ult-weapons-en-banc-4th-circuit-idUSKBN1612PU

"But that is not the big news from Judge King’s opinion, which was joined in full by nine of the 14 judges who heard the en banc appeal. The 4th Circuit held that Maryland’s ban on military-style assault rifles is constitutional regardless of the standard of scrutiny because the Second Amendment does not give civilians a right to own such weapons.....

Gun rights advocates are not going to like this decision at all, not least because it turns the words of their favorite U.S. Supreme Court ruling, 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, against them. In the Heller opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia struck down the District’s ban on handguns, holding that the Second Amendment gives citizens a right to own weapons “in common use at the time.” Justice Scalia said, however, that not every gun meets that definition. “The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” he wrote in Heller. Specifically, the Heller opinion cited “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,’” such as “weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like.”"
Click to expand...

This is idiotic. Semi-auto rifles ARE typically possessed, and in common use for lawful purposes. Millions and millions of them. The vaaaaast majority of guns are semi-auto.

Do you know what the important difference between the AR-15 and the M16 is?
 
Last edited:
Casper said:
According to what I read this morning the FBI had been aware of the shooter, so much for their reaction. Thing is with the laws as they stand what can they or any other law enforcement agency actually do, most are set up to react to crimes after they have been committed, not dealing with nutjobs that have yet to commit a serious crime.
Click to expand...

FBI gets a tip a bank is gonna be robbed, they stake out the bank.

FBI gets a tip that there is a potential suspect planning a shooting spree they do what? Nothing.

Can they?

Interview? Yes

Surveil? Yes

Can they say, "We've got our eyes on you buddy, so if you're planning on doing something foolish, think again."? Yes

and most will think again.

Those that won't?

1. Legitimate nutcases

2. Terrorist
 
Harshaw said:
This is idiotic. Semi-auto rifles ARE typically possessed, and in common use for lawful purposes. Millions and millions of them. The vaaaaast majority of guns are semi-auto.

Do you know what the important difference between the AR-15 and the M16 is?
Click to expand...

One is full auto, the other is semi-auto, and with the bump stock there is very little difference.

Now, while you might think the ruling of the Court is idiotic it is the "Law of the Land", or will soon be.
 
dcsports said:
Assault rifles, including M-16s, are not legal today (at least, not without a special permit). You won't find more than a very narrow group supporting a change in this. Note that the weapon used in Florida was neither. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle, and is not used by the military. It is cosmetically similar, but not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it's scary looking so those that are fearful don't want to see it.

i'm also sick of hearing the BS "the majority of people want more gun control"

That's a crock of ****.
 
Old Trapper said:
One is full auto, the other is semi-auto, and with the bump stock there is very little difference.

Now, while you might think the ruling of the Court is idiotic it is the "Law of the Land", or will soon be.
Click to expand...

No, I said your argument is idiotic, and it is. And unless the Supreme Court specifically affirms the lower court ruling -- not just decline to take the case -- no, it will not be "the law of the land."
 
Harshaw said:
No, I said your argument is idiotic, and it is. And unless the Supreme Court specifically affirms the lower court ruling -- not just decline to take the case -- no, it will not be "the law of the land."
Click to expand...


My argument is based on the rulings of the Court. Their argument is based on Scalia's ruling in Heller, and it can easily be assumed that SCOTUS will uphold them.
 
Old Trapper said:
My argument is based on the rulings of the Court. Their argument is based on Scalia's ruling in Heller, and it can easily be assumed that SCOTUS will uphold them.
Click to expand...

No, it cannot be assumed, not least because making such assumptions is always kind of stupid, but also for the reasons I already stated. Their reasoning is faulty. Their assessment (and yours) of what is in common use is just plain wrong.
 
Lutherf said:
Yeah, fascinating that the FBI can get a FISA warrant on a US citizen because the opposing campaign says he might be a problem but they can't manage to investigate a kid who actually makes a threat and has a social media history and a school conduct history bad enough that the school wouldn't let him on campus with a backpack.

This whole "I tried. It didn't work. Let's blame the NRA and Donald Trump" shtick falls a little flat right now.
Click to expand...

It always falls flat, save for the times when its on something of a legitimate issue... which it almost never is.
 
Lutherf said:
Yeah, fascinating that the FBI can get a FISA warrant on a US citizen because the opposing campaign says he might be a problem but they can't manage to investigate a kid who actually makes a threat and has a social media history and a school conduct history bad enough that the school wouldn't let him on campus with a backpack.

This whole "I tried. It didn't work. Let's blame the NRA and Donald Trump" shtick falls a little flat right now.
Click to expand...

Great, an enormous oversimplification of the FISA case which you cannot state it was done due to the "opposing side saying that person may be a problem" because you cannot claim that without knowing the specifics of the FISA warrant request.

And while I agree that the FBI missed a few steps in the case of the school shooter, but comparing the 2 things is like comparing apples and peas (because it goes beyond apples and pears). I am pretty sure there are not a lot of cases for the part of the bureau which investigates potential treason and the regular FBI warnings for potential shooters, one will investigate only a few cases where the other most likely gets overrun with warnings about possible dangerous individuals.

And the blame for Trump is valid, he scrapped loads of Obama rules because they were made by Obama (in his Obama hatred obsession IMHO) like about guns and people with mental issues. Also, if you think the blame for the NRA falls flat :lamo yeah sure.
 
Harshaw said:
No, it cannot be assumed, not least because making such assumptions is always kind of stupid, but also for the reasons I already stated. Their reasoning is faulty. Their assessment (and yours) of what is in common use is just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

Being stupid is not understanding how the court system works. To use your irrational logic is to presume SCOTUS will reverse its prior position. Rarely happens, and will not now. There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees what kind of a weapon you can own. It only says you cannot be deprived of the right to own a weapon. And the types of weapons have been regulated in the past. Can you legally own a machine gun without a special permit? How about a bazooka, missile, etc.? Hand grenades? "Common use" is a useless argument. And Scalia noted that in his ruling.

You do not need a semi-automatic to hunt with, to defend yourself, or for much of any purpose aside from as a "toy".
 
Old Trapper said:
Being stupid is not understanding how the court system works.
Click to expand...

No, I understand quite well how it works. It's people who say we "can easily assume" the Supreme Court will do anything who don't, especially on a novel question.

To use your irrational logic is to presume SCOTUS will reverse its prior position. Rarely happens, and will not now.
Click to expand...

It won't reverse its prior position. It doesn't have to.

It only your idiotic notion that semi-automatics aren't in common use for lawful purposes which is "irrational."

But let's get specific.

Do you think semi-automatics are not in common use?

Or do you think they aren't commonly used for lawful purposes?

Or both?

Not that it matters; any of those choices is factually wrong, and only shows ignorance of the issue.

You do not need a semi-automatic to hunt with, to defend yourself, or for much of any purpose aside from as a "toy".
Click to expand...

More ignorance. "Need" has nothing to do with it. Not with the Heller decision, and not with rights in general.
 
'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.

:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom