• 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!

What are some gun control measures liberals advocate for?

If U.S. enacted gun control, would homicides go up, down, or stay the same?

  • Homicides would go up

    Votes: 4 25.0%

  • Homicides would go down

    Votes: 3 18.8%

  • Homicides would stay the same

    Votes: 9 56.3%
  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .
VanceMack said:
At the end of the day, its always about a gun registry. Ban what they can...register everything else.

Ive ofered a counter proposal. Anyone (unless they already have a state issued CCW) that wants to buy a gun must go to their local law enforcement agency and have NICS check done. The office will provide a certificate free of charge that is good for 30 days. They have to present the certificate to a seller (store or private) prior to purchase. Everyone is happy...right? Background checks-C/W. No gun registry. Perfect solution...except thats not what they want. They want the registry.
Click to expand...

nope-its good for life-if you are convicted of a crime etc they revoke the certificate
 
Rucker61 said:
And those professionals would likely be violating HIPAA protections, too.
Click to expand...

and creating a chilling effect upon people seeking mental health care. if you are rational enough to KNOW you NEED some help you are probably rational enough to know that if you seek help, (under some Democrat gun banner proposals) that means the police would show up at your house to confiscate every firearm you own. So what would you do?

exactly, not seek help and get worse and worse and worse.

One of the reasons why we have a doctor-patient privilege in Court (I have tried over 30 federal jury trials including one that involved a doctor who told the VA security forces that a patient threatened to kill another patient-a duty the doctor was under to report this threat), is because SOCIETY has determined that the value of people being honest with their doctors overrides the probative value of violating that confidence. Same with Penitent-priest and of course Lawyer-client. those who are itching to DO SOMETHING about "crazy" people shooting others ignore the entire reason behind the doctor=patient privilege. and they almost NEVER consider the consequences
 
TurtleDude said:
nope-its good for life-if you are convicted of a crime etc they revoke the certificate
Click to expand...
Compromise. I could work with that.

Point being...nothing matters to the anti-gun left. They want a gun registry and they know background checks per specific gun is the way to make it happen.
 
VanceMack said:
Compromise. I could work with that.

Point being...nothing matters to the anti-gun left. They want a gun registry and they know background checks per specific gun is the way to make it happen.
Click to expand...

at one time some of the gun controllers really were motivated by a desire to increase public safety. That era has long passed. ITs useless to compromise with people who are not even honest about their motivations. Their goal is to ban private firearms ownership by anyone other than their elites.
 
"at one time some of the gun controllers really were motivated by a desire to increase public safety. That era has long passed. ITs useless to compromise with people who are not even honest about their motivations. Their goal is to ban private firearms ownership by anyone other than their elites." TD #54
Click to expand...
Can you prove President Obama's 2nd Amendment aspirations were dishonest?

And if you were right, if their motivation is not what they say it is,
then they'd need some alternate motivation.

Just what is that alternate motivation you imply, but do not specify? An extra $3% $commission from the no-gun lobby?!
 
sear said:
Can you prove President Obama's 2nd Amendment aspirations were dishonest?

And if you were right, if their motivation is not what they say it is,
then they'd need some alternate motivation.

Just what is that alternate motivation you imply, but do not specify? An extra $3% $commission from the no-gun lobby?!
Click to expand...

Legacy. Every anti-gun politician would love to go down in history as the person who got guns banned in America.
 
VanceMack said:
Compromise. I could work with that.

Point being...nothing matters to the anti-gun left. They want a gun registry and they know background checks per specific gun is the way to make it happen.
Click to expand...

Yep, and obviously a registry can choose which type of guns can be registered and by which type of people and, of course, with reasonable restrictions including a fee. Sure you can keep that (scary?) semi-auto rifle (or pistol) but since it has "high capacity" magazine potential it requires proof of federally approved "private" insurance (yep, that has now become constitutional), passing a training/safety course (the new definition of well regulated) and a to pay "modest" $100 annual registration fee (let's call it a tax to ensure that it is constitutional) to cover "administrative costs". ;)
 
Just an idea, but how about we apply all the rules to gun purchases and ownership, to voting.
The are after all both fundamental constitutional rights.
So background checks, identification, fees, ect.
 
VanceMack said:
Like it or not we live in a nation of laws. Further...we live under at least the theory of 'states rights' so like it or not, places like California are going to hit you with even MORE restrictions. Sucks...dont it?
Click to expand...

The constitution is the supreme law. States cant make laws which infringe on the right to bear arms. They already agreed to that when entering the union.
 
jonny5 said:
The constitution is the supreme law. States cant make laws which infringe on the right to bear arms. They already agreed to that when entering the union.
Click to expand...

They can if they're in the 2nd, 4th, 7th or 9th districts, evidently.
 
longview said:
Just an idea, but how about we apply all the rules to gun purchases and ownership, to voting.
The are after all both fundamental constitutional rights.
So background checks, identification, fees, ect.
Click to expand...

Nope, it would (rightly) be called a poll tax - thus clearly unconstitutional.
 
ataraxia said:
Why has the NRA pushed through legislation banning pediatricians' offices from talking to parents about the potential dangers of guns in the home to children? It is one of the top reasons of accidental death/dismemberment/blindness in young children in this country. This danger does not exist in any other developed nation. Pediatricians are allowed to educate the parents on the dangers of leaving the bleach within easy access of small children, or locking away grandma's heart medication, or plugging the electric outlets. Why should guns be different? It's crazy.

When states practice medicine: Physician gag laws | The Bulletin

And why has the NRA lobbied to cut funding to all further research on the public health impact of guns in communities?

Gun violence research: History of the federal funding freeze

It was because all the research was starting to show that owning guns by individuals and communities not only did not make for more safety- it actually increased the risk of violent crime, as well as suicide, not to mention domestic abuse and intimidation.

Gun advocates are so worried about potential big government tyranny that they do not realize they have created a dangerous, corrupt tyrant out of a lobby group which only cares about money for itself and does not have their interest at heart. You might as well give that much power and influence to RJ Reynolds.
Click to expand...

It's not the governments job to train children, it's the parents job. [we have laws that hold parents accountable] What the government is trying to do is a back-door census of how many guns are in your home.
 
jonny5 said:
The constitution is the supreme law. States cant make laws which infringe on the right to bear arms. They already agreed to that when entering the union.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, "infringed" has not yet been interpreted (by the SCOTUS) as being the same as "abridged or denied". Also it seems that the rules for keep and bear can be separate and distinct (as if the 2A read keep or bear) - sure you can buy (keep?) that handgun but you need a special state license to carry (bear?) it.
 
Winston said:
Well, I don't know. Guns and by extensions gun control, is not a subject I'm well versed in. It looks like this law may be sufficient. Does that mean drug addicts are prevented from owning guns? If they've been to a "mental health facility"?? Or, just people who've been institutionalized in state hospitals?

I vaguely recall some outrage, in the past 3-4 months, over congress allowing the mentally ill's access to guns.
Click to expand...

A major problem would be the government having the ability to say who's mentally ill and who's not.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, it would (rightly) be called a poll tax - thus clearly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
It was ruled unconstitutional because it had the potential to disenfranchised voters.
The same applies the laws that limit gun ownership.
 
longview said:
It was ruled unconstitutional because it had the potential to disenfranchised voters.
The same applies the laws that limit gun ownership.
Click to expand...

That is not the case unless and until the SCOTUS says that is so. Many states have gotten away with laws that treat keep and bear as if it was keep or bear. Also a right of the people should be applicable to (protected from?) all levels of government - not just the federal government.
 
jonny5 said:
The constitution is the supreme law. States cant make laws which infringe on the right to bear arms. They already agreed to that when entering the union.
Click to expand...
And yet...New York, Connecticut, California, Illinois all have passed laws which severely restrict gun owners rights and are counter to findings regarding federal Constitutional standards.
 
VanceMack said:
And yet...New York, Connecticut, California, Illinois all have passed laws which severely restrict gun owners rights and are counter to findings regarding federal Constitutional standards.
Click to expand...

Right, illegally.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Unfortunately, "infringed" has not yet been interpreted (by the SCOTUS) as being the same as "abridged or denied". Also it seems that the rules for keep and bear can be separate and distinct (as if the 2A read keep or bear) - sure you can buy (keep?) that handgun but you need a special state license to carry (bear?) it.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS can be just as wrong and illegal as any other branch. Ultimately the people have to hold them accountable. Stop electing people who write laws, enforce laws, or judge laws that allow for unconstitutional action.
 
Winston said:
What are the gun control measures liberals advocate for? I know people were scared Obama was going to confiscate all guns. I think conservatives worked themselves into a frenzy about gun confiscation. That was never Obama's policy, I don't think he ever thought that would be constitutional or, a good policy.

If confiscation isn't a liberal policy, what is an example of one? Background checks? Banning certain weapons? And do you think homicides would go up, down, or stay the same, if the U.S. did some gun control?
Click to expand...

I don't think it would make much, if any difference in a nation as large and diverse as ours. But federal gun control, other than what can be brought across the borders, would mark the beginning of the end of the U.S. Constitution and further erosion of the individual rights that makes the USA the amazing and exceptional nation that it is.
 
TurtleDude said:
nope-its good for life-if you are convicted of a crime etc they revoke the certificate
Click to expand...

Should this apply to other certificates and licences? ie marriage, driving, professional practice....

Ie domestic violence revoke the marriage certificate, driving pull the licence and bad practice pull the licence on medical, legal... practitioners.
 
Winston said:
What are the gun control measures liberals advocate for? I know people were scared Obama was going to confiscate all guns. I think conservatives worked themselves into a frenzy about gun confiscation. That was never Obama's policy, I don't think he ever thought that would be constitutional or, a good policy.

If confiscation isn't a liberal policy, what is an example of one? Background checks? Banning certain weapons? And do you think homicides would go up, down, or stay the same, if the U.S. did some gun control?
Click to expand...



Available evidence indicates gun control has near-zero effect on violent crime.... if anything it might go up slightly over time.


Criminals don't obey the law. Absent an enforcement mechanism that makes a major impact on criminals, you're simply making self-defense by the lawful more difficult.



It's not so much that the fear was Obama was going to enact confiscation next Tuesday, as that confiscation is the end-game of the anti-gun crowd.... at least, of much of their leadership... over time via incrementalism.

Universal registration is typically the first step in that direction.
 
Crimefree said:
Should this apply to other certificates and licences? ie marriage, driving, professional practice....

Ie domestic violence revoke the marriage certificate, driving pull the licence and bad practice pull the licence on medical, legal... practitioners.
Click to expand...

we know bannerrhoids wouldn't agree to this so its a moot question anyway
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom