• 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!

There is nothing we can do...

Thorgasm said:
As long as there are guns, these incidents will happen. Guns aren't going anywhere.
Click to expand...

Which is why we as a society, as a people, as a nation need to badly stop thinking of GUNS as one massive entity and start distinguishing and discriminating between types of guns.
 
Chillfolks said:
as long as they are free or priced low (under 20) I have no problem with this.
you loose me on this one but would would be willing to explore more to see if we have common ground would be willing to say ok to this as long as police and citizens both are restricted
already illegal but let's make punishment execution for modification


So much for not taking away personal protection, hunting, or sport. What you're really saying is you and others want to take away and restrict guns based on what you guys see as a need and every one else just has to deal. Typical two faced approach. Trust us we're not here for your guns but we demand you give up these guns.
Click to expand...

do you operate under the delusion that GUNS are some unitary entity that its either ALL or NOTHING?

And to think for just a moment I thought you were reasonable.
 
Northern Light said:
As I said in another thread, what we need is Federal level research on gun violence, but it's continually blocked by congress and pro-gun lobbying. Because there is no government data, we are stuck with biased research organizations, the media, and partisans to debate endlessly the root causes of mass shootings.

We can speculate and come up with some very likely causes (like psychiatric issues), but the fact is we don't know for sure. It's like nobody wants to know the real truth because it might mean some serious soul searching for our country.
Click to expand...
I would absolutely support thorough government-funded studies to provide regular, accurate, detailed reports (every 6-12 months?) on gun usage (especially misuse) in the US.
 
Josie said:
Are you suggesting that anyone with family members who have mental issues shouldn't be allowed to own a gun?
Click to expand...

I asked the previous poster what they would do.
Back to you for an answer
Question was clear.
What would you do?
 
haymarket said:
Which is why we as a society, as a people, as a nation need to badly stop thinking of GUNS as one massive entity and start distinguishing and discriminating between types of guns.
Click to expand...

Why? Does the Constitution distinguish thusly?
 
haymarket said:
Which is why we as a society, as a people, as a nation need to badly stop thinking of GUNS as one massive entity and start distinguishing and discriminating between types of guns.
Click to expand...


Full auto is already heavily restricted and rarely available to any but the wealthy.

If you want to ban any weapon that can be converted to full auto by a person with some knowledge and basic skills.... that's going to be a ****load of guns banned.

And even if you did there's still illegal channels, like Charlie Hebdo attackers got their full auto weapons.

And bombs. And vehicles. And planes.


Until we address how people get to this point that they are willing to kill masses of strangers, and how to deal with that, I guess we just all need to give up everything from guns and cars and planes to sharp scissors.
 
haymarket said:
do you operate under the delusion that GUNS are some unitary entity that its either ALL or NOTHING?

And to think for just a moment I thought you were reasonable.
Click to expand...



No I just see threw the dishonesty. I can respect an approach that says I want to ban XYZ over I don't want to ban anything OH BTW let's ban these things.

Cops and Civilians limited to 15 round mags I support. Restrict Bump Stocks I support. Just don't lie and say you don't wanna take stiff away from people when that is your objective.
 
Rucker61 said:
Why? Does the Constitution distinguish thusly?
Click to expand...

And the freaking point is that the Constitution says NOTHING about protecting GUNS as a class. NOTHING. It protects a citizens right to keep and bear arms. It clearly does not say ANY ARMS or ALL ARMS or ANY DAMN ARM I WANT TO HAVE AND SCREW YOU IF YOU DONT APPROVE. None of that is in the Constitution.

You can have your right to keep and bear arms and still have universal background checks.

You can have your right to keep and bear arms and still have magazine size limits.

You can have your right to keep and bear arms and still have bans on certain weapons like automatic weapons or those than can be adapted as such.
 
Chillfolks said:
No I just see threw the dishonesty. I can respect an approach that says I want to ban XYZ over I don't want to ban anything OH BTW let's ban these things.

Cops and Civilians limited to 15 round mags I support. Restrict Bump Stocks I support. Just don't lie and say you don't wanna take stiff away from people when that is your objective.
Click to expand...

Cops have not a damn thing to do with it. You want the weapons of a freakin cop? Become one of them. Otherwise it has nothing to do with this.
 
JANFU said:
So background screening, renewable ( time limits etc to be determined and reasonable - not part of this discussion - fair??), family with weapons, weapons are not secured have a person with an MI in their house, reports etc from Drs/police etc. person is known to be a danger to themselves/others. Well documented.

Should the weapons be secured in the house?
Should the weapons be removed till the circumstances change?
Nothing occurs as this is a 1 A right to possess weapons?

You are the one that make the decision.
What do you do?
Click to expand...

Yes, the weapons should be secured - but under Heller the owner cannot be compelled to do so. No, the government does not have the right to remove the firearms. The medical staff should be very careful of their obligations with regards to HIPAA.
 
Goshin said:
Full auto is already heavily restricted and rarely available to any but the wealthy.

If you want to ban any weapon that can be converted to full auto by a person with some knowledge and basic skills.... that's going to be a ****load of guns banned.
Click to expand...

SO?

And even if you did there's still illegal channels, like Charlie Hebdo attackers got their full auto weapons.
Click to expand...

Of course there are. So lets have the death penalty for that crime.
Until we address how people get to this point that they are willing to kill masses of strangers, and how to deal with that, I guess we just all need to give up everything from guns and cars and planes to sharp scissors.
Click to expand...

I fully support that effort.

Why does America have 5% of the worlds people and 30% of mass gun killings? If anyone thinks the availability of guns is not part of the answer - they are delusional and not rational.
 
haymarket said:
And the freaking point is that the Constitution says NOTHING about protecting GUNS as a class. NOTHING. It protects a citizens right to keep and bear arms. It clearly does not say ANY ARMS or ALL ARMS or ANY DAMN ARM I WANT TO HAVE AND SCREW YOU IF YOU DONT APPROVE. None of that is in the Constitution.

You can have your right to keep and bear arms and still have universal background checks.

You can have your right to keep and bear arms and still have magazine size limits.

You can have your right to keep and bear arms and still have bans on certain weapons like automatic weapons or those than can be adapted as such.
Click to expand...

Universal background checks, regardless of Constitutionality, are not effective or enforceable with comprehensive registration. The DOJ was unequivocal on that. Magazine capacity restrictions, regardless of Constitutionality, are not proven to reduce crime and on the face of the restrictions violate Miller and Heller. Governments have selected arbitrary values for limits with no actual science to back them up, and if a capacity restriction of 10 is constitutional there is nothing to say that a limit of 2 is unconstitutional. Bans on semi-automatic rifles violate Miller and Heller, and would have no measurable effect on crime at all.
 
haymarket said:
Cops have not a damn thing to do with it. You want the weapons of a freakin cop? Become one of them. Otherwise it has nothing to do with this.
Click to expand...


Cops are far from saints.


Did you know one of the two known murders committed with a full auto weapon in the past 100 years was done by a cop?

On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies. "
Click to expand...
 
Rucker61 said:
Yes, the weapons should be secured - but under Heller the owner cannot be compelled to do so. No, the government does not have the right to remove the firearms. The medical staff should be very careful of their obligations with regards to HIPAA.
Click to expand...

Pls quote the portions of Heller that support you point. I am only slightly familiar with Heller, and that was due to time frame that it took person to receive a permit, due to restrictions imposed it could take years.
 
haymarket said:
Cops have not a damn thing to do with it. You want the weapons of a freakin cop? Become one of them. Otherwise it has nothing to do with this.
Click to expand...

I was thinking you were a reasonable person and we could try and work on a solution. But nope it's your way Or no way. You're not looking for what we can do, you just want to dictate everyone must follow your vision only.
 
haymarket said:
SO?



Of course there are. So lets have the death penalty for that crime.


I fully support that effort.

Why does America have 5% of the worlds people and 30% of mass gun killings? If anyone thinks the availability of guns is not part of the answer - they are delusional and not rational.
Click to expand...



For one thing, there's that pesky Second Amendment.

For another, there's no way in hell you'd get mass agreement to ban all semi-autos. Even if you did, there's millions upon tens of millions upon more millions already in circulation.

For a third, instead of addressing mass shootings only you need to consider all mass murder.... dead is dead. Lotta mass murder all over the world, sometimes with illegal guns, sometimes with bombs, sometimes with cars and planes.
 
Lutherf said:
If you took the time to look at the Mother Jones data you would get an idea of how effective such a scheme would be. You probably won't bother to do so and you probably won't believe the data if you do look because it's not from a government source but it's there.

Have you seen the way politics works in this country? If a report dispelling all these gun myths is prepared under a Republican government the Democrats and their supporters will dismiss it as biased and the situation will flip if a damning report is issued under a Democrat administration. The reason for that is because nobody in government is really concerned about public safety. They're only concerned about political "optics".
Click to expand...

I will read it, don't worry. I've just read so many things like it.

I think the obstacles you mention in congress could be bypassed with an independent, bipartisan or non-partisan panel. But neither side would approve that either because they'd want their party to have control over it somehow.

Really, our government doesn't represent us anymore, just their big business interests. So we're not yet living in a time when the proper research can be done. For that, we'd need a congress that puts the American people first. :shrug:
 
haymarket said:
It really does not matter how many are killed and how often. The NRA and the right wingers who cling to it like a religion will never agree to do one damn thing about guns.
Click to expand...

Eventually it's going to get so bad that they'll have to, lest we devolved into a third-world country of violence.
 
Thorgasm said:
There are no feasible solutions. People wishing to carry out these heinous acts will always be able to.
Click to expand...

The US has more mass shootings than any other nation in the world- by far. We are literally off the chart. Obviously there are solutions to making this better, because the other countries are doing it. We just don't want to do it.

mass.jpg
 
Rucker61 said:
Universal background checks, regardless of Constitutionality, are not effective or enforceable with comprehensive registration. The DOJ was unequivocal on that. Magazine capacity restrictions, regardless of Constitutionality, are not proven to reduce crime and on the face of the restrictions violate Miller and Heller. Governments have selected arbitrary values for limits with no actual science to back them up, and if a capacity restriction of 10 is constitutional there is nothing to say that a limit of 2 is unconstitutional. Bans on semi-automatic rifles violate Miller and Heller, and would have no measurable effect on crime at all.
Click to expand...

Screw the slippery slope and those who live on it.

The American people have a right to have the society they want. And if they want those things as part of the quality of life here, they are entitled to it.

Why do you pretend that isolating each one of these things and pretending it has no effect on crime is the standard for passing these laws?

That is intellectual fraud of the worst stripe .
 
Goshin said:
Cops are far from saints.


Did you know one of the two known murders committed with a full auto weapon in the past 100 years was done by a cop?
Click to expand...

I never said they were. What I said is if you want to have the weapons a cop has - join the damn force. Ot shut up about it because you are NOT a freakin cop.
 
JANFU said:
Pls quote the portions of Heller that support you point. I am only slightly familiar with Heller, and that was due to time frame that it took person to receive a permit, due to restrictions imposed it could take years.
Click to expand...

" The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

Gun owners can't be force to keep guns locked up at all times.
 
Chillfolks said:
I was thinking you were a reasonable person and we could try and work on a solution. But nope it's your way Or no way. You're not looking for what we can do, you just want to dictate everyone must follow your vision only.
Click to expand...

And attitudes like yours prefer to do nothing.
 
Goshin said:
For one thing, there's that pesky Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Which says not a damn thing about protecting GUNS as an all inclusive all or nothing class.
 
Northern Light said:
Eventually it's going to get so bad that they'll have to, lest we devolved into a third-world country of violence.
Click to expand...

Maybe when a hundred NRA members are killed at one of their annual conventions it will sink in.

But even then I highly doubt it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom