• 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!

Gun banning Groups

Bucky said:
Guns do not provide any net positive inherent value in our society.
Click to expand...

Says who?

FBI studies have shown arming civilians does not do anything in preventing a shooting massacre.
Click to expand...

Yet actual instances of armed civilians stopping mass shootings have happened.

Regulation and confiscation are all the same to me.
Click to expand...

Do you have the cajones to participate in firearm confiscation?
 
Rucker61 said:
It can be shown that more guns = less gun violence, and if it's fewer guns that you evidently want, that's not "regulation" - that's confiscation.
Click to expand...
show us this
 
justabubba said:
show us this
Click to expand...

look at the rate of gun violence 1993-2017

unless you want to claim that the number of guns in US Society has gone down, there is undeniable proof
 
TurtleDude said:
according to arch gun banner Diane Feinstein (D-California) these groups all supported a ban on honest private citizens being able to own commonly owned semi auto rifles. So the next time someone says no one is trying to ban guns, read this list


https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-endorsements

Some of the groups she claims are gun banners

  • Doctors for America
  • National Association of School Nurses
  • National Physicians Alliance
  • Physicians for Social Responsibility
  • San Francisco Mental Health Association
  • Society for the Advancement of Violence and Injury Research
  • Society of General Internal Medicine

Click to expand...

California's new gun laws aimed at those who follow the laws:
https://crossarmory.com/californias-ammo-laws-jan-2018/

This is just about trying to ban ammunition:
The following will be incorporated into the law of the land per Laura Cromwell of Cabela’s:

Vendors must have Department of Justice approval to sell ammo. Current retailers with an ammo supply may stop providing ammunition altogether due to the process of getting DOJ consent. For hunters and shooters in rural areas who rely on mom-and-pop sporting goods stores, they may need to seek out a new supplier as well as plan on driving a lot farther to find the ammunition of their choice.
Importing ammunition— Californians must go to an ammunition vendor that has been approved by the DOJ. If a resident orders ammunition from a website, the ammo in question must be sent to an approved vendor for the consumer to pick up. Purchasing ammunition out of state and then returning to California runs the risk of carrying a misdemeanor charge of transporting ammo across state lines.
Transferring ammunition— For anyone who has ammunition they are looking to part with, you will need to enlist a DOJ-approved vendor to complete the transaction, same way you would transfer a firearm to a new owner.
Click to expand...

The permit I hear is $5, plus a $1 per transaction. As you can imagine like they have done with California traffic fines, it will soon be $50 and $10, then $500 and $100.

Criminals are free to do what they please.

I suspect a law suit. SCOTUS understands a restriction on ammo is a restriction on the right to own a gun.
 
Bucky said:
Traumatic life events
job loss
divorce
alcohol/drug use

These are triggering events that can cause ordinary joe to decide to shoot up his workplace. Since it is so easy for ordinary joe to get a gun, our country is just a walking war zone.



https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/252353/rampage-nation-by-louis-klarevas/9781633880665/



https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...0e2e1d41e38_story.html?utm_term=.2e15c80faeff

Guns again were created for the sole purpose to end life. It needs to be better regulated because as studies show: fewer guns = less gun violence.
Click to expand...

So in your mind anyone can commit mass murder and homicide. The only thing stopping them is protection from “the government. “
 
chuckiechan said:
I suspect a law suit. SCOTUS understands a restriction on ammo is a restriction on the right to own a gun.
Click to expand...

The 9th Circuit Court of Rubber Stamp does not have the same understanding, and until SCOTUS takes up a case those who live in Blue states will continue to have their rights infringed.
 
chuckiechan said:
California's new gun laws aimed at those who follow the laws:
https://crossarmory.com/californias-ammo-laws-jan-2018/

This is just about trying to ban ammunition:


The permit I hear is $5, plus a $1 per transaction. As you can imagine like they have done with California traffic fines, it will soon be $50 and $10, then $500 and $100.

Criminals are free to do what they please.

I suspect a law suit. SCOTUS understands a restriction on ammo is a restriction on the right to own a gun.
Click to expand...

The californian idiocy serves a most useful purpose to us who oppose the creeping cancer of the bannerrhoid disease. It proves that "reasonable" gun control is nothing more than the start of the malignancy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom