• 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!

Why gun control?

Because actions speak louder than words...Conservatives never want to do anything which is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution..

You have no idea what actions TD has taken or what he supports. The inference of your last clause is that there are unconstitutional actions that you support. Can you clarify?

When was the last time any social program was initiated by Republicans? Republicans don't want the government involved in this issue at all. They have never done anything and they never will if they remain true to their ideology. If it mattered to them they would do something...rather than just attacking and defeating the attempts of others. They don't seek to do it their way...They don't do it at all...That goes for environmental issues to health care to guns...nothing.

Do you support government taking actions in areas in which they are not specifically empowered to do so by the Constitution? What would be acceptable reasons for them to do so? Do you support the government violating Constitutional protections if the end justifies the means?

On a slightly more personal note, why do you use so many ellipses when periods would work better?
 
I don't know. Let the experts figure it out..the line would be a somewhat arbitrary one. There always exists a grey area in these sort of things.

The "experts" have already done so, which is why 18 USC 922g reads:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
 
Whatever it takes..

Thanks. I was just wondering because quite a few people are opposed to the idea of protecting property at the expense of even a thief's life.
 
You have no idea what actions TD has taken or what he supports. The inference of your last clause is that there are unconstitutional actions that you support. Can you clarify?

I don't care what he has personally done...whatever it is is a pee hole in a snowbank. I am talking about change on a societal scale. That takes place in Congress and in state houses across the land.

Many concepts the Constitution doesn't address at all..so they are interpreted by the Judiciary as to constitutionality...a somewhat arbitrary and capricious endeavor. I don't support any unconstitutional actions...we are a nation of laws...but I do wish to solve problems, which is the ultimate and necessary goal of humanity. Things that get in the way of doing so are not helpful in that regard.

Do you support government taking actions in areas in which they are not specifically empowered to do so by the Constitution? What would be acceptable reasons for them to do so? Do you support the government violating Constitutional protections if the end justifies the means?

It depends on the seriousness of the issue...if need be yes...the ultimate goal is survival...If an asteroid is about the hit the Earth we had better do something about it, constitutional or not.

On a slightly more personal note, why do you use so many ellipses when periods would work better?

To highlight explanatory additional information within a sentence. Just a way of quickly expounding on a point. I'm treating this like a verbal conversation rather than a technically correct written paper.

I would be interested to know if you feel my approach is ineffective in communicating meaning.
 
I don't care what he has personally done...whatever it is is a pee hole in a snowbank. I am talking about change on a societal scale. That takes place in Congress and in state houses across the land.

Many concepts the Constitution doesn't address at all..so they are interpreted by the Judiciary as to constitutionality...a somewhat arbitrary and capricious endeavor. I don't support any unconstitutional actions...we are a nation of laws...but I do wish to solve problems, which is the ultimate and necessary goal of humanity. Things that get in the way of doing so are not helpful in that regard.

If you want change to originate in Congress, those changes have to be Constitutional. They should also be effective, enforceable and necessary. Nearly all of the suggested new gun control fail to meet this standard.

It depends on the seriousness of the issue...if need be yes...the ultimate goal is survival...If an asteroid is about the hit the Earth we had better do something about it, constitutional or not.

Gun control doesn't quite fit that level of need.

To highlight explanatory additional information within a sentence. Just a way of quickly expounding on a point. I'm treating this like a verbal conversation rather than a technically correct written paper.

I would be interested to know if you feel my approach is ineffective in communicating meaning.

No, not ineffective. I'm somewhat pedantic so I notice things like this. Similarly, there's a post on this forum who writes almost exclusively in passive voice. It's only an extremely minor annoyance.
 
Thanks. I was just wondering because quite a few people are opposed to the idea of protecting property at the expense of even a thief's life.

Well, not just any personal property though..When the life of the victim is threatened with deadly force then yes respond in kind if you can. I don't think you should blow someone away because the are stealing your computer or even a diamond ring...On the other hand there is a good case to be made that a stolen gun will in the hands of a criminal at some point be used to threaten or even kill someone.
 
If you want change to originate in Congress, those changes have to be Constitutional. They should also be effective, enforceable and necessary. Nearly all of the suggested new gun control fail to meet this standard.

What about any proposed additions/changes which merely extend the scope of current law. Are there any? I don't know.


It depends on the seriousness of the issue...if need be yes...the ultimate goal is survival...If an asteroid is about the hit the Earth we had better do something about it, constitutional or not.

Gun control doesn't quite fit that level of need.

According to your assessment. Those who have been the victims of gun violence and those who recognize the ongoing threat assess things differently..


I have come to realize that these differences of opinion boil down to a culture war....We are a very large and diverse population of people...It's not really a question of right versus wrong, but rather what we are comfortable with and what is right for us. I wish we could all say to each his own, but things are not set up to work that way....we must force our will on our fellow countrymen...not the healthiest of situations..
 
What about any proposed additions/changes which merely extend the scope of current law. Are there any? I don't know.

You mean like actually enforcing the laws against criminal behavior?

According to your assessment. Those who have been the victims of gun violence and those who recognize the ongoing threat assess things differently..
They can assess all they want. They can't pass unconstitutional laws.
 
Well, not just any personal property though..When the life of the victim is threatened with deadly force then yes respond in kind if you can. I don't think you should blow someone away because the are stealing your computer or even a diamond ring...On the other hand there is a good case to be made that a stolen gun will in the hands of a criminal at some point be used to threaten or even kill someone.

And on yet another hand, a case could be made that a thief might pawn a stolen ring in order to obtain a gun. So pew-pew for ring thieves as well.

Regardless, you make a good case for having at least two guns. You know...so that you can defend the one with the other.
 
Thanks. I was just wondering because quite a few people are opposed to the idea of protecting property at the expense of even a thief's life.
Hell there are a few(quite a few) that are opposed to the idea of even defending their own lives if it meant harming a criminal hell bent on killing them or loved one.
 
You mean like actually enforcing the laws against criminal behavior?

I keep hearing that claim, but I don't know what it means...Are you telling me that when someone commits an armed robbery, or murders someone, when caught they don't serve time???

They can assess all they want. They can't pass unconstitutional laws.

If the laws already on the books are constitutional, then what about extensions to those laws would be unconstitutional? Why are any gun laws constitutional?

I think reckless, irresponsible and neglectful behavior with a gun should be a crime.. If a cop sees a rifle in an open garage (yes it has happened) the owner should be prosecuted for neglectful behavior. If a stray bullet from a shooting range hits a car on a highway (yes it has happened) the damned place should be shut down. If a child kills themselves with the parents gun, the parent should be prosecuted...
 
I keep hearing that claim, but I don't know what it means...Are you telling me that when someone commits an armed robbery, or murders someone, when caught they don't serve time???



If the laws already on the books are constitutional, then what about extensions to those laws would be unconstitutional? Why are any gun laws constitutional?

I think reckless, irresponsible and neglectful behavior with a gun should be a crime.. If a cop sees a rifle in an open garage (yes it has happened) the owner should be prosecuted for neglectful behavior. If a stray bullet from a shooting range hits a car on a highway (yes it has happened) the damned place should be shut down. If a child kills themselves with the parents gun, the parent should be prosecuted...

overgeneralization are silly. It shows you really hate legal gun ownership.

cars have been struck with baseballs or golf balls leaving ball parks or golf ranges. You want to punish thousands of members because of one accident?
 
overgeneralization are silly. It shows you really hate legal gun ownership.

cars have been struck with baseballs or golf balls leaving ball parks or golf ranges. You want to punish thousands of members because of one accident?

You mean the bullet hitting the car? Are you kidding me? You don't see a difference between being hit by a bullet piercing a car and a golf ball or baseball maybe cracking glass? We come from different planets I think.
 
I keep hearing that claim, but I don't know what it means...Are you telling me that when someone commits an armed robbery, or murders someone, when caught they don't serve time???

Where a felon lies on the Form 4473 trying to buy a gun, they commit a felony. In 2010 there were 34k felons identified as committing that crime by name and address. Ten (10) of those more than 34 thousand felons were convicted. See "Brady Act Enforcement 2010" for details.

Jalita Johnson straw purchased a gun for her felon boyfriend that he layer used to kill a cop. She got probation for a crime that carries a ten year sentence.

Gun charges are typically the first charges to be bargained away.

Thousands of felony gun cases are being dismissed in Cook County criminal courts | Chicago Reporter

Even when they go to court gun crimes the conviction rate is a joke.

Top prosecutor 'stunned' at how few gun cases brought to trial yield convictions - Chicago Tribune

If the laws already on the books are constitutional, then what about extensions to those laws would be unconstitutional? Why are any gun laws constitutional?

Without actual details, "extensions" really doesn't mean anything. What are your proposed "extensions"?

I think reckless, irresponsible and neglectful behavior with a gun should be a crime.. If a cop sees a rifle in an open garage (yes it has happened) the owner should be prosecuted for neglectful behavior. If a stray bullet from a shooting range hits a car on a highway (yes it has happened) the damned place should be shut down. If a child kills themselves with the parents gun, the parent should be prosecuted...

https://newrepublic.com/article/121632/why-are-states-so-reluctant-prosecute-gun-negligence-crime
Gun accidents: Why are parents who leave loaded weapons lying around never prosecuted?
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/...idental-shooting-death-of-minneapolis-toddler
 
Where a felon lies on the Form 4473 trying to buy a gun, they commit a felony. In 2010 there were 34k felons identified as committing that crime by name and address. Ten (10) of those more than 34 thousand felons were convicted. See "Brady Act Enforcement 2010" for details.

Jalita Johnson straw purchased a gun for her felon boyfriend that he layer used to kill a cop. She got probation for a crime that carries a ten year sentence.

Gun charges are typically the first charges to be bargained away.

Thousands of felony gun cases are being dismissed in Cook County criminal courts | Chicago Reporter

Even when they go to court gun crimes the conviction rate is a joke.

Top prosecutor 'stunned' at how few gun cases brought to trial yield convictions - Chicago Tribune



https://newrepublic.com/article/121632/why-are-states-so-reluctant-prosecute-gun-negligence-crime
Gun accidents: Why are parents who leave loaded weapons lying around never prosecuted?
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/...idental-shooting-death-of-minneapolis-toddler

No argument from me on that front...
 
You mean the bullet hitting the car? Are you kidding me? You don't see a difference between being hit by a bullet piercing a car and a golf ball or baseball maybe cracking glass? We come from different planets I think.

is the intent different?
 
is the intent different?

What does intent have to do with it? A bullet hitting a car on the highway coming from a near by firing range can kill someone who hasn't chosen to take that risk. Eliminate the threat..
 
What does intent have to do with it? A bullet hitting a car on the highway coming from a near by firing range can kill someone who hasn't chosen to take that risk. Eliminate the threat..

you want to ban all gun ranges apparently. why don't you want to ban everything else that creates a remote chance of harm through accident?
 
No, but one does much more damage and the other has a different purpose.

yet cars and alcohol cause far more deaths than guns. I realize for you who want to ban or restrict guns you want to talk about "intended purpose" because actual results hurt your cause
 
you want to ban all gun ranges apparently. why don't you want to ban everything else that creates a remote chance of harm through accident?

I didn't say I want to ban all gun ranges. They should shut down the one on the news which is to close to a highway..or any which are close enough for a stray bullet to hit houses or pedestrians..just common sense...
 
yet cars and alcohol cause far more deaths than guns. I realize for you who want to ban or restrict guns you want to talk about "intended purpose" because actual results hurt your cause

Alcohol should be banned..That's why it was tried once upon a time to do so. It's the cause of so many social ills it's impossible the name them all.

We are totally reliant on cars to function as a modern society..Planes and trains and ships too. **** happens. We don't need guns or alcohol or cigarettes. We don't need illegal drugs. Hell, we don't even need opioids except when prescribed by a doctor and only used as directed...

We should do things to limit the negative impact all those sort of things have on society....and we do and will....except guns apparently.
 
I didn't say I want to ban all gun ranges. They should shut down the one on the news which is to close to a highway..or any which are close enough for a stray bullet to hit houses or pedestrians..just common sense...

so now you want to close those near homes etc whether there is a history of bullets leaving the range.
 
Alcohol should be banned..That's why it was tried once upon a time to do so. It's the cause of so many social ills it's impossible the name them all.

We are totally reliant on cars to function as a modern society..Planes and trains and ships too. **** happens. We don't need guns or alcohol or cigarettes. We don't need illegal drugs. Hell, we don't even need opioids except when prescribed by a doctor and only used as directed...

We should do things to limit the negative impact all those sort of things have on society....and we do and will....except guns apparently.

I own guns for lots of reasons. control freaks who want to micromanage our lives are a main reason. freedom stealers have a negative impact on society. I'd hope their numbers decline
 
Legally and semantically, no...but in the real world, yes. If you drive down a city street with a pickup truck full of hundred-dollar bills and you get robbed, the law says it's not your fault...but everyone knows that yeah, it was pretty stupid to do present such temptation to others.

Morally and ethically, no. People have control over deciding to commit a crime or not. It's their choice and no one else's. What's next, she shouldn't have worn that dress?
 
Back
Top Bottom