• 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!

Georgia congressional candidate who touted tougher gun laws arrested for murder

Rucker61 said:
Do some GCAs want to ban ownership of some types of guns?
Click to expand...

I assume that some do. But mostly, that sort of thing is going nowhere. People concerned about the problem should largely give up on anything huge. Years ago, the NRA supported some forms of gun control they oppose today. Now they seem to be a branch of the gun industry, and like any single issue group, say anti-abortionists, have power disproportionate to their numbers given current politics. Still, they might be willing to examine past positions they took, or at least work around related issues, like mental health ones, safety in handling weapons (which I presume they are on board with), et al. One problem is that some conservatives who oppose gun control often also tend to oppose social programs that might provide help the troubled souls among us.

Somehow I think that if a hunter from Wyoming could sit down with a worried mom from the inner city and talk over their concerns about guns, they might do better than Congress and the NRA in finding solutions, imperfect as they might be.
 
vegas giants said:
God forbid we create a few reasonable laws
Click to expand...

There already are plenty of reasonable laws. Crimes are committed by people who dont follow the law. Im not certain, but I believe that there are many reasonable laws against murder. Yet murder keeps happening.
 
Fletch said:
There already are plenty of reasonable laws. Crimes are committed by people who dont follow the law. Im not certain, but I believe that there are many reasonable laws against murder. Yet murder keeps happening.
Click to expand...

No there are not. We need better ones
 
Nickyjo said:
Gee, how could we handle that: fining patents for poor supervision. Keep repeating, we anti-gun nuts don’t want to take your gun away, just have things well-regulated.
Click to expand...

so list what you want. we hear all liberal gun controllers want are "sensible" gun laws. then we get demands for all sorts of unreasonable crap like gun bans, magazine bans, waiting periods-stuff that ONLY impacts honest gun owners
 
TurtleDude said:
all liberal gun laws do is disarming the people LEAST likely to misuse a firearm while rarely impacting those who have dangerous proclivities
Click to expand...

So true.

I see those wanting to restrict the rights for citizens who follow the law, just a way of increasing the balance of power to criminals.
 
Lord of Planar said:
So true.

I see those wanting to restrict the rights for citizens who follow the law, just a way of increasing the balance of power to criminals.
Click to expand...
gun controllers generally garner the votes of criminals and the segments of society that produce the highest percentage of violent criminals
 
TurtleDude said:
Its already a federal felony to be a prohibited person with a gun. stuff you liberals push-"assault weapon bans" magazine limits etc ONLY change the legal rights of honest gun owners
Click to expand...

How can these people be so stupid as to think it will decrease illegal ownership?

Making something illegal hasn't solved our illegal immigrant problem. It only aids those who disregard the law already.
 
Lord of Planar said:
How can these people be so stupid as to think it will decrease illegal ownership?

Making something illegal hasn't solved our illegal immigrant problem. It only aids those who disregard the law already.
Click to expand...


they only pretend that crime control is their goal. Their real motivation is harassing people who vote against their leftwing agenda
 
TurtleDude said:
they only pretend that crime control is their goal. Their real motivation is harassing people who vote against their leftwing agenda
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be wiser to make such people want to vote for them, by being less authoritarian?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Wouldn't it be wiser to make such people want to vote for them, by being less authoritarian?
Click to expand...

Gun banners started getting gun owners upset with them when these politicians tried to pretend they were doing something about violent crime without upsetting one or more of their major constituent groups (who saw-often correctly-that "crack downs on violent crime" often had racist implications or motivations) by enacting "gun control".
 
TurtleDude said:
so list what you want. we hear all liberal gun controllers want are "sensible" gun laws. then we get demands for all sorts of unreasonable crap like gun bans, magazine bans, waiting periods-stuff that ONLY impacts honest gun owners
Click to expand...

Sorts of things I would like to see already exist, but one is ban on large magazines. Take a breather and stop shooting for a few seconds. And if you are shooting up a movie theater maybe someone can rush you. Sufficient waiting time for a background check as to violent criminal behavior, a requirement to store weapons safely. No guns in bars or at sporting events. No ability to turn an automatic into fully automatic. (A nice sensible gun law we have gotten used to is no weapons on airplanes.)

I say this with respect as one on the losing side of this issue, but there seems to be a phony argument from your side, about impacting "honest gun owners," and not being effective on stopping bad guys. Outlawing bank robbery doesn't eliminate it, but it a- acts as a deterrent, b- allows us to punish bank robbers. Yes, you, an honest man, will be inconvenienced by some gun regs. You will still get your guns, as many as you can afford. I have to take a test to renew my driver's license next month. Also an inconvenience. Price of living in a complex society.
 
Nickyjo said:
Sorts of things I would like to see already exist, but one is ban on large magazines. Take a breather and stop shooting for a few seconds. And if you are shooting up a movie theater maybe someone can rush you. Sufficient waiting time for a background check as to violent criminal behavior, a requirement to store weapons safely. No guns in bars or at sporting events. No ability to turn an automatic into fully automatic. (A nice sensible gun law we have gotten used to is no weapons on airplanes.)

I say this with respect as one on the losing side of this issue, but there seems to be a phony argument from your side, about impacting "honest gun owners," and not being effective on stopping bad guys. Outlawing bank robbery doesn't eliminate it, but it a- acts as a deterrent, b- allows us to punish bank robbers. Yes, you, an honest man, will be inconvenienced by some gun regs. You will still get your guns, as many as you can afford. I have to take a test to renew my driver's license next month. Also an inconvenience. Price of living in a complex society.
Click to expand...

those who push for magazine bans clearly demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of civilian tactical use of firearms. Its also unconstitutional. Those who understand defensive gun use realize when there is a home invasion, the invaders have planned the time and place of the invasion. They already violate several laws and most likely will ignore magazine limits. The homeowner will only have minimal time to arm him or herself, and usually won't have time to gather up extra firearms or magazines. magazine restrictions are pushed by stupid people who don't understand that or dishonest people who side with criminals. There is no there choice
 
Nickyjo said:
Sorts of things I would like to see already exist, but one is ban on large magazines. Take a breather and stop shooting for a few seconds. And if you are shooting up a movie theater maybe someone can rush you. Sufficient waiting time for a background check as to violent criminal behavior, a requirement to store weapons safely. No guns in bars or at sporting events. No ability to turn an automatic into fully automatic. (A nice sensible gun law we have gotten used to is no weapons on airplanes.)

I say this with respect as one on the losing side of this issue, but there seems to be a phony argument from your side, about impacting "honest gun owners," and not being effective on stopping bad guys. Outlawing bank robbery doesn't eliminate it, but it a- acts as a deterrent, b- allows us to punish bank robbers. Yes, you, an honest man, will be inconvenienced by some gun regs. You will still get your guns, as many as you can afford. I have to take a test to renew my driver's license next month. Also an inconvenience. Price of living in a complex society.
Click to expand...

Those are very reasonable gun laws
 
TurtleDude said:
those who push for magazine bans clearly demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of civilian tactical use of firearms. Its also unconstitutional. Those who understand defensive gun use realize when there is a home invasion, the invaders have planned the time and place of the invasion. They already violate several laws and most likely will ignore magazine limits. The homeowner will only have minimal time to arm him or herself, and usually won't have time to gather up extra firearms or magazines. magazine restrictions are pushed by stupid people who don't understand that or dishonest people who side with criminals. There is no there choice
Click to expand...

As I said, if they ignore magazine limits, they are fined or go to jail. (Laws are not passed with the assumption that everyone will obey them.) That won't stop mass killings, but might slow a killer if their manufacture or importation was prohibited.

But have magazine limits been declared unconstitutional?
 
Last edited:
Nickyjo said:
As I said, if they ignore magazine limits, they are fined or go to jail. (Laws are not passed with the assumption that everyone will obey them.) That won't stop mass killings, but might slow a killer if their manufacture or importation was prohibited.

But have magazine limits been declared unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

the only people who worry about being fined or going to jail are honest people. People engaging in mass shootings don't worry about death sentences or LWOP-why would they worry about a magazine limit? do you gun control advocates even think through your claims?


there are millions of normal capacity magazines in the USA. a ban is not going to impede criminals at all. but even you most likely know that
 
TurtleDude said:
the only people who worry about being fined or going to jail are honest people. People engaging in mass shootings don't worry about death sentences or LWOP-why would they worry about a magazine limit? do you gun control advocates even think through your claims?


there are millions of normal capacity magazines in the USA. a ban is not going to impede criminals at all. but even you most likely know that
Click to expand...
.

You're missing the point. Why prohibit any crime under your logic if people will still commit crimes anyway? Laws seem to have two functions: 1- to promote voluntary compliance, I don't speed when I see the speed limit sign. 2- to punish those who don't comply and get caught. If I speed, I face consequences. And of course people who plan to shoot up the world would not worry about a magazine limit, but if large capacity magazines were or became unavailable, the point is moot.
 
Nickyjo said:
.

You're missing the point. Why prohibit any crime under your logic if people will still commit crimes anyway? Laws seem to have two functions: 1- to promote voluntary compliance, I don't speed when I see the speed limit sign. 2- to punish those who don't comply and get caught. If I speed, I face consequences. And of course people who plan to shoot up the world would not worry about a magazine limit, but if large capacity magazines were or became unavailable, the point is moot.
Click to expand...

you MISS the point-you want to CRIMINALIZE behavior that is objectively not harmful. You criminalize behavior that only law abiding citizens currently can engage in. ITS ALREADY illegal for a felon to have any firearm of any capacity

the analogy is you wanting to ban any car that can exceed the speed limit to stop speeding.
 
TurtleDude said:
you MISS the point-you want to CRIMINALIZE behavior that is objectively not harmful. You criminalize behavior that only law abiding citizens currently can engage in. ITS ALREADY illegal for a felon to have any firearm of any capacity

the analogy is you wanting to ban any car that can exceed the speed limit to stop speeding.
Click to expand...

I don't want to criminalize behavior, just want to prohibit large capacity magazines. Lying there doing nothing they pose no threat. When some looney packs one to do harm them they can substantially increase the danger. No difference than requiring headlights or other equipment on cars or countless other regulations that cover behavior or products that are not objectively harmful unless used improperly. The people, the state, have an interest in limiting the damage an individual can do, so long as it does it in a way that is constitutional. How does one's personal interest in firing a number of rounds without pausing or reloading trump the states interest in trying to reduce the number killed in a mass shooting that may occur?

Has this question ever gone to the Supremes?
 
Nickyjo said:
I don't want to criminalize behavior, just want to prohibit large capacity magazines. Lying there doing nothing they pose no threat. When some looney packs one to do harm them they can substantially increase the danger. No difference than requiring headlights or other equipment on cars or countless other regulations that cover behavior or products that are not objectively harmful unless used improperly. The people, the state, have an interest in limiting the damage an individual can do, so long as it does it in a way that is constitutional. How does one's personal interest in firing a number of rounds without pausing or reloading trump the states interest in trying to reduce the number killed in a mass shooting that may occur?

Has this question ever gone to the Supremes?
Click to expand...

it will soon enough and yes, you want to make owning NORMAL capacity magazines illegal for honest citizens. If police use them, then other civilians should be able to use them. and as long as the police and military have, them, criminals will get them

you buy into the idiocy that the way to stop people who ignore laws against murder and robbery from getting things is to ban honest people from owning them. That means you really believe that banning guns will also prevent criminals from getting them. and where do you draw the line-10 rounds, or 5?
 
Nickyjo said:
You could say that about driver licenses. No desire to disarm you. Just don’t want to have guns kept from people who are criminally insane, require proper handling, keep away from kids, etc., all the things that are normal in some other countries just as free as us and more safe. But as the sign over the gates of hell in Dante’s Inferno said, “Abandon all hope ye who enter here”... i.e., into the gun debate. Issue is settled. It’s our culture: French eat snails, we eat guns. Don’t understand either.
Click to expand...

And how do you propose we accomplish that?
 
Nickyjo said:
.

You're missing the point. Why prohibit any crime under your logic if people will still commit crimes anyway? Laws seem to have two functions: 1- to promote voluntary compliance, I don't speed when I see the speed limit sign. 2- to punish those who don't comply and get caught. If I speed, I face consequences. And of course people who plan to shoot up the world would not worry about a magazine limit, but if large capacity magazines were or became unavailable, the point is moot.
Click to expand...

One, they are durable goods. There are likely billions of magazines greater that 10 round capacity in existence that wI'll wor for at leat the nextra 100 years.. Two, ten round magazines seem to work just fine in mass shootings like Virginia Tech and Parkland. Three, 3D printers can make new magazines all day and all night long. With all this, you hope a law can reduce access to magazines in order to lower the 2-6 mass shootings that may happen each year?
 
Nickyjo said:
I don't want to criminalize behavior, just want to prohibit large capacity magazines.
Click to expand...

That's worse than criminalizing behavior.

Lying there doing nothing they pose no threat. When some looney packs one to do harm them they can substantially increase the danger. No difference than requiring headlights or other equipment on cars or countless other regulations that cover behavior or products that are not objectively harmful unless used improperly. The people, the state, have an interest in limiting the damage an individual can do, so long as it does it in a way that is constitutional.
Click to expand...

What's the Constitutional limit on magazine capacity? I can't find the number ten anywhere. If ten is good, nine should be better, right?

How does one's personal interest in firing a number of rounds without pausing or reloading trump the states interest in trying to reduce the number killed in a mass shooting that may occur?
Click to expand...

You could try to apply that logic to gun ownership in general.

Has this question ever gone to the Supremes?
Click to expand...
No, but soon.
 
Lord of Planar said:
How can these people be so stupid as to think it will decrease illegal ownership?

Making something illegal hasn't solved our illegal immigrant problem. It only aids those who disregard the law already.
Click to expand...

Then we should abandon immigration laws? That is your logic
 
Rucker61 said:
One, they are durable goods. There are likely billions of magazines greater that 10 round capacity in existence that wI'll wor for at leat the nextra 100 years.. Two, ten round magazines seem to work just fine in mass shootings like Virginia Tech and Parkland. Three, 3D printers can make new magazines all day and all night long. With all this, you hope a law can reduce access to magazines in order to lower the 2-6 mass shootings that may happen each year?
Click to expand...

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