• 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

TurtleDude said:
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?
Click to expand...

Put better: Why have laws against murder, robbery and high capacity magazines if people will ignore them?
 
Maccabee said:
And how do you propose we accomplish that?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of suggestions out there: universal background checks, trigger locks on guns that can be locked, storage regulations, tracking weapons through test fire or other means. Nothing is perfect and nothing will prevent guns from being used in crime or in mass shootings, but the idea, as the philosopher said, is to reduce the number of victims. What controls would you suggest, if any?
 
Rucker61 said:
That's worse than criminalizing behavior.



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?



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


No, but soon.
Click to expand...

You are setting up straw men that I do not propose, then knocking them. No limit on magazines in the Constitution that I know, but no limit on heroin there either. Just support for militias and the right of people to bear arms. If the militia can be regulated, so can guns. The Supremes said so.
 
Nickyjo said:
There are plenty of suggestions out there: universal background checks, trigger locks on guns that can be locked, storage regulations, tracking weapons through test fire or other means. Nothing is perfect and nothing will prevent guns from being used in crime or in mass shootings, but the idea, as the philosopher said, is to reduce the number of victims.
Click to expand...

Why not limit civilians to two round magazines? That's as constitutional as ten round magazine limits.

What controls would you suggest, if any?
Click to expand...
Fix the background check system.
 
Nickyjo said:
You are setting up straw men that I do not propose, then knocking them. No limit on magazines in the Constitution that I know, but no limit on heroin there either. Just support for militias and the right of people to bear arms. If the militia can be regulated, so can guns. The Supremes said so.
Click to expand...

Did SCOTUS place any limits on gun regulation, or does anything go?
 
vegas giants said:
Then we should abandon immigration laws? That is your logic
Click to expand...

No, but they are the laws we need to work on changing. Make it so punitive for business to hire them, they they cant find work here, and self deport.

You are talking about laws that affect honest, law abiding citizens only. You are missing your target group, in favor of a stupid agenda. Unless you agenda is to disarm the law abiding people from tyranny.
 
Lord of Planar said:
No, but they are the laws we need to work on changing. Make it so punitive for business to hire them, they they cant find work here, and self deport.

You are talking about laws that affect honest, law abiding citizens only. You are missing your target group, in favor of a stupid agenda. Unless you agenda is to disarm the law abiding people from tyranny.
Click to expand...

False. Places that have these laws enforced have less gun deaths
 
Nickyjo said:
Put better: Why have laws against murder, robbery and high capacity magazines if people will ignore them?
Click to expand...

you apparently are unlearned as to the term malum prohibitum and malum per se. Murder and robbery are objectively wrong. Owning high capacity magazines is not and is actually condoned by the government for its civilian employees. Criminals cannot own any guns. All magazines bans do is criminalize objectively harmless activity engaged in by people who haven't done anything wrong.

its like banning alcohol to stop the act of drunk driving or banning cars that can go fast to prevent speeding. the proper response is banning drunk driving and punishing speeding. Yet when it comes to magazines, you gun restrictionists cannot understand the point
 
TurtleDude said:
you apparently are unlearned as to the term malum prohibitum and malum per se. Murder and robbery are objectively wrong. Owning high capacity magazines is not and is actually condoned by the government for its civilian employees. Criminals cannot own any guns. All magazines bans do is criminalize objectively harmless activity engaged in by people who haven't done anything wrong.

its like banning alcohol to stop the act of drunk driving or banning cars that can go fast to prevent speeding. the proper response is banning drunk driving and punishing speeding. Yet when it comes to magazines, you gun restrictionists cannot understand the point
Click to expand...

Murder and theft seem to be ok when done by nation states. So the are not objectively wrong.
 
TurtleDude said:
you apparently are unlearned as to the term malum prohibitum and malum per se. Murder and robbery are objectively wrong. Owning high capacity magazines is not and is actually condoned by the government for its civilian employees. Criminals cannot own any guns. All magazines bans do is criminalize objectively harmless activity engaged in by people who haven't done anything wrong.

its like banning alcohol to stop the act of drunk driving or banning cars that can go fast to prevent speeding. the proper response is banning drunk driving and punishing speeding. Yet when it comes to magazines, you gun restrictionists cannot understand the point
Click to expand...

One analogy produces another, leaving aside that cars and booze are probably way more regulated than guns. Possessing a large quantity of heroin is not objectively wrong, unless the government decides it is because of the potential harm it could create. And the govt has. So it is illegal. I think such large cap magazines should be prohibited for roughly the same reason. I believe so cause I think it might affect numbers killed in a mass shooting. Our interests conflict: You think you and others so inclined should be able to possess them for some reasons not very clear to me, but I assume related to the second amendment. I think on balance, so long as the authorities are not depriving you from possessing a weapon, just one of its accessories, my interests outweigh yours. Conflicting interests are often resolved by legislation and courts. We accept their decisions, or legislate or amend as appropriate.
 
Nickyjo said:
One analogy produces another, leaving aside that cars and booze are probably way more regulated than guns. Possessing a large quantity of heroin is not objectively wrong, unless the government decides it is because of the potential harm it could create. And the govt has. So it is illegal. I think such large cap magazines should be prohibited for roughly the same reason. I believe so cause I think it might affect numbers killed in a mass shooting. Our interests conflict: You think you and others so inclined should be able to possess them for some reasons not very clear to me, but I assume related to the second amendment. I think on balance, so long as the authorities are not depriving you from possessing a weapon, just one of its accessories, my interests outweigh yours. Conflicting interests are often resolved by legislation and courts. We accept their decisions, or legislate or amend as appropriate.
Click to expand...

you are not being truthful. You don't need a license to own a car or use it on private property. You can own cars that are faster than anything the police own. You don't get background checked to buy cars or booze. You can buy booze in any state in the USA or most other countries. Same with cars. so that claim #1 is a lie

I agree with the heroin, I oppose the war on drugs.
your argument is poorly reasoned as to magazines. where is the line drawn? once a governmental entity issues a certain magazine for its civilian employees, you have to then claim other civilians lives are either less valuable than government employees or that at a certain number of rounds, a law abiding citizen becomes unstable. Either argument is idiotic.

your stupid arguments don't trump logic.
 
Nickyjo said:
One analogy produces another, leaving aside that cars and booze are probably way more regulated than guns. Possessing a large quantity of heroin is not objectively wrong, unless the government decides it is because of the potential harm it could create. And the govt has. So it is illegal. I think such large cap magazines should be prohibited for roughly the same reason. I believe so cause I think it might affect numbers killed in a mass shooting. Our interests conflict: You think you and others so inclined should be able to possess them for some reasons not very clear to me, but I assume related to the second amendment. I think on balance, so long as the authorities are not depriving you from possessing a weapon, just one of its accessories, my interests outweigh yours. Conflicting interests are often resolved by legislation and courts. We accept their decisions, or legislate or amend as appropriate.
Click to expand...

Are magazines in excess of ten rounds in common use for lawful purposes?
 
dogboy49 said:
Georgia congressional candidate who touted tougher gun laws arrested for murdering former campaign treasurer - NY Daily News

Makes me wonder how many anti-gunners are just projecting. They know that deep down they don't trust themselves to be armed, given their own murderous tendencies, and they conclude from this self-awareness that everyone also harbors these same tendencies.
Click to expand...

Its like all the holier than thou ultra conservatives spouting "moral values" and then getting arrested for picking up hookers or engaging in homosexual sex.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Its like all the holier than thou ultra conservatives spouting "moral values" and then getting arrested for picking up hookers or engaging in homosexual sex.
Click to expand...

but but-it was just a "wide stance"!!!
 
Nickyjo said:
There are plenty of suggestions out there: universal background checks, trigger locks on guns that can be locked, storage regulations, tracking weapons through test fire or other means. Nothing is perfect and nothing will prevent guns from being used in crime or in mass shootings, but the idea, as the philosopher said, is to reduce the number of victims. What controls would you suggest, if any?
Click to expand...

Have any of these proposals shown to have worked to prevent even a single mass shooting?
 
Maccabee said:
Have any of these proposals shown to have worked to prevent even a single mass shooting?
Click to expand...

Not all things listed are intended to prevent mass shootings, but how would you prove that anyway? Some guy says that he would have shot up a movie theater if he only could have gotten higher capacity magazine?
 
Nickyjo said:
Not all things listed are intended to prevent mass shootings, but how would you prove that anyway? Some guy says that he would have shot up a movie theater if he only could have gotten higher capacity magazine?
Click to expand...

If there'e no evidence of effectiveness then you're infringing upon people's right without just cause.
 
Nickyjo said:
Working in a labor dispute, for the United Farmworkers Union in NYC, at huge produce market in the Bronx where we hoped to follow trucks carrying lettuce from a certain big farming operation in California. Strikers had come east to work on a boycott of the lettuce, and we convinced stores to simply buy a different brand, fairly easy to do in union-strong NY. As we left the compound past the security gate, going about 10 mph, a car pulls up on my left with four tough looking guys in it. Guy riding shotgun says "stop the car." I wasn't about to stop, as some of our people had been beaten up few days earlier. The 3 non-driver occupants pulled guns and the guy said, "I said stop the car, godammit!" I stopped as they came out of the car with guns drawn. I started to race the engine slowly, intending to jam in reverse towards the protection of the uniformed cops/security at the gate behind us. Guy with me, Oscar, said "No, Nico, esperate." (Wait). I did, and yelled at the approaching guys, who are you? "Police Officers." "Let's see some badges." One of them flipped out a badge from his pocket flap, and the tension ended. (Don't know if you ever saw the Treasure of the Sierra Madre, but the cop could have attained immortality had he said, "I don't got to show you no stinking badges," as the Mexican bandits said to Bogart in that old movie, I believe.)

Turns out their were undercover narcs, hence their shabby appearance, awakened at five am to go to stop the hijacking of the truck. The driver, in a brilliant move, had called the cops and said that "two Puerto Ricans" we're going to hijack his vehicle. As one Italian and one Mexican we fit the bill. Cops were very apologetic (one, a Puerto Rican, joked that he would have been afraid also) suggesting maybe we could still catch the truck. I muttered something about having to change my underwear, and we laughed. I asked why they didn't show their badges, and one said that last time he did that, someone almost shot it out of his hand. In reality, they could have said in typical NY style, "Police officers, asshole, stop the car," and I would have complied.

Just one of several great stories about interaction with NY-NJ cops at the time. They generally were crazy and wonderful at the same time.
Click to expand...

This sounds spot on, especially the "Police officers, asshole...stop the car." :D
Oh yeah, DC had a division called "Old Clothes" that looked, acted and sounded almost exactly like that.
A very dear friend of the family worked Old Clothes duty for about twenty years straight, just wandering around DC looking like a bum.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Its like all the holier than thou ultra conservatives spouting "moral values" and then getting arrested for picking up hookers or engaging in homosexual sex.
Click to expand...

I prefer the kind that involves the hot church secretary, like Jessica Hahn, but I wanna be "Jim Bakker" :mrgreen:

280full.jpg
 
Nickyjo said:
Not all things listed are intended to prevent mass shootings, but how would you prove that anyway? Some guy says that he would have shot up a movie theater if he only could have gotten higher capacity magazine?
Click to expand...

Is "possibly reduces the number of victims in a mass shooting" sufficent justification for a new law?
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
This sounds spot on, especially the "Police officers, asshole...stop the car." :D
Oh yeah, DC had a division called "Old Clothes" that looked, acted and sounded almost exactly like that.
A very dear friend of the family worked Old Clothes duty for about twenty years straight, just wandering around DC looking like a bum.
Click to expand...
ever see the Hill Street Blues episode where Sgt Belker pretended to be a bum-sharing a meal of feral cats with another bum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom