• 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!

Wayne LaPierre spending spree

jaeger19 said:
Yep..you explained your position and your motivations

And your position has been subsequently torn to shreds by Turtledude and myself.

You say track large purchases. Okay.. that means that Turtledude and myself are going to be tracked because we shoot competitively and therefore buy in bulk to save money.

Meanwhile.. do you have ANY evidence that mass shooters are buying IN SUCH BULK? Or that they are even en mass using it? Because guess what.. there is no evidence of that.

but wait.. what about a person that want to amass a ammo? Well.. if they buy a box here and a box there, in two months.. you could make several purchases and have over 1000 rounds... in a jiffy. So now you want to track EVERY ammo purchase? Because that's what you have to do... and guess what.. ain;t going to work.

nor is trying to monitor firearms purchases... I have over thirty firearms.. turtledude probably more.. accumulated over a number of years. How do you track that.. without firearm registration? And what does it matter anyway? Because you are now tracking the folks that are LEAST likely to cause a problem..

and whats your position on why I should accept a proposal.. that will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop mass shooters and in fact will divert valuable resources away from something that will absolutely help (better mental health)?

oh right.. I should accept these proposals because if I don't.. its going to result in bans etc.. that I don't want.

Well.. its not like we have not heard that before. WE heard how we had to accept the 1967 gun laws (before my time.. but my dad talks about it)..and when those did not work.. then more restrictions were put in.

We were told that we had to accept the brady bill for background checks.. and the assault weapons bill... and guess what.. when they were found not to work.. its not like the anti gun crowd stopped calling for more gun control.

The truth is.... the ONLY thing that has stood in the way of having my firearms banned... is the general public being educated by the NRA about what these laws would actually do. Its been stopped by the NRA refusing to give way to gun laws.. THAT DO NOT MAKE SENSE.

You are right.. I don't believe you when you state that by accepting a gun law that will do nothing to stop mass shooters and will take up valuable resources that could stop mass shooters.... will somehow mollify the anti gun crowd and their calls for gun control.

Sorry sir..but history has proved ME right.. and you wrong.
Click to expand...

torn to shreds? right. thanks for the laugh. :lol:

one thing that i've noticed on internet forums is that those who actually have a stronger point generally don't run around spiking the ball on the fifty yard line. i generally just scan posts like that and scroll past.
 
Helix said:
torn to shreds? right. thanks for the laugh. :lol:

one thing that i've noticed on internet forums is that those who actually have a stronger point generally don't run around spiking the ball on the fifty yard line. i generally just scan posts like that and scroll past.
Click to expand...

I am sure you do. I just pointed out a number of flaws in your plan... and you had NO rebuttal....

We say that the "proof is in the pudding"....

Either you can make a logical rebuttal of my posts... or you cannot. So far.. you cannot.

That speaks for itself.
 
jaeger19 said:
I am sure you do. I just pointed out a number of flaws in your plan... and you had NO rebuttal....

We say that the "proof is in the pudding"....

Either you can make a logical rebuttal of my posts... or you cannot. So far.. you cannot.

That speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

refer to earlier posts. peace.
 
Waddy said:
No. The Constitution simply guarantees an inalienable right.
Click to expand...

Some people think that all rights and powers belong to the government and the rights we have, the government gives us-rather than understanding that if the government was not delegated the power to do something, than you have a right in that area
 
TurtleDude said:
Some people think that all rights and powers belong to the government and the rights we have, the government gives us-rather than understanding that if the government was not delegated the power to do something, than you have a right in that area
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights, specifically, is simply a document detailing what government CANNOT do. What government is PROHIBITED from doing. And taking away our Second Amendment rights is the second statement in that document. I think they are listed in pretty much order of importance.
 
Waddy said:
The Bill of Rights, specifically, is simply a document detailing what government CANNOT do. What government is PROHIBITED from doing. And taking away our Second Amendment rights is the second statement in that document. I think they are listed in pretty much order of importance.
Click to expand...

So gun rights are unlimited then....right?
 
vegas giants said:
So gun rights are unlimited then....right?
Click to expand...

No, every right has some limitations. But those limitations must be in fact limited and not interfere with the basic right itself. As shown in Heller, a licensing/registration system that virtually prohibits honest people from owning hand guns is un-Constitutional.
 
Waddy said:
No, every right has some limitations. But those limitations must be in fact limited and not interfere with the basic right itself. As shown in Heller, a licensing/registration system that virtually prohibits honest people from owning hand guns is un-Constitutional.
Click to expand...

for government to limit a right-government must have been given the proper power to do so. So rights are unlimited until a government is delegated the proper power to so limit a right. The federal government was never properly delegated any power in the area of what arms people can keep and bear. State governments have far more power-limited by the state's constitution and the application of the bill of rights through the post civil war amendments of incorporation.
 
TurtleDude said:
for government to limit a right-government must have been given the proper power to do so. So rights are unlimited until a government is delegated the proper power to so limit a right. The federal government was never properly delegated any power in the area of what arms people can keep and bear. State governments have far more power-limited by the state's constitution and the application of the bill of rights through the post civil war amendments of incorporation.
Click to expand...

That's correct. But government, especially our federal government, has been taking powers away from the states for a long time. This creeping federalism is part of those thousand cuts. It used to be most issues were state issues, but when the advocate groups couldn't win in the states they turned to the federal system, which is always all to happy to oblige.
 
Waddy said:
No, every right has some limitations. But those limitations must be in fact limited and not interfere with the basic right itself. As shown in Heller, a licensing/registration system that virtually prohibits honest people from owning hand guns is un-Constitutional.
Click to expand...

We license handguns in lots of places
 
vegas giants said:
We license handguns in lots of places
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. But that licensing can't outright prohibit gun ownership. It can be restrictive (which is a subjective term) but it cannot prohibit a person willing to jump through all the hoops from eventually owning that handgun.
 
Waddy said:
Yes, they do. But that licensing can't outright prohibit gun ownership. It can be restrictive (which is a subjective term) but it cannot prohibit a person willing to jump through all the hoops from eventually owning that handgun.
Click to expand...

Sure it can. It prohibits lots of people from owning guns. Federal gun laws prevent anyone from owning a late model fully auto weapon
 
vegas giants said:
Sure it can. It prohibits lots of people from owning guns. Federal gun laws prevent anyone from owning a late model fully auto weapon
Click to expand...

But they do not prohibit a person from owning an automatic weapon. They simply restrict the weapon by age and if the person passes the background check, and pays the fee. So as you can see even that restriction, one of the most stringent, does not PROHIBIT automatic weapons. It simply says that under these conditions you can own one....... if you can afford it.

You can even own a tank; or an artillery piece. Just do the paperwork.
 
Waddy said:
But they do not prohibit a person from owning an automatic weapon. They simply restrict the weapon by age and if the person passes the background check, and pays the fee. So as you can see even that restriction, one of the most stringent, does not PROHIBIT automatic weapons. It simply says that under these conditions you can own one....... if you can afford it.

You can even own a tank; or an artillery piece. Just do the paperwork.
Click to expand...

The Hughes amendment is clearly unconstitutional, and the government does not suddenly gain the power to ban a firearm, because there are other firearms available. And the Hughes Amendment proves what I have been saying for decades-gun control has nothing to do with crime control. Since legally owned machine guns have almost zero cases of criminal misuse in 80 years, banning them had zero crime control purposes. Rather, spiteful dems were upset that a pro gun bill was going to pass-one that prevented states like NJ from harassing travelers with guns going trough their states. Spite, not law enforcement or public safety, is behind the gun control movement.
 
TurtleDude said:
The Hughes amendment is clearly unconstitutional, and the government does not suddenly gain the power to ban a firearm, because there are other firearms available. And the Hughes Amendment proves what I have been saying for decades-gun control has nothing to do with crime control. Since legally owned machine guns have almost zero cases of criminal misuse in 80 years, banning them had zero crime control purposes. Rather, spiteful dems were upset that a pro gun bill was going to pass-one that prevented states like NJ from harassing travelers with guns going trough their states. Spite, not law enforcement or public safety, is behind the gun control movement.
Click to expand...

I agree. The gun control movement is not about crime. It is about slowly disarming the citizenry. it's purpose is political. And it uses typical governmental propaganda to promote that agenda. First you must make gun owners appear to be a public threat. Paint them all as lunatic fringe rednecks. Make the guns themselves out to be inherently evil. And only an evil person with bad intentions would want to own one. Try to sway public opinion, so that when action against gun owners is taken, it will seem to be in the public's best interest. Do it for the children.....
 
Waddy said:
But they do not prohibit a person from owning an automatic weapon. They simply restrict the weapon by age and if the person passes the background check, and pays the fee. So as you can see even that restriction, one of the most stringent, does not PROHIBIT automatic weapons. It simply says that under these conditions you can own one....... if you can afford it.

You can even own a tank; or an artillery piece. Just do the paperwork.
Click to expand...

Then clearly the federal government may restrict any gun as long as you are allowed to have one type of gun that they choose
 
vegas giants said:
Then clearly the federal government may restrict any gun as long as you are allowed to have one type of gun that they choose
Click to expand...

A restriction is not a prohibition. Let's not confuse the terminology. They may put in place reasonable restrictions.
 
Waddy said:
A restriction is not a prohibition. Let's not confuse the terminology. They may put in place reasonable restrictions.
Click to expand...

You are prohibited from owning a fully auto weapon made after 1986. Prohibited. All those model guns are prohibited.
 
vegas giants said:
You are prohibited from owning a fully auto weapon made after 1986. Prohibited. All those model guns are prohibited.
Click to expand...

We've been over this before. You may own a fully automatic weapon, with a restriction that it be made before a certain date. You're walking in circles now. Got anything new to add?
 
Waddy said:
We've been over this before. You may own a fully automatic weapon, with a restriction that it be made before a certain date. You're walking in circles now. Got anything new to add?
Click to expand...

You are banned from owning a fully auto weapon madexafter 1986. There ate models of guns you are BANNED from owning. That is a stone cold fact
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom