• 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!

Democrat and Republican approaches to gun control

apdst said:
Maryland’s ‘Red Flag’ Law Turns Deadly: Officer Kills Man Who Refused To Turn In Gun – CBS Baltimore
Click to expand...

Your point is what with that article? I'm guessing it was a family member who called the police and by the guy's actions, it was an appropriate phone call. Although I'm a bit reluctant to believe the story of the police when there isn't anyone left to tell another version of what happened.

Or, are you trying to imply family, police and healthcare officials are now enemies of the second amendment?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
If you think rapists and murderers have a right to buy tanks and nuclear weapons, yes, you're a ****ing extremist with no comprehension of the Constitution and absolutely in the minority.
Click to expand...
Talk about trying to distract. Here you are talking about tanks and the old anti gun standby nuclear weapons. Yes you can own a tank. Do I want one no not really. And I sure as hell hope no one within 50 miles of me owns a nuclear weapon.
 
bongsaway said:
Your point is what with that article? I'm guessing it was a family member who called the police and by the guy's actions, it was an appropriate phone call. Although I'm a bit reluctant to believe the story of the police when there isn't anyone left to tell another version of what happened.

Or, are you trying to imply family, police and healthcare officials are now enemies of the second amendment?
Click to expand...

The point: not did the cops confiscate his guns, they executed him, too. All without a trial.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... if the RFL results in no "on the record" black mark then how does the RFL prevent someone from buying (or borrowing) a gun?
Click to expand...



A universal background check would find this person not allowed purchase of a gun but the record would not have to indicate why. The decision at hand for the court is to keep the person from getting a gun, so notifying authorities to deny this person purchase would be appropriate, without having to tell them why.

Nothing stops this person from borrowing a gun. Or, stealing a gun. The greatest concern in RFL is suicide. A suicide by stolen gun is rare. However, there have been suicides by borrowed guns, though very few, as best as I can tell. RFL does nothing for the murder rate, as best as I can tell. I haven’t researched either very much.
 
SgtRock said:
Democrats want to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. Republicans want judges to use red flag laws to confiscate guns from people who have not broken the law but may in the future. Both are unconstitutional. #ShallNotBeInfringed
Click to expand...

Why do you people post such obvious lies? Christ almighty, is every conservatives nothing but a troll?

RabidAlpaca said:
I see. So neither you nor the OP can provide one single shred of evidence that the Democrats want a full gun ban, you're just here to distract from the actual topic with nonsensical and pointless ramblings.
Click to expand...

Come on, you know the response, they will find some link as someone they percieve as left saying as much, in the deepest bowels of the internet, and then pretend that means all dems want to ban guns. These people are so unoriginal, they all spout the same idiotic stuff over and over again

SgtRock said:
I see, because I am a constitutionalist I am an extremist. BTW, is this how you typically debate by insulting and name calling?
Click to expand...
OMG< this one is pulling out the entire playbook. Now deflect to "waa, you attacked me, I win"

Why is such obvious trolling allowed?
 
Last edited:
bluesmoke said:
A universal background check would find this person not allowed purchase of a gun but the record would not have to indicate why. The decision at hand for the court is to keep the person from getting a gun, so notifying authorities to deny this person purchase would be appropriate, without having to tell them why.

Nothing stops this person from borrowing a gun. Or, stealing a gun. The greatest concern in RFL is suicide. A suicide by stolen gun is rare. However, there have been suicides by borrowed guns, though very few, as best as I can tell. RFL does nothing for the murder rate, as best as I can tell. I haven’t researched either very much.
Click to expand...

OK, so the RFL needs UBGC to work and many (if not most) assert that a UBGC needs universal gun registration to work - since how else could (private?) gun transfers without BGCs be detected/prevented? So who could possibly oppose RFLs to get us firmly on that slippery slope to universal gun registration?
 
SgtRock said:
I agree, however there is imo a possibility for abuse. Not all judges are impartial. And not all witnesses are honest. That is why imo red flag laws are dangerous.
Click to expand...

You're correct. Red Flag laws would be ripe for abuse, because they rely on a judgement call. Any ant-gun judge could approve every case laid before him/her.

And that is also the problem with any "Assault Rifle" ban. What is an assault rifle? I have a Ruger 10/22 with some 20 round magazines. Is that little pea shooter an assault weapon?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, so the RFL needs UBGC to work and many (if not most) assert that a UBGC needs universal gun registration to work - since how else could (private?) gun transfers without BGCs be detected/prevented? So who could possibly oppose RFLs to get us firmly on that slippery slope to universal gun registration?
Click to expand...



“firmly” on that “slippery” slope. I love that. Where can we meet?

That RFL leads us to universal gun registration, one leading to the other has to be for it all to work, is why those who oppose gun law would oppose such an arrangement, IMO. Any gun law whatsoever, unless it liberalizes gun allowance or requires guns in some way, will be opposed by the gun zealots. And, yes, it would have to include private sale, which is an unknowable amount of transfer or origin.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Yeah, all rights have limits. The Constitution in no way, shape, or form says that any American, regardless of his criminal history, should have access to every type of weapon ever made. Reasonable restrictions on what types of weapons that can be bought (No tanks, no nuclear weapons, no gatlin guns, etc.) and who can buy those weapons (no murderers, rapists, diagnosed severely mentally ill, etc.) have been applied since the beginning. Neither party wants all guns banned and both support the right of the average law-abiding citizen to have regular firearms. Where we draw the line is absolutely up for debate and completely constitutional.
Click to expand...

No, having SMI (or CMI as it was once called over a few decades ago) has not been the cause for restricting firearm access. Having an SMI merely means that it is a serious mental illness. All it means is it substantially impacts one or more areas of your life. That's it. It does not mean that at that moment you pose an imminent risk to self or others. Having SMI does not mean you were adjudicated, nor does it mean that at that point you forfeit your right to firearms. Is that scary? Not for you, it shouldn't be. The much more likely risk (and that's not to suggest anywhere near a probable outcome) is suicide with the use of a firearm. People with disabilities are not to be, nor should they be, discriminated against simply because of their diagnosis.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
No, having SMI (or CMI as it was once called over a few decades ago) has not been the cause for restricting firearm access. Having an SMI merely means that it is a serious mental illness. All it means is it substantially impacts one or more areas of your life. That's it. It does not mean that at that moment you pose an imminent risk to self or others. Having SMI does not mean you were adjudicated, nor does it mean that at that point you forfeit your right to firearms. Is that scary? Not for you, it shouldn't be. The much more likely risk (and that's not to suggest anywhere near a probable outcome) is suicide with the use of a firearm. People with disabilities are not to be, nor should they be, discriminated against simply because of their diagnosis.
Click to expand...

First off I haven't seen you in years, welcome back.

Second off, I'm not here to vigorously defend red flag laws, but there definitely are mentally ill people we can identify ahead of time that shouldn't have a gun.

It's no different than taking the driver's license away from grandpa with dementia or the guy who randomly falls unconscious. We don't have to wait until they kill a bunch of people to react to serious and diagnosed medical conditions.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
First off I haven't seen you in years, welcome back.

Second off, I'm not here to vigorously defend red flag laws, but there definitely are mentally ill people we can identify ahead of time that shouldn't have a gun.

It's no different than taking the driver's license away from grandpa with dementia or the guy who randomly falls unconscious. We don't have to wait until they kill a bunch of people to react to serious and diagnosed medical conditions.
Click to expand...

The problem is that, fairly unlike tests with dementia (I'm recently becoming familiar with this, personally), you do not have a good way of isolating the truly predictive cases from the non-predictive cases. What you have is family and other professional petitions, but those petitions are more about feelings than anything else, and thanks to the well-worn history of the treatment of the mentally ill, quite rife with abuse. As such, you may prevent someone from committing an atrocity, but you're far more likely than not going to unduly strip someone of their rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom