• 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!

Will Trump and Moscow Mitch do anything about gun control?

apdst said:
The only solution is self-defense. The more fools who wind up in a body bag, the fewer fools there'll be to commit crimes and it will cause wouldbe fools to think twice before they pull some ****.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is working great. Lol
 
TomFitz said:
No.

I predicted two weeks ago that Trump would make noises about gun regulation, and that he would eventually try to take all sides of the issue, before siding with the NRA and doing nothing, a course of action that Moscow Mitch declared up front.

TRump always tried to take every side of issues, before trying to jump in front of the winning side.
Click to expand...

The gop will side with the ammosexuals. It is part of their base.


The plan.....do nothing
 
TurtleDude said:
Trump is correct to blow off the anti gun side. Making the data base better is a good idea. Prosecuting those who lie on Form 4473 is a good idea-as is busting those who knowingly supply firearms to felons or fugitives. But the anti gun movement wants far more and actually balks at enforcing laws that incarcerate actual criminals

nothing is more dishonest in American politics than the gun control movement.
Click to expand...
actually, there is someone more dishonest. someone who pretends to understand the motivations of the other side while remaining an unthinking advocate of unlimited access to any kind of arm, under the pretense that position is evoked by the second amendment
It is permeated by lies.
Click to expand...
notice how such a person is absolutely certain that reasonable gun control could not be driven by a genuine desire to reduce gun deaths
It is based on a lie that those who push and advocate gun control actually care about stoping crime.
Click to expand...
notice how such a person insists that stopping crime could not conceivably be a legitimate basis for reasoned gun control
it's as if we should ignore the current spate of gun massacres and continue to pretend that reasonable gun control measures will not save lives
It is a lie to pretend that laws that only reduce the rights of honest Americans will impact people wo already commit felony level violent crimes.
Click to expand...
how dare we consider effecting controls on weapons designed to hunt humans
... because there are some honest Americans who need semi-automatic arms with unlimited rounds of ammunition in order to take down Bambi, damn it!
And on top of that, most of those who push for these laws, haven't a clue about the firearms they seek to ban-so they lie and smear those firearms with all sorts of dishonest descriptions.
Click to expand...
using this forum member's "logic", you, the reader, cannot possibly have legitimate opinions about the control of nuclear weapons because you are unable to design one

now the question is, what is more important, saving our children from wanton killers with access to weapons designed to hunt humans, or allowing a tiny segment of Americans to continue to use high rate of fire arms in their quest to put Bambi down
 
justabubba said:
actually, there is someone more dishonest. someone who pretends to understand the motivations of the other side while remaining an unthinking advocate of unlimited access to any kind of arm, under the pretense that position is evoked by the second amendment

notice how such a person is absolutely certain that reasonable gun control could not be driven by a genuine desire to reduce gun deaths

notice how such a person insists that stopping crime could not conceivably be a legitimate basis for reasoned gun control
it's as if we should ignore the current spate of gun massacres and continue to pretend that reasonable gun control measures will not save lives

how dare we consider effecting controls on weapons designed to hunt humans
... because there are some honest Americans who need semi-automatic arms with unlimited rounds of ammunition in order to take down Bambi, damn it!

using this forum member's "logic", you, the reader, cannot possibly have legitimate opinions about the control of nuclear weapons because you are unable to design one

now the question is, what is more important, saving our children from wanton killers with access to weapons designed to hunt humans, or allowing a tiny segment of Americans to continue to use high rate of fire arms in their quest to put Bambi down
Click to expand...

few posts from anti gunners contain more dishonesty and lies than this one. No one-I repeat no one is for unlimited access to arms. When the NRA backed plans to charge felons in possession FEDERALLY (where they would face longer sentences that what state courts imposed) GUESS WHO opposed that? The NAACP and the ACLU.

what are firearms designed to "hunt humans" is it the 1903 era Springfield rifle that so many snipers used in WWI and WII? was it the MI Garand that our government sold to hundreds of thousands of Citizens after millions of them had been used by American servicemen to Crush the Nazi and Tojo armies?
 
independentusa said:
Right after the two shootings in El Paso and Dayton we heard Trump say he would do something about gun control, mainly about background checks. Now he seems to be saying that after talking to the NRA we have enough background checks and it is all about mental illness. That does sound like the NRA's talking points. And McConnell has held up several bills that passed in the House concerning universal background checks. None of those yet have seen the light of day. So will either of the two ever do anything about the gun violence?
Click to expand...

I bet we could get something on gun control in exchange for something on immigration control. Isn't that how policitics is supposed to work, you compromise, I'll compromise.
 
Integrityrespec said:
I bet we could get something on gun control in exchange for something on immigration control. Isn't that how policitics is supposed to work, you compromise, I'll compromise.
Click to expand...

maybe support states passing UBGC (its unconstitutional on a federal level) in return for getting rid of the Hughes Amendment or the stupidity of state bans on common semi autos?
 
TurtleDude said:
few posts from anti gunners contain more dishonesty and lies than this one. No one-I repeat no one is for unlimited access to arms. When the NRA backed plans to charge felons in possession FEDERALLY (where they would face longer sentences that what state courts imposed) GUESS WHO opposed that? The NAACP and the ACLU.

what are firearms designed to "hunt humans" is it the 1903 era Springfield rifle that so many snipers used in WWI and WII? was it the MI Garand that our government sold to hundreds of thousands of Citizens after millions of them had been used by American servicemen to Crush the Nazi and Tojo armies?
Click to expand...

this is from the fellow who continues to whine because machine guns remain rigidly controlled
 
independentusa said:
Right after the two shootings in El Paso and Dayton we heard Trump say he would do something about gun control, mainly about background checks. Now he seems to be saying that after talking to the NRA we have enough background checks and it is all about mental illness. That does sound like the NRA's talking points. And McConnell has held up several bills that passed in the House concerning universal background checks. None of those yet have seen the light of day. So will either of the two ever do anything about the gun violence?
Click to expand...

Moscow Mitch and Putin's bitch? Not a chance.
 
independentusa said:
Right after the two shootings in El Paso and Dayton we heard Trump say he would do something about gun control, mainly about background checks. Now he seems to be saying that after talking to the NRA we have enough background checks and it is all about mental illness. That does sound like the NRA's talking points. And McConnell has held up several bills that passed in the House concerning universal background checks. None of those yet have seen the light of day. So will either of the two ever do anything about the gun violence?
Click to expand...

Nope. Not a chance. The GOP needs those NRA dollars for 2020.
 
justabubba said:
this is from the fellow who continues to whine because machine guns remain rigidly controlled
Click to expand...

tell us why the democrats felt a need to ban future sales of new MGs when not a single murder has been committed by a private citizen using a legal MG in over 80 years?
 
TurtleDude said:
tell us why the democrats felt a need to ban future sales of new MGs when not a single murder has been committed by a private citizen using a legal MG in over 80 years?
Click to expand...

because of the rigid restrictions placed upon them

duh duh.jpg
 
justabubba said:
because of the rigid restrictions placed upon them

View attachment 67262290
Click to expand...

ok lets run with that-Democrats -pandering to the masses (most of the machine guns used by the Prohibition-created gangsters-were stolen from NG and police arsenals since those firearms were extremely rare and hard to buy in the depression era America) passed severe restrictions, which did prevent lots of people from owning them. So this proves that Democrats bans are not about stopping crime but rather to harass owners.

WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF BANNING the sale of new MGs when the several hundred thousand in private hands had not been used for a murder in 80 years?
 
vegas giants said:
Oh at least a dozen could have. But you want guarantees which has never applied to any law they ever
Click to expand...

I feel like we've been through this before.

Name one.
 
notquiteright said:
Komrade-

What is this dribble and quibble???

You make vague statements and then don't give examples or explain the hog wash you use.

Back round checks are NOT required in 'private sales', the ATF is hamstrung by a lack of manpower AND silly rules passed by congress...

I guess the country you post from doesn't post our back round check system on their interwebz- the back round check is managed by the feds- what 'slight blemishes' do they flag you for??? Never mind the states- what do the Feds flag you for???

Komrade- you have NO idea, you just threw crap out there hoping we wouldn't challenge you.... :peace
Click to expand...

Sir Raygold-

Some states cover that purchase, even in private transactions. Which is why I stated that it would depend on the state that it is being done in.

Though I've always heard of things like the Gunshow loophole, and that turned out to be a lie as well. So I honestly don't care what most anti-2nd people say, unless I've seen the data myself.

Also this game of saying "back round check" is pretty damn childish, and seeing as you're doing it on purpose. It's just a flag to show that you're not interested in anything but trolling at this point.
 
apdst said:
It won't reduce mass shootings, at all.
Click to expand...

Size of the pile of bodies.... there seems to be an awakening of recognizing threats before they happen- interwebz posts and the like. I just wonder when the rabid 2nd A 'defenders' start squawking about 'thought police', 1st amendment and such... :peace
 
Oborosen said:
Sir Raygold- Some states cover that purchase, even in private transactions. Which is why I stated that it would depend on the state that it is being done in. Though I've always heard of things like the Gunshow loophole, and that turned out to be a lie as well. So I honestly don't care what most anti-2nd people say, unless I've seen the data myself. Also this game of saying "back round check" is pretty damn childish, and seeing as you're doing it on purpose. It's just a flag to show that you're not interested in anything but trolling at this point.
Click to expand...

Komrade-

Now you play games, you claim a 'slight blemish' when the background check is a federal process, not state. True some states go further but that is a strawman to deflect from the main issue- the federal background check. What is the slight blemish- hell pick a state you are familiar with and name the slight blemish- name the federal background check's example of a slight blemish- surely your Moscow handlers can supply something to back you accusation.... :roll:

The 'gun' show loophole isn't a lie, now now Komrade I understand when English isn't your native language you can be a bit lost... Like global warming as a name for climate change the 'gun' show loophole refers to the private sales done by non FFL sellers routinely found at 'gun' shows.

EVERY 'gun' show I've attended- to be honest not many of late- too many jewelry/knife/glasses cleaning/crappy pistol dealers who are far too proud of their wares for my taste. But when I go I see at least a dozen guys wandering around with 'FOR SALE' signs in the muzzle of firearms, guys at tables selling firearms on consignment- and ZERO background checks done, one didn't even want to give a bill of sale.... :doh

Come on Komrade, try a fact in your posts, the change will do you good... :peace

So when Komrades try and fly lies for facts I see it as just foreign hacks trying to troll American Interweb sites....
 
notquiteright said:
Size of the pile of bodies.... there seems to be an awakening of recognizing threats before they happen- interwebz posts and the like. I just wonder when the rabid 2nd A 'defenders' start squawking about 'thought police', 1st amendment and such... :peace
Click to expand...

Yes, I see how the thought police are growing out of control.
 
apdst said:
Yes, I see how the thought police are growing out of control.
Click to expand...

many collectivists cannot handle the fact that in a free society, you cannot guarantee total safety. Sheep that live in pens don't worry about wolves, those that free range, sometimes are killed by wolves. But those that live in pens, may be killed the those who own the pens, anytime those who own the pens, wish to do so
 
apdst said:
Yes, I see how the thought police are growing out of control.
Click to expand...

So you have no problem with someone talking about a plan to blow up a church on social media?
 
vegas giants said:
So you have no problem with someone talking about a plan to blow up a church on social media?
Click to expand...

I do have a problem with it, if the person is specific in the threat. The pronlem begins when (not if) the policing of such comments gets out of control.

There's a difference between making a threat and talking ****.

The only thing thought policing will accomplish is make people who are an actual threat go under ground.
 
apdst said:
I do have a problem with it, if the person is specific in the threat. The pronlem begins when (not if) the policing of such comments gets out of control.

There's a difference between making a threat and talking ****.

The only thing thought policing will accomplish is make people who are an actual threat go under ground.
Click to expand...

You want to split hairs. I say tell it to a judge
 
vegas giants said:
You want to split hairs. I say tell it to a judge
Click to expand...

Is this a threat?

I actually wanted smack his head off his neck. I can only imagine the kind of parents who instilled that disrespect and arrogance into this budding little supremacist. Repulsive behavior.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom