• 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!

10 yr old shot two weeks after 2 yr old

Grizzly Adams said:
In my experience, I'd say upwards of 90% are fully supportive of the second amendment.


But you aren't. So I guess your gut feeling is pretty worthless.
Click to expand...

most cops retire earlier than other civilians in other jobs. Federal Law Enforcement officers, with the power of arrest, have a mandatory retirement age of 57. That means FBI, DEA, Secret Service, US Marshals etc. Some take other law enforcement jobs-some go into private sector. Most of them support gun rights because they certainly want to be able to own guns long after they turn in their badges.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Just as one person owning a gun does not interfere with one person walking down the street....
Click to expand...

How many guns does it take to shoot someone or to rob them?


....move those goalposts....
Click to expand...

Yes to everywhere you're likely to face an armed mugger or an active shooter

"Walking down the street" was a figure of speech - you probably drive, I know my family does.

So put those goal posts around me (and people like me) and move them as I move from place to place where I am vulnerable


...that is an accompanying risk with the presence of alcohol....
Click to expand...

And with guns

No-one can be shot by someone who doesn't have a gun


...you have learned nothing from that fact, apparently, other than the fact itself. It's like teaching you addition, but instead of extrapolating from 1+1=2 and 1+2=3, you need specific instruction for each set of added numbers, and cannot use the established pattern to determine the answer to 1+3....
Click to expand...

Convincing a gun owner to give up his?her guns for the greater good is like trying to multiply Roman numerals: LXVII times XVI



You just want those guns no matter how many people die as long as it's no-one you know


....what counts as a "transfer" that triggers the background check requirement?
Click to expand...


A sale


...can I hand my big-bore revolver to the guy in the next stall at the range and let him try it out without an FFL?
Click to expand...

Yes

...I don't trust people like you whose stated end goal is repeal of the second amendment and confiscation of all guns to stop at simple registration. I want to keep that travesty of a plan as difficult to implement as possible. Second, the probability of an actual invasion by a foreign army is not zero. The last thing I want for an invading army to get their hands on is a list of names and addresses of all the gun owners in the country. Third, it's just none of your ****ing business if I have guns or not....
Click to expand...

You should, as a minimum as a gun owner, be forced to register, on a NATIONAL database, every firearm. Make, Model and Serial Number plus some form of ballistics "fingerprint" so if your gun was used in a crime, law enforcement will know.


...Wut?
Click to expand...

Excuses of firearms owners to have guns:

1. Gun ownership is a natural right superseding any law or constitution

2. Guns are needed because:
2.1 Some Americans live too far away from a store to buy food
2.2 With guns to defend yourself you'll be dead in a day/week/month/year

3. Gun Control is impractical anyway because:
3.1 There are just too many guns out there to collect even for a country as powerful as the USA
3.2 No law enforcement official would obey a command to disarm a fellow citizen anyway.
 
vegas giants said:
If any citizen pulled out a gun at the vegas shooting he would have been shot dead by police
Click to expand...

Very likely.

I wasn't suggesting drawing a gun and shooting back at the building where the fire was coming from. I was suggesting that had people on the ground moved their asses and ran for cover instead of hunkering down and remaining a fixed target, that would have been a better reaction.

BTW, I do believe someone with a concealed carry permit gave his gun to a police officer there if I recall correctly. But when I said fight back, you need to be in a position to have no choice but to fight back. If you can run away that is always a better option in most mass shootings. Run fast and FAR quickly. If you freeze and think "duck and cover" will always save you then all you are is waiting to be slaughtered.

Did you see the video of the mosque shooting in New Zealand? Very horrific. But the lesson again is that people just cowered down. Only one guy tried to fight back, he was killed. Some ran and got out and survived, but the rest thought crouching down would be enough--- it wasn't. Now had just one person there had a gun, then maybe many lives could have been saved.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is as silly as saying my right not to be run over supersedes your right to drive a car or own alcohol
Click to expand...

No-one has a right to drive a car - driving is a privilege not a right.
So yes you're being silly

...we protect your right not to be shot, by making it a felony with severe consequences to shoot you....
Click to expand...

And yet how many people are shot on purpose a year (discounting suicides)
Mass shooters are restrained by any law as the usually know what's coming and shoot themselves at the end


...my right to be able to exercise my right of self defense supersedes your right not to be fearful for silly reasons.
Click to expand...

Excuse 2.2
 
Rich2018 said:
Because technically it's the bullets that kill.


And even if you say your guns have never been involved in a shooting, it's like saying you're exempt from speed limits because you've never been in a road traffic accident.
Click to expand...

No. You’re exempt from the government randomly fining you because some else was speeding.

If you removed all guns from society all gun violence and death would disappear. A fairly asinine statement as the result is obvious but it fails to account for the predictive rise in other forms of violence and death that would be on par.

The right to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It doesn’t get any more black and white.

You can’t stop every crazy person from doing crazy things and you sure as hell don’t disarm law abiding citizens to protect themselves from those crazy people (if they want to arm themselves).

That’s the point you gun grabber types seem to miss. While 2A supporters will fight to maintain that right they will never demand that someone else exercise that right.

If you really think suicides rates would drop with zero access to firearms, I have beech front property in AZ to sell you.

Bring in a universal background check, UBC. Only catch, the government keeps no record of a sale or what was sold only that the check was run and passed or failed.

Make it a 10 dollar charge per check, make all transfers and sales to non immediate family members require the check save for temporary loans, ie letting someone try your gun at the gun range.

The NRA is missing a huge opportunity here to advance gun safety, storage, handling etc. A large national movement by the NRA to increase safety awareness, proper handling, proper selection of firearm type for the situation, public education, etc. The hearts and minds of most Americans could be won over with the proper safety campaign and put this gun grabber BS to bed once and for all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TurtleDude said:
Not if you are an experienced federal trial attorney. Those are rules used by the courts do dismiss or end lawsuits that have no merit or suffer other fatal flaws.
Click to expand...

Too complex to sue a gun shop. You can try and sue a gun manufacturer but I'm not aware of any successful lawsuits.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Even if it were "purely for fun" and/or "otherwise useless," ownership of an object, by itself, does not interfere in any way with the right of a person to not be assaulted.
Click to expand...

It's a question of what takes precedence.

Being shot outweighs a fun pastime.
 
CaughtInThe said:
that's just a weird post.

i'm admitting that there is nothing we can do (well, aside from some tweaks that have subtle affects) because of the 2nd and the way it was interpreted by our SC and that means i don't care that a 7yo girl was gunned down yesterday.

that's just really odd. feels like you just need to attack me because you probably (deep down) know there is no solution too.
Click to expand...
No...what you are admitting is that all you are interested in doing is banning guns and targeting law abiding citizens. There is plenty we can do about targeting predators and stopping violent crime. But you dont have the stomach for that.
 
Wings said:
No. You’re exempt from the government randomly fining you because some else was speeding....
Click to expand...

No, that speed limit also applies to you regardless of your lack of involvement in causing accidents that local officials used to determine a safe speed limit.


...if you removed all guns from society all gun violence and death would disappear....
Click to expand...

Yes it would


...but it fails to account for the predictive rise in other forms of violence and death that would be on par....
Click to expand...

You mean like a mass stabbing or mass bludgeoning

Accidental death by knife

Why would gun violence be replaced by other forms of lethal violence ? How many mass stabbings are there in school in countries where guns are banned ?


...the right to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It doesn’t get any more black and white....
Click to expand...

And neither would the wording of the amendment to repeal it


...you can’t stop every crazy person from doing crazy things and you sure as hell don’t disarm law abiding citizens to protect themselves...
Click to expand...

Excuses 3.1 and 2.2


...while 2A supporters will fight to maintain that right they will never demand that someone else exercise that right....
Click to expand...

Isn't that the case with ALL rights ?


...if you really think suicides rates would drop with zero access to firearms, I have beech front property in AZ to sell you....
Click to expand...

Yes they would and Arizona is too hot for me.

It's also "beach" front property. "Beech" is the tree



...bring in a universal background check, UBC. Only catch, the government keeps no record of a sale or what was sold only that the check was run and passed or failed....
Click to expand...

No, a full make, model, serial number and ballistic "fingerprint" of the gun would be required as a minimum.
Why would you oppose such a database...?


...make it a 10 dollar charge per check, make all transfers and sales to non immediate family members require the check save for temporary loans, ie letting someone try your gun at the gun range....
Click to expand...

Why would immediate family members be exempt ?


...the NRA is missing a huge opportunity here to advance gun safety, storage, handling etc....
Click to expand...

The NRA is the enemy.
 
VanceMack said:
No...what you are admitting is that all you are interested in doing is banning guns and targeting law abiding citizens. There is plenty we can do about targeting predators and stopping violent crime. But you dont have the stomach for that.
Click to expand...

another weird post. guns can't be banned because of the 2nd and the SC.

this problem can't be fixed.
 
Rich2018 said:
No, that speed limit also applies to you regardless of your lack of involvement in causing accidents that local officials used to determine a safe speed limit.




Yes it would




You mean like a mass stabbing or mass bludgeoning

Accidental death by knife

Why would gun violence be replaced by other forms of lethal violence ? How many mass stabbings are there in school in countries where guns are banned ?




And neither would the wording of the amendment to repeal it




Excuses 3.1 and 2.2




Isn't that the case with ALL rights ?




Yes they would and Arizona is too hot for me.

It's also "beach" front property. "Beech" is the tree





No, a full make, model, serial number and ballistic "fingerprint" of the gun would be required as a minimum.
Why would you oppose such a database...?




Why would immediate family members be exempt ?




The NRA is the enemy.
Click to expand...

Your speeding analogy is completely off. You don’t restrict the rights of others because of the bad acts of a small few.

Simply removing firearms won’t reduce violence. The gun doesn’t cause the violence, the person does.

You can create a nice list of excuses, that doesn’t reduce that’s list relevance.

Amend the constitution through the proper procedures. I’ll wait.

If one spelling error via an iPhone is a point for you, hear you go.

A database is step one to confiscation. Just like the government doesn’t get to know WHOM I voted for only that I legally voted.


Why should my family be subject to a background check to inherit my property?

The NRA is doing no favors to gun owners currently, we agree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rich2018 said:
Because technically it's the bullets that kill.
Click to expand...

Wrong it’s technically the person behind the trigger that kills. Even taking ricochets into effect a bullet follows a predictable path.

And even if you say your guns have never been involved in a shooting, it's like saying you're exempt from speed limits because you've never been in a road traffic accident.
Click to expand...


No it’s me saying my vehicle shouldn’t be required to outfitted with speed governor simply because the guy down the street got a speeding ticket.
 
CaughtInThe said:
another weird post. guns can't be banned because of the 2nd and the SC.

this problem can't be fixed.
Click to expand...
Your problem is you take a continued simple minded approach that 'the problem' is 'guns'. And as long as that remains your total focus...YOU are the problem.
 
VanceMack said:
Your problem is you take a continued simple minded approach that 'the problem' is 'guns'. And as long as that remains your total focus...YOU are the problem.
Click to expand...

yes, we have a firearm homicide every 54 minutes, in places all over our country, and i'm the problem because i tell the truth that the problem can't be fixed.

weird, weird posts from you guys.
 
CaughtInThe said:
yes, we have a firearm homicide every 54 minutes, in places all over our country, and i'm the problem because i tell the truth that the problem can't be fixed.

weird, weird posts from you guys.
Click to expand...

do you think most the leaders of the anti gun movement are primarily interested in those homicides or is there another reason why they push laws that target people who have NOT harmed others?
 
Rich2018 said:
Your undocumented experience is worthless.

Citation needed.
Click to expand...
You're the one who claimed cops wanted to disarm people.

You first.
 
Rich2018 said:
It's a question of what takes precedence.
Click to expand...
There is only a question of precedence between two competing elements when those elements are in conflict. Owning a gun does not conflict with anyone else's rights.

Being shot outweighs a fun pastime.
Click to expand...
But that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about the simple act of owning a gun. Owning a gun is not the same as shooting someone.

It is exasperating that this distinction must be explained.
 
Rich2018 said:
How many guns does it take to shoot someone or to rob them?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant, as this is not the same thing as owning a gun.

Yes to everywhere you're likely to face an armed mugger or an active shooter

"Walking down the street" was a figure of speech - you probably drive, I know my family does.

So put those goal posts around me (and people like me) and move them as I move from place to place where I am vulnerable
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand the meaning of the term.

And with guns

No-one can be shot by someone who doesn't have a gun
Click to expand...
That's right. When I'm 80 years old and some punk kid comes up on me with a knife, I'm pretty much screwed in your ideal world.

Convincing a gun owner to give up his?her guns for the greater good is like trying to multiply Roman numerals: LXVII times XVI
Click to expand...
The problem is that you never have enough to convince us it's actually "the greater good."

A sale
Click to expand...
So I can give a gun to someone for free without the check?

Yes
Click to expand...
So that's actually reasonable. A lot of the proposals don't adequately constrain the definition of "transfer" so any time the gun changes hands a check must be run.

You should, as a minimum as a gun owner, be forced to register, on a NATIONAL database, every firearm. Make, Model and Serial Number plus some form of ballistics "fingerprint" so if your gun was used in a crime, law enforcement will know.
Click to expand...
**** no. You don't need to know if I own guns or not. And I don't need my gun inventory made public when (not if) the ATF is hacked and the database distributed. And if we are ever invaded, we don't need an enemy having easy access to a list of who owns the rifles that will be hiding behind every blade of grass.

Excuses of firearms owners to have guns:

1. Gun ownership is a natural right superseding any law or constitution

2. Guns are needed because:
2.1 Some Americans live too far away from a store to buy food
2.2 With guns to defend yourself you'll be dead in a day/week/month/year

3. Gun Control is impractical anyway because:
3.1 There are just too many guns out there to collect even for a country as powerful as the USA
3.2 No law enforcement official would obey a command to disarm a fellow citizen anyway.
Click to expand...
Absent the hyperbolic timeline in 2.2, these are all valid reasons.
 
CaughtInThe said:
yes, we have a firearm homicide every 54 minutes, in places all over our country, and i'm the problem because i tell the truth that the problem can't be fixed.

weird, weird posts from you guys.
Click to expand...
The problem can be fixed...you just dont have the guts or political will to address the problem.

When people identified a drunk driving problem, they didnt advocate for stupid solutions like banning cars. Because that would be...well...stupid.

So is advocating for banning guns.
 
VanceMack said:
The problem can be fixed...you just dont have the guts or political will to address the problem.

When people identified a drunk driving problem, they didnt advocate for stupid solutions like banning cars. Because that would be...well...stupid.

So is advocating for banning guns.
Click to expand...

if most car owners were conservatives and if AAA mainly supported such politicians, I bet lefties would
 
VanceMack said:
The problem can be fixed...you just dont have the guts or political will to address the problem.

When people identified a drunk driving problem, they didnt advocate for stupid solutions like banning cars. Because that would be...well...stupid.

So is advocating for banning guns.
Click to expand...

The solution is gun control. It is in fact the only solution that works
 
calamity said:
Na, he's probably a piece of ****. But, giving him a gun makes him a far more dangerous piece of **** than he otherwise would have been.
Click to expand...

Na, he's probably a piece of ****.
Click to expand...

So maybe we should concentrate on that?

Where I live I can Openly carry an AR-15 walking down the street. I can conceal a hand gun with NO permit

All's quiet here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom