• 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!

Virginia Democrats float prosecution, National Guard deployment if police don't enforce gun control

CaughtInThe said:
and we still have a firearm homicide around every 54 minutes. since this thread was started last night that means around 17 people (moms, dads, kids, girlfriends, etc) have died. from firearm homicide.

that kind of frequency (as if it's good or something) is never something that people should brag about.
Click to expand...

And some of those are justifiable homicides.
 
Fishking said:
Conversely, a person that supports using the government to violate the rights of the people to own and use firearms are taking a scummy position, even though I'll admit that many of them are doing it with the best of intentions and not out of malice. They just happen to be lacking in historical education and the philosophy of liberty.
Click to expand...
They're lacking in education, period.
 
Chillfolks said:
I would agree. The question is how to you prevent those who shouldn't with out harassing those who should.
Click to expand...

Background cheeks. Before any member of my agency was allowed to carry a firearm, they went through an extensive background check, including: local, state and federal records, both civil and criminal; financial, school, military (if appropriate), credit reports, and an oral and written psychological evaluation, stability (# of times moved) and written recommendations from non relatives (followed up by a telephone call or personal interview).

I don't expect such a background check would be used for the civilian population. But I believe a nationwide data base should be established to record every person who has two or more DUI's, or been convicted of the use of illegal drugs, a crime against a person (all felonies and misdemeanors), detained as a danger to themselves or others.
 
truthatallcost said:
That depends. Who would be ineligible to own a firearm, if you could decide?
Click to expand...

Anyone convicted of a violent felony, or a misdemeanor such as Domestic Violence, criminal threats, stalking and sexual crimes; all those detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others, and those who have been assessed to be members of criminal gangs.
 
Wry Catcher said:
Anyone convicted of a violent felony, or a misdemeanor such as Domestic Violence, criminal threats, stalking and sexual crimes; all those detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others, and those who have been assessed to be members of criminal gangs.
Click to expand...

what does it mean to be "assessed" as member of a criminal gang? Doesn't sound like a conviction.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Completely idiotic comment.

apdst made an erroneous claim. I provided proof to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Pointing out that you cited completely irrelevant, cherry picked comments, that didn't even correctly rebut the comment to which they were addressed, is hardly "idiotic."
 
Despite the fact that I am normally not enthusiastic about far Left gun control laws (being a liberal gun owner) I think it might be instructive to ponder how a trial for violating such laws would look if a jury foreman were to state prior to the trial's commencement that he would be strictly coordinating with the Democratic prosecution.

Recent events in the Senate just sort of put me in mind of it, that's all.
 
MrPeanut said:
What do you think will happen if the National Guard attempts to enforce the law in Virginia?
Click to expand...
Of the ones that might actually report, most will rightfully sit on their hands and watch the enforcement begin.
 
TurtleDude said:
what does it mean to be "assessed" as member of a criminal gang? Doesn't sound like a conviction.
Click to expand...

In California, the assessment is based on an allegation by the DA as part of a crime. Even a misdemeanor - such as tagging a public or private property with gang symbols, i.e. vandalism, can be attached to the complaint and when found true the defendant is labeled so.
 
Wry Catcher said:
In California, the assessment is based on an allegation by the DA as part of a crime. Even a misdemeanor - such as tagging a public or private property with gang symbols, i.e. vandalism, can be attached to the complaint and when found true the defendant is labeled so.
Click to expand...

No conviction-no loss of constitutional rights.
 
DebateChallenge said:
If I was in the National Guard and I was in such a situation I would desert.
Click to expand...

That would be the wrong answer. The professional thing to do would be to protest in writing, request clarity from the chain of command and refuse to execute an unlawful order until the the CIC clarifies the legality of that order; the CIC being the president. If you deserted, they can court martial you. Send a written protest up the chain of command and they can't touch you, and you don't have to execute the order.
 
RetiredUSN said:
The National Guard is supposed to do exactly what?

The National Guard will not go house to house to collect guns....................period!

1/2 of the Guard wouldn't show up.
Click to expand...
1/2 ? That I think is overly generous. I was thinking more like 1/4 or less.;)
 
Just a couple of points, first off this is one Rep making a comment that has not been supported by the rest of the Legislature. Secondly, guns are not registered in VA so even if they wanted to confiscate all ARs they have no idea who has them. Thirdly I would remind everyone that the NG is made up of State Citizens so the odds that they would comply is ludicrous to begin with, and I would remind everyone that there are rules governing how and when they can be called up.
So, is any of this tough talk going to lead to a faceoff between LEO's and the NG is just that, Talk.
I would add that I doubt anyone will have problems with background checks, we do them here in Texas and no one takes real issue with it. Confiscation is another story, here such a law would never be enforced by Law Enforcement and if tried the Citizens would resist, to think otherwise is to underestimate how strongly many believe in protecting their Rights. This should be interesting to watch play out, but if anyone thinks bans on ARs will make anyone safer is fooling no one but themselves.
 
DebateChallenge said:
They're not scum if they oppose gun control....
Click to expand...


So opposition to gun control absolves a person of all crime ?


Yes believe it or not there are some Republicans who are in favor of gun control and so those you can call Republican "scum." There are also Democrats who are in favor of gun rights so that just goes to show you that not all Democrats are "scum." Being against gun rights is what makes a person "scum" not whether they're Democrat or Republican.
Click to expand...

Are there any other topics you feel so strongly about. Does advocating any other laws make a person "scum"


How about voting for Trump ?



Sure they will, bullets first and straight from the muzzle.
Click to expand...

Still with the big talk huh ?

I bet you'd be first in line to hand over your guns if indeed you're old enough to have any.
 
apdst said:
That doesn't make it legal
Click to expand...

No but it gives lie to the objection, from the gun owning lobby, that no law enforcement officer would seek to disarm a fellow citizen (and that's if a gun banning law and Constitutional amendment was passed)
 
Rich2018 said:
No but it gives lie to the objection, from the gun owning lobby, that no law enforcement officer would seek to disarm a fellow citizen (and that's if a gun banning law and Constitutional amendment was passed)
Click to expand...

Who said "no law enforcement officer"? I'm well aware that there are cops that would glafly violate their oath.
 
apdst said:
Who said "no law enforcement officer"? I'm well aware that there are cops that would glafly violate their oath.
Click to expand...

It's often said that gun confiscation is impossible because law enforcement would refuse to carry out such orders.


You might be right, a few might rather resign but I don't think it would be too many.
 
Rich2018 said:
It's often said that gun confiscation is impossible because law enforcement would refuse to carry out such orders.


You might be right, a few might rather resign but I don't think it would be too many.
Click to expand...

I've never heard that argument and I don't agree with ir.
 
Rich2018 said:
So opposition to gun control absolves a person of all crime ?
Click to expand...
No

Rich2018 said:
Are there any other topics you feel so strongly about.
Click to expand...
Yes, although this is not the proper board to discuss such stuff.

Rich2018 said:
Does advocating any other laws make a person "scum"
Click to expand...
Depends on what law they're advocating.

Rich2018 said:
How about voting for Trump ?
Click to expand...
No that makes a person smart. Smart enough to not vote for the alternative, Hillary.

Rich2018 said:
Still with the big talk huh ?

I bet you'd be first in line to hand over your guns if indeed you're old enough to have any.
Click to expand...
Keep fooling yourself.
 
Rich2018 said:
No but it gives lie to the objection, from the gun owning lobby, that no law enforcement officer would seek to disarm a fellow citizen (and that's if a gun banning law and Constitutional amendment was passed)
Click to expand...
There's some that would and some that wouldn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom