• 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!

Common sense gun control

Rich2018 said:
Help prevent.

Gun related crimes...if your gun is registered to you on a national database and if you use it, the bullets can be traced back to you and your gun.
You might think twice about doing the crime.
Click to expand...

The problem is that most people will not comply with registration, especially not those that would be inclined to use a gun in the process of a crime.
 
Nap said:
The problem is that most people will not comply with registration, especially not those that would be inclined to use a gun in the process of a crime.
Click to expand...

They would given stiff enough penalties for non-registration

Remember that all guns in the USA (bar perhaps some home made guns) were legally owned at one time.
 
Rich2018 said:
They would given stiff enough penalties for non-registration

Remember that all guns in the USA (bar perhaps some home made guns) were legally owned at one time.
Click to expand...

No, they wouldn't.

Some guns out of necessity? Yes, all of their guns? Most certainly not.

You are living in a fantasy world and simply don't understand the typical gun owner.
 
Rich2018 said:
Help prevent.

Gun related crimes...if your gun is registered to you on a national database and if you use it, the bullets can be traced back to you and your gun.
You might think twice about doing the crime.
Click to expand...

How will that trace happen with only the bullets in evidence?
 
Rich2018 said:
Help prevent.

Gun related crimes...if your gun is registered to you on a national database and if you use it, the bullets can be traced back to you and your gun.
You might think twice about doing the crime.
Click to expand...

Ummmm

No.

If registration were such a deterant the Vegas shooter would not have shot.

So, try again.

What does registration prevent?
 
swing_voter said:
Let's talk about your car. You need a driver's license to operate your car. What's more, the car has to be registered with a state issued license plate.

Why all the precautions? Because cars in the hands of the wrong driver are a threat to honest, working folk. You don't want to issue a drivers license to people who can't control a car, mentally ill people, etc.

So let's do the same with guns as we do with cars.

Moreover, let's combine the two processes. When you get your driver's license, you can get a gun license at the same time if you choose. When you register your car, you register your guns.

You won't even notice the extra paperwork because you'll be renewing and registering at the same time your doing it for your car.

There's a lot less mass killings done with vehicles than guns so drivers licenses and vehicle registration work.
Click to expand...

How many illegal immigrants/aliens have drivers licenses?

Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia
 
Fledermaus said:
And guns are gotten elsewhere.

The registered gun... Why is that now incapable of killing?
Click to expand...

I never said it was a perfect system.....just a better one
 
Fledermaus said:
So registered guns are still capable of being used for violence.
Click to expand...

Yes but registration forms a barrier to the criminal getting one.


Like a wall is a barrier to an illegal immigrant


Not perfect......just better
 
Captain America said:
This is just my opinion, but gun advocates seem to me, much like pro-choice advocates.

They oppose any restrictions whatsoever. Even sensible ones.

Believing that if you give the opposition an inch, they will try to take a mile.

And, sadly, I believe they are right.

Face it folks. We, as well as all future generations, are yoked by a constitution written over 200 years ago by men, from a society who mostly possessed, and thought in terms of, single shot, black powder pistols and rifles and the freedom to possess them.

Now, if we could go back in time and tell them about automatic weapons and other advances in the future of weaponry, things might have been different. But we can't and we didn't.

Now, it's way too late. These advanced weapons are here and they are here to stay. And if some whack-job is able to get his hands on one, I want to be able to do the same to protect myself and family from them. Can't put toothpaste back in the tube. All the talk about confiscation, regulation, or whatever, is just wasted breath.

I do wish it had been different. I would gladly forego my passion for deer hunting if it would just save one child. But it's not different. We have to play the cards we are dealt. As long as some punk-ass-gangster has a gun, so will I.

Adapt and improvise.
Click to expand...

My attempt to use a well formulated legal argument is so simple I hope all understand.

Posters here have admitted over and over the SC does not convey rights. They will rule if a law is enforceable.

Guns are written up as a right very early in the constitution. IT had nothing to do with new weapons, but it applied to all weapons.

Today you can legally buy a Cannon. Today you can still buy lawfully an Army tank.

I think you can also buy lawfully ships once used by our own coast guard when they were used for combat duty.

Even the Famed PT boat, once armed with torpedoes and heavy caliber machine guns are used by Civilians.

The fraud argument is none of this applies to the 2nd amendment.

Also of all lies told to the nation that harms all of us is Democrats plan to totally remove our rights in the 2nd Amendment is why there are killings of groups of people.

They will go to bat for massive deaths due to the auto or truck butr figfht for your right to guns to become their right to remove your guns.

The bundle of rights we speak to a lot in the world of Real estate law courses is you all have a bundle of rights. And one of those rights it to owne all of your personal property until ownership is illegal.

Abortion is used as a foil to capture your rights and remove them. Abortion is an issue for a number of reasons.
1. Abortion kills humans. We who hate it, understand it kills human beings.

2. Guns have no rights. Gun owners have them. The constitution guarantees it. The Constitution may never be amended to provide for lawful Abortions.

The ruling is based on some magic right apparently only unequally applied to women.
 
vegas giants said:
Yes but registration forms a barrier to the criminal getting one.


Like a wall is a barrier to an illegal immigrant


Not perfect......just better
Click to expand...

No doubt at all the Supreme Court sanctifies owning guns.

The wall now being built is designed to stop illegal people from getting in to damage this country.
 
Robertinfremont said:
No doubt at all the Supreme Court sanctifies owning guns.

The wall now being built is designed to stop illegal people from getting in to damage this country.
Click to expand...

Scotus also clearly supports gun control. Very clearly
 
TurtleDude said:
what are sensible restrictions in my view

1) criminalizing any action that objectively harms innocents or has very likely chance of harming innocents (such as firing a centerfire rifle in a city park or urban area outdoors)

2) preventing the possession of firearms in certain areas-such as prisons, courtrooms, of governmental buildings

3) preventing certain groups of people from buying or carrying firearms such as minors, violent felons and those adjudicated mentally incompetent.

4) restricting certain weapons from hunting, such as hunting deer with a 22 rimfire or hunting them with fully automatic weapons.

Those are common sense gun laws that I doubt less than 1% oppose. What are your definitions?
Click to expand...

How about, the second amendment protects my rights to own guns and I will and you can just lump it. I haven't used a gun in a crime of any kind. I've not robbed anyone, killed anyone, assualted anyone, raped anyone nor any other crime I have committed. So what is your reasoning for limiting my gun ownership?
 
Integrityrespec said:
How about, the second amendment protects my rights to own guns and I will and you can just lump it. I haven't used a gun in a crime of any kind. I've not robbed anyone, killed anyone, assualted anyone, raped anyone nor any other crime I have committed. So what is your reasoning for limiting my gun ownership?
Click to expand...

you need to read what I wrote again
 
calamity said:
Having full-blown shootouts in the 21st century between so-called "good guys" is not common sense.

Friend of slain stuntwoman Cheryl Sanders skeptical of ex's story

The new normal seems to be settling disputes with guns. Woo hoo...

How is that "common sense"?
Click to expand...

If that were the new normal, our homicide rate would be much higher than it was before shall-issue carry licensing became the norm. The opposite is true. Sorry, no matter how many times it is said, or in how many different ways, "rivers of blood in the streets" is not a thing associated with people lawfully carrying firearms in public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom