• 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!

Solution For People Who Don't Like Guns

=Rich2018;1071524838]No, repeal all gun laws with one banning all guns
It would be interesting to see the fallout.
Pass an amendment repealing the second and banning all guns but state the national executive can make exceptions: make and model
Exceptions as in certain people. The ones carrying a Red Book. But to the regular people (read peon) exceptions mean musket.

British gun laws would offer a good template to copy IMO.
You knuckled under and said ok so keep your template.
You get them from criminals as and when you arrest them.
Really? That's it!:beam:
 
Gun violence is a cultural thing more than a legal thing. You can enact all the gun laws in the world and it won't keep some gang banger from offing someone with a gun. If people want to stop gun violence, stop blaming the tool and address the user.
But none of the anti gunners here believe that. they are of the opinion that just one more gun law is the answer. Until the next time.
 
Let me be more specific. Laws work on the law abiding. They do NOT work on criminals. Kinda self explanatory.

Are you familiar with the dererence theory of law enforcement? That providing a well publicized negative consequence will reduce a behavior.
 
No, repeal all gun laws with one banning all guns

Pass an amendment repealing the second and banning all guns but state the national executive can make exceptions: make and model


British gun laws would offer a good template to copy IMO.


You get them from criminals as and when you arrest them.

I seem recall you objecting to my assertion that you wanted to ban all guns.
 
Are you familiar with the dererence theory of law enforcement? That providing a well publicized negative consequence will reduce a behavior.

wouldn't you agree that the people least likely to harm someone with a firearm are the ones most likely to obey even a stupid gun law, while those who already violate laws against murder, robbery or assault, are least likely to obey another gun law?
 
" It's the possibility that"?
1- The possibility they get hit by a car
2- The possibility you get t-boned by a car with said children
3- The possibility you t-bone someone with said children
4- The possibility they slip in the shower or bathtub
I can go on and on about possibilities and that's what they are are possibilities but you fixate on guns.Why? It's the in thing to do? Maybe PC?

I'm "fixated" on guns because that's the topic of this thread. You couldn't hardly get any more whatabouty. How about we don't address any problems in any way unless we can address all problems in one thread?

To answer your implied question, not your glib questions... I think the reason that gun regulation is such a popular subject is that there's an unending barrage of school shootings. It makes people want to do something about it, because most people don't like it when kids get shot.
 
Last edited:
How long have cars been around with cops enforcing traffic laws. How long have guns been around? But gun laws for the most part haven't been enforced because there was no need. About the last 25 years or so is when gun laws really started getting out of hand.

It's when people started showing up in schools shooting a bunch of kids that other people started trying to stop them.
 
I thought they plugged the truck load of guns loophole a couple of years ago.

If they did, I was not aware. I'm pretty sure the NRA has been blocking any effective gun regulation. If I'm wrong, please educate me.
 
Last edited:
wouldn't you agree that the people least likely to harm someone with a firearm are the ones most likely to obey even a stupid gun law, while those who already violate laws against murder, robbery or assault, are least likely to obey another gun law?

No, I do not agree.

The laws we're talking about here are of two types. Universal background checks, and banning specific categories of hardware. So let's look at them one at a time.

For background checks, criminals will want to get around them. But if the law is well designed and well enforced, they won't be able to.

Bans mean that certain hardware won't be produced and distributed to the public anymore. Will criminals get them? They may want to, but the hardware just won't be as available as it is now.

Both background checks and banning specific hardware will have the effect of reducing the number of criminals who have that hardware. It isn't rocket science.

Of course, if a straw buyer drives down to a gun show in pennsyltuckey they can get around whatever laws a state might want to implement. That's why we need to close the federal loopholes.
 
No, I do not agree.

The laws we're talking about here are of two types. Universal background checks, and banning specific categories of hardware. So let's look at them one at a time.

For background checks, criminals will want to get around them. But if the law is well designed and well enforced, they won't be able to.

Bans mean that certain hardware won't be produced and distributed to the public anymore. Will criminals get them? They may want to, but the hardware just won't be as available as it is now.

Both background checks and banning specific hardware will have the effect of reducing the number of criminals who have that hardware. It isn't rocket science.

Of course, if a straw buyer drives down to a gun show in pennsyltuckey they can get around whatever laws a state might want to implement. That's why we need to close the federal loopholes.

Have you been hiding under a rock? 90% of all gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns or by people who are banned from owning or possessing a firearm. Even the dimmest dullard knows that criminals don't care about laws. Before you start talking about taking a constitutional right away from someone, you should at least educate yourself enough that you don't come off as a dolt.

Only an idiot thinks banning anything works. Illegal immigration is banned. Speeding is banned. Alcohol was banned at one time. Pot is banned. Opium is banned. Meth is banned. Arson is banned. Prostitution is banned. Gambling is banned. Why would any thinking being believe that a gun ban would work? All bans do is open up a lucrative market for criminals. They love them, that is money in their pocket.
 
Have you been hiding under a rock? 90% of all gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns or by people who are banned from owning or possessing a firearm. Even the dimmest dullard knows that criminals don't care about laws. Before you start talking about taking a constitutional right away from someone, you should at least educate yourself enough that you don't come off as a dolt.

Only an idiot thinks banning anything works. Illegal immigration is banned. Speeding is banned. Alcohol was banned at one time. Pot is banned. Opium is banned. Meth is banned. Arson is banned. Prostitution is banned. Gambling is banned. Why would any thinking being believe that a gun ban would work? All bans do is open up a lucrative market for criminals. They love them, that is money in their pocket.

You think arson should be legal?

I mean, why have any laws at all? Criminals are just going to break them.

I'm not talking about taking away anyone's constitutional rights. "Regulated" is the third word of the second amendment.

If we ban, say, magazines that hold more than 15 bullets, a whole bunch of factories would stop making them. They would he harder to find. Yeah, some would be made foreign and smuggled in. But a drop in the bucket. They would be hard to find. So we wouldn't have high school kids showing up at school with them. More reloads mean less shooting mean less dead kids.
 
Last edited:
...It seems you're ready to insult or attack people (remember the "lying POS" accusation ?
Please link the post where I posted that. You know, for context. :)
...Freedom ***IS*** overrated....

...The wailing hysteria of the RW is at best laughable and at worst a dangerous form of fascist paranoia.

Thanks, once again, for showing your true colors.
 
No, I do not agree.

The laws we're talking about here are of two types. Universal background checks, and banning specific categories of hardware. So let's look at them one at a time.

For background checks, criminals will want to get around them. But if the law is well designed and well enforced, they won't be able to.

Bans mean that certain hardware won't be produced and distributed to the public anymore. Will criminals get them? They may want to, but the hardware just won't be as available as it is now.

Both background checks and banning specific hardware will have the effect of reducing the number of criminals who have that hardware. It isn't rocket science.

Of course, if a straw buyer drives down to a gun show in pennsyltuckey they can get around whatever laws a state might want to implement. That's why we need to close the federal loopholes.

take your claims and apply them to heroin and crack cocaine. and then get back to me
 
You think arson should be legal?

I mean, why have any laws at all? Criminals are just going to break them.

I'm not talking about taking away anyone's constitutional rights. "Regulated" is the third word of the second amendment.

If we ban, say, magazines that hold more than 15 bullets, a whole bunch of factories would stop making them. They would he harder to find. Yeah, some would be made foreign and smuggled in. But a drop in the bucket. They would be hard to find. So we wouldn't have high school kids showing up at school with them. More reloads mean less shooting mean less dead kids.

banning guns is criminalizing activity that is not harmful

banning arson prohibits harmful acts.

the only people harmed by magazine limits are those who follow the law-people intending to use a gun to commit a felony, won't obey a magazine limit
 
Have you been hiding under a rock? 90% of all gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns or by people who are banned from owning or possessing a firearm. Even the dimmest dullard knows that criminals don't care about laws. Before you start talking about taking a constitutional right away from someone, you should at least educate yourself enough that you don't come off as a dolt.

Only an idiot thinks banning anything works. Illegal immigration is banned. Speeding is banned. Alcohol was banned at one time. Pot is banned. Opium is banned. Meth is banned. Arson is banned. Prostitution is banned. Gambling is banned. Why would any thinking being believe that a gun ban would work? All bans do is open up a lucrative market for criminals. They love them, that is money in their pocket.

Its inane-we don't have the resources and the will to punish actually already illegal, harmful activities, so the solution is to criminalize currently legal and non-harmful activities.
 
How come we're the only country on the planet that can't implement gun regulations that work?
 
Please link the post where I posted that. You know, for context. :)

Oh I'm sure you remember....and I think there might be a reason why you don't go into that thread any more

Thanks, once again, for showing your true colors.

A true patriot that values freedom and democracy

Not the tyranny on the RW that you represent.
 
As I said before we shouldn't have to do that. You don't like guns so don't own any, nobody is making you own guns. So you have nothing to complain about.

Nobody is making me buy child porn or crack cocaine either, nevertheless I think both a dangerous (like guns are) and should bee banned.
 
It would be interesting to see the fallout....

You mean a dramatic drop in mass shootings, I'd call that more that "interesting"


Exceptions as in certain people. The ones carrying a Red Book. But to the regular people (read peon) exceptions mean musket.

Yeah the one reading Sun Tzu LOL

All muzzle loaders would be exempted yes, as would manually cocked rifles and shotguns with a capacity of no more than 3.

You knuckled under and said ok so keep your template.


???


Really? That's it

Yes

Chicago PD seized 10,000 illegal firearms in one year. That's just one PD.

What other measures would you propose ?
 
I seem recall you objecting to my assertion that you wanted to ban all guns.

That's because I don't advocate this, please read my post again. I'm restated my position numerrous times

The bit about banning all gun but making exceptions (make and model#) based on British gun laws.


It's better than having to produce convoluted legal definitions of certain "types" of guns. Best ban them all and then un-ban some guns by make & model#.
 
Thanks, but I wasn’t the first to point this out to the anti-American, anti-Constitutionalists on this forum.

The great thing about the Internet is that it is a true democracy; everyone has the freedom to say what they want. This forum is free, but the owners have liability issues so they limit some things such as threats and stalking, but aside from that, everyone is equal here. A person can be a 12 year old their personal $4000 laptop or a homeless person using a library computer. They can also claim to be anything they want. All we have on these forums is our virtual reputation. Not our claims, but our posts.

I take everyone at their face value, but there’s always that little grain of salt....which I recommend everyone to take. You stated you were a Marine and I take your word for it. There is no reason to doubt you and, unless there is a reason to doubt you (which there isn’t) I’ll welcome you as my brother Marine. It works both ways.

Semper Fi, Mac.
eagleglobeanchor.gif

Agree 100%. We are like minded on many things. I am always amazed, even befuddled when I post an anecdote or opinion and site a particular experience I had, or something I heard, and somebody replies "B.S." or, "I don't believe you". If it's an issue that can be proven one way or another, sure, I will stand corrected, and admit I'm wrong. But a personal experience? I don't get it. Why would I, or anybody else lie on an anonymous message board?? What does one gain? Even when I'm wrong, why would I be embarrassed? What? Do they say "Harrumph! My screen name really showed his screen name.?" You are right on the money my friend, and yes, my Marine brother. Fellow Marines are the only people I call brother, beside my M.C. brothers. I don't take that word lightly. I went to boot camp at P.I January 1974, was stationed at Camp Pendleton, and Okinawa. Semper Fi bro.
 
Are you familiar with the dererence theory of law enforcement? That providing a well publicized negative consequence will reduce a behavior.

Yeah, I'm familiar. It hasn't been effective with gun laws. I mean, a criminal that is willing to risk prison for murder, robbery, rape, etc, wouldn't hesitate to break gun laws.
 
Back
Top Bottom