• 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!

GOP's Gun Raffle In Giffords' District Sparks Hot Debate

Is this raffle in extremely bad taste?

  • Yes, the republicans should be ashamed

    Votes: 14 35.0%

  • No, everyone should really just relax

    Votes: 21 52.5%

  • Other, I can't commit to yes or no

    Votes: 5 12.5%
  • Total voters
    40
Crosscheck said:
How did you feel about the mosque they wanted next to the 9-11 center?

It was an entirely different group of Muslims who wanted it built. It was probably their right to build it right there but just not the way to go, at least to me.
Click to expand...
If they are American citizens they can so as they wish with in the law. Common sense is not a mandated by law, there for I will agree with your statement.
 
haymarket said:
What is the primary purpose and main function of a Mustang?

What is the primary purpose and main function of a firearm?
Click to expand...


Glock doesn't build Glocks with the intention that they be used for murder. They are intended to be used for lawful purposes. That someone abused one doesn't taint the whole brand name. :roll:

The real diff between Mustangs and Glocks, or cars and guns? 1. Cars kill lots more people than guns. 2. One is Constitutionally protected, the other isn't. Guess which.
 
ecofarm said:
No. When he bough the ticket he agreed to be eligible or forfeit. I figure.



Anyway, I almost forgot...

I'd pop that sweet thing off like 'bing bing bing' all night long.
Click to expand...
LOL..this to I suppose but if I ran the raffle I wouldn't be a dick, I would give him the cash or at least a refund.
 
pbrauer said:
In my opinion, the person who made this decision has his head up his/her butt.
Click to expand...

The next time you watch a political convention rally, no matter which party, and you see the grinning fool with the straw hat on with the little American Flag. Well, there's the Einstein who runs these things.
 
pbrauer said:
Extremely bad taste, a hunting rifle or a shotgun is one thing, but this murder machine come with 3 magazines.
Click to expand...

It's a killing machine.

Murder is a misuse of the item.
 
I bet Giffords would aplluade these folks continueing to excercise their constitutional rights, as proof that no matter how many crazy assholes there are in the world, our freedoms will not be taken away from us.
 
haymarket said:
Crosscheck said:
Layla_Z said:
[...] On a side note, this would be less troubling if it were some other group holding the raffle. Say the local chapter of the NRA. Somehow it is worse because it's the GOP. It feels like a political move and not just fundraising.
Click to expand...
Bingo, you hit it there. One can't ignore the political undertones to this. Five years down the road I really don't think anyone would pause at a raffle of a gun by the party. But seriously, they need to get a clue.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. They do need to get a clue. Of course, we have the more frightening alternative is that they know exactly what they are doing and want to get this sort of reaction.
Click to expand...
Bingo, you hit it there. The GOP/Tea Party has been very 'in-your-face' as of late, and this certainly seems to be a premeditated example of it.
 
Karl said:
You are mistaken. Or, Arizona has not updated their website. See Concealed Weapons & Permits - Arizona Department of Public Safety
Click to expand...
Nope, website not uptodate.


Arizona Gun Law: Concealed Weapons Allowed Without Permit Under New Law
Favoring the constitutional right to bear arms over others' concerns about gun safety, Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill making Arizona the third state allowing people to carry a concealed weapon without requiring a permit.

The measure takes effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends, which likely puts the effective date in July or August.

Arizona's concealed-weapon law takes effect


Today is the day gun-rights advocates have had in their sights for a long time.

Starting today, Arizona residents at least 21 years old can carry a concealed weapon without a permit.


The change is part of a broad weapons law by state Sen. Russell Pearce passed by the state Legislature in April that eases restrictions on concealed carry and stiffens penalties for committing a crime while carrying a concealed weapon.

The law is one of many passed by the state Legislature this past session that go into effect today.

Arizona joins Alaska and Vermont as the only states to allow concealed weapons without a permit.

So I did remember correctly. Doesn't matter so much to me, I had a permit under the old law.
 
Goshin said:
Glock doesn't build Glocks with the intention that they be used for murder. They are intended to be used for lawful purposes. That someone abused one doesn't taint the whole brand name. :roll:

The real diff between Mustangs and Glocks, or cars and guns? 1. Cars kill lots more people than guns. 2. One is Constitutionally protected, the other isn't. Guess which.
Click to expand...
I submit a honest answer to your question:

1. Cars are designed, manufactured, and sold with the intent of transporting people. Alternatively, they can occasionally be used in other applications (racing, or as a weapon).

2. Guns are designed, manufactured, and sold with the intent of killing living things. That a particular gun may never be used for that purpose has no bearing on the original intent of the device. Alternatively, they can occasionally be used in other applications (target shooting, or, I presume, to brandish at burglars or muggers {not a recommended activity, I've heard}).
 
Karl said:
I submit a honest answer to your question:

1. Cars are designed, manufactured, and sold with the intent of transporting people. Alternatively, they can occasionally be used in other applications (racing, or as a weapon).

2. Guns are designed, manufactured, and sold with the intent of killing living things. That a particular gun may never be used for that purpose has no bearing on the original intent of the device. Alternatively, they can occasionally be used in other applications (target shooting, or, I presume, to brandish at burglars or muggers {not a recommended activity, I've heard}).
Click to expand...

You don't appear to know a lot about guns.

Approximately 99.98% of guns are never used in the commission of a crime... fewer still in the commission of murder. Most firearms are never used for anything BUT target shooting, hunting, etc.

There are many firearms that are purpose-built for target shooting and are not intended for any other purpose, and would make poor hunting or self-defense weapons. Olympic target pistols come to mind.
There are many firearms that are purpose-built for hunting, (yes including handguns like the TC contender), which would make poor general-combat or general-self-protection weapons. Deer rifles with 3 round magazines and scopes come to mind.

Glock makes (among other things) a class of pistols that are specifically tailored for competition shooting events, where concealability and stopping power are not issues and reduced-charge ammo is used to minimize recoil and re-targeting time... these would be less than suitable for self-defense.

Yes, Glock also makes pistols that are specifically designed for police, military and self-defense uses.

But they don't make them with intent to use in murder.


Incidently, "brandishing" is a term that usually indicates unlawful and negligent display in a manner causing bystanders to fear for their safety. Pointing a gun at a mugger is a different thing, and quite commonly results in the mugger running away with no shots fired. (see Kleck study.)
 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
Nope, website not uptodate.

Arizona Gun Law: Concealed Weapons Allowed Without Permit Under New Law
Favoring the constitutional right to bear arms over others' concerns about gun safety, Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill making Arizona the third state allowing people to carry a concealed weapon without requiring a permit. [...]
Click to expand...
Actually the website is up to date kinda/sorta; the change in Arizona law simply removes the illegality for carrying concealed without a permit (assuming no other laws are broken while carrying concealed, then carrying concealed without a permit is illegal). Permits are still issued, and a permit is still required for concealed carry into liquor-serving establishments (see http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1108s.pdf -- dunno if that is final version of the bill that was signed into law).

PHOENIX -- Arizona is on the verge of becoming the third state in the nation to let just about any adult carry a concealed weapon.Without a word of debate, the House voted 36-19 on Wednesday to eliminate the criminal penalties that now exist if someone has a hidden gun without first getting the necessary state permit. [...] Police could still arrest those who have concealed weapons but no permit under the new. [...] Concealed weapons bill goes to Brewer for signature - Your West Valley News: Valley & State: state, permit, gun, arizona, concealed
Click to expand...
So, you can still get the permit, but if you don't and you're not breaking the law while carrying concealed then that's okay -- if the cop that shakes you down says it is, I suppose. Odd that the AZ DPS is not publicizing that fact on their CCW website.... (NRA website is having problems, would be interesting to see if they are advertising it on their state CCW pages (at least one other website is not).
 
Goshin said:
Karl said:
I submit a honest answer to your question:

1. Cars are designed, manufactured, and sold with the intent of transporting people. Alternatively, they can occasionally be used in other applications (racing, or as a weapon).

2. Guns are designed, manufactured, and sold with the intent of killing living things. That a particular gun may never be used for that purpose has no bearing on the original intent of the device. Alternatively, they can occasionally be used in other applications (target shooting, or, I presume, to brandish at burglars or muggers {not a recommended activity, I've heard}).
Click to expand...
[1] You don't appear to know a lot about guns.

[2] Approximately 99.98% of guns are never used in the commission of a crime... fewer still in the commission of murder. Most firearms are never used for anything BUT target shooting, hunting, etc.

There are many firearms that are purpose-built for target shooting and are not intended for any other purpose, and would make poor hunting or self-defense weapons. Olympic target pistols come to mind.
There are many firearms that are purpose-built for hunting, (yes including handguns like the TC contender), which would make poor general-combat or general-self-protection weapons. Deer rifles with 3 round magazines and scopes come to mind.

Glock makes (among other things) a class of pistols that are specifically tailored for competition shooting events, where concealability and stopping power are not issues and reduced-charge ammo is used to minimize recoil and re-targeting time... these would be less than suitable for self-defense.

Yes, Glock also makes pistols that are specifically designed for police, military and self-defense uses.

But they don't make them with intent to use in murder.

Incidently, "brandishing" is a term that usually indicates unlawful and negligent display in a manner causing bystanders to fear for their safety. Pointing a gun at a mugger is a different thing, and quite commonly results in the mugger running away with no shots fired. (see Kleck study.)
Click to expand...
1. Ah, a personal insult right out of the gate. This place is going to be fun
smokin.gif


2. I wasn't talking about crime, was I? Nope, rereading my post to you above, I was definitely not talking about crime. Nor was the focus of my post Olympic target pistols, deer rifles, or even Glocks (hardly the choice of a handgun connoisseur, I can certainly tell you). The focus of my post was the purpose of a firearm in general; the why and how it came to be. The firearm is the descendent of the arrow, the spear, and the club. It is intended to kill living things. Now while your strawman may think that killing someone or something is murder, and while it sometimes can be, making such a blanket representation is indicative of an illogical argument.

And claiming that a Mustang is the same thing as a Glock, or actually more deadlier than a Glock, is simply a silly argument; one does not have to be in favor or opposition of one or the other to see that.

Incidentally, "brandishing" is a term that was chosen for it's colorfulness. "Waving about", "pointing", and "threatening" would be viable synonyms in the context intended. The theory I've heard, and subscribe to, is that if you have the legal basis to point a weapon at someone, you also have the legal basis to pull the trigger. Better to pull the trigger than be taken by surprise by something that you didn't read in a study.... (like the mugger's accomplice hitting you in the back of the head while the mugger is admiring your Glock).
 
Karl said:
I submit a honest answer to your question:

1. Cars are designed, manufactured, and sold with the intent of transporting people. Alternatively, they can occasionally be used in other applications (racing, or as a weapon).

2. Guns are designed, manufactured, and sold with the intent of killing living things. That a particular gun may never be used for that purpose has no bearing on the original intent of the device. Alternatively, they can occasionally be used in other applications (target shooting, or, I presume, to brandish at burglars or muggers {not a recommended activity, I've heard}).
Click to expand...

In fairness, most people who buy guns only kill living things that can't shoot back... and cans.

The myth that more guns makes a community safer can really be blamed on the Dirty Harry and Death Wish movies of the 1970's. Every gun nut joker gets off on this fantasy that he'll know how to handle himself and his weapon should the 'bad guys' ever show up. As we see from this story, the gun nut assholes only succeeded in killing an unarmed junkie hiding in a shack.
 
Karl said:
1. Ah, a personal insult right out of the gate. This place is going to be fun
smokin.gif


2. I wasn't talking about crime, was I? Nope, rereading my post to you above, I was definitely not talking about crime. Nor was the focus of my post Olympic target pistols, deer rifles, or even Glocks (hardly the choice of a handgun connoisseur, I can certainly tell you). The focus of my post was the purpose of a firearm in general; the why and how it came to be. The firearm is the descendent of the arrow, the spear, and the club. It is intended to kill living things. Now while your strawman may think that killing someone or something is murder, and while it sometimes can be, making such a blanket representation is indicative of an illogical argument.

And claiming that a Mustang is the same thing as a Glock, or actually more deadlier than a Glock, is simply a silly argument; one does not have to be in favor or opposition of one or the other to see that.

Incidentally, "brandishing" is a term that was chosen for it's colorfulness. "Waving about", "pointing", and "threatening" would be viable synonyms in the context intended. The theory I've heard, and subscribe to, is that if you have the legal basis to point a weapon at someone, you also have the legal basis to pull the trigger. Better to pull the trigger than be taken by surprise by something that you didn't read in a study.... (like the mugger's accomplice hitting you in the back of the head while the mugger is admiring your Glock).
Click to expand...

Hehe.... nice try.

1. Not an insult. A statement of opinion, as the quoted post certainly sounded lacking in knowlege.

2. Yes, a firearm is a weapon, of course. However, most firearms are never used as such... that was my point.

2b. Vehicles are very dangerous. They kill and injure far more people every year than guns. There have been cases of people driving vehicles into crowds and killing or critically injuring several people in less than two seconds... which puts them as "potentially more dangerous" than most firearms in the civilian market. Now consider an 18-wheeler truck with a tanker full of keroscene or chlorine...

3. As for your insinuation that all I know about crime is what I read in some study, I'm a former Law Enforcement officer who has been in more scrapes than I can easily remember... I also teach defensive handgunning and close combat skills as a side-business. :2wave:
 
hazlnut said:
Semantics...
Click to expand...

Gross ignorance....

******

Killing is justifiable and thus legal.

Murder is unjustified and thus illegal.

Firearms, pistols in particular, along with my issued military service weapons, are produced for lawful use.

They are not produced for criminal activity. Therefore, using a firearm to murder is an abuse of that weapon, inconsistent with that weapon's purpose and design.

Kindly turn in your voter registration card now.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Gross ignorance....

******

Killing is justifiable and thus legal.

Murder is unjustified and thus illegal.

Firearms, pistols in particular, along with my issued military service weapons, are produced for lawful use.

They are not produced for criminal activity. Therefore, using a firearm to murder is an abuse of that weapon, inconsistent with that weapon's purpose and design.

Kindly turn in your voter registration card now.
Click to expand...

To a large extent - it is indeed semantics.

The main purpose of a gun is to fire bullets that will kill or stop another person. In some cases, to do that may indeed be legal. In some cases it will be a crime. And in some cases its debatable. But to pretend that guns have any other main #1 purpose besides firing bullets into others is simply a denial of reality.
 
hazlnut said:
In fairness, most people who buy guns only kill living things that can't shoot back... and cans.

The myth that more guns makes a community safer can really be blamed on the Dirty Harry and Death Wish movies of the 1970's. Every gun nut joker gets off on this fantasy that he'll know how to handle himself and his weapon should the 'bad guys' ever show up. As we see from this story, the gun nut assholes only succeeded in killing an unarmed junkie hiding in a shack.
Click to expand...

In this day and age, those of us who shoot living things who can and often do shoot first, have had our weapons issued to us along with our uniforms.

The fact that more firearms makes the community safer is well documented with well-vetted, solid evidence. It is a fact.
 
American said:
No more stupid than the feigned outrage from the left. This isn't about Gifford at all, it's about guns.
Click to expand...

They are making that abundantly clear with all this "guns are for killing" talk.
 
haymarket said:
To a large extent - it is indeed semantics.

The main purpose of a gun is to fire bullets that will kill or stop another person. In some cases, to do that may indeed be legal. In some cases it will be a crime. And in some cases its debatable. But to pretend that guns have any other main #1 purpose besides firing bullets into others is simply a denial of reality.
Click to expand...

I suppose you would also argue that a car is principally designed to burn fuel, as opposed to consuming fuel in due course of performing it's function: transportation.

I do appreciate your concession noted in bold, that guns are killing machines, not murder machines; though you should still refrain from voting so as to not pose an ongoing threat to society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom