• 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!

Guns

What do you think gun control should be like?

  • Let everyone have a gun

    Votes: 19 22.4%

  • Quick background check to purchase and carry

    Votes: 25 29.4%

  • Quick background check to purchase, but more difficult to carry

    Votes: 11 12.9%

  • Background check, waiting period for purchase and carrying.

    Votes: 17 20.0%

  • Background check, waiting period, no carrying

    Votes: 5 5.9%

  • No guns at all

    Votes: 8 9.4%
  • Total voters
    85
Status
Not open for further replies.
OhIsee.Then said:
When the 2nd amendment was written it was obvious and it has been described by others here. Now we need an official militias and we don't have them; but, we could and we could keep our guns.
Click to expand...

we don't need a Militia again. The National Guard fulfills its purpose just fine. They are a reserve unit that can be and has been called up in times of crisis & unrest...which is the Constitutional purpose of the Militia.
 
Thunder said:
we could pass a law forbiding schizophrenics from owning a firearm.
Click to expand...

There were systems in place that should have prevented Loughner. The system(s) failed.

One good citizen did more than community agencies. Loughner was turned away from buying ammo from one Wal Mart because the guy at the gun counter said Loughner was acting strange. That's rather significant considering how difficult it would be to single one person out in a Wal Mart as exhibiting strange behavior. That Wal Mart refused to sell him bullets. Kudos to them.

The systems (laws, procedures and policies) that should have identified Loughner failed. The NICS did NOT fail. Loughner's behavior at Pima Community College was so bazaar that the school declared him persona non grata as it feared he would be a danger to himself and others. The US Army refused Loughner's enlistment because Loughner informed them he was addicted to pot. When Sportsman's Warehouse ran Loungher's ATF 4473 it came back clear. It shouldn't have.
 
Thunder said:
define "normal".
Click to expand...
No one knows he is anything but a typical male person unless they are told. So in this case normal means no one can tell he has any mental issue when he is on his meds.
 
Thunder said:
please explain.
Click to expand...

In Arizona, and different from a number of other states, a person doesn't actually have to be a danger to self or others to be evaluated for mental illness. Here, anyone can petition the court to have someone evaluated or involuntarily committed for psychiatric evaluation and treatment, in Arizona, one need only be "persistently or acutely" ill. Lougner's continued bazaar behavior at Pema Community College was a red flag that was not reported to the local community health system. If it had, and based on his behavior if Loughner had been found to be mentally ill, his name would then have gone into the system and would have prevented his purchasing a gun.

Lougher identified his pot addiction to the army recruiter and was denied enlistment by the army. You cannot legally buy a weapon if you are addicted to controlled substances. Loughner went to the army to enlist and freely admitted that he was addicted to pot. There's a strong reason to consider Loughner's behavior as questionable.

Finally, AFT 4433 where it asks if you are addicted to illegal drugs Loughner checked "No".
 
Risky Thicket said:
In Arizona, and different from a number of other states, a person doesn't actually have to be a danger to self or others to be evaluated for mental illness. Here, anyone can petition the court to have someone evaluated or involuntarily committed for psychiatric evaluation and treatment, in Arizona, one need only be "persistently or acutely" ill. Lougner's continued bazaar behavior at Pema Community College was a red flag that was not reported to the local community health system. If it had, and based on his behavior if Loughner had been found to be mentally ill, his name would then have gone into the system and would have prevented his purchasing a gun.

Lougher identified his pot addiction to the army recruiter and was denied enlistment by the army. You cannot legally buy a weapon if you are addicted to controlled substances. Loughner went to the army to enlist and freely admitted that he was addicted to pot. There's a strong reason to consider Loughner's behavior as questionable.

Finally, AFT 4433 where it asks if you are addicted to illegal drugs Loughner checked "No".
Click to expand...

well, if someone wants a gun bad enough, of course they are gonna lie on their application form.

"have you been convicted of a felony?"

"are you addicted to any illegal substances?"

"have you ever been diagnosed with a severe mental illness?"

"No sir, not me sir, I'm as clean as a whistle and pure as the driven snow. Now sell me a Glock and 30-round clip so I can go kill some tyrants".
 
Thunder said:
we don't need a Militia again. The National Guard fulfills its purpose just fine. They are a reserve unit that can be and has been called up in times of crisis & unrest...which is the Constitutional purpose of the Militia.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. The militia were mostly farmers and others that supported the rural environment of our nation at that time. They had rifles. They knew each other. They tended to closely share a common culture. They could protect their farms and slaves from the natives, etc. The National Guard is too big and formal to provide an equivalent function in today's environment. Restoring the militia wouldn't require a constitutional change. Militias could keep the 'crazies' out, provide training, establish standards, communication, etc.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Not exactly. The militia were mostly farmers and others that supported the rural environment of our nation at that time. They had rifles. They knew each other. They tended to closely share a common culture. They could protect their farms and slaves from the natives, etc. The National Guard is too big and formal to provide an equivalent function in today's environment. Restoring the militia wouldn't require a constitutional change. Militias could keep the 'crazies' out, provide training, establish standards, communication, etc.
Click to expand...

No, only an act of Congress would be needed to undo the Militia Act of 1903.
 
Thunder said:
well, if someone wants a gun bad enough, of course they are gonna lie on their application form.

"have you been convicted of a felony?"

"are you addicted to any illegal substances?"

"have you ever been diagnosed with a severe mental illness?"

"No sir, not me sir, I'm as clean as a whistle and pure as the driven snow. Now sell me a Glock and 30-round clip so I can go kill some tyrants".
Click to expand...

Of course. But, if you have a record for substance abuse, persistent bazaar public behavior and have been declared to have a mental disorder of the type that Loughner has and it had all been properly reported he would have been in deep caca for perjuring himself on the form. Because of that it should have alerted police and mental health that a mentally unstable person was attempting to purchase a weapon. As none of the above was handled properly the NICS could not function as it was designed to.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Of course. But, if you have a record for substance abuse, persistent bazaar public behavior and have been declared to have a mental disorder of the type that Loughner has and it had all been properly reported he would have been in deep caca for perjuring himself on the form. Because of that it should have alerted police and mental health that a mentally unstable person was attempting to purchase a weapon. As none of the above was handled properly the NICS could not function as it was designed to.
Click to expand...

well then, we need a better system to report possibly mentally unstable people to the ATF, so they can be investigated my professionals.
 
Thunder said:
well then, we need a better system to report possibly mentally unstable people to the ATF, so they can be investigated my professionals.
Click to expand...

The system works well for the most part. Show me a system that is perfect. The laws, policies and procedures are already in place and functioning.
 
Thunder said:
No, only an act of Congress would be needed to undo the Militia Act of 1903.
Click to expand...
YES. I posted "Restoring the militia wouldn't require a constitutional change." I think you are agreeing with me.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
well then, we need a better system to report possibly mentally unstable people to the ATF, so they can be investigated my professionals.
Click to expand...
So being "possibly mentally unstable" is enough of a crime to be investigated. OK, let's start with you!
Oh, Risky Thicket should be second.
Oh no! I'm on the list too!
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Ask the Democrat party, who decided that the issue of gun control was such a poison pill to their candidates that they largely started keeping quiet about the issue several years ago.
Click to expand...

But Goshin, I was YOU who made the statement. I don't think the Democratic Party would agree with you.

So when was it that the majority of the voting public decided the issue of firearms having enough controls on them?
 
OhIsee.Then said:
However, when I was in the USAF people that didn't appear to be mentally capable of being reliable, etc. were kicked out. Just the Drill Sargents were considered expert enough to kick someone out and did for 'mental' reasons. Militia leadership could do the same.
Click to expand...

That would leave the entire State of Florida, a large part of Texas and the entire town of Macbee, SC without a militia!
 
Last edited:
OhIsee.Then said:
However, when I was in the USAF people that didn't appear to be mentally capable of being reliable, etc. were kicked out. Just the Drill Sargents were considered expert enough to kick someone out and did for 'mental' reasons. Militia leadership could do the same.
Click to expand...

gun background checks should include medical records. gun dealers need to know if their buyers are being treated for certain disorders, and there should be guidelines of who can and cannot buy guns, based on certain qualifiers.

however, thee should of course be ways around this, including notes from a licenced psychologist attesting to one's ability to safely possess a firearm.
 
Thunder said:
gun background checks should include medical records. gun dealers need to know if their buyers are being treated for certain disorders, and there should be guidelines of who can and cannot buy guns, based on certain qualifiers.

however, thee should of course be ways around this, including notes from a licenced psychologist attesting to one's ability to safely possess a firearm.
Click to expand...

That's a heaping pile of bravo sierra, Thunder. Not needed and not acceptable.
 
Thunder said:
gun background checks should include medical records. gun dealers need to know if their buyers are being treated for certain disorders, and there should be guidelines of who can and cannot buy guns, based on certain qualifiers.

however, thee should of course be ways around this, including notes from a licenced psychologist attesting to one's ability to safely possess a firearm.
Click to expand...

So much for medical privacy.
 
haymarket said:
But Goshin, I was YOU who made the statement. I don't think the Democratic Party would agree with you.

So when was it that the majority of the voting public decided the issue of firearms having enough controls on them?
Click to expand...


An April poll by CNN may have left the network moguls stunned because it showed that 46% of the respondents do not support new gun control measures, and 15% said gun laws ought to be relaxed.

The combined figures overwhelmed the 39% who think the country should tighten its gun laws, down from 50% reported in a 2000 poll, according to The Houston Chronicle.
Click to expand...

GunWeek.com

Ohio poll finds large majority say no new gun control laws needed, but that isn't stopping Mayors Against Illegal Guns

No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money: Rasmussen Poll: Majority Say Stricter Gun Control Would Not Prevent Shootings

Gallup: Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban; Majority Oppose Ban on So-Called Assault Weapons
 
Thunder said:
gun background checks should include medical records. gun dealers need to know if their buyers are being treated for certain disorders, and there should be guidelines of who can and cannot buy guns, based on certain qualifiers.

however, thee should of course be ways around this, including notes from a licenced psychologist attesting to one's ability to safely possess a firearm.
Click to expand...
Gee Thunder, I wasn't even the first to reply to defend my position. Do you know how many holes there are in a process like you describe? The dealers in AZ sell to anybody, but they do get their hands slapped sometimes. A misfit in a real militia is noticed right away, he is out. Not a militia member with an ID then no guns.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Gee Thunder, I wasn't even the first to reply to defend my position. Do you know how many holes there are in a process like you describe? The dealers in AZ sell to anybody, but they do get their hands slapped sometimes. A misfit in a real militia is noticed right away, he is out. Not a militia member with an ID then no guns.
Click to expand...

its just a thought. :)
 
Goshin said:
GunWeek.com

Ohio poll finds large majority say no new gun control laws needed, but that isn't stopping Mayors Against Illegal Guns

No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money: Rasmussen Poll: Majority Say Stricter Gun Control Would Not Prevent Shootings

Gallup: Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban; Majority Oppose Ban on So-Called Assault Weapons
Click to expand...

Yes, those are polls. I am aware that over the past thirty years the percentage of those polled has changed. I do not take issue with that.

What I am asking you is when the VOTERS decided this issue as you claimed.

your post 261

Because the majority of the voting public has decided that we have enough gun control laws already, thank you very much, and don't see the need for more
Click to expand...

There is a difference with a distinction. The point is that the American people have never voted on this issue - nor will they since we are not a direct democracy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom