• 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.
Thunder said:
it should be the business of the state you cross into. but that's for another thread.
Click to expand...

Most state constitutions allow guns. But I know you're a big gun controller.
 
haymarket said:
Years ago, one could support gun owners rights and still lobby for legislation on the subject. That is no longer possible in this current political environment which has taken a hard right turn. For some - and I say some and not all or even a majority - the First Amendment has supplanted the Second Amendment regarding gun rights in that their devotion and love of firearms is far closer to a religious like fervor based on willful belief than anything else. And right from little many are taught it is dangerous and nonproductive to mess with peoples religious beliefs.

Once upon a time, when we had mass killings in which firearms were involved, rational people discussed it and ideas for legislation were introduced and debated. We just saw three young people slaughtered in Chardon, Ohio and instead of spurring national discussion, those who want to do so are charged with using dead children to promote an agenda which is never identified.

There simply is no current environment for rational discussion on this topic.
Click to expand...

Not with you anyway.
 
LaMidRighter said:
All able bodied males aged 18-45 are. Really all citizens are but on paper the former is the law, in fact during a period of martial law it is legitimate to deputize or draft from the pool specifically stated for the purposes of defense both on the home front and for the military.
Click to expand...

45??? Age discrimination, I say!!!! :mrgreen:
 
X Factor said:
I thought understanding why terrorism happens is not the same thing as justifying or condoning it. Or does that only apply to Islamic terrorism?
Click to expand...

expressing understanding for why a terrorist act was done, and then sugegsting positive results from such terrorist attacks, looks like tacit approval to me.
 
Thunder said:
looks like tacit approval, to me.

you state you UNDERSTAND why McVeigh killed hundreds of innocent civilians.

you then go on to suggest that there have been some positive benefits from his actions, since there haven't been any more Wacos.

you appear to be giving this a thumbs up...with your hand behind your back so no one can see it.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Goshin on this one.

McVeigh's response, as unfortunate as it was, was intended as a message against the government who had gone after Ruby Ridge and Waco.
If you think Americans should not worry about their government coming for them...

Everyone thought Randy Weaver was paranoid, but they came for him.

Frank Clearwater and Buddy Lamont

Fred Hampton and Mark Clark

Kent State

Molly Maguires

Whiskey Rebellion

MOVE

etc...

The United States government in no way has its hands clean when it comes to going after people who dared to speak against it. This goes for Federal , State and local entities.
 
haymarket said:
Years ago, one could support gun owners rights and still lobby for legislation on the subject. That is no longer possible in this current political environment which has taken a hard right turn. For some - and I say some and not all or even a majority - the First Amendment has supplanted the Second Amendment regarding gun rights in that their devotion and love of firearms is far closer to a religious like fervor based on willful belief than anything else. And right from little many are taught it is dangerous and nonproductive to mess with peoples religious beliefs.

Once upon a time, when we had mass killings in which firearms were involved, rational people discussed it and ideas for legislation were introduced and debated. We just saw three young people slaughtered in Chardon, Ohio and instead of spurring national discussion, those who want to do so are charged with using dead children to promote an agenda which is never identified.

There simply is no current environment for rational discussion on this topic.
Click to expand...


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. Indeed, the trend instead is to trim the current mess back a little towards something that less impedes the honest citizen. :)
 
Goshin said:
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. Indeed, the trend instead is to trim the current mess back a little towards something that less impedes the honest citizen. :)
Click to expand...

When did the majority of the voting public decide that issue?
 
haymarket said:
When did the majority of the voting public decide that issue?
Click to expand...

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.
 
haymarket said:
Years ago, one could support gun owners rights and still lobby for legislation on the subject. That is no longer possible in this current political environment which has taken a hard right turn. For some - and I say some and not all or even a majority - the First Amendment has supplanted the Second Amendment regarding gun rights in that their devotion and love of firearms is far closer to a religious like fervor based on willful belief than anything else. And right from little many are taught it is dangerous and nonproductive to mess with peoples religious beliefs.

Once upon a time, when we had mass killings in which firearms were involved, rational people discussed it and ideas for legislation were introduced and debated. We just saw three young people slaughtered in Chardon, Ohio and instead of spurring national discussion, those who want to do so are charged with using dead children to promote an agenda which is never identified.

There simply is no current environment for rational discussion on this topic.
Click to expand...

Maybe those people see nothing wrong with the current legslation or thihnk its already to much when it comes to gun control and OTHER areas need improved.

Now with that being said I dont know what you are actually referring to, civility should always be the primary road that one takes but in my OPINION theres not much legislation left to do for gun control that actually hinders/prevents the situation you brought up and doesn't punish law abiding citizens. :shrug:

but if there was Id gladly disgust them.

its just my opinion but I personal would love to see:
- NATIONAL gun laws and castle laws not have it vary state to state. (open carry, conceals and castle all matching)
- I dont want guns banned in any location except some government locations (courthouse, pentagon etc) or threat to national security. Temp bans are fine, presidential visit etc.
- Quick Background check for purchase that is a national database (in PA it took about 10-15min when I did it)
- Background check for CWP, in PA mine was easy, court house & paperwork.

Distributors, mass buyers and sellers could probably use some regulations but so do manufacturers. Im not familiar with all the rules to suggest or deny anything though

I just dont want laws the punish me the law abiding citizen and empower the criminal which some laws certainly do.
 
Thunder said:
Tim McVeigh, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Jared Laughner, The Weathermen, The Black Panthers, FALN, all thought they were fighting injustice....by killing American law enforcement & politicians. Heroes of yours?
Click to expand...
I know you weren't asking me, but I see them as not belonging to the 2nd amendment militia. To have a functioning militia you need its members aligned, i.e. sharing the same objective. If we followed the 2nd ...
 
OhIsee.Then said:
I know you weren't asking me, but I see them as not belonging to the 2nd amendment militia. To have a functioning militia you need its members aligned, i.e. sharing the same objective. If we followed the 2nd ...
Click to expand...

what is the "2nd Amenment Militia"?
 
taxigirl said:
There is no "The" Militia. There have been several militia's, government organized and citizen organized.
Click to expand...

actually yes, there is. or there was.

The Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, and the various Militia Acts by Congress clearly spell out the framework of The Militia. And The Militia was eventually done away with in 1903, with The Militia Act of 1903, which formalized the National Guard, to take over the responsibilities of the civilian Militia.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Thunder said:
actually yes, there is. or there was.

The Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, and the various Militia Acts by Congress clearly spell out the framework of The Militia. And The Militia was eventually done away with in 1903, with The Militia Act of 1903, which formalized the National Guard, to take over the responsibilities of the civilian Militia.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
I get the açtions that were taken regarding government militia. At this point the argument becomes about arming citizens who should have the right to arm themselves against foreign and domestic threats.

That is what many groups are doing now. Arming and running drills but these groups are more right wing than previous radicals.they will be interesting to watch
 
OhIsee.Then said:
I think some Democrat was shot here in AZ. I guess that was justified. Maybe it was a gun free zone.
Click to expand...

I don't see how he could have been shot, seeing as how there's a law against shooting heads of state. Perhaps the Left shold pass a law requiring everyone to follow the law, and then pass another law telling people they have to follow the law telling them to follow laws, and then pass another law telling people they have to follow the law telling them to follow the law which tells them to follow laws, and then pass another law.....
 
taxigirl said:
I get the açtions that were taken regarding government militia. At this point the argument becomes about arming citizens who should have the right to arm themselves against foreign and domestic threats...
Click to expand...

those folks are not part of any Militia spelled out by our Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Militia Act.
 
Jerry said:
I don't see how he could have been shot, seeing as how there's a law against shooting heads of state. Perhaps the Left shold pass a law requiring everyone to follow the law, and then pass another law telling people they have to follow the law telling them to follow laws, and then pass another law telling people they have to follow the law telling them to follow the law which tells them to follow laws, and then pass another law.....
Click to expand...

we could pass a law forbiding schizophrenics from owning a firearm.
 
cpwill said:
hmm.. I would suggest it is irrelevant - the amendment reserves the right to the people. Mind you, the Founders didn't exactly draw big thick separating lines between those two categories:
"I ask sir, what is the Militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
George Mason
A sufficient mass of independent, armed citizens is the final and ultimately the only defense against threats from abroad, domestic threats at home, and threats from our own government.

Some interesting recent research trying to pin down the actual amount of defensive gun usage

Turtle: I steadfastly opposed class envy until you posted that list of firearms. In the interest of fairness, I must now insist that you redistribute your shooting experiences in my direction by taking me to the range next time with you. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
I looked at the sites you listed (one wouldn't come up). Sorry, I'm an engineer so I have a hard time with stuff that is not quantitative. In my one experience with having someone point a loaded gun at me after I caught him doing a property crime to our home, my having a gun would have resulted in a very unfortunate outcome. I probably would have ended up in jail for a long time. I had to talk to him (I was actually looking for an opportunity to kill him with his own gun.) This gave the police time to arrive and catch him pointing the gun at me. There were no police, then, in an instant, he had 3 of them pointing their pistols at him in a very coordinated response to a phone call. He went to jail. I actually met him about 2 years later at the counter of an auto parts store a few years later. He was very contrite.
 
Thunder said:
what is the "2nd Amenment Militia"?
Click to expand...
When the 2nd amendment was written it was obvious and they have 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom