• 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!

Gun Control

Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 39.9%

  • No

    Votes: 74 50.0%

  • Others

    Votes: 15 10.1%
  • Total voters
    148
MaggieD said:
I pretty much agree with this. The problem isn't guns. The problem is mental illness.
Click to expand...

Then why do you support registration and FOID cards?
 
MaggieD said:
The problem isn't guns, it's the people who have access to guns.
Click to expand...

CHeese and crackers! Duh! Sorry, I don't know how I messed that!
 
MaggieD said:
The problem isn't guns, it's the people who have access to guns.
Click to expand...

27990_10200178254646111_593237264_n.jpg
 
MaggieD said:
The problem isn't guns, it's the people who have access to guns.
Click to expand...

But once you take away the guns and the knives and the bomb-making chemicals in everyone's homes and cars, etc., you're still left with the PEOPLE! Why not stop worrying about all the things that can cause damage and deal with the actual problem?
 
Cephus said:
But once you take away the guns and the knives and the bomb-making chemicals in everyone's homes and cars, etc., you're still left with the PEOPLE! Why not stop worrying about all the things that can cause damage and deal with the actual problem?
Click to expand...

That's what gun laws ought to do...keep people who shouldn't own guns from owning guns.
 
MaggieD said:
That's what gun laws ought to do...keep people who shouldn't own guns from owning guns.
Click to expand...

What about people who steal guns or get them through the black market? What about people who read on the Internet how to make bombs out of common household chemicals? When do we stop trying to put a bandage on the problem and just deal with the problem?
 
JayDubya said:
No. I don't care about the element of utility when condemning sacrificing liberty for security. Liberty is a priority.

Now, some folks are more utilitarian, so it doesn't hurt to be able to speak their language, and it helps in this case to note that there is no such utility, no upside to restrictive gun policies, they just render law abiding citizens helpless.
Click to expand...

Just wondering, do you think that those 26 people who died in CT had their liberties taken away? Liberty is a priority, everybody should have the liberty to live, those 26 didn't? Thoughts on that?
 
Cephus said:
What about people who steal guns or get them through the black market? What about people who read on the Internet how to make bombs out of common household chemicals? When do we stop trying to put a bandage on the problem and just deal with the problem?
Click to expand...

Sometimes solving problems requires a many-pronged approach. Illegal access is one. Mental health services accessibility is another. Keeping weapons secure is another. Stricter punishment for committing a crime with an illegal gun is another. Stricter punishment for being in possession of an illegal firearm is another. The list is pretty long.
 
iacardsfan said:
Just wondering, do you think that those 26 people who died in CT had their liberties taken away? Liberty is a priority, everybody should have the liberty to live, those 26 didn't? Thoughts on that?
Click to expand...

Everybody dies. Do they have their liberty taken away if they die by natural causes? Seems absurd.
 
MaggieD said:
Sometimes solving problems requires a many-pronged approach. Illegal access is one. Mental health services accessibility is another. Keeping weapons secure is another. Stricter punishment for committing a crime with an illegal gun is another. Stricter punishment for being in possession of an illegal firearm is another. The list is pretty long.
Click to expand...

How about the fact that we're routinely medicating people with drugs that are causing many of these problems in the first place?
 
Cephus said:
Bob Blaylock said:
It absolutely is not the Supreme Court's place to decide that part of the Constitution is outdated, and no longer needs to be fully obeyed. The only legitimate way for this determination to be made and put into effect is by ratifying a new amendment to the Constitution, to supersede that which is deemed to be outdated.
Click to expand...

But you're missing the whole point. In many of these cases, the Supreme Court is basically inventing new application out of whole cloth because what came before simply does not apply in any way, shape or form to new technologies, new ideas, etc. It's not a matter of deciding what the founding fathers intended, they didn't intend anything, they couldn't have imagined these things in their wildest dreams, it's just making up new ideas and trying to shoehorn them into the writings of people who died almost 250 years ago. I seriously doubt they intended their ideas to be the only driving force for the nation for centuries to come, nor could they have foreseen the kind of polarization that's come to pass that makes ratifying any new ideas into the Constitution basically impossible.
Click to expand...

Ratifying new amendments to the Constitution is certainly not impossible, if there's enough public support for such an amendment. That there isn't enough public support for an amendment is no excuse to disobey the Constitution as it presently stands. It is for very good reason that the Constitution was written with a provision to amend it, but that the process of doing so is long and difficult enough to prevent it from being used frivolously.

I solidly disagree with your assertion that modern technology does not fit within the constraints of the Constitution, or that this provides any valid excuse for “inventing new application out of whole cloth” to promote public policy that the Constitution forbids, and for which sufficient public support cannot be raised to ratify an amendment to allow.
 
Cephus said:
How about the fact that we're routinely medicating people with drugs that are causing many of these problems in the first place?
Click to expand...

That, too. And the way the media reports these mass shootings as well. There's lots of things that contribute to these horrific incidents, in my opinion.
 
Cephus said:
Everybody dies. Do they have their liberty taken away if they die by natural causes? Seems absurd.
Click to expand...

Does every 6 year old die of natural causes? They had their WHOLE life left. Who knows what could have became of them.
 
iacardsfan said:
Does every 6 year old die of natural causes? They had their WHOLE life left. Who knows what could have became of them.
Click to expand...

What difference does it make? If a kid dies in a traffic accident that is no one's fault, did they have their liberty taken away? Stop trying to avoid the question and just answer it.
 
Cephus said:
What difference does it make? If a kid dies in a traffic accident that is no one's fault, did they have their liberty taken away? Stop trying to avoid the question and just answer it.
Click to expand...

No because nobody took it away. Somebody who dies in a traffic accident, somebody is punished, but there is no intent.
 
iacardsfan said:
No because nobody took it away. Somebody who dies in a traffic accident, somebody is punished, but there is no intent.
Click to expand...

Reality "takes away liberty" all the time. Why is it suddenly a horrible thing that some person did it as opposed to it just happening because it's how reality works?
 
Cephus said:
Reality "takes away liberty" all the time. Why is it suddenly a horrible thing that some person did it as opposed to it just happening because it's how reality works?
Click to expand...

I have always been against guns, not to the extent of repealing the 2nd amendment, but to limiting it. Times have clearly changed , they did not have assault rifles back then. It was common for people to have guns because we relied on militias.
 
iacardsfan said:
I have always been against guns, not to the extent of repealing the 2nd amendment, but to limiting it. Times have clearly changed , they did not have assault rifles back then. It was common for people to have guns because we relied on militias.
Click to expand...

Why do you want to limit one of our rights. What's to stop government from "limiting" any of other rights if we let them do it with one? Besides, there are already limitations and regulations on second amendment rights, which kind of goes against the whole meaning of having it as a right.
 
iacardsfan said:
I have always been against guns, not to the extent of repealing the 2nd amendment, but to limiting it. Times have clearly changed , they did not have assault rifles back then. It was common for people to have guns because we relied on militias.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the second was to ensure the freedom of the people. That absolutely included AGAINST tyranny as well as external forces.
 
iacardsfan said:
I have always been against guns, not to the extent of repealing the 2nd amendment, but to limiting it. Times have clearly changed , they did not have assault rifles back then. It was common for people to have guns because we relied on militias.
Click to expand...
What do you believe an assault rifle is?

Has human nature changed in the intervening years? Has evil gone out of the world?
 
iacardsfan said:
I have always been against guns, not to the extent of repealing the 2nd amendment, but to limiting it. Times have clearly changed , they did not have assault rifles back then. It was common for people to have guns because we relied on militias.
Click to expand...

If you are looking for some new federal legislation, upon which one of Congress' enumerated powers would such legislation be based?
 
Federalist said:
If you are looking for some new federal legislation, upon which one of Congress' enumerated powers would such legislation be based?
Click to expand...

"insure domestic Tranquility"
 
Gun Incidents -

Welcome to gun free England...

Just a taste...
NOVEMBER 2012



Click Liverpool, 26 November 2012

A 31-year-old man has died after he was shot at least five times as he sat in his car outside his home in Wavertree, Merseyside. He was believed to have been attacked by two men who were waiting outside the property in a stolen car that was later abandoned and set alight. The victim was taken to hospital after being shot in the head, chest and arms but died from his wounds seven days later.

Nottingham Post, 20 November 2012

A man has died after he was shot with a firearm in Bilborough, Nottingham. He was found collapsed on the road by a local resident and taken to hospital by ambulance, but later died from his injuries. A 32-year-old man has been arrested in connection with the death.

Eastern Daily Press, 11 November 2012

A 60-year-old man has died from a gunshot wound to the head outside a hotel in Titchwell, Norfolk. Emergency services were called after the man was seen walking into the car park with a firearm, but were unable to resuscitate the victim.

BBC News, 5 November 2012

A male police officer has died in a firearms incident at a police station in Glasgow, Strathclyde. No one else is believed to have been involved in the shooting. Officers from another police force have begun an investigation into the circumstances of his death.

OCTOBER 2012



The Star, 26 October 2012

A 42-year-old man who was shot in the chest in the doorway of his home in Wath-upon-Dearne, South Yorkshire in September (see September incidents) has died in hospital. Two men have been arrested in connection with the murder, which police believe was a targeted attack.

Liverpool Echo, 19 October 2012

A 54-year-old man has died after he was shot in the head at a house Huyton, Merseyside. Officers who were called to the scene recovered two handguns and an alleged quantity of drugs at the property but made no arrests. An inquest into the death was begun and has been adjourned.

SEPTEMBER 2012



Daily Mail, 20 September 2012

Two female police officers, aged 23 and 32, were killed while working in Hattersley, Greater Manchester. The unarmed officers were allegedly tricked into going to the property by false reports of a burglary where they were met with a gunfire and grenade attack. A 50k-volt taser was recovered from the scene which the victims may have attempted to discharge to stop the attack. A man who had been wanted for two previous shooting murders of a father and son and 4 attempted murders (see August Incidents), presented himself for arrest at a police station in the city soon after the incident. A 15-year-old boy was later arrested at a school in the area on suspicion of assisting in the attack but has been released on bail (Metro, 22 September 2012).

Southend Standard, 7 September 2012

A mother and son have been found shot dead at the woman's home in Crays Hill, Essex. The son is thought to have been battling a heroin addiction and police are not looking for anyone else in connection with the shooting. An unlicensed gun was recovered from the property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom