• 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
Catawba said:
Yes, in most of the rest of the industrialized world. Have you not seen the statistics that show that?
Click to expand...

fail on your part, you cannot find a single valid study proving that a magazine limitation in this country will increase public safety. You gun haters tried after the clinton gun ban was created and you failed

tell us Catawba, why are shopkeepers, doctors, homeowners and farmers' lives less valuable that that of police officers, poultry inspectors, postal inspectors, fire marshals, IRS CID agents, CHAMPUS Agents, etc>
 
H. Lee White said:
Most hoplophobes fear guns - especially 'assault weapons' - because they look scary.
They then believe their irrational respose to someting that scares them is a sound argument for the banning of same.
Click to expand...

yeah.... being scared or having negative feelings to something which was instrumental in the violent butchering of twenty first graders is "irrational"? :doh:roll::doh
 
haymarket said:
Lets put that to a vote of the American people and see how that idea plays out: The solution to guns is more guns. Somehow I do not see that as a big winning campaign slogan.
Click to expand...

In order for the American people to vote to deny the right to keep and bear a firearm, they would have to go through the amendment process and repeal the 2nd amendment. Barring that happening, each of us has the right to keep and bear a firearm, and no legislation can deny us that right.
 
Federalist said:
In order for the American people to vote to deny the right to keep and bear a firearm, they would have to go through the amendment process and repeal the 2nd amendment. Barring that happening, each of us has the right to keep and bear a firearm, and no legislation can deny us that right.
Click to expand...

the side that relies on hysteria and emotion always wants to appeal to the masses of low information voters rather than demonstrating well reasoned and evidenced based support for restrictions of the rights of people they despise
 
Federalist said:
In order for the American people to vote to deny the right to keep and bear a firearm, they would have to go through the amendment process and repeal the 2nd amendment. Barring that happening, each of us has the right to keep and bear a firearm, and no legislation can deny us that right.
Click to expand...

please read again

that is NOT what I am proposing be voted upon.
 
TurtleDude said:
after columbine NR did a study based on INTERPOL and FBI crime statistics. if you get rid of black drug crime violence, whites in America have a lower rate of gun crime than whites in Europe (continental and or the UK)
Click to expand...

Is that the case you are going to take to the USSC to overturn the ban? LOL!
 
TurtleDude said:
the side that relies on hysteria and emotion always wants to appeal to the masses of low information voters rather than demonstrating well reasoned and evidenced based support for restrictions of the rights of people they despise
Click to expand...

So true. But I don't think they have the support yet to repeal the 2nd amendment, and until they do, there can be no legislation that denies the right of each of us to keep and bear a firearm.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That would be unlikely since the ban was "temporary" and affected only new manufacture and sales. Any ban "with teeth" that attempted to outlaw existing arms, or not contain a "grandfather" clause, would certainly spawn lawsuit action. Many folks made great money selling their "legal" versions of newly "banned" weapons and magazines. The AWB created a very strange climate in the gun "aftermarket" arena. That is why we have a surge in "potentially" targeted new weapon/accessory sales now, and a bump in NRA membership.
Click to expand...

A decade was not enough time to prepare a even one Constitutional argument against the federal AWB???? So if that is your concern. It looks like you have nothing to worry about!
 
TurtleDude said:
Scalia is a "Faint hearted originalist" He admits that the New Deal was unconstitutional including the creation of a power to regulate firearms by using a mutation of the commerce clause. But he says those improper expansions are such that he wont disturb them but if you read the test he created in Heller, it is equally applicable to the weapons that the bed wetters in Congress are trying to ban
Click to expand...

If that is what you believe, you should have nothing to worry about, right?
 
Catawba said:
Is that the case you are going to take to the USSC to overturn the ban? LOL!
Click to expand...

I don't expect the ban to get through the GOP house or even be sustained by lower court judges if it somehow passes
 
Catawba said:
It not taken out of context of whether a person has unlimited rights under the 2nd Amendment for any weapon whatsoever. That is exactly what he was addressing.

Show me legal argument that has been made with a constitutional basis to overturn the ban on assault weapons and hi cap mags that was made during the decade of the 1994 ban.
Click to expand...

I did.
 
mac said:
I did.
Click to expand...

Catawba seems forgetful of the fact that prior to Heller the stench of Miller and many poorly reasoned Court of appeals decisions (based on a sick combination of a deliberate misreading of Cruikshank and racist or anti "papist" rules in earlier years) had created an environment where the true meaning of the second amendment was suppressed
 
Catawba said:
A decade was not enough time to prepare a even one Constitutional argument against the federal AWB???? So if that is your concern. It looks like you have nothing to worry about!
Click to expand...

Exactly, the AWB was really a cosmetic law. Other than magazine capacity limits, which were likely never enforced (except on original manufacture) what was the change? Plenty of spare magazines are out there now, probably some wise guy has a warehouse or two full of them. Any half competent welder could extend one, all you need is a longer spring and some sheet metal. The fact is that the AWB was a "feel good" law that had no real affect on anything. The market for "assault weapons" is not nearly as big as you might think, many that own them are simply collectors/investors. How many really need a flash suppressor or a bayonette lug? I only care about the dangerous legal precedent that it sets, but many would not sue for fear that a judge would actually tighten the AWB restictions by allowing legal reasoning to do so further - that is why the NRA will never sue.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Exactly, the AWB was really a cosmetic law. Other than magazine capacity limits, which were likely never enforced (except on original manufacture) what was the change? Plenty of spare magazines are out there now, probably some wise guy has a warehouse or two full of them. Any half competent welder could extend one, all you need is a longer spring and some sheet metal. The fact is that the AWB was a "feel good" law that had no real affect on anything. The market for "assault weapons" is not nearly as big as you might think, many that own them are simply collectors/investors. How many really need a flash suppressor or a bayonette lug? I only care about the dangerous legal precedent that it sets, but many would not sue for fear that a judge would actully tighten the AWB restictions by allowing legal reasoning to do so further - that is why the NRA will never sue.
Click to expand...

many of us-in light of that idiocy, started preparing for the next round of congressional pant wetting by stocking up after the clinton ban died. every month i made an order with a major magazine supplier. every gun show I picked up a few AR 15 or Glock magazines. its people who try to buy a defensive pistol after (if one passes) another ban is enacted who get screwed.
 
haymarket said:
Australia was created by much the same immigrant population which created the early USA.
Click to expand...

In that time period, England used Australia as a dumping ground for its criminals and rejects. This may have included a few “traitors” of the sort that otherwise would have come to America and participated in the revolution here, but it was mostly just common thieves, murderers, robbers, and others of that sort. Not “the same immigrant population which created the early USA.”
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't expect the ban to get through the GOP house or even be sustained by lower court judges if it somehow passes
Click to expand...

What makes you think that, since there was not a single legal challenge during the whole decade the ban was in effect?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
There is no seriousness in your argument, this is just a bunch of white guys with inadequacies filling a void.
Click to expand...

There's that psychological projection, again, just as we so commonly see from hoplophobes when they lack any better argument. Really, it's turning into a rather ridiculous cliché.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
In that time period, England used Australia as a dumping ground for its criminals and rejects. This may have included a few “traitors” of the sort that otherwise would have come to America and participated in the revolution here, but it was mostly just common thieves, murderers, robbers, and others of that sort. Not “the same immigrant population which created the early USA.”
Click to expand...


Yes - there were indeed differences. But immigrants just the same.

Religious rebels and political refugees - six of one half dozen of the other in the opinion of the crown some might say.
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't expect the ban to get through the GOP house or even be sustained by lower court judges if it somehow passes
Click to expand...

I agree. Anything that would shade the second would likely not be respected or obeyed by many people which would lead to violent skirmishes. This would cause division between the people and the federal government with the sheep siding with the government. It would not end well for the sheep first which would then lead to the current government being overthrown. Even if the government decided to agressively go after the gunnowners not all of the libs are quite stupid enough to not see that they would be next and switch sides.
 
haymarket said:
People pulling stats out of..... wherever is the sure sign of an intellectual fraud. That should bother you.
Click to expand...

What about people who can't be honest with how they feel about an issue and constantly side track discussions with a lot of stupid distractions and arguments? That really does bother me.
 
tech30528 said:
I agree. Anything that would shade the second would likely not be respected or obeyed by many people which would lead to violent skirmishes. This would cause division between the people and the federal government with the sheep siding with the government. It would not end well for the sheep first which would then lead to the current government being overthrown. Even if the government decided to agressively go after the gunnowners not all of the libs are quite stupid enough to not see that they would be next and switch sides.
Click to expand...

If that anathema comes to happen I will advocate that gun owners target those who pushed for the bans, not the cops. target the politicians and the people who got on TV and whined that guns need to be banned. actors who spoke up in anti gun ads Hysterical soccer moms who wrote letters to the paper. those are the people that are the first proper targets-not those following orders
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom