• 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!

Why are the Dems NOW pushing for severe restrictions upon lawful gun owners

WHy Are the Dems now Pushing Severe Gun Restrictions

  • Because of the School Massacre

    Votes: 24 45.3%

  • Because Obama didn't want to lose the last election

    Votes: 13 24.5%

  • Because the dems want to stick it to pro gun groups

    Votes: 13 24.5%

  • Because the dems want to distract from the financial mess

    Votes: 18 34.0%

  • Because they actually think it will decrease crime

    Votes: 22 41.5%

  • Oher

    Votes: 12 22.6%
  • Total voters
    53
Catawba said:
Hate to break it to you but that was done under the rule of law, and it has never been successfully challenged since 1803. You are confusing what you personally would prefer the rule of law to be, rather than what it actually is.
Click to expand...
Hate to break it to ya, but no, the non challenge was the only thing that kept that decision final, the executive and legislative abdicated final say to SCOTUS. You have no clue what you are speaking of. You didn't answer the perjury challenge BTW.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Hate to break it to ya, but no, the non challenge was the only thing that kept that decision final, the executive and legislative abdicated final say to SCOTUS. You have no clue what you are speaking of. You didn't answer the perjury challenge BTW.
Click to expand...

Zero challenges in over 200 years should clue you in on how many share your opinion. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
What you call an appeal to popularity fallacy is what the rest of us call the rule of law.
Click to expand...
Uh, no. Laws not based upon proper constitutional authority are illegal, doesn't matter how many people agree. Read the founding writings instead of going with whatever the Dems are handing you.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Uh, no. Laws not based upon proper constitutional authority are illegal, doesn't matter how many people agree. Read the founding writings instead of going with whatever the Dems are handing you.
Click to expand...

Now you are just repeating yourself now. The Dems aren't handing me anything, I have read the Constitution for myself. If it were a legitimate issue, someone in the last 200 years would have challenged it.

BTW, do you consider the conservative judge Scalia to be a Dem? LOL!
 
Catawba said:
Now you are just repeating yourself now. The Dems aren't handing me anything, I have read the Constitution for myself. If it were a legitimate issue, someone in the last 200 years would have challenged it.

BTW, do you consider the conservative judge Scalia to be a Dem? LOL!
Click to expand...
See, the problem is you say you've read the constitution, then go about a position that is opposite, and when proven wrong you run to the court, which has been wrong in the past. You are so unbelievably full of **** here that it isn't even funny. Now, answer the perjury question.
 
425536_528942803797575_1520822821_n.jpg

Yeah...
 
RabidAlpaca said:
425536_528942803797575_1520822821_n.jpg


Yeah...
Click to expand...


If you had to pass a mental evaluation and the other requirements to become an officer, I would have no problem with you carrying an assault weapon.
 
Catawba said:
If you had to pass a mental evaluation and the other requirements to become an officer, I would have no problem with you carrying an assault weapon.
Click to expand...
Give me the exact technical definition of an assault weapon, and I mean I want an accredited source, lawmakers don't count. If you get this wrong I will call you on it.
 
Caine said:
Prove innocent lives will be costed..... yawn.......
Click to expand...
Why don't you ask TD why he didn't check "because of the Newtown massacre"? He checked all the other options, so why not that one? One can only assume it's because the innocent lives that were lost last week mean absolutely nothing to him and the only thing he cares about is protecting his toys and harrassing gun control folks.
 
Catawba said:
"Mother Jones has made a persuasive case that arming civilians does little to stop mass shooters, and even cops can't stop every shooting. Columbine High School had an armed security officer on campus at the time of the 1999 shooting that killed 13 people. He even exchanged gunfire with one of the killers. Neither one of them was hit."

Fact-Checking the NRA Press Conference - National - The Atlantic Wire
Click to expand...

Mother Jones is a marxist disinformation rag sheet and that study was taken apart by Lizzie a couple nights ago

for example MJ ignores incidents where the active shooter was terminated before HE COULD KILL MORE THAN 4 people

and so we have ONE case where an armed security officer missed

cops miss all the time
 
Moot said:
Why don't you ask TD why he didn't check "because of the Newtown massacre"? He checked all the other options, so why not that one? One can only assume it's because the innocent lives that were lost last week mean absolutely nothing to him and the only thing he cares about is protecting his toys and harrassing gun control folks.
Click to expand...

Failure to answer the request will not get you a response on your deflection post.....
 
Moot said:
Why don't you ask TD why he didn't check "because of the Newtown massacre"? He checked all the other options, so why not that one? One can only assume it's because the innocent lives that were lost last week mean absolutely nothing to him and the only thing he cares about is protecting his toys and harrassing gun control folks.
Click to expand...

Perhaps beacuse the F'stein bill was written "over a year ago"? This is not a new demorat plan, simply being trotted out now for a variety of politically expedient reasons, and yes the recent "mass shooting" is one, whether TD likes it or not.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Perhaps beacuse the F'stein bill was written "over a year ago"? This is not a new demorat plan, simply being trotted out now for a variety of politically expedient reasons, and yes the recent "mass shooting" is one, whether TD likes it or not.
Click to expand...

I'd say its convenient she wrote a bill "over a year ago" and then within the last year we've had 9 highly publicized public shootings culminating in one killing children for them to really sell the idea.

Call me a conspiracy theorist..... but the coincidence is just too great for me....
 
TurtleDude said:
Is it the massacre or is it political expediency or just plain pandering
Click to expand...

It's a punishment for the vast minority getting more media coverage. Out of millions upon millions of responsible gun owners, the media only focuses on the **** ups. Same with everything else, really. But lets judge about 50 million people based on the actions of one or two.

It won't solve the issue of violence in America, though. Just another bandaid.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Perhaps beacuse the F'stein bill was written "over a year ago"? This is not a new demorat plan, simply being trotted out now for a variety of politically expedient reasons, and yes the recent "mass shooting" is one, whether TD likes it or not.
Click to expand...
What Feinstein does, does not a whole party make. So she wrote a gun law a year ago, five years ago, ten years ago, twenty years ago, thirty years ago, forty years ago,.......she withnessed the assassination of Harvey Milk. Several of gun control people in congress knew people and had family members that were murdered with guns. When it hits home, it becomes more personal. Surely, you can understand that.
 
Moot said:
What Feinstein does, does not a whole party make. So she wrote a gun law a year ago, five years ago, ten years ago, twenty years ago, thirty years ago, forty years ago,.......she withnessed the assassination of Harvey Milk. Several of gun control people in congress knew people and had family members that were murdered with guns. When it hits home, it becomes more personal. Surely, you can understand that.
Click to expand...

If her personal feelings are the only thing that affect her decision making process as a law maker....

Maybe it is time she retire.
 
Caine said:
If her personal feelings are the only thing that affect her decision making process as a law maker....

Maybe it is time she retire.
Click to expand...
Then so should the entire congress. Politicians are elected based on their beliefs.
 
Moot said:
What Feinstein does, does not a whole party make. So she wrote a gun law a year ago, five years ago, ten years ago, twenty years ago, thirty years ago, forty years ago,.......she withnessed the assassination of Harvey Milk. Several of gun control people in congress knew people and had family members that were murdered with guns. When it hits home, it becomes more personal. Surely, you can understand that.
Click to expand...

Funny but that "hits home" and "personnal" connection is exactly when we would have our judges recuse themselves. To assert that "rational" and "unbiased" decisions can be made by channeling "raw emotion" is foolish. What do you think is behind the timing of this "crisis" and sudden "call to action"?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Funny but that "hits home" and "personnal" connection is exactly when we would have our judges recuse themselves. To assert that "rational" and "unbiased" decisions can be made by channeling "raw emotion" is foolish. What do you think is behind the timing of this "crisis" and sudden "call to action"?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure Feinstein can handle her emotions just fine. But I have serious doubt about the tea partiers in congress. The sudden call to action? Theres been a quite a few massacres over the last ten years and they only seem to be increasing. So when is a good time for you? After five more massacres? Ten, twenty, what?
 
Moot said:
I'm pretty sure Feinstein can handle her emotions just fine. But I have serious doubt about the tea partiers in congress. The sudden call to action? Theres been a quite a few massacres over the last ten years and they only seem to be increasing. So when is a good time for you? After five more massacres? Ten, twenty, what?
Click to expand...

8 months ago would have been perfect. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom