• 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


  • Total voters
    53

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Is it the massacre or is it political expediency or just plain pandering
 
Is it the massacre or is it political expediency or just plain pandering

"Never let a good crisis go to waste," answers the timing. The reason behind it? I'd say they probably believe what they're doing more than not.
 
My vote was "Other" because there was no "All of the above".
 
Is it the massacre or is it political expediency or just plain pandering
I think it's combo of the massacre and pandering. I also believe that some of them honestly do believe it would decrease crime, I just disagree with them on that point.
 
The difference between "never letting a crisis go to waste," ie the age old accusation that people take advantage of difficult times or situations to push for something unrelated but under the guise of addressing the problem, and people honestly trying to address a problem is more often than not just the difference in one's opinion on whatever solution is being proposed.

If you don't like the idea of gun control, than its just the left, libs, and dems using this tragedy to push laws that have alternative motives.

If you do like the idea of gun control, than this tragedy is finally the wake up call the government and people needed to finally take some real action against a serious problem.

Personally I'll pass on the hyperbole and rhetoric and stick to the facts of the matter Turtle.
 
I think it's combo of the massacre and pandering. I also believe that some of them honestly do believe it would decrease crime, I just disagree with them on that point.

I think most of the low information lefty voters who support gun restrictions feel that way. I don't believe it is true with the leaders of the anti gun movement
 
The difference between "never letting a crisis go to waste," ie the age old accusation that people take advantage of difficult times or situations to push for something unrelated but under the guise of addressing the problem, and people honestly trying to address a problem is more often than not just the difference in one's opinion on whatever solution is being proposed.

If you don't like the idea of gun control, than its just the left, libs, and dems using this tragedy to push laws that have alternative motives.

If you do like the idea of gun control, than this tragedy is finally the wake up call the government and people needed to finally take some real action against a serious problem.

Personally I'll pass on the hyperbole and rhetoric and stick to the facts of the matter Turtle.

those facts being?
 
Is it the massacre or is it political expediency or just plain pandering

It is liberal autocrats trying to force their will on people as they always do. They are ten times worse than the GOP about that despite their whining as to the opposite. What they fail to get now, as always, is that if they decided to adapt policies that promote or deter things instead of ramming it down people's throats, they would meet with a lot less resistance and garner a lot more support. Their Nannystate doctrine needs to be a little more Mary Poppins and a little less Bloody Mary.
 
I'll give the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that some people do honestly believe that gun control would decrease crime. Then, when a tragedy such as the recent massacre comes along, they use it to further their agenda. I do NOT mean that in a negative way. It's perfectly natural for real-life events to shape the direction of a society.

To me, I think it's clear we need to do something. I'm not comfortable with all these shootings, and I'm not so sure anymore that they can be explained away via expanded media attention and coverage* so we just hear about them more.

Having said that, we need to do something that might actually be effective, and gun control ain't it.

*- I do think that expanded media attention and coverage very possibly encourages some people to go out in a "blaze of glory" rather than the usual lonely and pathetic way they normally would otherwise.
 
those facts being?

The facts are the facts.

How do criminals get their guns? How many people become criminals, who had never committed a crime in the past, because they have a gun? How do our laws address the answers to these two questions? These questions have factual answers that can be determined through analysis. We can both agree that we want to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, and we want to allow law abiding citizens to have those same firearms. We need thoughtful analysis to determine solutions and courses of action, not hyperbole and rhetoric.

If someone simply says there's nothing we can do, any law will only harm the security of individual citizens that's simply rhetoric. Likewise, if someone says we need to ban all assault rifles, or rifles of similar type as the kind used during the recent school shooting that doesn't really address the real problem of gun crime as most gun crimes or crimes committed with guns are done with pistols. That's also probably just rhetoric.

frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS

This PBS report using data from the ATF for example shows that the majority of pistols used by criminals or on the illegal market are actually sold by perfectly legitimate gun dealers, who sell their product illegally. That seems like a good starting point because if we shut down or deal with those rogue licensed gun dealers, than we can hamper the amount of guns sold through illegal sales to individuals who couldn't acquire one legally. It wouldn't affect the every day citizen who, if his local gun store is shut down for being one of these rogue dealers, he can simply go to another gun store that plays by the rules and acquire the same weapons.

This is what I mean by facts, looking at the statistics and the information available and figuring out ways to solve the problem or mitigate it at least.
 
The facts are the facts.

How do criminals get their guns? How many people become criminals, who had never committed a crime in the past, because they have a gun? How do our laws address the answers to these two questions? These questions have factual answers that can be determined through analysis. We can both agree that we want to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, and we want to allow law abiding citizens to have those same firearms. We need thoughtful analysis to determine solutions and courses of action, not hyperbole and rhetoric.

If someone simply says there's nothing we can do, any law will only harm the security of individual citizens that's simply rhetoric. Likewise, if someone says we need to ban all assault rifles, or rifles of similar type as the kind used during the recent school shooting that doesn't really address the real problem of gun crime as most gun crimes or crimes committed with guns are done with pistols. That's also probably just rhetoric.

frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS

This PBS report using data from the ATF for example shows that the majority of pistols used by criminals or on the illegal market are actually sold by perfectly legitimate gun dealers, who sell their product illegally. That seems like a good starting point because if we shut down or deal with those rogue licensed gun dealers, than we can hamper the amount of guns sold through illegal sales to individuals who couldn't acquire one legally. It wouldn't affect the every day citizen who, if his local gun store is shut down for being one of these rogue dealers, he can simply go to another gun store that plays by the rules and acquire the same weapons.

This is what I mean by facts, looking at the statistics and the information available and figuring out ways to solve the problem or mitigate it at least.

THE ATF HAS PLENTY OF LAWS to shut down rogue dealers. for example, if you buy two handguns from the same dealer in 5 business days or less the dealer is required to submit a form to the ATF. How many cases do you think the ATF actually does that. Someone comes into a store and buys 15 cheap 25 autos (this is a case I know about) did the ATF investigate the guy? NOPE-not until the guns showed up in big city several hundred miles away.

tell us why if I pass a background check (I do several times a year because I buy guns often) why should I be denied the right to own a Colt AR 15 with a 30 round magazine?
 
THE ATF HAS PLENTY OF LAWS to shut down rogue dealers. for example, if you buy two handguns from the same dealer in 5 business days or less the dealer is required to submit a form to the ATF. How many cases do you think the ATF actually does that. Someone comes into a store and buys 15 cheap 25 autos (this is a case I know about) did the ATF investigate the guy? NOPE-not until the guns showed up in big city several hundred miles away.

tell us why if I pass a background check (I do several times a year because I buy guns often) why should I be denied the right to own a Colt AR 15 with a 30 round magazine?

I didn't say you should be denied the right, there you got with the hyperbole again. I also didn't say we needed more laws, again hyperbole and rhetoric. I said these rogue dealers seemed like a good starting point, perhaps the way to go is to analysis and examine how the laws are enforced, if they truly have plenty, and see if there's other way to enforce them better, maybe its a simple matter of resources. Perhaps they should be investigating the guy who bought 15 guns in a single day, its worth looking into.

Stop letting your emotions get the better of you.
 
I didn't say you should be denied the right, there you got with the hyperbole again. I also didn't say we needed more laws, again hyperbole and rhetoric. I said these rogue dealers seemed like a good starting point, perhaps the way to go is to analysis and examine how the laws are enforced, if they truly have plenty, and see if there's other way to enforce them better, maybe its a simple matter of resources. Perhaps they should be investigating the guy who bought 15 guns in a single day, its worth looking into.

Stop letting your emotions get the better of you.

My post was to those in general who whine that we need to restrict the rights of gun owners. I should have made that more clear

and yes, there are plenty of laws to put away rogue dealers. I used to be general counsel for a huge NRA affiliated organization. I don't know any member of that group that had any use for dealers who sold stuff to people they knew or had reason to believe were prohibited or straw purchasers
 
Is it the massacre or is it political expediency or just plain pandering

I believe that anti-2nd amendment loons regardless of political affiliation have been trying to **** on the 2nd amendment.They just use the rare mass shootings in order to exploit peoples emotions on these stories to **** on the 2nd amendment.
 
What specifically have they pushed for?

you are unaware that Obama bin Lyin claims that the clinton gun ban has to be reinstated?
 
My post was to those in general who whine that we need to restrict the rights of gun owners. I should have made that more clear

and yes, there are plenty of laws to put away rogue dealers. I used to be general counsel for a huge NRA affiliated organization. I don't know any member of that group that had any use for dealers who sold stuff to people they knew or had reason to believe were prohibited or straw purchasers

So I hope instead of the message we hear from many other people, that there's nothing we can do to stop these kinds of things except perhaps to often the proverbial flood gates and just arm everyone, that the pro-gun individuals bring up a different argument about how we can better take weapons from the hands of criminals and use that to oppose the other argument that we need to just take guns away from everyone.

Its an oversimplification on my part but it seems like most responses to crime gun, and especially this school shooting, generally fall into one of two categories. That we must either A) Arm everyone so criminals have nowhere to go where an armed citizen isn't already or B) get rid of all guns period. The shared theme of both these arguments is that they target both criminals and non-criminals equally, either by arming everyone so the criminals with guns are outnumbered and out gunned or attempting to take guns away from everyone both criminals and normal citizens equally.

I think its possible to do a lot that only affects the criminal side of this, where we can still give people the option to buy weapons and at the same time take away the options of criminals to acquire them. And its the best place to start politically as well since it doesn't offend one side or the other, since everyone can agree that's a good thing or at least most everyone. Some very pro-gun individuals will worry that actions taken affect law abiding citizens, likewise some very anti gun folks will point out that even citizens who have never commit a crime may purchase or acquire guns legally and then commit a crime with them. That is exactly what happened in this recent shooting, the shooter had no prior convictions and while he technically stole the weapons from his mother the fact that she was able to legally purchase them made them much more available for him.

Again these are the facts, and I believe with a little analysis of them and many others solutions will present themselves that can be implemented with a little compromise from both sides.
 
I think the majority of Citizens were shocked into action as the slaughter of 20 very young children and a half dozen of their teachers was just beyond the pale.

The reasons those who want action taken are mobilizing now- from total bans to more funding for mental health- are myriad.

The traditional opponents to any firearm reform are seen as weak now. The last election shows the republicans are at low ebb. Obama was very vulnerable and the GOP picked a fop to run against him. Millions was spent to seize the Senate and they LOST seats. The Tea Party leader of the Senate who decided not to help Romney get elected, DeMint, is scuttling off to the Heritage Hallowed Halls after the setback. The Republicans lost seats in the House as well but did hang on. Boehner can't rally his people so I guess now is as good a time as any to try and reform how we deal with firearms and violence.

I would say the GOP needs this. They need a rally point, a flag to form up on. A Clarion Call to bring the faithful to meet the threat.

The real question is are the Faithful still numerous and rich enough to battle the new majority who want something more than lip service done... :peace
 
Is it the massacre or is it political expediency or just plain pandering

The real reason is not in your poll. The reason is strong public outcry for more gun laws right now. Go ahead and keep building those straw men though, it is fun to watch.
 
My thinking is this: the Sandy Hook shooting really did affect people, including politicians. Some politicians are complete sociopaths (on both the left and the right), but most have at least some conscience. I suspect the gun-control advocates go through periods (like everyone) when they don't feel as energized about their position. If we go through long periods without a lot of massive, well-reported gun violence, it's not only their basis that erodes, it's their will to fight their cause. After all, if no one went into a mall, a school, a Wendy's, etc. and shot a bunch of innocent people up, there'd be no reason to control guns.

Undoubtedly, a few gun-control-advocates (I don't want to call them liberals, because I would generally be called liberal, but I'm against all but the most basic and reasonable kinds of gun control--no guns for people currently incarcerated, no private ownership of nuclear weapons, that sort of thing--people who are for gun-control do not understand history very well, IMO) are attempting to enforce a kind of fascist deprivation of the ability of individuals and the citizenry as a whole to maintain and defend general liberty. But most probably sincerely believe that gun control will prevent the sort of abomination we saw last week.

They're wrong, of course. But I don't suspect most gun-control advocates have a disingenuous motive.

I'd be happy with an assault weapons ban if there were some kind of assurance that, in the event people generally wanted to revolt, they could get their hands easily and readily on assault weapons and armor-piercing rounds. I can imagine a few potentially good suggestions about how that might work. But none of them are ever likely to be implemented.

In the meantime, what we really need to focus on is proper treatment for people who are mentally ill, and even more importantly, prevention of mental illness. The violence we experience as a society is due to the way we are, not the fact that guns are readily available. Gun control would be like putting a paranoid schizophrenic in a gag and a straightjacket, and proclaiming him cured because he can't do anything that seems crazy any longer...
 
It's due to pandering. After an incident like this, the most vocal are the ones who foolishly think that guns, instead of people, kill people. Welcome to the red herring of the control crowd.

These are the same people who will show you pictures of people dying from lung cancer and convince you that Big Tobacco is to blame, instead of free will and choice.

Gotta love liberals. It's never their fault. They're always good at finding someone or something else to blame.
 
Is it the massacre or is it political expediency or just plain pandering

There are no severe restrictions proposed. They are only talking about banning the guns and magazines that gun fanatics have maintained for years only had cosmetic differences. So there is zero hardship.
 
I voted for everything because different people have different reasons for pushing for gun control. The Sandy Hook shooting kind of touched off a perfect storm. Obama's in his 2nd term now and doesn't have to be as careful with what kinds of laws he signs. There's a big ugly argument going on over the fiscal cliff and I'm sure both sides would love a distraction. The shooting itself made a good excuse for some people who simply want more gun control to push that platform, and there are plenty of people who sincerely (though wrongly IMO) believe that gun control measures will actually help prevent this sort of violence.
 
The whole gun issue defines the difference between libs and cons. Libs want you to rely on government, if your home is being invaded call the cops and hope they get there in time as you hide under your bed . Cons want to rely on themselves, if your home is being invaded grab your gun, take care of the problem yourself.
 
Back
Top Bottom