• 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
you are unaware that Obama bin Lyin claims that the clinton gun ban has to be reinstated?

That's not too radical, and merely something that has already been done before. Sounded like you were speaking about something shocking.
 
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.

Great post man but that is what Turtle is famous for.
 
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.

Again good post. This is whaty I don't understand. Someone where anti or neutral proposes something that will or may or whatever save peoples lives and because it threatens the gunnies "belief system" they ignore it out of hand and bury their heads in the sand.

What good will that do? Just more of the same. Really dumb/
 
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.

Good luck gettng him to dothat.
 
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 don't think I have seen a poster whose posts are consistently as dishonest as yours on this issue.
 
Again good post. This is whaty I don't understand. Someone where anti or neutral proposes something that will or may or whatever save peoples lives and because it threatens the gunnies "belief system" they ignore it out of hand and bury their heads in the sand.

What good will that do? Just more of the same. Really dumb/


what is really dumb is your assumption that gun laws proposed by liberal extremists will save any lives
 
I don't think I have seen a poster whose posts are consistently as dishonest as yours on this issue.

Are you claiming you have never said there are only cosmetic differences in these guns?
 
Are you claiming you have never said there are only cosmetic differences in these guns?

tell us why you support cosmetic limitations Catawba
 
tell us why you support cosmetic limitations Catawba

I have never claimed the differences in assault weapons and high capacity mags were only cosmetic, that was you, the person that is now claiming the ban on them is somehow a hardship to you.
 
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 you meant "ulterior" rather than "alternative" but otherwise very well-put.
 
Is it the massacre or is it political expediency or just plain pandering

Why are the purposed restrictions "severe"?

Everything I've heard re: better background checks and closing loopholes sounds common sense to me.

What's the point of making it illegal for a felon to have a gun if he goes to gun show or flea market?

What's the point of banning dishonorable discharges and domestic abusers from owning guns if the states and military don't always report them to the FBI office that manages the NICS database?

I would think law-abiding and common sense gun owners would like to make sure the mentally ill can't purchase 3000 rounds on the internet in weeks leading up to a violent rampage.

Cars have pink slips, why can't assault weapons? When you sell it privately, you notify the relevant state office or FBI of the transfer of ownership. What's the big deal?

This all seems to be about convenience and not wanting to fill out an extra form. A small price for common sense safety.

Also, I can't help but think that some people may be concerned because they know that under the Bradly law restrictions they were never supposed to get a firearm. Some dealer made a mistake or their names were not added to the NICS list. This is something I would think law-abiding common sense gun owners would want to out, the law breakers in their own ranks.

He might be your hunting buddy, but if he has something on his record that means he shouldn't own any guns, perhaps you should call the local police and let them handle it. -- Are there anonymous tip lines for this sort of thing? If not, we should be setting them up.

If your ex-husband or boyfriend was charged with domestic abuse and you know he owns a gun, call the police, start a paper trail. If they do nothing at least there will be a record that they should have.

Lastly, what's this I hear about some annual ATF statistics being withheld from the public because of an amendment or rider to an old bill? The NRA got some congressman to push that through. Shouldn't we be allowed to petition for those under freedom of information?
 
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.

If this is what "gun control" was actually doing, I'd be on board.
Instead though, they're arbitrarily going to restrict the types of firearms people can buy.

It's ludicrous.
 
If this is what "gun control" was actually doing, I'd be on board.
Instead though, they're arbitrarily going to restrict the types of firearms people can buy.

It's ludicrous.

Then start making this argument as responsible gun control, as a way to go forward with an alternate solution than just banning or restricting firearms based on just what kind of firearm or what features it has.
 
Then start making this argument as responsible gun control, as a way to go forward with an alternate solution than just banning or restricting firearms based on just what kind of firearm or what features it has.

we already have plenty of gun control laws

sensible laws mean punishing misuse of guns

not punishing people who don't misuse guns

clue to everyone

its already illegal to possess a gun for the purpose of using it to murder people
 
its already illegal to possess a gun for the purpose of using it to murder people



And how has that been working out for America compared to other wealthy nations?
 
And how has that been working out for America compared to other wealthy nations?

well, our crime rate has been decreasing, their's going up

but that is a dishonest comment

the only issue is whether your desire to hassle honest gun owners will decrease crime

there is no evidence it will but you don't care

crime control plays no role in what motivates your jihad against our rights
 
we already have plenty of gun control laws

sensible laws mean punishing misuse of guns

not punishing people who don't misuse guns

clue to everyone

its already illegal to possess a gun for the purpose of using it to murder people

I'm talking about cracking down on legal gun dealers who sell their product illegally, it doesn't necessarily mean more laws and I didn't say we needed more without a doubt, I don't know why you keep saying that in response to my posts.
 
I'm talking about cracking down on legal gun dealers who sell their product illegally, it doesn't necessarily mean more laws and I didn't say we needed more without a doubt, I don't know why you keep saying that in response to my posts.
all in favor of that, and the ATF has all the tools to do that
 
well, our crime rate has been decreasing, their's going up


Did you forget already what you said just two posts back? "its already illegal to possess a gun for the purpose of using it to murder people" You were talking about murder by guns, not just crime rates in general.

So how does the murder rate by guns in the US compare to other wealthy countries?



the only issue is whether your desire to hassle honest gun owners will decrease crime

The proposals made so far create no hardship for responsible gun owners.
 
BAN 'GUN FREE' Zones

Problem Solved

I Have A Real Nasty Looking .44
 
One Doesn't Really Need A Concealed Carry

In Many Places, Open Carry
Is Perfectly Lawful

But The Cops Will Run In To Shake You Down

And Bystanders Will Give You Grief

Go Figure
 
Last edited:
BAN 'GUN FREE' Zones

Problem Solved

I Have A Real Nasty Looking .44

"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
 
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.

Yep..... After having to sit through 9 shootings in 2012 and getting ignored every time by the general public....... they finally think they got enough people's attention with their 96 hours straight coverage to move forward with what they wanted to do all year.

They didn't realize it would take them a years worth of shootings to get the attention though.....
 
"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


Upholding the right of the people to have privacy does little in preventing rapes............

Aww **** it.... lets allow 24/7 monitoring of our private spaces by the government... I mean... if it prevents just ONE rape.... isn't it worth it?
 
Is it the massacre or is it political expediency or just plain pandering

Well who made laws against tobacco companies? I'm sure the recent tragedy is a catalyst to enforce stricter laws and why shouldn't it be? What specific reason do you need to have extended clips or semi automatics? Also I've been out of the loop due to family and having a life, what are the dems specifically saying now OG?
 
Back
Top Bottom