• 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!

Universal background checks

Do you support universal background checks?


  • Total voters
    104
actually his point is sound. Catawba argues that infringements are OK as long as the infringements did not prevent all from excercising a right

Exactly.

It's a variant of the argument that we've seen from other members of the far wrong, who assert that as long as some exercise of a right is allowed, that the right is not being violated when other exercises of it are not allowed. In this case, as long as there are some people who are allowed to vote, or to own a gun, the argument is there is no violation in selectively denying some other people the right to do so. This is solid digestive waste from a male bovine, of course, but then that's really what defines the far wrong.
 
If it were a lie, you could disprove it by posting any credible national poll that showed more than marginal support for not requiring background checks for all gun sales.

Every time that's been done already in this thread, you've simply ignored or denied it, or dismissed the poll as not credible.

It appears that you will only accept as “credible”, any poll that agrees with the far wrong lies that you insist in repeating.
 
assault weapons ban

magazine capacity limits

universal background checks



Different congress............more in tune with public support for gun safety.
 
Every time that's been done already in this thread, you've simply ignored or denied it, or dismissed the poll as not credible.

It appears that you will only accept as “credible”, any poll that agrees with the far wrong lies that you insist in repeating.



Bob, only you think a political forum poll is a credible national poll. So if that's all you've got, you've got nothing!
 
Bob, only you think a political forum poll is a credible national poll. So if that's all you've got, you've got nothing!


and you think polling results are a sound substitute for your inability to actually make a cogent argument in favor of a feel good law
 
and you think polling results are a sound substitute for your inability to actually make a cogent argument in favor of a feel good law



A cogent argument has already been made. It is only the far right, which represent less than 15% of voters, that reject it.
 
A cogent argument has already been made. It is only the far right, which represent less than 15% of voters, that reject it.


you have failed to address the following

1) demonstrate that these checks will decrease crime

2) deal with the fact that the implementation of the Brady law did not decrease crime

3) explain how criminals in possession of firearms will be prosecuted under a law which violates their 5th amendment rights

4) explain how the law will be enforced WITHOUT complete registration

5) explain why I should have to pay money to sell a gun to my brother or give one to my wife

the far wrong loves to parrot silly polls where the responders are not given complete information
 
you have failed to address the following

1) demonstrate that these checks will decrease crime

2) deal with the fact that the implementation of the Brady law did not decrease crime

3) explain how criminals in possession of firearms will be prosecuted under a law which violates their 5th amendment rights

4) explain how the law will be enforced WITHOUT complete registration

5) explain why I should have to pay money to sell a gun to my brother or give one to my wife

the far wrong loves to parrot silly polls where the responders are not given complete information


All of those have been addressed to the satisfaction of almost all voters.
 
Different congress............more in tune with public support for gun safety.

Sure it is. Keep telling yourself that. More republicants in congress is better for gun control. ;)
 
Sure it is. Keep telling yourself that. More republicants in congress is better for gun control. ;)


Far right tea party influence............ :monkey
 
Far right tea party influence............ :monkey

Hey, that was your claim, that congress is now better for getting gun control garbage passed. When you find yourself in a very deep hole, it is time to stop digging. You KNOW that it is Senate demorats, many from red states/districts, that are stopping Obama. Obama has no re-election worries, they do. ;)
 
Hey, that was your claim, that congress is now better for getting gun control garbage passed. When you find yourself in a very deep hole, it is time to stop digging. You KNOW that it is Senate demorats, many from red states/districts, that are stopping Obama. Obama has no re-election worries, they do. ;)

No, my claim is public support for background checks, which no one has disproved. As I noted earlier, it may take an election cycle or two get a congress that represents what 90% of voters support!
 
No, my claim is public support for background checks, which no one has disproved. As I noted earlier, it may take an election cycle or two get a congress that represents what 90% of voters support!

:lol: :doh I am done with you, since you now simply lie. To refresh your memory, this was your initial claim, which I took to mean that you though that NOW was the time for this nonsense to pass.

[/quote]Different congress............more in tune with public support for gun safety.[/quote]

Remember that the 2012 elections re-elected 94% of our current congress critters and the president. This is the same public, from the 2012 elections, that allegedly 90% support this gun control BS. :roll:
 
:lol: :doh I am done with you, since you now simply lie. To refresh your memory, this was your initial claim, which I took to mean that you though that NOW was the time for this nonsense to pass.
Different congress............more in tune with public support for gun safety.[/quote][/QUOTE]

Yes, I was speaking of that congress at that time. I fail to see your point.

Remember that the 2012 elections re-elected 94% of our current congress critters and the president. This is the same public, from the 2012 elections, that allegedly 90% support this gun control BS. :roll:

We gained the WH (again) and picked up seats in the GOP controlled Housed despite the GOP redistricting efforts. If the GOP decides to vote contradictory to the majority of voters, they will lose more and more.
 
All of those have been addressed to the satisfaction of almost all voters.

you have failed to address those points because all you have are talking points. You don't even understand the issues. Background checks have absolutely no relevance to stopping STRAW Purchases
 
you have failed to address those points because all you have are talking points. You don't even understand the issues. Background checks have absolutely no relevance to stopping STRAW Purchases


Thanks for reiterating the position of the 10% - 15% of voters that oppose background checks! :cool:
 
Thanks for reiterating the position of the 10% - 15% of voters that oppose background checks! :cool:

bwaak bwaaaaak. same repeat parrot squawk
 
No, my claim is public support for background checks, which no one has disproved. As I noted earlier, it may take an election cycle or two get a congress that represents what 90% of voters support!

Bill Clinton says you've got it backwards.
 
you have failed to address the following

1) demonstrate that these checks will decrease crime

2) deal with the fact that the implementation of the Brady law did not decrease crime

3) explain how criminals in possession of firearms will be prosecuted under a law which violates their 5th amendment rights

4) explain how the law will be enforced WITHOUT complete registration

5) explain why I should have to pay money to sell a gun to my brother or give one to my wife

the far wrong loves to parrot silly polls where the responders are not given complete information

But before we even bother with those points, please explain which of congress' enumerated powers would permit such legislation.
 
And explain which of congress' enumerated powers would permit such legislation.

for the far wrong its the "if it feels good its constitutional"
 
for the far wrong its the "if it feels good its constitutional"

If it accomplishes my ends of subjugating people a half a continent away, it's constitutional.
 
that's because unlike you, they understand the ramifications of such idiocy

To some folks it makes sense to make the crime of selling/transfering a gun "illegally" more serious than actually using the gun to commit a crime (or even carrying that gun illegally). Since the gun is well known to be the "root cause" of crime - merely touching it may turn you into a crazed mass murdering menace (possibly even make you suicidal, thus not caring about consequences at all). You can sell or give a knife to anyone, even a known insane felon, and rest assured that is legal even if they carve up school children with it, but not a gun - that is way out of bounds. You can sell gasoline in "to go" containers to known arsonists, drooling on themselves with glee, even sell them lighters and matches too, that is perfectly legal, but not a gun - that is a no-no for sure.
 
that's because unlike you, they understand the ramifications of such idiocy

90% of voters and 85% of gun owners agree with my position. Only the NRA leadership agrees with your position.
 
Back
Top Bottom