• 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!

Which of these gun control measures could you support?

Do you support any of these gun control measures?

  • Proposal A

    Votes: 19 82.6%

  • Proposal B

    Votes: 13 56.5%

  • Proposal C

    Votes: 13 56.5%

  • Proposal D

    Votes: 6 26.1%

  • Proposal E

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • Total voters
    23
vegas giants said:
Hahahaha

The National Research Council, a branch of the*National Academy of Sciences, convened a panel to study the effect of concealed-carry laws. Of the 16 panel members, 15*concluded*that the existing research, including Lott’s, provided “no credible evidence” that right-to-carry laws had any effect on violent crime.

Two economists, John Donohue of Stanford University and Ian Ayres of Yale University,*argued*that Lott had drawn inaccurate correlations: Cities had experienced a spike in crime in the 80’s and 90’s*not*because of strict gun laws but largely as a result of the crack epidemic. Further, when they extended their survey by five years, they found that*more guns were actually linked to more crime, with states deemed “right to carry” showing an eight percent increase in aggravated assault.

After reexamining Lott’s research, even researcher Gary Kleck, who had written the forward to Lott’s book, found serious flaws with Lott’s methodology and missing data.**Of Lott’s work, he said, “It was garbage in and garbage out.”

David Hemenway, the director of the*Harvard Injury Control Research Centerconcluded, “Virtually all of Lott’s analyses are faulty; his findings are not ‘facts’ but are erroneous.”

As scrutiny of Lott’s work increased,*Lott created an internet persona named Mary Rosh*who, claiming to be a former student of Lott, praised his work and defended his research.**Eventually, it was discovered that Miss Rosh and Lott shared an IP address.**Lott admitted to creating the persona.
Click to expand...

So you are using anti-2nd amendment trash to make your case that Lott's works are not good.
 
vegas giants said:
It's not. You dont even know who he is!!!!!


This gets better and better. Lol
Click to expand...
I looked at the website about what they support. If Gary kleck supports any of that stuff then he is not pro-gun.
 
vegas giants said:
Holy cow. You are hilarious.


He wrote the forward to Lott's book....and then he realized it was garbage. Lol
Click to expand...

I take your none answer as a yes he does support those things on the website that you posted.
 
TurtleDude said:
1) Unconstitutional-turns a guaranteed right into a privilege-worthless in preventing violent crime
Click to expand...

Luckily, the Constitution can be amended...
 
MrWonka said:
You know what the word "Well Regulated" means right? The reason for the second amendment was due to the potential need for the country to form a militia and to draft civilian men to join it. If the government ultimately decides that fully automatic weapons wouldn't be necessary for such a militia then they would not apply.

By your logic there's no rational justification for banning Nuclear Arms either. Every idiot in Alabama should be able to just pick up an intercontinental ballistic missile at Walmart right?

Well that part is incredibly simple. Guns are a commodity. There is no customs or boarder patrol between states, therefore if one state wanted to ban any type of good whatsoever it would be virtually impossible since they could so easily be manufactured in one state and transported to the next. As a result, if enough states want those guns banned they have a right to vote in order to force the Federal Government to ban them.

That's the whole point of the Commerce Clause. This is basic Constitutional Law 101 pal.
Click to expand...

If you wish to play the "Milita" card you also have to consider the militia would have basically the same weapons as the military.... The dreaded "Assault Rile".
 
Waddy said:
Just another troll. Trying to get gun owners all fired up. Don't think I'll play. And you need to work on your trolling. Much too obvious.
Click to expand...

So now common sense is "trolling"! :lol:

Can't make this **** up!
 
Bodhisattva said:
Luckily, the Constitution can be amended...
Click to expand...

yeah, but I don't believe you can amend away a fundamental right. However, the FDR administration was too dishonest to do that, so their pet monkeys on the courts pretended that the commerce clause was actually a complete grant of any power congress wanted.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah, but I don't believe you can amend away a fundamental right. However, the FDR administration was too dishonest to do that, so their pet monkeys on the courts pretended that the commerce clause was actually a complete grant of any power congress wanted.
Click to expand...

Sure we can amend it away... just get Congress to do so by vote. Done.
 
Waddy said:
sure you can,,,you've done a pretty good job of it so far.
Click to expand...

Nice try. Common sense is now being attacked and that is the problem... lol
 
uptower said:
It is the 'conservatives' now pushing for stricter ID and registration laws because of the false claim of voter fraud (a minuscule problem at best). These laws tend to affect African American, native american and Latinx communities.

Yet they will not tolerate stricter gun laws to address a huge problem: frequent mass shootings and tens of thousands of murders, suicides and accidents per year.

I say if the right cared about people's basic rights, they'd fight as hard for voting as they do for the AR-15. Of course minority votes are not quite the tool of white power that a good old Armalite is.
Click to expand...

I don’t subscribe to the asinine idea that voter ID is racist.
 
MrWonka said:
You know what the word "Well Regulated" means right? The reason for the second amendment was due to the potential need for the country to form a militia and to draft civilian men to join it. If the government ultimately decides that fully automatic weapons wouldn't be necessary for such a militia then they would not apply.

By your logic there's no rational justification for banning Nuclear Arms either. Every idiot in Alabama should be able to just pick up an intercontinental ballistic missile at Walmart right?




Well that part is incredibly simple. Guns are a commodity. There is no customs or boarder patrol between states, therefore if one state wanted to ban any type of good whatsoever it would be virtually impossible since they could so easily be manufactured in one state and transported to the next. As a result, if enough states want those guns banned they have a right to vote in order to force the Federal Government to ban them.

That's the whole point of the Commerce Clause. This is basic Constitutional Law 101 pal.
Click to expand...

The commerce clause lacks the authority to ignore the 2A.
 
BrotherFease said:
I am not saying I support any of these, but I want to know what you guys think of these proposals.

Proposal A - Treat guns like cars. You want to own a weapon, you need a license first and foremost. You then need to get your gun/s registered and renewed on a yearly basis.

Proposal B - Treat gun ownership like the drinking age or the ability to rent a car. Make the age to own a gun 21 years old or 25 years old. If an 18 year old, wants to go shooting, he or she needs to bring a parent or guardian or somebody of legal age.

Proposal C - Put a limit on the number of bullets a gun can fire. Gun manufacturers cannot sell guns in the U.S, if they surpass the legal amount.

Proposal D - Require all gun owners to take a psychological test every year. If you fail, you lose your guns.

Proposal E - Require all school security guards to carry around bean bag guns.
Click to expand...

No I can't get behind any of those.

A is absolutely unacceptable. Owning a gun is a right owning a car is not.

B the problem I see with this is 18 year olds don't have guardians they don't need them they're adults. And we shouldn't deprive adults of their rights unless they've committed a crime

C doesn't make much sense to me what do you mean put a limit the number of bullets a gun can shoot? What is a bullet? It seems like the only firearm this would affect would be a shotgun, they're the only fire arm that shoots more than one projectile at a time. Maybe like a double barrel muzzleloader rifle.

That doesn't make sense.

D is absolutely unconstitutional I don't have to take a psych evaluation to speak freely I don't have to take a psych evaluation to plead the fifth so I shouldn't have to take that to maintain the any of my other rights.

E security guards should carry actual firearms. A bean bag gun has the monitor of less than lethal which would mean they might be a little more apt to use it and depending on range it can absolutely be lethal it's a shotgun. I think the weight of the gun being deadly force making it the absolute last resort of measures is right where it needs to be. Security guard shouldn't be shooting teenagers with shotguns because they fire a bean bag round.
 
Aberration said:
Congress can’t amend the Constitution. Only the States can. 3/4 of them.
Click to expand...

That is what I meant. The exact process wasn't the point the point was that the constitution can be amended. Word. Thanks. Goodvibes.
 
Bodhisattva said:
That is what I meant. The exact process wasn't the point the point was that the constitution can be amended. Word. Thanks. Goodvibes.
Click to expand...

You won’t get 3/4 of the States to amend away a fundamental right.
 
vegas giants said:
You are priceless. And clueless. Lol
Click to expand...

Says the man trying to us anti-2ndamendment trash as pro-gun people. The polices his website supports are not that of pro-gun people. Pro-gun people do not support universal background checks, raising the age to buy a firearm to 21 and bans on semiautomatic firearms under the guise of assault weapon bans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom