• 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!

For Those NOT Lifetime NRA Members - O'Rourke's Comment

O'Rourke's words were

  • Total voters
    85
vegas giants said:
I'm glad we agree this loophole exists
Click to expand...

Seeing as you actually proved that it doesn't. I find your continued posting perplexing.

Can you explain in your own words, how this loophole still exist?
 
vegas giants said:
Does it make you feel better if it is called the private sale loophole?
Click to expand...

In the context of being parallel to the gun show loophole.

It would still be illegal, and therefor not an actual loophole.
 
Oborosen said:
Seeing as you actually proved that it doesn't. I find your continued posting perplexing.

Can you explain in your own words, how this loophole still exist?
Click to expand...

Second time
A loophole is an inadequacy in the law. The private sale loophole is inadequate
 
Dragonfly said:
I realize this won't matter to some, but I'd prefer that those of you who are die-hard, when you pry my cold dead hands off it, gun loving lifetime NRA members, that you'd refrain from responding to this thread and/or poll. We all already know how you'll respond. I'm looking for the thoughts of those who are not so predictable.

I want to know how the "regular" folks in America have reacted to Beto O'Rouke's comment in Debate #3.

You know, this one:


Do you find it frightening?
Intriguing?
Refreshing?
Alarming?
Anti-American?
Unconstitutional?
Brave?
Ignorant?

Something else?

If you're not one of the 6-12 folks we have here who go ballistic at the mere mention of gun control I'd like to know:
What are your thoughts on his comment?

Are you scared it might be the catalyst for 4 more years of Trump and Republican dominance?
Or do you believe most of the American public is ready for an approach that radical?
Click to expand...

Dragonfly:

I voted other because the "all of them" option was not there.

The way to reduce the number of guns in the USA is by taxation and state regulation, not federal regulation due to your Second Amendment. Tax all new guns and all ammunition with a "Societal Cost of Gun Violence Tax" that offsets the monetary costs of gun violence. Apply a similar tax to all sales previously owned guns paid by the seller and make all previous owners liable for the harm that their guns cause unless the gun is stolen or the transfer was legally registered and taxed. Such taxes should be levied on all semiautomatic handguns and long-arms. This is the way that submachine guns were removed from the streets between WWI and WWII. They were priced out of common ownership. Rebate some portion or all of said taxes to owners who have the proper training and the proven track record of responsible gun ownership

The Federal Government should use its powers to tax and spend as a strong motivator to get all states to register firearms and to license the ownership of firearms by forcing all gunowners to meet a certain level of training before being allowed to own or possess certain types of firearms like semiautomatic ones. States should be encouraged by the Federal purse strings to share their gun registration and licensing data with Federal law enforcement and security agencies and a very heavy cost should be imposed on any state which refuses to cooperate.

All gun production and follow-on sales should be registered with the state/district/territory where it was sold, in a nation-wide database, so that any gun can be tracked by a legal chain of ownership search from manufacture to retirement. This information should be readily available to Federal law enforcement and security agencies.

Any gun found to not be legally owned should be seized and eventually destroyed (if not needed for evidence in criminal or civil proceedings) so that the number of illegal firearms diminishes and their cost goes up due to scarcity.

Price undesirable types of firearms out of the hands of Americans who cannot be trusted to own them. It's the American way.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Lursa said:
The people in most Southern states didnt want racial integration. How much longer should blacks have had to wait, after they were freed?
Click to expand...

You are smarter than to assert SOUTHERN STATES. There was and is bigotry worldwide. I have lived in the south since day one for me. I have never seen a Southern State resident more bigoted than those who come here from the northern states Unless you can show a unique rejection of integration purely by southern peoples, you are giving a free pass to every bigot excepting southerners.
Regards,
CP
 
Evilroddy said:
Dragonfly:

I voted other because the "all of them" option was not there.

The way to reduce the number of guns in the USA is by taxation and state regulation, not federal regulation due to your Second Amendment. Tax all new guns and all ammunition with a "Societal Cost of Gun Violence Tax" that offsets the monetary costs of gun violence. Apply a similar tax to all sales previously owned guns paid by the seller and make all previous owners liable for the harm that their guns cause unless the gun is stolen or the transfer was legally registered and taxed. Such taxes should be levied on all semiautomatic handguns and long-arms. This is the way that submachine guns were removed from the streets between WWI and WWII. They were priced out of common ownership. Rebate some portion or all of said taxes to owners who have the proper training and the proven track record of responsible gun ownership

The Federal Government should use its powers to tax and spend as a strong motivator to get all states to register firearms and to license the ownership of firearms by forcing all gunowners to meet a certain level of training before being allowed to own or possess certain types of firearms like semiautomatic ones. States should be encouraged by the Federal purse strings to share their gun registration and licensing data with Federal law enforcement and security agencies and a very heavy cost should be imposed on any state which refuses to cooperate.

All gun production and follow-on sales should be registered with the state/district/territory where it was sold, in a nation-wide database, so that any gun can be tracked by a legal chain of ownership search from manufacture to retirement. This information should be readily available to Federal law enforcement and security agencies.

Any gun found to not be legally owned should be seized and eventually destroyed (if not needed for evidence in criminal or civil proceedings) so that the number of illegal firearms diminishes and their cost goes up due to scarcity.

Price undesirable types of firearms out of the hands of Americans who cannot be trusted to own them. It's the American way.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

both unconstitutional and stupid since the tax wouldn't impact the people who cause most of the damages perpetrated with guns
 
TurtleDude said:
both unconstitutional and stupid since the tax wouldn't impact the people who cause most of the damages perpetrated with guns
Click to expand...

It seems so many replies to this have to do with making gun ownership less legal or thoroughly illegal. I'm not sure if it was you or someone equally as sharp, who stated that murder is already illegal. What law would trump or enhance that?
Regard's,
CP
 
concernedpuma said:
It seems so many replies to this have to do with making gun ownership less legal or thoroughly illegal. I'm not sure if it was you or someone equally as sharp, who stated that murder is already illegal. What law would trump or enhance that?
Regard's,
CP
Click to expand...

I suppose we can give take guns anywhere like planes, court rooms, the super bowl since to use them in appropriately would already be illegal
 
vegas giants said:
I suppose we can give take guns anywhere like planes, court rooms, the super bowl since to use them in appropriately would already be illegal
Click to expand...

You are right. What would you do? Give an offender 30 days or community service? To what end?

To solve the terrible assassination's that have taken place, law abiding gun owners must be part of the solution. Anti-gun folk won't beat them, so you will have to include and ask their aid in any real solution. Gun owners know the capability of guns, where and why they are used. Why anti-gun folk are so blasé about that is confounding and worse still, delay's a constructive solution.
Regards,
CP
 
concernedpuma said:
You are right. What would you do? Give an offender 30 days or community service? To what end?

To solve the terrible assassination's that have taken place, law abiding gun owners must be part of the solution. Anti-gun folk won't beat them, so you will have to include and ask their aid in any real solution. Gun owners know the capability of guns, where and why they are used. Why anti-gun folk are so blasé about that is confounding and worse still, delay's a constructive solution.
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

Gun control is the only answer that works.


And I am a gun owner
 
TurtleDude said:
enormous guns are the 16 ones on US Battleships.
Click to expand...

So what I posted was nonsense because you think enormous doesn't apply to the AR-15? I think "nonsense" means something different than you think it means.
 
vegas giants said:
Gun control is the only answer that works.


And I am a gun owner
Click to expand...

VG, we already have gun control. As gun owners, neither you or I ever want mass shootings. I believe the question is regarding how we pass laws that don't affect you and I as legitimate, responsible gun owners, but somehow prevents guns in the wrong hands. That is the prize.

Regards,
CP
 
Mustachio said:
So what I posted was nonsense because you think enormous doesn't apply to the AR-15? I think "nonsense" means something different than you think it means.
Click to expand...

calling an AR 15 an enormous gun is sort of like calling a Springer Spaniel an enormous animal.
 
Mustachio said:
I think you and others competitively shooting enormous guns with the potential to kill hundreds of people in a matter of minutes is not worth really terrible people having guns with the potential to kill hundreds of people in a matter of minutes. I wouldn't make it a felony to own a gun that has been banned, I would make it a misdemeanor to refuse to participate in a buyback (which I would implement very slowly over the course of decades). The way I see it, you could regulate this in a way such that you'd probably have the gun in your cold, dead hands before the government ever got it.
Click to expand...

Enormous? Not hardly. AR15's are popular because they're light and relatively easy to shoot. Women favor them for that reason.
 
concernedpuma said:
VG, we already have gun control. As gun owners, neither you or I ever want mass shootings. I believe the question is regarding how we pass laws that don't affect you and I as legitimate, responsible gun owners, but somehow prevents guns in the wrong hands. That is the prize.

Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

What you want is impossible. Filling out a form us hardly a great sacrifice
 
Bullseye said:
Enormous? Not hardly. AR15's are popular because they're light and relatively easy to shoot. Women favor them for that reason.
Click to expand...

Here is why they are so popular

1) because they share common parts with military rifles, accessories and replacement parts-especially magazines -are readily available

2) due to the military use of the cartridge, the .223 or 556 is much easier to buy and cheaper than similar rounds such as the .222 or the 22-250

3) anyone who has had military service, has been trained to clean and do routine maintenance on that style of rifle and is familiar how to zero the sights and field strip the firearm

4) the modular design which facilitates easy servicing by armorers (as opposed to highly trained gunsmiths) allows causal owners to upgrade the firearm. For example, I can change out the basic mil-spec trigger with a top of the line CMC, or Timney , or Eftman match trigger in less than five minutes. I can change the stock in 2 minutes, and replace the entire bolt carrier group in 20 seconds

5) with millions upon millions of these rifles being owned by citizens and millions of the fully auto versions being used by the military, any systemic flaws in the design have long been remedied.
 
TurtleDude said:
calling an AR 15 an enormous gun is sort of like calling a Springer Spaniel an enormous animal.
Click to expand...

I think the point of my post was more concerned with the fact that they've been used to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes. The other point of my post is that the vast majority of people who have them are more concerned with thinking they're cool than any thought of protecting themselves. That might be untrue if you're a large scale narcotics dealer. Are you?
 
Mustachio said:
I think the point of my post was more concerned with the fact that they've been used to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes. The other point of my post is that the vast majority of people who have them are more concerned with thinking they're cool than any thought of protecting themselves. That might be untrue if you're a large scale narcotics dealer. Are you?
Click to expand...

VA Tech, Fort Hood, Luby's of Texas all showed that killers in a gun free zone can kill lots of people with handguns. Lanza, with a pump shotgun or even a revolver, could have killed just as many young children.

your silly assumptions as to why people own those guns shows you really have no clue about this subject and thus I cannot take your claims seriously
 
Bullseye said:
Enormous? Not hardly. AR15's are popular because they're light and relatively easy to shoot. Women favor them for that reason.
Click to expand...

They are easy to shoot, the only time I've shot any kind of weapon it was an AR-15 and it was for a television segment. I can confirm that you could easily kill so, so many people with one of them in an extremely short amount of time. If they appear to be small to you, that's fine; to me, no human being needs one unless they're being chased by a gang or intend on committing an act of domestic terrorism. You know what they say anyhow: it's not the size that matters.
 
TurtleDude said:
VA Tech, Fort Hood, Luby's of Texas all showed that killers in a gun free zone can kill lots of people with handguns. Lanza, with a pump shotgun or even a revolver, could have killed just as many young children.

your silly assumptions as to why people own those guns shows you really have no clue about this subject and thus I cannot take your claims seriously
Click to expand...

Semi-automatic handguns, yes. Vriginia Teach was the longest lasting mass shooting because the building was locked and he was essentially shooting fish in a barrel, right?

The bigger concern was that he was declared mentally ill but he passed his background checks with flying colors! And thank God we have a President who wants to prevent universal background checks, people have the right to plan acts of terror. That's freedom.
 
Mustachio said:
They are easy to shoot, the only time I've shot any kind of weapon it was an AR-15 and it was for a television segment. I can confirm that you could easily kill so, so many people with one of them in an extremely short amount of time. If they appear to be small to you, that's fine; to me, no human being needs one unless they're being chased by a gang or intend on committing an act of domestic terrorism. You know what they say anyhow: it's not the size that matters.
Click to expand...

"Need" isn't the issue; "have the right to keep and bear" is.
 
Mustachio said:
They are easy to shoot, the only time I've shot any kind of weapon it was an AR-15 and it was for a television segment. I can confirm that you could easily kill so, so many people with one of them in an extremely short amount of time. If they appear to be small to you, that's fine; to me, no human being needs one unless they're being chased by a gang or intend on committing an act of domestic terrorism. You know what they say anyhow: it's not the size that matters.
Click to expand...

I really tire of ignorant people telling me what I need. cops routinely carry them, that alone is a good reason for other citizens to own them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom