• 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
Mustachio said:
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.
Click to expand...


UBGCs are worthless in stopping premeditated murder. They are placebos to placate howling mouth breathers and are designed to convince the shallow end of the gene pool to demand registration
 
Mustachio said:
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.
Click to expand...

I knew it would only be a short time till some iconoclast decided to blame the President for mass shooting's. What next for blame, the Chicago fire, or the Spanish flu?
C'mon, be relevant or find another thread to insult the President, there are ton's of the disassociated waiting for your insults!
Regards,
CP
 
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...

TurtleDude:

This strategy worked in 1934 to get submachine up guns and sawed off shotguns of the streets of prohibition America with the Firearms Control Act of 1934 under FDR and it was upheld by the US Supreme Court in US vs. Miller in 1939 IIRC the date of the hearing. So this strategy has a very long legal pedigree and has been found to be constitutional until very recently when the Supreme Court collectively lost its mind in 2008.

So I would not be so sure that recent SC rulings will not be reversed again and old remedies will be new again. Your country's Constitution and Bill of Rights are in tatters due to laws passed over the last fifty years so why should the Second Amendment be any different. Perhaps it's time for one or two firearms related Patriot Acts to shred another amendment of the US constitution.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
TurtleDude said:
UBGCs are worthless in stopping premeditated murder. They are placebos to placate howling mouth breathers and are designed to convince the shallow end of the gene pool to demand registration
Click to expand...
They're like a young child's Binky. The child loves it, it sooths them and keeps them quiet, and has no real value to anyone else.
 
vegas giants said:
They wouldn't
Click to expand...

vegas giants said:
That's why so many are used in mass shootings.....oh wait.... lol
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you’re going on about then?

You are honestly under the wrong impression about ghost guns.

Hardly any of them are the 3D printed ones, the current materials suck. Almost all are going to be made from 80% receivers. It takes little skill with basic garage hand tools to complete one. And they are of the same reliability as an receiver made by a large manufacturer.

Not trying to take a jab or play word games. If you doubt, check out Marine Gun Builder for yourself.
 
concernedpuma said:
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
Click to expand...

I was speaking of the 60's during the civil rights movement and I said most Southern states. I didnt exclude any specifically, just pointed to the most obvious and vocal group.
 
Evilroddy said:
TurtleDude:

This strategy worked in 1934 to get submachine up guns and sawed off shotguns of the streets of prohibition America with the Firearms Control Act of 1934 under FDR and it was upheld by the US Supreme Court in US vs. Miller in 1939 IIRC the date of the hearing. So this strategy has a very long legal pedigree and has been found to be constitutional until very recently when the Supreme Court collectively lost its mind in 2008.

So I would not be so sure that recent SC rulings will not be reversed again and old remedies will be new again. Your country's Constitution and Bill of Rights are in tatters due to laws passed over the last fifty years so why should the Second Amendment be any different. Perhaps it's time for one or two firearms related Patriot Acts to shred another amendment of the US constitution.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Wow TD! He/she has teed you up! Get 'em bro!
Regards,
CP
 
Evilroddy said:
TurtleDude:

This strategy worked in 1934 to get submachine up guns and sawed off shotguns of the streets of prohibition America with the Firearms Control Act of 1934 under FDR and it was upheld by the US Supreme Court in US vs. Miller in 1939 IIRC the date of the hearing. So this strategy has a very long legal pedigree and has been found to be constitutional until very recently when the Supreme Court collectively lost its mind in 2008.

So I would not be so sure that recent SC rulings will not be reversed again and old remedies will be new again. Your country's Constitution and Bill of Rights are in tatters due to laws passed over the last fifty years so why should the Second Amendment be any different. Perhaps it's time for one or two firearms related Patriot Acts to shred another amendment of the US constitution.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

the 1934 NFA was clearly unconstitutional but we had a court that ignored the bill of rights to do what FDR wanted. Hell, if you read the Miller case, it is clear that something like the BAR was protected.

According to a former Scalia law clerk, the reason why Scalia and other conservatives were loathe to strike down the idiotic use of the commerce clause to justify federal gun restrictions is that such action could easily spread to destroying "institutions that society has come to rely on, thus causing massive social upheaval" (such as social security, Titles VII and IX etc)
 
Lursa said:
I was speaking of the 60's during the civil rights movement and I said most Southern states. I didnt exclude any specifically, just pointed to the most obvious and vocal group.
Click to expand...

You are correct. You wrote most southern states. If Florida wasn't in your grouping of MOST southern states, I Thank you.
Was it?
Regards,
CP
 
vegas giants said:
Second time
A loophole is an inadequacy in the law. The private sale loophole is inadequate
Click to expand...

Seeing as you can't even explain where the inadequacy is, and it's already been shown to you were the myth stems from.

You don't even have the footing to begin with a "second time" phrase.
 
Oborosen said:
Seeing as you can't even explain where the inadequacy is, and it's already been shown to you were the myth stems from.

You don't even have the footing to begin with a "second time" phrase.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your opinion
 
Aberration said:
I am not sure what you’re going on about then?

You are honestly under the wrong impression about ghost guns.

Hardly any of them are the 3D printed ones, the current materials suck. Almost all are going to be made from 80% receivers. It takes little skill with basic garage hand tools to complete one. And they are of the same reliability as an receiver made by a large manufacturer.

Not trying to take a jab or play word games. If you doubt, check out Marine Gun Builder for yourself.
Click to expand...

He brought up 3d guns....not me. If lower receivers were registered this problem goes away
 
TurtleDude said:
the 1934 NFA was clearly unconstitutional but we had a court that ignored the bill of rights to do what FDR wanted. Hell, if you read the Miller case, it is clear that something like the BAR was protected.

According to a former Scalia law clerk, the reason why Scalia and other conservatives were loathe to strike down the idiotic use of the commerce clause to justify federal gun restrictions is that such action could easily spread to destroying "institutions that society has come to rely on, thus causing massive social upheaval" (such as social security, Titles VII and IX etc)
Click to expand...

TurtleDude:

IIRC the NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 or at least acquiesced to it. US vs Miller stood as the law of the land for well over sixty years and was constitutionally sound for that time. That it changed was due to the composition of the US Supreme Court's make-up and not on legal principles. It was a political decision made by the justices and like all political decisions it can be reversed when the Supreme Court is more sympathetic to the older interpretation of the law. Changing that will be a political process and if the Republican Party loses the Senate and the Presidency then those changes will come swiftly.

American society is reaching a tipping-point regarding runaway gun violence and with respect to the second amendment it will soon revolt against the US Constitution unless sensible but painful changes are made with respect to firearms laws in America. So the choice comes down to one of three options. One - reform the laws willingly and sensibly in order to better control and track semiautomatic hand guns and long arms ownership/possession. Two - watch as the Supreme Court's composition is changed and does the same. Three - lose the Second Amendment or have it rewritten as an explicitly collective right for the sake of providing recruits to well regulated state militias. These are political drivers and political decisions, not legal ones and as such will not be effectively blocked by lawyers and judges in the long-run. When enough people stand against a dangerous law or constitutional clause, the law will collapse and change. That's the lesson of history and history bites hard.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
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...

Yes we realize that far left individuals have zero problem with circumventing US law to get what they want. You are just another in the thousands of examples of this. Unfortunately for you and other far left individuals we have a constitution that outlaws what you want to see happen. And we both know the chance of amending the Constitution over this issue is almost noon existient. But good luck though
 
RJ
Evilroddy said:
TurtleDude:

IIRC the NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 or at least acquiesced to it. US vs Miller stood as the law of the land for well over sixty years and was constitutionally sound for that time. That it changed was due to the composition of the US Supreme Court's make-up and not on legal principles. It was a political decision made by the justices and like all political decisions it can be reversed when the Supreme Court is more sympathetic to the older interpretation of the law. Changing that will be a political process and if the Republican Party loses the Senate and the Presidency then those changes will come swiftly.

American society is reaching a tipping-point regarding runaway gun violence and with respect to the second amendment it will soon revolt against the US Constitution unless sensible but painful changes are made with respect to firearms laws in America. So the choice comes down to one of three options. One - reform the laws willingly and sensibly in order to better control and track semiautomatic hand guns and long arms ownership/possession. Two - watch as the Supreme Court's composition is changed and does the same. Three - lose the Second Amendment or have it rewritten as an explicitly collective right for the sake of providing recruits to well regulated state militias. These are political drivers and political decisions, not legal ones and as such will not be effectively blocked by lawyers and judges in the long-run. When enough people stand against a dangerous law or constitutional clause, the law will collapse and change. That's the lesson of history and history bites hard.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...
No one doubts that those are your opinions. But most people also realize they are nothing more then your opinion

So tell me what SC opinion on the last 25 years has indicated a move towards your position
 
vegas giants said:
Thank you for your opinion
Click to expand...

Actually more of an observable fact. Seeing as you've been asked that simple question more than once now, and you've simply ran from answering something that by your own stance, should be rather simple to explain.

So seeing as my link showed the myth of the gun show loophole, is exactly that, and the best that you could come up a paged that actually proves me correct. Because it doesn't even address the issue either.

Pretty much sums up how poor your performance has been this whole time.

One more chance. How is the gun show loophole, actually a thing. As in what makes it a loophole in the first place.

Which means, how can a registered/certified distributor of firearms. So blatantly break the law and it still considered a loophole?
 
Oborosen said:
Actually more of an observable fact. Seeing as you've been asked that simple question more than once now, and you've simply ran from answering something that by your own stance, should be rather simple to explain.

So seeing as my link showed the myth of the gun show loophole, is exactly that, and the best that you could come up a paged that actually proves me correct. Because it doesn't even address the issue either.

Pretty much sums up how poor your performance has been this whole time.

One more chance. How is the gun show loophole, actually a thing. As in what makes it a loophole in the first place.

Which means, how can a registered/certified distributor of firearms. So blatantly break the law and it still considered a loophole?
Click to expand...

I was trying to be polite. Ok.


I gave you the definition of a loophole. The law has an inadequacy in it in that it fails to cover background checks in all cases. The purpose of background checks are to prevent prohibited persons from getting guns. If background checks help that it should be done for all sales like it is in other countries that have figured this out long ago.


The law is inadequate to the purpose it serves.


It has a giant loophole
 
vegas giants said:
I was trying to be polite. Ok.


I gave you the definition of a loophole. The law has an inadequacy in it in that it fails to cover background checks in all cases. The purpose of background checks are to prevent prohibited persons from getting guns. If background checks help that it should be done for all sales like it is in other countries that have figured this out long ago.


The law is inadequate to the purpose it serves.


It has a giant loophole
Click to expand...

No, because it works when applied. If you don't apply it, then you're breaking the law.

Which is why these kinds of sells are illegal. So it's not a loophole.

You actually need to supply something that shows this loophole actually exist, instead of saying that it does, or supplying a link that just dances around the topic.

Where is the proof that this loophole exist?
 
Oborosen said:
No, because it works when applied. If you don't apply it, then you're breaking the law.

Which is why these kinds of sells are illegal. So it's not a loophole.

You actually need to supply something that shows this loophole actually exist, instead of saying that it does, or supplying a link that just dances around the topic.

Where is the proof that this loophole exist?
Click to expand...

It is not illegal to sell a gun in a private sale at a gun show without a background check.


That is a fact
 
Oborosen said:
No, because it works when applied. If you don't apply it, then you're breaking the law.

Which is why these kinds of sells are illegal. So it's not a loophole.

You actually need to supply something that shows this loophole actually exist, instead of saying that it does, or supplying a link that just dances around the topic.

Where is the proof that this loophole exist?
Click to expand...

Gun Show Laws by State and "The Gun Show Loophole"
 
vegas giants said:
I was trying to be polite. Ok.


I gave you the definition of a loophole. The law has an inadequacy in it in that it fails to cover background checks in all cases. The purpose of background checks are to prevent prohibited persons from getting guns. If background checks help that it should be done for all sales like it is in other countries that have figured this out long ago.


The law is inadequate to the purpose it serves.


It has a giant loophole
Click to expand...

Hmm... that federal law was specifically designed to apply to FFL dealer sales only, thus it is not a loophole that such a federal law does exactly what it was designed to do.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... that federal law was specifically designed to apply to FFL dealer sales only, thus it is not a loophole that such a federal law does exactly what it was designed to do.
Click to expand...

A loophole is a completley legal way around a law. Such as a tax loophole. The law is inadequate.


You may have a different opinion but that is all it is
 
vegas giants said:
A loophole is a completley legal way around a law. Such as a tax loophole. The law is inadequate.


You may have a different opinion but that is all it is
Click to expand...

Exactly, it is a matter of opinion yet you try to assert that your opinion is a fact. It is completely legal not to report the sale of a gun (via form 4473 and with a NICS BGC) if one is not in the business of selling guns (i.e. one is not required to obtain a FFL).

It is no more of a loophole than not to report the proceeds from the sale of your lawnmower, golf clubs or bicycle during a yard sale as income to the IRS.
 
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...

So if I am being chased by a gang what do I do in your world without AR’s?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom