• 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!

Should the AZ shooter have been able to buy a gun?

Should the AZ shooter have been able to buy a gun?

  • Total voters
    51
  • Poll closed .
haymarket said:
Over the years, I have gotten involved in many internet message board discussions about guns and what limits should be placed upon ownership and usage. I have found that the strongest advocates for guns and gun culture almost always attempt to turn the discussion into a test on gun knowledge and the technical aspects of guns as a way of controlling the discussion and deferring the discussion from the larger issue of finding a reasonable balance between individual rights and societal rights.
Click to expand...

What I find interesting is those who oppose or want stronger restrictions regarding gun ownership tend to envoke culture/society reasons and ignore what our laws and Constitution states. The Constitution seems to talk about individual rights rather than society. They also tend to use a major tragic event to use as an excuse.
 
mike2810 said:
What I find interesting is those who oppose or want stronger restrictions regarding gun ownership tend to envoke culture/society reasons and ignore what our laws and Constitution states. The Constitution seems to talk about individual rights rather than society. They also tend to use a major tragic event to use as an excuse.
Click to expand...

All of us live in a society with an elected government that acts on behalf of the people. It is the job of that government to try to find the careful and respectful balance between complete and total unrestricted individual rights without any borders or limits and a government which controls everything in the name of order. This is not a new or revolutionary concept.
 
haymarket said:
Again, that is not my position. I am not one who wants to ban guns our of our society. As long as we paint this issue in extremes, this will continue to happen again and again. All I advocate is that we as a people reach some balance between unlimited rights of an individual and total control by society through government. I think that is both reasonable and in keeping with every other right we have.
Click to expand...

The problem is, who get's to draw the line? Your advocating even more governmental regulation of constitutional rights. How far is too far?
 
haymarket said:
Again, that is not my position. I am not one who wants to ban guns our of our society. As long as we paint this issue in extremes, this will continue to happen again and again. All I advocate is that we as a people reach some balance between unlimited rights of an individual and total control by society through government. I think that is both reasonable and in keeping with every other right we have.
Click to expand...

I'd sooner read this than the vitriol and hatred and insults from the tea bagging conservatives.
I guess balance is not in their vocabulary.
 
earthworm said:
I'd sooner read this than the vitriol and hatred and insults from the tea bagging conservatives.
I guess balance is not in their vocabulary.
Click to expand...

Balance is in your vocabulary?
 
haymarket said:
Perhaps the right to bear arms could be interpreted as the arms that were in existence when our sainted Founding Fathers placed them in the Constitution.

Or perhaps the truth is somewhere in between where decent people who want to live in a peaceful and civilized society can work to find a balance between those extremes?
Click to expand...

Do you have any proof of this? Anything that says anything of the sort? Its pretty clear to anyone actually being honest with themselves that the second amendment means all arms. I'm afraid I don't see where you're getting it can be limited in any way. Please though, quote away.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
All of us live in a society with an elected government that acts on behalf of the people. It is the job of that government to try to find the careful and respectful balance between complete and total unrestricted individual rights without any borders or limits and a government which controls everything in the name of order. This is not a new or revolutionary concept.
Click to expand...

True, but our elected officials must make sure that what they propose does not violate the Constitution.
 
apdst said:
The problem is, who get's to draw the line? Your advocating even more governmental regulation of constitutional rights. How far is too far?
Click to expand...

You draw the line at people's rights. You may not infringe upon the rights of others whom have themselves not infringed upon the rights of others.
 
haymarket said:
All of our rights are not absolute and without reasonable limits that are crafted in a careful balance between the individual and society. Why should any one right be any different?
Click to expand...

It's not, all rights are limited by the rights of others.
 
??? said:
No, because he should have been diagnosed as mentally ill. This was in the beginning stages, but its a slow process, and the damned privacy laws that we have help not. His family should have acted long ago.A huge problem, the people need to have far more faith and trust in their government.
Right now, they do not; Time may be the solution, that and a better people Absent that, the school or the military or some other organization should have had the authority to have him evaluated, or perhaps those who wish to buy guns should have to demonstrate that they are sane.
Click to expand...
Excellent points.
Right now, a man can secure weapons by simply being not insane; it should be that the man must prove that he is sane, totally sane.
I would not qualify, by that standard, but I am not a gun lover either.
 
thread title:

Poll: Should the AZ shooter have been able to buy a gun?
Click to expand...


Answer: I dunno, perhaps you should ask the sherriff who had many run ins with the dood, or the college that was scared ****less of him....



Form4473-P1.jpg



there were several opportunities for the sherriff to prevent this fellow from obtaining a weapon.



note items "E" and "F".....



But I guess "E" and "F" when you have family working in the system and a sherriff with a political agenda.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Now you're just making crap up. Quote any law that says this.

Oh, wait... you used the word "should". :lol:
Click to expand...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

It right in there ^^^^ if you read between the words.
 
Chappy said:
The point is that the burden is on the consumer to demonstrate that they should be eligible to purchase the weapon. And, the more capable the weapon the more stringent should be the standards.
Click to expand...


demonstrate to who? anti-gun hoplophobes like yourself who think going after law abiding citizens would stop a schizophrenic nutbag from killing people?



This is America jack, we are not about statism and tyranny which is what you propose.
 
earthworm said:
Excellent points.
Right now, a man can secure weapons by simply being not insane; it should be that the man must prove that he is sane, totally sane.
I would not qualify, by that standard, but I am not a gun lover either.
Click to expand...

maybe we should impose the same restrictions on other rights-such as speach, voting and especially breeding
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
demonstrate to who? anti-gun hoplophobes like yourself who think going after law abiding citizens would stop a schizophrenic nutbag from killing people?



This is America jack, we are not about statism and tyranny which is what you propose.
Click to expand...

I own arms for many reasons-that there are people in this nation who feel as Chappy does is a strong argument for all freedom loving americans to be heavily armed with serious military suitable weapons
 
TurtleDude said:
I own arms for many reasons-that there are people in this nation who feel as Chappy does is a strong argument for all freedom loving americans to be heavily armed with serious military suitable weapons
Click to expand...


Folks like chappy won't be coming for your guns, he'll send other folks sons and daughters to come for your guns. Folks who probably won't like what they are being ordered to do. But in a police state, that's the nature of the beast.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Folks like chappy won't be coming for your guns, he'll send other folks sons and daughters to come for your guns. Folks who probably won't like what they are being ordered to do. But in a police state, that's the nature of the beast.
Click to expand...

true, but in that situation the proper targets or patriots are not the police officers doing the bidding but those who advocated such a police state.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Folks like chappy won't be coming for your guns, he'll send other folks sons and daughters to come for your guns. Folks who probably won't like what they are being ordered to do. But in a police state, that's the nature of the beast.
Click to expand...

Someone's going to die, trying to take America's guns. You know folks like that are going to send someone to do the dieing.
 
TurtleDude said:
true, but in that situation the proper targets or patriots are not the police officers doing the bidding but those who advocated such a police state.
Click to expand...



My only comment past this point on this topic, is that the outcome would be most unfortunate for all parties and my country as we know it.....
 
apdst said:
Someone's going to die, trying to take America's guns. You know folks like that are going to send someone to do the dieing.
Click to expand...

which is why the proper remedy is to kill those who caused people to come take guns. that solves the problem much faster
 
Chappy said:
So here's a man who was rejected by the military; who was ejected from his community college because he frightened them, but who is completely unhindered to purchase one of the deadliest instruments available. Got it.
Click to expand...

I voted "yes." There was no legal reason prior to this incident to deny the shooter the ability to purchase a legal firearm.

You can't strip someone of their rights just because they don't get along with other people.

Hindsight's always 20/20.
 
That Republican idiot, Peter King? The one proposing the bill to make it illegal to carry a gun within 1000' of a lawmaker. (snicker)

He was on the radio today. I heard him say THIS: "My bill will prevent anyone from bringing a gun within a thousand feet of a public official..."

I. Laughed. My. Ass. Off.

"My bill will PREVENT??" Oh really? It will magically jump up in front of a determined murderer and PREVENT him from bringing a gun within range of a Congressman?? :lamo

Yup... he is a total idiot. Too stupid to chew bubblegum and BREATHE at the same time.

Mister King.... criminals do not obey the law. A man already determined to commit murder will not be deterred that he is breaking another law.

What a dumbass.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
That Republican idiot, Peter King? The one proposing the bill to make it illegal to carry a gun within 1000' of a lawmaker. (snicker)

He was on the radio today. I heard him say THIS: "My bill will prevent anyone from bringing a gun within a thousand feet of a public official..."

I. laughed. my. ass. off.

"My bill will PREVENT??" Oh really? It will magically jump up in front of a determined murderer and PREVENT him from bringing a gun within range of a Congressman?? :lamo

Yup... he is a total idiot. Too stupid to chew bubblegum and BREATHE at the same time.

Mister King.... criminals do not obey the law. A man already determined to commit murder will not be deterred that he is breaking another law.

What a dumbass.
Click to expand...
I'm vaguely embarrassed to be in the same country with him...

Edit: Especially since, 1000 feet is well within the range of some long guns...
 
Chappy said:
Simple question, right?
Click to expand...

Hindesight is always 20/20. Based on what we know now the answer would of course be no. However at the time that he bought the gun there was no reason, legally speaking to stop him from buying the gun.

He had committed no other offenses prior to the shooting. He also had not gone through any phsycriatric tests to prove that he was mentally incapable of owning a gun. As such, at the time that he bought the gun..yes he should have been allowed to buy the gun. Because for all intents and purposes he was a legally law abiding citizen of sound mind.

It would be easy to say that we need to up the wait days before a person can buy a gun but what does that really accomplish? Loughner would have just been delayed a bit longer and would have done the shooting anyways at a later date. Or he could have just bought the gun 6 months before the shooting. Making any such requirement of waiting moot.

Face it Chappy, your suggestions for making the obtainment of guns harder is silly at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom