• 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 .
Catawba said:
It seems not all gun-rights advocates think a ban on high capacity magazines would conflict with second Amendment rights:


"A leading gun-rights advocate says there is no constitutional barrier to restricting the sale of high capacity gun magazines such as the one used by accused Tucson shooter Jared Loughner and that such proposals are justified to prevent "looney tunes" from committing more gun massacres.

Robert A. Levy, who served as co-counsel in the landmark Supreme Court case that established a Second Amendment right to bear arms, said there was no reason the court's decision in that case should apply to the purchase of high-capacity gun magazines.

"I don't see any constitutional bar to regulating high-capacity magazines," Levy said in an interview with NBC. "Justice [Antonin] Scalia made it quite clear some regulations are permitted. The Second Amendment is not absolute."

The comments by Levy, chairman of the board of the libertarian Cato Institute, come as Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York is preparing to circulate a bill tomorrow that would ban the sale or transfer of high-capacity magazines. Supporters took Levy's comments as a sign that at least some gun-rights advocates might be open to the idea."
First Read - Gun-rights advocate: High-capacity magazine restrictions 'makes sense'
Click to expand...

silly thinking. no state or local government should be allowed to arm its agents with any gun that is normally issued with a magazine capacity higher than allowed other civilians.
 
Catawba said:
You really didn't answer my question about your claim, "How does using a 15 round magazine give the shooter a "higher probability of reloading and engaging more targets?"
Click to expand...

I didn't say that he had a higher probabilty. But, hey, don't let my actual comments stand in your way of mucking up the conversation.





Statistics and history show us that we have more handgun deaths than other countries with more strict gun control.[/b[ What rights of American citizens are violated to ban high capacity magazines? Does the ban against anti-aircraft weapons present a violation of the rights of American citizens? What about cop-killing bullets, or plastic guns?
Click to expand...


By the same token, history and statistics have shown us that gun crimes went up after gun bans were put into place in those countries.

Does the ban against anti-aircraft weapons present a violation of the rights of American citizens?
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. That argument is as stupid now, as it was the first time it was used.
 
Chappy said:
Let's start with answering the question: Should the AZ shooter have been able to purchase a high capacity 30-round magazine for his Glock 19?

My answer is no. There's no public need for such things; there should be laws banning stuff like that. As many as ten people shot or killed on Saturday may have been saved by that alone. What say you?
Click to expand...

I say that the local law enforcement should have done the job that it was charged with and took this guy off the street, to begin with.
 
Centrist77 said:
nor does it answer how ristricting clips to 15 or 10 stops anything from happening.
Click to expand...

all that does is hurt serious competitive shooters. In 1993 I shot for EAA's "Gold team". The magazines for my 9X21 Open gun cost 19 dollars a piece. after the moronic clinton gun laws, the price skyrocketed to 95 dollars a piece.
 
Chappy said:
Simple question, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, because he is not to blame, it's vitriol coming from Sarah Palin. How could anyone contain themselves after seeing cross hairs on our states. Just like the misguided criminals who flew into the buildings on 911. They didn't have a choice and couldn't help themselves because of racist US Policy.
 
Centrist77 said:
tell me what your magical fix is? and where and why would it work?
Click to expand...

Chappy said:
Let's start with answering the question: Should the AZ shooter have been able to purchase a high capacity 30-round magazine for his Glock 19?

My answer is no. There's no public need for such things; there should be laws banning stuff like that. As many as ten people shot or killed on Saturday may have been saved by that alone. What say you?
Click to expand...

Centrist77 said:
Ok Ill play the dumb question game, Already answered this but Ill do it again. I may not be up on the latest points of the story so I have to have a disclaimer. If what i know is true so far about AZ gun laws and him.

My answer is YES

also just to comment on you ridiculous ASSumption "As many as ten people shot or killed on Saturday may have been saved by that alone." this is PURE fantasy. This is called appeal to emotion even though there is NO supporting evidence what so ever. NONE
Click to expand...

Chappy said:
Soon there will be an accounting of each bullet fired by the AZ shooter and we will then know who was hit by bullets 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31. We will know their names and their fates. And your Yes vote will be one more straw that assures that the next shooter perhaps in your town will have a high capacity magazine so he can fire bullets 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 without re-loading and we will know his victims names and fates, too, and hope that yours is not among them.
Click to expand...

Centrist77 said:
LMAO!!!!! hahahahahahahahah
Like I said Im an adult, i dont buy into your scare tatics that rank up there with the boogie man

what if he just bought 2 guns? or got clips on the black market or off a friend, or stole them off a relitive etc etc etc
what if he couldnt get a gun and drove his moms explorer into the crowd?
what if he was a good shot and had a gun that held 10 bullets and one in the chamber and pulled off 10 head or kill shots?
is the fantasy what if game fun LMAO

again when you have some solid a hardcore let me know

So again how would you magically fix this so called problem with something that is proven to work?

The problem was HIM, not the gun, not the clip LMAO
HE was the problem.
Click to expand...



so im still waiting:waiting:
 
Chappy said:
And there it is, the slippery slope argument: We mustn't make our laws more stringent even when it is very, very clear that we have been too lax in our oversight because to do so opens the door to more and more reasonable handgun regulation.
Click to expand...

Today it's a 33 round magazine is considered high capacity and tomorrow you people will be claiming 15 rounds is too much. A magazine doesn't take long to eject and load into a firearm and considering the fact the nutjob planned this out he could have just as easily bought another gun or two if he was really worried running out of ammo and reloading or he could have practiced ejecting and loading a magazine into a gun.

Hence, America must continue to suffer these assaults on our senses and insults to our intelligence because to acknowledge them, to act on them is to finally come to terms with our handgun obsession. And, for many Americans, they're just not ready to do that, some likely never will be.
Click to expand...

I would rather the people have the guns instead of just the government and criminals. The government and criminals are the last two groups of people who should be trusted with guns around an unarmed population. Americans realize that government should not be fully trusted and only a brain dead moron would give up his rights in exchange for security.So we will have firearms for a long time in this country. If you do not like firearms then move to a Eurotrash country that doesn't believe that the people have a right to defend themselves against criminals and a corrupt government.
 
jamesrage said:
Today it's a 33 round magazine is considered high capacity and tomorrow you people will be claiming 15 rounds is too much. A magazine doesn't take long to eject and load into a firearm and considering the fact the nutjob planned this out he could have just as easily bought another gun or two if he was really worried running out of ammo and reloading or he could have practiced ejecting and loading a magazine into a gun.



I would rather the people have the guns instead of just the government and criminals. The government and criminals are the last two groups of people who should be trusted with guns around an unarmed population. Americans realize that government should not be fully trusted and only a brain dead moron would give up his rights in exchange for security.So we will have firearms for a long time in this country. If you do not like firearms then move to a Eurotrash country that doesn't believe that the people have a right to defend themselves against criminals and a corrupt government.
Click to expand...

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.

Perhaps the right to bear arms means the sky is the limit and technology only limits the second amendment.

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?
 
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.

Perhaps the right to bear arms means the sky is the limit and technology only limits the second amendment.

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...

so the first amendment shouldn't apply to electronic means of communication?

the right is not limited by the state of the art. giving criminals and the government a monopoly on deadly force is a recipe for disaster
 
TurtleDude said:
so the first amendment shouldn't apply to electronic means of communication?

the right is not limited by the state of the art. giving criminals and the government a monopoly on deadly force is a recipe for disaster
Click to expand...

If that were my position, you would be perhaps correct. But it is not my position.
 
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.

Perhaps the right to bear arms means the sky is the limit and technology only limits the second amendment.

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...

I's say we DO live in a peaceful civilized society.
 
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.
Click to expand...

If you apply that logic to the 2nd amendment then lets apply it to the first amendment and other rights too. No computers,no Television, no mass printing devices, I think the catholic was the only mega church back then, no colored magazines, no photographs, no massive media organization, no telephones, no cars, no other communication devices. So by your they didn't have it back then logic the government should be able to tap your phones without a warrant, use scanners,x-ray machines and etc to see what you have in your property without a warrant, and regulate what can and can not be said if it not printed on a 18th century printing press or printed on the paper of that time period.






I seriously doubt the anti-2nd amendment loons would want people to have canons, bombs, rockets, grenades or any other weapons that were around during or before the constitution was written.
Perhaps the right to bear arms means the sky is the limit and technology only limits the second amendment.
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...

Many of the reasons the founding forefathers created the 2nd amendment is for the people to defend themselves, to defend against an invasion to defend against a tyrannical government, to hunt and many other reasons. Those things do not change just because technology has. We do live in a peaceful society.
 
Chappy said:
Let's start with answering the question: Should the AZ shooter have been able to purchase a high capacity 30-round magazine for his Glock 19?

My answer is no. There's no public need for such things; there should be laws banning stuff like that. As many as ten people shot or killed on Saturday may have been saved by that alone. What say you?
Click to expand...

I say that with less restrictive gun law more people would have been carrying firearms at the event. Possibly eliminating the threat before he injured or killed 10 people. (and saving us the cost of a trial)
 
jamesrage said:
If you apply that logic to the 2nd amendment then lets apply it to the first amendment and other rights too. No computers,no Television, no mass printing devices, I think the catholic was the only mega church back then, no colored magazines, no photographs, no massive media organization, no telephones, no cars, no other communication devices. So by your they didn't have it back then logic the government should be able to tap your phones without a warrant, use scanners,x-ray machines and etc to see what you have in your property without a warrant, and regulate what can and can not be said if it not printed on a 18th century printing press or printed on the paper of that time period.






I seriously doubt the anti-2nd amendment loons would want people to have canons, bombs, rockets, grenades or any other weapons that were around during or before the constitution was written.


Many of the reasons the founding forefathers created the 2nd amendment is for the people to defend themselves, to defend against an invasion to defend against a tyrannical government, to hunt and many other reasons. Those things do not change just because technology has. We do live in a peaceful society.
Click to expand...

Again, that is not my position and you are fighting a strawman.

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?
 
Here's a question...

Is it possible to fake crazy, if you know enough about what the doctors who dignose crazy look for?

If so, to what point?

What would it take to be discovered?

Could it be discovered?
 
haymarket said:
Again, that is not my position and you are fighting a strawman.

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...

those who know little about guns and gun laws tend to be the ones most demanding more 'reasonable' restrictions. Almost always, those reasonable restrictions are neither reasonable nor have any hope of restraining criminals
 
TurtleDude said:
those who know little about guns and gun laws tend to be the ones most demanding more 'reasonable' restrictions. Almost always, those reasonable restrictions are neither reasonable nor have any hope of restraining criminals
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

and then they try to use the 2nd Amendment to justify gun ownership. Imagine...
 
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...

that's generally because anti gun advocates are clueless about the laws, guns etc. For example I have seen several gun haters call a glock an "assaultweapon" or confuse fully automatic weapons (which are extremely expensive and hard to obtain legally) with semi autos etc

most gun control advocates aren't honest either-no one who actually pushes for gun control at a national level believes such laws really deter crime because no credible study supports that. their real motives are sinister
 
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.

Perhaps the right to bear arms means the sky is the limit and technology only limits the second amendment.

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...

If there weren't folks that wished to see all guns outlawed and every gun possible, confiscated; there could be a hapy medium. As long as those gun ban extremists exist in our society, those of us who treasure our right to keep and bear arms are obliged to stand our ground, when the gun ban freakos come spewing their goofy ass rhetoric.
 
apdst said:
If there weren't folks that wished to see all guns outlawed and every gun possible, confiscated; there could be a hapy medium. As long as those gun ban extremists exist in our society, those of us who treasure our right to keep and bear arms are obliged to stand our ground, when the gun ban freakos come spewing their goofy ass rhetoric.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom