Jump to content

Anyone interested in having a civil debate about gun control?


Recommended Posts

I am a gun enthusiast, and avidly support the second amendment, but I realize that there are areas that we can find sensible gun control that doesn’t limit our rights and makes us safer.  That said, what I see is conversations that always start with a disingenuous, dishonest, incomplete comment riddled with personal attacks on those that dare to disagree with the position.  This happens on both sides.

 

I offer this thread as a place for civil debateon the topic of gun control, and will pose a few questions.  These are not meant to be the only questions asked and answered, just getting the ball rolling.  Fair warning:  If your comment is not civil and constructive I will not reply and I encourage others to do the same.

 

1.  How do you feel about the SCOTUS ruling DC vs Heller 554 US 570 (2008)?  Do you agree with it?  Do you agree with it’s enforcement?

2.  Gun Control Advocates:  If you could ban on weapon that is currently legal what would it be and why?

Gun Enthusiasts:  If you had to ban one firearm that is currently legal what would it be and why?

3.  Would you consider compromises that include you getting something you want that the other side gets what they want that you dont agree with?  For example:  Would you consider a reduction in magazine capacity to 10 rounds if it came with a national right to carry law?

4.  How would you attempt to stop firearms getting into the wrong hands without restricting the rights of law abiding citizens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 260
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, Veritas101 said:

1.  How do you feel about the SCOTUS ruling DC vs Heller 554 US 570 (2008)?  Do you agree with it?  Do you agree with it’s enforcement?

2.  Gun Control Advocates:  If you could ban on weapon that is currently legal what would it be and why?

Gun Enthusiasts:  If you had to ban one firearm that is currently legal what would it be and why?

3.  Would you consider compromises that include you getting something you want that the other side gets what they want that you dont agree with?  For example:  Would you consider a reduction in magazine capacity to 10 rounds if it came with a national right to carry law?

4.  How would you attempt to stop firearms getting into the wrong hands without restricting the rights of law abiding citizens?

My answers:

1.  Love it, other than it being a close 5-4 decision.  This is a confirmation of the founders principles, and one of the few confirmations or expansions of liberty that we have see out of the SCOTUS.  This should evolve eventually into a national right to carry law.

2.  If I had to ban something it would be any toy guns that are made to look like replicas of real guns, and/or muzzle loaded cannons.  Not necessarily in the firearms category i know.

3.  Absolutely would love to see both sides willing to compromise, and write legislation that if the compromise is broken then it is cancelled.

4.  Screening must be more than what it is currently, but national databases are not the answer.  Bring together the minds of gun enthusiasts, gun control supporters, medical mental health professionals, gun manufacturers, and an even handful of politicians on both sides.  Lock them in downstairs open mall area of the Capitol Building, where the subway is, and tell them they can have all the food and drinks they want but they can't leave until they make a new security background check form that addresses the details of the mental health issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it is possible to have a civil debate about gun control.

Personally I am for sensible gun laws...IE only LEOs should have high capacity Magazines. Tell that to a NRAer and they'd go off. Tell that to a ultraliberal and they'd say I should have a single shot; if anything at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Civil debate..here???  Good freakin' luck!

 

I am in favor of closing the gun show loophole. I think there should be a background check every time a gun transfers owners..private or public..sales or gift.

 

I'm totally in favor of the 2nd..but I'm also in favor of common sense regulation.

 

I also note that this latest shooter passed 3 background checks because the Air Force neglected to enter his conviction into the data base..as far as I'm concerned..someone should go to jail for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DEBATE is about to get ENDED!!!
 

A. OUR CONSTITUTION is NOT where you "get your rights". RIGHTS are inherent to you AT BIRTH and are not "things" you get FROM GOVERNMENT!!

 

B. OUR CONSTITUTION is designed to RESTRICT GOVERNMENT from passing laws that TAKE YOUR RIGHTS. GUN RIGHTS INCLUDED AMONG OTHERS.
 

C. "Gun Control" is a  restriction on YOUR RIGHTS and FORBIDDEN IN THE CONSTITUTION as a "enumerated power" that government has. GOVERNMENT has no AUTHORITY to pass ANY "gun control laws', but EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE and that is to NOT PASS ANY LAWS THAT RESTRICT YOUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

 

DEBATE OVER, ENDED, and DONE.

 

UNTIL YOU PASS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION TO GIVE GOVERNMENT THE AUTHORITY TO "REGULATE" GUNS IN THE INDIVIDUALS HANDS, 100% OF ANYTHING YOU BELIEVE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. PERIOD!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MidnightMax said:

DEBATE is about to get ENDED!!!
 

A. OUR CONSTITUTION is NOT where you "get your rights". RIGHTS are inherent to you AT BIRTH and are not "things" you get FROM GOVERNMENT!!

 

B. OUR CONSTITUTION is designed to RESTRICT GOVERNMENT from passing laws that TAKE YOUR RIGHTS. GUN RIGHTS INCLUDED AMONG OTHERS.
 

C. "Gun Control" is a  restriction on YOUR RIGHTS and FORBIDDEN IN THE CONSTITUTION as a "enumerated power" that government has. GOVERNMENT has no AUTHORITY to pass ANY "gun control laws', but EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE and that is to NOT PASS ANY LAWS THAT RESTRICT YOUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

 

DEBATE OVER, ENDED, and DONE.

 

UNTIL YOU PASS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION TO GIVE GOVERNMENT THE AUTHORITY TO "REGULATE" GUNS IN THE INDIVIDUALS HANDS, 100% OF ANYTHING YOU BELIEVE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. PERIOD!!!

Right on point.+1000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

that we can find sensible gun control that doesn’t limit our rights and makes us safer.

"Sensible gun control" is a buzz-phrase used by gun banners to make inroads into telling law abiding gun owners what they can and cannot own in terms of firearms.  I am against this.

 

The bottom line is the latest shooter would not have been permitted to purchase a gun had the existing laws been enforced.  Take a look at ATF Form 4473.  Read the questions and you will see that these are all things that are already supposed to be part of a background check.  Government has a ton of work to do in showing us that it can and will enforce the laws we already have.

 

In other words, I will not support even one more law concerning guns or gun ownership.

 

Quote

Gun Enthusiasts:  If you had to ban one firearm that is currently legal what would it be and why?

I would ban BATFE Agents from being able to carry any semi-automatic firearm while on duty.  Let's see how they like gun bans!

 

Quote

 Would you consider compromises that include you getting something you want that the other side gets what they want that you dont agree with?  For example:  Would you consider a reduction in magazine capacity to 10 rounds if it came with a national right to carry law?

Hell no.  I don't even own a 10 round magazine!  All of my magazines range in capacity from 16 rounds to 120 rounds.  I would be willing to increase the age from 18 to 21 for ownership of semi-auto firearms IF AND ONLY IF the Hughes Amendment is fully repealed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll jump in..

 

I'm disgusted with the violence around the country like everyone else.

However, the American people have made it clear they want their guns. 

 

Do I think there should be limited control?

Yes!

Back ground checks...

Mental health history

Previous criminal history....

 

We have millions of people that have guns and they are responsible.

We have a tiny amount of people that commit mass murder with them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Z09 said:

I'll jump in..

 

I'm disgusted with the violence around the country like everyone else.

However, the American people have made it clear they want their guns. 

 

Do I think there should be limited control?

Yes!

Back ground checks...

Mental health history

Previous criminal history....

 

We have millions of people that have guns and they are responsible.

We have a tiny amount of people that commit mass murder with them.

 

 

 

SHOW ME IN THE CONSTITUTION where government has ANY AUTHORITY to pass ANY GUN LAW that you claim is "limited control"??

 

Sorry, you have NO ARGUMENT here. EITHER PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT GIVES GOVERNMENT THE ENUMERATED POWER OR GET LOST!!!
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MidnightMax said:

 

SHOW ME IN THE CONSTITUTION where government has ANY AUTHORITY to pass ANY GUN LAW that you claim is "limited control"??

 

Sorry, you have NO ARGUMENT here. EITHER PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT GIVES GOVERNMENT THE ENUMERATED POWER OR GET LOST!!!
 

 

I think limited control is making sure that people that want a gun is qualified to have one....

 

Example..

People will not get a drivers license if they previously have a dozen drunk driving convictions....

 

In a gun case if someone just got out of jail for assaulting his girlfriend and has a long history of assault and violence should he be allowed to go down and purchase a bunch of handguns?  I say no.

 

It's not trashing the constitution.

It's applying common sense.

 

Do you disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

SHOW ME IN THE CONSTITUTION where government has ANY AUTHORITY to pass ANY GUN LAW that you claim is "limited control"??

The Constitution is worthless, unless and until someone successfully challenges a gun law which imposes limited control of firearms.  Example.  The Hughes Amendment imposed extreme control over the public to obtain post '86 machine guns.  It stands pretty rock solid today.  Explain how that happened?

 

In my opinion, the best way to combat gun control is for as massive amounts of people to massive amounts of "evil assault weapons".  Yes, it's us against them.  If you think the Constitution will save you on this, you better think again.  I'll mention it one more time:  HUGHES AMENDMENT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Z09 said:

I think limited control is making sure that people that want a gun is qualified to have one....

 

Example..

People will not get a drivers license if they previously have a dozen drunk driving convictions....

 

In a gun case if someone just got out of jail for assaulting his girlfriend and has a long history of assault and violence should he be allowed to go down and purchase a bunch of handguns?  I say no.

 

It's not trashing the constitution.

It's applying common sense.

 

Do you disagree?

 

A. A "Drivers license" is NOT a right under ANY circumstance, and is NOT a power given to the Federal Government to control, write laws, or do anything with- totally a 10th Amendment "State controlled" issue, so your comparison is faulty at the onset.

 

B. "Common sense" is NOT a criteria that is an ENUMERATED POWER in the CONSTITUTION, so you are indeed trashing it. What YOU call "common sense' and a libTURD calls "Common sense" are NOT a quantifiable measurement, so you LOSE AGAIN!!! To libturds "Common sense gun control" is an ALL OUT BAN!!!

 

So yes, I TOTALLY DISAGREE and you should too.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MidnightMax said:

 

A. A "Drivers license" is NOT a right under ANY circumstance, and is NOT a power given to the Federal Government to control, write laws, or do anything with- totally a 10th Amendment "State controlled" issue, so your comparison is faulty at the onset.

 

B. "Common sense" is NOT a criteria that is an ENUMERATED POWER in the CONSTITUTION, so you are indeed trashing it. What YOU call "common sense' and a libTURD calls "Common sense" are NOT a quantifiable measurement, so you LOSE AGAIN!!! To libturds "Common sense gun control" is an ALL OUT BAN!!!

 

So yes, I TOTALLY DISAGREE and you should too.

 

 

MM.

 

Question.....Very simple ..

 

Let's say a guy has a long history of mental illness.

He's in and out of hospitals and has shown to be aggressive and violent.

 

Do you feel he should be allowed to have a guns?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MidnightMax said:

 

A. A "Drivers license" is NOT a right under ANY circumstance, and is NOT a power given to the Federal Government to control, write laws, or do anything with- totally a 10th Amendment "State controlled" issue, so your comparison is faulty at the onset.

 

B. "Common sense" is NOT a criteria that is an ENUMERATED POWER in the CONSTITUTION, so you are indeed trashing it. What YOU call "common sense' and a libTURD calls "Common sense" are NOT a quantifiable measurement, so you LOSE AGAIN!!! To libturds "Common sense gun control" is an ALL OUT BAN!!!

 

So yes, I TOTALLY DISAGREE and you should too.

 

 

I understand that driver's license is a state issue and there's "rights" involved...

 

I'm saying some people just lose their rights at times...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

Register all guns, include a ballistics sample into a national database.

Make healthcare available to everyone, including mental health care.

Make all non gun carrying Liberals register , Make all Liberals post a sign on their doors claiming they are a gun free zone. Problem will fix itself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Z09 said:

MM.

 

Question.....Very simple ..

 

Let's say a guy has a long history of mental illness.

He's in and out of hospitals and has shown to be aggressive and violent.

 

Do you feel he should be allowed to have a guns?

 

 

 

 

YOU DON'T NEED GUN CONTROL LAWS TO PREVENT THEM FROM OWNING GUNS!!

 

YOU NEED MENTAL ILLNESS LAWS THAT ALLOWS THEM TO BE INSTITUTIONALIZED WHEN SHOWN TO BE CRIMINALLY AND VIOLENTLY MENTALLY ILL!!!

 

Problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MidnightMax said:

 

YOU DON'T NEED GUN CONTROL LAWS TO PREVENT THEM FROM OWNING GUNS!!

 

YOU NEED MENTAL ILLNESS LAWS THAT ALLOWS THEM TO BE INSTITUTIONALIZED WHEN SHOWN TO BE CRIMINALLY AND VIOLENTLY MENTALLY ILL!!!

 

Problem solved.

Yes...

You're correct...

However do you put them in jail for life...?

 

How about when their medication works and then they get released and they stop taking their medication?

And then they go and buy a gun......Legally?

 

As you see it's not a one solution problem.

There's people with mental illness that are walking around because they've received treatment ....

Or do you just put them in jail for life?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Z09 said:

Yes...

You're correct...

However do you put them in jail for life...?

 

How about when their medication works and then they get released and they stop taking their medication?

And then they go and buy a gun......Legally?

 

As you see it's not a one solution problem.

There's people with mental illness that are walking around because they've received treatment ....

Or do you just put them in jail for life?

 

 

 

A person who is criminally violent needs to NOT ever be left in society without 24/7 supervision. EVER!!!

 

So you are making a FAR BETTER case for that, than to restrict "gun rights" on someone.

 

Remember that when you start "restrictions" and allow those, it's easy to get even more by using that "common sense' bullshit.

 

"Common sense"is VERY subjective and even MORE OF a slippery slope we need NOT to be heading down- ESPECIALLY when it comes to OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MidnightMax said:

 

A person who is criminally violent needs to NOT ever be left in society without 24/7 supervision. EVER!!!

 

So you are making a FAR BETTER case for that, than to restrict "gun rights" on someone.

 

Remember that when you start "restrictions" and allow those, it's easy to get even more by using that "common sense' bullshit.

 

"Common sense"is VERY subjective and even MORE OF a slippery slope we need NOT to be heading down- ESPECIALLY when it comes to OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS!!!

yes let's arm the mentally ill and terror suspects as long as they don't live in the trailer next to max.

terror suspects and crazy people have guns right ,too!

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, MidnightMax said:

 

YOU DON'T NEED GUN CONTROL LAWS TO PREVENT THEM FROM OWNING GUNS!!

 

YOU NEED MENTAL ILLNESS LAWS THAT ALLOWS THEM TO BE INSTITUTIONALIZED WHEN SHOWN TO BE CRIMINALLY AND VIOLENTLY MENTALLY ILL!!!

 

Problem solved.

so who will pay to lock up all those teabaggers? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MidnightMax said:

 

GO AWAY babytalk gurlyboi.

 

THE ADULTS are discussing real issues here!!!

yeah an adult who calls everyone a shitstain and won't admit which state he lives in.

max, check your hearing. that lady didn't say you were adult....she said you were a dolt.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...