An interesting read concerning the predicted DNC push for gun control

[Rucker61]

Yeah, it's almost like the Republicans screaming "THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!!! THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!!!" were completely full of **** and playing your emotions like a fiddle.

Do the Democrats want to ban and confiscate some guns currently in common use for lawful purposes? Is attempting to confiscate any guns that are in common use for lawful purposes acceptable?

 

[Rucker61]

If you need me to convince you it's not legal in the US to own any gun on the planet, you're not worth wasting my time explaining it further. Adios.

What guns are not legal to own? What court cases decided which guns aren't legal to own? If you can't defend your own posts, then why post here?

 

[Chillfolks]

I would think that the big push for more gun control would've come during the Obama administration when the Democrats held the cards, and if Hillary had won the presidency there would be a really big push.

Democrats don't want the blowback when their gun control polices fail. It's better politically for them to say they would of done something but got stopped. It allows the appearance of trying to do something without the risk of it failing miserably

 

[DebateChallenge]

You can't keep machine guns out of violent criminals hands, as you claim you want, without a little regulation.

Well to the best of my knowledge there never has been any violent crimes committed in the USA with machine guns that are or were legally acquired in the country. I do know that there have been violent crimes done in the USA with machine guns that were illegally imported from Mexico but that is a failure of border security not of gun laws. All the more reason to have better border security but that is another discussion.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Every million that Bloomberg wastes on a Gun Control campaign always brings a smile to my face.

And to think, Bloomberg might be running for President in 2020.

 

[DebateChallenge]

You don't have a right to a nuke

So you think a gun is on the same scale as a nuke?

 

[DebateChallenge]

Yeah, it's almost like the Republicans screaming "THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!!! THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!!!" were completely full of **** and playing your emotions like a fiddle.

Well that's more or less what happened during the Obama administration and I would say during the 8 years he was in office the pendulum swung in the direction of gun rights.

 

[DebateChallenge]

If you need me to convince you it's not legal in the US to own any gun on the planet, you're not worth wasting my time explaining it further. Adios.

Well the 2nd Amendment mentions the right of the individual so you could say that would rule out any gun that requires more than one person to operate. Some of those big vehicle mounted and ship mounted guns require a team to use so they would be ruled out.

 

[jimbo]

I REALLY hope Democrats keep running on gun control. It's the one issue that's a guaranteed fail for them.

Smart politicians stay away from the gun issue. About a third of voters possess firearms. Another third want them banned. For the rest the issue is not that important.

You can't win by alienating a third of the voters.

 

[PleasantValley]

This isn't a "pro-rights" vs. "anti-rights" question. Virtually all mainstream politicians on both sides support the fundamental right of law-abiding Americans to own guns. However ALL rights have limits, and you're one of the fringe radicals that believes that gun ownership should have no rules whatsoever and a complete free-for-all. You automatically attack ANY gun regulation at the federal level as a fundamental violation of our rights, with no consideration of what is actually being proposed.

The American people as a whole understand that all rights do have limits and should be regulated to some degree, and luckily over the past few decades we've taken more and more steps towards that. Most Americans disagree with you that violent criminals should have unfettered access to machine guns. This is a battle you're losing, and your hysterical fear-mongering isn't making you look more credible.

This statement alone tells the whole world you have no knowledge of the subject, and puts the "Rabid" in your posts.
This one statement alone says you have not even tried to look up federal gun laws as they stand today.
There is no debating this kind of illogical thought and "rabid" propaganda.

The hysteria is all yours.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Democrats don't want the blowback when their gun control polices fail. It's better politically for them to say they would of done something but got stopped. It allows the appearance of trying to do something without the risk of it failing miserably

But they did fail miserably when Hillary lost in 2016. How do you like that Rich2018?

 

[Tom Horn]

especially in states like Ohio, PA and Michigan

Can you imagine “ gun control “ in PA? There’d be no revenue to manage their state parks. Zero.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yep, thank god we've been able to push at least THAT much gun control regulation. Nevertheless, there are many nuts in this country that criticize ALL regulation, no matter the content. You can not claim to support keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them and be against all regulation. These two stances are incompatible.



The courts have also ruled you don't have the right to ANY kind of gun. You don't have a right to a nuke, or a gatlin gun. Point being there are limits to every right, and a balance can certainly be found.



Yeah, it's almost like the Republicans screaming "THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!!! THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!!!" were completely full of **** and playing your emotions like a fiddle.

a suggestion to you leftist gun haters. If you want to run with your theme that the GOP is paranoid and is getting people to vote for them based on hysterical claims-you would do better if you completely and totally rejected and cast off all those on your side who call for gun bans. Like the moron in the Dem party who suggested that if there were a gun ban, those who resist should be NUKED. Or posters like Rich who want complete gun bans.

The problem is-too many of your fellow travelers aren't smart enough (or dishonest enough) to conceal the fact that they really do want gun bans

 

[RabidAlpaca]

This statement alone tells the whole world you have no knowledge of the subject, and puts the "Rabid" in your posts.
This one statement alone says you have not even tried to look up federal gun laws as they stand today.
There is no debating this kind of illogical thought and "rabid" propaganda.

The hysteria is all yours.

I'm not saying that's the way it currently is, I'm saying when you're somebody who attacks 100% of all gun regulations and hate the entire idea, yes, you are for no restrictions on guns. Those two go hand in hand together.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Or posters like Rich who want complete gun bans.

Rich doesn't want a complete gun ban. Based on posts of his where he talks about what he wants, what he talks about is more or less the same kind of gun control that Japan has, which is not a complete ban.

 

[TurtleDude]

Rich doesn't want a complete gun ban. Based on posts of his where he talks about what he wants, what he talks about is more or less the same kind of gun control that Japan has, which is not a complete ban.

well I understand he wants the cops to be able to have guns

private citizens-not so much-he has called for complete gun bans but he often argues with his own prior posts

 

[DebateChallenge]

well I understand he wants the cops to be able to have guns

private citizens-not so much-he has called for complete gun bans but he often argues with his own prior posts

He wants, I believe, for some private citizens to be able to get bolt action rifles and break open shotguns.

 

[Into the Night]

This isn't a "pro-rights" vs. "anti-rights" question. Virtually all mainstream politicians on both sides support the fundamental right of law-abiding Americans to own guns. However ALL rights have limits, and you're one of the fringe radicals that believes that gun ownership should have no rules whatsoever and a complete free-for-all. You automatically attack ANY gun regulation at the federal level as a fundamental violation of our rights, with no consideration of what is actually being proposed.

This is because no part of the Constitution gave anyone in the federal government authority to limit any kind of gun. Further, the 2nd amendment specifically prohibits anyone in the federal government from passing any kind law that limits guns or any other arm.

The American people as a whole understand that all rights do have limits and should be regulated to some degree, and luckily over the past few decades we've taken more and more steps towards that. Most Americans disagree with you that violent criminals should have unfettered access to machine guns. This is a battle you're losing, and your hysterical fear-mongering isn't making you look more credible.

We are not a democracy. We are a republic. We have constitutions. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that mentions machine guns or any other type of gun. Therefore, yes. unfettered access to machine guns.

 

[Into the Night]

[/B]

Fear-mothering is right, on your part. NO ONE wants violent criminals to have access to machine guns.

Violent criminals are breaking the law. They lose their rights as a citizen of the United States. They might even lose their life!

 

[Into the Night]

Yep, thank god we've been able to push at least THAT much gun control regulation.

That is not gun regulation. That is a felon losing his rights as a citizen.

Nevertheless, there are many nuts in this country that criticize ALL regulation, no matter the content.

Anything that limits any type of gun is illegal. It violates the 2nd amendment and Article I.

You can not claim to support keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them and be against all regulation.
These two stances are incompatible.

To a certain extent, true. Not completely, however.

Felons have lost their rights as a citizen. Their property can be seized, the guns and any other weapons can be taken, their right to protections from search and seizure are gone, their right to vote is gone, etc.

You want to apply the limitations imposed on a felon to lawful citizens, effectively calling the lawful citizen a felon.

The courts have also ruled you don't have the right to ANY kind of gun.

No court has the authority to change the Constitution. The 2nd amendment does not specify rights to specific types of guns. It specifies 'arms'. That includes ANY type of gun, any type of sword, any type of any weapon.

You don't have a right to a nuke, or a gatlin gun.

YES YOU DO! I certainly can own a Gatlin gun. Quite a few people do. I can certainly own a nuke. Not much practical use for one though, is there?

Point being there are limits to every right, and a balance can certainly be found.

The 2nd amendment is not a grant of right. It's an acknowledgement of a right that is inherent in Man as Man, and of a State as a State. It specifically prohibits the federal government from interfering with either right.

Yeah, it's almost like the Republicans screaming "THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!!! THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!!!" were completely full of **** and playing your emotions like a fiddle.

But you ARE coming for our guns. Don't lie.

 

[Into the Night]

Please provide such a ruling.



I can own a Gatling gun. "Balance" isn't the objective. "Compromise" isn't the goal. Limiting governmental power to Constitutional limits is the goal.

My local shooting range has one, beautifully restored.

 

[Into the Night]

Well to the best of my knowledge there never has been any violent crimes committed in the USA with machine guns that are or were legally acquired in the country. I do know that there have been violent crimes done in the USA with machine guns that were illegally imported from Mexico but that is a failure of border security not of gun laws. All the more reason to have better border security but that is another discussion.

Not even the Chicago mobs used machine guns much. They preferred a .38 pistol, brass knuckles, saps, etc.

 

[Into the Night]

So you think a gun is on the same scale as a nuke?

I often hear this extreme argument fallacy from gun control nuts.

I have no difficulty with someone owning a nuke. If they can safely store it and handle it, fine by me. What these people tend to forget is that a nuke tends to destroy the thing you are protecting (you and your property).

Criminal use of one? How often do you see guys robbing convenience stores with a bomb (any kind of bomb!)? Terrorist use of one? That'a already a risk! They are breaking the law anyway!

 

[Into the Night]

Well that's more or less what happened during the Obama administration and I would say during the 8 years he was in office the pendulum swung in the direction of gun rights.

Agreed. Obama increased gun sales probably more than any other president in history. The American people were not about to give up their guns for his policies!

 

[Into the Night]

Well the 2nd Amendment mentions the right of the individual so you could say that would rule out any gun that requires more than one person to operate. Some of those big vehicle mounted and ship mounted guns require a team to use so they would be ruled out.

Would they? That argument could be easily extended to ALL guns. Most people buy their guns and ammunition. They require more than one person to manufacture both components, and therefore require more than one person to operate.

Those big guns need teams because it takes more than one man to load and **** the thing. It only takes one man to pull the trigger though.

It is legal to own a cannon. They make use of teams too. Even operating a trebuche is a team effort, but people legally build them and operate them. One guy I know likes to hurl old cars with them. It's legal to own a Howitzer too. We use those around here for avalanche control...a perfectly lawful use for such a gun.