• 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!

Biden calls for tougher gun controls after Texas school shooting

Real version of US history. Perhaps you should educate yourself instead of tearfully shrieking about your favorite boogeyman.

The fact of the matter is that Americans have no room to cry about “violent people” when we propped up vicious dictators across the region.
The woke version you were taught is far from real but you won't realize that anytime soon if ever. You are living proof that the Marxist control US education and that education has become indoctrination.
 
Just certain weapons need to be removed-the ones whose sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
The thing is only a tiny fraction of deaths caused by someone with a gun use those "certain weapons:.
 
Nope. Your right to possess firearms is guaranteed by the constitution. Your statement is a common, though idiotic, fallacy. No one in their right mind thinks that those who favor gun control want to remove ALL guns from law abiding mentally stable individuals. Just certain weapons need to be removed-the ones whose sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
How would you accomplish this? Crystal ball?
 
The woke version you were taught is far from real but you won't realize that anytime soon if ever. You are living proof that the Marxist control US education and that education has become indoctrination.

Nope, this is well established historical fact. Educate yourself for once instead of tearfully sobbing “but the woke”.

Back in power and receiving financial, military and logistical support from the United Statesgovernment,[7][8] Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans.[9] Eventually it reached the point where most of the sugar industry was in U.S. hands, and foreigners owned 70% of the arable land.[10] As such, Batista's repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships both with the American Mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large U.S.-based multinational companies who were awarded lucrative contracts.[9][11]

To quell the growing discontent amongst the populace—which was subsequently displayed through frequent student riots and demonstrations—Batista established tighter censorship of the media, while also utilizing his Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities secret police to carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions.”


Americans accusing others of being “violent people” when we were the ones who propped up vicious dictators across the region is the rankest form of hypocrisy.

And no amount of hysterical blather about imaginary “Marxist education” can change the facts.
 
Except the fact that there is no law you can pass that would have changed anything in this horrible circumstance.
You don't know that. Lets say, for example, that Congress had passed a law that outlaws AR 15s and other assault rifles as well as high capacity magazines and all automatic weapons for private use five years ago. Maybe Ramos would have been able to get these, but it would have been a LOT harder.
 
Thats what I thought. Eventually you'd want all guns.

Her first round up will get maybe 70% of them. So she thinks.

Her plan makes as much sense as banning the most popular model of car in an effort to reduce traffic fatalities.
 
How would you accomplish this? Crystal ball?
1. Stop production of these weapons except to supply law enforcement
2. Make possession of these weapons a felony
3. Enable private citizens to report other citizens who are in possession of these weapons and sue them

Thats a start. It won't completely eliminate them but its a good start.
 
You don't know that. Lets say, for example, that Congress had passed a law that outlaws AR 15s and other assault rifles as well as high capacity magazines and all automatic weapons for private use five years ago. Maybe Ramos would have been able to get these, but it would have been a LOT harder.
Automatic weapons have been illegal for nearly 100 years and are rarely, if ever used by these killers.

What is an "assault rifle"? Please tell us.
 
And immediately Biden politicized this tragedy. Bodies aren't even cold yet and he's out there using these poor little kids to implement his political agenda. Funny how 400 kids a year die in swimming pools and hot tubs but Biden sheds nary a tear for them. Three children per day are killed in traffic accidents and Biden couldn't care less. A hundred children die every year on bicycles but Biden doesn't demand bicycles be made illegal.
Now we have this mentally deranged kid shooting 19 children and suddenly Biden is beside himself with grief demanding tougher gun laws. Truth is he only cares about dead children if he can use them to implement his anti gun agenda. Pretty sickening little man we have as president.




"President Joe Biden has called for tougher gun controls and asked why the US is “willing to live with this carnage” after a teenage gunman murdered at least 19 children and two adults in the country’s deadliest school shooting in nearly a decade."



Advocating policies that solve problems are political by definition -- that's how we pass laws -- through politics.

What you are trying to do is make what is normal appear unseemly. One more in your endless quest to dirty Biden, We get it.
 
s2pimfmsxr191.jpg
 
Nope, this is well established historical fact. Educate yourself for once instead of tearfully sobbing “but the woke”.

Back in power and receiving financial, military and logistical support from the United Statesgovernment,[7][8] Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans.[9] Eventually it reached the point where most of the sugar industry was in U.S. hands, and foreigners owned 70% of the arable land.[10] As such, Batista's repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships both with the American Mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large U.S.-based multinational companies who were awarded lucrative contracts.[9][11]

To quell the growing discontent amongst the populace—which was subsequently displayed through frequent student riots and demonstrations—Batista established tighter censorship of the media, while also utilizing his Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities secret police to carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions.”


Americans accusing others of being “violent people” when we were the ones who propped up vicious dictators across the region is the rankest form of hypocrisy.

And no amount of hysterical blather about imaginary “Marxist education” can change the facts.
You just made my point for me but don't even realize it. Ask yourself why Batista took these draconian steps then ask yourself if Castro who did the same or worse after he gained power. Then go back to my statement about not wanting Soviet bases in our doorstep. Cuban missile crisis ring a bell? What did your communist woke teachers teach you about that?
 
The thing is only a tiny fraction of deaths caused by someone with a gun use those "certain weapons:.
Its not true that a "tiny fraction of deaths" in mass shootings are done using these weapons. No one does a mass shooting with a BB gun. They use automatic and semiautomatic guns and sometimes, as in the Texas massacre, assault type weapons.
 
Advocating policies that solve problems are political by definition -- that's how we pass laws -- through politics.

What you are trying to do is make what is normal appear unseemly. One more in your endless quest to dirty Biden, We get it.
Fine but not the very day of their deaths. Allow families and America time to grieve before pursuing your gun laws agenda.
 
I have stated many times here what "those kinds of weapons" are. One last time: assault weapons like AR 15s (the weapon Ramos used), high capacity magazines, automatic and semiautomatic guns. What possible use are these weapons other than to kill a lot of people all at once? Its unconscionable that anyone can march into a gun store and purchase these things. They have only one use: killing a lot of people. And in Texas private gun transactions don't even require a background check. The senate repulsicans won't consider that bill, the one requiring universal background checks passed by the House. Its the repulsicans who have let this country down.
- An AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It's a rifle with cosmetic features that resemble some military weapons.
- Automatic weapons are essentially prohibited - and with the arguable exception of the Las Vegas shooting, haven't been used in mass shootings.
- Hand guns are used in most mass shootings - not rifles. Rifles have been used in about 30% - and AR-15 is only used in a portion of these.
- The features you mention do have other uses. Most firearms are semi-automatic.
- Not just 'anyone' can just 'march into a store' and buy a gun.
- The weapons involved in this incident were purchased in a store, and did require a background check.
- The bills submitted in congress by democrats have gone FAR, FAR beyond simply requiring background checks. I think republicans would consider expanding background checks -but we haven't been able to have a conversation without wrapping in fear, emotion, and a lot of other issues. There's also the problem that they wouldn't have actually stopped many (any?) mass shootings.

It's hard to have a conversation when we can't even start with an honest basis.
 
Automatic weapons have been illegal for nearly 100 years and are rarely, if ever used by these killers.

What is an "assault rifle"? Please tell us.
Do your own research if you don't know what an assault rifle is. You ban the production of automatic and semiautomatic guns except to supply law enforcement then start the process of collecting them. Thats a start.
 
- An AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It's a rifle with cosmetic features that resemble some military weapons.
- Automatic weapons are essentially prohibited - and with the arguable exception of the Las Vegas shooting, haven't been used in mass shootings.
- Hand guns are used in most mass shootings - not rifles. Rifles have been used in about 30% - and AR-15 is only used in a portion of these.
- The features you mention do have other uses. Most firearms are semi-automatic.
- Not just 'anyone' can just 'march into a store' and buy a gun.
- The weapons involved in this incident were purchased in a store, and did require a background check.
- The bills submitted in congress by democrats have gone FAR, FAR beyond simply requiring background checks. I think republicans would consider expanding background checks -but we haven't been able to have a conversation without wrapping in fear, emotion, and a lot of other issues. There's also the problem that they wouldn't have actually stopped many (any?) mass shootings.

It's hard to have a conversation when we can't even start with an honest basis.
Its hard to have a conversation when one party won't get off the status quo.
Whats your solution to limit access to the kinds of weapons used in these mass killings, weapons such as semiautomatic handguns (whose sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible)?
 
1. Stop production of these weapons except to supply law enforcement
2. Make possession of these weapons a felony
3. Enable private citizens to report other citizens who are in possession of these weapons and sue them

Thats a start. It won't completely eliminate them but its a good start.
So called assault weapon ban was tried before and despite what Biden claims it did nothing to stop this sort of thing. That circles us back to your previous post, " if that doesn't work do more".
 
WE propped up aggressive dictators. The junta which attacked the Falklands was an American backed regime. This fantasy that us crushing democracy around the globe in any way, shape or form “helped win the Cold War” is laughable.
THEY WERE THE Biggest aggressive dictator around. we stopped them from dominating europe and the world. sometimes what is necessary to do that is messy.

that's the problem with people in this country now .. they think democracy can always be won nicely. it does not always work that way. the reason you HAVE it so easy NOW that you can think that is because we won the cold war.

hell the reason germany, poland, ukraine and eastern europe have been FREE of soviet domination for so long is BECAUSE we won the cold war.
 
Nope. Your right to possess firearms is guaranteed by the constitution. Your statement is a common, though idiotic, fallacy. No one in their right mind thinks that those who favor gun control want to remove ALL guns from law abiding mentally stable individuals. Just certain weapons need to be removed-the ones whose sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
You claimed you would ban all semi-automatic guns.

And you are completely uniformed even about AR 15s. Millions and millions of them are used for purposes other than what you claim is their sole purpose. How do you look at a rare, isolated instance of use, and make such a ridiculous categorical claim based on that? It's like looking at the Wisconsin Parade Massacre and deciding the sole purpose of Ford SUVs is to run over pedestrians.
 
Do your own research if you don't know what an assault rifle is. You ban the production of automatic and semiautomatic guns except to supply law enforcement then start the process of collecting them. Thats a start.
Full auto has never been used in a mass shooting since the St Valentine's day mob massacre. Most hunting guns are semi auto just like so called assault weapons.
 
You claimed you would ban all semi-automatic guns.

And you are completely uniformed even about AR 15s. Millions and millions of them are used for purposes other than what you claim is their sole purpose. How do you look at a rare, isolated instance of use, and make such a ridiculous categorical claim based on that? It's like looking at the Wisconsin Parade Massacre and deciding the sole purpose of Ford SUVs is to run over pedestrians.
You're right. You certainly need a semiautomatic gun to hunt tweety birds.
You know as well as I know that the main purpose of these guns is to kill people.
And thats why we are where we are now.
 
Full auto has never been used in a mass shooting since the St Valentine's day mob massacre. Most hunting guns are semi auto just like so called assault weapons.
Great. Lets make production and possession of semiautomatic guns illegal then. They really only have one purpose: to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
 
I have stated many times here what "those kinds of weapons" are. One last time: assault weapons like AR 15s (the weapon Ramos used), high capacity magazines, automatic and semiautomatic guns.
None of them can be banned.
What possible use are these weapons other than to kill a lot of people all at once?
Lots of different uses. Hunting, competition, recreation, self defense etc.
Its unconscionable that anyone can march into a gun store and purchase these things.
Why?
They have only one use: killing a lot of people.
Nope. They have numerous uses, which do not involve killing anything, let alone people.
And in Texas private gun transactions don't even require a background check.
They shouldn't.
The senate repulsicans won't consider that bill, the one requiring universal background checks passed by the House. Its the repulsicans who have let this country down.
It's not possible to enforce a universal background check.
 
If the guns aren't being produced then fewer of them will be around. Pretty simple.
You can't stop them from being produced. If you were to magically alter the constitution so you would be able to ban the use, ownership or manufacture of them, they would still be used, owned and manufactured. Prohibition does not work.
 
None of them can be banned.

Lots of different uses. Hunting, competition, recreation, self defense etc.

Why?

Nope. They have numerous uses, which do not involve killing anything, let alone people.

They shouldn't.

It's not possible to enforce a universal background check.
Great. Then lets just do nothing and let these killings continue. Is that your plan?
BTW, its not up to you to determine what is or is not illegal. The courts decide that.
 
Back
Top Bottom