• 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!

Christie signs 10 gun-control measures into law

From what I can tell, Republicans call ANYONE they disagree with "liberals".

Hell, I'm wondering if I wouldn't be a Republican if they were still somewhere in the land of normal. That party just fell off the political map, they're so far right.
 
Sadly, it's the other way around as well. . .
Maybe, but I don't see it nearly as often. You hear all the time about various Republicans who are so-called RINOs...I haven't heard Democrats sniping at themselves in nearly the same manner. Not saying it doesn't happen, just saying I don't think I've noticed it.
 
So you think that people on the terrorist watch list ought to be able to buy gun just like anyone else?

yes.... provide they are Americans... and provided they are not disqualified by other factors

there's almost 900,000 people on that list... an estimated 9000 are Americans.
it's a watch list, not a "this person is guilty of a felony" list.... watch the folks, fine, but denying rights over being on the list goes way too far.

false positives are still a problem ( innocent people being thrown on the list)... and it has failed to catch some of the real terrorists, such as the boston marathon bombers.

a the end of the day, being throw on a watch list is not an adjudication of guilt... the folks on that list, above all else, are innocent until proven guilty.
I understand the safety concerns you have, but i think it needs to be said that you are supporting the denial of rights without the due process of law.... a decidedly unethical, per American standards, thing to support.

Christie should be ashamed
not for wanting to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, but for supporting a law which directly contradicts our most basic of legal doctrines.
 
I can't say I am surprised. From what I can tell east coast republicans are liberals.

a real liberal wouldn't support the denial of constitutional rights without due process.... so I think it's a bit off base to call him a liberal over this.

calling him a liberal in the sense of Obama's brand of liberalism... possibly.... that particular flavor of what I call "illiberalism" doesn't really lend itself to constitutional rights protections
 
Well, what you have to remember about Chicago is that it's a city, not a state or a country. If I live in Chicago and want to buy a gun, I'll go to a neighboring city to get one. The other thing to remember about Chicago is that the number of homicides and homicides by firearm have dropped significantly over the past 20 years.

Can this be sourced??

I only ask because I saw an article a short time back where there was a celebration because the city went a whole weekend without a murder...
 
Well, what you have to remember about Chicago is that it's a city, not a state or a country. If I live in Chicago and want to buy a gun, I'll go to a neighboring city to get one.
Or they can go to another state, or another country to come back and sell guns in a black market. Prohibitions don't work. It's silly to point out the flaw in them and then use it as an excuse.

Duh, people can go elsewhere and buy guns, or obtain them illegally, that's the point. Now only criminals have guns.

The other thing to remember about Chicago is that the number of homicides and homicides by firearm have dropped significantly over the past 20 years.

The crime rates in Chicago have dropped just as overall crime has dropped throughout the country. Chicago is still a comparative death trap.
 
Can this be sourced??

I only ask because I saw an article a short time back where there was a celebration because the city went a whole weekend without a murder...

The number of murders in Chicago in 2012 were about half the murders in 1992. They've been on the uptick last few years, though.
 
One of the implications of that belief is that bureaucrat in question should be so mortally afraid of nbeing sued that they never take any meaningful actions against suspected terrorists.

Or they perform the due diligence their job requires prior to adding someone to that list. If they do not understand the importance of getting it right the first time, they absolutely do not belong in a critical position. If they can screw up putting someone on the list they shouldn't, do you think perhaps they are not putting people on that they should?
Most of the errors in the past have been pure negligence of the people trusted to do their jobs properly. Why excuse poor performance or make excuses for them?

Perhaps they should be afraid of making a mistake. It should cost them their job if it is that important.
 
The number of murders in Chicago in 2012 were about half the murders in 1992. They've been on the uptick last few years, though.

I looked it up and it seems you are right that the murder rate has dropped significantly.

It is still quite high though.
 
This pretty much sums up the whole situation...

Bryan Miller said that the new laws are a step in the right direction, but that more needs to be done. He urged Christie to sign other gun-control bills on his desk, like one banning sales of .50-caliber rifles and another modernizing the state’s gun buying system.

Out of the 10 new gun control measures, not one of them will affect gun crime at all. They will do nothing really. I mean how many terrorists are just hanging out in NY waiting to buy a gun?
 
I looked it up and it seems you are right that the murder rate has dropped significantly.

It is still quite high though.

The murder rate has dropped at a steady rate all over the nation for years. Has nothing to do with any gun control legislation.
 
Or they perform the due diligence their job requires prior to adding someone to that list. If they do not understand the importance of getting it right the first time, they absolutely do not belong in a critical position. If they can screw up putting someone on the list they shouldn't, do you think perhaps they are not putting people on that they should?
Most of the errors in the past have been pure negligence of the people trusted to do their jobs properly. Why excuse poor performance or make excuses for them?

Perhaps they should be afraid of making a mistake. It should cost them their job if it is that important.

I agree, especially since this could potentially lead to someone losing their life.
 
This pretty much sums up the whole situation...

Bryan Miller said that the new laws are a step in the right direction, but that more needs to be done. He urged Christie to sign other gun-control bills on his desk, like one banning sales of .50-caliber rifles and another modernizing the state’s gun buying system.

Out of the 10 new gun control measures, not one of them will affect gun crime at all. They will do nothing really. I mean how many terrorists are just hanging out in NY waiting to buy a gun?

Why ban .50 cal? I don't think I have ever heard of a .50 cal being used in a crime. A .50 cal rifle is not something your typical criminal is going to have.
 
Why ban .50 cal? I don't think I have ever heard of a .50 cal being used in a crime. A .50 cal rifle is not something your typical criminal is going to have.

Don't ask me, I think it's stupid. My point is no matter how many gun control laws they pass, they will not be happy until we are all disarmed, period.
 
So you think that people on the terrorist watch list ought to be able to buy gun just like anyone else?

Who controls who is put on this "terrorist" list? Is there any way to get off this list if a person if put there accidently?

Someone who is actually a terrorist will find a gun regardless. This will only effect those innocent people who are put on this list for no apparent reason.
 
No, of course not. But the 2nd amendment supporters seem to think that any gun law is a bad gun law. That's all I've seen so far.

you obviously have not really read what people have written-perhaps because you haven't been here very long. Almost all of us rights advocates support laws that punish MISUSE of weapons such as using a weapon to facilitate a crime. What we oppose are laws that target law abiding individuals that supposedly will trickle down so as to prevent criminals from obtaining stuff they are already banned from owning in the first place
 
Don't ask me, I think it's stupid. My point is no matter how many gun control laws they pass, they will not be happy until we are all disarmed, period.

The .50 Cal rifle being banned imo is a perfect example of why pro 2nd amendments have zero trust in the anti gun agenda. They cry about guns and crime and say we need to ban certain guns that don't even make up 1% of the crime they supposedly care so much about preventing.
 
The .50 Cal rifle being banned imo is a perfect example of why pro 2nd amendments have zero trust in the anti gun agenda. They cry about guns and crime and say we need to ban certain guns that don't even make up 1% of the crime they supposedly care so much about preventing.

The same is true of magazine capacity limits and CHL/CCW permits. It is all about getting that camel's nose under the tent "legally". Once "reasonable restrictions" on what guns can be owned and who may carry them are established (as non-infringement of the 2A) it is then very easy to tighten those up "just a bit" more.
 
The same is true of magazine capacity limits and CHL/CCW permits. It is all about getting that camel's nose under the tent "legally". Once "reasonable restrictions" on what guns can be owned and who may carry them are established (as non-infringement of the 2A) it is then very easy to tighten those up "just a bit" more.
Uber scumbag Chuck Schumer admitted that in 94. After the Clinturds passed the ten round limit Schumbag was demanding 6 round limits

that's why I say the limit should be whatever the relevant civilian police have. If you want civilians who are doctors, cab drivers, and shoe salesmen limited to 6 rounds, than those limits should apply to other civilians-such as the cops protecting the lives of the assholes who pass such laws
 
The same is true of magazine capacity limits and CHL/CCW permits. It is all about getting that camel's nose under the tent "legally". Once "reasonable restrictions" on what guns can be owned and who may carry them are established (as non-infringement of the 2A) it is then very easy to tighten those up "just a bit" more.

And don't forget all these "reasonable restrictions" that they repeatedly try to pass onto us do not apply to them or their security detail. It would be nice if they made it so they couldn't make exceptions for themselves. If these laws are so reasonable then they should be fine when it applies to them as well.
 
And don't forget all these "reasonable restrictions" that they repeatedly try to pass onto us do not apply to them or their security detail. It would be nice if they made it so they couldn't make exceptions for themselves. If these laws are so reasonable then they should be fine when it applies to them as well.

Yep. Simply becuase justice sounds a lot like "just us" does not make them the same thing. ;)
 
Another reason the lard ass needs to hurry up and have a heart attack. Was that a bit cold? Well, it's a bit cold to not care about the rights of people.
Because signing into law what appears to be rather benign gun control measures is equitable to wishing a heart attack upon someone. :cuckoo:
 
Can this be sourced??

I only ask because I saw an article a short time back where there was a celebration because the city went a whole weekend without a murder...
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/po...s/Statistical Reports/Murder Reports/MA11.pdf

I believe 2012 had a little over 500 murders, if I'm not mistaken. I know it went up from 2011, but was still down drastically from the early 90s.

Or they can go to another state, or another country to come back and sell guns in a black market.
Yes, they can go to another state, that's why we need better FEDERAL laws to help prevent that from happening. But no, most people cannot go to another country to get a gun. That's just false.

Prohibitions don't work.
Except for all the times they do. That's why alcohol is the most abused drug in this country and cocaine use is at around 1%. Well, it's one of the reasons, but I think we can both agree it is a significant factor.

It's silly to point out the flaw in them and then use it as an excuse.
It's not an excuse, it's explaining why using city ordinanaces to predict state law success does not work, as well as the idea of using city ordinances and state laws to predict federal law success doesn't work.

The crime rates in Chicago have dropped just as overall crime has dropped throughout the country.
That very well may be. But the point is the pro-gun crowd loves to point to Chicago as evidenced that gun control doesn't work, which is simply an argument without any merit, given the massive declines in murder and guns used in murder. Which was my point.
Almost all of us rights advocates support laws that punish MISUSE of weapons such as using a weapon to facilitate a crime.
The problem with this argument is what almost all of you rights advocates say all the time...they're going to commit crimes anyways. So how do stricter punishments act as a deterrent to the crime? It simply doesn't, even by your own admittance. The point is to PREVENT crime, not punish it after. A harsher sentence on a murderer doesn't bring back to the life the person they killed.
to prevent criminals from obtaining stuff they are already banned from owning in the first place
But it's NOT preventing criminals from obtaining guns. That's the point. We need to adapt laws to address the ways they are obtaining those weapons, and put more work into making sure they don't.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom