• 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!

Five shootings linked to one gun

How would Ben feel about the Patriot Act?
Imo I think every single person who signed the declaration of independence would detest the patriot act. My single greatest disappointment in Obama was when he extended the act. I really had hope that he was the guy who would veto it.
 
Are you suggesting Ben had exceptions for giving up essential Liberty?

Probably not in the 18th century world he lived in, but his opinion on liberty would be different if he lived in the 21st century.
 
Imo I think every single person who signed the declaration of independence would detest the patriot act. My single greatest disappointment in Obama was when he extended the act. I really had hope that he was the guy who would veto it.
The Senate passed the extension of the Patriot Act 99 - 1.. Obama's veto would not have stood.
 
That's the policy of the gun lobby, and doesn't work.

That's the policy applied by practically everyone to practically every problem. You just want special rules for guns because you think they're yucky.
 
Imo I think every single person who signed the declaration of independence would detest the patriot act. My single greatest disappointment in Obama was when he extended the act. I really had hope that he was the guy who would veto it.
the government never would have had the power to enact it, because all the expansions of federal power prior to that would have never been allowed if the founders were around in the 1930s
 
That's the policy applied by practically everyone to practically every problem. You just want special rules for guns because you think they're yucky.

No it's not:

Take hijackings - you might not agree with the TSA but it's a pretty big preventative measure
Take car safety - what was allowed, in say the 1960's, is nothing like what is allowed today with the myriad of preventative safety measures, like seat belts, airbags, fog lights, crash tests, reversing cameras...

You want to open a restaurant ?
You can't just serve what you want, how you want - and then the Public Health authorities investigate you if someone gets food poisoning
There's a ton of safety regulations - including random inspections - that you must comply with.
 
No it's not:

Take hijackings - you might not agree with the TSA but it's a pretty big preventative measure
Take car safety - what was allowed, in say the 1960's, is nothing like what is allowed today with the myriad of preventative safety measures, like seat belts, airbags, fog lights, crash tests, reversing cameras...

You want to open a restaurant ?
You can't just serve what you want, how you want - and then the Public Health authorities investigate you if someone gets food poisoning
There's a ton of safety regulations - including random inspections - that you must comply with.

Which of those examples stands for a principle that doesn't apply equally to firearms?

When a drunk or reckless driver kills 5 people in a car wreck, do Democrats as a whole go around screaming about how we need to ban vodka, or make speeding and drunk driving a felony on the first offense?
 
Which of those examples stands for a principle that doesn't apply equally to firearms?

When a drunk or reckless driver kills 5 people in a car wreck, do Democrats as a whole go around screaming about how we need to ban vodka, or make speeding and drunk driving a felony on the first offense?

You said:
That's the policy applied by practically everyone to practically every problem

I gave you three examples where is was not

Motor vehicles are an essential, guns are not
That's why we tolerate road traffic deaths/injuries and constantly work to make the roads safer. Stop trying to deflect.
 
I agree. And the police need better tools to track where these guns are and who is buying them

#Stopgunviolence.
They literally knew who this guy was... but didn't lock him up.
 
What were you saying about "rights" ?
He didn't have the right to shoot people in cold blood. But apparently, despite decades of violent behavior and multiple warrants, he was allowed suspended sentences for his crimes. Repeatedly. Apparently New York thought his right to victimize people was greater than his victim's right to life.

Some would disagree.
 
He didn't have the right to shoot people in cold blood. But apparently, despite decades of violent behavior and multiple warrants, he was allowed suspended sentences for his crimes. Repeatedly. Apparently New York thought his right to victimize people was greater than his victim's right to life.

Some would disagree.

But law enforcement have the right to just "lock him up"

You must love Russia - that's the kind of thing they do there.
 
But law enforcement have the right to just "lock him up"

You must love Russia - that's the kind of thing they do there.
No, law enforcement doesn't have the right to just lock him up. They arrested him several times, but New York's judicial system decided he should be free. It's almost as if most Americans prefer something between Russia and New York...
 
I gave you three examples where is was not

Quite the opposite. They were all examples of where it was.

Motor vehicles are an essential, guns are not
That's why we tolerate road traffic deaths/injuries and constantly work to make the roads safer. Stop trying to deflect.

Vodka is not essential. 100mph vehicles are not essential. Hell, in most place, privately-owned vehicles are not even essential.

It's not deflection. It's identifying the self-serving hypocrisy of the overwhelming majority of gun control advocates.
 
Quite the opposite. They were all examples of where it was.

They were all examples of government passing legislation based on single incidents
Explain how it was not.

Vodka is not essential. 100mph vehicles are not essential. Hell, in most place, privately-owned vehicles are not even essential.

Recreational alcohol is not essential, but then neither are tobacco related products, or swimming pools, or sodas, or cheese burgers and fries
Please explain why 100 mph cars are not essential, what should be the maximum possible speed for any motor vehicle
Privately owned motor vehicles are absolutely essential to virtually every person in the USA.

It's not deflection. It's identifying the self-serving hypocrisy of the overwhelming majority of gun control advocates.

Except you're completely unable to explain why.
 
They were all examples of government passing legislation based on single incidents
Explain how it was not.



Recreational alcohol is not essential, but then neither are tobacco related products, or swimming pools, or sodas, or cheese burgers and fries
Please explain why 100 mph cars are not essential, what should be the maximum possible speed for any motor vehicle
Privately owned motor vehicles are absolutely essential to virtually every person in the USA.



Except you're completely unable to explain why.

The bolded simply isn't true. Likely projection stemming from your perception that your own vehicle is essential to your convenience.
 
Except you're completely unable to explain why.

Your inability to understand it doesn't equate to an inability on my part to explain it.
 
Back
Top Bottom