• 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!

Gabby Giffords: Expanding Background Checks Only the ‘First Step’

RobertU said:
Given that "well regulated" directly contradicts "not be infringed," it appears the Founding Fathers weren't thinking very clearly when they approved that language.
Click to expand...

Or, they were referring to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which gives Congress nearly complete power to regulate the militia, while neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights grant any power to the federal government to regulate the arms of the People.
 
iguanaman said:
No mention of any safe and if she used one how did he shoot her?
Click to expand...
Thats because you are using CNN as a source. they also got the timeline wrong. He didnt shoot himself as the police approached the school. The police didnt even begin to approach the school for several minutes until after the last shot was fired.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-sandy-hook-lawsuit-settled-20150803-story.html

Nancy Lanza knew her son was at risk. She bought several weapons. She let him shoot the weapons. She bought a gun safe. How it was used is in question. SHhe knew her son. She knew his fits of anger and outbursts. Now...what class would you like to hold for her that you think would have made a difference?
 
RobertU said:
Given that "well regulated" directly contradicts "not be infringed," it appears the Founding Fathers weren't thinking very clearly when they approved that language.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha! You are conflating two completely separate things...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If they meant militia, they would have said..

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It does not say that. I guess it's not the founders who are confused now is it?
 
Last edited:
Bucky said:
Keeping arms and using arms are two completely different things.
Click to expand...

Read the opening paragraph of the Gun Control Act of 1968. It explains that the gun control therein was not intended to restrict the lawful use of firearms at all.
 
RobertU said:
Given that "well regulated" directly contradicts "not be infringed," it appears the Founding Fathers weren't thinking very clearly when they approved that language.
Click to expand...
Only if you have no idea what the term 'well regulated' (kept in good working order) meant and instead want to assign your own meaning.
 
iguanaman said:
No mention of any safe and if she used one how did he shoot her? Where did you hear about this safe anyway? If she had one what good was it if she didn't put her guns in it?
Click to expand...

She did. Apparently she failed to secure the keys to the safe sufficiently.

Google "Adam Lanza safe". It's mentioned fairly often in the linked stories. If you go to google images you'll find lots of photos, including some with police evidence tags, of the same in the Lanza home.
 
Black Dog said:
Hahahaha! You are conflating to completely seperate things...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If they meant militia, they would have said..

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It does not say that. I guess it's not the founders who are confused now is it?
Click to expand...
And of course...they COULDNT say that because the Militia Act wasnt written yet and didnt come to pass until several years AFTER the Bill of Rights was passed. There WAS NO organized militia.

The term 'well regulated' can be found in common parlance literature of the day. It meant, literally, 'kept in good working order'. That is all.
 
Black Dog said:
Hahahaha! You are conflating to completely seperate things...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If they meant militia, they would have said..

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It does not say that. I guess it's not the founders who are confused now is it?
Click to expand...

Given that a militia consists of people bearing arms, regulating one would seem to encompass regulating the other.
 
RobertU said:
Given that a militia consists of people bearing arms, regulating one would seem to encompass regulating the other.
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights was created to restrict the powers of the federal government. Given that the federal government had near complete power to restrict the arms of the militia from Article 1, Section 8, how could an Amendment created to restrict the powers of the government actually expand those powers above what was enumerated in the Constitution? By not allowing the federal government any power to infringe upon the rights of the People, the Founders were ensuring that not matter what future governments did to restrict the arms of the militia the People would still retain the right to keep and bear arms to form those militias.
 
RobertU said:
Given that a militia consists of people bearing arms, regulating one would seem to encompass regulating the other.
Click to expand...

If they meant that, they would have said that. They did not.
 
RobertU said:
Given that "well regulated" directly contradicts "not be infringed," it appears the Founding Fathers weren't thinking very clearly when they approved that language.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Well regulated means to be kept in good working order. Willard's clocks were also called regulators.
 
90% of Americans polled want more mandatory background checks.
 
Rucker61 said:
From the Bill:

"(A) Thirty-five percent of such amounts shall be available for community-oriented policing services grants for the hiring and rehiring of additional career law enforcement officers under section 1701(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(b)). States using funds for school resource officers shall include training, protections, and monitoring to ensure that school resource officers are used to improve school safety and climate, and promote positive reform in student suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to the juvenile or criminal justice systems.

(B) Thirty-five percent of such amounts shall be available for the Project Safe Neighborhoods, as authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law 115–31), 131 Stat. 135, 203.

(C) Ten percent of such amounts shall be available for the Centers for Disease Control National Center for Injury Prevention and Control for purposes of research on gun violence and its prevention.

(D) Five percent of such amounts shall be available for the National Criminal History Improvement Program authorized under section 302(c) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3732(c)).

(E) Five percent of such amounts shall be available for the NICS Act Record Improvement Program authorized under section 301 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note).

(F) Five percent for the Community-Based Violence Prevention Field-Initiated Research and Evaluation Program of the Department of Justice.

(G) Five percent of such amounts shall be available for the Secretary of Education to provide directed grants and technical assistance to schools eligible for or receiving grants under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to develop and implement comprehensive, evidence-based local or regional strategies (such as positive behavior interventions and supports, social and emotional learning, and restorative justice programs) to improve school climate, reduce the use of exclusionary school discipline, and decrease the number of youth entering the juvenile and criminal justice systems."
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info.

All good causes that can be that can be funded by the taxes we already pay as part of the purchase.
 
VanceMack said:
Thats because you are using CNN as a source. they also got the timeline wrong. He didnt shoot himself as the police approached the school. The police didnt even begin to approach the school for several minutes until after the last shot was fired.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-sandy-hook-lawsuit-settled-20150803-story.html

Nancy Lanza knew her son was at risk. She bought several weapons. She let him shoot the weapons. She bought a gun safe. How it was used is in question. SHhe knew her son. She knew his fits of anger and outbursts. Now...what class would you like to hold for her that you think would have made a difference?
Click to expand...

State police reports said the Bushmaster was kept in a gun safe that was in a room adjacent to Adam Lanza's bedroom and that he had unlimited access to it.
Click to expand...
It really does not sound like his mother had any clue about the danger she put herself and others in. Why couldn't someone have sat her down and told her point blank that she needed to remove those guns from her home immediately? Don't gun ranges have lockers where she could have kept those weapons? Do we need to make laws to Protect us from such clueless individuals?
 
iguanaman said:
It really does not sound like his mother had any clue about the danger she put herself and others in. Why couldn't someone have sat her down and told her point blank that she needed to remove those guns from her home immediately? Don't gun ranges have lockers where she could have kept those weapons? Do we need to make laws to Protect us from such clueless individuals?
Click to expand...
A more appropriate reading would be that she was indifferent. Not only did she know her son was dangerous it appears she thought buying the guns and shooting them with him would help. She also bought him Samurai swords and other weapons. There is also some indications that part of her motivation was in an angry response to the perceived indifference of her ex who had moved on with a new wife and new life and she was left dealing with an angry autistic adult.

Which goes back to the original question...what gun safety class do you think you would be able to teach her that would have made a difference?
 
jimbo said:
On the contrary, there's plenty of evidence that there was a gun safe. Try a Google search. You'll find photos and everything.
Click to expand...

A safe that according to State police, Lanza had full access to at any time.
 
VanceMack said:
A more appropriate reading would be that she was indifferent. Not only did she know her son was dangerous it appears she thought buying the guns and shooting them with him would help. She also bought him Samurai swords and other weapons. There is also some indications that part of her motivation was in an angry response to the perceived indifference of her ex who had moved on with a new wife and new life and she was left dealing with an angry autistic adult.

Which goes back to the original question...what gun safety class do you think you would be able to teach her that would have made a difference?
Click to expand...

So it is your opinion, a law prohibiting parents of disturbed children from having guns in their home is the only answer. You may be right. Sometimes you can't teach the stupid. I was hoping for a less obtrusive solution but you convinced me that enforceable laws are better.
 
iguanaman said:
A safe that according to State police, Lanza had full access to at any time.
Click to expand...

But you digress.

"Umm No he shot his mother dead with her own gun and there is no evidence of any "gun safe"."
 
iguanaman said:
It really does not sound like his mother had any clue about the danger she put herself and others in. Why couldn't someone have sat her down and told her point blank that she needed to remove those guns from her home immediately?
Click to expand...
They could of and probably did but there isn't much legally that can be done
Don't gun ranges have lockers where she could have kept those weapons?
Click to expand...
Not any of the ranges I've been to offer that. Personally I wouldn't feel comfortable in doing such a thing.
Do we need to make laws to Protect us from such clueless individuals?
Click to expand...
If they violate the 2nd then no we don't need those laws.
 
iguanaman said:
A safe that according to State police, Lanza had full access to at any time.
Click to expand...


What does "access to" actually mean? Did he have the combo/keys and could open it at any time. Was the safe in a room Lanza could enter therefore had access to it?
 
Chillfolks said:
What does "access to" actually mean? Did he have the combo/keys and could open it at any time. Was the safe in a room Lanza could enter therefore had access to it?
Click to expand...

He certainly has no trouble getting into it and shooting his mother. So maybe she didn't keep it locked.
 
jimbo said:
But you digress.

"Umm No he shot his mother dead with her own gun and there is no evidence of any "gun safe"."
Click to expand...

What good is a safe if it isn't kept locked?
 
iguanaman said:
So it is your opinion, a law prohibiting parents of disturbed children from having guns in their home is the only answer. You may be right. Sometimes you can't teach the stupid. I was hoping for a less obtrusive solution but you convinced me that enforceable laws are better.
Click to expand...

Look how cute you are thinking that ridiculous tactic is effective. Sorry...it isnt effective at anything beyond painting you as patently dishonest and not worthy of serious discussion.
 
iguanaman said:
He certainly has no trouble getting into it and shooting his mother. So maybe she didn't keep it locked.
Click to expand...


My safe has a key that can unlock it even without the combination. At best none of US know what happened that day in the Lanza home
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom