• 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!

Guns must be protected at all costs- why?

Antiwar

Green Party progressive
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Messages
20,658
Reaction score
3,865
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
With respect:

The correct answers are:

1. Political power

2. Economic power

Those overlap and apply at all levels.

A. Republicans protect guns at all costs because guns are one of their main issues.

B. Democrats protect guns at all costs because being slightly for gun controls is one of their main issues.

C. Democrats and Republicans protect guns at all costs because guns are one of the main ways that America maintains economic and political power internationally.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
84,321
Reaction score
50,318
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So, how do you deal with a few insane cats?

Identifying them and institutionalizing them would seem to be prudent. The (current) plan to allow them to roam freely among us with the hope that ever more “gun control” laws will (somehow) prevent them from becoming armed (thus even more dangerous) is obviously not working.

The idea that ‘red flag’ laws will work seems to ignore the obvious. If “Crazy Joe” is known to be dangerous (and armed) then “temporarily” taking away his (known to be available) gun(s) and limiting his ability to legally rearm himself is not likely to help calm him down, it is much more likely to enrage him further.
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
33,533
Reaction score
14,071
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm in NJ. It's easier to have a rifle here than a handgun.

Learn gun laws if you're going to debate about them.

Both should be a little harder than they are now. Obviously. At least as hard as getting a drivers license. This class of potentially hazardous equipment is not any less dangerous than driving a car. The laws concerning them should match.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
22,934
Reaction score
15,561
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Question: why must you defend 2A interpretation at all costs?
Answer: Because 2A dur!
 

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
11,782
Reaction score
6,359
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Constitutional rights must be protected. The 2A is not a right to shoot (or shoot at) anyone.

Why isn’t knife control advocated to prevent stabbing deaths? More people are killed with knives than with rifles of any type.
wo things, first, it is impossible for one knife wielding person to kill six people and wound 24 or more from a roof top in just 24 seconds. Trying to compare the two is apples and elephants. Second, the same people who want to keep from any restraints on guns are the same ones who want to cut down the first amendment.
 

BirdinHand

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
6,878
Reaction score
5,478
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Both should be a little harder than they are now. Obviously. At least as hard as getting a drivers license. This class of potentially hazardous equipment is not any less dangerous than driving a car. The laws concerning them should match.
Again, NJ.

They're hard enough here.

Learn what the laws are in different states if you want to say "a little harder than they are now"
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
84,321
Reaction score
50,318
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Both should be a little harder than they are now. Obviously. At least as hard as getting a drivers license. This class of potentially hazardous equipment is not any less dangerous than driving a car. The laws concerning them should match.

You are comparing an individual Constitutional right to a mere state issued privilege. I propose a reasonable compromise: the requirements to obtain and keep one’s 2A rights be exactly the same as for obtaining and keeping their voting rights. Allowing folks to vote to take away rights that they personally will never have for life is moronic.
 

Citizen

DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
5,469
Reaction score
1,563
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Identifying them and institutionalizing them would seem to be prudent. The (current) plan to allow them to roam freely among us with the hope that ever more “gun control” laws will (somehow) prevent them from becoming armed (thus even more dangerous) is obviously not working.

The idea that ‘red flag’ laws will work seems to ignore the obvious. If “Crazy Joe” is known to be dangerous (and armed) then “temporarily” taking away his (known to be available) gun(s) and limiting his ability to legally rearm himself is not likely to help calm him down, it is much more likely to enrage him further.
So how do you identify them? Reagan's administration emptied the psychiatric hospitals. Says it is illegal to institutionalize people without their consent.. So they will continue to roam freely and be legally able to purchase a gun.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
84,321
Reaction score
50,318
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
wo things, first, it is impossible for one knife wielding person to kill six people and wound 24 or more from a roof top in just 24 seconds. Trying to compare the two is apples and elephants. Second, the same people who want to keep from any restraints on guns are the same ones who want to cut down the first amendment.

Basing policy on a rare outlier event while ignoring that more total deaths result from criminal abuse of knives than rifles is moronic.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
84,321
Reaction score
50,318
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So how do you identify them? Reagan's administration emptied the psychiatric hospitals. Says it is illegal to institutionalize people without their consent.. So they will continue to roam freely and be legally able to purchase a gun.

That (bolded above) is BS.

In the mental health community, involuntary commitment is considered a “last resort” option and is mainly issued when an individual is unable to care for him or herself and have demonstrated behaviors indicating they are a danger to themselves or others.

 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
29,692
Reaction score
14,602
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
All you need for self defense is a small handgun.
how “small” is small enough in your opinion?
They are scamming you. They are selling dangerous products to the public with no liability,
Not true.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) does not exempt firearms manufacturers from liability for defective products or knowingly violating State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product (the provision Sandy Hook parents successfully sued under)
Rarely? ALL potentially hazardous equipment have extensive regulations on their manufacturer, sale, and use.
You’re reaching on this one ^. Any list of “potentially hazardous equipment” could reach into the hundreds, or even thousands of products, and within that list, many of the hazardous equipments are not extensively regulated.
It’s unpreventively, before people get hurt. The regulations on this particular class of potentially hazardous equipment is obviously not enough.
Regulation isn’t the only issue. Enforcement of existing laws is also a big problem.
How much is enough? Obviously, all the other developed nations in the planet have figured it out, one way or the other. We are the ones with the most lax laws, and therefore are dealing with the most hazard to the general public. Whatever these things are doing, they’re obviously not making us safer.
Comparing the United States to other countries makes for interesting debate, but because of the many differences between other countries constitutions, histories/traditions, etc., arguments using direct comparisons aren’t sustainable.

When it comes to discussing/debating firearms issues in 1st world countries, the United States is a one-off.
 

Citizen

DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
5,469
Reaction score
1,563
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
True that you must prove that they are a danger to themselves or others, but unless they have done something to prove that they are a danger to themselves or others, then how will you identify them. You say red flag laws won't work. Isn't that a way of identifying them? And what would qualify them as a danger? Would it be a threat to someone or themselves, a social media page? What?
 

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
67,675
Reaction score
47,538
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mainly because when the government turns on us and we have to overthrow them we can do so with rifles against tanks and jets.

Kind of like what the ukrainians did.
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
33,533
Reaction score
14,071
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
how “small” is small enough in your opinion?

Personally, I think a small snub nose revolver is the most anyone needs for self-defense purposes.

Not true.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) does not exempt firearms manufacturers from liability for defective products or knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product (the provision Sandy Hook parents successfully sued under)
So? Cigarettes are also manufactured to make sure there are no defects in their products too. Doesn't make them safe.

You’re reaching on this one ^. Any list of “potentially hazardous equipment” could reach into the hundreds, or even thousands of products, and within that list, many of the hazardous equipments are not extensively regulated.

Sure. And the more dangerous, the more regualations there are. That's just natural. When the public is finding that they are creating too much death and injury, it becomes they are not regulated enough.

It's clear these things are not regualated enough. The body count in this country from leaving them so unregulated is getting unacceptably high. All other developed countries have figured it out. It's not that hard.

Regulation isn’t the only issue. Enforcement of existing laws is also a big problem.

True. Just because you have drunk driving laws does not mean you don't enforce speed limits and traffic lights.

Comparing the United States to other countries makes for interesting debate, but because of the many differences between other country’s constitutions, histories/traditions, etc., arguments using direct comparisons aren’t sustainable.

When it comes to discussing/debating firearms issues in 1st world countries, the United States is a one off.


Cars are a big part of American culture too. Doesn't mean we don't have driver's licenses or tons of traffic laws.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
84,321
Reaction score
50,318
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
True that you must prove that they are a danger to themselves or others, but unless they have done something to prove that they are a danger to themselves or others, then how will you identify them. You say red flag laws won't work. Isn't that a way of identifying them? And what would qualify them as a danger? Would it be a threat to someone or themselves, a social media page? What?

Red flag laws leave the dangerous person free, but even more mad that their gun was taken away. If due process was added then the ‘red flagged’ person (while still remaining free) would also know who accused them of being dangerous.
 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
29,692
Reaction score
14,602
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The idea that ‘red flag’ laws will work seems to ignore the obvious. If “Crazy Joe” is known to be dangerous (and armed) then “temporarily” taking away his (known to be available) gun(s) and limiting his ability to legally rearm himself is not likely to help calm him down, it is much more likely to enrage him further.
If “Crazy Joe” states or implies an intention to harm himself or others, the right thing to do isn’t to wait until he acts.
Factually, red flags can and have saved lives;
“In Campbell, California, a woman contacted the Campbell Police Department after her husband sent her a threatening text referencing a recent sniper attack in Dallas, then loaded his guns into his car and departed. After an order was issued, police removed seven weapons, including a scoped rifle, from the man’s place of work.

In Escambia County, Florida, a high school student was stalking his ex-girlfriend after she broke up with him. At one point he attempted to punch a boy who was with her. The student also threatened to post naked photos of the girl on social media, said he would kill himself if she didn’t get back together with him, and posted photos of an AR-15 online. Two resource officers submitted affidavits for a petition against him and all the firearms were removed from his home.

In Randolph, Massachusetts, a woman filed an extreme risk protection order against a Marine Corps veteran who she says had assaulted her and had a “pattern of self-harm, violence towards others and objects.” Handguns and ten semi-automatic rifles were removed by police.

In Roseville, Califonia, the Roseville Police Department responded to a relative’s call about a man armed with a handgun and threatening suicide inside his home. When the officers could not convince him to come out of the house after several hours, they returned later with a gun violence restraining order and removed his firearms.

In Osceola County, Florida, a janitor threatened to bring a gun to school, and was reported to police by a teacher at Parkway Middle School. He told the teacher his only regret would be that his targets would “run for their lives before [he] could get to them.” After an order was issued, deputies removed a handgun from the man.”
 

Citizen

DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
5,469
Reaction score
1,563
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Red flag laws leave the dangerous person free, but even more mad that their gun was taken away. If due process was added then the ‘red flagged’ person (while still remaining free) would also know who accused them of being dangerous.
So, you agree with red flag laws, but as an extra step, you want them put away?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
84,321
Reaction score
50,318
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If “Crazy Joe” states or implies an intention to harm himself or others, the right thing to do isn’t to wait until he acts.
Factually, red flags can and have saved lives;
“In Campbell, California, a woman contacted the Campbell Police Department after her husband sent her a threatening text referencing a recent sniper attack in Dallas, then loaded his guns into his car and departed. After an order was issued, police removed seven weapons, including a scoped rifle, from the man’s place of work.

In Escambia County, Florida, a high school student was stalking his ex-girlfriend after she broke up with him. At one point he attempted to punch a boy who was with her. The student also threatened to post naked photos of the girl on social media, said he would kill himself if she didn’t get back together with him, and posted photos of an AR-15 online. Two resource officers submitted affidavits for a petition against him and all the firearms were removed from his home.

In Randolph, Massachusetts, a woman filed an extreme risk protection order against a Marine Corps veteran who she says had assaulted her and had a “pattern of self-harm, violence towards others and objects.” Handguns and ten semi-automatic rifles were removed by police.

In Roseville, Califonia, the Roseville Police Department responded to a relative’s call about a man armed with a handgun and threatening suicide inside his home. When the officers could not convince him to come out of the house after several hours, they returned later with a gun violence restraining order and removed his firearms.

In Osceola County, Florida, a janitor threatened to bring a gun to school, and was reported to police by a teacher at Parkway Middle School. He told the teacher his only regret would be that his targets would “run for their lives before [he] could get to them.” After an order was issued, deputies removed a handgun from the man.”

From your Osceola County, FL link:

A janitor at an Osceola County middle school is facing a felony charge after deputies say he threatened to bring a weapon to school and attack his co-workers.

Maybe setting a higher (than $5K) bail amount would be wise. Perhaps tossing in immediate termination of employment would help more than a ‘red flag’ spank to take away any gun(s) he was known to have.
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
33,533
Reaction score
14,071
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Red flag laws leave the dangerous person free, but even more mad that their gun was taken away. If due process was added then the ‘red flagged’ person (while still remaining free) would also know who accused them of being dangerous.

Well, then figure out what we have to do- because what we currently have is unacceptable. It's easy to be a critic. Let's hear some positive, constructive ideas. Every single developed nation on the planet has figured it out. It shouldn't be this hard.

 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
29,692
Reaction score
14,602
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Personally, I think a small snub nose revolver is the most anyone needs for self-defense purposes.
What caliber would work for you?
So? Cigarettes are also manufactured to make sure there are no defects in their products too. Doesn't make them safe.
False comparison.

Tobacco products are inherently harmful to users. Firearms are not.
Sure. And the more dangerous, the more regualations there are. That's just natural. When the public is finding that they are creating too much death and injury, it becomes they are not regulated enough.
Firearms aren’t the problem. People that misuse firearms are.
It's clear these things are not regualated enough. The body count in this country from leaving them so unregulated is getting unacceptably high.
The number of firearms related murders has been unacceptably high for a long time, even with increased regulation.
All other developed countries have figured it out. It's not that hard.
Again, not a one for one comparison.
True. Just because you have drunk driving laws does not mean you don't enforce speed limits and traffic lights.
Agreed.
Cars are a big part of American culture too. Doesn't mean we don't have driver's licenses or tons of traffic laws.
Sure.
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
33,533
Reaction score
14,071
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
What caliber would work for you?

Any is fine.

False comparison.

Tobacco products are inherently harmful to users. Firearms are not.

Both are potentially hazardous. Inherently.

Firearms aren’t the problem. People that misuse firearms are.

So you probably don't care if the Iranians get their hands on nukes. Because it's not the tools, it's the people that misuse them. Nukes don't kill people. People kill people. If you keep them from getting nukes, they will probably figure out a way to do the same thing with knives, right?

The number of firearms related murders has been unacceptably high for a long time, even with increased regulation.

Again, not a one for one comparison.

When everyone else has figure out how to properly regulate something and you haven't, it is a one for one comparison. You're the only one who isn't doing it right.

Agreed.

Sure.

So why should guns be different? Guns can still be as big a part of American life as cars.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
84,321
Reaction score
50,318
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Well, then figure out what we have to do- because what we currently have is unacceptable. It's easy to be a critic. Let's hear some positive, constructive ideas. Every single developed nation on the planet has figured it out. It shouldn't be this hard.


When step one of your plan is to repeal (or ignore) the 2A or 14A then you need a new plan.

Here is a better plan than the ‘red flag’ plan.

If someone you know suffers from mental illness and is displaying these warning signs, you may consider applying for a mental health warrant to begin the involuntary commitment process. It is important to note that even though a “warrant” will be issued, the involuntary commitment process is civil in nature and not criminal.

 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
33,533
Reaction score
14,071
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
When step one of your plan is to repeal (or ignore) the 2A or 14A then you need a new plan.

Why? The 2A is hopelessly obsolete- at least the way it's written. It has to do with 18th century technology.


No it's not. It's based on false information.

 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
29,692
Reaction score
14,602
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
From your Osceola County, FL link:

Maybe setting a higher (than $5K) bail amount would be wise. Perhaps tossing in immediate termination of employment would help more than a ‘red flag’ spank to take away any gun(s) he was known to have.
How’s any of this ^ relevant to the fact that FL’s red flag law likely saved lives in this case?
 
Top Bottom