• 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!

Heroes of the Second Amendment

haymarket said:
Did you even read the OP? What I have proposed is a monument to the innocent dead who died from gun violence.
Click to expand...

That's all you want? Do you think that would deter anyone or prevent anything? Do you think that such a law to require the NRA to fund it and host it would ever get passed?

You're just grandstanding.
 
Rucker61 said:
That's all you want? Do you think that would deter anyone or prevent anything? Do you think that such a law to require the NRA to fund it and host it would ever get passed?

You're just grandstanding.
Click to expand...

So you object to honoring the dead because the NRA would never agree to it?
 
haymarket said:
So you object to honoring the dead because the NRA would never agree to it?
Click to expand...

What is the purpose in "honoring the dead", and why is a statue necessary to do so?
 
Rucker61 said:
What is the purpose in "honoring the dead", and why is a statue necessary to do so?
Click to expand...

Honoring the dead with memorial structures is as old as civilized man. It is what we do as civilized people to remember those who gave their lives.

The Oklahoma City victims were so honored.

People who have died in wars are so honored.

The 911 dead were so honored.

Are you truly unaware that this is a way society has used to honor the dead for a very long time now?
 
haymarket said:
Honoring the dead with memorial structures is as old as civilized man. It is what we do as civilized people to remember those who gave their lives.
Click to expand...

These victims didn't "give" their lives. They were taken.

What if the families of the victims don't want such memorial, or don't want to have to go to NRA HQ to visit it? Do you think that they would want the NRA involved at all? I mean, isn't your entire proposal just a way to try to punish the NRA?
 
Rucker61 said:
These victims didn't "give" their lives. They were taken.

What if the families of the victims don't want such memorial, or don't want to have to go to NRA HQ to visit it? Do you think that they would want the NRA involved at all? I mean, isn't your entire proposal just a way to try to punish the NRA?
Click to expand...

The Oklahoma bombing victims were innocents also.

The 911 victims were innocents also.

And we honor them with monuments and memorials.
 
haymarket said:
The Oklahoma bombing victims were innocents also.

The 911 victims were innocents also.

And we honor them with monuments and memorials.
Click to expand...

Did we honor the 911 victims with a monument in Saudi Arabia? You haven't answered why you want it at the NRA HQ, or if you think the families of the victims would wantnit there. Admit it, this is just an attempt to punish the NRA.
 
Rucker61 said:
Did we honor the 911 victims with a monument in Saudi Arabia? You haven't answered why you want it at the NRA HQ, or if you think the families of the victims would wantnit there. Admit it, this is just an attempt to punish the NRA.
Click to expand...

American lives were honored with an American monument. This would be the same way.

Why would the NRA view this as a punishment and not an opportunity to honor the dead?
 
haymarket said:
American lives were honored with an American monument. This would be the same way.

Why would the NRA view this as a punishment and not an opportunity to honor the dead?
Click to expand...

Because you are forcing them to do it. You know that, and we all know that this is intended as punishment. Why would it be the NRA's responsibility?
 
Rucker61 said:
Because you are forcing them to do it. You know that, and we all know that this is intended as punishment. Why would it be the NRA's responsibility?
Click to expand...

Because the NRA has played perhaps the major of roles in preventing Congress from enacting gun legislation. They want the environment we have which has allowed firearms to wildly proliferate so they are partly responsible for it.
 
haymarket said:
Because the NRA has played perhaps the major of roles in preventing Congress from enacting gun legislation. They want the environment we have which has allowed firearms to wildly proliferate so they are partly responsible for it.
Click to expand...
What gun law would've prevented this?
 
haymarket said:
Because the NRA has played perhaps the major of roles in preventing Congress from enacting gun legislation. They want the environment we have which has allowed firearms to wildly proliferate so they are partly responsible for it.
Click to expand...

If a proposed gun law is unconstitutional, ineffective or unenforceable, should the NRA and indeed everyone who supports Constitutional law be against that legislation?
 
Maccabee said:
What gun law would've prevented this?
Click to expand...

Outside of a magic wand erasing the gun from human memory - I do not think there is a gun law one could propose to prevent it.

But why is that the phony baloney standard in the first place?
 
haymarket said:
Outside of a magic wand erasing the gun from human memory - I do not think there is a gun law one could propose to prevent it.

But why is that the phony baloney standard in the first place?
Click to expand...

Would that "phony baloney" standard manifest itself in a proposed firearm ban that doesn't actually take guns away from citizens?
 
Rucker61 said:
If a proposed gun law is unconstitutional, ineffective or unenforceable, should the NRA and indeed everyone who supports Constitutional law be against that legislation?
Click to expand...

The first is a NO. The second and third are debatable depending on how you define those two things.
 
Rucker61 said:
Would that "phony baloney" standard manifest itself in a proposed firearm ban that doesn't actually take guns away from citizens?
Click to expand...

Who is taking guns from citizens?
 
haymarket said:
Who is taking guns from citizens?
Click to expand...

Well, the Ohio Democrats would love to, and the bans in CT and NY allow for confiscation. The "phony baloney" would be pushing for a law that won't prevent mass shootings.
 
Rucker61 said:
Well, the Ohio Democrats would love to, and the bans in CT and NY allow for confiscation. The "phony baloney" would be pushing for a law that won't prevent mass shootings.
Click to expand...

Why should that be the standard?
 
haymarket said:
The first is a NO. The second and third are debatable depending on how you define those two things.
Click to expand...

So if a law is unconstitutional, the NRA shouldn't be against it?

Yes, the second and third are debateable, and it's the side with the political power that wins. That's why we have a UBC in Colorado now.
 
haymarket said:
Why should that be the standard?
Click to expand...

You brought it up. Are you in favor of laws that are supposed to prevent an illegal act that cannot prevent said act?
 
Rucker61 said:
So if a law is unconstitutional, the NRA shouldn't be against it?

Yes, the second and third are debateable, and it's the side with the political power that wins. That's why we have a UBC in Colorado now.
Click to expand...

What specific proposal about guns do you feel is unconstitutional and worthy of NRA opposition?
 
Rucker61 said:
You brought it up. Are you in favor of laws that are supposed to prevent an illegal act that cannot prevent said act?
Click to expand...

Why should that be the standard?
 
haymarket said:
What specific proposal about guns do you feel is unconstitutional and worthy of NRA opposition?
Click to expand...

Different discussion. If proposals are unconstitutional, like gay marriage bans, shouldn't they be opposed?
 
haymarket said:
Those on the right are now throwing out MENTAL HEALTH as a pure and simple diversion overtime we have another gun massacre. In reality, the political forces for the right have not done anything to change the mental health problems in the nation. In fact, Trump did just the opposite when he ordered the revocation of an Obama order making it more difficult for people with mental problem to get guns.

And I join you in demanding stricter sentencing for gun crime and better enforcement of current gun control laws. The situation in Texas emphasizes and underlines this as that man should never have been able to buy a firearm in the first place if only the laws had been followed.
Click to expand...
I disagree that the mental health issue is a diversion, it IS a serious issue, all one has to do is look at how many suicides occur every day, and at those that commit the mass shootings with both eyes and their mind open. Yes, it is a big problem and needs to be addressed, otherwise no new gun laws will make the slightest difference.

In that we agree, enforce the laws and long sentences for those that use guns to commit crimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom