• 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!

Mass shootings toll exceeds 900 in past seven years


Poverty definitely is a MAJOR cause of crime and violence. Narcotics also is a cause including needing the money for the drugs - which isnt' really a poverty issue. Rape, of course, knows no economic boundaries or parameters.

Your next to last paragraph assumes that the only time a gun is needed for self defense is if the criminal/attacker has a gun. That is a false presumption - particularly in relation to attacks against women and the elderly.

It is impossible to know just how many violent attacks and crimes are stopped by the mere presense or suspicion of the presence of a firearm. However, a clue we have is in the statistics of the UK's level of violent crimes, which is consistently over 200% higher than in the USA, although murder and gun death rates are lower.
 

The poverty excuse only goes so far. Worse than poverty is the decades of 'help' in the form of welfare, excuses, and justification of violent behavior. Meanwhile, legal and illegal immigrants pour into this country by the millions and manage to start from nothing, less than nothing, work their ass off, and find success.
 
oncewas said:
Just my opinion," one mass shooting and killing " is way to many! ijseace
Click to expand...
One mass shooting does not justify ****ting on the 2nd amendment rights of millions of Americans.
 
jamesrage said:
One mass shooting does not justify ****ting on the 2nd amendment rights of millions of Americans.
Click to expand...

It does to me,i'll take "Human Life " over any 2nd amendment rights. Like I said before that's my opinion and i'm entitled to mines,you're entitled to your's !eace
 
sangha said:
Stop and frisk worked because they targetted people they thought were carrying concealed weapons in violation of NYC's tight gun safety regulations.
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense, of course, that those who hold the Second Amendment in such utter contempt have no more regard for the Fourth Amendment either, or of the Constitution as a whole.
 
Black Manta said:
Conceal and carry has nothing at all to do with ownership.
Click to expand...

Ownership of arms would fall under “keeping”.

“Conceal and carry” falls under bearing.

Thus, both fall directly under the Second Amendment's affirmation of our right to keep and bear arms. The two go together. You obviously cannot bear arms if you're not allowed to keep them, and there's no point in keeping arms if you are not allowed to bear them.
 

Very much like the use of “poll taxes” and “literacy tests” in past decades, to selectively deny or discourage voting rights.
 
sangha said:
True for the most part, but frisking for weapons does not violate the 4th amend.
Click to expand...

Absolutely false.

Stopping and frisking any citizen for any reason, in the absence of a warrant or sufficient probable cause, absolutely violates the Fourth Amendment.

And if the excuse for such an illegal search is that the subject might be carrying a weapon, then that is a violation of the Second Amendment as well.

It is never, under any circumstances, a valid excuse to violate one Constitutional right because of a suspicion that the target of that violation might be legitimately exercising another Constitutional right. Only in a place like New York would such abuse be tolerated.
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
Very much like the use of “poll taxes” and “literacy tests” in past decades, to selectively deny or discourage voting rights.
Click to expand...

It is strange indeed, that in past times, the nation respected the Constitution so much that the 15th and 19th amendments were deemed needed to secure, forever, the right to vote as "free" and available to all people, even *gasp* women, despite having the 14th amendment requiring equal protection of the law. Having a Constitutional right reserved to the people is worthless if that allows both the state and federal gov'ts to "reasonably restrict" that right by applying classes, tests and fees to actually enjoy it. Note in these later amendments the word infringed was avoided, instead they use the phrase denied or abridged. I think that it is high time the 2nd was modified (by a later amendment) changing only the words shall not be infringed to shall not be denied or abridged to better settle this "confusing" matter.
 

Well said.


This has nothing to do with the firearm, though, and is fixed by the same thing your first paragraph discusses. Education. There is nothing wrong with "extreme" individualism, and the "us vs them" is solved through education and leaders that unite instead of divide.


You're over generalizing. Guns are smuggled all over the world every day. Let me ask you this: Does heroin only get into the hands of criminals because it's stolen from legal owners?


Look at Switzerland. Nearly everyone has a gun there, and it has some of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.

The way to reduce violent crime is by getting people out of poverty. That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

Agreed, number one. Number two is deterrence. Cops don't deter crime when they're not present.
 
oncewas said:
It does to me,i'll take "Human Life " over any 2nd amendment rights. Like I said before that's my opinion and i'm entitled to mines,you're entitled to your's !eace
Click to expand...

its a silly choice on your part because your desire to bash our rights is not really motivated by crime control nor is there any objective evidence what you want will decrease crime. In fact there is more evidence what you want will increase crime
 

A great deal of argument made elsewhere notwithstanding, I think the word “infringed” is quite clear enough. The related word, “fringe” refers to the barest edges of something, or more popularly in modern usage, to decorative material attached to these edges. In the context of the Second Amendment, I think it is clear enough that in saying that a right shall not be infringed, that government is forbidden from even intruding upon barest edges of this right.

I don't see any value to changing the wording of the Second Amendment in the manner that you suggest. Those who are determined to disobey it will be no more inclined to obey it no matter how the wording may be changed.
 
Last edited:
oncewas said:
It does to me,i'll take "Human Life " over any 2nd amendment rights. Like I said before that's my opinion and i'm entitled to mines,you're entitled to your's !eace
Click to expand...

In that case lets ban knives, cars,pencils, and a whole bunch of other stuff because these things have killed way more people than any mass shooting has.
 
jamesrage said:
In that case lets ban knives, cars,pencils, and a whole bunch of other stuff because these things have killed way more people than any mass shooting has.
Click to expand...
All i've heard is the government wants to take our 2nd amendment rights, and i've never seen one fact of it being true.All I hear and see in the Right crying over something that the NRA want them to believe, and keep sending the checks.Again my opinion!:shoot
 

obviously too complicated for conservatives to understand. You say that like you support it, but then you go and support the legislators whose very goal is to cut that type of funding.
 
Black Manta said:
Not really, in your case it's called "clueless Texmex comment" So the stupidity of your post ranks right up there with sangha, who has yet to post anything even relevant.
Click to expand...

Don't be holding your breath.
 
Zariak said:
obviously too complicated for conservatives to understand. You say that like you support it, but then you go and support the legislators whose very goal is to cut that type of funding.
Click to expand...

Well that is off topic and nothing but a strawman.

In the end it is nothing but an untrue blanket statement as you don't know what I support, nor do you speak for every conservative.

Your comment is ignorant at best.
 

this idiotic post is either ignorant of what the anti gun left has schemed or dishonest. Sadly for you, too many of your idols such as Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and Andrew Cuomo have proven what nefarious crap the democrats intend for our gun rights.
 

Across the country in both state governments and at the federal level anti-gun leftists have proposed bans on semiautomatic weapons, weapons with removable magazines, weapons with anything resembling a "military style" component. That includes he majority of handguns and a large number of rifles and shotguns include something as basic as a Ruger 10/22. Additionally they are advocating for registration, licenses, fees, and forced confiscation of firearms on their list. So while they aren't (for now) banning ALL guns there can be NO DOUBT they are targeting the vast majority of them. If you don't see that as an assault on 2nd amendment rights it's only because you refuse to.
 


I think it is because those who support a complete ban understand they have to deny that is their goal and call those who argue that incremental steps are designed to affect a complete ban paranoid or unjustified

and the gun haters will be claiming that until the only step remaining is a complete ban
 

Yep...Obama shows us a picture of him with a dbl barrel shotgun. Biden comes out extolling the virtues of a dbl barrel...all the while proclaiming their "reasonable" steps to ban every semiautomatic weapon o even boot action weapons with detachable magazines. It's pretty transparent.
 

As I noted before-seeking or following Joe Biden's advice on defensive weaponry would be like asking Bill clinton's advice on how to land a complete babe as your wife or asking hillary clinton how to achieve killer legs
 

The only thing I refuse to do is " think for myself! " I don't need some card carrying NRA man telling me a bunch of lies and trying to put fear in my head.I leave that to the weaker of men minds.:wink2:
 
oncewas said:
The only thing I refuse to do is " think for myself! " I don't need some card carrying NRA man telling me a bunch of lies and trying to put fear in my head.I leave that to the weak of man minds.:wink2:
Click to expand...

I love it when people drag the NRA into every argument as if they are the issue. So tell us then....do you acknowledge the efforts across the country attacking all semiautomatic weapons, weapons with detachable magazines, etc? And are you intelligent enough to realize that information is found on government websites by those actually PROPOSING them?
 

Personally,when I left the Marine Corps and Vietnam,i've had no use for AR-15 M-16 AK-47,semi or automatic Rifle. I do have a 40 Cal.Smith & Wesson Semiautomatic Pistol that have a 13 rounds magazine. But i'm not worry about the government taken it from me. And if they do take my magazines, it won't bother me to have 6 rounds clip mag.:2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…