• 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!

more gun control stupidity

OscarB63

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings were not licensed to have the firearms they used in several shootouts with police on Friday, Reuters reported Sunday night.
The news that the suspects were not authorized to own firearms will likely add fuel to calls for tougher gun laws – an issue that was put on the back-burner last week after the Senate blocked the central elements of a gun-control package backed by President Obama.
Click to expand...

Report: Suspects not licensed to own guns - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room


let's see. they were not licensed to have the firearms they used. So how exactly would more gun control laws and background checks have prevented them from getting firearms?

they ignored the laws about owning firearms, I'm sure they would have obeyed any new gun laws :roll:
 
OscarB63 said:
Report: Suspects not licensed to own guns - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room


let's see. they were not licensed to have the firearms they used. So how exactly would more gun control laws and background checks have prevented them from getting firearms?

they ignored the laws about owning firearms, I'm sure they would have obeyed any new gun laws :roll:
Click to expand...

This is more of the typical liberal stupidity. Murder is illegal and it still happens so lets make hates crimes illegal and when that doesn't stop it well ban assault weapons and when that doesn't stop it we will ban pink soap bubble guns and when that doesn't work we will go after violence in movies and when that doesn't work we will go after ...
 
blaxshep said:
This is more of the typical liberal stupidity. Murder is illegal and it still happens so lets make hates crimes illegal and when that doesn't stop it well ban assault weapons and when that doesn't stop it we will ban pink soap bubble guns and when that doesn't work we will go after violence in movies and when that doesn't work we will go after ...
Click to expand...

Making hate crimes illegal had nothing to do murder laws not stopping all murders.
 
blaxshep said:
It is a sound argument.
Click to expand...

yeah. criminals ignore/break the law. let's solve the problem by creating more laws that they will break and ignore. All "gun control" ever does is make it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns (which is the real agenda of the gun control nutters)
 
captainawesome said:
That's not a good or valid argument.
Click to expand...

Only for you since you don't like it.

The observation makes perfect sense for intelligent folks who are open minded.
 
blaxshep said:
This is more of the typical liberal stupidity. Murder is illegal and it still happens so lets make hates crimes illegal and when that doesn't stop it well ban assault weapons and when that doesn't stop it we will ban pink soap bubble guns and when that doesn't work we will go after violence in movies and when that doesn't work we will go after ...
Click to expand...

Good point, why bother with any laws at all? Let's just go ahead and make murder legal. I mean, what's the point in a law if it's just going to be violated? The very instant a crime is committed, that's proof the law does not work and should be removed.

So no more laws regarding murder or theft. No more laws regarding a person's privacy, whether it be on the Internet, in a bank, medical records, etc...your information is free reign to anyone. No more laws to ensure quality of food and drink.

Since all of these have been violated at least once since the law's inception, let's just get rid of them. They clearly do not work.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Good point, why bother with any laws at all? Let's just go ahead and make murder legal. I mean, what's the point in a law if it's just going to be violated? The very instant a crime is committed, that's proof the law does not work and should be removed.

So no more laws regarding murder or theft. No more laws regarding a person's privacy, whether it be on the Internet, in a bank, medical records, etc...your information is free reign to anyone. No more laws to ensure quality of food and drink.

Since all of these have been violated at least once since the law's inception, let's just get rid of them. They clearly do not work.
Click to expand...

That is not the point at all, the point is murder is ALREADY illegal. How many laws against murder do you think it will take before people that commit murder will stop committing murder? Maybe if we had 15 laws against murder it will magically stop people from committing murder. The first 15 aren't working we obviously need 16.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Good point, why bother with any laws at all? Let's just go ahead and make murder legal. I mean, what's the point in a law if it's just going to be violated? The very instant a crime is committed, that's proof the law does not work and should be removed.

So no more laws regarding murder or theft. No more laws regarding a person's privacy, whether it be on the Internet, in a bank, medical records, etc...your information is free reign to anyone. No more laws to ensure quality of food and drink.

Since all of these have been violated at least once since the law's inception, let's just get rid of them. They clearly do not work.
Click to expand...

There is suppose to be a consequences for breaking laws, but apparently the Left is soft on punishment. Anyway, licensing usually serves as many as two purposes 1) surveillence 2) tax revenue. Licensing doesn't stop law breaking.
 
blaxshep said:
That is not the point at all, the point is murder is ALREADY illegal. How many laws against murder do you think it will take before people that commit murder will stop committing murder? Maybe if we had 15 laws against murder it will magically stop people from committing murder. The first 15 aren't working we obviously need 16.
Click to expand...
Gun control laws are not making murder illegal, it's trying to prevent the steps that are taken which belong to murder.

American said:
There is suppose to be a consequences for breaking laws, but apparently the Left is soft on punishment.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the majority of states controlled by Republicans? Wasn't the years from 2001-2007 controlled by Republicans on the national scale?

Maybe it's not a right or left problem, but simply a problem on an individual basis.
 
blaxshep said:
What is the point if murder is already illegal?
Click to expand...
Murder being prosecuted after the fact doesn't help the person who is dead. The point is to try and prevent people from being dead.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Murder being prosecuted after the fact doesn't help the person who is dead. The point is to try and prevent people from being dead.
Click to expand...

and just how does making something illegal, that is already illegal, help?

it's like a stupid game:

gun laws - I dare you

more gun laws - I double dare you

even more gun laws - I triple dog dare you
 
Slyfox696 said:
Murder being prosecuted after the fact doesn't help the person who is dead. The point is to try and prevent people from being dead.
Click to expand...

So you are under the delusion that if a person wants to murder someone and the fact that murder is illegal doesn't stop them they will be thwarted by a ban on 30 rnd magazines or some other ridiculous gun control non-sense.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Murder being prosecuted after the fact doesn't help the person who is dead. The point is to try and prevent people from being dead.
Click to expand...

Did the OP not make it clear that the Boston Jihidists already broke current gun laws (among other more serious charges)? The idea that making all legal gun owners pay more to comply with the law will somehow stop criminals from breaking the law is simply insane. Recreational drugs have been banned nationwide for decades yet they are a multi-billion dollar, per year, business. We have many "strict" federal gun laws that are not even being enforced now; e.g. in 2010 there were over 72,000 illegal gun purchase attempts (fully documented by FFL dealers) yet only 13 were convicted for that felony offense.
 
OscarB63 said:
and just how does making something illegal, that is already illegal, help?
Click to expand...
Except that's not what is happening nor proposed.
blaxshep said:
So you are under the delusion that if a person wants to murder someone and the fact that murder is illegal doesn't stop them they will be thwarted by a ban on 30 rnd magazines or some other ridiculous gun control non-sense.
Click to expand...
Yes. If there is a ban on 30 round magazines, then they cannot walk into their nearest ammo shop and grab them. Will they acquire them by some other means? Maybe...but only maybe.
ttwtt78640 said:
Did the OP not make it clear that the Boston Jihidists already broke current gun laws (among other more serious charges)?
Click to expand...
And if the guns were registered, and the laws are properly enforced, then we'll know where the system broke down. If the guns are registered to seller A, and the guns are obtained illegally, then we know seller A will have a lot of explaining to do.

But we need more information. If they were not licensed, we need to know how they were obtained.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Yes. If there is a ban on 30 round magazines, then they cannot walk into their nearest ammo shop and grab them. Will they acquire them by some other means? Maybe...but only maybe.
Click to expand...

bans on magazine size is one of the dumbest proposals ever. It takes you all of a couple of seconds to drop an empty mag and reload. more than enough time to continue your killing spree if everyone around you is unarmed.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Yes. If there is a ban on 30 round magazines, then they cannot walk into their nearest ammo shop and grab them. Will they acquire them by some other means? Maybe...but only maybe.
Click to expand...

Or they will just kill someone with a 7 round mag or a baseball bat or a rock.
 
Slyfox696 said:
And if the guns were registered, and the laws are properly enforced, then we'll know where the system broke down. If the guns are registered to seller A, and the guns are obtained illegally, then we know seller A will have a lot of explaining to do.
Click to expand...

But didn't the President say:

“The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill,” Obama angrily said. “They claimed that it would create some sort of ‘big brother’ gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry.”
Click to expand...
An Angry Obama Lashes Out After Gun Control Defeat | TIME.com

Registered as you claimed??? Which way do you want it?
 
Slyfox696 said:
Except that's not what is happening nor proposed.
Yes. If there is a ban on 30 round magazines, then they cannot walk into their nearest ammo shop and grab them. Will they acquire them by some other means? Maybe...but only maybe.
And if the guns were registered, and the laws are properly enforced, then we'll know where the system broke down. If the guns are registered to seller A, and the guns are obtained illegally, then we know seller A will have a lot of explaining to do.

But we need more information. If they were not licensed, we need to know how they were obtained.
Click to expand...

We now have about 300,000,000 guns, in the US, that are mostly not in the hands of their original purchaser(s) of record (which only applies to the last 20 years at best). Pondering where a murder weapon came from (assuming that it can even be found) helps nobody, least of all the dead person. It is pure fiction to expect to be able to register and track over 300,000,000 guns, charging everyone (and anyone) that happens to found to possess one (that is not "registered") with a federal crime; keep in mind that a convicted felon, fugitive or certified crazy person is already in violation of federal (and state?) law if they possess any gun, whether it is "registered" or not. There are only 2,500 BATFE field agents and there is no national gun database. Magazines are even harder to track as they generally bear no serial numbers and they are fairly easy to make, and even easier to extend.

Something else for you to ponder:

TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL
 
OscarB63 said:
Report: Suspects not licensed to own guns - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room


let's see. they were not licensed to have the firearms they used. So how exactly would more gun control laws and background checks have prevented them from getting firearms?

they ignored the laws about owning firearms, I'm sure they would have obeyed any new gun laws :roll:
Click to expand...

Don't even bother to mention that fact that the most recent news reports are saying that it is quite possible the older brother started being 'converted' to an extremist in 2007, and the actual mosque he attended (which the media got wrong at first .. shocker) is known by the feds to push/put out radical views... Yet in 2011, when Russia asked the FBI to run a check on this guy for extremist links because he had applied for a visa to travel there, the FBI found nothing. Hmm... another background check failure.
 
captainawesome said:
That's not a good or valid argument.
Click to expand...
Its the ULTIMATE argument. It proves definitively that passing more laws will only target law abiding citizens and will do NOTHING to prevent violent criminals from getting guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom