• 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!

Never let a crisis go to waste

Bok Tuklo said:
New Hampshire is a State within the United States. They do not control their firearm policies. No States does. That is controlled by the whims of 5 people in black robes. As shown by Bruen.
Click to expand...
You mean that the New Hampshire state legislature can’t pass laws? Do you really think that? Maybe you should inform the ATF since here is document listing all those state laws.

 
JMB1911A1 said:
You mean that the New Hampshire state legislature can’t pass laws?
Click to expand...

Wasn't The Sullivan Act a century+ old law passed in New York?
 
Bok Tuklo said:
New Hampshire is a State within the United States. They do not control their firearm policies. No States does. That is controlled by the whims of 5 people in black robes. As shown by Bruen.
Click to expand...

Their firearm policies don't include many or most of the things that other states think are necessary as firearm policies. Their policies are basically the federal policies, and nothing of the other- possibly some unconstitutional- policies that other states have enacted despite your claim that states don't control their policies.

And their homicide rate is often the lowest in the nation, and consistently among the very lowest.
 
RF667799 said:
Their firearm policies don't include many or most of the things that other states think are necessary as firearm policies. Their policies are basically the federal policies, and nothing of the other- possibly some unconstitutional- policies that other states have enacted despite your claim that states don't control their policies.

And their homicide rate is often the lowest in the nation, and consistently among the very lowest.
Click to expand...

You are comparing a State with a nation. New Hampshire does not control its firearm policy. No state in this nation does. That was a GOAL of the ****ing Gun Cult.

Outside of slaughtering schoolchildren, of course. Another goal of the gun people.
 
Bok Tuklo said:
You are comparing a State with a nation. New Hampshire does not control its firearm policy. No state in this nation does. That was a GOAL of the ****ing Gun Cult.
Click to expand...

Nothing rational to say?

Bok Tuklo said:
Outside of slaughtering schoolchildren, of course. Another goal of the gun people.
Click to expand...

I don't really see this conversation having legs, since you are apparently in the grips of some sort of delusion about "gun people".
 
Bok Tuklo said:
You are comparing a State with a nation. New Hampshire does not control its firearm policy. No state in this nation does. That was a GOAL of the ****ing Gun Cult.

Outside of slaughtering schoolchildren, of course. Another goal of the gun people.
Click to expand...
Wow, that is a pretty disgusting post and very broad brush. I suggest you seek some help for your bigotry.
 
Sabre said:
View attachment 67586796

For those who can't extrapolate that means 50% of the population own guns.
Click to expand...
AI Overview

Switzerland has a high rate of gun ownership, a cultural tradition rooted in its armed neutrality and militia system, though it is also highly regulated. To own a gun, one needs a permit, requires background checks for criminal history, mental illness, and substance abuse, and must meet other basic criteria like age and residence. While long guns, such as rifles, do not require a special permit for purchase, handguns do, and carrying a weapon in public requires a separate permit.

In other words, Swiss gun laws are not vastly different to many of the Dem proposals. Watch the gun lobby squeal if you try to implement the same in the US.

Interesting to note that some of our 2A, 2A, 2A friends are perfectly fine with breaching the privacy rights of 10's of millions of Americans (their health status etc), and then incarcerate or force treatment on them, but argue that 2A can never be breached. Those other amendments just don't matter as much it seems. Same people will often argue 'black and blue' that red flag laws used to disarm people who present a potentially heightened risk are a violation of 2A. There is clearly little rational consistency when it comes to much of the gun lobby. Meanwhile, Trumps BBB is forcing the closing of treatments centres around the country. Some of the very places where experienced professionals might have observed the sort of mental distress that our gun lobby friends want to see treated, or see the ill people identified as needing forced preventative incarceration so that the 'good guys' can keep their closets full of guns.
 
Ishm said:
AI Overview

Switzerland has a high rate of gun ownership, a cultural tradition rooted in its armed neutrality and militia system, though it is also highly regulated. To own a gun, one needs a permit, requires background checks for criminal history, mental illness, and substance abuse, and must meet other basic criteria like age and residence. While long guns, such as rifles, do not require a special permit for purchase, handguns do, and carrying a weapon in public requires a separate permit.

In other words, Swiss gun laws are not vastly different to many of the Dem proposals. Watch the gun lobby squeal if you try to implement the same in the US.
Click to expand...
You have be 21 to buy a handgun from an FFL, 18 for a long gun. You have to be a US Citizen or permanent resident (Green Card). You have to pass a background check that checks criminal behavior, mental commitments, and reports for substance abuse. If you lie on the form, it is a Federal felony (though you can get your dad to pardon you for 10% of the take).

The only big difference that I see is that Switzerland requires a permit to buy a handgun. We had states that used to do that. Democrat sheriffs in those states used the permit system to ensure that only the "right" (read white) people were allowed to have guns. I, for one, am glad that we got rid of Jim Crow era laws, but it amazing how many Democrats embrace them.
Ishm said:
Interesting to note that some of our 2A, 2A, 2A friends are perfectly fine with breaching the privacy rights of 10's of millions of Americans (their health status etc), and then incarcerate or force treatment on them, but argue that 2A can never be breached. Those other amendments just don't matter as much it seems. Same people will often argue 'black and blue' that red flag laws used to disarm people who present a potentially heightened risk are a violation of 2A. There is clearly little rational consistency when it comes to much of the gun lobby. Meanwhile, Trumps BBB is forcing the closing of treatments centres around the country. Some of the very places where experienced professionals might have observed the sort of mental distress that our gun lobby friends want to see treated, or see the ill people identified as needing forced preventative incarceration so that the 'good guys' can keep their closets full of guns.
Click to expand...
So, above you just argued that we should breach privacy in order to have the right to buy a firearm. Which is it? Breach privacy or not?
 
JMB1911A1 said:
We need increased mental health access. We need more inpatient facilities. And we need more reporting of mental health issues to authorities.
Click to expand...
Can you provide any links to a Republican member of Congress who has proposed such legislation recently?

I agree with you regarding the need. I do not see much coming out of the GOP towards what you stated.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
You have be 21 to buy a handgun from an FFL, 18 for a long gun. You have to be a US Citizen or permanent resident (Green Card). You have to pass a background check that checks criminal behavior, mental commitments, and reports for substance abuse. If you lie on the form, it is a Federal felony (though you can get your dad to pardon you for 10% of the take).

The only big difference that I see is that Switzerland requires a permit to buy a handgun. We had states that used to do that. Democrat sheriffs in those states used the permit system to ensure that only the "right" (read white) people were allowed to have guns. I, for one, am glad that we got rid of Jim Crow era laws, but it amazing how many Democrats embrace them.

So, above you just argued that we should breach privacy in order to have the right to buy a firearm. Which is it? Breach privacy or not?
Click to expand...
If our laws are that good, why are we the only country with such a high rate of mentally ill people accessing guns to kill people????? International mental health statistics don't show the US as having unusually high issues with mental health problems.

As for breaching rights to buy a firearm if your mental heath is checked, it is a voluntary breach in that you agree to having your mental health assessed when you apply for your gun licence. When I got my gun licence here in New Zealand for instance, I authorised the police to interview my wife and two non-family acquaintances who could reasonably attest to my mental health being 'normal', as well as checking my medical records. That is very different to your argument that we need to universally somehow share everyone's mental health status to somehow stop the mentally unwell getting guns. Since there are often not even safe storage requirements in the US, how do you propose this works?? If you have a mentally unwell family member in your house does that means there can be no guns in the house? Does it mean that the unwell person can't be left at home alone? Do you have to install a gun safe etc. Remember that a lot of these mass murders are not raving lunatics. They are people that function relatively normally in society right up to the point where they start pulling the trigger. How for instance do you decide that say a teen upset about being bullied at school is a potential mass shooter? Do we remove the gun rights of everyone who shares a house with a teen who is being bullied? What about the guy that just got fied from his job and wants revenge. Another typical mass shooting scenario. Do we remove the guns from everyone who gets fired and all the people they share a house with??

Explain more to us about the practical implementation of your plan to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally distressed please.
 
Bok Tuklo said:
You are comparing a State with a nation. New Hampshire does not control its firearm policy. No state in this nation does. That was a GOAL of the ****ing Gun Cult.

Outside of slaughtering schoolchildren, of course. Another goal of the gun people.
Click to expand...
I highly resent that outlandish statement. To tar approximately 32% of American adults who personally own a gun with that obscene statement is huge step over the line.
 
Ishm said:
If our laws are that good, why are we the only country with such a high rate of mentally ill people accessing guns to kill people????? International mental health statistics don't show the US as having unusually high issues with mental health problems.

As for breaching rights to buy a firearm if your mental heath is checked, it is a voluntary breach in that you agree to having your mental health assessed when you apply for your gun licence. When I got my gun licence here in New Zealand for instance, I authorised the police to interview my wife and two non-family acquaintances who could reasonably attest to my mental health being 'normal', as well as checking my medical records. That is very different to your argument that we need to universally somehow share everyone's mental health status to somehow stop the mentally unwell getting guns. Since there are often not even safe storage requirements in the US, how do you propose this works?? If you have a mentally unwell family member in your house does that means there can be no guns in the house? Does it mean that the unwell person can't be left at home alone? Do you have to install a gun safe etc. Remember that a lot of these mass murders are not raving lunatics. They are people that function relatively normally in society right up to the point where they start pulling the trigger. How for instance do you decide that say a teen upset about being bullied at school is a potential mass shooter? Do we remove the gun rights of everyone who shares a house with a teen who is being bullied? What about the guy that just got fied from his job and wants revenge. Another typical mass shooting scenario. Do we remove the guns from everyone who gets fired and all the people they share a house with??

Explain more to us about the practical implementation of your plan to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally distressed please.
Click to expand...

I really didn't see him say everyone's medical records should be shared. Maybe just those of someone buying or possessing a gun, like in New Zealand.

And maybe that mental health assessment could be shared before the fact by a professional who decides that Joe Blow shouldn't have a gun. So that mental health professional forwards that flag to the proper authorities. Instead of the authorities asking a couple of your drinking buddies from the local bar, like in New Zealand.

But as always, I must question the idea that someone who is too unstable, too dangerous to himself or others to be allowed to have a gun- is nevertheless okay to have knives, motor vehicles, chainsaws, machetes....in fact this too dangerous and too unstable person is allowed to roam around as he pleases in society.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
Well, Democrats are at it again. Calling for infringing the rights of Americans who have done nothing wrong after a mentally deranged trans kills kids.

The problem is not firearm designs that have existed for over 60 years. It is the new align of mental illness in our society. Illness enabled by the Democrats.

MN already has background checks on all sales and red flag laws. Nobody reported the sick ****.

www.foxnews.com

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz says it's time to 'take serious action' after deadly school shooting

Gov. Tim Walz pushes for action on gun violence after a fatal shooting at a Minneapolis Catholic school left two children dead and over a dozen others injured.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
www.cbsnews.com

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, others call for gun control after Annunciation shooting

The mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis is again sparking a push for something to change.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
Click to expand...

Yes, how dare people talk about gun control after a bunch of kids have been killed by guns.
It's not like it ever changes anything.

Oh wait, it did in the UK where after 1 school shooting we had a vast public outcry and the law was changed.
I suppose that makes us a bunch of crybabies though.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
The problem is not firearm designs that have existed for over 60 years. It is the new align of mental illness in our society. Illness enabled by the Democrats.
Click to expand...
Do you people have anuthing but lies?


According to multiple 2024 and 2025 reports, a large number of states with poor mental healthcare metrics are states with a history of electing Republican officials.

For example:
  • Mental health report: A separate March 2025 ranking from MoneyGeek identified Alabama, Texas, and Louisiana—all with Republican-controlled legislatures and recent presidential votes—as the worst states for mental health care. The analysis cited high costs and limited access to care as major contributing factors.
 
Peter said:
Yes, how dare people talk about gun control after a bunch of kids have been killed by guns.
It's not like it ever changes anything.

Oh wait, it did in the UK where after 1 school shooting we had a vast public outcry and the law was changed.
I suppose that makes us a bunch of crybabies though.
Click to expand...
Not a bunch of crybabies. Just a bunch of subservient serfs who are subjects, not citizens. I pity you.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
Well, Democrats are at it again. Calling for infringing the rights of Americans who have done nothing wrong after a mentally deranged trans kills kids.

The problem is not firearm designs that have existed for over 60 years. It is the new align of mental illness in our society. Illness enabled by the Democrats.

MN already has background checks on all sales and red flag laws. Nobody reported the sick ****.

www.foxnews.com

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz says it's time to 'take serious action' after deadly school shooting

Gov. Tim Walz pushes for action on gun violence after a fatal shooting at a Minneapolis Catholic school left two children dead and over a dozen others injured.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
www.cbsnews.com

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, others call for gun control after Annunciation shooting

The mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis is again sparking a push for something to change.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
Click to expand...

No rights are absolute, and all rights have tradeoffs.

The fact is that there are 10,000-20,000 gun deaths (not including suicides) every year. Other countries don't come remotely close to that number, so it's pretty clear that we can blame those gun deaths on the wide availability of guns. And it's way too many to blame the mentally ill; anybody that commits murder is at least a little off. They are always going to be able to get their hands on a gun, because the laws (basically, gun control laws) are too lax.

So there's your tradeoff - easy availability of all sorts of guns, including assault rifles and pistols vs. 10-20K lives, including sickening numbers of children.

There are lots of parents out there mourning their dead children so a bunch of gomers can happily plunk away at beer cans and watermelons with assault rifles. Ask any of those gomers if they would give up their guns to save a life, and I'd bet few or none would take you up on the offer.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
Nope. I want to save the children from attacks by the mentally ill folks.
Click to expand...

You do realize the shooter bought the guns legally right? So the shooter used the rights and liberties you care so deeply about... to kill people. Your rights and liberties. But the moment someone suggests taking them away to prevent tragedies like this from ever happening? Well your words tell us what you think:

JMB1911A1 said:
If all you address in regards to suicide is the availability of guns, then you are not a suicide prevention advocate, you are a gun prohibitionist.
Click to expand...
JMB1911A1 said:
So, you are going to use your red flag laws to deprive a person (who think may be suicidal) of their property without due process. Not sure how background check laws would prevent suicide if you have never been adjudicated as having a mental issue.

But anyway, after you take the guns away, you leave the person with medicine they can OD on, a car they drive over a cliff, and rope to hang themselves.

So, really, you only care about gun confiscation, not suicide prevention.
Click to expand...
 
JMB1911A1 said:
Not a bunch of crybabies. Just a bunch of subservient serfs who are subjects, not citizens. I pity you.
Click to expand...

You pity us for putting the lives of kids before the desires of a small bunch of people who want to own firearms?

We made the right decision and if you don't like it don't visit the UK or any other country with strict gun controls.
The law was changed after public outcry, it had **** all to do with subservience.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
No rights are absolute, and all rights have tradeoffs.

The fact is that there are 10,000-20,000 gun deaths (not including suicides) every year. Other countries don't come remotely close to that number, so it's pretty clear that we can blame those gun deaths on the wide availability of guns.
Click to expand...
Correlation =/= causation. We can also lay the blame for criminals using guns to kill people at feet of the soft on crime Democrats that let convicted criminals free and refusal to prosecute them for things like "felon in possession of a firearm".
JohnfrmClevelan said:
And it's way too many to blame the mentally ill; anybody that commits murder is at least a little off. They are always going to be able to get their hands on a gun, because the laws (basically, gun control laws) are too lax.
Click to expand...
No they aren't. Democrats just don't want to prosecute criminals when we catch them with guns.
JohnfrmClevelan said:
So there's your tradeoff - easy availability of all sorts of guns, including assault rifles and pistols vs. 10-20K lives, including sickening numbers of children.
Click to expand...
Assault rifles are Class II firearms regulate under the NFA of 1934 and restricted by the Hughes Amendment of 1986. They are not easily available.
JohnfrmClevelan said:
There are lots of parents out there mourning their dead children so a bunch of gomers can happily plunk away at beer cans and watermelons with assault rifles. Ask any of those gomers if they would give up their guns to save a life, and I'd bet few or none would take you up on the offer.
Click to expand...
Why should anyone have to give up guns that they are safely using because a demented sick and twisted evil individual committed murder? Do you propose that we all give up our cars to stop drunk drivers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom