• 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!

Pelosi: We must pass gun control because we swore an oath to uphold the [W:79]

Re: Pelosi: We must pass gun control because we swore an oath to uphold the Constitut

LaMidRighter said:
No, not that far. The government would have to prove it's case in a court of law, if the person can be tied beyond a shadow of a doubt to the buy that's one thing. If there is any doubt it couldn't be a conviction. IOW, if the person lied on the 4473 and a direct connection is made to the buy it's a conviction, same rules but more time.
Click to expand...

So...worthless. How do you disprove someone lost the gun they bought? Or that someone didn't steal it? Beyond any shadow of a doubt? Almost impossible of course. Prosecutors won't even attempt to convict much less think of trying unless they have a signed confession or the person who was found with the gun committing a crime confesses to it...which they wouldn't do for the simple fact that they would be throwing away one of their sources for guns...assuming that the word of a person that just committed a crime is reliable of course. ;)
 
Re: Pelosi: We must pass gun control because we swore an oath to uphold the Constitut

Kal'Stang said:
So...worthless. How do you disprove someone lost the gun they bought? Or that someone didn't steal it? Beyond any shadow of a doubt? Almost impossible of course. Prosecutors won't even attempt to convict much less think of trying unless they have a signed confession or the person who was found with the gun committing a crime confesses to it...which they wouldn't do for the simple fact that they would be throwing away one of their sources for guns...assuming that the word of a person that just committed a crime is reliable of course. ;)
Click to expand...
Not worthless, not perfect but not worthless. The idea is to get a few of the really dumb ones and make it hurt, then eventually people on the borderline will probably leave that behavior behind.
 
Re: Pelosi: We must pass gun control because we swore an oath to uphold the Constitut

LaMidRighter said:
Not worthless, not perfect but not worthless. The idea is to get a few of the really dumb ones and make it hurt, then eventually people on the borderline will probably leave that behavior behind.
Click to expand...

Umm...yeah, not going to happen. There are huge consequences to selling firearms on the black market and yet....it is still a big buisness.

Edit: Next question: What new law will be made to make make your law "more effective" or "more enforceable"?
 
Re: Pelosi: We must pass gun control because we swore an oath to uphold the Constitut

Kal'Stang said:
Umm...yeah, not going to happen. There are huge consequences to selling firearms on the black market and yet....it is still a big buisness.

Edit: Next question: What new law will be made to make make your law "more effective" or "more enforceable"?
Click to expand...
The idea is there is no new law. You can't catch everybody, the idea is to punish people you do catch, and yes there are prosecutions for straw buys that succeed, the other idea is to convince people on the fence that it's a bad idea.
 
ChrisL said:
I never denied that. I simply said that a creator doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to different people, and that was done intentionally. All of the founding fathers weren't "Christians" so to speak, but they did believe that human beings had some natural rights which cannot be taken away by men, the right to protect yourself, your family and your property, the right to protect yourself against government tyranny, etc., (the point of the 2A) so they used the word "creator" so that it includes everyone, IMO.
Click to expand...

:mrgreen: Agreed! And that brings us back to the original post: Why does Nancy think that MORE gun control is in fitting with the Constitution and the way the Framers felt about owing guns? Doesn't she get it? Gun control only restricts law abiding citizens! The criminals are thinking "Thank you, Nancy, the more gun control, the better for US!"
 
chuck71 said:
:mrgreen: Agreed! And that brings us back to the original post: Why does Nancy think that MORE gun control is in fitting with the Constitution and the way the Framers felt about owing guns? Doesn't she get it? Gun control only restricts law abiding citizens! The criminals are thinking "Thank you, Nancy, the more gun control, the better for US!"
Click to expand...

I agree, but I can't say what Nancy thinks. She probably doesn't even know. :lol:
 
ChrisL said:
I never denied that. I simply said that a creator doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to different people, and that was done intentionally. All of the founding fathers weren't "Christians" so to speak, but they did believe that human beings had some natural rights which cannot be taken away by men, the right to protect yourself, your family and your property, the right to protect yourself against government tyranny, etc., (the point of the 2A) so they used the word "creator" so that it includes everyone, IMO.
Click to expand...

:mrgreen: Absolutely correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom