• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Way To Go Oklahoma

DebateChallenge said:
Oklahoma has the right idea, hopefully more states will follow their example.
Click to expand...

Ummm no we don't. True to our past we create laws to appease the rabid right but ignore the issues that need to be addressed like domestic violence, suicide, mental issues, threats of violence to others.... :doh

Sad fact is we don't have any red flag laws, the one that was introduced last year never made it out of committee, but some think we need to protect ourselves from something we won't have... :roll:

tRump and the Feds are for this and have a law on the books- be interesting to see how this pans out.... :peace
 
So there goes one of the gun lobby's main arguments in Oklahoma.

They say that a response to reducing mass shootings is to provide mental health to disturbed individuals...but now they won't take their guns away


How stupid do you need to be to be elected into office in that state ?

Who will they blame when a disturbed individual, identified as such by police or social services, later goes on a shooting rampage ?
 
"Anti-Red Flag law"?

What's the idea? Make sure it's easy for criminals to get guns so that they can point to criminals having guns as a reason to get rid of restrictions on use and ownership?
 
Last edited:
Rich2018 said:
So there goes one of the gun lobby's main arguments in Oklahoma. They say that a response to reducing mass shootings is to provide mental health to disturbed individuals...but now they won't take their guns away How stupid do you need to be to be elected into office in that state ? Who will they blame when a disturbed individual, identified as such by police or social services, later goes on a shooting rampage ?
Click to expand...

Oh our republicant politicians don't lack for stupid. Back when Mary Fallon was governor they went off the deep end with tax reductions during the frakking boom. First they denied frakking was responsible for the YUGE uptick in earth quakes. Then ran our state budget into deep red ink by CUTTING the oil production tax. One mental midget claimed if they didn't reduce the tax the oil companies would drill elsewhere- as if oil was under every state!!!!! :doh

(never mind North Dakota was having a massive oil boom and a double digit tax at the well head!!!!) :shock:

Yeah apparently the Okie conservatives don't breed for bright... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Oh our republicant politicians don't lack for stupid. Back when Mary Fallon was governor they went off the deep end with tax reductions during the frakking boom. First they denied frakking was responsible for the YUGE uptick in earth quakes. Then ran our state budget into deep red ink by CUTTING the oil production tax. One mental midget claimed if they didn't reduce the tax the oil companies would drill elsewhere- as if oil was under every state!!!!! :doh

(never mind North Dakota was having a massive oil boom and a double digit tax at the well head!!!!) :shock:

Yeah apparently the Okie conservatives don't breed for bright... :peace
Click to expand...


A pro-criminal law if ever I saw one.
 
DebateChallenge said:
No, having red flag laws is unconstitutional, read the post.
Click to expand...

The post said:

Sad fact is we don't have any red flag laws, the one that was introduced last year never made it out of committee...
Click to expand...


And you reasoned:

Because they're unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


So you weren't clear, you meant the laws and not the committee were unconstitutional

Got it


So by you're reasoning, mental illness should not be an impediment to owning a gun?
 
Last edited:
DebateChallenge said:
Oklahoma has the right idea, hopefully more states will follow their example.
Oklahoma Passed the Country’s First ‘Anti-Red Flag’ Gun Law - VICE
Click to expand...

So a guy puts a gun to his wife’s head and threatens her and the kids. Threatens me for trying to calm things down. Someone calls the cops and they can’t se their discretion and take the man’s toy away. Sounds like a plan. Or do I get the effect of the law wrong? Apologize if it’s not as dumb as it sounded to me.
 
Nickyjo said:
So a guy puts a gun to his wife’s head and threatens her and the kids. Threatens me for trying to calm things down. Someone calls the cops and they can’t se their discretion and take the man’s toy away. Sounds like a plan. Or do I get the effect of the law wrong? Apologize if it’s not as dumb as it sounded to me.
Click to expand...

But if the cops took away his gun because he was clearly unfit to have it, is surely an impingement on him bearing arms ?
 
Rich2018 said:
But if the cops took away his gun because he was clearly unfit to have it, is surely an impingement on him bearing arms ?
Click to expand...

Ask his wife and kids.
 
Rich2018 said:
But if the cops took away his gun because he was clearly unfit to have it, is surely an impingement on him bearing arms ?
Click to expand...

Yes, of course it is, as are other impingements in bearing arms. The Constitution allows limits on speech, assembly, even some religious practices.
 
Nickyjo said:
Yes, of course it is, as are other impingements in bearing arms. The Constitution allows limits on speech, assembly, even some religious practices.
Click to expand...

But it says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed

And no, the Constitution does NOT place any limits on freedom of speech.
 
Rich2018 said:
But it says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed

And no, the Constitution does NOT place any limits on freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Libel/slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater, perjury, threatening statements (i.e., assault as defined in some states), all forms of speech that can be regulated or limited under the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in acknowledging an individual right to bear arms, also allowed for some regulation in its decision.
 
Nickyjo said:
Libel/slander, yelling fire in a crowded theater, perjury, threatening statements (i.e., assault as defined in some states), all forms of speech that can be regulated or limited under the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in acknowledging an individual right to bear arms, also allowed for some regulation in its decision.
Click to expand...

I know that, but nowhere in the 1st amendment do it say you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.


That's just an interpretation the SC has made.
 
Rich2018 said:
I know that, but nowhere in the 1st amendment do it say you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.


That's just an interpretation the SC has made.
Click to expand...

My point is that various parts the Bill of Rights has been interpreted by the courts as not absolute. You would not be able to use your argument to defend your yelling “fire.” The SC has, since Marburg v Madison in 1803, done the interpreting, and there seems to be no movement to change that, as it provides for the rule of law instead of chaos.

I really don’t understand your argument. Take speech out of it for a minute. We have accepted that the right to peacefully assemble doesn’t preclude a jurisdiction from requiring a permit in some cases. So it goes with some religious practices, freedom of the press, etc.
 
Nickyjo said:
My point is that various parts the Bill of Rights has been interpreted by the courts as not absolute. You would not be able to use your argument to defend your yelling “fire.” The SC has, since Marburg v Madison in 1803, done the interpreting, and there seems to be no movement to change that, as it provides for the rule of law instead of chaos.

I really don’t understand your argument. Take speech out of it for a minute. We have accepted that the right to peacefully assemble doesn’t preclude a jurisdiction from requiring a permit in some cases. So it goes with some religious practices, freedom of the press, etc.
Click to expand...

The point I'm making is that the Constitution speaks in terms of absolutes.


So a person's right to bear arms "shall not be infringed" yet the SC have ruled where these rights may be infringed: prison, violent record (not necessarily including any conviction) and mental health...


Yet it would appear OK seems to think that mental health is not a reason to deny someone a gun.
 
Nickyjo said:
So a guy puts a gun to his wife’s head and threatens her and the kids. Threatens me for trying to calm things down. Someone calls the cops and they can’t se their discretion and take the man’s toy away. Sounds like a plan. Or do I get the effect of the law wrong? Apologize if it’s not as dumb as it sounded to me.
Click to expand...

The cops should arrest the man, plain and simple.
 
Rich2018 said:
The post said:




And you reasoned:




So you weren't clear, you meant the laws and not the committee were unconstitutional

Got it


So by you're reasoning, mental illness should not be an impediment to owning a gun?
Click to expand...

What's the matter, the political tide on gun rights is turning against what you want?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom