Is the vice president sacrificing our kids to steal our right to bear arms?

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: Is the vice president sacrificing our kids to steal our right to bear arms?

No. She is not sacrificing our kids. How is she sacrificing our kids? She is fighting for our kids.
The blame should be placed on politicians that continually submit to the NRA lobbyists and their hefty campaign money to ensure the politicians vote for lax gun laws - quid pro quo.
Follow the money.
She and the democrats have been trying to pass common-sense gun REGULATION for decades. COMMON-SENSE REGULATION without taking away guns. A simple compromise is universal background checks. It is the right that simply will not budge or shift. Instead, they place the onus or protecting children from shooters on teachers.
In fact this could be more dangerous as schools will expect teachers to protect children, perhaps not invest in a school resource officer. What´s next? Asking daycare workers to carry weapons? What will happen to education and teachers?
Placing responsibility of law enforcement on public servants is absurd to say the least, dangerous at the most.

Gun regulation should be put in place to PREVENT school shootiings - Background checks. 

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A WELL REGULATED Militia

Factfinder

Delilah6120 said:

No. She is not sacrificing our kids. How is she sacrificing our kids? She is fighting for our kids.
The blame should be placed on politicians that continually submit to the NRA lobbyists and their hefty campaign money to ensure the politicians vote for lax gun laws - quid pro quo.
Follow the money.
She and the democrats have been trying to pass common-sense gun REGULATION for decades. COMMON-SENSE REGULATION without taking away guns. A simple compromise is universal background checks. It is the right that simply will not budge or shift. Instead, they place the onus or protecting children from shooters on teachers.
In fact this could be more dangerous as schools will expect teachers to protect children, perhaps not invest in a school resource officer. What´s next? Asking daycare workers to carry weapons? What will happen to education and teachers?
Placing responsibility of law enforcement on public servants is absurd to say the least, dangerous at the most.

Gun regulation should be put in place to PREVENT school shootiings - Background checks. 

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A WELL REGULATED Militia

By continually beating the drum that schools and other institutional centers are gun free to the tune of the shooter's ears when they get the urge to kill helpless people/children she aids and abets. That is a fact. Democrats don't try and pass gun laws they do pass gun laws and 'commonsense' is very subjective. As in one of those laws that was passed banned ar15's. And that did take away lawful weapons from the citizenry. All under the false pretense it was a military style rapid firing assault rifle when it was sold as a semi-automatic hunting rifle. 'Semi' meaning one has to pull the trigger every time a round is fired where as fully automatics multiple rounds are fired with one trigger pull. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15–style_rifle  Dems thought they could get away with it because the majority of the anti gun lobby was ignorant to what an assault rifle actually is... 

Some rifles listed below, such as the AR-15, also come in semi-auto models that would not belong under the term "assault rifle." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assault_rifles

Demonizing the NRA is the way the left operates to deflect people from the truth. However the powerful anti gun lobby backed by other various far left groups from places like Hollywood, you're not demonizing. Gee wonder why? Oh yeah, the tolerant left is only tolerant to those who agree. 

We have background checks and laws associated with legal gun purchases so you want more than "A simple compromise is universal background checks". And no the right doesn't place the onus on the teachers, they want to offer them a chance to protect themselves and their students from the impossible situation failed liberal policies have put them in. And yes the left put them there purposely because the ultimate goal of the left is to take guns off the streets and away from everyone. That's the only way their policies can work. And they do this knowing active shooters only account for less then 1% of all homicides in the United States...

Mass shootings accounted for under 0.2% of gun deaths in the United States between 2000 and 2016,[13] and less than 0.5% of all homicides in the United States from 1976 to 2018.[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

No need to address your hysterics as millions of responsible gun owners walk the streets among us with no incident.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" This part of the second amendment codifies the individual right of the people as the 2nd was established enshrining the right for citizens to defend against tyranny from both domestic and abroad. Collectively the state has a right to protect itself from federal tyranny and individuals enjoy the same right. As the Supreme court affirmed in 2008 with considering the times it was written...

District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. It was the first Supreme Court case to explore the meaning of the Second Amendment since United States v. Miller (1939).

Finally, the court held that, because the framers understood the right of self-defense to be “the central component” of the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment implicitly protects the right “to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”  https://www.britannica.com/event/District-of-Columbia-v-Heller

 What good is claiming one has a right to live in a free state where they must abide by whether or not the government allows the constitutional means of protecting that freedom?

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: We have background checks and laws associated with legal gun purchases

Because a federal background check law could not be passed, states took matters in their own hands. 70% of Americans want universal background checks. It sounds as if you believe all states have universal background checks. Not true. 

https://www.thetrace.org/2023/06/background-check-buy-a-gun-america-map/

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: Demonizing the NRA is the way the left operates to deflect people from the truth. However the powerful anti gun lobby backed by other various far left groups from places like Hollywood, you're not demonizing. Gee wonder why? Oh yeah, the tolerant left is only tolerant to those who agree.

@Factfinder

Demonizing the NRA? Whoa. The NRA has been manipulating Americans for decades with fear mongering to get people to buy weapons for $ and in return, they donate a hefty campaign contribution to their conservative right wingers. Quid Pro Quo. With your money to get us elected, we will fight gun reform. Stop putting the cart before the horse.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: What good is claiming one has a right to live in a free state where they must abide by whether or not the government allows the constitutional means of protecting that freedom?

@Factfinder

I´d love for you to tell that to a parent who has lost a child due to gun violence but hey, I guess we can be happy that the shooter had his freedom.

The Constitution has amendments. I believe the 2nd amendment must be readdressed. 

Statistics show that between the years of assault weapon bans mass shootings went down. There is much evidence to prove this. 

https://theconversation.com/did-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-1994-bring-down-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-data-tells-us-184430

Takeaway from the article:

During the 1994-2004 ban:

In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.

From 2004 onward:

The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.

Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2004 and 2017 – the last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons.

Saving hundreds of lives

We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from mass shootings was also down, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related fatalities per 10,000 shooting deathsE

Factfinder

Delilah6120 said:

Because a federal background check law could not be passed, states took matters in their own hands. 70% of Americans want universal background checks. It sounds as if you believe all states have universal background checks. Not true. 

https://www.thetrace.org/2023/06/background-check-buy-a-gun-america-map/

That's because federal background checks defeats the purpose of the second amendment. If the federal government decides who can have a gun to protect themselves with then it's not really a right, now is it? 

States have the right to require checks as they're not feds and we see many states practice the freedom to exercise such rights as long as they don't trample the federal constitutional rights of the people. The insight of the framers was awesome, yes? Why would you think I thought all states had universal back ground checks? Seems like a strawman.

Factfinder

@Delilah6120

Demonizing the NRA? Whoa. The NRA has been manipulating Americans for decades with fear mongering to get people to buy weapons for $ and in return, they donate a hefty campaign contribution to their conservative right wingers. Quid Pro Quo. With your money to get us elected, we will fight gun reform. Stop putting the cart before the horse.

And you continue to do so. What's wrong with contributing to conservative right wingers and how does that mean you should arbitrarily steal a constitutional right?

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: And yes the left put them there purposely because the ultimate goal of the left is to take guns off the streets and away from everyone.

@Factfinder

This sounds like an emotionally charged assertion. It is incorrect. Democrats DO NOT want to take guns away. Stop

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: By continually beating the drum that schools and other institutional centers are gun free to the tune of the shooter's ears when they get the urge to kill helpless people/children she aids and abets.

@Factfinder

Are you saying that Harris is sacrificing our children because of the gun free standard? Geez. A bit harsh?
There is perhaps some truth to this that a shooter sees a ¨gun free¨ zone as the better option. I´d like you to supply some substantial and credible evidence if you could.

Factfinder

Delilah6120 said:

@Factfinder

I´d love for you to tell that to a parent who has lost a child due to gun violence but hey, I guess we can be happy that the shooter had his freedom.

The Constitution has amendments. I believe the 2nd amendment must be readdressed. 

Statistics show that between the years of assault weapon bans mass shootings went down. There is much evidence to prove this. 

https://theconversation.com/did-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-1994-bring-down-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-data-tells-us-184430

Takeaway from the article:

During the 1994-2004 ban:

In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.

From 2004 onward:

The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.

Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2004 and 2017 – the last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons.

Saving hundreds of lives

We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from mass shootings was also down, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related fatalities per 10,000 shooting deathsE

That's not something I'd say but you obviously would minimize and over simplify the situation to further your own agenda at all cost?

I reasonably and logically disagree.

But you want all guns banned, isn't that true? There is no reason for your position unless that's the goal. Even though you know your preferred policies kill innocents who are kept helpless by those policies. 

You do not know the difference between assault rifles and semi's do you? Nope you don't. It is still illegal in my state to have an assault rifle. https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/law/assault-weapons-prohibited/

Funny thing is you look up federal bans and you still find dumb ignorant language being used like "semi automatic assault rifles with large capacity magazines" in purposed bills and you blame others for your sides incompetence? You do realize that a contradiction in terms, yes? A semiautomatic weapon fires one shot every time the trigger is pulled. An automatic weapon fires continually until the trigger is released.

So you think leaving people exposed in the less then 1% of homicides committed by active shooters is worth it to advance your anti gun agenda?

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: What's wrong with contributing to conservative right wingers and how does that mean you should arbitrarily steal a constitutional right?

@Factfinder

There is nothing wrong with a contribution. There IS something wrong with a quid pro quo.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: What's wrong with contributing to conservative right wingers and how does that mean you should arbitrarily steal a constitutional right?

@Factfinder

Funny, that how millions of women feel about abolishing a womans right to choose an abortion.
Why should this arbitrarily be stolen from us as a constitutional right?

Factfinder

Delilah6120 said:

@Factfinder

There is nothing wrong with a contribution. There IS something wrong with a quid pro quo.

You mean like the lobbies behind Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and the scheme to make tax payers pay for other peoples student loans? That's what lobbyist do, they lobby candidates and politicians for what they want. 

Factfinder

@Delilah6120

Funny, that how millions of women feel about abolishing a womans right to choose an abortion.
Why should this arbitrarily be stolen from us as a constitutional right?

Abortion is not constitutionally protected. Even at that rights we not taken away they were put back where they belong where that topic is concerned. In the hands of the people to decide for themselves. But you don't like that either so you want to take that away from states and people who disagree with you, correct?

Factfinder

Delilah6120 said:

@Factfinder

Are you saying that Harris is sacrificing our children because of the gun free standard? Geez. A bit harsh?
There is perhaps some truth to this that a shooter sees a ¨gun free¨ zone as the better option. I´d like you to supply some substantial and credible evidence if you could.

I'd like you to supply substantial and credible evidence shooters see 'gun free zones' and decide it's not challenging enough when they go on a shooting spree cause it's a gun free zone and they have guns.

Factfinder

Delilah6120 said:

@Factfinder

This sounds like an emotionally charged assertion. It is incorrect. Democrats DO NOT want to take guns away. Stop

Yet it's grounded in fact as you've yet to explain how measured regulation and bans will stop mass shootings as reality demonstrates they do not. Only a complete clean slate could do that as the late senator Diane Feinstein said...

First, while she now contends that her intent is simply to restrict certain “bad” guns (based upon totally arbitrary criteria her staff has established), that claim doesn’t jibe with what she told CBS’s 60 Minutes. Upon seeing her Clinton gun ban enacted in 1994, she said: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."

Feinstein told the Associated Press on November 18, 1993 that: “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe”. Yet referring to a time when she believed she was the target of a terrorist group, the senator expressed a very different viewpoint to colleagues during April 1995 Senate hearings on terrorism. She said: "And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself, because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/03/26/gun-control-misses-mark-sen-feinstein-shoots-off-mouth-hits-foot/?sh=511f5c26e5ea

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: I'd like you to supply substantial and credible evidence shooters see 'gun free zones' and decide it's not challenging enough when they go on a shooting spree cause it's a gun free zone and they have guns.

@Factfinder

Look, I´d love to ¨debate¨ with you fairly. I asked you to supply evidence on something I was not sure of. You come back with your demand. Stop being prickly. Again the cart before the horse.

Delilah6120

@Factfinder

You stated that Democrats want to take guns away. Itś not true and it´s right wing extremism. Stop repeating lies.
Personally, not something I do, but I´m not interested in debating with someone who seems so emotionally pumped up. 

Factfinder

Delilah6120 said:

@Factfinder

Look, I´d love to ¨debate¨ with you fairly. I asked you to supply evidence on something I was not sure of. You come back with your demand. Stop being prickly. Again the cart before the horse.

You asked me to read people’s minds. How would anyone know what someone is thinking at any given time? That's what I pointed out and you call prickly.

You want to debate fairly? Address what I said with well thought out responses and leave the platitudes behind. I’ve backed up everything I’ve said.

Factfinder

Delilah6120 said:

@Factfinder

You stated that Democrats want to take guns away. Itś not true and it´s right wing extremism. Stop repeating lies.
Personally, not something I do, but I´m not interested in debating with someone who seems so emotionally pumped up. 

I provided evidence to the contrary. If you concede so be it.

just_sayin

Delilah6120 said:

No. She is not sacrificing our kids. How is she sacrificing our kids? She is fighting for our kids.
The blame should be placed on politicians that continually submit to the NRA lobbyists and their hefty campaign money to ensure the politicians vote for lax gun laws - quid pro quo.
Follow the money.
She and the democrats have been trying to pass common-sense gun REGULATION for decades. COMMON-SENSE REGULATION without taking away guns. A simple compromise is universal background checks. It is the right that simply will not budge or shift. Instead, they place the onus or protecting children from shooters on teachers.
In fact this could be more dangerous as schools will expect teachers to protect children, perhaps not invest in a school resource officer. What´s next? Asking daycare workers to carry weapons? What will happen to education and teachers?
Placing responsibility of law enforcement on public servants is absurd to say the least, dangerous at the most.

Gun regulation should be put in place to PREVENT school shootiings - Background checks. 

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A WELL REGULATED Militia

There are currently at least 300 state and federal gun laws on the books.  Every shooting violates numerous gun laws.  Why do you think more gun laws will accomplish what the first 300 did not?  Is it your believe that criminals will obey more gun laws?

Background checks are already required.  There is no gun show loophole.  Now, there have been instances where doctors have not followed federal law and took the legally mandated steps to notify authorities of those whose mental state poses a risk to others.  However, again, this is not because there are no laws, but because they are not followed or enforced.

In a school shooting, time is critical.  Many Democrats fought to have security guards or officers removed from school campuses.  That puts kids at risk.  According to one study, arming teachers makes them safer.

Schools that Allow Teachers to Carry Guns are Extremely Safe: Data on the Rate of Shootings and Accidents in Schools that allow Teachers to Carry