• 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!

Obama taps Biden to craft new policies to curb gun violence in wake of shooting

notquiteright said:
So you are ASS-uming yet again. I never suggested anything more than your argument for 30 round magazines boils down to-

They want 'em.

Nothing more than that.

My question is if you think mag cap doesn't matter to mass murder body counts then why fight the 20 round mag for semi-auto firearms?

Your response was some theoretical invasion or fighting the Gubmint.

You didn't address any of the points I brought up to include surrendering our military style weapons once we age out, but throw partisan parroting- corrupt, foolish, weak minded.

No discussion, just blowing smoke... :peace
Click to expand...
you are no different than Catawba..."Lets ban something!!! Yeehaw!!!!" You are advocating a ban...the burden of proof is on you to justify passing laws restricting people's rights. You know it is irrelevant and worthless...but hey...don't let facts get in the way.
 
VanceMack said:
dood...you can't even DEFINE an assault weapon. You just advocated for the ownership of weapons that are identical to your dreaded assault rifle. And BTW...I can put a rail system, light, collapsing stock and front grip on your "shotgun" and guess what it becomes.
Click to expand...

More to the point it needs to be a gas system shotgun with a large cap detachable mag. All the crap...ahhh accessories you named doesn't make the shotgun anything but a bit more awkward. Key to this is detachable mag that holds the dreaded 20 to 30 rounds...

Pistols have rails, lights, lasers. My AK doesn't have a collapsible stock, nor a front grip (I'm going to take a stab at this and say you mean vertical grip as most shotguns and rifles have some sort of front grip area.) but I'll wager it is seen as an assault weapon... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
More to the point it needs to be a gas system shotgun with a large cap detachable mag. All the crap...ahhh accessories you named doesn't make the shotgun anything but a bit more awkward. Key to this is detachable mag that holds the dreaded 20 to 30 rounds...

Pistols have rails, lights, lasers. My AK doesn't have a collapsible stock, nor a front grip (I'm going to take a stab at this and say you mean vertical grip as most shotguns and rifles have some sort of front grip area.) but I'll wager it is seen as an assault weapon... :peace
Click to expand...

Oh but it DOES. It makes the weapon LOOK more scary and thus justifies labeling it an assault weapon and ban worthy.
 
VanceMack said:
What do you mean "you guys"? Unless you are sporting an old single shot Savage 12 gauge you own an "assault weapon". That's the problem with talking about banning **** you don't know anything about. "Weeeee! Look at us! We passed a law!" What did it do? "**** all...but who cares? We passed a law!"
Click to expand...

"Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers. They are regularly encountered in drug busts and are all too often used against our officers. In fact, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, was killed with an assault weapon, according to "Officer Down," a report from the Violence Policy Center. The weapons in question—including the Colt AR-15, a semiautomatic version of the M-16 machine gun used by our armed forces, the Uzi, and the Tec-9 pistol, whose manufacturer's advertisements hailed its "fingerprint-resistant" finish—have been used in countless murders such as the Stockton schoolyard and Columbine High School shootings.

Opponents of the assault weapons ban often argue that the ban only outlawed certain weapons because of their "cosmetic features" and not because they are inherently more dangerous than other weapons. This is simply not true." - Police Chief Joseph M. Polisar

Police Chief Magazine - View Article

But again, its good to hear their ban presents no hardship to gun owners! Thanks for sharing that!
 
Catawba said:
"Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers. They are regularly encountered in drug busts and are all too often used against our officers. In fact, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, was killed with an assault weapon, according to "Officer Down," a report from the Violence Policy Center. The weapons in question—including the Colt AR-15, a semiautomatic version of the M-16 machine gun used by our armed forces, the Uzi, and the Tec-9 pistol, whose manufacturer's advertisements hailed its "fingerprint-resistant" finish—have been used in countless murders such as the Stockton schoolyard and Columbine High School shootings.

Opponents of the assault weapons ban often argue that the ban only outlawed certain weapons because of their "cosmetic features" and not because they are inherently more dangerous than other weapons. This is simply not true." - Police Chief Joseph M. Polisar

Police Chief Magazine - View Article

But again, its good to hear their ban presents no hardship to gun owners! Thanks for sharing that!
Click to expand...

And it's good to know you want to ban a Colt AR15 but allow gun owners to use a superior ballistic round with equal and better capacity. It's sad you can't see how foolish your position is, but it's still funny.

Oh...and it's also kinda funny in your zeal to post slanted rhetoric your own 'evidence' shows 4 out of 5 times assault weapons are NOT the culprit in police shootings. :lamo
 
VanceMack said:
you are no different than Catawba..."Lets ban something!!! Yeehaw!!!!" You are advocating a ban...the burden of proof is on you to justify passing laws restricting people's rights. You know it is irrelevant and worthless...but hey...don't let facts get in the way.
Click to expand...

You still won't engage in a rational discussion, just attempt to paint those who disagree as weakminded, corrupt, foolish when they ask you simple questions.

Do I turn in my military style weapons once I age out of the unorganized militia?

If I carried a 20 round mag for my select fire M16A1 and did just fine why does a civilian semi auto rifle need 30 in the mag?

I want to continue to own my rifles, but the tactics of some of the more ahhh lets use the word ardent supporters of the 2nd A doesn't help.

Calling limiting mag cap a 'ban' is like calling a speed limit on the highways a ban on triple digit driving.

I never called for banning any rifles and I do believe in the right to self defense.

I am a lot different than Catawba, that you refuse to see that and paint all who disagree with you (and ignore their questions) is weakminded, foolish, and corrupt...

see how that works??? ;)
 
VanceMack said:
And it's good to know you want to ban a Colt AR15 but allow gun owners to use a superior ballistic round with equal and better capacity. It's sad you can't see how foolish your position is, but it's still funny.
Click to expand...


They aren't the gun of choice by gangs in the US and Mexico and by the deranged. The Colt AR15 is.
 
notquiteright said:
You still won't engage in a rational discussion, just attempt to paint those who disagree as weakminded, corrupt, foolish when they ask you simple questions.

Do I turn in my military style weapons once I age out of the unorganized militia?

If I carried a 20 round mag for my select fire M16A1 and did just fine why does a civilian semi auto rifle need 30 in the mag?

I want to continue to own my rifles, but the tactics of some of the more ahhh lets use the word ardent supporters of the 2nd A doesn't help.

Calling limiting mag cap a 'ban' is like calling a speed limit on the highways a ban on triple digit driving.

I never called for banning any rifles and I do believe in the right to self defense.

I am a lot different than Catawba, that you refuse to see that and paint all who disagree with you (and ignore their questions) is weakminded, foolish, and corrupt...

see how that works??? ;)
Click to expand...

Does ANY of that have any bearing on the worthless nature of a magazine capacity ban? And since you can't demonstrate any semblance of defense against your magazine capacity ban to a 'cause' you are left attacking the rights of law abiding citizens because approx 2 people per year since 1982 have committed an act of multiple killings...and only 32 of those 62 involved "assault style weapons". (32 in 30 years compared to how many hundreds of millions of responsible gun owners during that time)

The courts haven't indicated individuals should turn in their "military style weapons" at age 65. Perhaps because the courts recognize the Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights trumps the specifics enumerated in the US Code.

When they ban 20, will you then find a voice or will you join that mindless crusade as well?
 
Catawba said:
They aren't the gun of choice by gangs in the US and Mexico and by the deranged. The Colt AR15 is.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Yeah...that's the stuff. Gangs all across America are parading around outfitted with Colt AR15s.

:lamo
 
notquiteright said:
You still won't engage in a rational discussion, just attempt to paint those who disagree as weakminded, corrupt, foolish when they ask you simple questions.

Do I turn in my military style weapons once I age out of the unorganized militia?

If I carried a 20 round mag for my select fire M16A1 and did just fine why does a civilian semi auto rifle need 30 in the mag?

I want to continue to own my rifles, but the tactics of some of the more ahhh lets use the word ardent supporters of the 2nd A doesn't help.

Calling limiting mag cap a 'ban' is like calling a speed limit on the highways a ban on triple digit driving.

I never called for banning any rifles and I do believe in the right to self defense.

I am a lot different than Catawba, that you refuse to see that and paint all who disagree with you (and ignore their questions) is weakminded, foolish, and corrupt...

see how that works??? ;)
Click to expand...

And don't flatter yourself. You are no different than Carawba. Maybe worse.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo

Yeah...that's the stuff. Gangs all across America are parading around outfitted with Colt AR15s.

:lamo
Click to expand...

Sorry, I put more stock in the Police Chief's assessment and the other reports I've read from the US and Mexico, than I put in your opinion. Why will it matter anyway to responsible gun owners if there are better guns out there than the AR-15, Uzi and Tec-9 pistol?
 
Catawba said:
Sorry, I put more stock in the Police Chief's assessment and the other reports I've read from the US and Mexico, than I put in your opinion. Why will it matter anyway to responsible gun owners if there are better guns out there than the AR-15, Uzi and Tec-9 pistol?
Click to expand...

The Tec9 isn't in production anymore. It was replaced post ban by the AB Tec10. The AB Tec10 was designed for 10 rounds to satisfy the "ban". It still accepts 30 round magazines. Well done! And OBTW...your time frame cited for those officer involved shootings...guess what was in place during that time period.
 
VanceMack said:
The Tec9 isn't in production anymore. It was replaced post ban by the AB Tec10. The AB Tec10 was designed for 10 rounds to satisfy the "ban". It still accepts 30 round magazines. Well done! And OBTW...your time frame cited for those officer involved shootings...guess what was in place during that time period.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they are going to ban high capacity magazines so I don't think that will be a problem. Besides I have it on good authority from the good gun owners on the forum here that high capacity magazines are of no advantage to gun owners.
 
Putting Biden in charge of anything is a signal that it's not a serious goal and no meaningful results are to be expected.
 
notquiteright said:
More to the point it needs to be a gas system shotgun with a large cap detachable mag. All the crap...ahhh accessories you named doesn't make the shotgun anything but a bit more awkward. Key to this is detachable mag that holds the dreaded 20 to 30 rounds...

Pistols have rails, lights, lasers. My AK doesn't have a collapsible stock, nor a front grip (I'm going to take a stab at this and say you mean vertical grip as most shotguns and rifles have some sort of front grip area.) but I'll wager it is seen as an assault weapon... :peace
Click to expand...

With the addition of a collapsable stock and a magazine extension, a shotgun does indeed become anassault weapon.

I guess we should feel fortunate, because a pump shotgun, witj a 7 round magazine, firing 3" magnum round fill with buckshot would be the appropriate weapon of choice when engaging massed targets in close quarters. Point and shoot. No skill required, inflict multiple casualties with each round, vice one shot one kill. Hell, 7 rounds of 00 buckshot could easily score 20 kills.
 
Catawba said:
I'm pretty sure they are going to ban high capacity magazines so I don't think that will be a problem. Besides I have it on good authority from the good gun owners on the forum here that high capacity magazines are of no advantage to gun owners.
Click to expand...
They 'banned' high capacity magazines before...and it did...what exactly? Oh yeah..."weeeeee! We passed a Law!!!"

BTW...Id like to help you out on that whole "gang members weapon of choice"...but the facts don't really support it. You will notice however a lot of your assault shotguns...
(you DO know what a shotgun looks like...right?)
6a00d8341c630a53ef017617258c1f970c-640wi.jpg84236480as8.jpgGang Weapons Seized.jpg
 
And just so you can see...this is how they roll in Chicago...that city with the highest murder rate (and some of the strictest gun laws) in the country.
guns.jpg

And some more from Cali...
impact guns 3.jpgla-me-vargos005.jpg

You aren't seeing a whole lot of Uzis there...right? Colt AR15s? Tec9s?
 
VanceMack said:
They 'banned' high capacity magazines before...and it did...what exactly? Oh yeah..."weeeeee! We passed a Law!!!"

BTW...Id like to help you out on that whole "gang members weapon of choice"...but the facts don't really support it. You will notice however a lot of your assault shotguns...
(you DO know what a shotgun looks like...right?)
Click to expand...



It will take decades of a ban maybe, a century after they've been banned, for us to retrieve all these weapons that have been available so long.

What Law Enforcement Says About Assault Weapons
 
Catawba said:
It will take decades of a ban maybe, a century after they've been banned, for us to retrieve all these weapons that have been available so long.

What Law Enforcement Says About Assault Weapons
Click to expand...

Dare to dream. Because look how well the bans work in mejico. Heck...who knows...maybe we could even achieve the levels of success attained by banning heroin and other illegal drugs.
 
VanceMack said:
Dare to dream. Because look how well the bans work in mejico. Heck...who knows...maybe we could even achieve the levels of success attained by banning heroin and other illegal drugs.
Click to expand...

Without the supply of US guns, their ban would be working much better!
 
Catawba said:
Without the supply of US guns, their ban would be working much better!
Click to expand...

Almost as good as the drug ban! Huzzah! And then...you will still have to deal with the reality that the vast majority of spree killings were actually committed with handguns. "WTG! WEEEEEE....we passed a ban!"
 
Why do a lot of people have a problem with placing barriers (photo ID requirement) on our constitutional right to vote, but they have no problem placing barriers on other constitutional rights?

I thought rights are rights, and shall not be infringed upon, are they not?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Why do a lot of people have a problem with placing barriers (photo ID requirement) on our constitutional right to vote, but they have no problem placing barriers on other constitutional rights?

I thought rights are rights, and shall not be infringed upon, are they not?
Click to expand...


Let us not forget what else you need an ID for. You need it to get a job, because we woulw not want people to do the dangerous thing like work before they checked your background and your credit rating. I need to show ID before i buy a beer or a pack of smokes. We know how often people go on murderous cigarette flicking sprees. I need an ID and to register when i buy sudafed. They do more cracking down on sudafed sales online than they do on gun sales. If i wanted to buy a case load of sudefed i need all sorts of things, including a business license and records to show how I sell them, but I could buy a crate of ammo and some high capacity clips, and even some guns and no one flips their lid over all of that. If i go out and download a huge number of songs and distribute copywrited material the government will come knocking on my door and fine me, but not a peep if i go buy a butt-ton of bullets.

if we are going to treat non-dangerous things with this much firepower i think we can take a little more time with those people who are buying items which have a singular purpose to kill other things. This idea that regulation is wrong when it comes to deadly firearms, but if i want to screw some person in the ass it violates a number of state sodomy laws is completely rediculous and insane. I am glad the government is starting to realize it is time to make gun owners register and do some real checking into who they are and do our best to make sure the crazies do not get guns. When i have to show more ID and get more scrtuiny buying a movie ticket for an R rated movie than i do a box of bullets you people have got to be kidding me with the idea that this is right.

You have a choice, either get the hell out of my face when i buy ****, and get out of my bedroom, and get out of my damned life with your other regulation, or deal with some gun regulations. That means if i want to do PCP, coke, and pound down bveers and smokes on my way to the abortrion clinic to have my baby aborted after my bisexual orgy, and then light a damned bible and cross on fire with an american flag soaked in kerosene while eating 15 paula dean donut burgers and cursing up a storm while doing it then I can do it, and you can buy your guns. If not, screw you and your gun rights. I am getting a little sick of the gun people who love to fight for their gun rights, and then fight against everyone else's rights. If you don't believe in rights for all then you have none of your own, and i will not recognize your rights until you start backing everything from drugs and abortion to freedom.
 
mike2810 said:
Reducing the magazine capacity for "safety" is such illogical thinking. So what size should the mag be?
Is the thinking that 20 is safer than 30, or nine is safer, or 1?
Click to expand...
Imo, it's the difference between shooting one bullet into a child as opposed to 10 or 11 and then going on to the next child and doing the same without having to change clips in a matter of seconds. Understand now?


Well then lets all go a back to 55mph in our vehicles, its safer than 75. Wait lets make it 25 and include breath analyzers in all vehicles to ensure we don't drive drunk.
Click to expand...
Darn, we're still at 55mph in my superduper red state.

The mass shooting events are tragic. Looking at the weapon is a very small part. Finding out what is causing these people to go off and correcting that will do more than any gun laws.
Click to expand...
We should try and do everything we can to prevent these tradgedy's from happening again. If Lanza didn't have easy access to guns this never would have happened. Yes, he might have killed his mother and himself by other means, but he wouldn't have been able to commit mass murder like he did.
 
tererun said:
Let us not forget what else you need an ID for. You need it to get a job, because we woulw not want people to do the dangerous thing like work before they checked your background and your credit rating. I need to show ID before i buy a beer or a pack of smokes. We know how often people go on murderous cigarette flicking sprees. I need an ID and to register when i buy sudafed. They do more cracking down on sudafed sales online than they do on gun sales. If i wanted to buy a case load of sudefed i need all sorts of things, including a business license and records to show how I sell them, but I could buy a crate of ammo and some high capacity clips, and even some guns and no one flips their lid over all of that. If i go out and download a huge number of songs and distribute copywrited material the government will come knocking on my door and fine me, but not a peep if i go buy a butt-ton of bullets.

if we are going to treat non-dangerous things with this much firepower i think we can take a little more time with those people who are buying items which have a singular purpose to kill other things. This idea that regulation is wrong when it comes to deadly firearms, but if i want to screw some person in the ass it violates a number of state sodomy laws is completely rediculous and insane. I am glad the government is starting to realize it is time to make gun owners register and do some real checking into who they are and do our best to make sure the crazies do not get guns. When i have to show more ID and get more scrtuiny buying a movie ticket for an R rated movie than i do a box of bullets you people have got to be kidding me with the idea that this is right.

You have a choice, either get the hell out of my face when i buy ****, and get out of my bedroom, and get out of my damned life with your other regulation, or deal with some gun regulations. That means if i want to do PCP, coke, and pound down bveers and smokes on my way to the abortrion clinic to have my baby aborted after my bisexual orgy, and then light a damned bible and cross on fire with an american flag soaked in kerosene while eating 15 paula dean donut burgers and cursing up a storm while doing it then I can do it, and you can buy your guns. If not, screw you and your gun rights. I am getting a little sick of the gun people who love to fight for their gun rights, and then fight against everyone else's rights. If you don't believe in rights for all then you have none of your own, and i will not recognize your rights until you start backing everything from drugs and abortion to freedom.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with you, but your post has nothing to do with what I asked.

Why is it ok, to some people, to infringe on a constitutional right (the right to bear arms), but not ok to infringe on another constitutional right (the right to vote)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom