• 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!

Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

Most people, and studies, go by more than ten rounds which was the only legal definition we have ever had.

It's now seven in NY. Is that now the new definition? BTW, did you ever bother to read the entire polling data I posted to you last evening?
 
Because the federal government doesn't accept your claim that the general public has the same authority as does the police.

you are wrong-as usual. Police do not have more authority to use lethal force than other civilians

prove i am wrong since you constantly spew this crap
 
Most people, and studies, go by more than ten rounds which was the only legal definition we have ever had.

it was an arbitrary number and Don Mafioso Cuomo proved that when he reacted to a felon killing people with a 30 shot gun by banning 10 rounds.
 
Most people, and studies, go by more than ten rounds which was the only legal definition we have ever had.

We NEVER had a legal definition, IMHO. The SCOTUS permits, so far, both the states and the federal gov't to "limit" the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in various, thus non-standard ways. What good is a standard if it not the standard? Even more rediculous is making new "standards" that do not apply to anything made before that time.
 
We NEVER had a legal definition, IMHO. The SCOTUS permits, so far, both the states and the federal gov't to "limit" the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in various, thus non-standard ways. What good is a standard if it not the standard? Even more rediculous is making new "standards" that do not apply to anything made before that time.

you will never get catawba to proffer a rational argument why 10 rounds is the magic number

clearly anything civilian police use is an objective standard

ten rounds is something a bunch of assholes in politics pulled out of their asses. There were no studies, no data no nothing supporting that line
 
you will never get catawba to proffer a rational argument why 10 rounds is the magic number

clearly anything civilian police use is an objective standard

ten rounds is something a bunch of assholes in politics pulled out of their asses. There were no studies, no data no nothing supporting that line

Actually Catawba is one of the more reasonable gun control advocates and will discuss things, propose solutions and even supply facts to back up his positions - unlike our horse food sales place extremist.

He has not argued the 10 rounds is the correct limit, but simply that a limit may be imposed.
 
Last edited:
Actually catawba is one of the more reasonable gun control advocates and will discuss things, propose solutions and even supply facts to back up his positions - unlike our horse food sales place extremist.

He has not argued the 10 rounds is the correct limit, but simply that a limit may be imposed.



I disagree

his appeals to mediocrity are well known-he justifies everything with the following

1) an extinct law was never declared unconstitutional even though the extinction took place before Heller

2) if the masses support it it must be right or constitutional

he has yet to advance a rational argument as to why someone who is willing to kill himself would be prevented from committing murder by a gun law
 
Not as many as there are today, which helped make 2012 the deadliest year in mass shootings. As the Baltimore Police Chief said, we need to “address the rising epidemic of gun violence in this nation."

Police chief sees ‘epidemic’ of gun violence
Oh no...Im pretty sure since you are married to the numbers the problem is Obama...the incidents of mass shootings HAVE jumped dramatically under his presidency.

Seriously...there has never been a shortage of 30 round magazines OR 100 round magazines and if you are foolish enough to believe that is an issue you are simply too foolish to discuss the issue. And please DO make up your mind on what it is you want to ban. Is it assault rifles? High cap magazines? Just waht exactly is the 'culprit' since we all know you wont blame the people that are actually COMMITTING the acts.
 
Oh no...Im pretty sure since you are married to the numbers the problem is Obama...the incidents of mass shootings HAVE jumped dramatically under his presidency.

Seriously...there has never been a shortage of 30 round magazines OR 100 round magazines and if you are foolish enough to believe that is an issue you are simply too foolish to discuss the issue. And please DO make up your mind on what it is you want to ban. Is it assault rifles? High cap magazines? Just waht exactly is the 'culprit' since we all know you wont blame the people that are actually COMMITTING the acts.

catawba is on record wanting a complete ban on private gun ownership
 
catawba is on record wanting a complete ban on private gun ownership
I get that. His sliding goal line is based on convenience and the argument dujoir.
 
I get that. His sliding goal line is based on convenience and the argument dujoir.

he admitted that society is not ready for a complete ban. the incrementalist creeping crud of confiscation was shown by the scumbag Cuomo's premature Elegislation
 
It's now seven in NY. Is that now the new definition? BTW, did you ever bother to read the entire polling data I posted to you last evening?

We were discussing federal law, not state law. And yes I did, and found nothing else relevant.
 
We NEVER had a legal definition, IMHO. The SCOTUS permits, so far, both the states and the federal gov't to "limit" the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in various, thus non-standard ways. What good is a standard if it not the standard? Even more rediculous is making new "standards" that do not apply to anything made before that time.


We had a law for ten years that defined high capacity magazines as those that exceeded 10 rounds. I guess you could make the same argument for the speed limit, why 55 mph for secondary highways? Certainly most cars are capable of going much faster.
 
We had a law for ten years that defined high capacity magazines as those that exceeded 10 rounds. I guess you could make the same argument for the speed limit, why 55 mph for secondary highways?

We had a brief national magazine limit (only on new sales) and a brief national speed limit (on ALL highways). The "same" argument does not apply, since one is a mere state issued privilege and the other a Constitutional right of the people. What the SCOTUS must do is to define, either what is "reasonable restriction" or what is "infringment", otherwise we will continue to get variations on the 2A "right" based on the whims of the legislature at both the federal and state levels.
 
We had a law for ten years that defined high capacity magazines as those that exceeded 10 rounds. I guess you could make the same argument for the speed limit, why 55 mph for secondary highways? Certainly most cars are capable of going much faster.

what was the rational basis for a ten round limit?
 
Oh no...Im pretty sure since you are married to the numbers the problem is Obama...the incidents of mass shootings HAVE jumped dramatically under his presidency.

Seriously...there has never been a shortage of 30 round magazines OR 100 round magazines and if you are foolish enough to believe that is an issue you are simply too foolish to discuss the issue. And please DO make up your mind on what it is you want to ban. Is it assault rifles? High cap magazines? Just waht exactly is the 'culprit' since we all know you wont blame the people that are actually COMMITTING the acts.

The numbers show the problem has grown worse since the ban. If it were up to me, both assault weapons and high capacity magazines would be banned. However, I am a realist, and realize that may not happen until we get more progressives in the House. For now, it appears that getting the background checks expanded to all gun sales is all that is politically likely. I am very happy about this as I think it will have the biggest effect on reducing the access by criminals and crazies to cheap guns in this country.
 
The numbers show the problem has grown worse since the ban. If it were up to me, both assault weapons and high capacity magazines would be banned. However, I am a realist, and realize that may not happen until we get more progressives in the House. For now, it appears that getting the background checks expanded to all gun sales is all that is politically likely. I am very happy about this as I think it will have the biggest effect on reducing the access by criminals and crazies to cheap guns in this country.

stop lying

gun deaths have been going down and the number of rounds fired in fatal shootings is still under two

and you are lying calling an 11 round magazine HIGH CAPACITY

since the standard issue military magazine is 30 rounds and since 15-17 is the standard issue Police sidearm magazine limit, it stands to reason that a rifle magazine of more than 30 may be called high capacity and a pistol magazine of more than 18 is high capacity
 
The numbers show the problem has grown worse since the ban. If it were up to me, both assault weapons and high capacity magazines would be banned. However, I am a realist, and realize that may not happen until we get more progressives in the House. For now, it appears that getting the background checks expanded to all gun sales is all that is politically likely. I am very happy about this as I think it will have the biggest effect on reducing the access by criminals and crazies to cheap guns in this country.
The numbers show the problems have gotten worse since Obama became president. Fun with numbers is fun.
 
We had a brief national magazine limit (only on new sales) and a brief national speed limit (on ALL highways). The "same" argument does not apply, since one is a mere state issued privilege and the other a Constitutional right of the people. What the SCOTUS must do is to define, either what is "reasonable restriction" or what is "infringment", otherwise we will continue to get variations on the 2A "right" based on the whims of the legislature at both the federal and state levels.

Yes, well until that happens the last legal definition of high capacity was the 10 round limit. SCOTUS never ruled the 10 round limit to be unconstitutional.
 
The numbers show the problem has grown worse since the ban. If it were up to me, both assault weapons and high capacity magazines would be banned. However, I am a realist, and realize that may not happen until we get more progressives in the House. For now, it appears that getting the background checks expanded to all gun sales is all that is politically likely. I am very happy about this as I think it will have the biggest effect on reducing the access by criminals and crazies to cheap guns in this country.

By definition, aren't all weapons used for assaults? Define an assault weapon as you understand it...
 
Yes, well until that happens the last legal definition of high capacity was the 10 round limit. SCOTUS never ruled the 10 round limit to be unconstitutional.

and now the legal definition of a standard capacity magazine is whatever is issued with the weapon

so ten years of arbitrary stupidity does not overrule 100 years of sanity
 
What was the rational basis for the 55 mph speed limit?

none-other than saving gas which I believe was established. The Interstates were designed to be safe at 70 MPH
 
Yes, well until that happens the last legal definition of high capacity was the 10 round limit. SCOTUS never ruled the 10 round limit to be unconstitutional.

The law was allowed to "sunset" and you know why the NRA, or any other group/person with a brain, did not sue - the makeup of the SCOTUS virtually assured that it would stand forever. Many stated at the time that this was "step one", thus an affirmation of the AWB/MCL laws by the SCOTUS would have meant an immediate "step two". As you can see, they are at it again, even though gun crime continued to drop after this law had faded out of existance. The vast majority of gun crime does not depend on AWs or HCMs, it is gang/drug thug related, most often by repeat offenders and committed mainly with handguns.

A reasonable attempt should be made, as I have said often, to designate "GUN OK" on all state issued, photo IDs after a check of the NICS database - that would allow EASY and efficient point of sale checks for guns and ammunition for both big, little and occasional sellers of these items. Universal point of sale access to the NICS database is not a good, or efficient, idea and without a very expensive and invasive national gun registration program one can never assure that no sales/transfers to criminals will occur. Beteer to have a better 90% solution at lower cost, than our current 60% solution at higher cost.
 
By definition, aren't all weapons used for assaults? Define an assault weapon as you understand it...

Since you are just interested in my definition, I would include all semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines.
 
Back
Top Bottom