• 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!

John Lewis leads sit-in on House floor over guns

justabubba said:
don;t believe the fellow who murdered those 49 and maimed another 49 was an "law abiding"
however, when he bought his military grade semi auto high rate of fire rifle, he was law abiding. that is THE problem
Click to expand...

Buying a gun is a lawful act that is harming no one. :shrug:
 
Howler63 said:
How is it a problem? That same weapon is owned by thousands of gun owners who've not shot up night clubs must be banned due to the nuts? How many people in America have dies by these types of weapons in the past 5 years as opposed to say...alcohol? Or heroin? Or knives? or bare hands?

Are we to outlaw all of them as well?
Click to expand...

Should he be able to buy an RPG? What about a tank?

If 1000 law abiding citizens had a suitcase nuclear weapon and never used it, would that be a valid rational for selling one to anyone who wanted one?
 
Renae said:
How do you end up on the No Fly list? What, there is no trial? No actual crime? Just a suspicion? That's reason to deny an American Citizen their rights?

Also, the Orlando Shooter wasn't on the no Fly List, in fact how many terrorist that went on these shootings were? Wasn't the San Bernadino killers, or that Idiot that shot up Fort Hood... Can you name even one?

Neither can I.

But hey, "NO FLY NO BUY" is great for high feel low thought audiences.

Actually I did.

The guy that shot up the recruitment office in LR.
Click to expand...

just admit it
you and your ilk are more than willing to accept terrorists being able to legally buy guns
 
Mithros said:
Should he be able to buy an RPG? What about a tank?

If 1000 law abiding citizens had a suitcase nuclear weapon and never used it, would that be a valid rational for selling one to anyone who wanted one?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that if we fail to ban Sig Sauer MCX then we'll have suitcase nukes next?
 
ludin said:
you mean unconstitutionally not allow legal owners to own legal guns?
only if you don't believe in the constitution.

what is the difference between this
Browning BAR Safari Centerfire Rifle 416368

and this
CARBON 15 FLAT TOP CARBINE bushmaster .223 REM 30R

can you actually tell me or just dodge again?

PS how is that going to stop mass shootings? can you actually logically explain it or just appeal to emotion?
hand guns kill more people that rifles do. so what is your excuse now?
Click to expand...

yep
one way to mitigate (not end) the massacres by gun is to no longer make the military grade semi auto high rate of fire weapons be sold to the public
 
Henrin said:
NY and CT needs to get their **** together and repeal that garbage.
Click to expand...

supreme court just said "no thanks" ... stay with your current lawful prohibitions of sale of those instruments of carnage
 
Fenton said:
Sorry, but John Lewis is a complete imbecile
Click to expand...

that's what they said when he conducted sit ins during the civil rights era

anybody know how that turned out?
 
justabubba said:
yep
one way to mitigate (not end) the massacres by gun is to no longer make the military grade semi auto high rate of fire weapons be sold to the public
Click to expand...

Really? Did you know it's illegal to craeate bombs out of pressure cooker?

And yet.

Boston_Marathon_explosions_(8652877581).jpg
 
ludin said:
it was as semi-auto rifle nothing more. your distortion of what it was is nothing more than a fallacy.

he would have bought another semi-auto rifle and done the same thing with it.
yep and he became a criminal after he started shooting people.

why punish 99% of the population for what <1% of the population does.

nothing you would pass would have stopped him from doing it. he would have found another gun and done the same thing.
or built a bomb. I guess we should ban pressure cookers since they can be used as bombs.

since more people die in car wrecks then we should ban cars. people have even committed mass murder with a car as well.
Click to expand...
In reference to the bolded: Because it only takes 1 percent to cause a horrific problem. Like it only takes 1 percent of Muslims - (I guess) - who've been radicalized to cause a horrific problem.
 
justabubba said:
yep
one way to mitigate (not end) the massacres by gun is to no longer make the military grade semi auto high rate of fire weapons be sold to the public
Click to expand...

nope because they will still get their hands on those guns. they don't care about your rules.
can you tell me the difference in the guns I posted? if not then you shouldn't be talking about them since you
really don't have that much knowledge in the area.

they did nothing to end the massacre they just violated the constitutional rights of their citizens.
why don't you support the constitution?

again hand guns kill more people that rifles so your argument is nullified.
 
cabse5 said:
In reference to the bolded: Because it only takes 1 percent to cause a horrific problem. Like it only takes 1 percent of Muslims - (I guess) - who've been radicalized to cause a horrific problem.
Click to expand...

then arrest them, charge them and prosecute them.
you don't get to violate the rest of everyone rights over a few. that is what they are there to protect.

again car wrecks kill more people than guns do so we should ban cars correct?
 
justabubba said:
yep
one way to mitigate (not end) the massacres by gun is to no longer make the military grade semi auto high rate of fire weapons be sold to the public
Click to expand...

You just described all guns.
 
justabubba said:
supreme court just said "no thanks" ... stay with your current lawful prohibitions of sale of those instruments of carnage
Click to expand...

And I'm not speaking to that. I'm saying that NY and CT should stop violating the rights of their citizens.
 
justabubba said:
yep
one way to mitigate (not end) the massacres by gun is to no longer make the military grade semi auto high rate of fire weapons be sold to the public
Click to expand...

How long did the shooter have access to his victims? Tell me, do you think he could have killed them with anything?
 
Henrin said:
Buying a gun is a lawful act that is harming no one. :shrug:
Click to expand...

well other than 49 who were dancing at pulse just the other day

some people can pretend reality does not exist. that is not a gift
 
ludin said:
it was as semi-auto rifle nothing more. your distortion of what it was is nothing more than a fallacy.

he would have bought another semi-auto rifle and done the same thing with it.
yep and he became a criminal after he started shooting people.

why punish 99% of the population for what <1% of the population does.

nothing you would pass would have stopped him from doing it. he would have found another gun and done the same thing.
or built a bomb. I guess we should ban pressure cookers since they can be used as bombs.

since more people die in car wrecks then we should ban cars. people have even committed mass murder with a car as well.
Click to expand...
I think the people who were gunned down in Orlando would take issue with your notion of punishment. Those who could still speak would probably argue that they've paid a huge sacrifice to ensure that other peoples hobby isn't disturbed.

Just apply a little bit of critical thinking here.

There are guns that you cannot currently buy. Do you feel like your rights are being infringed because an average citizen can't pluck down a few thousand to buy a 50 cal turret? Or would you agree that your rights are being protected because you don't have to worry about the threat of someone pulling up to your house in a cargo van, opening the rear door, and opening with thousands of armour piercing rounds. Exactly how many mass shootings involved an M2? What about an RPG?

And no one is suggesting that we ban all guns.

So if you're a sane individual you realize that a line must be drawn somewhere, between guns that an average citizen can buy and a gun that would require more permission. The only fair way to do this is on intended usage. Weapons intended for self defense, hunting, and target shooting should be available for civilian purchase. What is the purpose of an AK47 or AR15?
 
justabubba said:
well other than 49 who were dancing at pulse just the other day

some people can pretend reality does not exist. that is not a gift
Click to expand...

Who is harmed by the buying of a gun? You do realize the shooting takes place after the buying of the gun and is already illegal, right?
 
Howler63 said:
No, we're more than willing to have law abiding citizens buy guns.
Click to expand...

and when you are able to separate them from the terrorists, i will be with you

until then, no thanks. i am not supporting the legal sale of guns to terrorists - like 85% of Americans
 
justabubba said:
and when you are able to separate them from the terrorists, i will be with you

until then, no thanks. i am not supporting the legal sale of guns to terrorists - like 85% of Americans
Click to expand...

And how do you know who the 'terrorists' are? If you could do that, we'll call the FBI and let them know.
 
Josie said:
They are literally sitting on the floor like a bunch of 1st graders.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they are demonstrating their highest and best use.
 
Howler63 said:
Are you suggesting that if we fail to ban Sig Sauer MCX then we'll have suitcase nukes next?
Click to expand...
The point is that there are some weapons that even the most extreme gun rights advocate doesn't want average people to be able to buy. There are also weapons that even the most extreme pacifistic doesn't want to be banned.

Everyone agrees that there are weapons that should be banned and some that should not. EVERYONE The argument isn't that there should be a line, it's where and how we should draw it. Arguing for the right to own an assault rifle (or arguing against) is stupid without an argument for where that line should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom