• 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 to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

You don't know crap about liberals or their reasons for advocating gun control.
Oh, but I do. See below.

The main reason for controlling assault weapons is common sense and responsibility
Observe, the first category of liberal I mentioned, bleating out the message the second category of liberal has taught him.

And, for The Big Finish?
but of course those motives are way beyond your reading level.
The inevitable ad hom!

:applaud
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's stop this insults and any other misfirings of mouths so to speak.
 
You don't know crap about liberals or their reasons for advocating gun control. The main reason for controlling assault weapons is common sense and responsibility, but of course those motives are way beyond your reading level.
If you really know enough about firearms to determine which one's are dangerous, you need to start with some credibility, like actually knowing that there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" on the market.
 
I'm all for banning oozies. When was the last time it was used for anybody other then stick up kids?
 
I'm all for banning oozies. When was the last time it was used for anybody other then stick up kids?





Uzi's are fully automatic. You are like 30 years late on your calling for thier banning. :2wave:
 
Exactly, that's pretty much the same situation in South America if I'm not mistaken, the criminals(Cartels) are better armed than the public and law enforcement in those countries so of course they pretty much run the place.

Even with the police its a mixed bag, you think the cops are on the side of the people but some of them are in league with the Cartels.
 
There is a semi auto version.
There is? I havent seen that. May have to get one. Have a link?

And even if so -- what about the AA12 makes it ineffective for use in any of the usual, legal things one might use a shotgun for?
 
There is? I havent seen that. May have to get one. Have a link?

And even if so -- what about the AA12 makes it ineffective for use in any of the usual, legal things one might use a shotgun for?

Uzi semi auto - Google Search

Hunting laws in Texas restrict the number of shells a shotgun can hold so the capicity of the AA12 would be wasted in that case.
 
Oh. I didnt see the context change. I thought you meant the AA12.

Hunting laws in Texas restrict the number of shells a shotgun can hold so the capicity of the AA12 would be wasted in that case.
That, however doesnt mean you could not use it to hunt - you'd just need a smaller magazine.
So, your response doesnt really answer my question.
 
There is a semi auto version.




Gee then it is a bulky POS handgun that is hard to conceal.


What's your problem with it? when it looses it's scary feature of fully automatic ROF it is just another 9mm pistol, like a glock but bigger and bulkier.




Yes that was a trap. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Oh. I didnt see the context change. I thought you meant the AA12.


That, however doesnt mean you could not use it to hunt - you'd just need a smaller magazine.
So, your response doesnt really answer my question.

kinda defeats the purpose of the weapon don't ya think?
 
kinda defeats the purpose of the weapon don't ya think?
Not at all.
At that point, the purpose of the weapon is to kill deer (or whatver). It is perfectly capable of doing so, regardless of how many rounds in the magazine.
 
Not at all.
At that point, the purpose of the weapon is to kill deer (or whatver). It is perfectly capable of doing so, regardless of how many rounds in the magazine.

I wouldn't recommend hunting dear with a shotgun and if I'm hunting duck I think I'll stick with a weapon that is designed with that in mind.
 
I wouldn't recommend hunting dear with a shotgun and if I'm hunting duck I think I'll stick with a weapon that is designed with that in mind.
Do that. While you -are- doing that, understand that in several states, you can ONLY hunt deer with a shotgun.

Further understand that nothing you have posted in any way supports the idea that you cannot effectively use an AA12 for any number of the things you can legally use a gun to do.
 
Just my 2 cents from someone who has mostly used shotguns and knows little about handguns and rifles. I've enjoyed this post - note how the pro-liberal posters on this thread appear to be constantly caught with the deer-in-headlights look! One item that I've caught from libertarian and conservative posters is that every hunting rifle can be perverted by liberals into an assault weapon... ultimately assaulting our freedom in the process!

Thanks for the info. I had better stop procrastinating and get moving to purchase a semiautomatic (thinking of a 40 or 45) and a 357 revolver before it's too late. As posted above in other words: "You're not paranoid if they're really out to get you." What clear thinking individual cannot see the handwriting on the wall?
 
you got any evidence backing up YOUR claims? no, just opinion, and opinions are like assholes, they all stink.
Gun owners are not automatically gun nuts, but those who spout off specs of weapons the same way I would describe a woman's body are certainly getting excited about their guns.
Like I said, the viagra effect...:2razz:

how many weapons can you shoot at once? I suspect it is only 2, the number I have.
but somehow disagreeing with gun nuts makes me a prohibitionist?

Happiness, is a warm gun. Bang. Bang. Shoot, shoot. :mrgreen:

There's just something about that hard, smooth, cold steel that just...turns.....me..... huhhh..uh..huhhhh.uhhh..huhhh....

<spurt.>
 
It seems to me here that that most pro gun regulation types think that the second amendment exists for hunting and recreation purposes.

That is completely wrong, and the irrational fear of an inanimate object makes many of you look childish. You make think that there is no other purpose to a weapon other than to kill and your exactly right. That is what the second amendments is there for.

As if we haven't learned from history that ceded our rights to the government only leads to more and more control on there behalf.

Stop trying to give away my rights, I'm not trying to give away yours!
 
It seems to me here that that most pro gun regulation types think that the second amendment exists for hunting and recreation purposes.
The 2nd Amendment is all about guaranteeing that the people will have access to an effective means to kill other people, whenever killing those people might become necessary.

Hunting and recreational shooting are just things we do with our guns, in the meantime. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Happiness, is a warm gun. Bang. Bang. Shoot, shoot. :mrgreen:

There's just something about that hard, smooth, cold steel that just...turns.....me..... huhhh..uh..huhhhh.uhhh..huhhh....

<spurt.>

do you use a condom or is your keyboard fitted with a diaphragm?:2razz:
 
I've never shot a gun before.
I am two Grateful Dead concerts away from Marxism (hate the Grateful Dead, btw)
I think that hunting is stupid, unless it is your means of food.

But, I think that legislation against the right to own guns is ridiculous. In an episode of the West Wing there is a push for banning the "cop killer" pistol. When a member of the Bartlet administration went to talk with a Texas Senator who was opposing the Bill he responded with a similar notion:

This legislation is banning certain guns. However, there are many many many modifications of the certain gun which will continue to be legal. Furthermore, the only "sane" legislation that an anti-gun spokesperson can pass would be a ban on the entirety of guns, and indoingso they would have to find a way to take back all the guns that are already in the hands of citizens, as the argument against gun is only one of "that a gun can kill".
If we are to pass legislation against things that kill, then we cannot just single out guns. I wouldn't need a gun if I really wanted to kill someone; that is a ridiculous claim. If you are going to ban guns, then you are going to also have to ban: sharp-things (swords, knives, kitchen knives, mechanical tools, tools found in hospitals, etc) blunt-thing (hammers, sledgehammers, rocks, etc), natural disasters (hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes), and finally, humanity (as it is never the gun that decides to fire on someone).

I do, however, support legislation that forces gun buyers to know w.t.f they are buying; like licenses.


But this whole "anti-constitutional" complaining I see the Libertarians and the Rest-Wingers doing is ridiculous. Y'all do realize that our "rights" are "privileges" as any of these can be taken away from you.
I am sorry to inform y'all, but our Constitutional rights only apply as long as the Government sees fit.
 
I think it's pretty clear that the hardcore firearms enthusiasts believe they need weapons for a pending overthrow of the government, and that "liberals" know that overthrow is coming and use "firearm regulation" to try to disarm the "patriots" before they can rise up. We really are on different planets.
 
I think it's pretty clear that the hardcore firearms enthusiasts believe they need weapons for a pending overthrow of the government, and that "liberals" know that overthrow is coming and use "firearm regulation" to try to disarm the "patriots" before they can rise up. We really are on different planets.

If there's to be war between the, dare I say, classes, then I hope to god I am the first casualty.
 
Back
Top Bottom