• 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!

White House to Push Gun Control

I have never seen anyone deny that a person with a gun should not defend themselves against a criminal attempting to harm them. That is a given.


but you want to dictate how many rounds one can defend themself with..... Odd.
 
yes I want the criminal, to have less rounds than I do. so I want the opposite of folks like you deciding on what I defend myself and family with.

So you want no limit on rounds in a magazine at all? You only want the limits of technology to decide that?
 
So you want no limit on rounds in a magazine at all? You only want the limits of technology to decide that?



I want the most effective piece of weaponry I can hold in my hands that will protect me and my family from those who wish me harm... the number of rounds a weapon holds attributes to that effectiveness.

so no, no limit what so ever. When I lived in NM, I had an AK-47 variant, with a 100 round drum. For some odd reason, that drum did not make me go on a kill crazy rampage, perhaps it was defective. :roll:
 
I want the most effective piece of weaponry I can hold in my hands that will protect me and my family from those who wish me harm... the number of rounds a weapon holds attributes to that effectiveness.

so no, no limit what so ever. When I lived in NM, I had an AK-47 variant, with a 100 round drum. For some odd reason, that drum did not make me go on a kill crazy rampage, perhaps it was defective. :roll:

I would just say I wouldn't overestimate the ability of a weapon to save you. If you feel you need an AK-47, I'd suggest you may well be overreacting, and more a danger to others than actually protecting yourself. Few actually need an AK-47.
 
I would just say I wouldn't overestimate the ability of a weapon to save you. If you feel you need an AK-47, I'd suggest you may well be overreacting, and more a danger to others than actually protecting yourself. Few actually need an AK-47.



I was living on a 30 acre ranch outside of bernalillo, on more than one occasion, the AK came in handy, and was not the optimal weapon of choice (an m4 variant would havce been better), but it sure beat a 6 round pistol, or a short range shot gun. :shrug:


Ok well thanks for the lay persons opinion, as one who has been a carbine and pistol CQB, home defense instructor, and still trains, I'll defer to those less ignorant on the topic. thanks though for your input.
 
I was living on a 30 acre ranch outside of bernalillo, on more than one occasion, the AK came in handy, and was not the optimal weapon of choice (an m4 variant would havce been better), but it sure beat a 6 round pistol, or a short range shot gun. :shrug:


Ok well thanks for the lay persons opinion, as one who has been a carbine and pistol CQB, home defense instructor, and still trains, I'll defer to those less ignorant on the topic. thanks though for your input.

Sorry. I don't buy it. People live everywhere just fine and safe without an Ak-47. it's a serious overreaction, and this causes some concern about judgment.
 
Sorry. I don't buy it. People live everywhere just fine and safe without an Ak-47. it's a serious overreaction, and this causes some concern about judgment.




Poachers. part of the job was to go out and patrol the property on an atv looking for poachers, as the owner of the property can be held liable for illegal hunting activities on your land. What would you arm yourself riding out on the land on patrol for folks illegally hunting on your or your boss's land?

Please do tell.
 
Poachers. part of the job was to go out and patrol the property on an atv looking for poachers, as the owner of the property can be held liable for illegal hunting activities on your land. What would you arm yourself riding out on the land on patrol for folks illegally hunting on your or your boss's land?

Please do tell.

Depends on the terrain. If it was open prarie with long vistas having little cover, I'd want a Rem700 30-06 boltgun with a good scope. If it was wooded terrain, especially with heavy underbrush and limited line of sight, the M4 or AK47 would be preferable.

Colonel Cooper: "If you know you're going to be in a gunfight, and you can choose what to bring... bring a LONG GUN and, if you can, a friend with a long gun." :mrgreen:
 
So you want no limit on rounds in a magazine at all? You only want the limits of technology to decide that?


Ding ding ding. We have a winner.
 
Sorry. I don't buy it. People live everywhere just fine and safe without an Ak-47. it's a serious overreaction, and this causes some concern about judgment.

Do you have any experience in dealing with armed criminals? I do.

If a situation turns into a gunfight, the last thing you want is to be MINIMALLY-armed. Overkill is much preferred. In fact, being heavily armed tends to minimize the liklihood that there will be a gunfight at all... this is one of the reasons that when cops turn out to arrest a perp considered "Armed and dangerous", they don't send one deputy with a single sidearm... they send a tactically-armed team.

If I confront an armed tresspasser on my land, he is less likely to escalate the situation if he sees that I am more heavily armed than he is.

This is really just basic tactics. Very very basic.
 
Since I consider myself a law-abiding citizen, I should of course not be allowed to arm myself to protect me and my family. Also, we should expect criminals to follow anti-gun laws.

I just love it.
 
Do you have any experience in dealing with armed criminals? I do.

If a situation turns into a gunfight, the last thing you want is to be MINIMALLY-armed. Overkill is much preferred. In fact, being heavily armed tends to minimize the liklihood that there will be a gunfight at all... this is one of the reasons that when cops turn out to arrest a perp considered "Armed and dangerous", they don't send one deputy with a single sidearm... they send a tactically-armed team.

If I confront an armed tresspasser on my land, he is less likely to escalate the situation if he sees that I am more heavily armed than he is.

This is really just basic tactics. Very very basic.

Good luck using logic.

*We should count on the cops to make it in time...


...to view our dead corpses.
 
I certainly hope so. We pay police officers money to do just that.

Is that hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, annually, over the entire history of the USA, or over the history of the world? And you have the authoritative statistics to back up this boast? Statistics which definitively can quantify that claim and are widely accepted and respected?

btw - authoritative statistics refers to a source other than yourself that has some standing and is reliable and trustworthy.

I have never seen anyone deny that a person with a gun should not defend themselves against a criminal attempting to harm them. That is a given.

I guess you forgot or are ignoring all the citations given to you on those two threads where you got schooled on this subject in the "Law and Order" section of the forum

look-we realize you really wish your dem masters had the votes and the political capital to ban guns. you want to ban "high capacity magazines"

you claim that those killed in gun violence are victims of the second amendment

you fool no one
 
I would just say I wouldn't overestimate the ability of a weapon to save you. If you feel you need an AK-47, I'd suggest you may well be overreacting, and more a danger to others than actually protecting yourself. Few actually need an AK-47.

as long as there are hoplophobes who think that my constitutional rights are subjected to a "needs based test" I and every other freedom loving patriot will need serious firepower
 
*HEY GOVERNMENT, GET OFF MY FREEDOM!*

That's the point we're trying to get across.
 
Sorry. I don't buy it. People live everywhere just fine and safe without an Ak-47. it's a serious overreaction, and this causes some concern about judgment.

you really aren't qualified to claim what is sufficient weaponry or not

since civilian police officers often carry select fire assault rifles for use in SELF DEFENSE in urban environments who are you to say such rifles are not equally suitable to those of us who are as well or better trained than cops (and yes I am far better trained than 99% of the LEOs in the USA). not only do I have a law degree and extra training in the laws of self defense, I carry all sorts of master and expert ratings in all kinds of weapons
 
So you want no limit on rounds in a magazine at all? You only want the limits of technology to decide that?

bingo-since there is no limit on the number of scumbags that may attack a person there should be no limit on the amount of ammo a person can use in his weapon for self defense. when you can guarantee that scumbags, rogue governmental storm troopers or packs of predators will never exceed a certain number and will never be better armed than me,I might start listening to your hoplophobic hand wringing rants about weapons
 
Seems like a very uncivil and evil thought. I would hold more contempt for people who would wish for that type of harm to another human being.

part of being a free man is the right to determine whom I think is a scumbag and state that fact.

as a free man I also accept the responsibility of the target of my scorn disliking me. Ivins was turd as far as I am concerned
 
Of course I wish harm on people who would hurt me and mine. I wish them enough harm that they'll stop and never even think about it again.

I would question the mental capacity of anyone who didn't wish people harm in that situation. I would certainly question their mental capacity to formulate policy that governs my life.
 
Depends on the terrain. If it was open prarie with long vistas having little cover, I'd want a Rem700 30-06 boltgun with a good scope. If it was wooded terrain, especially with heavy underbrush and limited line of sight, the M4 or AK47 would be preferable.

Colonel Cooper: "If you know you're going to be in a gunfight, and you can choose what to bring... bring a LONG GUN and, if you can, a friend with a long gun." :mrgreen:




High desert with multiple pastures, a river, some woods and multiple small valleys... I typoed it was around 300 acres and we'd do these "patrols" on atvs....

Sometimes alone. A bolt gun would not be my choice as ther is always the potential of running into multiple people in the middle of nowhere.... The ak was as much for intimidation as it was for defense.
 
Last edited:
*HEY GOVERNMENT, GET OFF MY FREEDOM!

Mmmmmhmmmm

Get off my freedom!

No Government in my life!

Save me from the Oil Spill!

Save me from the terrorists!

No Big Government!

Except the Patriot Act...

And you know what, faggots should be governmentally disallowed from having equal marriage rights under the law...

But no big government control I tell you!
 
Mmmmmhmmmm

Get off my freedom!

No Government in my life!

Save me from the Oil Spill!

Save me from the terrorists!

No Big Government!

Except the Patriot Act...

And you know what, faggots should be governmentally disallowed from having equal marriage rights under the law...

But no big government control I tell you!

I see strawmen walking.
 
High desert with multiple pastures, a river, some woods and multiple small valleys... I typoed it was around 300 acres and we'd do these "patrols" on atvs....

Sometimes alone. A bolt gun would not be my choice as ther is always the potential of running into multiple people in the middle of nowhere.... The ak was as much for intimidation as it was for defense.

You know, on second thought you're right.

If you encountered tresspassers, the odds of being involved in a long-range rifle duel would be extremely slight. More like, you'd approach them and there would be a conversation at <25y, and if things went sideways it would probably be during the conversation.

At short range the M4 or AK47 would be far superior to any boltgun.
 
Back
Top Bottom