• 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!

Gun Violence a Homeland Security Problem [W:20]

flogger said:
why would you need or want to own more than one ?
Click to expand...

Because we can!!!

They are all fun to shoot, fun to be competitive with, excellent source of discipline, conversation pieces at BBQs, good for teaching both the children and adults, available to share with family and friends and the neighbors, if society goes to crap!

Anymore questions?
 
Last edited:
Bootlace said:
I think worshiping a queen and her royal family is disturbing. Yet I'm not actively telling you to get rid of them.
Click to expand...

They aren't likely to accidentaly kill me. As far as the royal family are concerned I wouldn't care if they were boiled down for glue much less worship them :cool:
 
flogger said:
They aren't likely to accidentaly kill me. As far as the royal family are concerned I wouldn't care if they were boiled down for glue much less worship them :cool:
Click to expand...

Well from my mothers side i am Jewish, those folks split Alsace Lorraine for obvious reasons. and from my fathers side I am irish. Care to take a stab at why we may have split Ireland?
 
MickeyW said:

Because we can!!!

They are all fun to shoot, fun to be competitive with, excellent source of discipline, conversation pieces at BBQs, good for teaching both the children and adults, available to share with family and friends and the neighbors, if society goes to crap!

Anymore questions?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should concern yourself less about whether you can and more about whether you should in light of the latest in a long line of never ending massacres with such weaponry.

Your 'fun' comes at an awfully high price in blood for your society
 
EMNofSeattle said:
They can say whatever they want, but until congress passes one it ain't happening. The democrats can keep talking like you are, and as long as they are they'll never re-take the house.

Certainly they'll have trouble re-taking the senate with that attitude, they can lose their remaining seats in Montana and ND, probably their current Alaska seat, never re-take Iowa... Yeah don't think the AWB is happening again, because it's a losing issue in a majority of states, as they learned the hard way the last time.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of that. The point is however, Homeland Security has now said that the AR / assault weapons are a security risk. THAT is a very profound development and that is why I posted this thread.

Everybody seems fixated on what Homeland Security, or congress can't do, rather than focusing on this development with respect to AR. I've been warning and warning about this attitude on the right, and I predicted this decision immediately following the San Bernadino shootings and here it is in "official capacity".

Trump for his part is sinking lower and lower into the dumper and Hillary is climbing higher and higher as the predicted choice for president. CONGRESS is liable to make a big change was well, just over this issue, I would predict, and ARs on the street will become a thing of the past.
 
Beaudreaux said:
How am I supposed to show you where you supposedly said something that I never said that you said in the first place? Holy crap dude...
Click to expand...

Here's what you said that started the exchange:
Beaudreaux said:
Congress doesn't have the power to change the Constitution without 2/3rds of the states legislatures agreeing with them.
Click to expand...

So where did I say that congress was going to change the constitution?

And here's more:
Beaudreaux said:
Yes. You did, regarding guns and gun laws. Here's how:

The Constitution is the law, and you said Congress can change laws, and the overarching law regarding arms in the US is the US Constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment, and therefore what I said, still stands - Congress cannot change the Constitution without 2/3rds of the states agreeing.
Click to expand...


So again; where did I say change the constitution? A gun ban is not changing the constitution.
 
haymarket said:
You could have a massacre once a month for a year and the butt wipes who control Congress from the NRA headquarters still would not agree to ever re-insitiute the old ban on these weapons.
Click to expand...

When said butt wipes are replaced by congress people who are serious about this problem, the NRA won't mean anything anymore, which is as it should be. And the way the right-wing is handling this thing, the Republicans will be all but swept clean from the House.

These guys are hangin themselves.
 
jet57 said:
Well, the snowball's off the hill and here it comes:

Jeh Johnson: Gun Violence Has Become A Matter Of Homeland Security

“I believe that meaningful, responsible gun control is part of homeland security.”



The assault weapons ban is getting closer and closer, and it really is a shame that the do nothing congress is ushering it in.

Another point made in the news, is the poor guy that owned the supplying gun store has had to come out in public and apologize that his store got picked. I think that responsible gun store owners are going to be on the vanguard of new gun controls. They're going to have to be.
Click to expand...

I havent seen a single indication that an 'assault weapon' ban is around the corner. Why are gun store owners going to have to be on the vanguard? They already have the discretion to choose not to sell you a firearm. They already have ultimate control.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jet57 said:
Nobody is going to rush into your home and take your guns away. They're just going to stop selling them, and if one of your's is ever used in a crime, it'll go away too.
Click to expand...

Any firearm used in a crime already 'goes away'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aberration said:
I havent seen a single indication that an 'assault weapon' ban is around the corner. Why are gun store owners going to have to be on the vanguard? They already have the discretion to choose not to sell you a firearm. They already have ultimate control.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I guess then that you've been outta town. The talk is ARs are too easy to get. And yes, store owners have say so on inventory. "Going with the flow" will be a great way for them to stay in business.
 
jet57 said:
Idiot bureaucrats are here by demand. GW Bush started Homeland Security, and homeland security is their job, so the radical second amendment crowd has been working against your interests from the outset. These ARs and AK etc are now national issue that we have to deal with, and the experts and law makers are going to deal with it because folks in your corner won't.

You get what you pay for in this world.
Click to expand...

How is the original intent of the 2 Amendment radical?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aberration said:
Any firearm used in a crime already 'goes away'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If they are - gone away first - you can't use'em in a crime - can you.
 
jet57 said:
I guess then that you've been outta town. The talk is ARs are too easy to get. And yes, store owners have say so on inventory. "Going with the flow" will be a great way for them to stay in business.
Click to expand...

AR's have the same requirement as every other non-NFA firearm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jet57 said:
If they are - gone away first - you can't use'em in a crime - can you.
Click to expand...

That was not the context in which you used the statement.

I already have them. How can they be gone first if tens of millions of us own a few right now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jet57 said:
You left put a word that shows what I really said.
Click to expand...

The crowd you are referring to believes in the original intent of 2nd Amendment.

What you said was not misrepresented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aberration said:
That was not the context in which you used the statement.

I already have them. How can they be gone first if tens of millions of us own a few right now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I've been talking about here. The ease with which they are purchased in the future -will be gone and so will the ARs...
 
Captain Adverse said:
Maybe so he can have them available for friends and family in case a "call to arms" scenario arises? Perhaps to sell one to people he knows well, but currently don't own any firearms?

People who might seek them someday due to fear of their government's abuses and don't want to leave a paper trail doing so?
Click to expand...


1) one for each member of my family for shooting steel matches (9mm)

a) a back up in case one has issues

2) two "three gun" competition rigs for each of us

3) two national match target rigs for me

4) a perimeter defense weapon with a NVD for protecting the home

a few others that I didn't find work as well for the above uses
 
Aberration said:
I havent seen a single indication that an 'assault weapon' ban is around the corner. Why are gun store owners going to have to be on the vanguard? They already have the discretion to choose not to sell you a firearm. They already have ultimate control.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The Democrats in tough races surely don't want the Bannerhoid yapping mouths to try to push them into sponsoring such a bill right before the election. Democrats =even the really dim ones-realize what happened in 1994
 
jet57 said:
I guess then that you've been outta town. The talk is ARs are too easy to get. And yes, store owners have say so on inventory. "Going with the flow" will be a great way for them to stay in business.
Click to expand...

that talk is coming from the same idiots who have been whining about semi autos ever since their puppet master Josh Sugarmann told them to tell the sheeple that such sporting rifles are ASSAULT WEAPONS.

I am telling my friends to stock up on lower receivers At 58 bucks a pop, if the Bannerrhoids manage to re-institute the idiotic gun ban, you already have that receiver and you can pretty much make it into whatever you want.
 
Aberration said:
The crowd you are referring to believes in the original intent of 2nd Amendment.

What you said was not misrepresented.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The left thinks that the Second amendment only applies to whatever firearm type the Bannerrhoids are not trying to ban at the current moment
 
jet57 said:
When said butt wipes are replaced by congress people who are serious about this problem, the NRA won't mean anything anymore, which is as it should be. And the way the right-wing is handling this thing, the Republicans will be all but swept clean from the House.

These guys are hangin themselves.
Click to expand...

We can only hope you are correct.
 
flogger said:
Perhaps you should concern yourself less about whether you can and more about whether you should in light of the latest in a long line of never ending massacres with such weaponry.

Your 'fun' comes at an awfully high price in blood for your society
Click to expand...

Your comments about my possessions and my rights and my fun, have nothing to do with a long line of never ending massacres! Nothing!

You are talking absolute Nonsense! Apples and....Oranges! Why can't you get that??????

Some nutjob goes berzko with a gun, and commits criminal acts, and some how it's an indictment against gun owners?

That's about as dumb as it gets and the concept is DEVOID, of any logic whatsoever!
 
Last edited:
MickeyW said:
Your comments about my possessions and my rights and my fun, have nothing to do with a long line of never ending massacres! Nothing!

You are talking absolute Nonsense! Apples and....Oranges! Why can't you get that??????

Some nutjob goes berzko with a gun, and commits a criminal act, and some how it's an indictment against gun owners?

That's about as dumb as it gets!
Click to expand...

here is what you are dealing with

gun banners want to ban guns. they want people who think like you or me or any other vigilant gun owner to be punished because we aren't left-wingers and we don't vote for idiots like Hillary or Obama. They don't care if they piss all over your rights because they don't think anyone who isn't a left winger has any rights-especially a right to own a gun that upsets them or scares them: heck some of them actually own such guns but don't want conservatives to own one (like Jay Rockefeller who voted for the gun ban in 94 but admitted he had an AR 15)

they only use the blood of innocents to fuel their quest to punish us it has nothing to do about making society any safer

that's one of the fundamental lies of the Bannerrhoid movement. The second lie is the claim that they are motivated by a desire to go after criminals. and then after that you have all the tangential lies like calling an AR 15 an "assault weapon" or worse-a machine gun or an automatic weapon, and the lie that those rifles were built for mass murder or my favorite

That a 10 round magazine has no use other than for warfare. That is the sort of mendacity that comes constantly from the Bannerrhoid movement
 
TurtleDude said:
here is what you are dealing with

gun banners want to ban guns. they want people who think like you or me or any other vigilant gun owner to be punished because we aren't left-wingers and we don't vote for idiots like Hillary or Obama. They don't care if they piss all over your rights because they don't think anyone who isn't a left winger has any rights-especially a right to own a gun that upsets them or scares them: heck some of them actually own such guns but don't want conservatives to own one (like Jay Rockefeller who voted for the gun ban in 94 but admitted he had an AR 15)

they only use the blood of innocents to fuel their quest to punish us it has nothing to do about making society any safer

that's one of the fundamental lies of the Bannerrhoid movement. The second lie is the claim that they are motivated by a desire to go after criminals. and then after that you have all the tangential lies like calling an AR 15 an "assault weapon" or worse-a machine gun or an automatic weapon, and the lie that those rifles were built for mass murder or my favorite

That a 10 round magazine has no use other than for warfare. That is the sort of mendacity that comes constantly from the Bannerrhoid movement
Click to expand...

Fully agree.

The MSM is complicit in what you just stated. They interviewed 6 trauma doctors from Orlando last night on the news. Only 3 spoke and the reporter and cameraman concentrated on one doctor in particular.....the anti-gun doctor who said that the AR15 is a high powered weapon, tools of war, and most gun shot victims come in with wounds inflicted by guns with smaller bullets. Of course, anyone with a brain knows that the AR15 shoots a .22 caliber bullet and they don't get much smaller than that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom