• 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]

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...

Millions of AR style weapons are in private hands and will never be used for anything other than punching holes in paper or hunting. You would restrict a fundamental right that millions enjoy because of an infinitesimal number of miscreants.

While any unecessary deaths are tragic you do not have justification for infringing a fundamental right nor is a ban likely to be effective. Explosives are easily made and in tight confines like a club just as deadly - if not more so.
 
Gaius46 said:
Millions of AR style weapons are in private hands and will never be used for anything other than punching holes in paper or hunting. You would restrict a fundamental right that millions enjoy because of an infinitesimal number of miscreants.

While any unecessary deaths are tragic you do not have justification for infringing a fundamental right nor is a ban likely to be effective. Explosives are easily made and in tight confines like a club just as deadly - if not more so.
Click to expand...

How would the right to keep and bear arms be denied if nobody was allowed to own weapons of war like the AR-15?
 
haymarket said:
How would the right to keep and bear arms be denied if nobody was allowed to own weapons of war like the AR-15?
Click to expand...


The AR is not a weapon of war. It is a civilian firearm. That's first. Secondly it is arguably the most popular rifle sold. Millions of people buy and use them legally. You would restrict them for a few people who commit crimes with them? How is that even remotely justifiable?

And more to the point it would be ineffective.

You're arguing combating tactics. That is a losing proposition because tactics are easily changed.

You advocate restricting the rights of millions because of actions of a few in what would ultimately be a merely symbolic gesture that achieves nothing
 
Last edited:
Gaius46 said:
The AR is not a weapon of war. It is a civilian firearm. That's first.
Click to expand...

Really?!?!?!? And I thought it was developed as a weapon for the military?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

The AR-15 was first built in 1959 by ArmaLite as a small arms rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the design to Colt. After some modifications, the redesigned rifle was adopted as the M16 rifle.
Click to expand...

that is pretty clear.

Secondly it is arguably the most popular rifle sold. Millions of people buy and use them legally.
Click to expand...

What numbers do you cite as proof of its "most popular" status?

How do people use them legally?

You advocate restricting the rights of millions because of actions of a few in what would ultimately be a merely symbolic gesture that achieves nothing
Click to expand...

Restricting rights? What rights would those be? How can rights be restricted - whatever that means - if they still can be exercised and enjoyed?

If the AR15 vanished tomorrow - how would the right to keep and bear arms be denied?
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
I see. So as long as you can buy your 'fun' gun over the counter just like 'some nutjob bezerko' can you don't see why there might be a problem with that ?

Well there are none so blind as the old saying goes ..... :roll:
Click to expand...

just stop, we aren't buying your silly gun hatred. We aren't giving our rights up so someone who doesn't even vote in our society can claim he has spread British nanny-state idiocy upon our country.
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
They were your words, not mine. You owe me an apology.
Click to expand...

If I see you cross the street, is a lie to say that I saw you cross the street?

You want AR15s available for terrorists to use against American in our own country. There's no other explanation for your opinions.
 
jet57 said:
Sorry, but it IS a development. When's the last time you heard Homeland Security make a such a statement, and saying that they SERVE Obama is nonsense. That's like saying that our military will say anything to support Obama.

The growing trend/ backlash is very clear.
Click to expand...


why should we care what a government minion says?
 
countryboy said:
Why are you so focused on the AR? What about other guns that fire the same cartridge?
Click to expand...

Its part of the bannerrhoid script. You don't see pictures of American Infantry Carrying Steyr Augs or Beretta AR 70s so its harder to use those images to demonize other semi auto sporting rifles
 
jet57 said:
If I see you cross the street, is a lie to say that I saw you cross the street?

You want AR15s available for terrorists to use against American in our own country. There's no other explanation for your opinions.
Click to expand...


that's like saying if I support the constitution I want the bill of rights to protect terrorists.
same intellectually specious argument

you want to ban EVERY PERSON than government operatives from having normal capacity magazines and then pretend that will stop criminals. what it really will do-is what you want it to do-harass honest gun owners
 
countryboy said:
You are arguing from a position of complete ignorance.
Click to expand...

if someone believes that the only purpose for a 10 round magazine is for WARFARE, yes, I would agree that someone's position on guns issues is based on ignorance
 
countryboy said:
You are arguing from a position of complete ignorance.
Click to expand...

You asked for a list, go get one. Everyone knows that assault weapons were banned in this country, as they are in some states right now, and the second amendment is still intact.


So, there's not a hint of ignorance on my part.
 
jet57 said:
You asked for a list, go get one. Everyone knows that assault weapons were banned in this country, as they are in some states right now, and the second amendment is still intact.


So, there's not a hint of ignorance on my part.
Click to expand...

You can't name a single one other than "AR bad, scary gun must be ban". Let alone any of the cartridges you claimed would also have to be banned. Don't you believe a person should at least have a slight clue what they're talking about when promoting ideas which would negatively impact the lives of millions of Americans?
 
countryboy said:
You can't name a single one other than "AR bad, scary gun must be ban". Let alone any of the cartridges you claimed would also have to be banned. Don't you believe a person should at least have a slight clue what they're talking about when promoting ideas which would negatively impact the lives of millions of Americans?
Click to expand...

He previously has said that we need to TRY a complete ban on all Semi auto rifles that accept magazine just to see if it helps

He thinks that because real assault rifles were banned from purchase and ownership if they were made after a certain date means the 2nd Is still intact is as stupid as saying because WHITES could vote in the south in the 1870s, free elections were still intact even if blacks could not

I guess those who love government oppression or repression of civili rights, refuse to believe rights have been impacted unless the Supreme Court has stated so
 
haymarket said:
Really?!?!?!? And I thought it was developed as a weapon for the military?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15



that is pretty clear.



What numbers do you cite as proof of its "most popular" status?

How do people use them legally?



Restricting rights? What rights would those be? How can rights be restricted - whatever that means - if they still can be exercised and enjoyed?

If the AR15 vanished tomorrow - how would the right to keep and bear arms be denied?
Click to expand...


The AR15 was the original designation of a weapon capable of fully automatic fire that was sold the military and re-designated the M16. The AR15 designation was then used for
the civilian variant that is not capable of fully automatic fire. While the weapons are superficially similar they are radically different in capabilities. They are not the same weapon.

Numbers? You can google it just as easily as I can. The various sites that come up on page 1, including the NY Times, Slate and CNBC, quote numbers anywhere between 2.5 and 5 million in civilian hands. CNBC's report on the firearm, which admittedly is from the time of Sandy Hook, notes it is the best selling firearm in the United States.

How do people use them legally? How do you think? Hunting, target shooting, putting holes in tin cans, self defense, hammering nails. Are you next going to ask the obvious question as to whether or not other firearms can fulfill those roles? The answer is it depends on the user. As a self defense weapon the features that make you want to ban it are exactly the features that many people find extraordinarily desirable in a self defense firearm. Hunting and target shooting? Again it depends on the user and their specific needs.

Are you going to bother addressing my points that banning AR15s and the like will do little or nothing to impede mass killers?
 
jet57 said:
If I see you cross the street, is a lie to say that I saw you cross the street?

You want AR15s available for terrorists to use against American in our own country. There's no other explanation for your opinions.
Click to expand...

You say that lie one more time, and I'll take action. I've already reported you, now twice, and this will not stand.
 
Beaudreaux said:
You say that lie one more time, and I'll take action. I've already reported you, now twice, and this will not stand.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not lying. I am reaching a reasonable conclusion based on evidence. With terrorism and fighting it in this country, there is no two way street to be observed in putting and end to facilitating it in any manner. Both the evidence now and from the previous assault weapons bans validate my assertions as well as public opinion.

Republicans right now are considering some form of gun control, so legislatively, such facilitation will end. So again, there is no lying on my part.
 
jet57 said:
Well, I'm not lying. I am reaching a reasonable conclusion based on evidence. With terrorism and fighting it in this country, there is no two way street to be observed in putting and end to facilitating it in any manner. Both the evidence now and from the previous assault weapons bans validate my assertions as well as public opinion.

Republicans right now are considering some form of gun control, so legislatively, such facilitation will end. So again, there is no lying on my part.
Click to expand...

no you are not. its akin to this

a terrorist suspect is captured by the cops. They want him to tell them where his confederates are hiding

they torture him. I object and say that violates his rights. I demand that he be given benefit of counsel, and afforded his other constitutional rights.

You now claim that I want to allow known terrorists to escape the police

you hide behind claiming your desire to ban guns for lawful americans is not really motivated by that. You pretend that our rights are merely collateral damage to your desire to disarm "terrorists" but you have never been willing to admit-or perhaps understand-that your "solutions" are patently ridiculous in terms of "terrorist control" and are far more likely (and most surely intended as such) to harass and disarm honest people than those who plan premeditated mass murder

so when someone objects to specious or fraudulent schemes to disarm honest people, they are not supporting terrorists being armed. Just as when I object to a suspect being tortured or denied his constitutional rights, I am not approving of his crimes
 
Beaudreaux said:
You say that lie one more time, and I'll take action. I've already reported you, now twice, and this will not stand.
Click to expand...

jet57 said:
Well, I'm not lying. I am reaching a reasonable conclusion based on evidence. With terrorism and fighting it in this country, there is no two way street to be observed in putting and end to facilitating it in any manner. Both the evidence now and from the previous assault weapons bans validate my assertions as well as public opinion.

Republicans right now are considering some form of gun control, so legislatively, such facilitation will end. So again, there is no lying on my part.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
You BOTH need to stop the baiting, pronto, or I will start dishing out infractions.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Neither George Bush Sr. nor George Bush Jr. are my "compadre." I voted against both of them each time they ran.

I never thought the creation of "Homeland Security" was a good idea and I protested it, the Patriot Act, AND the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan back in the day.



American's have a NEED for military weapons because the "call to arms" may be a rebellion against the central government. You mistake my position if you think the Right guaranteed by the 2A only applies to foreign threats.



That appeal to emotion does not fly...otherwise by extension then all of our military forces must thus be labeled "terrorists." BTW, that's exactly how they are perceived elsewhere in the world.

As for your last comment? When has such an "ideal" stopped gun sales in the past? :roll:

Stop with all the emotionally alarmist rhetoric. Disarming the public is NOT in the best interests of the American people.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to know that you are not a right-wing voter, and I too was against Homeland Security; one, because it reminds me too much of "mother land" and "father land", and two because an expensive federal policing agency of that size reeks of 1930s Europe as well. But let's remember, the Democrats did not create it. Nor the patriot act, which like you, I am also against.


Iraq was a direct attack for profit - full stop. A shame this country now has to bear and one for which we now are more an enemy of M.E. radicals than a helping hand.

There is no NEED for military weaponry on the part of the people, because the very notion tat our own military would ever turn on it's citizens is ridiculous just on its face. The founders were referring to an "Absolute monarchy" whose survival depended upon putting down rebellions by "armed citizens". The citizens of this country are already armed at 101 weapons per 100 people that everything else is just paranoid overkill.

Furthermore, there is no "appeal to emotion" in the fact that the AR15 IS in fact a weapon of terrorism and I'll say again that the facts bear that out.

And again, you're spreading this propaganda of "government disarming the public", and that is just BS. NOBODY has said anything of the kind nor would they get away with it. So I'm afraid that the emotionally alarmist rhetoric is all yours.
 
jet57 said:
I'm glad to know that you are not a right-wing voter, and I too was against Homeland Security; one, because it reminds me too much of "mother land" and "father land", and two because an expensive federal policing agency of that size reeks of 1930s Europe as well. But let's remember, the Democrats did not create it. Nor the patriot act, which like you, I am also against.


Iraq was a direct attack for profit - full stop. A shame this country now has to bear and one for which we now are more an enemy of M.E. radicals than a helping hand.

There is no NEED for military weaponry on the part of the people, because the very notion tat our own military would ever turn on it's citizens is ridiculous just on its face. The founders were referring to an "Absolute monarchy" whose survival depended upon putting down rebellions by "armed citizens". The citizens of this country are already armed at 101 weapons per 100 people that everything else is just paranoid overkill.

Furthermore, there is no "appeal to emotion" in the fact that the AR15 IS in fact a weapon of terrorism and I'll say again that the facts bear that out.

And again, you're spreading this propaganda of "government disarming the public", and that is just BS. NOBODY has said anything of the kind nor would they get away with it. So I'm afraid that the emotionally alarmist rhetoric is all yours.
Click to expand...

Just out of sheer curiosity Jet, why is one of these an "assault" weapon of war, and the other is not. In order to do anything of value, you need to define your terms and I genuinely would be interested in what you think.5ACA2A4F-0E06-417A-8932-90815302A118.jpg
GLOCK_19.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom