• 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!

Create your list of which weapons should be banned and which should be allowed

Grand Mal said:
Okay, I'm Canadian so I don't have a dog in the hunt. I'm also a gun owner, a hunter. But I seriously wonder why you would want a full-auto weapon. It's got to cost thousands, and the ammunition bill for an afternoon at the range would probably buy me beer for the month.
Don't get me wrong- I'm all for Americans owning machine guns. I live far enough from the border that the noise won't bother me and strays won't affect me and if it comes to pass I'll buy stock in ammunition manufacturers. I just wonder why.
Click to expand...

Full auto M4 / AR-15 military rifles are only marginally more expensive than the semi auto civilian variants.. The military gets full auto colts for about 60% of the price we pay for their semi-auto brothers from a gun store..

Maybe $50 more in parts and a slightly different cnc program for the lower receiver..

What makes them expensive to the civilian is that ones that are legal, made before 86 or whatever, are rare and in very high demand..
 
IMO things that should be banned..

Low capacity magazines on equipment that is obviously designed for high capacity..

Non-removable magazines on equipment that is clearly designed to be used with removable magazines..

Those stupid looking stocks that are intended to be law compliant need to be banned too..
 
haymarket said:
Recognized and accepted experts in the English language say they are indeed civilians.
Click to expand...
Your Freudian slip just confirms you know they are.


haymarket said:
The Department of Defense - in determining who they have authority over - uses a very different standard because they are attempting to identify the parameters of their own authority and it has nothing to do with police since they are NOT under their control.
Click to expand...
Yes, it distinguishes them, as [c]ivilian in opposition to the Military non-civillian.



More importantly though is that you ignored the prevalent accepted legal definition even though "legality" is the sub-context of the subject.
It says the same thing in the newest Black's Law Dictionary as well.
 
Excon said:
Your Freudian slip just confirms you know they are.
Click to expand...

No - it just confirms I am human and make typos just like everybody else. If you have to hang your argument on something so minor and beyond trivial - you have already conceded to having nothing of substance to talk about.

And even the person who argued the information from the Department of Defense already conceded my point that the law cited is merely distinguishing law enforcement over civilians as opposed to defining law enforcement as civilians.

see post 46 which clearly says so.

So you cling to something that even the person who brought it up already conceded.

But simply do this for all of us and decide it once and for all: I cited numerous authoritative dictionaries written by experts on the English language that police are NOT civilians. What can you cite in the law which defines police officers as civilians?

And after you do that - tell me why it is so gosh darned important to decide that cops are civilians in the first place? Why is it necessary for you and others to throw out all the accepted dictionary definitions of what a civilian is just to pursue..... to pursue .... what exactly?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
thank you for that multi-thousand word many page article. What exactly in that very tall haystack do you think answers my question?
Click to expand...

The entire thing. Read it and maybe you will learn something for once.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
The entire thing. Read it and maybe you will learn something for once.
Click to expand...

Aha! The standard - I provided the giant haystack now you go and find the needle somewhere in it ... at least I think it is in it.

Got it loud and clear.
 
haymarket said:
No - it just confirms I am human and make typos just like everybody else. If you have to hang your argument on something so minor and beyond trivial - you have already conceded to having nothing of substance to talk about.
Click to expand...
Funny that your reply is basically what those who make Freudian slips say when they do not want to admit it. I wonder why that is?


haymarket said:
conceded my point that the law cited is merely distinguishing law enforcement over civilians as opposed to defining law enforcement as civilians.
Click to expand...
iLOL
He conceded "for the purpose of this discussion" because it doesn't change his criteria. That may or may not mean what you think it does. Nor does it matter if it is exactly as you think, as all it would do is make him as wrong as you are.


haymarket said:
I cited numerous authoritative dictionaries written by experts on the English language that police are NOT civilians. What can you cite in the law which defines police officers as civilians?
Click to expand...
Authoritative? Not.
The sub-context of this discussion is legality.
Since when did an in-general definition trump a legal definition in such a discussion? Never.

So again.
As banning would be a function of the law, maybe you should be using the accepted legal definition?

What is CIVILIAN?

One who is skilled or versed in the civil law.
A doctor, professor, or student of the civil law.
Also a private citizen, as distinguished from such as belong to the army and navy or (in England) the church.​
​
​

The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed. | What is CIVILIAN?​
​
That is the predominate accepted legal definition.

If a word is not defined in the law, the predominately accepted Law Dictionary will be the next place that will be referenced.
If not found there they will then look to an in-general definition.



haymarket said:
And after you do that - tell me why it is so gosh darned important to decide that cops are civilians in the first place?
Click to expand...
No, no no.
The question is why is it so gosh darned important to decide that cops aren't civilians in the first place?
As you are the one objecting to the relevant definition, it is upon you to justify your position.


haymarket said:
Why is it necessary for you and others to throw out all the accepted dictionary definitions ...?
Click to expand...
If you couldn't tell by the provided information, in-general definitions do not always cut it in legal discussions. The predominately accepted legal definition does not include the police as already shown. So you are the only one throwing out the relevant definition here.
Why you need to be informed of that is beyond me.

You simply cant.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Well, one, our murder rates are considerably better than in the Third World. That's ridiculous hyperbole.
Click to expand...
Not at all. You have an intentional homicide rate of 3.9. There are dirt poor, Third World countries such as Ghana and Malawi with rates half of that. There are about 20 countries that cannot be described as anything other than Third World that all enjoy lower murder rates. What is ridiculous hyperbole about that?

Second, one of the main reasons our crime rate is so high is because we spend more on policing and correction than other countries. We're a police state, and we would be both safer and freer if we were not.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I don't think we're helpless to stop the carnage at all. I think there's a number of lawful and liberal things we can do to reduce the carnage, and I support doing those things; the reason we're not doing them already is because our government profits from the carnage.
Click to expand...
So what are those things? And why are so few people advocating them. Going by DP debates it would appear that at least a half of US posters here are anti-political establishment thinkers, yet where are these solutions that could be implemented if the political will were present?
I'm not hearing them. All I hear is "get your hands off my guns".
 
Andalublue said:
So what are those things?
Click to expand...

I've been beating the same drum since the Orlando round of this debate has begun. End the War on Drugs and stop militarizing the police. Fund community policing initiatives. Give people a way to report "red flag" behaviors in their family members without worrying about the police killing their children. Provide adequate mental health services and educate the public against the stigma of seeking them. Invest more in education and economic development, especially in urban areas. I actually heard one columnist propose that the State actually subsidize the citizens' militias to encourage gun owners to gather together in a pro-social environment and build a more cohesive community; I think this is a marvelous idea.

Andalublue said:
And why are so few people advocating them.
Click to expand...

Because nobody cares. American politics is about power and profit, and chaos benefits the ruling class.

Andalublue said:
All I hear is "get your hands off my guns".
Click to expand...

Alright, guilty as charged. When the "left" tries to take away my rights, I do drop other policy concerns in order to defend them. If Hillary Clinton hadn't made gun control the top issue of her political campaign, I would probably be voting for her to keep Trump out of office. The thing is... that's exactly why they support gun control in the first place. It keeps the left from seeking real solutions and it encourages the right not to examine their other ideas; the whole "culture war" is nothing more than a cynical ploy by the two corporate-controlled major parties to keep the people from demanding real change.
 
Andalublue said:
Okay, I'll put that down to culture clash. Liberty's high on the agenda but at best it shares top priority with security, equality, solidarity and peace.
Click to expand...

Liberty-- true liberty is not limited by any of the possible definitions which a government may subjectively decide to define as "security, equality, solidarity and peace" for it's citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom