• 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!

Boston Globe's full front page: AR-15 and three words 'Make It Stop'

soot said:
I disagree.

I would break "rifles" down in to semi-automatic and automatic rifles, I'd add the machine gun category as being separate from rifles of any sort, and I would add shotguns as a distinct class of firearm.
Click to expand...

Why stop there?

How about dividing handguns into revolvers, semi-automatic, and machine pistols?

Then there are muskets which are not necessarily rifled.

Single-shot pistols and rifles...oh we could go on and on.

Hell, just do what the politicians do and label weapons by how frightening they look, like "assault weapons."
 
Kobie said:
Number of people killed with pressure cookers: Six.

Number of people killed by firearms: Thousands upon thousands upon thousands.

False equivalency alert! Now, I'm not necessarily on board with the "ban every gun that looks scary" movement, but Christ, at least TRY to come up with a legitimate argument.
Click to expand...

Number of people killed by Muslims - Billions

Number of people killed by government - more billions
 
TurtleDude said:
do you know how many Americans have been killed or maimed by legally owned machine guns in the hands of private American citizens in the last 80 years?
Click to expand...

I don't actually know the answer but I would hazard to guess it'd prolly be in the neighborhood of zero.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Why stop there?

How about dividing handguns into revolvers, semi-automatic, and machine pistols?

Then there are muskets which are not necessarily rifled.

Single-shot pistols and rifles...oh we could go on and on.

Hell, just do what the politicians do and label weapons by how frightening they look, like "assault weapons."
Click to expand...

I'd be fine with that too.

The more people know about firearms the less likely they are to ignorantly lump them all together and argue for something that they don't really intend to argue for.
 
TurtleDude said:
number of people killed with AR 15s (the killer in Orlando did not use an AR 15 BTW) are less than the number of people killed by beatings

or knives

or clubs

each year.

Now the turd is calling that a "weapon of war

how many lies will the gun banning left accept from the liar in chief
Click to expand...

Actually, knives kill more people than ALL types of rifles combined.

That said, I think most of us would have preferred Omar Mateen had only been armed with knives.
 
soot said:
I don't actually know the answer but I would hazard to guess it'd prolly be in the neighborhood of zero.
Click to expand...

BINGO you are right

now here is the tough question. In 1986, there was no cases of a private citizen using a legally owned machine gun in a crime since well before WWII. why did the Democrat Party ban private citizens being able to buy such firearms made after May 19, 1986?
 
BrewerBob said:
Actually, knives kill more people than ALL types of rifles combined.

That said, I think most of us would have preferred Omar Mateen had only been armed with knives.
Click to expand...

true, but sadly no laws will disarm people who have premeditated mass murder. we know that from our war on drugs
 
TurtleDude said:
do you know how many Americans have been killed or maimed by legally owned machine guns in the hands of private American citizens in the last 80 years?
Click to expand...

I do! I do!

Can I answer?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Why stop there?

How about dividing handguns into revolvers, semi-automatic, and machine pistols?

Then there are muskets which are not necessarily rifled.

Single-shot pistols and rifles...oh we could go on and on.

Hell, just do what the politicians do and label weapons by how frightening they look, like "assault weapons."
Click to expand...


Ya...no ****!
 
TurtleDude said:
BINGO you are right

now here is the tough question. In 1986, there was no cases of a private citizen using a legally owned machine gun in a crime since well before WWII. why did the Democrat Party ban private citizens being able to buy such firearms made after May 19, 1986?
Click to expand...

Again, no real idea what the right answer is, but I would guess that it had something to do with the war on drugs, the images of gang members in South Central toting Uzis, and things along those lines, but only because of the date, 1986, kind of being smack dead in the middle of the crack craze.
 
soot said:
Again, no real idea what the right answer is, but I would guess that it had something to do with the war on drugs, the images of gang members in South Central toting Uzis, and things along those lines, but only because of the date, 1986, kind of being smack dead in the middle of the crack craze.
Click to expand...

Nope you completely missed that one-I will see if the other quiz show contestant can answer
 
TurtleDude said:
go for it

and then try to answer my follow up question
Click to expand...

Soot beat me to it.

As too your second question. Absolutely no good reason. Apparently full automatics manufactured after 1986 are far more deadly than those made prior.

Also of note. Rapid fire guns capable of 600 RPM or better have been around since the 1850's, and are available today with no special permit. No criminal activity with these either.
 
We need more pro-2nd amendment gun-moderates in this country. All we have are gun-nuts and gun-banners.
 
TurtleDude said:
Nope you completely missed that one-I will see if the other quiz show contestant can answer
Click to expand...

It was because William J Hughes, Democratic Congressman from New Jersey snuck it in as the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (H.R. 4332), there was no debate.

He just added it with no valid reason provided. I guess it was one of those "why not?" situations. :shock:
 
Last edited:
Abbazorkzog said:
We need more pro-2nd amendment gun-moderates in this country. All we have are gun-nuts and gun-banners.
Click to expand...

I fully object to the term gun nuts.... most of us are gun enthusiasts.....just like car and motorcycle enthusiasts.

Jay Leno has well over 100 vehicles of all kinds.....I don't consider him a car nut.
 
MickeyW said:
I fully object to the term gun nuts.... most of us are gun enthusiasts.....just like car and motorcycle enthusiasts.

Jay Leno has well over 100 vehicles of all kinds.....I don't consider him a car nut.
Click to expand...

Point out where I called you or anyone in this thread a gun-nut, LOL!
 
MickeyW said:
I never said that you called me a gun nut...I just stated I objected to the term.
Click to expand...

It's called freedom of speech. You can't have the 2nd Amendment without the 1st anymore than the opposite way around. Object all you want, but when the 2nd-Amendment makes you a one-issue activist, before you know it, you're spewing all this bull**** and doing nothing more than isolating yourself politically.
You want a movement? You gotta learn to appeal to people's better nature and restrain yourself (Especially if you want to be a responsible gun-owner!)
 
Abbazorkzog said:
It's called freedom of speech. You can't have the 2nd Amendment without the 1st anymore than the opposite way around. Object all you want, but when the 2nd-Amendment makes you a one-issue activist, before you know it, you're spewing all this bull**** and doing nothing more than isolating yourself politically.
You want a movement? You gotta learn to appeal to people's better nature and restrain yourself (Especially if you want to be a responsible gun-owner!)
Click to expand...

I'm a very reasonable gun owner, but the term gun nut is used as a snubbing remark. It's insulting and wrong. It's like saying that a guy who has an after work cocktail is a drunkard.
Freedom of speech is fine....and I say the term is bull**** and insulting! Certainly not accurate.

I'm far from a one issue activist...I abhor abortions done for convenience, taxation and fees for way too many things, government overreach, and a lot more. Pretty much everything liberal Demos are for....I'm against!
 
MickeyW said:
I'm far from a one issue activist...I abhor abortions done for convenience, taxation and fees for way too many things, government overreach, and a lot more. Pretty much everything liberal Demos are for....I'm against!
Click to expand...

And that fact alone de-legitimizes any arguments you may make in claiming to be unbiased and credible. You are welcome to your opinions, but I am against going into the left gutter or the right gutter. They are both equally self-destructive and detrimental to those of us who want to remain "on the road".
 
Abbazorkzog said:
And that fact alone de-legitimizes any arguments you may make in claiming to be unbiased and credible. You are welcome to your opinions, but I am against going into the left gutter or the right gutter. They are both equally self-destructive and detrimental to those of us who want to remain "on the road".
Click to expand...

On gun issues there is a huge imbalance in terms of veracity and facts, The Bannerrhoid movement is essentially dishonest as to its motivations and either is bereft of facts or lies. Most Banners do not become banners due to familiarity of the subject but mainly due to a cultural hatred of those of us who value 2nd amendment rights
 
Abbazorkzog said:
We need more pro-2nd amendment gun-moderates in this country. All we have are gun-nuts and gun-banners.
Click to expand...
What do you define as a pro-2nd amendment moderate? is it someone who claims they are for the 2nd amendment while still supporting all the gun control laws Obama has wet dreams about passing? Like "assault weapon" bans, "high capacity" magazine bans, firearm registrations, ban on handguns,ban on semi-automatic firearms, universal back ground checks that would lead to registrations,waiting periods and people being denied their constitutional rights without a trail?
 
jamesrage said:
What do you define as a pro-2nd amendment moderate? is it someone who claims they are for the 2nd amendment while still supporting all the gun control laws Obama has wet dreams about passing? Like "assault weapon" bans, "high capacity" magazine bans, firearm registrations, ban on handguns,ban on semi-automatic firearms, universal back ground checks that would lead to registrations,waiting periods and people being denied their constitutional rights without a trail?
Click to expand...

How can someone support every single one of those things listed and call themselves a moderate?
 
Abbazorkzog said:
How can someone support every single one of those things listed and call themselves a moderate?
Click to expand...
How can anyone even call themselves a 2nd amendment if they support any of those things listed? Its like saying you support the 1st amendment but you think Islam and or MSNBC should be banned
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom