• 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 Control

Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 39.9%
  • No

    Votes: 74 50.0%
  • Others

    Votes: 15 10.1%

  • Total voters
    148
Are you referring to the lottery magnificant mile? That's north of Chicago, near Waukegan and Gurnee, near the stateline, isn't it?

Nah, Michigan Ave down around the river
 
Unanswerable talking points, apparently, judging by your inability to address them.

Get real. You are clearly doing one of two things:

1 - asking detailed questions about the inner workings of a law and how certain situations are handled under that law but will NOT avail yourself of the laws in states which already do what you are asking about , or
2- playing a silly game trying to trap me into trying to defend a law which is not yet passed and which is not mine in the first place

By your response above, it is obviously the second and you care really nothing about what the law does.
 
Get real. You are clearly doing one of two things:

1 - asking detailed questions about the inner workings of a law and how certain situations are handled under that law but will NOT avail yourself of the laws in states which already do what you are asking about , or
2- playing a silly game trying to trap me into trying to defend a law which is not yet passed and which is not mine in the first place

By your response above, it is obviously the second and you care really nothing about what the law does.

I thought you had said that you supported universal background checks. I want to know how the law you support would actually work.

For example, let's say that federal agents raid a home and find a gun. How do they know whether or not the owner had a background check performed on him prior to being given that particular gun?
 
I thought you had said that you supported universal background checks. I want to know how the law you support would actually work.

For example, let's say that federal agents raid a home and find a gun. How do they know whether or not the owner had a background check performed on him prior to being given that particular gun?

Why do you keep confusing me with the authors of the laws that are now on the books and in practice in several other states?

Is there some reason why you want me to do your research for you instead of doing it on your own the way everybody else does?
 
Why do you keep confusing me with the authors of the laws that are now on the books and in practice in several other states?

Is there some reason why you want me to do your research for you instead of doing it on your own the way everybody else does?

It's fine with me if you don't want to offer any support for the laws you advocate. The less support for universal background checks, the better, in my opinion.
 
Lol what? We should have less gun restrictions, Switzerland is an example of a country with little restriction.

Only because it comes with mandatory service to the government which you said you wouldn't accept.
 
Only because it comes with mandatory service to the government which you said you wouldn't accept.

paying taxes is mandatory service to the government. Switzerland has more restrictions that the USA does but if its number of guns that cause crime, Switzerland sort of bitch slaps that argument away
 
any restriction that is imposed as feel good measures or worse-designed to harass people while pretending to be a crime control measure is unconstitutional

and since the militia requirement was never condition precedent for the right, your qualifiers have no merit

I would say your attempt to flip logic on it's ear to argue that decoupling of militia from individual Right to Keep and Bear has no merit. No militia requirement = No need for high cap mags for semi only rifles. What you call feed good might be what the majority of our citizens call common sense and if demanded by those citizens, codified into law and approved by the Supreme Court- then 'feel good' or not it will be the law of the land.

There will be no 'harassment', just enforcement- could say mandatory seatbelt laws are harassment.

Could say alot of things- but you would be incorrect... :peace
 
I would say your attempt to flip logic on it's ear to argue that decoupling of militia from individual Right to Keep and Bear has no merit. No militia requirement = No need for high cap mags for semi only rifles. What you call feed good might be what the majority of our citizens call common sense and if demanded by those citizens, codified into law and approved by the Supreme Court- then 'feel good' or not it will be the law of the land.

There will be no 'harassment', just enforcement- could say mandatory seatbelt laws are harassment.

Could say alot of things- but you would be incorrect... :peace

still spewing the same nonsense

criminals have high capacity magazines

its illegal for them to have any guns

but they do

so we need the same stuff for defense

cops have gun with high cap magazines

they are civilians and their employers have determined that such weapons are the most useful devices for self defense against criminals

so we should have the same stuff

and again since you are not me and don't have the skills I have you are in no position to tell me what i NEED
 
paying taxes is mandatory service to the government. Switzerland has more restrictions that the USA does but if its number of guns that cause crime, Switzerland sort of bitch slaps that argument away

Its the difference between a country with the requirement of military training and service for the right to carry a military issue rifle, and one that provides easy access to guns to everyone, including criminals and crazies without any requirement for training or service to the country.

How Switzerland does bitch slap the US is by actually having a real ****ing militia. :cool:
 
Its the difference between a country with the requirement of military training and service for the right to carry a military issue rifle, and one that provides easy access to guns to everyone, including criminals and crazies without any requirement for training or service to the country.

How Switzerland does bitch slap the US is by actually having a real ****ing militia. :cool:

the average CCW license holder is a better shot and safer gun handler than police officers
 
the average CCW license holder is a better shot and safer gun handler than police officers

The whole point just blew over your head that guns in Switzerland come with a requirement for mandatory service in the their militia.
 
The whole point just blew over your head that guns in Switzerland come with a requirement for mandatory service in the their militia.

NO it didn't, I know that and I couldn't care less, this is the USA and we have a constitutional amendment whether the statist gun haters like it or not
 
NO it didn't, I know that and I couldn't care less, this is the USA and we have a constitutional amendment whether the statist gun haters like it or not

I see, you no longer wish to point to Switzerland as your model. I thought not! :cool:
 
Keep digging your hole, you just can't accept that the AR-15 was the first version of the M-16, all this noise about development making them "not EXACTLY the same" is funny to watch....especially coming from someone complaining about credibility.

Once again with the feeling...please.
"M16" is simply the Army's nomenclature for an AR15 model. The Army does this with every weapon. The Army's M9 is a Beretta 9mm. "Beretta 9mm" is not the 'first version' of the M9, they're the same exact firearm by different names. The M2, a .50cal machine gun, is just the Army's nomenclature.
 
still spewing the same nonsense

criminals have high capacity magazines

its illegal for them to have any guns

but they do

so we need the same stuff for defense

cops have gun with high cap magazines

they are civilians and their employers have determined that such weapons are the most useful devices for self defense against criminals

so we should have the same stuff

and again since you are not me and don't have the skills I have you are in no position to tell me what i NEED

Still doing the 'never been' tuff guy chest thumping on the internet I see. :roll:

I'll type this slow because reality seems to have trouble penetrating your bubble...

It won't be me telling you high cap mags or for that matter AR/AKs are not needed for homeowner self defense- you won't be carrying one down the street. It will be the Supreme Court- I thought you knew this lawyer stuff???

Law Enforcement OFFICERS hold commissions- do you hold a commission? They have a duty to move TOWARD armed criminals, you do not. You have to really stretch 'self-defense' on it's ear to claim that is what a LEO's firearms are for. I guess my M16 was for self defense when I humped a ruck. :roll:

But then again it isn't for someone so hard right on the 2nd Amendment they claim any restriction is an infringement, yet admit we do restrict it when it comes to the mentally ill and felons... it is for the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia has already gone on record that it isn't an unlimited right...

Now as one shooter to another, it has always seemed to me the better the shot the fewer rounds you need in your mag, that you want so many in your mags seems contrary to your constant internet boasts... ;)
 
"M16" is simply the Army's nomenclature for an AR15 model. The Army does this with every weapon. The Army's M9 is a Beretta 9mm. "Beretta 9mm" is not the 'first version' of the M9, they're the same exact firearm by different names. The M2, a .50cal machine gun, is just the Army's nomenclature.
Uh....that is essentially what I said, the early version of the AR-15 (circa 1960) was adopted by the US Army as the M-16. It has gone through various revisions. You are not countering anything I said, simply showing that I got it right.
 
It won't be me telling you high cap mags or for that matter AR/AKs are not needed for homeowner self defense- you won't be carrying one down the street. It will be the Supreme Court
Only if the SCotUS reverses the Miller and Heller decisions.
Why would they do this?

You have to really stretch 'self-defense' on it's ear to claim that is what a LEO's firearms are for.
Police officers may only shoot someone under the same cicumstances that a civilian may shoot someone - that they, or others, are in imminent danger of being harmed.
That is, self-defense.

But then again it isn't for someone so hard right on the 2nd Amendment they claim any restriction is an infringement...
Restrictions inherent to the exercise of right are not infringements; those not inherent to the exercise of the right, are.

yet admit we do restrict it when it comes to the mentally ill and felons
This is a due process issue. All rights can be removed thru due process.

Now as one shooter to another, it has always seemed to me the better the shot the fewer rounds you need in your mag.
When you humped a ruck w/ your M16, why were you issued w/ 30rd instead of 5rd mags?
 
Last edited:
Actually it was in the Heller decision that Justice Scalia gave his opinion on the 2nd A not being unlimited.

Funny how the Law Enforcement Officers are civilians crowd try and expand 'self-defense' to cover over the fact a LEO runs TOWARD the sound of gunfire. FYI if you had read any of my other posts on LEO and 30 round mags I said I don't think they need more than 20 round mags in their semi only rifles.

It is the likes of Turtle Dude who insist he gets 30's because 'someone' says cops gets 30's. I say neither get 30's.

Again Turtle Dude made no much distinction about restrictions, he claims ANY restriction is infringement. The Supreme Court disagreed.

I like the due process dodge when finally admitting an 'uninfringeable' right can be infringed. Due Process can also be a law debated in Congress, passed, signed and ruled on by the Supreme Court. So Restricting the sale of AR/AK/30round mags/number per day is quite within the legal frame work.

Now if you had read any of my posts on ruck humping and what mag I was issued I got 20 round mags. While yes I 'hunted' men unlike deer they hunted back, and they weren't have bad at it. :shock:

I am perfectly happy with a 5 round cap in my AR/AK when hunting animals that can't shoot back- most times you don't get a bunch of good shots at fleeing game. No fire and maneuver on deer of feral hogs.

I guess we were very offensive 'self defense' grunts. 20 round mags allowed us to get much lower to the ground than the 30's that came along later, and when on a two way range getting low and small was always appreciated... ;)

Those who's only experience comes from arcade games on one-way ranges might have a different opinion... :peace
 
Please use the quote function.

Actually it was in the Heller decision that Justice Scalia gave his opinion on the 2nd A not being unlimited.
You did not address what I said.
The SCotuUS will uphold a ban on 'assault weapons' and hi-cap mags only if it reverses the Miller and Heller decisions, becuse under these decisions, 'assault weapons' with hi-cap mags are the best example of the sort of arms covered by the 2nd.
Why would they reverse these decisions?

Funny how the Law Enforcement Officers are civilians crowd try and expand 'self-defense' to cover over the fact a LEO runs TOWARD the sound of gunfire...
This does not address what I said.
Thus, I can only assume that you agree with my statement, that LEOs may only shoot others in self-defense.
If LEOs can only shoot in self-defense, like civilians, why do they need hi-cap mags, while civilians do not?

I like the due process dodge when finally admitting an 'uninfringeable' right can be infringed. Due Process can also be a law debated in Congress, passed, signed and ruled on by the Supreme Court. So Restricting the sale of AR/AK/30round mags/number per day is quite within the legal frame work.
You clearly do not understand "due process" as the term is used in the 5th.

Now if you had read any of my posts on ruck humping and what mag I was issued I got 20 round mags.
You did not answer the question.
When you humped a ruck w/ your M16, why were you issued w/ 20rd instead of 5rd mags?
 
Please use the quote function.


You did not address what I said.
The SCotuUS will uphold a ban on 'assault weapons' and hi-cap mags only if it reverses the Miller and Heller decisions, becuse under these decisions, 'assault weapons' with hi-cap mags are the best example of the sort of arms covered by the 2nd.
Why would they reverse these decisions?


This does not address what I said.
Thus, I can only assume that you agree with my statement, that LEOs may only shoot others in self-defense.
If LEOs can only shoot in self-defense, like civilians, why do they need hi-cap mags, while civilians do not?


You clearly do not understand "due process" as the term is used in the 5th.


You did not answer the question.
When you humped a ruck w/ your M16, why were you issued w/ 20rd instead of 5rd mags?

H- I answered your questions. What bothers many radicals on both sides is not getting the answer they want.

that you do not wish to read what I type is on you.
 
That's not what you said. Maybe that's what you meant, but that's not what you said.
Give it up, I stated multiple times in this thread the early history of the AR-15/M16, the various revisions it has gone through, the differences between the modern civilian and military versions and the modifications that can be cheaply done to the current AR-15.

You are engaging in pointless discussion.
 
H- I answered your questions.
You did not describe why the SCotUS would overturn Miller or Heller, you did not explain why you were issued 20rd rather than 5rd magazines, and you did not illustrate an understanding of "due procees" as the term is used in the 5th.

Thus, you avoided the questions I asked and issues I presented, because you cannot respond with anything of relevance or competence.

If you disagree, please copy/paste yout text to that effect; absent that, I shall accept your concession of the points.
 
Unfortunately for many of us, the reality is that there are far too many authoritarian control freaks out there that DO want to control, rule, and dominate us. That is not pretending; that is reality.
Then, if "they" wish to control you, its logical that "they" will also control me.
Or, there is a big difference between us...
What can that be ?
And why do I not detect "their" presence ?
 
Back
Top Bottom