• 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
TurtleDude said:
banning standard capacity magazines for standard issue civilian police self defense weapons is clearly a violation of the second amendment

and the turd Cuomo has proven that there is no limit short of zero they will stop at
Click to expand...


That wasn't the case with the 1994 decade long federal ban, during which not a single 2nd Amendment challenge was made.
 
Catawba said:
That wasn't the case with the 1994 decade long federal ban, during which not a single 2nd Amendment challenge was made.
Click to expand...

find something more novel to talk about-that was then, this is now we have Heller and you seem impervious to any understanding of that point.

lets have some fun-is there any limitations on magazine capacity that you (yes you) would find unconstitutional

if you say no then you prove my point

if you say yes you prove my point
 
TurtleDude said:
find something more novel to talk about-that was then, this is now we have Heller and you seem impervious to any understanding of that point.

lets have some fun-is there any limitations on magazine capacity that you (yes you) would find unconstitutional

if you say no then you prove my point

if you say yes you prove my point
Click to expand...


As the courts have found in the past, a federal ban of magazines with a capacity greater than ten would not be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. I have no legal basis to challenge the precedent already established by the 1994 ban.

If you think Heller in anyway will change that precedent you are free to find an attorney that agrees with you to take your case before the court. :cool:
 
TurtleDude said:
this is filled with moronic ideas. what would army "experts" know about civilian self defense

we already have expertise-government civilian law enforcement agencies have already determined what are the most suitable weapons for self defense against criminals in a municipal or urban environment

THOSE ARE THE WEAPONS THEY ISSUE THEIR EMPLOYEES

its amazing the amount of silliness that comes from people who are clearly so unlearned about this issue
Click to expand...

So out of almost a dozen points, you take issue with one? That's good headway.

So what officers have is about what a civilian wants, eh? Largely speaking, LEO's carry handguns. You'd agree then that all a civilian needs for self-defense is a handgun?

Nice way to talk yourself into a corner while trying to be a smartass.


Besides your inevitable gripe on some proposal, do you have any real problem with my list?
 
Catawba said:
If you think Heller in anyway will change that precedent you are free to find an attorney that agrees with you to take your case before the court. :cool:
Click to expand...

Watch, he's going to say he's the best attorney in the country, and then explain how he's going to successfully argue in front of the SCOTUS...all the while failing against random strangers on internet forums. He's brilliant isn't he?!?! :lol:
 
repeter said:
So out of almost a dozen points, you take issue with one? That's good headway.

So what officers have is about what a civilian wants, eh? Largely speaking, LEO's carry handguns. You'd agree then that all a civilian needs for self-defense is a handgun?

Nice way to talk yourself into a corner while trying to be a smartass.


Besides your inevitable gripe on some proposal, do you have any real problem with my list?
Click to expand...

officers walking a beat carry handguns-you carry handguns when you aren't expecting trouble.

officers expecting trouble get heavier stuff. the rest of us carry handguns while on the streets, while working, while dining while shopping. in those situations, carrying a more effective weapon is impractical for several obvious reasons. For defending our home or property in cases of home invasions or riots, a 5-10 shot shotgun or a 20-30 shot rifle is far more appropriate. That is why many police officers have such weapons in the trunks of their cars and many of us other civilians have them in our homes.

I tire of people who have proven they really don't understand this issue pretending they ought to tell those of us who are expert in this area what we need. I have said dozens of times that the scenarios you might encounter as a civilian-be that a police officer, a shop owner, or a single mother living with small children, are varied and unpredictable and its idiotic for some people who have an anti gun agenda or pretend they have some expertise on the issue-to tell others that they ought to be limited to weapons inferior to what many criminals and every major police department has access to

Also moronic is claiming that anything more than 10 rounds is "high capacity" and you have made that claim several times. a high capacity magazine for an AR 15 is more than 30 rounds

for a glock 17 its more than 17 rounds

ten rounds is a silly arbitrary number and Cuomo proves its merely a stepping stone to even less numbers
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
As the courts have found in the past, a federal ban of magazines with a capacity greater than ten would not be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. I have no legal basis to challenge the precedent already established by the 1994 ban.

If you think Heller in anyway will change that precedent you are free to find an attorney that agrees with you to take your case before the court. :cool:
Click to expand...

You still continue to spew the same stupidity

Until Heller, there was no supreme court precedent that overturned some of the idiotic court of appeals decisions that pretended that there was no individual rights

that has been wiped away and that happened after the idiotic clinton ban died

you never can make a rational argument about why these bans are good, you merely rely on bad legislation that no longer exists while ignoring a massive change in both the legal scholarship and the supreme court precedent.
 
TurtleDude said:
officers expecting trouble get heavier stuff. the rest of us carry handguns while on the streets, while working, while dining while shopping. in those situations, carrying a more effective weapon is impractical for several obvious reasons. For defending our home or property in cases of home invasions or riots, a 5-10 shot shotgun or a 20-30 shot rifle is far more appropriate. That is why many police officers have such weapons in the trunks of their cars and many of us other civilians have them in our homes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, how is that different from what I'm proposing?

TurtleDude said:
I tire of people who have proven they really don't understand this issue pretending they ought to tell those of us who are expert in this area what we need.
Click to expand...

You're implying there is an expert in this debate, and I'm at a complete loss as to who it may be. It certainly couldn't be you, you're barely presenting a coherent argument.

Oh! You know, that's really nice to say that of Catawba, he does seem to know a lot more about guns and 2nd amendment decisions then you or I.

TurtleDude said:
I have said dozens of times that the scenarios you might encounter as a civilian-be that a police officer, a shop owner, or a single mother living with small children, are varied and unpredictable and its idiotic for some people who have an anti gun agenda or pretend they have some expertise on the issue-to tell others that they ought to be limited to weapons inferior to what many criminals and every major police department has access to
Click to expand...

Uh-uh. I recall it being claimed that rifles and shotguns are almost never used for gun violence. Now you're saying that civilians frequently are outgunned by criminals, despite having handguns? You're now essentially claiming that criminals use rifles and shotguns on a regular basis for home invasions. Get your act together, friend, and figure out what you want to say. You're contradicting your claims now.

TurtleDude said:
Also moronic is claiming that anything more than 10 rounds is "high capacity" and you have made that claim several times. a high capacity magazine for an AR 15 is more than 30 rounds
Click to expand...

Clearly, high-capacity means something different in the world of politics than in the world of guns.

TurtleDude said:
ten rounds is a silly arbitrary number and Cuomo proves its merely a stepping stone to even less numbers
Click to expand...

Does it matter what the number is? I mean, really does it? If you say yes, maybe you're a bit junior to be on a site called debatepolitics
 
TurtleDude said:
You still continue to spew the same stupidity

Until Heller, there was no supreme court precedent that overturned some of the idiotic court of appeals decisions that pretended that there was no individual rights

that has been wiped away and that happened after the idiotic clinton ban died

you never can make a rational argument about why these bans are good, you merely rely on bad legislation that no longer exists while ignoring a massive change in both the legal scholarship and the supreme court precedent.
Click to expand...

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Heller and McDonald were about handguns. The Clinton Ban was about assault weapons.

Because you clearly don't, do you know what dicta is? :lol:
 
TurtleDude said:
officers walking a beat carry handguns-you carry handguns when you aren't expecting trouble.

officers expecting trouble get heavier stuff. the rest of us carry handguns while on the streets, while working, while dining while shopping. in those situations, carrying a more effective weapon is impractical for several obvious reasons. For defending our home or property in cases of home invasions or riots, a 5-10 shot shotgun or a 20-30 shot rifle is far more appropriate. That is why many police officers have such weapons in the trunks of their cars and many of us other civilians have them in our homes.

I tire of people who have proven they really don't understand this issue pretending they ought to tell those of us who are expert in this area what we need. I have said dozens of times that the scenarios you might encounter as a civilian-be that a police officer, a shop owner, or a single mother living with small children, are varied and unpredictable and its idiotic for some people who have an anti gun agenda or pretend they have some expertise on the issue-to tell others that they ought to be limited to weapons inferior to what many criminals and every major police department has access to

Also moronic is claiming that anything more than 10 rounds is "high capacity" and you have made that claim several times. a high capacity magazine for an AR 15 is more than 30 rounds

for a glock 17 its more than 17 rounds

ten rounds is a silly arbitrary number and Cuomo proves its merely a stepping stone to even less numbers
Click to expand...


If I may add a bit...officers in my day had a 5 shot shotgun attached to the dashboard..if they needed more firepower, they didnt have rifles in the city, if you miss the round could go through tissue paper tenement walls and travel to far.
Today some depts have rifles in the trunk along with shotguns if the officers need more firepower...and some depts have gun bus' that bring heavier firepower to an area of need.
About clip size...well hell If I cant hit you with 10 shots 17 or 37 isnt going to matter much.
After you break it in you can drop a clip and slap another in...in a blink...a well practiced revolver handler can speed load just a slightly longer blink.
 
lpast said:
If I may add a bit...officers in my day had a 5 shot shotgun attached to the dashboard..if they needed more firepower, they didnt have rifles in the city, if you miss the round could go through tissue paper tenement walls and travel to far.
Today some depts have rifles in the trunk along with shotguns if the officers need more firepower...and some depts have gun bus' that bring heavier firepower to an area of need.
About clip size...well hell If I cant hit you with 10 shots 17 or 37 isnt going to matter much.
After you break it in you can drop a clip and slap another in...in a blink...a well practiced revolver handler can speed load just a slightly longer blink.
Click to expand...

true, I was doing 12 shots in close to 4 seconds with a 625 revolver and moon clips

with a double stack 1911--I'd have brass from the first mag and second mag in the air in the same time

but there is no rational argument for limiting civilians to 20 rounds, 10 rounds because it just gets lower and lower as the scumbag governor of NY has proven
 
repeter said:
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Heller and McDonald were about handguns. The Clinton Ban was about assault weapons.

Because you clearly don't, do you know what dicta is? :lol:
Click to expand...

more unlearned idiocy. Heller was about common weapons that are neither unusual nor dangerous.

it was about handguns because those were the bans challenged

however, the TEST that was established in Heller clearly covers other types of weapons and will be the paradigm used if Obama decides to hand the Senate over to the GOP as CLinton did in 1994
 
TurtleDude said:
more unlearned idiocy. Heller was about common weapons that are neither unusual nor dangerous.

it was about handguns because those were the bans challenged

however, the TEST that was established in Heller clearly covers other types of weapons and will be the paradigm used if Obama decides to hand the Senate over to the GOP as CLinton did in 1994
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'd believe Catawba over you, he is the expert after all. Who do you claim to be again?
 
repeter said:
Sorry, I'd believe Catawba over you, he is the expert after all. Who do you claim to be again?
Click to expand...

catawba is an expert in what

Me, I am an attorney whose credentials include stints as a world class shooter, a prosecutor, a representative of a major gun rights organization, someone who has survived a street mugging and the legal ramifications of shooting a mugger and a court recognized expert on firearms and self defense

LOL-what are your credentials?
 
TurtleDude said:
true, I was doing 12 shots in close to 4 seconds with a 625 revolver and moon clips

with a double stack 1911--I'd have brass from the first mag and second mag in the air in the same time

but there is no rational argument for limiting civilians to 20 rounds, 10 rounds because it just gets lower and lower as the scumbag governor of NY has proven
Click to expand...

Back in the dark ages of law enforcement before glocks..when we all carried revolvers..it behooved police officers to practice speed loading religiously...and I did...part of the police training commission firearms qualification required speed loading because you were timed at different distances...standing kneeling behind a barricade...they were all over 6shot series and you were timed..
 
lpast said:
Back in the dark ages of law enforcement before glocks..when we all carried revolvers..it behooved police officers to practice speed loading religiously...and I did...part of the police training commission firearms qualification required speed loading because you were timed at different distances...standing kneeling behind a barricade...they were all over 6shot series and you were timed..
Click to expand...

yeah that is true and you might know what it means to have a 60X PPC pin as I do
we all went to those Safariland Comp III loaders that are spring loaders though I practice a lot with the HKS jobs that you probably were issued. but the fastest is the 45 ACP revolvers with the full moon clips
 
TurtleDude said:
catawba is an expert in what
Click to expand...

He's an expert at outmaneuvering you :lol:

TurtleDude said:
Me, I am an attorney whose credentials include stints as a world class shooter, a prosecutor, a representative of a major gun rights organization, someone who has survived a street mugging and the legal ramifications of shooting a mugger and a court recognized expert on firearms and self defense
Click to expand...

If all that's true, you're a terrible debater. If that's all false, that makes perfect sense.

TurtleDude said:
LOL-what are your credentials?
Click to expand...

Judging from the quality of your posts, the same as yours, and I'm not even 19 yet :lol:
 
repeter said:
He's an expert at outmaneuvering you :lol:



If all that's true, you're a terrible debater. If that's all false, that makes perfect sense.



Judging from the quality of your posts, the same as yours, and I'm not even 19 yet :lol:
Click to expand...

that was one of the longest winded concessions that you have no clue what you are talking about.
 
TurtleDude said:
that was one of the longest winded concessions that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

I literally invented guns so my opinion is worth more than yours.
 
TurtleDude said:
that was one of the longest winded concessions that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Turtle, everyone has to realize that more gun control legislation is coming. There are already a number of big republican pundits sending out the signals that it is in fact coming. There have been republicans that have come out and said they would support it.
I believe the debate is over on whether or not there will be gun control...the debate needs to move to how much can we limit the gun control legislation that is coming...I think its a reality that will not be avoided.
Probably the best thing the GOP could do is stand firm and let obama do an end run around them and get the legislation through anyway and they can say they didnt support it...but Im not sure even that will happen at this point..
 
Deuce said:
I literally invented guns so my opinion is worth more than yours.
Click to expand...

is this some new tactic by the hoplophobic left? saying stuff so utterly stupid that we pro gun clear thinkers are baffled by the tsunami of stupidity that the gun haters spew
 
lpast said:
Turtle, everyone has to realize that more gun control legislation is coming. There are already a number of big republican pundits sending out the signals that it is in fact coming. There have been republicans that have come out and said they would support it.
I believe the debate is over on whether or not there will be gun control...the debate needs to move to how much can we limit the gun control legislation that is coming...I think its a reality that will not be avoided.
Probably the best thing the GOP could do is stand firm and let obama do an end run around them and get the legislation through anyway and they can say they didnt support it...but Im not sure even that will happen at this point..
Click to expand...

I see making private sellers go through FFLs at Gun shows

assault weapon bans-nope
magazine limits-doubt it-Cuomo tipped the hand of what they want
more information from NICS yes
less respect for mental health privacy when it comes to NICS-Yes
 
TurtleDude said:
I see making private sellers go through FFLs at Gun shows

assault weapon bans-nope
magazine limits-doubt it-Cuomo tipped the hand of what they want
more information from NICS yes
less respect for mental health privacy when it comes to NICS-Yes
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with all of your points...except maybe magazine limits...I think thats something they may take a stand on for whatever they think they will gain by it.
Whats more worriesome to me is controls on ammuntion...or limits on ammunition
 
lpast said:
I pretty much agree with all of your points...except maybe magazine limits...I think thats something they may take a stand on for whatever they think they will gain by it.
Whats more worriesome to me is controls on ammuntion...or limits on ammunition
Click to expand...

its idiotic-large amounts of ammunition are mainly purchased by serious competitive shooters and training facilities
 
TurtleDude said:
its idiotic-large amounts of ammunition are mainly purchased by serious competitive shooters and training facilities
Click to expand...

Its not for function its for appearance...they have to show they have done something...in the end no one will be any safer...even they know that.
If I really believed truly that strict gun controls and limits would stop school shootings...I would support them...but I just dont see that it will stop anything at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom