• 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
Ah, still dancing! Are we talking nukes? No, we aren't.

We aren't talking machine guns either. We're talking Semi-auto, like the AR-15 you like so much.

Is this it? Is the the limit on moving the discussion forward? Just gonna drag it out as long as possible..huh?

Maybe you should try doing something other than making personal attacks, I mean if "moving the discussion forward" is actually your goal.
 
No it doesn't.
When a person can't or refuses to verify a claim, imost certainly does cause their claim to be less valid.



No one is arguing for possesion of full-auto firearms.
You are just not following along at all or are playing some other game. If you think you know what the argument we (you, stone, pac) have been having on weaponry really is about, express it.



Nice personal attack. Got anything of substance?
You have been avoiding the argument....and you still are. Are you going to cry?
 
We aren't talking machine guns either. We're talking Semi-auto, like the AR-15 you like so much.
This is funny, you still are not aware of the discussion and you fail to understand that an AR-15 IS a "machine gun".



Maybe you should try doing something other than making personal attacks, I mean if "moving the discussion forward" is actually your goal.
Maybe you ought to clue yourself into the discussion that is going on around you and participate in a full manner instead of being constantly oblique.
 
The rate of fire for an AR-15 is only in the 700-800 rpm range when it is fully automatic,
Which is the math.....did you do the math yet?


which is already illegal in the US. The semi automatic version depends on how fast your trigger finger is. You fail.
Oh..."I" failed?:


The relevant question in this thread is: do you think we as civilians should be allowed to own them? The AR 15 semi automatic. Or a fully automatic rifle built around the AR platform or any other Platform? I believe in the class 3 license we have right now for full autos. I think that is done.

Again, if you guys could just keep up with the discussion at hand, it would be great.
Thanks
 
There is no doubt that taking all guns away would result in lower crime rates being committed with guns, however, that is an impossibility in America. The only proven way to reduce violent crime in America, including mass shootings, is to arm more people and give them unfettered self defense and defense of others.

Lets put that to a vote of the American people and see how that idea plays out: The solution to guns is more guns. Somehow I do not see that as a big winning campaign slogan.
 
I would take the first in any of the following situations:
1. there were grenades for the launcher
2. it was close quarters combat
3. we're fighting at night (it seems to be a night vision scope)
4. there were less than 400 meters between us.

Otherwise I'd take the second. The second is slow but very accurate long range. So it's very situation dependent.



I can reload an M4 in about 2 seconds flat, so I'm not sure how that could be true.

I don't think you would take the first if you knew exactly what it was :)
 
The high capacity magazine allows higher death counts by the shooter.

Actually it doesn't. See the higher magazine capacity gun in this picture is an airsoft gun. It holds 30 rounds and is battery opperated. Yet it has ALL the features that would ban an assault rifle. So the fact that it is an "assault weapon" by cosmetics is silly. The 10 round magazine of the Ban LEGAL AR15...is much more devastating. Not to mention...if the above airsoft gun was actually a REAL .223...it would be no more deadly than the AR15 in the picture. Why? Because it has reduced accuracy because of the folding stock, the bayonet lug is pointless, and the 30 round magazine would be nothing more than ammunition waste by an inexperienced shooter. A 10 round mag means I will need to actually aim.

Now let's just address the issue that once a mass shooting coward meets LEO resistance...they usually kill themselves. What does that tell you? That maybe armed resistence isn't sp bad? How about the school shooting stopped with a .45? You heard of that. Look it up. ARMED resistance is not bad. It isn't for everyone though. I don't think I would trust you or capster to do it. I would trust turtledude if he had a shotgun (he will get it), and it is pretty well shown that resistence causes at the minimum...suicide.

List of rampage killers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

anyway.

Can you show me where limiting magazine capacity made a difference?
 
I would take the first in any of the following situations:
1. there were grenades for the launcher
2. it was close quarters combat
3. we're fighting at night (it seems to be a night vision scope)
4. there were less than 400 meters between us.

Otherwise I'd take the second. The second is slow but very accurate long range. So it's very situation dependent.



I can reload an M4 in about 2 seconds flat, so I'm not sure how that could be true.

The "assault rifle" is actually a ruger 10/22 converted to look like an AK74. Funny how cosmetics make a difference huh?
 
Can you show me where limiting magazine capacity made a difference?
Be interested to see someone show that what happened in Newtown would not have happened if the shooter had a Rem M870 with a 5-rd tube instead of an AR.
 
The "assault rifle" is actually a ruger 10/22 converted to look like an AK74. Funny how cosmetics make a difference huh?
Most hoplophobes fear guns - especially 'assault weapons' - because they look scary.
They then believe their irrational respose to someting that scares them is a sound argument for the banning of same.
 
IF you'd really like Scalia's take, here's a good example:

"Justice Breyer moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering “interest-balancing inquiry” that “asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.” Post, at 10. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center



That case was about handguns. No one is proposing a ban on handguns.

As Scalia pointed out: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," that it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever"
 
actually, you are completely wrong, the number of guns per capita is on the decline in the US and homicide rates have declined from the "crack" days of the '90's. There are MANY studies also showing that as gun ownership declines so does the homicide rate.

Is that legal or illegal gun ownership? No other factors changed in society? If there were other factors in society, how do you relate the two? Has that held true since the financial crash of '08? Has the murder rate dropped to levels we saw prior to 1903?

What other law or change in society accounts for the change in murder rates immediately following the 1903 Militia Act? Their was a recession going on, but it was both before and after the law. I correlate the two by looking at other factors that might account for such a rapid change, lacking other factors, gun ownership changed by the law would seem to correlate.
 
Can you show me where limiting magazine capacity made a difference?

Yes, in most of the rest of the industrialized world. Have you not seen the statistics that show that?
 
That case was about handguns. No one is proposing a ban on handguns.

As Scalia pointed out: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," that it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever"

You know, it doesn't matter how many times you take that out of context, it still doesn't mean what you are implying. And the case was about gun control, particularly hand guns, but gun control over all. His words on the matter (that I quote) are very indicative on his thoughts on the 2nd. You taking one sentence out of context is not an accurate representation.
 
This is funny, you still are not aware of the discussion and you fail to understand that an AR-15 IS a "machine gun".

No, a machine gun is a fully automatic weapon. An AR-15 is not fully automatic.

Maybe you ought to clue yourself into the discussion that is going on around you and participate in a full manner instead of being constantly oblique.

I am being nothing but straightforward.
 
When a person can't or refuses to verify a claim, imost certainly does cause their claim to be less valid.

It's not a claim. I am not party to the mentality you described. I have no need to prove that.

You are just not following along at all or are playing some other game. If you think you know what the argument we (you, stone, pac) have been having on weaponry really is about, express it.

It's about "assault" weapons as you're ilk defines them. Which in actuality aren't even assault weapons.

You have been avoiding the argument....and you still are. Are you going to cry?

See, this is baiting in addition to personal attacks.
 
Why do advocates conclude that gun ownership is an INDIVIDUAL right?

Because the Second Amendment explicitly affirms“…the right of the people…”, not a right of the militia, of the United States, or of the several individual states.

And in context, the entire Bill of Rights is about limits imposed on government, and rights affirmed on behalf of the people. What sense could it possibly make to assume that the Second Amendment is different, in this regard, from the other nine Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights?

How do they justify that this amendment was written in a completely different time and is likely outdated?

If you think it's outdated, then contact your elected representatives and ask them to begin the process of amending the Constitution to repeal or supersede the Second Amendment. The great men who wrote our Constitution recognized the possibility that it might need to be updated, and included the Amendment process to allow this. Until this process is used to supersede the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment continues to stand as written and ratified.
 
Last edited:
You know, it doesn't matter how many times you take that out of context, it still doesn't mean what you are implying. And the case was about gun control, particularly hand guns, but gun control over all. His words on the matter (that I quote) are very indicative on his thoughts on the 2nd. You taking one sentence out of context is not an accurate representation.

It not taken out of context of whether a person has unlimited rights under the 2nd Amendment for any weapon whatsoever. That is exactly what he was addressing.

Show me legal argument that has been made with a constitutional basis to overturn the ban on assault weapons and hi cap mags that was made during the decade of the 1994 ban.
 
While assault and rape went up 40% and 20%. Sorry that does not float. I mean a woman being 3 times more likely to be raped in Australia vs the US is just sad.



Well how about I say it....

The majority of gun crime comes from minority inner city communities. I know the truth hurts, but that is the problem. Minority on minority crime fueled by the drug trade. I mean when 75%+ of your gun crime comes from that alone, you need to stand up and take notice.

PS That number is a conservative estimate.

after columbine NR did a study based on INTERPOL and FBI crime statistics. if you get rid of black drug crime violence, whites in America have a lower rate of gun crime than whites in Europe (continental and or the UK)
 
So reactionary BS with 0 practical hands on experience? The only time the thought or discussion occurs to you is when the media gets a story of dead innocent people. Not when people defend themselves. So basically your opinion is worthless is because you have el zilcho experience discussing this topic when the media isn't blabbering on about it.

I asked him his experience and that was the best he could do that is why I dismiss his posts as the product of emotobabble
 
Lets cut through the crap. If gun ownership and gun sports were as popular with democrats and liberals as they are with conservatives and Republicans, we would not see near as many liberals, progressives and democrat party supporters calling for gun bans or gun control/
 
While we're at it, should we limit the sale of cars that exceed 55 mph? No-one needs a vehicle that goes faster than that....except the police of course.

What do you mean by "hi powered weaponry" Calliber? Range?

One thing that has occurred to me to find amusing is that hoplophobes love to describe “assault weapons” as “high-powered”, and to suggest that this is a reason why citizens ought not be allowed to own them.

“Assault weapon” is a badly-defined term, that coves a very wide range of firearms, but for the most part, it applies to rifles that are similar to true assault rifles, which, by definition, are medium-powered, not high-powered. Most rounds used by true assault rifles (as well as by most “assault weapons”) are not powerful enough to be suitable for deer hunting, for example. Too much likelihood of merely wounding the animal rather than killing it quickly, and thus causing the animal to suffer needlessly.
 
It not taken out of context of whether a person has unlimited rights under the 2nd Amendment for any weapon whatsoever. That is exactly what he was addressing.

Show me legal argument that has been made with a constitutional basis to overturn the ban on assault weapons and hi cap mags that was made during the decade of the 1994 ban.

That would be unlikely since the ban was "temporary" and affected only new manufacture and sales. Any ban "with teeth" that attempted to outlaw existing arms, or not contain a "grandfather" clause, would certainly spawn lawsuit action. Many folks made great money selling their "legal" versions of newly "banned" weapons and magazines. The AWB created a very strange climate in the gun "aftermarket" arena. That is why we have a surge in "potentially" targeted new weapon/accessory sales now, and a bump in NRA membership.
 
That case was about handguns. No one is proposing a ban on handguns.

As Scalia pointed out: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," that it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever"
Scalia is a "Faint hearted originalist" He admits that the New Deal was unconstitutional including the creation of a power to regulate firearms by using a mutation of the commerce clause. But he says those improper expansions are such that he wont disturb them but if you read the test he created in Heller, it is equally applicable to the weapons that the bed wetters in Congress are trying to ban
 
Back
Top Bottom