• 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
Gimmesometruth 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.
Click to expand...
All this talk about different rifles, etc, is moot, since they should all be allowed anyway.
 
Jerry said:
All this talk about different rifles, etc, is moot, since they should all be allowed anyway.
Click to expand...

Undercutting whatever point you were making while being totally obtuse.

Well done.

So following this slippery slope, civilians should have access to tactical weaponry.....right?

While we're at it, let's roll back libel laws also since that is a restriction on speech.

Good grief.
 
H. Lee White said:
Something scarier than an 'assault weapon', I guess.
Click to expand...
Even while hunting game, one is being tactical, hence the camo, scent masking and animal calls. Having a few people scare a small group of animals in the shooter's direction is a 'tactic', therefore if sticks are used to make noise and scare the animals, that's a 'tactical stick', right? I would think so since you may even put some thought into the stick you pick up and use, desiring one that you could make the most noise with. Maybe the animal is more scared by a scrape then a strike, so you would get a stick with branches limbs as opposed to a straight dead club.

All 'tactical'.
 
earthworm said:
Then, if "they" wish to control you, its logical that "they" will also control me.
Click to expand...

Of course they do.

Or, there is a big difference between us...
What can that be ?
And why do I not detect "their" presence ?
Click to expand...

I don't know why you don't. However, I'm sure at some point you will.
 
H. Lee White said:
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.
Click to expand...

You read only what you want, claim, with no substantiation I might add, that Heller and Miller call ARs and AKs home defense worthy. It was very narrow, a man has the right to self defense IN HIS OWN HOME. It never lists what weapons are acceptable or forbidden, nor does it limit the Government's right to, merely says some form of firearm is is permitted and the right is individual, not dependent on a militia- which cut the legs out of the 'we are part of the disorganized militia so we get military grade weapons' crowd.

You refuse to read Justice Scalia's opinion that the 2nd A isn't unlimited and can be 'infringed'. The threshold was home defense, it can easily be decided that ARs and AKs are not home defense weapons. Neither Heller or Miller claims they are. For that matter 30 round, 20 round, whatever the number isn't endowed upon us by the Creator, but by secular law.

You will get all the process you can handle if another AWB or mag cap bill is passed.... show me where a future ban or restriction was declared Unconstitutional.

I explained why I was issued 20 round magazines. I was not a civilian when I received them, nor a member of Law Enforcement. If you had raised your right hand and done what I did you would see such 'never been' questions as pointless.

Keep up the idle prattle while refusing to see the issue from any direction but your extreme one.

For years the NRA could have forced the issue but refused to, some say because if the issue was decided the money flow would end. (some say because for all the hot rhetoric many in the NRA know the issue could easily be decided against them and smart lawyers don't push a case they don't think they can win.)

Anyway, Justice Scalia gave the NRA a peek at his hold card. It doesn't look good if further restrictions pass through Congress and the President signs them.

Remember the ONLY thing that saved ARs and AKs last time was a time limit on the bill.

The NRA was smart enough to never take the issue to court. Would have been a glorious victory by the rabid 2nd A folks...
 
notquiteright said:
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... ;)
Click to expand...


yeah I do but I won't get into what commission I hold. cops are no different under the constitution than OTHER civilians

tell us exactly what YOU think the second amendment means

to me it means Me and YOU and everyone else on this board who is an American citizen over the age of 18 and without felony record etc, owning the same individually issued weapons of our SOLDIERS

M9 pistols,

M4/M16A2/M14 rifles

etc

its always better to have 30 rounds and use one than to have 4 and need more

I know of a perp on PCP armed with a BROWNING 32 who shot three cops-

he took the following

at least NINE 357 125 grain JHP in the CHEST

three of the same in the pelvic area

Four blasts of #4 buckshot @ 15 yards or less

during which he RELOADED his pistol TWICE and engaged several cops hitting two in the legs and 2 others in the ballistic vests

you'd think 13 rounds of 357 in the chest and pelvis would have stopped the guy right

IT didn't
 
H. Lee White said:
That you conceded the points. Thank you.
Click to expand...

My daughter used to declare herself the 'victor' much the same way you do now, she was 12 at the time.

You back none of your claims, I show where Justice Scalia has said the 2nd amendment is not unlimited, that neither Heller or Miller claims AR and AKs are protected home defense weapons- you refuse to show where either does FYI so the 'show me' crap seems to only flow one way in your hyper partisan mind- and there is no block to any ban or restriction as far as the Constitution is concerned as long as legitimate home defense weapons are allowed, now that the linkage with the militia has been struck down.

I'm not sure just how you have to hold your head to see it your way, but the mental image is a bit disturbing... :(
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So following this slippery slope, civilians should have access to tactical weaponry.....right?
Click to expand...
If you mean, as an example, a fully-automatic MP-5 with a silencer, forward grip, folding stock, green and IR laser, sight of choice, and high-cap mags...yes, civilians should have access o that.

But if you're talking about the Army's new M240L personal medium machine-gun with a 200rnd belt of 7.62mm...well then....yes, civilians should have that also.

Any personal firearm the Army has, civilians should also have, because the whole point is for The People to keep the gub'mint in check.
 
notquiteright said:
My daughter used to declare herself the 'victor' much the same way you do now, she was 12 at the time.

You back none of your claims, I show where Justice Scalia has said the 2nd amendment is not unlimited, that neither Heller or Miller claims AR and AKs are protected home defense weapons- you refuse to show where either does FYI so the 'show me' crap seems to only flow one way in your hyper partisan mind- and there is no block to any ban or restriction as far as the Constitution is concerned as long as legitimate home defense weapons are allowed, now that the linkage with the militia has been struck down.

I'm not sure just how you have to hold your head to see it your way, but the mental image is a bit disturbing... :(
Click to expand...

you apparently do not understand the difference between DICTA and the holding

the holding established a TEST that I believe JERRY has posted dozens of times

IS the Weapon in Common USE

iS it unusually dangerous

Hard to claim a SEMI AUTO RIFLE-millions of which were DISTRIBUTED TO CIVILIANS BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY known as the DEPARTMENT OF CIVILIAN MARKSMANSHIP fail the first test but meet the second

Yes, your truly, Turtledude Esquire owns 5 MI Carbines all which commonly were issued with 15 and 30 round magazines. all had bayonet lugs and one has a folding stock. while the cartridge they fire is less powerful than the 5.56 M1993 or the SS109 NATO round, they shoot 110 grain bullets at about 2000 FPS which is far far more lethal than say a 9mm Pistol

and then there is the 4 MI garands I bought from the government. 150 grain bullets going around 2700 FPS IIRC. now that is a serious weapon.
 
BTW when you get sworn into the state Bar-at least in NY and Ohio, they give you the same oath that the military take and NG take. One of my commissions is an OFFICER of the state courts of Ohio. Another one is an Officer of the US Federal Courts That's two commissions to start with
 
Jerry said:
If you mean, as an example, a fully-automatic MP-5 with a silencer, forward grip, folding stock, green and IR laser, sight of choice, and high-cap mags...yes, civilians should have access o that.

But if you're talking about the Army's new M240L personal medium machine-gun with a 200rnd belt of 7.62mm...well then....yes, civilians should have that also.

Any personal firearm the Army has, civilians should also have, because the whole point is for The People to keep the gub'mint in check.
Click to expand...

Is owning a weapon for you a constitutional right and an indication of a free society?
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah I do but I won't get into what commission I hold. cops are no different under the constitution than OTHER civilians

tell us exactly what YOU think the second amendment means

to me it means Me and YOU and everyone else on this board who is an American citizen over the age of 18 and without felony record etc, owning the same individually issued weapons of our SOLDIERS

M9 pistols,

M4/M16A2/M14 rifles

etc

its always better to have 30 rounds and use one than to have 4 and need more

I know of a perp on PCP armed with a BROWNING 32 who shot three cops-

he took the following

at least NINE 357 125 grain JHP in the CHEST

three of the same in the pelvic area

Four blasts of #4 buckshot @ 15 yards or less

during which he RELOADED his pistol TWICE and engaged several cops hitting two in the legs and 2 others in the ballistic vests

you'd think 13 rounds of 357 in the chest and pelvis would have stopped the guy right

IT didn't
Click to expand...

Commissioned Law Enforcement Officers ARE different in the eyes of the law, that you think they are not is your bias. FYI I said both LE and civilians should be restricted to 20 rounds so you seem to read only what talking point you wish to beat to death.

Love the unlinked 'examples' of other rounds not doing the job but wanting to say 10 more 5.56 in the mag of a weapon NOT USED would have done the deal. :roll:

Show me where a PCP badguy took 25 5.56 before stopping and you have made your point.

Ummm what LE Dept uses #4 buck?
 
TurtleDude said:
the holding established a TEST that I believe JERRY has posted dozens of times
Click to expand...
That's my queue:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
~snip~

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

~snip~

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Click to expand...
In order to be a protected, a weapon must be "in common use at the time", and may not be "dangerous and unusual". If a given weapon fails one or both of these qualifications, it is not protected for civilian ownership. So, let's go down the list:
  • Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Boo Radley said:
OK. SO the only need required for owning crack is that I wish to own it? The only need for owning a meth lab is that I want to own it? The only need for me wanting a nuke is that I want to own it? A tank? A missile launcher? There are no lines, right?
Click to expand...
  • Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Nuclear weapon: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.

Jredbaron96 said:
I'm sorry America, but I'm afraid I don't believe in personally owned ICBM's.

Shocking, I know.
Click to expand...

  • ICBMs: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.


Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Criminals generally want easy targets. Having a gun makes you a harder target. When you're in a population which carries, you are safer even if you don't carry a gun yourself, because a criminal has no way of knowing if you're carrying concealed or not and doesn't want to risk finding out the hard way.

*****
Wiseone said:
Do you have to spam the same post in every single topic about guns?
Click to expand...
Here we had to link to this law yeat again. We have to keep repeating ourselves, so rather than write it out manually over and over and over, a lot of us just save it to a word doc.
 
notquiteright said:
Commissioned Law Enforcement Officers ARE different in the eyes of the law, that you think they are not is your bias. FYI I said both LE and civilians should be restricted to 20 rounds so you seem to read only what talking point you wish to beat to death.

Love the unlinked 'examples' of other rounds not doing the job but wanting to say 10 more 5.56 in the mag of a weapon NOT USED would have done the deal. :roll:

Show me where a PCP badguy took 25 5.56 before stopping and you have made your point.

Ummm what LE Dept uses #4 buck?
Click to expand...

NOt in the eyes of the constitution.

what if there are 5-6 bad guys

how many home invasion robberies have you investigated?

indeed fill me in on your CIVILIAN law enforcement expertise where the rules of engagement are a bit different than that for a grunt or a jarhead. that is what we are talking about-CIVILIAN environments, civilian self defense parameters etc
 
Capster78 said:
Is owning a weapon for you a constitutional right and an indication of a free society?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. And it doesn't have to be some fancy 'military style' rifle covered in all sorts of hoah.

Even just a modest 5-shot small caliber revolver is a symbol of American liberty and a free society. Just having one on your person is a badge of honor.
 
Jerry said:
Absolutely. And it doesn't have to be some fancy 'military style' rifle covered in all sorts of hoah.

Even just a modest 5-shot small caliber revolver is a symbol of American liberty and a free society. Just having one on your person is a badge of honor.
Click to expand...
According to the poster I directed my comments to, he believe these weapons are needed to protect himself against the US military and the government. If that is the case, then the society he thinks he is living in is not a free society, it is a dictatorship.
 
Capster78 said:
According to the poster I directed my comments to, he believe these weapons are needed to protect himself against the US military and the government. If that is the case, then the society he thinks he is living in is not a free society, it is a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Or, perhaps, that it's in danger of heading in that direction and it might be a good idea to head the trend off before it goes much farther.
 
Lutherf said:
Or, perhaps, that it's in danger of heading in that direction and it might be a good idea to head the trend off before it goes much farther.
Click to expand...

you know the old story about boiling a frog don't you?
 
Lutherf said:
Or, perhaps, that it's in danger of heading in that direction and it might be a good idea to head the trend off before it goes much farther.
Click to expand...

In danger of heading in that direction, what indications support this? Or perhaps is it only supported in the minds of the overly paranoid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom