• 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!

A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

Would this compromise be acceptable?

  • Yes. This isn’t perfect, but no compromise is.

    Votes: 11 14.7%

  • No. I don’t mind some compromise, but this still takes away too much.

    Votes: 10 13.3%

  • No. We should never compromise our gun rights.

    Votes: 49 65.3%

  • No. This still gives too many gun ownership privileges.

    Votes: 3 4.0%

  • I can hit a target 400 yards away with my eyes closed.

    Votes: 2 2.7%
  • Total voters
    75
waas said:
Nobody's saying we should disarm the military. :lamo
Click to expand...

that's BS btw-lots of lefties want major cuts in the military

many of you lefties pretend you don't want to disarm honest people either

in both cases its lies
 
Rocketman said:
I use one just like this one for hog and deer hunting. It is a civilian produced gun that is only semi auto and not used by the military. Your comparison is like calling a corvette a race car when it isn't.

Medium%20Images%5CRifles%5C10SBFMEDIUM350.jpg
Click to expand...

Must not be much of a hunter I take it.
 
disneydude said:
View attachment 67140998There is no legitimate purpose for any citizen to possess weapons like this. They are not designed for hunting. The are not designed for "self-protection". They are designed for one purpose, to kill.
Click to expand...


I thought it was the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of what you think is a Legitimate Purpose?
 
Dammitboy! said:
I thought it was the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of what you think is a Legitimate Purpose?
Click to expand...

Most gun nuts talk about the second amendment like it is absolute. It isn't. And to state so, merely displays an ignorance of Constitutional law. There is no right that is absolute. There are only rights that are "enumerated" which require more of a governmental justification to infringe upon those rights.
 
disneydude said:
Most gun nuts talk about the second amendment like it is absolute. It isn't. And to state so, merely displays an ignorance of Constitutional law. There is no right that is absolute. There are only rights that are "enumerated" which require more of a governmental justification to infringe upon those rights.
Click to expand...

Correct, and AR-15's are in common use and have a legitimate purpose. So they fit with the Supreme Courts interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
 
TurtleDude said:
He was the guy that Put what is now the Brady Bunch on the map. and Josh Sugarmann of the VPC got fired by the Brady bunch for admitting the goal was a complete gun ban

I guess you wouldn't consider Dr King the leader of the modern civil rights movement
Click to expand...

You are comparing a mountain to a molehill.
 
disneydude said:
Must not be much of a hunter I take it.
Click to expand...
edify us on your expertise of hunting? I suspect-given your politics, you are as contemptuous of hunters as you are of those who own weapons for self defense
 
haymarket said:
You are comparing a mountain to a molehill.
Click to expand...

that is an apt description of Dr. King who wanted to expand the rights of Americans compared to people whose only goal is restricting them

Good post
 
TurtleDude said:
that is an apt description of Dr. King who wanted to expand the rights of Americans compared to people whose only goal is restricting them

Good post
Click to expand...

I agree that Dr. King was indeed a mountain like heroic figure.
 
TurtleDude said:
edify us on your expertise of hunting? I suspect-given your politics, you are as contemptuous of hunters as you are of those who own weapons for self defense
Click to expand...

Not really. I used to go hunting all the time when I was a kid. Owned several .22 rifles. I haven't been for years, but have no issue with people who hunt, so long as they don't hunt just for the sport. If they kill to kill, then yeah...I have a problem with that. But hunting for sport and eating the meat is acceptable to me. I also don't have an issue with people having a handgun in their home for protection, as long as they are smart about it.
 
Dammitboy! said:
Correct, and AR-15's are in common use and have a legitimate purpose. So they fit with the Supreme Courts interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

You are completely missing the point. ANY weapon can fit within the S.C. interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The ISSUE is what legitimate restrictions can be placed on gun ownership and not violate the 2nd Amendment. See...if you understood Con Law, you would know that no right is absolute, even enumerated rights. The issue is whether the government has a legitimate interest in placing restrictions on them. If the government tried to flat out ban all guns, sure that would violate the second amendment. But absent an all out ban, the Supreme Court is likely to uphold some restrictions as long as they do not unduly interfere with the right to bear arms. See. The right to bear arms does not mean ANY arm of your choosing.
 
disneydude said:
Not really. I used to go hunting all the time when I was a kid. Owned several .22 rifles. I haven't been for years, but have no issue with people who hunt, so long as they don't hunt just for the sport. If they kill to kill, then yeah...I have a problem with that. But hunting for sport and eating the meat is acceptable to me. I also don't have an issue with people having a handgun in their home for protection, as long as they are smart about it.
Click to expand...

I tend to have issues with those who think they should tell other people what they keep in their home for protection. what works for an apartment in Manhattan won't work for a rancher in Wyoming who might have coyotes-or worse-attacking his livestock or is 30 minutes away from the nearest sheriff.
 
disneydude said:
You are completely missing the point. ANY weapon can fit within the S.C. interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The ISSUE is what legitimate restrictions can be placed on gun ownership and not violate the 2nd Amendment. See...if you understood Con Law, you would know that no right is absolute, even enumerated rights. The issue is whether the government has a legitimate interest in placing restrictions on them. If the government tried to flat out ban all guns, sure that would violate the second amendment. But absent an all out ban, the Supreme Court is likely to uphold some restrictions as long as they do not unduly interfere with the right to bear arms. See. The right to bear arms does not mean ANY arm of your choosing.
Click to expand...

its really hard for a government to claim that a gun has no legitimate purpose whatsoever and thus ban it for most citizens and then issue the same exact gun to its CIVILIAN employees for self defense in an urban or municipal environment. Its really hard to square those two positions with being constitutionally sound or meeting the sort of scrutiny that obvious infringement on the second amendment


the gun banners never understand that use restrictions (no shooting in a city park or no hunting within city limits etc) are not seen as unconstitutional. ITS POSSESSION restrictions or restrictions on obtaining weapons that are clearly suspect such as telling me I cannot buy more than one gun a month or that I cannot buy and OWN the same weapons Civilian COPS are issued. Those restrictions violate the second
 
TurtleDude said:
the NY law limited cops to 7 rounds too

and my wife and son sleep peacefully because I stand ready to kill on their behalf if I have to

and yes, if required I can be quite rough as two criminals can testify to
Click to expand...

My enter family sleeps well knowing we won have to kill anyone any night. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
My enter family sleeps well knowing we won have to kill anyone any night. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

the future is unwritten

Know (and be ready to exercise) your rights

Joe Strummer with some help from the turtle
 
TurtleDude said:
the future is unwritten

Know (and be ready to exercise) your rights

Joe Strummer with some help from the turtle
Click to expand...

Oh, I exercise my rights. Haven't needed a gun to do it either. But, you clearly still have the right to bear arms and defend yourself. That has not changed.
 
Boo Radley said:
Oh, I exercise my rights. Haven't needed a gun to do it either. But, you clearly still have the right to bear arms and defend yourself. That has not changed.
Click to expand...

yet you support idiotic magazine limits. I should have the same weapons that my tax dollars supply to cops in my state
 
.223's Have Been Around As A Varmit Rife Forever
Semi-Auto

AR .223's Are The Same Thing With A Pistol Grip, Instead Of A Monte Carlo Stock
The Difference Is Cosmetic.

They Are The Same Action & Function The Same Way
 
TurtleDude said:
yet you support idiotic magazine limits. I should have the same weapons that my tax dollars supply to cops in my state
Click to expand...

Nothing Wrong With A Glok, Or Baretta

I'm A Tradition Guy

1911 .45
 
karpenter said:
Nothing Wrong With A Glok, Or Baretta

I'm A Tradition Guy

1911 .45
Click to expand...

I love 1911s-have lots-pairs of Rock Rivers, Les Baers, Kimbers best etc and I love competing with them but I like the new smith and wesson MPs for example of the new stuff
 
TurtleDude said:
yet you support idiotic magazine limits. I should have the same weapons that my tax dollars supply to cops in my state
Click to expand...

Do you live in Iraq? Are you expecting a fire fight?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom