• 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?


  • Total voters
    75
If it was truly about saving lives then the tool used should be irrelevant.

and if the tools were mainly owned by conservatives, he would be wanting bans on them too
 
and if the tools were mainly owned by conservatives, he would be wanting bans on them too

I don't think it has anything to do with political payback. The people in office try to ban or severely firearms because they want the public disarmed, the individuals at home who are the useful idiots of these politicians genuinely fear or hate firearms as their reasoning for wanting firearms to be banned or severely restricted.
 
I don't think it has anything to do with political payback. The people in office try to ban or severely firearms because they want the public disarmed, the individuals at home who are the useful idiots of these politicians genuinely fear or hate firearms as their reasoning for wanting firearms to be banned or severely restricted.

we will have to disagree

the NRA has spent lots of money supporting mostly conservative candidates. The current rantings by the left spend more time bashing the NRA than the criminals they claim they want to restrict
 
I don't think it has anything to do with political payback. The people in office try to ban or severely firearms because they want the public disarmed, the individuals at home who are the useful idiots of these politicians genuinely fear or hate firearms as their reasoning for wanting firearms to be banned or severely restricted.

I don't think any of them are concerned at all about you being armed. Frankly, they out arm you so much that it wouldn't matter at all.
 
I don't think any of them are concerned at all about you being armed. Frankly, they out arm you so much that it wouldn't matter at all.

you think if 20 million well armed americans wanted a politician in this country dead he would have nothing to fear?
 
we will have to disagree

the NRA has spent lots of money supporting mostly conservative candidates.

That is because conservatives stereotypically support 2nd amendment rights.

The current rantings by the left spend more time bashing the NRA than the criminals they claim they want to restrict

The left is full of people who have an irrational fear or hatred of firearms.Of course they are going to bash the NRA.
 
That is because conservatives stereotypically support 2nd amendment rights.



The left is full of people who have an irrational fear or hatred of firearms.Of course they are going to bash the NRA.

they also hate the amount of money the NRA funnels to politicians who tend to oppose their welfare socialist agenda

later dude
 
you think if 20 million well armed americans wanted a politician in this country dead he would have nothing to fear?

One man can commit murder. But, the US military has nothing to fear from you having some guns.
 
One man can commit murder. But, the US military has nothing to fear from you having some guns.

that's a non answer. I want politicians to fear the citizenry

not the other way around
 
Ft. Hood and Aurora had shooters in custody. Newtown had sympathetic victims and a shooter who faced no challenge and died at his own hands. This is nothing more than some big old witch hunt to appease the pitchfork crowd. Obama signs his orders and the matter goes away.
 
I'm tired of this stupid comment. Guns have one purpose and one purpose only. Killing. That's it. Everything else, clubs, hammers, knives, cars, etc, all have other purposes. Those purposes make them valuable and useful. There is no parallel, until guns can provide something besides violence. Stop with this stupidity.

The OP's idea solves exactly zero problems.

I think guns actually have three purposes. Killing is one, presumably you are limiting your argument to the killing of people. The second is sport, which may or may not involve killing, of animals, the vast majority of which provide food, and there is the stopping of other people from killing, either by killing them first, or the mere threat that they might become the victim.

I no longer hunt, I would not use my weapon for unprovoked taking of another human life. That leave the third. And that is why I carry.
 
they also hate the amount of money the NRA funnels to politicians who tend to oppose their welfare socialist agenda

later dude

Still doesn't change the fact that the left is full of people who have an irrational fear and hatred of firearms and that is why they bash the NRA. IF there were liberals who supported the 2nd amendment and one of the largest 2nd amendment rights groups gave money to them, the lefties with the irrational hatred and fear of firearms would still bash that 2nd amendment rights group.
 
If we are to renew the "assault weapons" ban, then let's grandfather it in. I.e., if someone legally owns an "assault weapon" before the ban takes effect, then they may keep that gun. Afterward, no such weapon may be legally purchased for civilian use.

Would this be acceptable or not?

That's not really a compromise. What you just described IS the proposed assault weapons ban - it would only apply to "new" assault weapon purchases. As far as I know no one has ever (seriously) proposed legislation that would compel current owners of assault weapons to hand them over. That would be an enforcement nightmare, and quite frankly unfair to anybody who legally purchased an assault weapon.

So the "grandfather clause" is really the default assault weapons ban, not a compromise.
 
Here's a compromise.

Give us the same weapons the government has access to, but keep explosives regulated.

There. Compromise.
 
If it was truly about saving lives then the tool used should be irrelevant.

No, you're missing the point. If the tool is irrelevant, then we never go outside, because there is danger outside of our plastic bubbles. My point is that trying to create equivalence between tools that can be used to kill in addition to their normal functions and tools whose normal and only function is killing is a false equivalence. That's actually my whole point.

I think guns actually have three purposes. Killing is one, presumably you are limiting your argument to the killing of people. The second is sport, which may or may not involve killing, of animals, the vast majority of which provide food, and there is the stopping of other people from killing, either by killing them first, or the mere threat that they might become the victim.

I no longer hunt, I would not use my weapon for unprovoked taking of another human life. That leave the third. And that is why I carry.

1) Killing
2) Killing things other than humans
3) Threatening to kill

Yeah, that's just killing. Killing people, killing animals, and telling people you're going to kill them. Guns do nothing but kill. They have no other purpose. Cars do. Knives do. Maybe some knives are specifically designed for killing and should be treated the same ways guns are, as opposed to a kitchen knife. That's fine. But the point I'm making is that a tool that has no purpose other than for killing automatically should be treated differently from one that has other primary purposes, even if it can later be used to kill. Those would get a separate evaluation more appropriate to their nature.
 
i'm not a proponent but the '94 assault weapons ban had very specific definitions of "assault weapons". Silly definitions, but coherent nonetheless.

Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks. If this is what the gun-grabbers are currently proposing, I must admit I frankly don't understand the danger posed to the public by pistol grips, flash suppressors, and folding stocks. But then again, I'm not a hoplophobe, so their "reasoning" evades me.
 
are you a NY City police officer? If not, your question is irrelevant.

No, but he, or any of us, may need to respond to a militia call-up.
 
People can believe anything they want to believe. That is the funny thing about faith. It is all based on you believing something because you want to believe it.

Those beliefs are also irrelevant to what the Second Amendment actually says.

So you don't think that the people ought to be able to own the same weapons carried by police officers. Okay, so what firearms DO you think citizens ought to be allowed?
 
that isn't the issue-the second amendment says that our rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed PERIOD

but I was asking you to state YOUR opinion given you are here on a gun thread and the issue involves gun rights and compromises involving rights that should not be compromised

Yes it does. It does NOT say the things that you are claiming are in it such as the rights to have comparable firearms to police officers performing their duty.

If you do NOT have rights that you believe you have, how can what you do not have be compromised?
 
sell maybe you will tell us what you actually believe the second amendment states and at what point it is violated. I believe many other posters have asked the same as well

If the government denies the citizenry the right to have firearms, then the right is violated. That has always been my position. That is still my position.
 
No, but he, or any of us, may need to respond to a militia call-up.

Never heard of it. Could you please provide for us a record of such and the official listing of equipment that a member was expected to provide and bring with them?
 
Back
Top Bottom