• 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
Is it possible you just think that s the reason?

The Only Thing Proven To Reduce Violent Crime In The General Population
Is Law Abiding Citizens With Concealed Carry

We Both Know It
You May Not Like It, But You Can't Refute It.
 
The Only Thing Proven To Reduce Violent Crime In The General Population
Is Law Abiding Citizens With Concealed Carry

We Both Know It
You May Not Like It, But You Can't Refute It.

I don't know that at all. Perhaps you have some objective evidence you can share, not one based on a fallacy.
 
It's Like Atheism

Atheists Enjoy Their Atheism On The Back Of The Religious Traditions Of Society At Large.

And We Have The 'Freedom From Religion Foundation'
The Constitution Seems To Be Not One Wit To Anyone On The Left.
Any Of It.
 
It's Like Atheism

Atheists Enjoy Their Atheism On The Back Of The Religious Traditions Of Society At Large.

And We Have The 'Freedom From Religion Foundation'
The Constitution Seems To Be Not One Wit To Anyone On The Left.
Any Of It.

Not sure what you're going on about. But I know you didn't answer me.
 
Really?! Is everyone here an uneducated lazy boob? 1.6 second Google search lil feller.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A one sided presentation as neither Miller nor his attorney appears for lack of money. Therefore the court took argument of the government as facts. Short, smooth bore firearms were incredible common in warfare in the USA. Basically all handguns initially were short smooth bore/barrel shotguns.
 
He Can Pretend He's King Of Slobovia For All I Care

Can I? I'd appreciate it if you would refer to me as such in the future. We can find a different title for him. Ok?
 
I don't know that at all. Perhaps you have some objective evidence you can share, not one based on a fallacy.

No, I Don't Believe You Know Anything At All.
No Liberal Ever Does.
It's All Osmosis, Or Something.
Or Maybe Just The Sheer Magnatude Of Your Own Innate Intellects.
Observe Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Al Gore, Maxine Waters Or....
Hell, Pick Your Fool
 
No, I Don't Believe You Know Anything At All.
No Liberal Ever Does.
It's All Osmosis, Or Something.
Or Maybe Just The Sheer Magnatude Of Your Own Innate Intellects.
Observe Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Al Gore, Maxine Waters Or....
Hell, Pick Your Fool

You are free to show some objective evidence.
 
Can I? I'd appreciate it if you would refer to me as such in the future. We can find a different title for him. Ok?

I'll Try Not To Tell Him What I Really Think Of Him In The Future
But He's The One I've Met So Far
I'll Try To Pander To The Delicate Sensibilities Of Those Of The Same Ilk (Lefties)
As I Gently Navigate The Mine Fields Of Less Than Conservative Thought
 
I'll Try Not To Tell Him What I Really Think Of Him In The Future
But He's The One I've Met So Far
I'll Try To Pander To The Delicate Sensibilities Of Those Of The Same Ilk (Lefties)
As I Gently Navigate The Mine Fields Of Less Than Conservative Thought

I don't care about you two. I just wanna be the King of Slobovia.
 
You are free to show some objective evidence.

Show Me A Public Mass Murder That Did Not Occur In A 'Gun Free Zone'

Besides, You Personally Would Disregard Anything I Show You
So Why Should I Dig Back & Show How The Crime At Miami Airports Screeched To A Halt After Concealed Carry ??
And Because Of That Success, Concealed Carry Has Spread Across The Country.

But You Don't Know That, Or Won't Acknowledge It.
Even Though It Has Been Reported For The Last 20yrs.

Don't You Have Any Hobbies
Like READING, Or Anything ??

I Used To Read The Newspaper Every Day
But The Price Goes Up, And Coverage Gets Thinner & Thinner.
You Don't Check The News At All.
You Don't Know Anything.

Probably Why You Plaster Those Wings In Your Avatar.
Validation, Is It ??
 
Show Me A Public Mass Murder That Did Not Occur In A 'Gun Free Zone'

Besides, You Personally Would Disregard Anything I Show You
So Why Should I Dig Back & Show How The Crime At Miami Airports Screeched To A Halt After Concealed Carry ??
And Because Of That Success, Concealed Carry Has Spread Across The Country.

But You Don't Know That, Or Won't Acknowledge It.
Even Though It Has Been Reported For The Last 20yrs.

Don't You Have Any Hobbies
Like READING, Or Anything ??

I Used To Read The Newspaper Every Day
But The Price Goes Up, And Coverage Gets Thinner & Thinner.
You Don't Check The News At All.
You Don't Know Anything.

Probably Why You Plaster Those Wings In Your Avatar.
Validation, Is It ??

You're kind of all over the place. Do you have objective vide nice or not?
 
It's been demonstrated repeatedly. Only the brain dead would have trouble seeing that.

One more time: If the police think they need them - then I need them. We face the same criminal element.

Sure, we face the same criminal element, but we, as citizens, do not go up against that same criminal element each and every day.

Law enforcement seeks out that criminal element and tries to eliminate it and protect the city from it. At least that's what they're supposed to do. We, as citizens, don't take calls and purposefully put ourselves into dangerous situations in order to eliminate criminal activity.
 
Sure, we face the same criminal element, but we, as citizens, do not go up against that same criminal element each and every day.

Law enforcement seeks out that criminal element and tries to eliminate it and protect the city from it. At least that's what they're supposed to do. We, as citizens, don't take calls and purposefully put ourselves into dangerous situations in order to eliminate criminal activity.
Why is it in the state's interest to restrict my ability to respond to violence should it come my way?
 
Why is it in the state's interest to restrict my ability to respond to violence should it come my way?

I don't think the state should restrict your ability to respond to violence, should it come your way. I think you're average handgun would suffice.

I don't think any ordinary person should be able to have the same resources as the NYPD, however.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the state should restrict your ability to respond to violence, should it come your way. I think you're average handgun would suffice.

I don't think any ordinary person should be able to have the same resources as the NYPD, however.
But the concept of the second amendment, is that a body of citizen solders might come in conflict with the NYPD, or any other group should they
become tyrannical. This is a moot point in NYC, as they already limit and register almost all firearms.
 
But the concept of the second amendment, is that a body of citizen solders might come in conflict with the NYPD, or any other group should they
become tyrannical. This is a moot point in NYC, as they already limit and register almost all firearms.

And the United States Army may have the potential to become tyrannical as well. Should every citizen have the same weapon capability as the U.S. Army?

No. That's probably not a good idea.
 
Sure, we face the same criminal element, but we, as citizens, do not go up against that same criminal element each and every day.

That would depend on where you live, where you work, where you shop and what areas you have to travel through each day. In fact, if you are poor, you probably have to deal with the criminal element a lot more than the police do.
 
And the United States Army may have the potential to become tyrannical as well. Should every citizen have the same weapon capability as the U.S. Army?

No. That's probably not a good idea.

Funny, that's exactly what the founders meant by the 2nd amendment. Why do you think they were wrong/
 
I don't think the state should restrict your ability to respond to violence, should it come your way. I think you're average handgun would suffice.

I don't think any ordinary person should be able to have the same resources as the NYPD, however.

Do you understand what you just stated.

(1) You don't think the state should restrict your ability to respond

(2) You proceed to place the first restriction
 
Here is a proposed 'compromise'.

I will CONTINUE to not give ANY law abiding citizen an ounce of cause to 'fear' my guns, and the mindless ideologues on the left will stop trying to blame guns for the problem and enact mindless legislation that does NOTHING about the day to day crime and violence in this country.
Assault Weapon Watch
Oh...and I WILL support those people that pretend to really really really really really really really really really CARE about violence and will work with you to pass mandatory minimums and lock violent criminals away for 30-40 years on top of increased harsher penalties for committing the crime.
 
Sure, we face the same criminal element, but we, as citizens, do not go up against that same criminal element each and every day.

Law enforcement seeks out that criminal element and tries to eliminate it and protect the city from it. At least that's what they're supposed to do. We, as citizens, don't take calls and purposefully put ourselves into dangerous situations in order to eliminate criminal activity.

Are you kidding me? The police, contrary to your assertions, do not carry arms to try to eliminate "that criminal element". If you will recall we have this little detail, the presumption of innocense, that makes that a bit illegal.

Why police carry firearms is precisely why any citzen would, to protect their own life and possibly that of another. While I can legally shoot someone stealing my car (or wallet), a police officer cannot. So, in that sense, a citizen is less limitted in using deadly force than a LEO. You are correct that police are more often called to the scenes of violent crime, yet for each such call they face no different threat than the victim that they seek to assist. It is not the frequency of one's encounters with criminals that a self defense weapon is about, it is the abililty to stop it, which is no different for a LEO or J. Q. Public.

Simply because you drive less miles than I do makes no difference, we are both expected to have liability insurance. Think of a self defense weapon as that insurance, you hope to never need it, yet it is far better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. ;)
 
I don't think the state should restrict your ability to respond to violence, should it come your way. I think you're average handgun would suffice.

I don't think any ordinary person should be able to have the same resources as the NYPD, however.
The state MUST restrict a mans reaction to violence.
Remember the Irish "Civil War" of the previous century ?
All that bombing and killing - finally ended, but after so many years.
Violence begets more violence.
I agree with the handgun only thing for personnel protection...at least for now...in the future...non-lethal only.
And I agree with the last sentence.....at least for now....maybe in another century will we be able to catch up with the Euros and Brits.
 
Are you kidding me? The police, contrary to your assertions, do not carry arms to try to eliminate "that criminal element". If you will recall we have this little detail, the presumption of innocence, that makes that a bit illegal.

Why police carry firearms is precisely why any citizen would, to protect their own life and possibly that of another. While I can legally shoot someone stealing my car (or wallet), a police officer cannot. So, in that sense, a citizen is less limited in using deadly force than a LEO. You are correct that police are more often called to the scenes of violent crime, yet for each such call they face no different threat than the victim that they seek to assist. It is not the frequency of one's encounters with criminals that a self defense weapon is about, it is the ability to stop it, which is no different for a LEO or J. Q. Public.

Simply because you drive less miles than I do makes no difference, we are both expected to have liability insurance. Think of a self defense weapon as that insurance, you hope to never need it, yet it is far better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. ;)
I do agree that, in the absence of police, that a man must be able to protect himself, and his family, but, he must also be able to prove that he is mentally competent.....
This we do not have, thoroughly and 100%...
Nor do I want anyone "protecting" me using weapons of mass destruction.
And, by the way, would you be happy in shooting the car thief monly to discover that it was your neighbors teen age son ?
There must be a better way, and guns are NOT it.
A thousand years ago ? YES
A hundred years ago ? Maybe
Today ? no
Tomorrow ?
But, our governments must do things to garner respect and trust.....many have not...
 
Back
Top Bottom