• 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
BOO BOO
Is A Communist

Ignore Him, And His 'Wings'
 
my point:

A .223 Is A .223

Regardless Of How It Is Configured

But Then Again, I'm A Taxed Enough Already Type
 
But You Folks Are All 'Thinking People'

You Can Quote Karl Marx
But Never Heard Of The
'Federalist Papers'

Never Read James Madison
'James Madison' ??
Who The Hell Is That ??
 
Knee Socks
And Buckel Shoes

Nobody In Particular
 
That's the million dollar question nobody seems able to answer? They intentionally made that requirement vague, as it could encompass whatever they see fit to throw under the name of "assault". According to some, the hunting rifle I own would be considered an "assault" rifle.

does this make my favorite rifle the 1860 henry, and the 1866 yellow boy, assault rifles, since they carry more than 10 rounds?
 
does this make my favorite rifle the 1860 henry, and the 1866 yellow boy, assault rifles, since they carry more than 10 rounds?

You would have to ask the vapid gun grabbers. ;)
 
That Almost Makes Sense To A Blithering IDIOT

if you do a search you will find before Sugarmann sent his paper to the MSM, the term "semi auto" or "assault weapon" is almost non existent. Within a year of his paper, the terms were used THOUSANDS of times
 
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?

Your question is out of date. Assault weapons are already banned. They have been since 1986. That's when the Federal Government banned automatic weapons. The new AK-47s and the AR-15s that you can buy in a gun shop are limited to semiautomatic only. Therefore, according to our own military's definition (and that of the former Soviet Union), they are NOT assault weapons. There's no such thing as an assault rifle that is semiautomatic only. The definition "assault" meant a soldier assaults an enemy's position by spraying bullets.

In '86 your compromise is exactly what they did. Those who already owned assault rifles got to keep them. A lot of good that did. Now they're back demanding a ban on "assault" weapons, which are already banned, but they're taking it further. The gun hating crowd won't stop until the only thing you're allowed to own is a BB gun.
 
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?
Repeal the 1986 Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners' Protection Act so responsible citizens can own modern assault rifles and machine guns.


In compromise, we will submit to formal training and background checks. Deal?
 
from my cold, dead hands...

That's the beginning and the end of the compromise.
 
He is linking to inaccurate statistics. It matters that right wing rednecks and NRA may use inaccurate stats as propaganda to negatively influence popular opinion.

Someone is a bit prejudice....
 
No they didn't. You can still legally own machine guns.
Run on down to your local class-3 dealer and take a pic of all the modern machine guns they have for sale to the general public.
 
Run on down to your local class-3 dealer and take a pic of all the modern machine guns they have for sale to the general public.

You can legally own any machine gun made before 1986 and if you have the proper FFL paperwork, you can own any modern machine gun or you can manufacture your own machine gun. You didn't know that?
 
You can legally own any machine gun made before 1986 and if you have the proper FFL paperwork, you can own any modern machine gun or you can manufacture your own machine gun. You didn't know that?
Oh ok, so if you aren't allowed to use technology developed past 1986 to speak or protest than your 1st amendment right isn't infringed upon, right? No internet, no digital cable, no satellite radio, no of that. You're still good, right?

Put that iPhone down, that was made after 1986, so if you express a religious opinion on it that's a felony.

What year was the computer you're using right now made? You're expressing a political opinion. If your computer was made after 1986, that's a felony. If you're posting on a website that was made after 1986, that's a felony.
 
Oh ok, so if you aren't allowed to use technology developed past 1986 to speak or protest than your 1st amendment right isn't infringed upon, right? No internet, no digital cable, no satellite radio, no of that. You're still good, right?

Put that iPhone down, that was made after 1986, so if you express a religious opinion on it that's a felony.

What year was the computer you're using right now made? You're expressing a political opinion. If your computer was made after 1986, that's a felony. If you're posting on a website that was made after 1986, that's a felony.

At what point did you see me post anything anywhere that said I agreed with that stupid law? I merely pointed out that saying all machine gun ownership was banned is incorrect.
 
At what point did you see me post anything anywhere that said I agreed with that stupid law? I merely pointed out that saying all machine gun ownership was banned is incorrect.
You wanted to say they weren't banned. I'd say they're pretty ****ing banned. The infringement outweighs the technicality allowing you to own an antique.

The goal of the Hughes amendment is the same as every assault-weapon ban: to "dry out the supply over time". That's a ban.
 
The .223 rifle Adam Lanza's mother owned, did move.

As could any of the guns you're pointlessly banging on about.

Have you noticed they are guns? Purpose built to kill...or do you think they make coffee?

Well a firearm is a TOOL above all else. Certain firearms are tools of certain trades, for example a Remington 700 series bolt action rifle is built for hunting while a Daniel Defense M4V1 is built for tactical or self-defense situations, and for military applications. Law Enforcement use these TOOLS to apply force and give a backbone to the legitimacy of our laws. It is a tool just like a plow, a screwdriver, a hacksaw, or a pen. Secondly, it is an inanimate object, and by no reasonable means can that be denied. The firearm is NOT going to magically do the lemon dance by itself much less fire off some rounds without an operator. Just like your pencil will not magically start drafting a Ph.D students dissertation without his hand. AS cliche as it sounds.... Guns really don't kill, People do. And you can retort "well that's the same thing drug dealers say about drugs"....Well I'm not advocating the legalization of drugs but....if you don't use them they won't hurt you now will they?
 
You wanted to say they weren't banned. I'd say they're pretty ****ing banned. The infringement outweighs the technicality allowing you to own an antique.

The goal of the Hughes amendment is the same as every assault-weapon ban: to "dry out the supply over time". That's a ban.


Nobody cares what "you'd say" or feel about the subject. The fact is machine guns are legal to own, therefore they are not banned. I agree it is an infringement and I agree the intent is to eventually dry the supply out. Currently however, they are not banned and they are legal to own.

Regardless of whatever hissy fit you'd like to throw.
 
Run on down to your local class-3 dealer and take a pic of all the modern machine guns they have for sale to the general public.
Impact Guns has a corner in the store dedicated to fully auto weapons and people on site to help with the procedures to purchase them. Frankly...I dont know why you would want one...but still...
 
Nobody cares what "you'd say" or feel about the subject. The fact is machine guns are legal to own, therefore they are not banned. I agree it is an infringement and I agree the intent is to eventually dry the supply out. Currently however, they are not banned and they are legal to own.

Regardless of whatever hissy fit you'd like to throw.
There is a ban on modern machine guns. That's just a fact.
 
Back
Top Bottom