• 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!

Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?[W: 207]

the primary purpose of owning a gun is to maintain a free state.

which is why those who hate the thought of a free state want to ban guns
 
sure there are legitimate reasons to have 1, you just don't like them. the right to bear arms isn't about hunting, or self defense, it's about keeping the government in its place. the second Amendment makes no statement whatsoever about hunting or self defense, it actually makes reference to maintaining Liberty.

The second amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That's all it says. Courts and legislators have agreed for hundreds of years that the right to keep and bear arms will be protected, but regulated. That's where we're at. What to regulate, how much to regulate. Your arguments are so off the mark it blows my mind.

You are pretty much coming out and saying this, so let's just put it out there: you think that one day you might need to fight a war against the government. You want to have lots of guns when "the war" comes. Listen, dude, it's so ridiculous. You want to be able to defeat the government when "the war" comes? Better start stocking up on lots of grenades, land mines, and helicopters. If you want to argue that military weapons should be legal to own, you need a rational purpose, not one based on paranoid delusion.

Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither. The liberty of the people outweighs the false sense of security people pretend laws against guns will create.
Your argument is false because there are legitimate reasons to own them. the second amendment makes that clear.

I'm not "you people," I'm me. I don't feel unsafe, nor does anybody else I know. I can wake up and go to bed at night with the knowledge that there is a .00000000001% chance that somebody will try to kill me. That's the primary reason that I don't accept the argument that a handgun won't do for self defense or any other reason.

And the second amendment obviously doesn't "make clear" that assault rifles have a legitimate purpose. That's the biggest load of gibberish I've heard from you yet. I won't even expound upon that because I think it's pretty obvious.
 
how many congressmen or senators would propose some sort of draconian nastiness if they knew 3 for 4 million citizens armed with AR 15s or 30-06 deer rifles with 12 power scopes made terminating their tenure in office "with extreme prejudice" their major goal in life?
 
The second amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. You are pretty much coming out and saying this, so let's just put it out there: you think that one day you might need to fight against the government. You want to have lots of guns when "the war" comes. Listen, dude, it's so ridiculous. You want to be able to defeat the government when "the war" comes? Better start stocking up on lots of grenades, land mines, and helicopters. If you want to argue that military weapons should be legal to own, you need a rational purpose, not one based on paranoid delusion.



I'm not "you people," I'm me. I don't feel unsafe, nor does anybody else I know. I can wake up and go to bed at night with the knowledge that there is a .00000000001% chance that somebody will try to kill me. That's the primary reason that I don't accept the argument that a handgun won't do for self defense or any other reason.

And the second amendment obviously doesn't "make clear" that assault rifles have a legitimate purpose. That's the biggest load of gibberish I've heard from you yet. I won't even expound upon that because I think it's pretty obvious.

the gibberish is claiming (honestly which would be ignorance or dishonestly which appears to be par for the course from most hoplophobes) that assault rifles don't have a legitimate purpose

Our own governmental units admit that by buying LOTS of them for their employees

BTW do you even know what an assault rifle IS?
 
The second amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That's all it says. Courts and legislators have agreed for hundreds of years that the right to keep and bear arms will be protected, but regulated. That's where we're at. What to regulate, how much to regulate. Your arguments are so off the mark it blows my mind.

You are pretty much coming out and saying this, so let's just put it out there: you think that one day you might need to fight a war against the government. You want to have lots of guns when "the war" comes. Listen, dude, it's so ridiculous. You want to be able to defeat the government when "the war" comes? Better start stocking up on lots of grenades, land mines, and helicopters. If you want to argue that military weapons should be legal to own, you need a rational purpose, not one based on paranoid delusion.



I'm not "you people," I'm me. I don't feel unsafe, nor does anybody else I know. I can wake up and go to bed at night with the knowledge that there is a .00000000001% chance that somebody will try to kill me. That's the primary reason that I don't accept the argument that a handgun won't do for self defense or any other reason.

And the second amendment obviously doesn't "make clear" that assault rifles have a legitimate purpose. That's the biggest load of gibberish I've heard from you yet. I won't even expound upon that because I think it's pretty obvious.

you're way off, the second Amendment says, " a well regulated militia is necessary to preserve Liberty, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed."

banning guns because you don't agree with that purpose, is infringement. any ban is infringement and a violation off of our nation's Bill of Rights. you can get bogged down in some nonsense about hunting in self defense in blah blah blah but that has nothing to do with the second Amendment
 
the gibberish is claiming (honestly which would be ignorance or dishonestly which appears to be par for the course from most hoplophobes) that assault rifles don't have a legitimate purpose

Our own governmental units admit that by buying LOTS of them for their employees

BTW do you even know what an assault rifle IS?

the legitimate purpose of any gun. is to defend Liberty. as far as the Constitution is concerned
 
bending a gun because it can be used to shoot people, is completely and totally absurd. so called assault rifles are ordinary rifles. banning them usurps our rights
 
you're way off, the second Amendment says, " a well regulated militia is necessary to preserve Liberty, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed."

banning guns because you don't agree with that purpose, is infringement. any ban is infringement and a violation off of our nation's Bill of Rights. you can get bogged down in some nonsense about hunting in self defense in blah blah blah but that has nothing to do with the second Amendment

So you're arguing that the ban of any type of gun is a violation of the constitution? Are you aware that the supreme court has consistently disagreed with that conclusion for almost 200 years? Here's a nifty article from the late 60s, straight out of the Duke Law Journal. Here's that link
An excerpt:

The power of Congress to regulate firearms under the taxing and commerce clause is clear.[10] The Supreme Court has upheld the taxing provisions of the National Firearms Act[11] as a legitimate exercise of the congressional power to tax.[12] Similarly, the lower [Page 778] federal courts have sanctioned firearms legislation enacted under the commerce clause,[13] and recent Supreme Court decisions have reaffirmed congressional power to enact a broad range of regulatory legislation under this constitutional provision.[14] Furthermore, the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution augments the commerce clause, empowering Congress [Page 779] to pass laws implementing existing legislation in areas over which it has regulatory powers.[15]

Congress can regulate the type of guns manufactured and sold and they can instate regulations for how guns are manufactured and sold. What they cannot do is prevent lawful citizens from keeping and bearing arms. The part about "a well regulated militia" is irrelevant because it has no legal implications. Many have argued that the whole militia thing regarded the fact that militias were needed to defend territory against invaders such as native americans. I don't think the founding fathers were planning on preparing their citizens to fight the government.

"The legitimate purpose of any gun is to defend liberty"

I'm not sure why I keep responding to you after snippets like that one.
 
Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

This is actually a tough question.

What makes pistols truly devastating, which is hard to measure against assault weapons pros, is the ability to conceal them with relative ease.

I think when this whole 3-D printing takes off though, the cons of pistols will be truly felt.
 
So you're arguing that the ban of any type of gun is a violation of the constitution? Are you aware that the supreme court has consistently disagreed with that conclusion for almost 200 years? Here's a nifty article from the late 60s, straight out of the Duke Law Journal. Here's that link
An excerpt:



Congress can regulate the type of guns manufactured and sold and they can instate regulations for how guns are manufactured and sold. What they cannot do is prevent lawful citizens from keeping and bearing arms. The part about "a well regulated militia" is irrelevant because it has no legal implications. Many have argued that the whole militia thing regarded the fact that militias were needed to defend territory against invaders such as native americans. I don't think the founding fathers were planning on preparing their citizens to fight the government.

"The legitimate purpose of any gun is to defend liberty"

I'm not sure why I keep responding to you after snippets like that one.

I keep responding with that statement because it is a fact.
 
This is actually a tough question.

What makes pistols truly devastating, which is hard to measure against assault weapons pros, is the ability to conceal them with relative ease.

I think when this whole 3-D printing takes off though, the cons of pistols will be truly felt.

the ability to conceal it, couples with the ease of use.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Pistols are used in crimes more, but neither are dangerous. The person behind the gun can be dangerous, but a gun is just a tool. But because that isn't what you are looking for, I would say that pistols are easier to conceal which makes them more "dangerous".
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Pistols are used in crimes more, but neither are dangerous. The person behind the gun can be dangerous, but a gun is just a tool. But because that isn't what you are looking for, I would say that pistols are easier to conceal which makes them more "dangerous".

You're answer is exactly what I was looking for. The first one. A gun is an object, no radiation, no hazards created by the material itself. The danger is from people, it doesn't go away because we crate a law.
 
Being that pistols are far more likely to be used in crime

No they are not, they are both inherently inanimate objects. People on the other hand are still dangerous.
 
Back
Top Bottom