• 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!

Should handguns be illegal?

Ban handguns?

  • Ban handguns

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Do not ban handguns

    Votes: 52 92.9%
  • Make restrictions (specify)

    Votes: 4 7.1%

  • Total voters
    56
Simple question.

Should the guns that are used the most in shootings, handguns, be banned in the United States?

I won't answer the question but I will say this. We essentially have two Americas, IMHO. One are responsible, law abiding, God fearing, defenders of freedom and their follow citizens who would never intentionally hurt anyone. Two are irresponsible, hotheaded, thugs, criminals, narcissists, high on dope, chip on their shoulders who don't give an F about anybody but themselves and then only maybe. The problem is its difficult to give the first category gun rights without giving those same rights to category two because the law treats everyone equally. Therein lies the problem. Compare to: Should any sovereign nation have nuclear weapons? I think America should. I think Iran and North Korea should not.
 
You know what? Forget that. Google Glasses will evolve into contact lenses in a couple years...I want the Google contact lens of firearms. I want suppression, I want 7.62 ful auto, forward grip, collapsing stock, I want no questions asked.

Getting a gun should be a free and protected as getting an abortion. At least the person I kill will have committed a crime first.

Please run for office.:) I want to be able to say, vote for that guy.
 
Last edited:
Depends on how you define a modern machine gun. A civilian can own an M-2, M-16, M-60 etc. Probably not a SAW, but then again, I doubt there are any SAW's in ciruculation outside the US military, or other national militaries that we've sold them to.

I would love to get my grubby little hands on a Ultimax 1000 .223 cal machine gun. That's a sweet machine.
 
Made this year. Colt's 2013 version of the M16. Modern, recent, current. Pick your synonym.

What if you could only own a computer made before May 1986....when I say I want a modern computer I'm talking about Samsung Galaxy S4, not a pre-Tandy with 4 megs of memory and maybe a rudimentary dial up modem if I'm lucky. I want the 4G network of firearms.

Dude thats a phone not a computer lol

I used to be a computer programmer/data analyst. That career collapsed out from under me in 2002-2003. Back then, I worked with high-end desktop-type computers.

A modern smartphone is actually a much more powerful computer than the computers on which I worked when I was in that business. I find it funny that we call it a “phone”, when telephony is really a small minority of the use that most of them actually get. It's a computer. And it's mostly used as a computer.
 
I would love to get my grubby little hands on a Ultimax 1000 .223 cal machine gun. That's a sweet machine.

It's probably a good thing that automatic weapons are so hard to get. I could neve afford all that ammo, anyway...lol
 
You mostly described the internet. How much does your phone do in dead zones? I have a old computer but it still does many things that my phone cant do. But I guess it just depends what one does, if its just the internet then a phone is fine.
In Afghan, my phone could locate itself even without internet, and I could use Google Maps to navigate....when the jammers weren't on, that is.
 
I used to be a computer programmer/data analyst. That career collapsed out from under me in 2002-2003. Back then, I worked with high-end desktop-type computers.

A modern smartphone is actually a much more powerful computer than the computers on which I worked when I was in that business. I find it funny that we call it a “phone”, when telephony is really a small minority of the use that most of them actually get. It's a computer. And it's mostly used as a computer.

Its a handgun version of a computer. You pick the proper weapon for what you are doing. Surfing the internet away from home or playing games away from home a phone can be a good choice. But if you are going to be using a computer as a computer a phone wont cut it.

Either way it would be ridiculous to ban handguns or cell phones or make us use 1986 technology. We are well beyond Super Mario and we do not need the government telling us how to defend ourselves. :gunner:
 
I have a question. At what projectile size does a gun become something else, e.g. a cannon?
 
I have a question. At what projectile size does a gun become something else, e.g. a cannon?
A 'gun' is any device which throws a projectile. Not all guns are firearms, like a Super-Soaker water gun or a flower's 'pistil'..

Not all guns are cannons, but all cannons are guns.

The defining criteria the ATF uses to define a hand gun is not the projectile size, but the cartage size and the barrel length. A pistol bullet can be larger than a rifle bullet, but it will have less power because of the smaller cartridge.
 
Last edited:
I despise ANONYMOUS polls

please make sure you don't have an anonymous poll
 
It's questions like this that give all those gun nuts their legitimacy when they whine about slippery slopes. People wonder why we can't get gun reform on the table.
 
Simple question.

Should the guns that are used the most in shootings, handguns, be banned in the United States?

And people wonder why others believe in the arguement regarding "slippery slope"....often calling it a fallacy. Sorry but this is evidence of that slippery slope.

Yeah yeah...I know...this isn't the legislature or some law maker asking this question. But last I knew law makers don't bring stuff up unless someone in the public starts wanting something done on any given subject and it gains momentum.
 
Why should handguns be banned? Why is there even a question now about banning handguns?

First they ask if we should ban assault weapons. Then Magazines. Then Rifles. Then Shotguns. And now Hand guns. Funny how the same questions appear all across the spectrum with Political Sites.

As if the argument changes with the specificity of the weapon.

Here Obama loses on the argument and his issue. There will be no Assault weapons ban. Then the Switch up to Background Checks, even tho Biden says they don't have the time to go and prosecute such cases. Feinstein Shot down in flames with her Bill. Making a second loss for Obama with Reid stating it doesn't have enough votes.

Obama launches full scale assault and with Bloomberg since he lost on the issue. He cries out.....but the Majority of Americans are with me. Until a CBS Polls shows they are not. Now He changes up terminology and begins to call it Gun Safety. With a renewed vigor. He will tour the Country a 2nd time to push this agenda. Costing the Taxpayer even more money for a losing cause that he just cant turn around.

It's real simple for this question about handguns. Our answer is the same as all the Rest. There is no chink in the Armor. You can ask about all the different guns out there. The Answer Remains the Same. There shall be no Infringement upon the 2nd. With the 2nd. Or of the 2nd!

th
 
It's questions like this that give all those gun nuts their legitimacy when they whine about slippery slopes. People wonder why we can't get gun reform on the table.

the only gun reform we need is getting rid of the thousands of moronic laws that don't do anything but hassle honest people-like the idiotic hughes amendment for example
 
No. I would also like to add hell no.
 
NO, it is a silly question
 
a better question is

should politicians who want to ban handguns be denied armed protection?

clearly the answer is yes

politicians' bodyguards should be limited to the weapons those politicians deem suitable for other civilians to own. Thus the gaping asshole Bloomberg's keepers should be limited to 7 shot pistols and they should be wearing signs saying WE ONLY CARRY SEVEN ROUND WEAPONS JUST AS HIZZONER HAS DECREED FOR THE REST OF YOU PEASANTS
 
the only gun reform we need is getting rid of the thousands of moronic laws that don't do anything but hassle honest people-like the idiotic hughes amendment for example

I don't see where the Hughes Ammendment hassles anybody or hurts the 2nd Amendment. I have bought an assault rifle, two pistols, a shotgun, and an electric powder rifle since 1986. If it's an idiotic Amendment because it does nothing, then why bother with it at all? This is lke changing the law that states you can't hang clothes to dry in New York without a permit. Who cares? Does that law infringe on people's ability to dry their clothes? Leave it alone and actually look at something for the future that would benefit the nation's population, but not infringe. Progress is future change, not past change.

But certainly buyng a gun at a gun show should come with the same background check one has to go through in a pawn shop, right? That's one glaring issue. Stating that doing away with the Hughes Amendment is the "only gun reform" needed is a bit irresponsible. I would say the same thing about a gun owner who stores his guns in a way that allows teenage idiots to tote one to school to kill his favorite bully.

So the way I see it, we can whine and whine about the direction of the wind as being a blow to our 2nd Amendment rights, but we don't seem to care about holding anybody responsible to those rights. In fact, its the only right that has no sense of responsibility attached to it. Even the Freedom of Speech comes with laws that prohibit you from slandering or causing riots. Even driving a car comes with laws of safety and insurance. But a gun? Absolutely nothing. I can buy my gun, store it on the living room carpet for all to touch and handle, and be exonerated if it is used in a school shooting.

Why people are petrified anytime someone in Washington even say's the word gun is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
I don't see where the Hughes Ammendment hassles anybody or hurts the 2nd Amendment. I have bought an assault rifle, two pistols, a shotgun, and an electric powder rifle since 1986. If it's an idiotic Amendment because it does nothing, then why bother with it at all? This is lke changing the law that states you can't hang clothes to dry in New York without a permit. Who cares? Does that law infringe on people's ability to dry their clothes? Leave it alone and actually look at something for the future that would benefit the nation's population, but not infringe. Progress is future change, not past change.

But certainly buyng a gun at a gun show should come with the same background check one has to go through in a pawn shop, right? That's one glaring issue. Stating that doing away with the Hughes Amendment is the "only gun reform" needed is a bit irresponsible. I would say the same thing about a gun owner who stores his guns in a way that allows teenage idiots to tote one to school to kill his favorite bully.

So the way I see it, we can whine and whine about the direction of the wind as being a blow to our 2nd Amendment rights, but we don't seem to care about holding anybody responsible to those rights. In fact, its the only right that has no sense of responsibility attached to it. Even the Freedom of Speech comes with laws that prohibit you from slandering or causing riots. Even driving a car comes with laws of safety and insurance. But a gun? Absolutely nothing. I can buy my gun, store it on the living room carpet for all to touch and handle, and be exonerated if it is used in a school shooting.

Why people are petrified anytime someone in Washington even say's the word gun is beyond me.

so you support the fact that

1) you cannot buy any automatic made after May 19, 1986

2) that firearms that once cost 2000 dollars now cost 20,000 dollars as a result.

3) there are plenty of laws that prohibit misuse of ANY Weapon

your concept of responsibility is moronic-banning something for everyone is irrational
 
so you support the fact that

1) you cannot buy any automatic made after May 19, 1986

Yes. I don't need an automatic to take out a target. I didn't even need one in the Marine Corps. But you know who does need one? A gangster who needs to spray a street to kill one person. If the average American needs one to take out a target, then the average American isn't trained enough to handle a firearm.

2) that firearms that once cost 2000 dollars now cost 20,000 dollars as a result.

No. Capitalism, however, is a separate issue. You will find people in all laws looking to capitalize.

3) there are plenty of laws that prohibit misuse of ANY Weapon

Yes. I spent twenty years handling all types of weapons and the proper handlng and use was always a constant awareness. To suggest that untrained civilians don't have to bother with such nonesense is irresponsible.

your concept of responsibility is moronic-banning something for everyone is irrational

The fact that people have proven that they don't respect their weapons or their rights to own one is exactly government is stepping in to force it. You can't drive away from a hospital with a newborn without showing a car seat. You can't get a dirver's license without taking a test. You can't drive away with a new car without proof of insurance. buy guns? An 18th birthday is all that is needed. Blame people, not the government.

The fact that you wish to celebrate irresponsibility as some sort of show of your unendangered rights is moronic.
 
Last edited:
Yes. I don't need an automatic to take out a target. I didn't even need one in the Marine Corps. But you know who does need one? A gangster who needs to spray a street to kill one person. If the average American needs one to take a target, then the average American isn't trained enough to handle a firearm.



No. Capitalism, however, is a separate issue. You will find people in all laws looking to capitalize.



Yes. I spent twenty years handling all types of weapons and the proper handlng and use was always a constant awareness. To suggest that untrained civilians don;t have to bother with such nonesense is irresponsible.



The fact that people have proven that they don't respect their weapons or their rights to own one is exactly government is stepping in to force it. You can't drive away from a hospital with a newborn without showing a car seat. You can't get a dirver's license without taking a test. You can't drive away with a new car without proof of insurance. buy guns? An 18th birthday is all that is needed. Blame people, not the government.

The fact that you wish to celebrate irresponsibility as some sort of show of your unendangered rights is moronic.

I get so tired of people who have no clue about constitutional rights trying to modify our freedoms based on what they think others NEED. Your position is without merit-you can just as easily say no one needs any kind of gun. The fact is, if police officers have it for self defense against criminals the REST OF US ought to be able to own them. IF THE STANDARD Issue mlitary rifle is full auto then the citizens should have them too. That is the entire concept behind the second amendment.

You confuse-many times-the difference betweeen laws that ban the possession of something for EVERYONE because SOME misuse it with the proper laws that ban IMPROPER USE.

you are basically a statist and have control freak cravings. you think the governemnt should CONTROL everyone for no reason other than a few violate proper laws against improper use

I bet my last dollar you wouldn't have any chance against me in any recognized shooting contest involving an M4 rifle or an M9 beretta. I am better trained than you are which is why I have represented the USA in world level competition and why I was a sponsored professional IPSC/USPSA shooter. SO if TRAINING is what matters than your silly support for blanket bans goes out the window
 
Last edited:
I get so tired of people who have no clue about constitutional rights ....

Your right is to bear arms. Can you purchase a weapon? If so, then your rights are just fine. It is obvious that while you work yourself up over nonesense you lose sight of the Consititution and imagine that any detail of construct means you have lost it. I see no difference in your bitching than I do in a Liberals bitching. Both are extreme and ignorant and serve nothing to progress.

you are basically a statist and have control freak cravings. you think the governemnt should CONTROL everyone for no reason other than a few violate proper laws against improper use

And you are an anarchist who pretends that the American public has not given the government plenty of reason.
 
Last edited:
for those who have no clue what the hughes amendment is (including MSgt) it was a poison pill added improperly to a firearms owner protection act by a congressman who wanted to derail a law that was going to pass. Even though there was basically ZERO cases of legally owned machine guns being used in crime, the amendment banned registration of any machine gun made after May 19, 1986 meaning only law enforcement agencies and the military, along with some Title II makers and class III dealers could own any such weapon made after May 19, 1986-such firearms could not be "registered" for the purpose of civilian ownersihp.

This law made ownership of pre-existing machine guns far harder for anyone but the rich

claiming it had no effect on anything other than machine guns is an admission of not understanding what the law is about

but its great that liberals want machine guns to be only owned by the rich
 
Your right is to bear arms. Can you purchase a weapon? If so, then your rights are just fine. It is obvious that while you work yourself up over nonesense you lose sight of the Consititution and imagine that any detail of construct means you have lost it. I see no difference in your bitching than I do in a Liberals bitching. Both are extreme and ignorant and serve nothing to progress.

You clearly are as unknowledgeable about the term INFRINGE as you are of the laws. what do you think the second amendment is about?
 
Back
Top Bottom