• 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!

Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

  • Total voters
    40
Goshin said:
I'd go with a couple thousand just to be safe. You need to practice occasionally to keep those skills sharp.

Now, if we're talking match-grade ammo that's a different kettle of fish...but then again match-grade is pretty much a waste in an AK anyway. :mrgreen:

G.
Click to expand...





I always have on hand 2500 rounds for each of my rifles, 1000 rounds for each of my pistols.

If I use any, it is immediatly replaced.
 
Dav said:
Because they are not necessary. You don't need a mega-powerful gun to defend yourself. Some weapons can do nothing but make murder more efficient and I don't see what advantages there are in not banning them.
Click to expand...

You don't need a computer, a car or much of anything else.

I tire of amateurs and the ignorant telling me what I NEED. People like you are why I NEED weapons suitable for dealing with those who want to tell others how to live


NEED HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
 
nerv14 said:
Most of Carter's reasons seemed pretty poor, but I agree with him in that assult weapons can kill many people at once.

Even though I roughly consider myself pro-gun, my reason are for hunting, self defence, overthrowing this gov, protection against invasions, and getting rid of ascess to all types of guns doesn't reduce crime.

and i dont' see how those reasons will be impeded by getting rid of assult weapons.
Click to expand...

you do realize that almost all civilian (repeat CIVILIAN) law enforcement agencies have determined that 17-19 shot semi auto handguns and select fire carbines are the weapons of choice for SELF DEFENSE IN URBAN AREAS

So if all of these municipal organizations with government authority have --in their infinite wisdom--that such guns that liberals call "assault weapons" are the very firearms CIVILIAN (repeat CIVILIAN not military) law enforcement officers ought to use for SELF DEFENSE IN URBAN AREAS that clearly establishes that such weapons are also the BEST CHOICE FOR SELF DEFENSE BY US OTHER CIVILIANS
 
nerv14 said:
I don't know the specific differences between an assult rifle and an assault weapon. Maybe an assult rifle doesn't put people at risk, you agree ethat assult weapons do, and that is what my position is.
Click to expand...

Maybe you ought to learn such things before spending so much time posting about the subject
 
Maxientius said:
WHAT?
The definition of arms can easily be debated. If used in a proper way a ****ing pencil is an arm or "weapon" as you gave the definition.
Arms are simply weapons designed to kill in specific manner. Firearms, therefore, kill through force trauma by a projectile.
Certain arms should be banned while others should not. Specificly anti-personel arms SHOULD BE banned while other weapons that can be used for self-defense or to defend from government opression, should not be.
This move by the government could be taken as an attempt to disarm the people and make them more submissive to the will of the increasingly Socialist government now in place.
:doh
Click to expand...

Feel free to tell the the difference in those weapons. I have trained in weapons all of my life and I have no idea of the difference you claim.
 
I was looking at some sources and talking about gun laws with my siblings... and right now I consider myself firmly in the pro-gun catagory.

I am offically fine with people buying any sort of weapons that a common soldier would have as long as someone is not a criminal. This includes any sort of machineguns or assults weapons.

As long as there is a short waiting period and an organization that tracks the weapons, (which there is) then im fine with almost anyone having them.


I am still against rocket launchers and anti-tank weapons. Those are not what a normal soldier would have.
 
nerv14 said:
I was looking at some sources and talking about gun laws with my siblings... and right now I consider myself firmly in the pro-gun catagory.

I am offically fine with people buying any sort of weapons that a common soldier would have as long as someone is not a criminal. This includes any sort of machineguns or assults weapons.

As long as there is a short waiting period and an organization that tracks the weapons, (which there is) then im fine with almost anyone having them.


I am still against rocket launchers and anti-tank weapons. Those are not what a normal soldier would have.
Click to expand...

While I could care less if anyone had a "rocket launcher" or various anti-tank weapons (which just to let you know encompasses a LOT of weaponry, including things that you consider okay now :lol: ) I would not want to restrict them either. Just as long as they are monitored like other FFLIII items.

I am glad you've given this a bit more thought. I do have to ask, what made you see automatics in this new light? (Of course I am assuming that it wasnt our debate and/or provided data.)
 
nerv14 said:
I was looking at some sources and talking about gun laws with my siblings... and right now I consider myself firmly in the pro-gun catagory.

I am offically fine with people buying any sort of weapons that a common soldier would have as long as someone is not a criminal. This includes any sort of machineguns or assults weapons.

As long as there is a short waiting period and an organization that tracks the weapons, (which there is) then im fine with almost anyone having them.


I am still against rocket launchers and anti-tank weapons. Those are not what a normal soldier would have.
Click to expand...

1) why should I have to wait when the current background check is as accurate as anything that can be done in 5 days


2) one can argue that a rocket launcher is not an individual infantry weapon honestly. Of course, that begs the question-what part of the constitution empowers the FEDERAL government to ban such items?
 
TurtleDude said:
1) why should I have to wait when the current background check is as accurate as anything that can be done in 5 days


2) one can argue that a rocket launcher is not an individual infantry weapon honestly. Of course, that begs the question-what part of the constitution empowers the FEDERAL government to ban such items?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. A 5 day background check is what I support then.

You are right that the federal government has no power to restict rocket launchers. However, the government Unconstitutionally has so many other powers, such as SS, Medicare ect that the 10th amendment is violated in much worse ways then by banning rocket launchers. Pick your battles
 
Shewter said:
While I could care less if anyone had a "rocket launcher" or various anti-tank weapons (which just to let you know encompasses a LOT of weaponry, including things that you consider okay now :lol: ) I would not want to restrict them either. Just as long as they are monitored like other FFLIII items.

I am glad you've given this a bit more thought. I do have to ask, what made you see automatics in this new light? (Of course I am assuming that it wasnt our debate and/or provided data.)
Click to expand...

I think it was the statistics about how so few people were legally killed by automatic weapons from before. I was just skeptical because it did not include where the illegal weapons are from.

My brother was saying that even if gun regulations don't reduce crime, that they are used in Mexico. However, I saw a source that says only 17% of some guns that were found in a drug raid were from America.

Apparently, there is many powerful weapons that come to Mexico (and America I must assume) from Israel, South Africa, Russia and many South American countries.

so that seems to remove some of my doubt about stolen weapons that are originally purchased illegally.
 
Maxientius said:
WHAT?
The definition of arms can easily be debated. If used in a proper way a ****ing pencil is an arm or "weapon" as you gave the definition.
Arms are simply weapons designed to kill in specific manner. Firearms, therefore, kill through force trauma by a projectile.
Certain arms should be banned while others should not. Specificly anti-personel arms SHOULD BE banned while other weapons that can be used for self-defense or to defend from government opression, should not be.
This move by the government could be taken as an attempt to disarm the people and make them more submissive to the will of the increasingly Socialist government now in place.
:doh
Click to expand...


All weapons are anti-personnel weapons.

Oh.

No weapons should be banned.

The ones the government fears most are the ones the people need most to keep the government in line.
 
Maxientius said:
Certain arms should be banned while others should not. Specificly anti-personel arms SHOULD BE banned while other weapons that can be used for self-defense or to defend from government opression, should not be.
Click to expand...
Gotta ask...
Which weapons from the latter category do not also fall into the former category?
 
nerv14 said:
Fair enough. A 5 day background check is what I support then.

You are right that the federal government has no power to restict rocket launchers. However, the government Unconstitutionally has so many other powers, such as SS, Medicare ect that the 10th amendment is violated in much worse ways then by banning rocket launchers. Pick your battles
Click to expand...

Why do you support a five day wait when it is NO MORE ACCURATE than an instant background check?
 
TurtleDude said:
Why do you support a five day wait when it is NO MORE ACCURATE than an instant background check?
Click to expand...

oops my mistake reading your post.

but anyway, where are you getting that information? It may not all be computerized or something else.

and even though I think people should be able to get guns when they want them, I would like at least a day so if someone gets angry and wants to immedietly buy a gun, then they can't.

If you want a gun you should at least have to wait 24 hours :p
 
Last edited:
nerv14 said:
If you want a gun you should at least have to wait 24 hours
Click to expand...
I remember hearing that a right delayed is a right denied...?
 
nerv14 said:
oops my mistake reading your post.

but anyway, where are you getting that information? It may not all be computerized or something else.

and even though I think people should be able to get guns when they want them, I would like at least a day so if someone gets angry and wants to immedietly buy a gun, then they can't.

If you want a gun you should at least have to wait 24 hours :p
Click to expand...



If you had just recieved a credible death threat and wanted a gun to protect your self/family, you might find that 24 hour wait to feel like 24 years.
 
Goobieman said:
I remember hearing that a right delayed is a right denied...?
Click to expand...


Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Why?

I don't see that written into the Second Amendment.

Do you?
Click to expand...

Lets take the second amendment for what is was intended.

If someone wants a gun they should be able to get one. Getting the gun immedietly doesn't really factor into that.

Goshin said:
If you had just recieved a credible death threat and wanted a gun to protect your self/family, you might find that 24 hour wait to feel like 24 years.
Click to expand...

What is more likely, someone is dumb enough to warn someone else that they will try and kill them and actually tries to carry out the threat, or someone gets angry and in their rage they buy a gun to kill someone else.

I would assume that most threats aren't carried out, and most murders don't have the courtesy to warn their victems.

There is also the police if someone feels they are in danger. Even if requested protection isn't their objective, they are still there.
 
nerv14 said:
What is more likely, someone is dumb enough to warn someone else that they will try and kill them and actually tries to carry out the threat, or someone gets angry and in their rage they buy a gun to kill someone else.

I would assume that most threats aren't carried out, and most murders don't have the courtesy to warn their victems.

There is also the police if someone feels they are in danger. Even if requested protection isn't their objective, they are still there.
Click to expand...

You'd be amazed how often people run their mouths before doing something. It's the main reason so many criminals get caught: can't-shut-up-itis.

"When you're seconds from death, the cops are only minutes away." :mrgreen:

As for instant-rage-impulse-killings...Buying a gun means driving to the gunstore, picking out a gun, filling out a crapload of paperwork, and then waiting 20 minutes while the ICS background comes back... then driving back to wherever the hypothetical trouble is. Impulse killings rarely involve something that takes that long...they either grab a gun that is on hand, or they go for a knife, hatchet, or rock.

G.
 
nerv14 said:
Lets take the second amendment for what is was intended.
Click to expand...

Yes.

It was intended to prevent the government from infringing on gun ownership.

Putting an arbitrary artificial waiting period for an unconstitutional background check is an infringement.
 
Goshin said:
You'd be amazed how often people run their mouths before doing something. It's the main reason so many criminals get caught: can't-shut-up-itis.

"When you're seconds from death, the cops are only minutes away." :mrgreen:

As for instant-rage-impulse-killings...Buying a gun means driving to the gunstore, picking out a gun, filling out a crapload of paperwork, and then waiting 20 minutes while the ICS background comes back... then driving back to wherever the hypothetical trouble is. Impulse killings rarely involve something that takes that long...they either grab a gun that is on hand, or they go for a knife, hatchet, or rock.

G.
Click to expand...


You are right-the mental state that results in a "heat of rage" or passion killing only lasts but a few moments. Every criminologist I have spoken to, plus 20 years of being around detectives, etc has convinced me that if someone goes to a store, fills out the forms and gets the gun (having bought dozens and dozens of guns the quickest I can do this-not counting the 15 minute car trip to the closet gun shop) is about 20 minutes), they are engaging in PREMEDITATED BEHAVIOR and a COOLING OFF PERIOD HAS ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON THEM

THe only supposed legitimate purpose for the ORIGINAL Wait was that records were not computerized (which is bs because in our state the cops do the exact same BG check when they pull you over for speeding-and they have done so for 20+ years). Now that the records are all computerized in 50 states, there is absolutely no LEGITIMATE reason for a waiting period.

ARC types want it for two reasons-the hassle gun owners and to kill off gun shows.
 
TurtleDude said:
You are right-the mental state that results in a "heat of rage" or passion killing only lasts but a few moments. Every criminologist I have spoken to, plus 20 years of being around detectives, etc has convinced me that if someone goes to a store, fills out the forms and gets the gun (having bought dozens and dozens of guns the quickest I can do this-not counting the 15 minute car trip to the closet gun shop) is about 20 minutes), they are engaging in PREMEDITATED BEHAVIOR and a COOLING OFF PERIOD HAS ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON THEM

THe only supposed legitimate purpose for the ORIGINAL Wait was that records were not computerized (which is bs because in our state the cops do the exact same BG check when they pull you over for speeding-and they have done so for 20+ years). Now that the records are all computerized in 50 states, there is absolutely no LEGITIMATE reason for a waiting period.

ARC types want it for two reasons-the hassle gun owners and to kill off gun shows.
Click to expand...

20 minutes is not enough cooling down time for it to be considered thought through.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yes.

It was intended to prevent the government from infringing on gun ownership.

Putting an arbitrary artificial waiting period for an unconstitutional background check is an infringement.
Click to expand...

It doesn't infringe on someone getting a gun if they want to though. Everyone seems to agree that the second amendment should be used for what the founding fathers wanted. and that was for people to get any guns that they want.

A one day waiting period doesn't counter that in any practical way.

Goshin said:
You'd be amazed how often people run their mouths before doing something. It's the main reason so many criminals get caught: can't-shut-up-itis.

"When you're seconds from death, the cops are only minutes away." :mrgreen:

As for instant-rage-impulse-killings...Buying a gun means driving to the gunstore, picking out a gun, filling out a crapload of paperwork, and then waiting 20 minutes while the ICS background comes back... then driving back to wherever the hypothetical trouble is. Impulse killings rarely involve something that takes that long...they either grab a gun that is on hand, or they go for a knife, hatchet, or rock.

G.
Click to expand...

Right now im looking for if people who are murdered are commonly warned of the crime before it happens. I haven't found anything yet, but maybe someone else has that on one of their gun statistics :p

Ideally,
I would like to compare that to some statistic of how many people are killed from others immedietly buying guns and killing with them in less then 24 hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom