• 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!

[W:711] 2/3rds of Americans want an assault weapons ban

Grand Mal said:
Well, so few of us hunt that we're insignificant in the eco scheme of things. And we're easily managed. And the money we pay for our licenses and tags puts more into the conservation cause then a dozen city dwellers.
Click to expand...

What are all those people doing with guns if so few are hunting?
 
Media_Truth said:
What's dishonest is your quibbling over definitions. This is the exact rhetoric that will lead to more gun control.
Click to expand...

Is this a "sniper rifle"?
 

Attachments

  • 7-g27943.jpg
    7-g27943.jpg
    32.4 KB · Views: 33
upsideguy said:
People are not interested in banning weapons based upon looks, they are interested in restricting access to weapons based upon kill power (the amount of rounds that can be discharged in a fixed period of time and the velocity of those rounds). These things can be defined.

The argument that the "people" can't identify an assault rifle is a silly argument designed to deflect from the issue. I am sure you don't want to be a *****. You would rather confront/address the merits of the actual issue at hand without such silly, irrelevant distractions.

So, please try again. Why is the idea of restricting high kill weapons without merit?
Click to expand...

so many lies in that claim. First-is when the scumbags in office "banned" certain firearms, the weapons banned were banned for things like this

1) ADJUSTABLE STOCKS

2) "flash hiders"

3) bayonet lugs

4) pistol grips

want to explain to me how those items make a firearm a "high kill" firearm given the weapons banned are still used in less than 2% of all murders

You lie when you call them "high kill weapons". How can anyone take your arguments seriously when you post nonsense such as that.
 
Bodhisattva said:
What are all those people doing with guns if so few are hunting?
Click to expand...

Don't know. I don't know someone with a gun who doesn't hunt. But I don't live in a city. In my experience nobody in a Canadian city owns a gun anymore.
 
upsideguy said:
People are not interested in banning weapons based upon looks, they are interested in restricting access to weapons based upon kill power (the amount of rounds that can be discharged in a fixed period of time and the velocity of those rounds). These things can be defined.

The argument that the "people" can't identify an assault rifle is a silly argument designed to deflect from the issue. I am sure you don't want to be a *****. You would rather confront/address the merits of the actual issue at hand without such silly, irrelevant distractions.

So, please try again. Why is the idea of restricting high kill weapons without merit?
Click to expand...

Do you want to ban this?
 

Attachments

  • Remington_7400_with_etching.jpg
    Remington_7400_with_etching.jpg
    77.9 KB · Views: 27
Glitch said:
Leaning up against a wall or a tree is brace. When you place it into your shoulder it is a stock. Why you continue to spew lies defies reason.
Click to expand...

That’s the kind of silly logic the BATF used to apply. Then someone finally smacked some sense into them and made them realize a brace is a brace is a brace, and you can’t magically change what something is because you use it differently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Glitch said:
Leaning up against a wall or a tree is brace. When you place it into your shoulder it is a stock. Why you continue to spew lies defies reason.
Click to expand...

As for the lying part. No one is lying. You are just ignorant. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
upsideguy said:
People are not interested in banning weapons based upon looks, they are interested in restricting access to weapons based upon kill power (the amount of rounds that can be discharged in a fixed period of time and the velocity of those rounds). These things can be defined.

The argument that the "people" can't identify an assault rifle is a silly argument designed to deflect from the issue. I am sure you don't want to be a *****. You would rather confront/address the merits of the actual issue at hand without such silly, irrelevant distractions.

So, please try again. Why is the idea of restricting high kill weapons without merit?
Click to expand...

It certainly is cowardly to sit back and worry about their gun racks, in the wake of mass-murder after mass-murder. It's simply so amazing that these people don't want to do ANYTHING - no registration, no Red Flag laws, no assault-like weapon bans... Nothing. Can any of them answer the question? - How many yearly mass murders must occur in the US, before you want to do SOMETHING?
 
VanceMack said:
https://www.sigsauer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/atf-letter-march-21-2017.pdf

Educate yourself. The brace, blade, stabilizers are NOT stocks and shouldering the weapon does not change its characteristics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

you are right but you probably are aware that at one point the ATF tried to say that the brace was legal as long as you didn't "shoulder it" but that stupidity has been terminated. But it was up in the air, and lots of people buy these AR 15s with braces to get a SBR without the stupid 10 month wait and ridiculous tax stamp requirements.
 
Media_Truth said:
It certainly is cowardly to sit back and worry about their gun racks, in the wake of mass-murder after mass-murder. It's simply so amazing that these people don't want to do ANYTHING - no registration, no Red Flag laws, no assault-like weapon bans... Nothing. Can any of them answer the question? - How many yearly mass murders must occur in the US, before you want to do SOMETHING?
Click to expand...

more dishonesty-demanding gun owners sacrifice their rights so people like you can pretend that does something useful. I want to do something-I want more people able to defend themselves in the face of an active shooter. You want to disarm victims because your goal is harassing gun owners
 
SLC said:
Tell them to check out the number of people killed by long guns each year then compare it to the number of people stabbed to death. Then tell them to look at the statistics on how many deaths were prevented by banning 'assault' ' style guns under Clinton. Criminals don't mind breaking the law.

More people die by stabbing than by all long guns. The Clinton assault gun ban did not statistically effect the death by gun rate so it was dropped. A ban on "assault " style gun will effect law abiding citizens and the criminals will still obtain them.
Click to expand...

This thread is about Assault Weapons, not knives. How many mass murders were perpetrated by knife-wielding-Ninjas?
 
Media_Truth said:
This thread is about Assault Weapons, not knives. How many mass murders were perpetrated by knife-wielding-Ninjas?
Click to expand...

why is gun banning an almost exclusively left wing "solution" to mass murders?
 
TurtleDude said:
more dishonesty-demanding gun owners sacrifice their rights so people like you can pretend that does something useful. I want to do something-I want more people able to defend themselves in the face of an active shooter. You want to disarm victims because your goal is harassing gun owners
Click to expand...

Preventing an active shooter in the first place is much preferable to dealing with one already underway. Realistically, increased background checks and red flag laws don't require you to sacrifice anything.
 
TurtleDude said:
more dishonesty-demanding gun owners sacrifice their rights so people like you can pretend that does something useful. I want to do something-I want more people able to defend themselves in the face of an active shooter. You want to disarm victims because your goal is harassing gun owners
Click to expand...

Should there be open-carry of Assault-style weapons? Let's test your idealistic proposition.

1. Shooter starts firing rounds with assault weapon.
2. People start fleeing the scene. Bedlam breaks out. Anybody close to the shooter will likely be killed.
3. Mr. Turtledude is 50 yards away with his handgun, and pulls it out.
4. Shooter has better range, and more rounds.
5. Thoughts and prayers for Mr. Turtledude.

I have a better idea. Get the heck out of there, and let law enforcement handle it.
 
2/3rds of Americans want an assault weapons ban

Media_Truth said:
It certainly is cowardly to sit back and worry about their gun racks, in the wake of mass-murder after mass-murder. It's simply so amazing that these people don't want to do ANYTHING - no registration, no Red Flag laws, no assault-like weapon bans... Nothing. Can any of them answer the question? - How many yearly mass murders must occur in the US, before you want to do SOMETHING?
Click to expand...

But the stupidity in your words testify as to why we don’t fall for the same mindless **** you do. All you care about is passing a law...passing a ban! DO SOMETHING!!!! You don’t give a **** that nothing you suggest will make a bit of difference or that the bans you suggest will impact all US citizens. You don’t give a **** about the dead bodies from the day to day gun violence. You are committed to a CAUSE and all you have to offer is empty rhetoric and weak ass emotional pleas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
TurtleDude said:
you are right but you probably are aware that at one point the ATF tried to say that the brace was legal as long as you didn't "shoulder it" but that stupidity has been terminated. But it was up in the air, and lots of people buy these AR 15s with braces to get a SBR without the stupid 10 month wait and ridiculous tax stamp requirements.
Click to expand...

I understand that’s how it used to be defined...which agreed...was stupid then. If you misuse a car it doesn’t stop being a car. The lack of logic applied is stunning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
upsideguy said:
they are interested in restricting access to weapons based upon kill power (the amount of rounds that can be discharged in a fixed period of time and the velocity of those rounds). These things can be defined.
Click to expand...

Then why aren't Dems trying to do this? Oh, right, they're lying to you.
 
iguanaman said:
So it can shoot 27 people in less the 30 seconds? That's what the Dayton shooter did with the AR. With the maximum 5 shot clip on the M! that is unlikely.
Click to expand...
Well, it's 10 rounds for the Garand's clip, not 5, and modern M1s accept magazines, which can be 20-30 rounds or even a 50rnd drum. Both rifles are semi-auto and fire at the same rate. So yes, an M1 can shoot 27 people in 30 seconds, that's literally what it was designed to do.
 
Glitch said:
It is only called a "brace" by those who are being deliberately dishonest, trying to pretend that it isn't a rifle when in reality it is.
Click to expand...
Being dishonest to a government that is being dishonest to you, is fair play.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Well, it's 10 rounds for the Garand's clip, not 5, and modern M1s accept magazines, which can be 20-30 rounds or even a 50rnd drum. Both rifles are semi-auto and fire at the same rate. So yes, an M1 can shoot 27 people in 30 seconds, that's literally what it was designed to do.
Click to expand...

Then you are right. Those need to banned also.
 
iguanaman said:
Then you are right. Those need to banned also.
Click to expand...
And then the perps switch to arson, which is even more lethal than either the AR or the M1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom