• 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

TurtleDude said:
you're lying. Most of the anti gun low wattage sheeple think it stands for "assault rifle" when in reality it stands for the Gene Stoner designed ARMALITE Rifle
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess that he is one of those sheeple.
 
pamak said:
You can mislead people (and again this is about people who know nothing about guns) by giving 100% accurate information in a selective way.
As long as they sell pistols with caliber equivalent of that of an AK-47 assault rifle, the term "pistol-caliber" rifle becomes meaningless. They can as well say "AK-47 caliber" rifle That is also 100% accurate, but it does not sound nice, right?
Click to expand...
Dood....

seriously...


stop. You are embarrassing yourself.
 
Nap said:
I'm going to guess that he is one of those sheeple.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Most of the sheeple are low information types who actually believe that democrat schemes are intended to decrease violent crime and might actually do that. Those who advocate for gun bans are those who want to harass honest gun owners and are almost always political partisans who see gun control as a weapon against those who vote against their collectivist schemes.
 
Nap said:
#1 - Calling the Dayton shooters weapon a pistol isn't supporting any cause nor is it arbitrary. If you actually read the article you would have understood that it's classification as a pistol is due to federal law. You are comparing apples to oranges when comparing fearmongering to using a legally defined term.

2. Wouldn't it be more effective to address the actual causes for the increases in mass shootings rather than treating the symptoms? Why should the conversation start with the weapon used? Semi-automatics and "high" capacity magazines have been around for over a 100 years, the issue is not with the weapon but with society in general and particularly the last 2 generations.
Click to expand...

#1 But you did not complain about THAT classification as being misleading. On the other hand, you complain about the classification of assault weapons as it is used by gun control activists even though they use the term in the same way it was used by the 1994 FEDERAL LAW of assault ban.

#2 Ohh, I agree that the problem of mass shooting requires intervention on different levels. I do not think that this is JUST about gun-control. I just do not see why the gun-control should be off limits. My problem with the pro2A people is that they see anything that tries to regulate (and yes, in some ways limit) their options as some type of infringement of their Bill of Rights. I do not accept this point, and I have used the example of the limits in the expression of the First Amendment rights which come as a result of regulations that prohibit for example protests in highways. Such limitation in protesting has not been translated by the courts or even the pro2A supporters as something that violates the First Amendment' requirement that the government cannot make laws that "abridge" "the right to petition the government for redress of grievances."
 
VanceMack said:
Dood....

seriously...


stop. You are embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

Pistol caliber carbine is a term used almost exclusively in IPSC/USPSA or steel plate competitions and it means Pistol Cartridge Carbine-almost always a 9mm. The Dayton shooter used an AR 15 pistol which used an intermediate rifle cartridge (5.56 mm)
 
pamak said:
#1 But you did not complain about THAT classification as being misleading. On the other hand, you complain about the classification of assault weapons as it is used by gun control activists even though they use the term in the same way it was used by the 1994 FEDERAL LAW of assault ban.

#2 Ohh, I agree that the problem of mass shooting requires intervention on different levels. I do not think that this is JUST about gun-control. I just do not see why the gun-control should be off limits. My problem with the pro2A people is that they see anything that tries to regulate (and yes, in some ways limit) their options as some type of infringement of their Bill of Rights. I do not accept this point, and I have used the example of the limits in the expression of the First Amendment rights which come as a result of regulations that prohibit for example protests in highways. Such limitation in protesting has not been translated by the courts or even the pro2A supporters as something that violates the First Amendment' requirement that the government cannot make laws that "abridge" "the right to petition the government for redress of grievances."
Click to expand...

The 94 ban was a ridiculous piece of legislation that literally banned weapons arbitrarily. You could literally have the same weapon but by taking off something like a barrel shroud (something that protects you from burning yourself) would turn an illegal gun to a legal one. Anyone that thinks that the 94 ban was effective is completely ignorant of firearms in general as it is obvious simply by reading it how to circumvent it.
 
TurtleDude said:
Pistol caliber carbine is a term used almost exclusively in IPSC/USPSA or steel plate competitions and it means Pistol Cartridge Carbine-almost always a 9mm. The Dayton shooter used an AR 15 pistol which used an intermediate rifle cartridge (5.56 mm)
Click to expand...

This is a Pistol Caliber rifle (carbine)

hp.jpg

and to show how silly it gets, this is a Pistol Caliber carbine now California compliant.

hp cc.jpg
 
BlueTex said:
How about this definition?

Municode Library
Click to expand...

That is Illinois' definition. You will also note that it is entirely cosmetic and has absolutely nothing to do with the functionality of the firearm. It is also unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court held in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

Would you like to try yet another definition for "Assault Weapon?" There are literally thousands available. Congress created their own definition in 1994, and the anti-American leftist media have their own definition. So you are certainly spoiled for choice when picking which definition of "Assault Weapon" suits your fancy.
 
Glitch said:
That is Illinois' definition. You will also note that it is entirely cosmetic and has absolutely nothing to do with the functionality of the firearm. It is also unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court held in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

Would you like to try yet another definition for "Assault Weapon?" There are literally thousands available. Congress created their own definition in 1994, and the anti-American leftist media have their own definition. So you are certainly spoiled for choice when picking which definition of "Assault Weapon" suits your fancy.
Click to expand...

Then why did the court not take the opportunity to overturn Marylands assault weapons ban last year?

Kolbe v. Hogan

Search - Supreme Court of the United States
 
Glitch said:
That is Illinois' definition. You will also note that it is entirely cosmetic and has absolutely nothing to do with the functionality of the firearm. It is also unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court held in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

Would you like to try yet another definition for "Assault Weapon?" There are literally thousands available. Congress created their own definition in 1994, and the anti-American leftist media have their own definition. So you are certainly spoiled for choice when picking which definition of "Assault Weapon" suits your fancy.
Click to expand...

The supreme court declined to overturn the appeal court ruling that is was constitutional in 2015.
 
BlueTex said:
The supreme court declined to overturn the appeal court ruling that is was constitutional in 2015.
Click to expand...

The supremes are having a hard time deciding when a state statute violates the newly imposed second amendment
 
TurtleDude said:
The supremes are having a hard time deciding when a state statute violates the newly imposed second amendment
Click to expand...

Or that alternative, second amendment rights aren't unlimited....
 
BlueTex said:
Or that alternative, second amendment rights aren't unlimited....
Click to expand...

That is sort of true but it shows a complete lack of understanding of the bill of rights

The federal government never had any proper power in this area and the second amendment merely reiterated that.
 
TurtleDude said:
That is sort of true but it shows a complete lack of understanding of the bill of rights

The federal government never had any proper power in this area and the second amendment merely reiterated that.
Click to expand...

You will need to lecture the supreme court then...
 
BlueTex said:
You will need to lecture the supreme court then...
Click to expand...

they know that the commerce clause is not a proper grounds for gun control. But they also know if they say that-lots of popular programs would be seen as unconstitutional as well

BBL
 
iguanaman said:
(

A stunning number lands in the middle of the gun debate - CNNPolitics

Now we will see how Mitch reacts to the will of the people. Anyone think he cares?
Click to expand...

I would like to see the exact questions on the surveys for these responses. If you know anything about stats you know that how you ask the question and where, when and to whom are key factors in results.
Also some type of ban is a very broad spectrum to come up to some change. Just certain weapons, just high capacity magazines? What exactly?
 
VanceMack said:
I bet you cant...

Again...it helps if you know what you are talking about. What you showed on that page is a pistol with a BRACE, not a stock. A stock would change it from a pistol to a rifle while a brace, whether it is the strapped stabilizer brace shown or the blade stabilizer...are not 'stocks'. Up until the BATF decision a year ago, you werent allowed to shoulder pistols equipped with a brace. However last year they reversed their position and stated that shouldering the weapon does not change the configuration of a weapon....therefore shouldering it is now legal.
Click to expand...

You can call it whatever you want. The name is just an attempt to circumvent the restrictions of the pistol classification

https://www.atf.gov/file/55526/download

Although not
defined in the NFA, the term “pistol” is defined by the Act’s implementing regulations, 27
CFR 479.11, as “a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile
(bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an
integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed
to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s)”
(emphasis added).

So, obviously if a pistol has a short stock in the way described above, the people will not use the word "stock" in relation to a pistol attachment that gives it a functionality that does not match the legal one for a pistol (short stock designed
to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore).

In any case, such pistols are not used by the army. The closest that comes to such weapons are "machine pistols" but such weapons are select fire with full auto and burst" and therefore according to your logic such definition cannot apply to civilian weapons which do not have such capability. And these types of weapons blend with the submachine gun firearms which are banned.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
Which ones? "Assault weapons" are a whole category of weapons, some of which are legal now.
Click to expand...

Nope there was an assault weapons ban in 1986. that banned assault weapons.
in order to own one there is a whole entire process you must go through in order
to actually own an assault rifle.

a semi-automatic rifle is not an assault rifle.
 
Nap said:
The 94 ban was a ridiculous piece of legislation that literally banned weapons arbitrarily. You could literally have the same weapon but by taking off something like a barrel shroud (something that protects you from burning yourself) would turn an illegal gun to a legal one. Anyone that thinks that the 94 ban was effective is completely ignorant of firearms in general as it is obvious simply by reading it how to circumvent it.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing about the effectiveness or not of the ban. I do not know the details of that law and how it was applied. I just point that the definitions that BOTH sides use come from federal laws (current and past ones) and often such definitions do not match all the characteristics of the "pistols" and "assault rifles" that are actually used in the military.

And I also mentioned previously, that I see as necessary to have federal bipartisan research for the gun violence before we come to any conclusion regarding the effects of previous regulations. Right now, the situation is that each side can find a partisan institution to conduct a research and "find" the desired results.
 
pamak said:
You can call it whatever you want. The name is just an attempt to circumvent the restrictions

https://www.atf.gov/file/55526/download

Although not
defined in the NFA, the term “pistol” is defined by the Act’s implementing regulations, 27
CFR 479.11, as “a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile
(bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an
integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed
to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s)”
(emphasis added).

So, obviously if a pistol has a short stock, the people will not use the word "stock" in relation to a pistol attachment that gives it the same functionality.
In any case, such pistols are not used by the army. The closest that comes to such weapons are "machine pistols" but such weapons are select fire with full auto and burst" and therefore according to your logic such definition cannot apply to civilian weapons which do not have such capability. And these types of weapons blend with the submachine gun firearms which are banned.
Click to expand...
No...you CANT call it whatever you want and thats the point. It IS a brace. Thats why legally and by the BATF definitions it is legal to use on a rifle caliber pistol and why the pistol is not classified as a short barrel rifle.

You need to understand this stuff if you dont want to look silly. You CANT just make **** up or slap on definitions.A stock is a stock. A brace is a brace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom