• 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!

Supreme Court Justice Barack H. Obama? Joe Biden says ‘Hell yes!’

dcsports said:
Incorrect. Most mass shootings involve pistols. 47 (28%) over the last 3+ decades have involved rifles. Anecdotally many involve AR-15 or similar style of weapons, but again, it's the most common type of rifle, and others types have been used.

Note that you are also mixing issues here - these are not 'assault rifles', as properly defined. 'Assault weapon' is a construct with varying definitions, most of which refer to either cosmetic appearance or accessories - not lethality. If your concern is 'lethality' or 'used in mass shootings' - the type of weapons targeted is incorrect.

• Guns used in mass shootings 1982-2019 | Statista



Again, two different things. No one wants these shootings, and no one (or at least very few) say that we should have no restrictions. There are certainly huge gaps in our mental health system, and more we can to to programatically help identify and stop these people. But the voices 'sane and rational adults' are getting drowned out by a very vocal group that focuses on 'banning guns' rather than access to those, or the underlying problems.



You dodged my attempt to correct your analogy, but still answered your own question. Does a mass murderer have the right to have a gun - any type? No. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether you should ban everyone else from owning a gun. Back to your analogy - your son wrecks his sports car street racing. Most street racers use modified sports cars - some even put illegal modifications on them. Do you ban all sport cars? Perhaps as defined as having the following features: 6 or more cyilinders, turbocharger, Spoilers, custom street rims, two doors, pin stripes, custom graphics, or the ability to add driving lights or fog lights? Or do you ban specific unsafe modifications, and punish those who use cars irresponsibly.
Click to expand...

Clever retorts and well argued. We have evidence of the efficacy of total bans on all these types of weapons, it works. Regarding Heller, Heller and the 2nd can be met by allowing only single action or limited capacity weapons of all types. The debate about what to call them is pointless. The issue is capacity to kill quickly, efficiently and massively. We can argue about gun styles all day long but it matters not to the dead kid what you call the weapon, he is still dead. Lets make this real easy. As Beto said last night, your AR and UZI are toast. Then we can move on to other similarly styled weapons. Or we can kill each other, its your choice.
 
Vadinho said:
Clever retorts and well argued. We have evidence of the efficacy of total bans on all these types of weapons, it works. Regarding Heller, Heller and the 2nd can be met by allowing only single action or limited capacity weapons of all types. The debate about what to call them is pointless. The issue is capacity to kill quickly, efficiently and massively. We can argue about gun styles all day long but it matters not to the dead kid what you call the weapon, he is still dead. Lets make this real easy. As Beto said last night, your AR and UZI are toast. Then we can move on to other similarly styled weapons. Or we can kill each other, its your choice.
Click to expand...


Mentioning O'Rourke as a reference for anything is a losing argument.

Look.. if you want to ban all firearms/semi-automatic weapons, then say so. Don't be dishonest about it.
 
dcsports said:
Mentioning O'Rourke as a reference for anything is a losing argument.

Look.. if you want to ban all firearms/semi-automatic weapons, then say so. Don't be dishonest about it.
Click to expand...

Did I say ban all weapons? No. Failed attempt at a responsible reply, but I expect that of gun enthusiasts. Or should I call them, passive participants in mass slaughter?
 
Vadinho said:
Did I say ban all weapons? No. Failed attempt at a responsible reply, but I expect that of gun enthusiasts. Or should I call them, passive participants in mass slaughter?
Click to expand...

Yes, essentially you did - 'allowing only single action or limited capacity weapons of all types.' You are arguing keying on cosmetic differences, and using that to bridge to most of the spectrum of firearms.
 
dcsports said:
Yes, essentially you did - 'allowing only single action or limited capacity weapons of all types.' You are arguing keying on cosmetic differences, and using that to bridge to most of the spectrum of firearms.
Click to expand...

Still plenty of firearms left for you to shoot deer and birds plus have one in your house in case someone invades it...I really don't care for any weapon that can shoot large clips or magazines. I guess I care about murders and having the people better armed then the police.
 
eohrnberger said:
True, it's not 1787 anymore, but the principals laid out in the Constitution are timeless, and just as valid now as they were then. Without this anchored down, the nation would soon become rudderless and unprincipled.

So because the Founding Fathers didn't foresee the telegraph and the telephone, are the principals of the 1st amendment rights any changed due to them?
Click to expand...


That ship has sailed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom