• 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!

Your Stance on Pistols and Rifles that can accept detatchable magazines [W:805]

haymarket said:
If the peoples government passes a law against high capacity magazines, it follow that any attempt to turn any weapon into something that can then have a high capacity magazine should also be illegal and subject to the full prosecution the law provides.
Click to expand...

democratic forms of government are not stable and lead to tyranny.
 
haymarket said:
The fundamental problem with this so called "simple question" - and get a clue because nothing about this is simple - at least to anyone well informed....... is that there is a portion of the gun community who openly threatens to use a hecklers veto if anyone ever tries to take a weapon from them simply for the trivial reason that the duly elected government representing the American people have passed a law making such weapons illegal. Imagine the utter gall of the people government deciding what kind of society they want to live in!!!!! They take the position that they do not care about the law, that they will not comply with such a law, and the cold dead fingers come into play as they lay their threat before the American people.

They are like a spoiled ill mannered brat who threatens to destroy the entire experience if they do not get their way.

If they cannot have the America of their own belief system - they prefer to have no America at all for anyone.

So what do we do about such a threat? Given the hyper political nature of the NRA and some of their supporters - thats an easy answer: we will do nothing.

So this so called "simple question" is the opposite in that its a loaded question designed to produce lots of heat and no light.

I certainly do favor banning of high capacity magazines although I note the writer of the OP failed to define his terms.

Confiscation, however is another matter and I believe our society would simply NOT have the stomach for it as it could lead to lots of things far worse than people having those items in the first place. So I would say NO to confiscation if that means some sort of door to door round up. When we discover somebody with one, prosecute them as you would do any law breaker.
Click to expand...

A government that infringes on rights, even with the blessing of 50% + 1 of the population, is no longer legitimate.
 
haymarket said:
If the peoples government passes a law against high capacity magazines, it follow that any attempt to turn any weapon into something that can then have a high capacity magazine should also be illegal and subject to the full prosecution the law provides.
Click to expand...


So the answer is yes, since you would support a law to ban "high capacity magazines", you would also support a ban on guns accepting "high capacity magazines", therefore you are foe banning ALL so called "assault rifles", and any pistol or rifle that can accept a magazine...

Since any gun that can accept a magazine can accept larger capacity magazines you are therefore FOR a large gun ban of over half the types of guns that are in production.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
So the answer is yes, since you would support a law to ban "high capacity magazines", you would also support a ban on guns accepting "high capacity magazines", therefore you are foe banning ALL so called "assault rifles", and any pistol or rifle that can accept a magazine...

Since any gun that can accept a magazine can accept larger capacity magazines you are therefore FOR a large gun ban of over half the types of guns that are in production.
Click to expand...

Dismissing your sad attempt to pretend I said what you said instead of dealing with what I actually said - conversion would be a problem and a task for the manufacturers. I would think they would NOT want their weapon banned and would want to say in business and would want to keep making money selling their products so it is in their interest to make it as difficult as realistically possible to prevent just that.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
*shrug* explain how the question is "loaded" and tell me how you would have asked it.
Click to expand...

Did you not read my statement about your characterization of this as a SIMPLE QUESTION?

What is there about that statement that so befuddles and confuses you and prevents you from comprehending something stated clearly and without any ambiguity attached?
 
haymarket said:
Dismissing your sad attempt to pretend I said what you said instead of dealing with what I actually said - conversion would be a problem and a task for the manufacturers. I would think they would NOT want their weapon banned and would want to say in business and would want to keep making money selling their products so it is in their interest to make it as difficult as realistically possible to prevent just that.
Click to expand...

So you are dismissing my observation of your position then arguing how the implementation of the position you won't admit to holding after you posted said position would work if the law you support is implemented.


Do I have this right?
 
haymarket said:
Did you not read my statement about your characterization of this as a SIMPLE QUESTION?

What is there about that statement that so befuddles and confuses you and prevents you from comprehending something stated clearly and without any ambiguity attached?
Click to expand...


1. you support magazine bans on capacity.

2. you stated yes it was logical that then guns which could accept magazines that could accept over a certain capacity should also be banned.


over 50% of all guns sold today have this capability, you support a ban on these specific guns.


if I have your position wrong please clarify for me, thanks.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
So you are dismissing my observation of your position then arguing how the implementation of the position you won't admit to holding after you posted said position would work if the law you support is implemented.


Do I have this right?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you struggle with attempting to say.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
1. you support magazine bans on capacity.

2. you stated yes it was logical that then guns which could accept magazines that could accept over a certain capacity should also be banned.


over 50% of all guns sold today have this capability, you support a ban on these specific guns.


if I have your position wrong please clarify for me, thanks.
Click to expand...

What is there about my comments on the manufacturers of these weapons in post #30 in this very thread seems to so befuddle and confuse you so that you fail to comprehend that point which is rather clear and without ambiguity?
 
haymarket said:
What is there about my comments on the manufacturers of these weapons in post #30 in this very thread seems to so befuddle and confuse you so that you fail to comprehend that point which is rather clear and without ambiguity?
Click to expand...



changing guns to not accept magazines is irrelevant.

You are for banning over half the guns sold today.


You said it yourself. Why are you not owning up to your own positions.


Did you not say:

1. you support magazine bans on capacity.

2. you stated yes it was logical that then guns which could accept magazines that could accept over a certain capacity should also be banned.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
changing guns to not accept magazines is irrelevant.

You are for banning over half the guns sold today.


You said it yourself. Why are you not owning up to your own positions.


Did you not say:

1. you support magazine bans on capacity.

2. you stated yes it was logical that then guns which could accept magazines that could accept over a certain capacity should also be banned.
Click to expand...

It is not at all irrelevant. It should be part and parcel of any new law regarding making these magazines illegal.

The emphasis and enforcement should be on the large magazines themselves. I would hope that since they would be illegal, responsible gun manufacturers would comply with the law and design their products so that THEY CANNOT accommodate such illegal add ons.
 
haymarket said:
It is not at all irrelevant. It should be part and parcel of any new law regarding making these magazines illegal.

The emphasis and enforcement should be on the large magazines themselves. I would hope that since they would be illegal, responsible gun manufacturers would comply with the law and design their products so that THEY CANNOT accommodate such illegal add ons.
Click to expand...

magazine is inserted from the bottom in most of these cases, how would you "accomodate" not being able to accept a larger magazine?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
magazine is inserted from the bottom in most of these cases, how would you "accomodate" not being able to accept a larger magazine?
Click to expand...

That would be a task for the gun manufacturers as I have stated several times already. I do not know how to design an automobile engine - but that does not disqualify me from having an opinion about speed limits and traffic laws. Nor dare I say are hardly any of those in Congress or state legislatures either. We leave those details for the engineers at the companies involved.

Or is this really a "do you know the secret handshake" question?
 
haymarket said:
That would be a task for the gun manufacturers as I have stated several times already. I do not know how to design an automobile engine - but that does not disqualify me from having an opinion about speed limits and traffic laws. Nor dare I say are hardly any of those in Congress or state legislatures either. We leave those details for the engineers at the companies involved.

Or is this really a "do you know the secret handshake" question?
Click to expand...



This has nothing to do with the topic, the topic is do you support magazine bans over a certain size and any gun that could accept them.


Your answer, simply is yes, yes you do.


Am I wrong?
 
haymarket said:
Imagine the utter gall of the people government deciding what kind of society they want to live in!!!!!
Click to expand...

How would you feel if the "people's government" decided that women shouldn't have the right to vote, or that Judaism was no longer an acceptable religion?

Would you oppose such action by your government or since, you know, that's what the government decided, just go along with it?

Does the Constitution mean anything at all to you?

Or do you just feel that it's irrelevant in so far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
This has nothing to do with the topic, the topic is do you support magazine bans over a certain size and any gun that could accept them.


Your answer, simply is yes, yes you do.


Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

You ask me a question.
I answer it.
Then you tell me its off topic because your trap failed to be sprung as you planned and hoped it would be frustrating you into having any lack of a possible intelligent reply!!!!!!

Amazing beyond words!!!!!!!
 
soot said:
How would you feel if the "people's government" decided that women shouldn't have the right to vote, or that Judaism was no longer an acceptable religion?

Would you oppose such action by your government or since, you know, that's what the government decided, just go along with it?
Click to expand...

Both would clearly violate the US Constitution. It could only be done with Constitutional Amendments - which I would oppose.
 
haymarket said:
You ask me a question.
I answer it.
Then you tell me its off topic because your trap failed to be sprung as you planned and hoped it would be frustrating you into having any lack of a possible intelligent reply!!!!!!

Amazing beyond words!!!!!!!
Click to expand...



you can go off topic, I don't care, as it pertains to the topic, you support magazine bans over a certain size and any gun that could accept them.

Therefore you are for a ban on over 50% of all available guns.
 
notquiteright said:
Brah, did they come to your house and take your AR????

Did they ban 'armor piercing; ammo???

Never paid the blood sucker 'patriots' 100 bucks for any magazine. I use 20 round mags in my AK clone and DPMS and got them when I bought the weapon, no running out to buy more than I can carry... ( I bought 168 Amax and Varget- not because I think the bad ol Gubmint will take it away, but the goofy assed geese 'gun' owners panic buy like the fools most are)

Ahhh trot out that stalking horse- there are plenty of Rabids on any subject. We have a anti-gay nutter here who keeps introducing all manner of loony crap- never makes it out of committee. Don't sweat the silly crap, Brah.

Bernie, Hillary, whoever will have to convince Congress before any 'bans' can happen at the federal level... get a grip.

But again you dodge the need to get out on 'gubmint' roads to live. That scenerio knocks out your bunker with who cares how much ammo you have there.

You can think what you want, the fearmongers have been predicting the knock on a door for decades now. Prepare all you like, buy all you can, drill your kids like soldiers... it is and will remain a free country.... :)

Though we disagree we are Brahs, we are less than .5% of the population, men who turned blue for GAWD n Country (GAWD n Dupont in my day)

Have a nice life Brah, Second to NONE!!!! n all that hairy chit.... :peace
Click to expand...
Wow!:roll:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
you can go off topic, I don't care, as it pertains to the topic, you support magazine bans over a certain size and any gun that could accept them.

Therefore you are for a ban on over 50% of all available guns.
Click to expand...

If you didn't care as you now pretend to proclaim - you would not have brought up the irrelevancy in the first place.

Tell you what - you just write my posts on this topic and you then you reply to them and then you reply to the reply and then you can reply to the reply of the reply of the post that you wrote in the first place in my name. You may as well do that because you don't read what I actually write or comprehend it nor respect my views. This entire thread is just like the phony one yesterday in which you could not care less about any views but its just a rather transparent and shabby attempt to nit pick at me.

So you go and do your thing.
 
haymarket said:
The fundamental problem with this so called "simple question" - and get a clue because nothing about this is simple - at least to anyone well informed....... is that there is a portion of the gun community who openly threatens to use a hecklers veto if anyone ever tries to take a weapon from them simply for the trivial reason that the duly elected government representing the American people have passed a law making such weapons illegal. Imagine the utter gall of the people government deciding what kind of society they want to live in!!!!! They take the position that they do not care about the law, that they will not comply with such a law, and the cold dead fingers come into play as they lay their threat before the American people.

They are like a spoiled ill mannered brat who threatens to destroy the entire experience if they do not get their way.

If they cannot have the America of their own belief system - they prefer to have no America at all for anyone.

So what do we do about such a threat? Given the hyper political nature of the NRA and some of their supporters - thats an easy answer: we will do nothing.

So this so called "simple question" is the opposite in that its a loaded question designed to produce lots of heat and no light.

I certainly do favor banning of high capacity magazines although I note the writer of the OP failed to define his terms.

Confiscation, however is another matter and I believe our society would simply NOT have the stomach for it as it could lead to lots of things far worse than people having those items in the first place. So I would say NO to confiscation if that means some sort of door to door round up. When we discover somebody with one, prosecute them as you would do any law breaker.
Click to expand...

Imagine the gal of a group trying to impose its will be force on a group who has a right to do what th other group is telling them not to.
 
haymarket said:
If you didn't care as you now pretend to proclaim - you would not have brought up the irrelevancy in the first place.

Tell you what - you just write my posts on this topic and you then you reply to them and then you reply to the reply and then you can reply to the reply of the reply of the post that you wrote in the first place in my name. You may as well do that because you don't read what I actually write or comprehend it nor respect my views. This entire thread is just like the phony one yesterday in which you could not care less about any views but its just a rather transparent and shabby attempt to nit pick at me.

So you go and do your thing.
Click to expand...




*sigh*

haymarket said:
I certainly do favor banning of high capacity magazines although I note the writer of the OP failed to define his terms.
Click to expand...


haymarket said:
If the peoples government passes a law against high capacity magazines, it follow that any attempt to turn any weapon into something that can then have a high capacity magazine should also be illegal and subject to the full prosecution the law provides.
Click to expand...



Given most guns sold today can accept "high capacity" magazines, you are for them being banned. Clearly, you have stated this.


Thanks for finally coming clean on your gun positions.
 
My stance is that I would rather have a shotgun ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom