• 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]

I believe weapons that accept detachable magazines are common firearms that are protected by the Second Amendment.

I do not support "high capacity" magazine bans, but as long as "high capacity" is defined as "more than the standard capacity magazines the gun ships with" I don't particularly object to them, either.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I believe weapons that accept detachable magazines are common firearms that are protected by the Second Amendment.

I do not support "high capacity" magazine bans, but as long as "high capacity" is defined as "more than the standard capacity magazines the gun ships with" I don't particularly object to them, either.
Click to expand...

well if a new maker of ar 15s started selling their rifles with 100 round beta c mags, could you then use that mag in a COLT AR 15?
 
TurtleDude said:
well if a new maker of ar 15s started selling their rifles with 100 round beta c mags, could you then use that mag in a COLT AR 15?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't care. As long as my rights are sufficiently protected, I don't care what the gun grabbers get up to.

Like I said, I don't support such laws. If I were a legislator, I would never sponsor such a law, and I would vote against it unless I could trade my vote for something I wanted down the road.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I honestly don't care. As long as my rights are sufficiently protected, I don't care what the gun grabbers get up to.

Like I said, I don't support such laws. If I were a legislator, I would never sponsor such a law, and I would vote against it unless I could trade my vote for something I wanted down the road.
Click to expand...


I completely oppose any restrictions on round capacity because once one is passed, the grabbers will want more and more limitations
 
blackjack50 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your sarcasm aside - let face one brutal fact here: we cannot and will never agree on just what that elusive creature knows as YOUR RIGHTS are. You and I see it very very differently. And we both think our view is the correct one.

So when you say "a group who has a right to do what the other group is telling them not to" - thats not clear statement of the Constitution - its highly arguable and not at all anything that there is a consensus about.

And its hat reality that always sends these gun threads into the toilet.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
*sigh*








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.
Click to expand...

paul Simon wrote

A MAN HEARS WHAT HE WANTS TO HEAR AND DISREGARDS THE REST.

Your dishonest réponses - ignoring my posts explaining the necessary role of gun manufacturers - appears that he had you in mind.

As to clean - impossible since it in a dishonest discussion with you.
 
ernst barkmann said:
"If the peoples government passes a law""......thats as bad as a king making an edict
Click to expand...

WOW!!!!!!! Thats one of the most totally absurd things I have ever read by a person who claims to be sane and rational.
 
i think all that dangerous stuff should be illegal, then criminals wouldn't be able to get it, just like criminals cant get illegal drugs.
 
haymarket said:
paul Simon wrote

A MAN HEARS WHAT HE WANTS TO HEAR AND DISREGARDS THE REST.

Your dishonest réponses - ignoring my posts explaining the necessary role of gun manufacturers - appears that he had you in mind.

As to clean - impossible since it in a dishonest discussion with you.
Click to expand...



I accept your concession.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I accept your concession.
Click to expand...

I accept your obituary.

Any other incredibly stupid things you want to exchange while we are at it?

These two threads have exposed your motives and tactics and you know it.
 
haymarket said:
I accept your obituary.

Any other incredibly stupid things you want to exchange while we are at it?

These two threads have exposed your motives and tactics and you know it.
Click to expand...


post #49 shows you support a ban on over half the guns available today. That's it, there it is, end of story.


yes, my "tactics", using your words to understand your position, oh the horror. :lol:
 
QuadpolarNutjob said:
i think all that dangerous stuff should be illegal, then criminals wouldn't be able to get it, just like criminals cant get illegal drugs.
Click to expand...

Do know the history of the Chinese opium addiction problem in the mid 20th century and what the new government of Mao did regarding it? You may want to look it up because it proves your quip terrifically wrong.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
post #49 shows you support a ban on over half the guns available today. That's it, there it is, end of story.


yes, my "tactics", using your words to understand your position, oh the horror. :lol:
Click to expand...

You can't end a story when you take a pair of scissors and cut out some pages and ignore them. And that is what you are dishonestly doing in this thread with my posts ignoring my statements about gun manufacturers and their responsibility.

But then reality gets in the way of your agenda doesn't it?

your tactics are dishonest and contrary to normal debate protocols because you ignore what proves you wrong and you dwell on a distorted version of your own straw man.
 
haymarket said:
You can't end a story when you take a pair of scissors and cut out some pages and ignore them. And that is what you are dishonestly doing in this thread with my posts ignoring my statements about gun manufacturers and their responsibility.

But then reality gets in the way of your agenda doesn't it?

your tactics are dishonest and contrary to normal debate protocols because you ignore what proves you wrong and you dwell on a distorted version of your own straw man.
Click to expand...



1. you support a ban on high capacity magazines.

2. you support a ban on guns that can accept high capacity magazines.


That you support them retooling these guns somehow to not accept them does not change the fact that you want to ban #1, and #2.



It is not possible to have a gun with a bottom loading magazine not accept as many rounds as the magazine size dictates/


See:

latest



Therefore you support banning this and every gun like it.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
1. you support .....
Click to expand...

from post 38

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...

But don't let my true position deter you from your personal hate campaign.

from my post #3 on page 1

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...

but don't let my true position deter your from your agenda

from post 38

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...

but don't let my actual explanation of your twisted version of my views correct you at all - just pretend I never said it and keep with your own belief system - thats what this about anyway.

and from post 40

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.
Click to expand...

But why read and comprehend any of that when that was NOT and was NEVER your intent with these bogus threads in the first place?
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
Therefore you support banning this and every gun like it.
Click to expand...

Do you know what an EX POST FACTO LAW is?

If you did you would not dare to put this absurd "THEREFORE" before this discussion.
 
haymarket said:
WOW!!!!!!! Thats one of the most totally absurd things I have ever read by a person who claims to be sane and rational.
Click to expand...

any government that has only 1 interest in the process of making law is not good and stable government, which is why the founders created a mixed government.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
1. you support a ban on high capacity magazines.

2. you support a ban on guns that can accept high capacity magazines.


That you support them retooling these guns somehow to not accept them does not change the fact that you want to ban #1, and #2.



It is not possible to have a gun with a bottom loading magazine not accept as many rounds as the magazine size dictates/


See:

latest



Therefore you support banning this and every gun like it.
Click to expand...

Cool. I think I gotta go get me one or two of those mags. There would be a lot loading at the range. :mrgreen:
 
haymarket said:
WOW!!!!!!! Thats one of the most totally absurd things I have ever read by a person who claims to be sane and rational.
Click to expand...

The majority has no more authority to violate our rights than a single individual does. Some things are just wrong no matter how many people want them.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
The majority has no more authority to violate our rights than a single individual does. Some things are just wrong no matter how many people want them.
Click to expand...

And since we cannot agree on what those rights are - there is no need to even worry about it is there?
 
haymarket said:
And since we cannot agree on what those rights are - there is no need to even worry about it is there?
Click to expand...

That's what the Constitution is for. Shame some of us don't believe in it.
 
haymarket said:
Both would clearly violate the US Constitution. It could only be done with Constitutional Amendments - which I would oppose.
Click to expand...

But infringing on the right of the people to keep an bear arms doesn't clearly violate the Constitution?

You're kind of confusing me here man.

I don't know if the following comment (and the rest of your post that went with it) is something that you really believe or if you were just being sarcastic, or what?

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.
Click to expand...

If the people's government, in a populist response to ignorance and fear, and probably, at least to some extent, in an effort to "declaw" the American populace, attempts to pass laws to make entire classes of firearms illegal you ridicule those would defend their Constitutional rights.

These people defend their rights not with violence, but with words, and you deride them as "hecklers".

And then you turn around and say that if the government were to attempt to infringe on other protected liberties you would oppose the government.

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
That's what the Constitution is for. Shame some of us don't believe in it.
Click to expand...
The real shame is some here not even willing to whisper that this is merely a difference of opinion and all sides can still love and respect the Constitution.
 
soot said:
But infringing on the right of the people to keep an bear arms doesn't clearly violate the Constitution?

You're kind of confusing me here man.

I don't know if the following comment (and the rest of your post that went with it) is something that you really believe or if you were just being sarcastic, or what?



If the people's government, in a populist response to ignorance and fear, and probably, at least to some extent, in an effort to "declaw" the American populace, attempts to pass laws to make entire classes of firearms illegal you ridicule those would defend their Constitutional rights.

These people defend their rights not with violence, but with words, and you deride them as "hecklers".

And then you turn around and say that if the government were to attempt to infringe on other protected liberties you would oppose the government.

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Click to expand...

Denying the right to keep and bear arms - yes - that would be unconstitutional.

Reasonable regulation is not unconstitutional and is not forbidden by the Amendment as long as the right can be exercised - then it is intact.

As to a whole class of arms - I agreed that Heller was correct and it went to far to rule out handguns in DC.

The so called words of the far right you refer to are often a threat of violence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom