• 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!

How far do you believe gun restrictions should go?

blaxshep said:
I have a double trigger bolt action Mauser. That means I can fire at twice the rate of fire. Why does anyone need two triggers?
Click to expand...
I'm not a super gun guru so forgive me if I didn't pick up on some form of sarcasm, but isn't the second trigger used to simply make the first a hair trigger? Why would it have any bearing on the firing speed?


Sent from my XT1030
 
Benzin388 said:
I'm not a super gun guru so forgive me if I didn't pick up on some form of sarcasm, but isn't the second trigger used to simply make the first a hair trigger? Why would it have any bearing on the firing speed?


Sent from my XT1030
Click to expand...

According to many gun control advocates, it would mean you could fire twice as fast....
 
justabubba said:
not designed to hunt humans. that one is ok


not designed to hunt humans. that one is ok


that one was designed to kill people. not ok
however, i will have to live with it being lawful until hillary can appoint supreme court justices who will overturn that handgun aspect of heller
Click to expand...
Would you expand your proposed gun bans to include different types of ammunition? And if so, how would that effect your choice to ban certain weapons or not

For example: a lot of shotguns can fire less than lethal rounds (beanbag, rubber, plastic, wood) yet most, if not all of these weapons would fall under your definition of "OFFENSIVE WEAPONS"

I still am very interested in some examples of "defensive weapons"... could you list two or three of them just so i can better understand your position on "offensive" vs "defensive". And no the whole "hunting humans" tact is not a legit example. I'm asking you to name two or three weapons by name that are strictly "defensive" in nature.



Sent from my XT1030
 
Benzin388 said:
I'm not a super gun guru so forgive me if I didn't pick up on some form of sarcasm, but isn't the second trigger used to simply make the first a hair trigger? Why would it have any bearing on the firing speed?


Sent from my XT1030
Click to expand...

Yes, it was sarcasm.
 
jet57 said:
Let's see your brilliant solution.
Click to expand...

If the objective of all these laws is to reduce crime then patently they have failed. There are a number of independent research studies to show that.

So if the claimed objective cannot be achieved what purpose do these laws serve? Anyone know what they cost to enforce? Is this cost a published figure?

Now the really important part is that these laws take police time, manpower and effort away from actual crime fighting so they are doubly harmful to fighting crime.
 
justabubba said:
not designed to hunt humans. that one is ok


not designed to hunt humans. that one is ok


that one was designed to kill people. not ok
however, i will have to live with it being lawful until hillary can appoint supreme court justices who will overturn that handgun aspect of heller
Click to expand...

I have $1000 that says you cannot prove any gun was designed to kill people and are lying about it because gun control told you.

Well at least you are aware of how gun control works to get laws passed and keep them in place. Firearm owners are not aware that all it takes is their acceptance there is nothing they can do.
 
Crimefree said:
If the objective of all these laws is to reduce crime then patently they have failed. There are a number of independent research studies to show that.

So if the claimed objective cannot be achieved what purpose do these laws serve? Anyone know what they cost to enforce? Is this cost a published figure?

Now the really important part is that these laws take police time, manpower and effort away from actual crime fighting so they are doubly harmful to fighting crime.
Click to expand...

The Bannerrhoid movement only has ONE argument in its favor-an argument it has never been able to prove

that is

restrictions imposed on law abiding gun owners will actually reduce crime substantially

now even if the Bannerrrhoid movement can prove this is true, they have not necessarily won the argument. I suspect we could prove that elimination of the fourth or fifth amendments might reduce crime. That alone does not prove we should

we, on the other hand, have several arguments that are valid even if the Bannerrhoids can establish their one argument.

But since the Bannerrhoids cannot establish their argument, they lose
 
TurtleDude said:
The Bannerrhoid movement only has ONE argument in its favor-an argument it has never been able to prove

that is

restrictions imposed on law abiding gun owners will actually reduce crime substantially

now even if the Bannerrrhoid movement can prove this is true, they have not necessarily won the argument. I suspect we could prove that elimination of the fourth or fifth amendments might reduce crime. That alone does not prove we should

we, on the other hand, have several arguments that are valid even if the Bannerrhoids can establish their one argument.

But since the Bannerrhoids cannot establish their argument, they lose
Click to expand...

Except like the flat earth if a lie is repeated enough and enforced it becomes the truth. Take England as an example but our history is full of such erroneous beliefs fostered on us by ideologically driven people and bad governments with agendas. Gun control just happens to be one of the worst. Being right is no salvation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom