• 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!

Bump Stock Deal, Compromise or Ruse?

calamity said:
Ok, there seems to be room for a little give by the NRA on the bump-stock thing. Should the control fans take the deal, if offered, or blow it off and push for something more far reaching?

NRA calls for review of bump stock rules - CNNPolitics

IMO, I'd tell them to go suck on the end of a gun, and enact my own plan. But, then again, I'm not a politician. So, maybe a deal is the thing to do. :shrug:
Click to expand...
The NRA will block anything that does not meet with their approval.
 
iguanaman said:
Lets' stop selling all weapons based on military machine guns, they are not covered under the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
Unless you can come up with a good reason why a certain type of weapon should be banned, the Second Amendment in fact does cover it.
 
TurtleDude said:
because the second amendment doesn't have different levels of protection. if the amendment was interpreted honestly, it would totally preclude any federal restrictions on any weapon that is normally one a citizen would keep and bear. Under the FDR polluted constitution and bill of rights-its any firearm that is in common use and not UNUSUALLY dangerous. any firearm meets both tests. And if we ban semi auto rifles that can hold more than 20 rounds, people like you will demand 10-5-1 round limits every time there is another shooting.
Click to expand...
I'd just use Strict Scrutiny. Is there a compelling reason for a ban on a given type of gun, or not? An easy test that matches how other rights are treated in the courts.


TurtleDude said:
if the cops have it it means that civil authorities have determined said weapons are very suitable for CIVILIAN employees to use for SELF DEFENSE in a civilian environment. that alone is proof enough that other civilians have a legitimate reason for owning said weapons.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of merit to requiring police and civilians to use the same guns. It would prevent civilians from being limited to ineffective guns, and it would prevent the police from having weapons that are way too powerful and wildly inappropriate for policework.
 
iguanaman said:
I just don't see why access to military type mass killing machines is so important that we are hopelessly doomed to see these massacres over and over. I seems like we are just doing it for the profits that gunmakers score and that is really disgusting. And those gun makers are not even held responsible for the death their products cause. We are truly screwed by our own greed.
Click to expand...
Why should the gun manufacturers be held liable for the criminal actions committed by others?
 
calamity said:
Ok, there seems to be room for a little give by the NRA on the bump-stock thing. Should the control fans take the deal, if offered, or blow it off and push for something more far reaching?

NRA calls for review of bump stock rules - CNNPolitics

IMO, I'd tell them to go suck on the end of a gun, and enact my own plan. But, then again, I'm not a politician. So, maybe a deal is the thing to do. :shrug:
Click to expand...

All congress has to do is add the bump stock to the list of things you can't do. Or if they wanted the fight they could re write the whole section making "mimicking a machine gun" illegal so it would cover the next invention. But to pass that you'd have to give Trump the wall and the democrats single payer health care.

That's why everything turns into a big brou ha ha over the simplest things, and nothing gets done on a bipartisan basis.
 
chuckiechan said:
All congress has to do is add the bump stock to the list of things you can't do. Or if they wanted the fight they could re write the whole section making "mimicking a machine gun" illegal so it would cover the next invention. But to pass that you'd have to give Trump the wall and the democrats single payer health care.

That's why everything turns into a big brou ha ha over the simplest things, and nothing gets done on a bipartisan basis.
Click to expand...

A great reason for term limits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom