• 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!

Gun banning Groups

KerouacJack said:
Hughes amendment was needed because people were starting to find cheap ways to modify weapons to fully automatic eg. the mac10
Click to expand...

Fully automatic weapons weren't that expensive before Hughes, and as the legal ones weren't being used in murders, there didn't seem to be a need for more legislation. Modifying semi-auto weapons legally still required a tax stamp, so based on history those should have been just as safe. The Hughes Amendment had no effect on illegal activity.

trucks can be used to move goods too, actually thats what they are used for almost exclusively.
Click to expand...

ATF reports about 690,000 registered machine guns in the US, which is the same number as before the Hughes Amendment, as no new ones have been registered. All of those were also used in lawful pursuits such as target shooting and recreation.

automatic weapons are used for killing 1 or more people very quickly.
Click to expand...

Not the legally registered ones prior to 1986. Those were used in lawful activities.
 
KerouacJack said:
There was misuse before the ban.

i didn't kill doctor king and it wasn't the same rifle
my rifle is used for hunting
i also had to pass an in person oral written and practical exam to get a license to use it. Which i think was a good thing.


NEED HAS NO RELEVANCE. this is your opinion.
Click to expand...

Does your rifle have a scope just like the sniper rifles used to kill JFK and Dr. King? Then the risk to society of you becoming a sniper outweighs any perceived need you may have for hunting, as hunting is not a right.
 
KerouacJack said:
trucks can be used to move goods too, actually thats what they are used for almost exclusively.
Click to expand...
I could make the same exact argument if I were to replace the word "trucks" with the word "guns", and the words "move goods" with the words "hunting and sporting", so what's your point?

KerouacJack said:
automatic weapons are used for killing 1 or more people very quickly.
Click to expand...
So can most guns, even handguns... With that kind of statement, I have to question whether you have ever handled or shot a gun before, or even have any basic knowledge on how guns work... I'm no expert myself, but I've actually shot some basic guns before... a 6-shot revolver, a shotgun, a .22 long, a .22 mag, a winchester 307, etc... so I at least have some basic working knowledge when I say stuff about guns...
 
Last edited:
gfm7175 said:
Wow!!!! That seals it right there... might as well stop trying as you have such an unbreakable argument there...

But in reality, I like how you skipped over the statistics brought to you... why are you outraged over a weapon type causing 3% of gun homicides, but at the same time not equally (or to a greater extent) outraged over a weapon type causing 70% of gun homicides? And why aren't you equally outraged about blunt objects, knives, fists, etc. which all have a similar, or higher, death toll than "assault rifles" (what you mean is semi-autos)...
Click to expand...

We're talking about AR15s, not sharpened popsicle sticks.
 
jet57 said:
We're talking about AR15s, not sharpened popsicle sticks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so am I... You know what an AR-15 is, right? And one can go and look at gun homicide statistics and clearly see how few deaths are caused by those, in comparison to other types of firearms, and other types of weaponry... you don't have a leg to stand on in this argument, outside of the "feelings" factor, which is why you and the other gun control advocates refuse to directly address the statistics being brought to the table...
 
Last edited:
vegas giants said:
Oh god....this is boring
Click to expand...
Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
well you constantly invoke Japan, England, Canada (IT WORKS GREAT) and Australia to support your desire for more laws designed to harass legal gun ownership in the USA so why such a silly question?[/QUOTE]
TD is right. Can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.
 
KerouacJack said:
Yes it is because banning "assault weapons" is the proposal; not banning "guns"; that is not the language being used and the term "guns" is to vague to accurately describe what is being banned.
Click to expand...

Question for you..

If a politician states that he is "against tax cuts for the rich". And he then gives a tax cut for the rich. Has he been untruthful or not?

Would you argue that he was truthful because there is still some taxes on the rich? .
 
TurtleDude said:
why not go back to where you came if you don't like it here. we were doing fine before we started getting inundated with crap like "IT WORKS GREAT" or

THANK YOU FOR YOUR OPINION Or "ITS A HUGE SUCCESS" Also "IT'S JUST A FORM"
but I agree with you. Silly one liners repeated over and over are BORING
Click to expand...
hope you don't mind but I fixed it for ya.HE HE.
 
zsu2357 said:
What passports? Just ask Kate Steinle's killer when he comes back to kill again after being deported again.
Click to expand...

So we should do away with passports?
 
vegas giants said:
Dude we got it. You don't care about gun deaths. Mass shootings are no problem for you. School house full of kids die....you don't care. Suicides...many of them American hero veterans....not your problem. It's all about you. We get it
Click to expand...
And this drivel is the best you got for this?
Quote Originally Posted by blackjack50 View Post
Why should we? The people you support are too big of ******s to actually solve crime problems. You want a registration and to handcuff NRA members. You want to go after law abiding citizens and their rights because you are too weak to support going after real criminals. The left has to play nice when it comes to the criminals...they can’t offend them. Those people are just victims because of their race or because their mommy didn’t hug them. Do you realize the penalty for a felony possession of a weapon in most states is 3-5 years ONLY? Not a mandatory 20. No death penalty. Nothing harsh. And YOU believe a registration is going to work? Registration without sending anyone to jail? Registration of lawfully owned firearms? Lmao! So nothing regarding people who illegally possess firearms already. Nothing going after a straw purchaser. Nope. Just a list of serial numbers registered to Bob Smith. Or Darnell Johnson. Or Rosalyn Weldon. So tell me. How the **** is that going to help when Bob decides to shoot his wife Susie? Nope. Didn’t help there. He was lawfully owning the weapon until he committed murder. Or how does it help if Darnell decides to go on a shooting spree with his registered gun? It doesn’t. He already had it. Or when Rosalyn decides to report her weapon “stolen” when she actually sold it to her felon exboyfriend Robbie?

And then you have the gumption to believe your bleeding heart gives you some kind of moral superiority because you can demand a law that is already circumvented the exact same ****ing way? Lmao! Are you kidding? You have never once explained to us what exactly registration is supposed to actually do. Other than give us a list of lawful owners. Lmao. Dude your argument is D O Fing A.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
KerouacJack said:
Where do you draw the line on private weapon ownership?
How do you balance personal freedoms vs public safety when it comes to weapons?
Click to expand...
Lets try this. You and I happen to be coming out of the same store at apx. the same time and just happen to be parked close (or TD for that matter)and some big ass brutes jumps you and starts beating the sh#t out of you and I happen to be armed do you want me to stop the beating or let it continue? Simple straight up question.Oh did I mention it happens to be about 11:00 pm? Not that it really matters but...
 
zsu2357 said:
Lets try this. You and I happen to be coming out of the same store at apx. the same time and just happen to be parked close (or TD for that matter)and some big ass brutes jumps you and starts beating the sh#t out of you and I happen to be armed do you want me to stop the beating or let it continue? Simple straight up question.Oh did I mention it happens to be about 11:00 pm? Not that it really matters but...
Click to expand...

"Sir? No, not you, your victim. Are you not or have you ever participated in gun control forums online, and if so, what is your nickname?"
 
jaeger19 said:
Question for you..

If a politician states that he is "against tax cuts for the rich". And he then gives a tax cut for the rich. Has he been untruthful or not?

Would you argue that he was truthful because there is still some taxes on the rich? .
Click to expand...

No.... i don't think you understand what im saying... that would be called a political flip flop.....
it's more like you wanted to ban energy drinks you thought were over caffeinated.. not all energy drinks... just the over caffeinated ones....

is that not clear from what i wrote?
 
Rucker61 said:
Does your rifle have a scope just like the sniper rifles used to kill JFK and Dr. King? Then the risk to society of you becoming a sniper outweighs any perceived need you may have for hunting, as hunting is not a right.
Click to expand...

So you think this? You want a ban on my hunting rifle then?

I'm not making this argument at all and disagree strongly with what you wrote.
 
KerouacJack said:
So you think this? You want a ban on my hunting rifle then?

I'm not making this argument at all and disagree strongly with what you wrote.
Click to expand...

It's the same logic you brought. Since I have four scope bolt guns, I don't support it either. But the anti's could. I've seen folks post scared comments about the Ruger Precision rifle.
 
Rucker61 said:
Fully automatic weapons weren't that expensive before Hughes, and as the legal ones weren't being used in murders, there didn't seem to be a need for more legislation. Modifying semi-auto weapons legally still required a tax stamp, so based on history those should have been just as safe. The Hughes Amendment had no effect on illegal activity.



ATF reports about 690,000 registered machine guns in the US, which is the same number as before the Hughes Amendment, as no new ones have been registered. All of those were also used in lawful pursuits such as target shooting and recreation.



Not the legally registered ones prior to 1986. Those were used in lawful activities.
Click to expand...

Automatic weapons were used in crimes prior to 1986.... but keeping with your stance on this they wouldnt be illegal because you dont believe in gun registries right?
making them illegal made them even harder to obtain illegally as well.

"weren't that expensive" is your opinion and i think its a very misleading one.... they were far more expensive than a hand gun or hunting rifle.
 
Rucker61 said:
It's the same logic you brought. Since I have four scope bolt guns, I don't support it either. But the anti's could. I've seen folks post scared comments about the Ruger Precision rifle.
Click to expand...

If you think you are using the same logic that I did, i'm not explaining my point of view well enough to you then.
 
KerouacJack said:
So you think this? You want a ban on my hunting rifle then?

I'm not making this argument at all and disagree strongly with what you wrote.
Click to expand...

the fact is one of the most disgusting bannerhoid groups in the USA is a far left run propaganda center called the VPC. that group was the one that started the media jihad against "assault weapons" when its founder (who had been booted from the Brady gun control group for admitting that gun bans were the real goal of the Brady thugs) told the media to tell the public that "assault weapons" and machine guns were essentially the same thing. later on, his professional liars tried to smear as "sniper rifles" centerfire bolt action rifles with telescopic sights. BTW many of the military snipers (such as Legendary "white feather" -Carlos Hathcock) in our recent history, used rifles for military sniping that are essentially the same rifles long range target marksmen and hunters use. indeed, SST Hathcock's main weapon was a 30-06 Winchester 70 Series (one of the most popular hunting and target rifles in history) with an external adjustment Unertl scope. IT WAS THE SAME RIFLE he won the national target championship with at 1000 yards..

So yes, your hunting rifle was once the target of a smear campaign that was trying to instigate a wave of sheeple demanding bans of "sniper rifles"
 
KerouacJack said:
Automatic weapons were used in crimes prior to 1986.... but keeping with your stance on this they wouldnt be illegal because you dont believe in gun registries right?
making them illegal made them even harder to obtain illegally as well.

"weren't that expensive" is your opinion and i think its a very misleading one.... they were far more expensive than a hand gun or hunting rifle.
Click to expand...

what number of legally owned (by private citizens) automatic firearms were used in violent crimes the 50 years prior to the 1986 Ban?
 
jet57 said:
We're talking about AR15s, not sharpened popsicle sticks.
Click to expand...
Actually you are talking about far more guns than just AR15's, there is a long list of firearms that would fall under an "assault" weapons ban.
 
TurtleDude said:
the fact is one of the most disgusting bannerhoid groups in the USA is a far left run propaganda center called the VPC. that group was the one that started the media jihad against "assault weapons" when its founder (who had been booted from the Brady gun control group for admitting that gun bans were the real goal of the Brady thugs) told the media to tell the public that "assault weapons" and machine guns were essentially the same thing. later on, his professional liars tried to smear as "sniper rifles" centerfire bolt action rifles with telescopic sights. BTW many of the military snipers (such as Legendary "white feather" -Carlos Hathcock) in our recent history, used rifles for military sniping that are essentially the same rifles long range target marksmen and hunters use. indeed, SST Hathcock's main weapon was a 30-06 Winchester 70 Series (one of the most popular hunting and target rifles in history) with an external adjustment Unertl scope. IT WAS THE SAME RIFLE he won the national target championship with at 1000 yards..

So yes, your hunting rifle was once the target of a smear campaign that was trying to instigate a wave of sheeple demanding bans of "sniper rifles"
Click to expand...

Ok i don't agree with smear campaigns and propaganda in order to push and agenda.

I have a hunting rifle, i use it to hunt with... i had to get a license to buy and use it... and I think that was a good thing. Just like when i wanted to drive my car.

I have no problem with responsible people owning guys and the license system we have in Canada does a good job of trying ensure responsible gun ownership and balance that with the personal freedoms we like owning a gun, that good citizens of a free country should expect.

I see no reason someone should privately own an automatic weapon.... they are designed to use in a war zone.. Canada is not a war zone.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
what number of legally owned (by private citizens) automatic firearms were used in violent crimes the 50 years prior to the 1986 Ban?
Click to expand...

I think its disingenuous to the facts about automatic weapon crime to discount the ones used for violence your government considers illegal weapons automatic weapons as well. Committing a felony with a registered weapon is not something criminals would do.
 
KerouacJack said:
Ok i don't agree with smear campaigns and propaganda in order to push and agenda.

I have a hunting rifle, i use it to hunt with... i had to get a license to buy and use it... and I think that was a good thing. Just like when i wanted to drive my car.

I have no problem with responsible people owning guys and the license system we have in Canada does a good job of trying ensure responsible gun ownership with the personal freedoms we like owning a gun, that good citizens of a free country should respect.

I see no reason someone should privately own an automatic weapon.... they are designed to use in a war zone.. Canada is not a war zone.
Click to expand...

=most larger police departments in the USA as well as all the major federal civilian law enforcement agencies have automatic weapons. are they operating in a war zone. at one time bolt action rifles were the state of the art military weapons In WWI every major military force mainly armed infantry with bolt action rifles. In WWII, the USA-after about 1942, was the only major combatant where the average infantry soldier was not armed with a bolt action rifle. England used the SMLE enfield, Russians used the Mosin-Nagant (as did some other Eastern European nations) Germany and Austria used the Mauser 98 (tons of smaller European countries did too including Yugoslavia) , the USA used the A3-03 which was replaced by the only major semi auto battle rifle-the Garand. France used the MAS 36, Japan-several versions of the Arisaka
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom