• 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!

I'll agree to an AR15 ban if...

ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, we have a serious problem with millions having vials or poison but they seem to prefer opioids, cocaine and meth to anthrax. Somehow, the nationwide ban on those vials of poison does not stop criminals from getting them.
Click to expand...

laws against murder and rape don't stop murders and rapists, but that's hardly an excuse to not make it illegal.
 
Aristaeus said:
laws against murder and rape don't stop murders and rapists, but that's hardly an excuse to not make it illegal.
Click to expand...

Simply placing an 11th round into a magazine does not create a crime victim so why should it be illegal?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Simply placing an 11th round into a magazine does not create a crime victim so why should it be illegal?
Click to expand...

You know what? Fine. If guns are more important than your children then keep you damn guns. I just hope that your child or grandchild doesn't end up with their brains on the classroom wall.
 
Aristaeus said:
There is no logical reason to agree to a ban on a disturbed sociopaths owning vials of anthrax. It makes as little sense as banning pick up trucks because some Jihadi used one to mow down folks on a bicycle path.

This is fun and irrelevant, isn't it.
Click to expand...

Is anthrax in common use for lawful purposes?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nonsense, those in bright blue districts or states are all in on gun bans.
Click to expand...

Total gun bans. Not AR bans. And if they are, I contend that's its due to ignorance.
 
goldkam said:
Why would it matter about the specifics of a firearm?? They all have the same purpose, some conduct that purpose more lethally.
Click to expand...

Then why focus on AR15s?
 
Aristaeus said:
You know what? Fine. If guns are more important than your children then keep you damn guns. I just hope that your child or grandchild doesn't end up with their brains on the classroom wall.
Click to expand...

This makes the assumption that guns are the problem, and not people.

A planet piled high with guns, but no people, will be crime free.
 
KevinKohler said:
...you take the time to educate yourself on the subject of fire arms. Can you list the varying attributes of the different rifles and the bullets they fire? What's the difference between a .22 magnum, a .22 long road for, and a .223 round? .308 vs 30.06?

A 1911 vs the mighty .357 magnum?

Could you carry on a decent conversation about fire arms?
Click to expand...

It seems that you are making the assumption its about ignorance about why they want the the AR15 banned.The anti-2nd amendment crowd wants the AR15 banned because its a baby step towards more bans. They don't really care that there are more powerful guns that a legal for any adult to own.Because they will go after those too.They will have anti-2nd amendment trash pretend to be hunters claiming you don't need a gun to hunt and that you can just a bow and arrow or traps to hunt or pepper spray for self defense instead of a firearm to defend yourself or to go hunting with.
 
Aristaeus said:
There is no logical reason to agree to a ban on a disturbed sociopaths owning vials of anthrax. It makes as little sense as banning pick up trucks because some Jihadi used one to mow down folks on a bicycle path.

This is fun and irrelevant, isn't it.
Click to expand...

hmmmm.. I don't think you understand.

there is a logical reason to ban a disturbed sociopath from owning vials of anthrax.. and banning them from owning a firearm as well (adjudicated a dangerous sociopath of course).

there is little sense in banning EVERYONE from having firearms because of one sociopath.
 
jamesrage said:
It seems that you are making the assumption its about ignorance about why they want the the AR15 banned.The anti-2nd amendment crowd wants the AR15 banned because its a baby step towards more bans. They don't really care that there are more powerful guns that a legal for any adult to own.Because they will go after those too.They will have anti-2nd amendment trash pretend to be hunters claiming you don't need a gun to hunt and that you can just a bow and arrow or traps to hunt or pepper spray for self defense instead of a firearm to defend yourself or to go hunting with.
Click to expand...

Well.. its not all the anti second amendment crowd.. there are a lot of people who aren;t second amendment per se.. but have bought into the fear and the propaganda that is being done by the actual anti amendment crowd.

As gun owners.. we have to be careful not to alienate those middle of the road folks because we actually need to educate them instead.

I get the point that KevinKohler is making and its an apt one.
 
Aristaeus said:
You know what? Fine. If guns are more important than your children then keep you damn guns. I just hope that your child or grandchild doesn't end up with their brains on the classroom wall.
Click to expand...

here you have it folks-this is the mentality of the gun banning left.
 
KevinKohler said:
...you take the time to educate yourself on the subject of fire arms. Can you list the varying attributes of the different rifles and the bullets they fire? What's the difference between a .22 magnum, a .22 long road for, and a .223 round? .308 vs 30.06?

A 1911 vs the mighty .357 magnum?

Could you carry on a decent conversation about fire arms?
Click to expand...

I will take that challenge but only if you accept mine

We do not have to ban AR15s specifically, if we ban weapons based on their capabilities -such as muzzle velocity, rate of fire, etc-- instead of cosmetic features or model
 
sangha said:
I will take that challenge but only if you accept mine

We do not have to ban AR15s specifically, if we ban weapons based on their capabilities -such as muzzle velocity, rate of fire, etc-- instead of cosmetic features or model
Click to expand...

How about we follow Miller, Heller and Caetano? You know, SCOTUS rulings.
 
sangha said:
I will take that challenge but only if you accept mine

We do not have to ban AR15s specifically, if we ban weapons based on their capabilities -such as muzzle velocity, rate of fire, etc-- instead of cosmetic features or model
Click to expand...

all semis have essentially the same rate of fire
 
sangha said:
I will take that challenge but only if you accept mine

We do not have to ban AR15s specifically, if we ban weapons based on their capabilities -such as muzzle velocity, rate of fire, etc-- instead of cosmetic features or model
Click to expand...

Muzzle Velocity? So a single shot bolt action hunting rifle is also on the chopping block? Yeah no, not interested in giving you prohibitionists an inch.

By your standards, a muzzle loaded black powder musket is "capable"
 
sangha said:
I will take that challenge but only if you accept mine

We do not have to ban AR15s specifically, if we ban weapons based on their capabilities -such as muzzle velocity, rate of fire, etc-- instead of cosmetic features or model
Click to expand...

Basically ban anything with the power to kill anybody?
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Muzzle Velocity? So a single shot bolt action hunting rifle is also on the chopping block? Yeah no, not interested in giving you prohibitionists an inch.

By your standards, a muzzle loaded black powder musket is "capable"
Click to expand...

Big soft lead slug at 1,000 fps. I guess he does not understand the relationship between velocity and weight. A 45 slug is slow but heavy and dead is dead.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Muzzle Velocity? So a single shot bolt action hunting rifle is also on the chopping block? Yeah no, not interested in giving you prohibitionists an inch.

By your standards, a muzzle loaded black powder musket is "capable"
Click to expand...

Vox said:
Basically ban anything with the power to kill anybody?
Click to expand...
Let me know when either of you have a comment about something I actually said

Slingshot Bob said:
Big soft lead slug at 1,000 fps. I guess he does not understand the relationship between velocity and weight. A 45 slug is slow but heavy and dead is dead.
Click to expand...

Make that, the three of you
 
sangha said:
non-sequitor noted
Click to expand...

How was the point non-sequitor? Alleging a fallacy is meaningless without explanation.

sangha said:
Let me know when either of you have a comment about something I actually said
Click to expand...

Already have, given this reply, I'm going to assume you incapable of responding to such. You said, "if we ban weapons based on their capabilities -such as muzzle velocity, rate of fire, etc-- instead of cosmetic features"

Your standards for prohibition suck.
 
Last edited:
Spartacus FPV said:
How was the point non-sequitor? Alleging a fallacy is meaningless without explanation.
Click to expand...

And TD offered none


Already have, given this reply, I'm going to assume you incapable of responding to such.
Click to expand...

Not incapable. Just unwilling to engage with the feverish imaginings of straw men arguments
 
sangha said:
non-sequitor noted
Click to expand...

evasiveness noted. you want to ban firearms based on rate of fire. You haven't stepped up and said what rate is too fast. The fastest rate of fire normally comes from semi autos. Most of the firearms sold today semi autos
 
Spartacus FPV said:
How was the point non-sequitor? Alleging a fallacy is meaningless without explanation.



Already have, given this reply, I'm going to assume you incapable of responding to such. You said, "if we ban weapons based on their capabilities -such as muzzle velocity, rate of fire, etc-- instead of cosmetic features"

Your standards for prohibition suck.
Click to expand...

He won't say. He wants us to object and then he will complain that we don't know what he wants to ban yet. Its designed to bait not really discuss the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom