• 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!

What if we Ban Assault Weapons, but permit use at Gun Ranges?

Bullseye said:
Well, I actually term myself a conservatarian rather than a pure bred libertarian but I don't see much libertarian viewpoint in the proposal. Imposing several restrictions on the freedom of millions to prevent this misbehavior of a tiny handful of bad guys isn't libertarian, at all.
Click to expand...

I forgot the "\sarcasm" at the end of my post.
 
Because then only the bad guys will have ready access to them.
JazzBaseball said:
I was reading this article today, It's time to bring back the assault weapons ban, gun violence experts say.

Not being a gun owner and not having any interest I do question whether there is a need to own assault weapons.

However, I am wondering if a compromise could be made. What if we ban assault weapons, but permit the use of them at Gun Ranges?

Based on the article above it may not hurt to have the ban in place.
Click to expand...
 
Well, that should easy enough. There won't be a shoulder attached to that hand if you fire it that way.
 
JazzBaseball said:
I was reading this article today, It's time to bring back the assault weapons ban, gun violence experts say.

Not being a gun owner and not having any interest I do question whether there is a need to own assault weapons.

However, I am wondering if a compromise could be made. What if we ban assault weapons, but permit the use of them at Gun Ranges?

Based on the article above it may not hurt to have the ban in place.
Click to expand...

Enemies of good people in America do not need to see that Americans can no longer own or carry weapons best suited for resistance against well armed assaults against the US or its citizens.
 
JazzBaseball said:
I was reading this article today, It's time to bring back the assault weapons ban, gun violence experts say.

Not being a gun owner and not having any interest I do question whether there is a need to own assault weapons.

However, I am wondering if a compromise could be made. What if we ban assault weapons, but permit the use of them at Gun Ranges?

Based on the article above it may not hurt to have the ban in place.
Click to expand...

What if we ban people from expressing their political views, except in designated areas and websites, government approve of course.
 
JazzBaseball said:
However, I am wondering if a compromise could be made. What if we ban assault weapons, but permit the use of them at Gun Ranges?
Click to expand...

What is the specific point of this compromise? Why are you enabling people to shoot them at gun ranges (and why are you capitalizing 'gun ranges?')

Would these 'assault weapons' be 'rented' from the gun range? Or owned by Americans (which seems unlikely since you say they would be banned.)

So...what is the point of this compromise?
 
SCrider said:
So we are back to the Constitution being set in stone?
Click to expand...

Unless amended by the proper procedure, we are not back to the Constitution being set in stone. We have always been there.
 
Renae said:
What if we ban people from expressing their political views, except in designated areas and websites, government approve of course.
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea. Or if not a complete ban, maybe something like the AWB. Provide a list of government acceptable and non acceptable political views.
 
jimbo said:
Not a bad idea. Or if not a complete ban, maybe something like the AWB. Provide a list of government acceptable and non acceptable political views.
Click to expand...
We already do that - it's called the Main Stream Media. Only ideologically (liberal/progressive) approved information is allowed.
 
Bullseye said:
We already do that - it's called the Main Stream Media. Only ideologically (liberal/progressive) approved information is allowed.
Click to expand...

True, but at least for now, MSM is not the official last word.
 
apdst said:
Your post exhibited a high degree of ignorance. "Shoulder firing? WTF is that? :lamo
Click to expand...

You accusing someone of ignorance is like Lindsay Graham or Larry Craig calling someone gay.
 
Rucker61 said:
Merely a response to your attempt at humor.
Click to expand...
The humor of lurch’s comment is in it’s obvious ignorance.

Bullseye said:
We already do that - it's called the Main Stream Media. Only ideologically (liberal/progressive) approved information is allowed.
Click to expand...
Need a tissue? FYI, Fox News is mainstream media too.
 
JazzBaseball said:
I was reading this article today, It's time to bring back the assault weapons ban, gun violence experts say.

Not being a gun owner and not having any interest I do question whether there is a need to own assault weapons.

However, I am wondering if a compromise could be made. What if we ban assault weapons, but permit the use of them at Gun Ranges?

Based on the article above it may not hurt to have the ban in place.
Click to expand...

"gun violence experts" are anti gun advocates-not experts on gun crime.

Not being a golfer, and not having any interest in golf, maybe you should have to store your golf clubs at the golf course and not bring them home?
 
RaleBulgarian said:
The humor of lurch’s comment is in it’s obvious ignorance.


Need a tissue? FYI, Fox News is mainstream media too.
Click to expand...
No, it's not normally considered part of MSM.
 
SCrider said:
So we are back to the Constitution being set in stone?
Click to expand...

Always has been. I dont cotton to the "living" bull crap. That just means you can make up the rules as you go along. Imagine trying to play poker that way. If we need a change we can amend it. That requires a consensus. Thats a good thing because most people wont have a problem with the change and abide it.
 
Lursa said:
What is the specific point of this compromise? Why are you enabling people to shoot them at gun ranges (and why are you capitalizing 'gun ranges?')

Would these 'assault weapons' be 'rented' from the gun range? Or owned by Americans (which seems unlikely since you say they would be banned.)

So...what is the point of this compromise?
Click to expand...

Its the illusion of "compromise" by the Anti 2A crowd to make you feel better.....not unlike courtesy lube for "prison love".
 
PirateMk1 said:
What part of "shall not" do you not understand? I have a right to my weapons. ALL my weapons. I dont care if you think I need them or not, because its none of your business.
Click to expand...

So you can mount a cannon on your garage roof and aim it at your neighbors? Or an anti aircraft weapon near an airport. It is my business if I am your neighbor. Grow up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom