• 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?

JazzBaseball

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2018
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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.
 
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.

Neh! Screw that.

Where's the "compromise"? I don't see it.
 
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.


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.
 
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.

The last "assault weapons ban" didn't actually ban anything other than cosmetics. No pre-ban guns were confiscated, and every post-ban rifle was just as capable as its pre-ban cousin. The number of mass shootings pre- and post-ban is so small as to make any statistical conclusions regarding the efficacy of the ban unsupportable, unless you believe that the lack of a bayonet lug reduced mass shootings. Hell, the AR-15 was first sold to civilians in 1964; it wasn't until 2012 that a civilian used one in a mass shooting. The 1994 AWB certainly didn't have an impact on mass shootings with AR-15s. Maybe those should be exempt.
 
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.

Look. Until people do something about the 2nd Amendment any attempts to control firearms through federal legislation...or state legislation, since all states have incorporated the 2nd Amendment into their individual constitutions...is unconstitutional, regardless any past Supreme Court rulings. So, instead of talking on and on about how justified gun control is, I suggest y'all deal with the 2nd Amendment (If you can.) first. Either modify it or repeal it.

That's is your only course of action.
 
The last "assault weapons ban" didn't actually ban anything other than cosmetics. No pre-ban guns were confiscated, and every post-ban rifle was just as capable as its pre-ban cousin. The number of mass shootings pre- and post-ban is so small as to make any statistical conclusions regarding the efficacy of the ban unsupportable, unless you believe that the lack of a bayonet lug reduced mass shootings. Hell, the AR-15 was first sold to civilians in 1964; it wasn't until 2012 that a civilian used one in a mass shooting. The 1994 AWB certainly didn't have an impact on mass shootings with AR-15s. Maybe those should be exempt.

Those are good points
 
You can rip my shoulder-firing rocket launcher out of my cold, dead hand.
 
You can rip my shoulder-firing rocket launcher out of my cold, dead hand.

I hope you have your tax stamp on your body when that happens.
 
I hope you have your tax stamp on your body when that happens.

"Tax stamp on my body"?

Ah conservative humor first thing in the morning. As tasty as 5-day old Folgers coffee :)
 
"Tax stamp on my body"?

Ah conservative humor first thing in the morning. As tasty as 5-day old Folgers coffee :)

Merely a response to your attempt at humor.
 
Merely a response to your attempt at humor.

My post was humorous. It was your response that made zero sense. Please leave what's humorous to those that know. This is why there are no good conservative comedians.
 
My post was humorous. It was your response that made zero sense. Please leave what's humorous to those that know. This is why there are no good conservative comedians.

No, your post was trite.
 
A very libertarian stance.
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.
 
Neh! Screw that.

Where's the "compromise"? I don't see it.
Classic progressive compromise: "let's compromise and do it our way".
 
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.
Now, THAT's a LIBERTARIAN position.
 
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.

I question the need to worry about need. The second reads "shall not be infringed".

Do you know what an assault weapon is? It's an autoloading firearm with two or more of the the following features? Thumbhole, pistol grip or folding stock. Bayonet mount, flash suppressor, detachable magazine. Most modern sporting weapons are autoloaders. Without two of those features. Having one is apparently OK. How is a thumbhole OK, but put it in a pistol grip and now it's a dangerous assault weapon. That's the silliness of assault weapon thinking.

How are you going to implement this new rule? Store the weapon at the range? I haven't been on a range since the military, 1963. I've done some hunting, lots of shooting, on privately owned land.

Your thoughts are based on what gun violence experts say. By definition that would be pro banners.
 
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.

Wow, I can't believe people are still reading and believing this garbage......''military-style assault weapon ".....FIRST, ask yourself, or find the definition of assault weapon or assault rifle...What is it exactly?

THEN, find out what military style actually means?...Is it select fire?, or as the uninformed call it, full auto. If it isn't, then it isn't a military style weapon, and therefore, not an assault weapon.

The bigger questions are these....
Who are these so called experts?
Are they the people that use skewed statistics to promote their own agenda?
Are they including the gang shootings with handguns in their supposed assault weapon study?
Why do they only count 6 or more people shot, in their so called massacres study?
When does a shooting incident become a massacre?
How many people shot, does it take to be deemed a massacre by a self professed expert?
...and not a simple shooting incident?
Does the grandstanding and use of horrifying words in their articles, play into their personal agendas success?
Will their writing style and use of certain action/trigger words get them a publishing spot in the Times?

....And, the biggest question of all,...Under what circumstances, do you or anyone think, that you have the right, the legal claim, (definition of a right) to take my means of self defense away from me? Whatever that is, be it a rifle, club, knife, bow and arrow, claw hammer, rock.... whatever.

Once that is done, in your view of a perfect world, what is next? Will you attempt to then take my only remaining means of self defense from me?...will you take my hands and feet from me? Will you take my brain away from me? ....because that is the most effective and dangerous tool of all self defense. Go vote on it and let me know how it turns out for you, please.
 
My post was humorous. It was your response that made zero sense. Please leave what's humorous to those that know. This is why there are no good conservative comedians.

Your post exhibited a high degree of ignorance. "Shoulder firing? WTF is that? :lamo
 
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.

So we are back to the Constitution being set in stone?
 
Back
Top Bottom