• 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!

NZ bans assault weapons, democrats want to ban assault weapons in the USA

jonny5 said:
Again it wouldnt matter if they did. Until the govt gets rid of their guns, we need them to be able to resist the govt if it becomes necessary to abolish it. Guns arent the problem anyway. Violence is.
Click to expand...
I do not support gun control laws and I 100% agree with you that the results are not pertinent to your argument. They would however either detract from or support gun banners argument that certain types of guns influence murder rates.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
This is actually a good case study taking place. Now that they banned assault weapons, if it will do as they claim, murders should decline there. Now we need to convince some place with an assault ban in place to remove it so it can be shown if murders increase.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Who made the claim that banning assault guns will create a decline in murder? Except of course those that oppose any banning of guns and theirs is an argument of think up something stupid and then insist it is true.
 
jonny5 said:
Again it wouldnt matter if they did. Until the govt gets rid of their guns, we need them to be able to resist the govt if it becomes necessary to abolish it. Guns arent the problem anyway. Violence is.
Click to expand...

This is a wonderful example of how ridiculous the thinking of those who are against gun bans.

Rather than resist a government through the means of peaceful vote you need guns to violently remove them. But then again guns are not the problem, violence is.
 
soylentgreen said:
Who made the claim that banning assault guns will create a decline in murder? Except of course those that oppose any banning of guns and theirs is an argument of think up something stupid and then insist it is true.
Click to expand...
If its not intended to decrease murders what is the purpose of banning certaing types of guns?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
If its not intended to decrease murders what is the purpose of banning certaing types of guns?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It is for the purpose of sending the message that violence is not tolerated. It is called a symbolic gesture. You might not believe it but things like that count in a country like new zealand where a mass killing brought the communities of islam, christian and atheists together in solidarity and determination to prove than we are not accepting of violence. Where as in america you would do nothing but allow your gun lobby groups and politicians to encourage more gun sales with the rhetoric of hate for others.

But that does not relieve you from standing your ground. The question is still being asked. Who told you that banning guns will decrease murders? What possible reasoning did you use to accept that other than you did not actually bother to think it through and see it for what it is. Propaganda by those who will always wish to do nothing but continue the violence.
 
soylentgreen said:
It is for the purpose of sending the message that violence is not tolerated. It is called a symbolic gesture. You might not believe it but things like that count in a country like new zealand where a mass killing brought the communities of islam, christian and atheists together in solidarity and determination to prove than we are not accepting of violence. Where as in america you would do nothing but allow your gun lobby groups and politicians to encourage more gun sales with the rhetoric of hate for others.

But that does not relieve you from standing your ground. The question is still being asked. Who told you that banning guns will decrease murders? What possible reasoning did you use to accept that other than you did not actually bother to think it through and see it for what it is. Propaganda by those who will always wish to do nothing but continue the violence.
Click to expand...
You are literally the very first person I have encountered that argued for banning guns as strictly for symbolic reasons and no there reason.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
soylentgreen said:
This is a wonderful example of how ridiculous the thinking of those who are against gun bans.

Rather than resist a government through the means of peaceful vote you need guns to violently remove them. But then again guns are not the problem, violence is.
Click to expand...
Said the Tories in 1776......

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
DebateChallenge said:
That was what the second amendment was all about when it was written, and that's what its still all about.
Click to expand...
The second amendment is all about civilians being armed with military grade weapons?
 
marke said:
Leftist democrats have no answers to real problems with guns and they cannot defend the leftist gun-grabbing narratives because those narratives don't make sense. Leftist democrats oppose gun ownership for one reason only and that is because the leftist democrat party has taken that stupid position and all faithful democrats will defend that stupid democrat narrative til the end because that is what gullible deluded faithful democrats do - defend democrat narratives.
Click to expand...

That's because the real problem with guns is people. Democrats will never admit that.
 
CdnTrumpGuy said:
I think there are only a small number of people who want this, but the media and Liberal political entities are amping up the volume on it, beause it's a popular talking point, and great virtue signalling rally point for Liberals. If you can bus people out to March for Our Lives rallies, and they get the day off work to do so, they'll do it. Especially if they're Liberals.


For some reason, Liberals seem to have forgotten that the US was built by men who killed the British who tried to take control of the US. The only reason they have a country is because those men had weapons.
Click to expand...

Another thing that gets forgotten is that at time of the founders there was not one government firearm. Patriots showed up with their firearm, and that included cannons

Without civilian owned weapons we'd still be a colony.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Care to expound on that?
Click to expand...

there really wasn't a difference between "military" and "civilian" arms back then. The second amendment was about the natural right of self defense. Some individual firearms were purely military-like the woefully inaccurate but fast to load (ie great for mass volley fire) British Brown Bess musket while the Colonial sharpshooter's Kentucky Long rifle was both a great hunting weapon, and when deployed properly (such as behind cover) was a potent military weapon.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
The second amendment is all about civilians being armed with military grade weapons?
Click to expand...

What do you exactly mean by "military grade?"

Back when the constitution was written muskets were military grade, that was the primary weapon of the soldier back then and just about any civilian had access to muskets.

Today a Beretta 9mm handgun you could say is military grade since its the standard sidearm of Army officers. Even a knife could be military grade since soldiers are issued knives for use in hand to hand combat. On the other hand an AR semi automatic rifle would not be military grade since such weapons are not used in the US military.

So perhaps you can explain what you mean by military grade.
 
TurtleDude said:
there really wasn't a difference between "military" and "civilian" arms back then. The second amendment was about the natural right of self defense. Some individual firearms were purely military-like the woefully inaccurate but fast to load (ie great for mass volley fire) British Brown Bess musket while the Colonial sharpshooter's Kentucky Long rifle was both a great hunting weapon, and when deployed properly (such as behind cover) was a potent military weapon.
Click to expand...
I do already know that there wasn’t any distinction between firearms used for military and civilian purposes in the 18th century.

Now however, there are many different types of firearms. Many are available for civilian or military use, and some only for military use. Those that have been designed specifically for military service are what I was referring to. Federal and state judiciaries have restricted ownership of certain types of firearms repeatedly since 2A was adopted, ruling that there is no right to own any type of firearm.

As someone who believes that the Constitution is a living document, I believe that it is logical and reasonable for the courts to determine which firearms civilians may own. I know a bunch of people here will give me crap for that position, and that’s fine, I can take the heat.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
I do already know that there wasn’t any distinction between firearms used for military and civilian purposes in the 18th century.

Now however, there are many different types of firearms. Many are available for civilian or military use, and some only for military use. Those that have been designed specifically for military service are what I was referring to. Federal and state judiciaries have restricted ownership of certain types of firearms repeatedly since 2A was adopted, ruling that there is no right to own any type of firearm.

As someone who believes that the Constitution is a living document, I believe that it is logical and reasonable for the courts to determine which firearms civilians may own. I know a bunch of people here will give me crap for that position, and that’s fine, I can take the heat.
Click to expand...

It's not up to the courts to decide what weapons civilians should own. That would be lawmakers.

Courts should decide whether those laws are Constitutional or not. And decide whether someone violated them. Nothing else.
 
DebateChallenge said:
What do you exactly mean by "military grade?"

Back when the constitution was written muskets were military grade, that was the primary weapon of the soldier back then and just about any civilian had access to muskets.

Today a Beretta 9mm handgun you could say is military grade since its the standard sidearm of Army officers. Even a knife could be military grade since soldiers are issued knives for use in hand to hand combat. On the other hand an AR semi automatic rifle would not be military grade since such weapons are not used in the US military.

So perhaps you can explain what you mean by military grade.
Click to expand...


Military grades or specifications (specs) are assigned as standard requirements for equipments used in U.S. military service.

The Berretta 9mm began being phased out of use for the U.S. Army early last year. The new official sidearm for all branches within the DOD (and USCG) is the M17/18 handgun (SS P320). As for knives, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you’ve probably never served, at least not in the Army. If you did, you’d know that soldiers are not issued knives for hand to hand combat. And auto AR’s are in use in the U.S. military.
 
jimbo said:
It's not up to the courts to decide what weapons civilians should own. That would be lawmakers.

Courts should decide whether those laws are Constitutional or not. And decide whether someone violated them. Nothing else.
Click to expand...
You’re right, it is lawmakers responsibility to enact firearms legislation and it is the courts job to determine the constitutionality of those laws like SCOTUS did in the Heller case, where SCOTUS said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
You’re right, it is lawmakers responsibility to enact firearms legislation and it is the courts job to determine the constitutionality of those laws like SCOTUS did in the Heller case, where SCOTUS said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited.
Click to expand...

I've read Heller. That wasn't my point.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Military grades or specifications (specs) are assigned as standard requirements for equipments used in U.S. military service.

The Berretta 9mm began being phased out of use for the U.S. Army early last year. The new official sidearm for all branches within the DOD (and USCG) is the M17/18 handgun (SS P320).
Click to expand...
So are you for banning the M17/18 handgun? It is military grade as you point out.

RaleBulgarian said:
As for knives, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you’ve probably never served, at least not in the Army. If you did, you’d know that soldiers are not issued knives for hand to hand combat.
Click to expand...
Some soldiers in some branches and some divisions are issued and do use knives, special forces and special operations for instance.

RaleBulgarian said:
And auto AR’s are in use in the U.S. military.
Click to expand...
Full automatics and burst fire AR's are used but not the semi automatic versions that you might see in gun shops in the USA, those are not used in the military and are thus not military grade.
 
DebateChallenge said:
So are you for banning the M17/18 handgun? It is military grade as you point out.
Click to expand...
No, and I haven’t said or implied otherwise.
DebateChallenge said:
Some soldiers in some branches and some divisions are issued and do use knives, special forces and special operations for instance.
Click to expand...
Now I know you’re talking out of your keister. First, only the Army identifies with the “soldier” name. Marines are “Marines”, and will make clear their displeasure to anyone who calls them “soldier”. Navy personnel are “sailors”, and Air Force members are called “Airmen” (regardless of gender). If you had served you would know that. As for your new claim of who are issued knives for hand to hand combat, again, talking out of your keister.

DebateChallenge said:
Full automatics and burst fire AR's are used but not the semi automatic versions that you might see in gun shops in the USA, those are not used in the military and are thus not military grade.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I already knew that too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom