• 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 grabbers position all shot to hell

jet57 said:
Then how will cops fight gangs with AR15s? Or are you suggesting just taking away ALL assault weapons?
Click to expand...

I am suggesting that people like you should learn what a assault weapon is before you go running off at the mouth in the first place.

The Virginia Tech shooter took out 32 people, and I am quite sure that there wasn't a AR-15 on his person.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I am suggesting that people like you should learn what a assault weapon is before you go running off at the mouth in the first place.

The Virginia Tech shooter took out 32 people, and I am quite sure that there wasn't a AR-15 on his person.
Click to expand...

Some people want to ban stuff that they, themselves, cannot own.
 
Praxas said:
So, show us which Dem lawmakers in congress have called for a COMPLETE BAN ON ALL FIREARMS. You guys keep saying the list is long, but you have provide ZERO proof. Come on man, your game is weak. It is YOUR sides claim that the Dems want to ban all firearms, so let's see the comments on them wanting to ban ALL FIREARMS. Your lack of proof is your concession.
Click to expand...
All I'm saying is there are many Dems that want to ban semi automatics be they AR-15s or AKs(choose your flavor) right down to 10-22 Rugers and if they can't do that go for magazine limits (they tried 5 in Or.) right to to monthly allowances,you could buy(20 in Or. that went over like a lead balloon) a limited number,with back ground checks yet. And these laws are popping up all over. And some places want to leave it up to townships and cities. What a mess that would be!
So of course no one is trying to ban guns. Where ever could we get such an idea. Hell in Or. your Grandfathers six shooter was in jeopardy.
 
zsu2357 said:
All I'm saying is there are many Dems that want to ban semi automatics be they AR-15s or AKs(choose your flavor) right down to 10-22 Rugers and if they can't do that go for magazine limits (they tried 5 in Or.) right to to monthly allowances,you could buy(20 in Or. that went over like a lead balloon) a limited number,with back ground checks yet. And these laws are popping up all over. And some places want to leave it up to townships and cities. What a mess that would be!
So of course no one is trying to ban guns. Where ever could we get such an idea. Hell in Or. your Grandfathers six shooter was in jeopardy.
Click to expand...

So then there are NO democrats trying to ban all firearms. Thank you for your concession.
 
TurtleDude said:
I'd prefer FN-FAls myself or HK G3s.
Click to expand...

Right; so citizens should always be armed enough to overthrow their elected government.

You gun guys and the NRA - still selling sedition and traitorism.

great - just what we need in this world
 
TrueScotsman said:
I am not for gun confiscation, but I fail to see how small arms fire would stand up to tank brigades.
Click to expand...

That's why the second amendment is a load of ****. Its was designed 2 stop invasion 230 years ago,buy invaders with flintlock arms. But invaders will have more than AR15 semi autos in the 21st century. What a joke of a law. What you think your .223 will do against a laser guided bomb.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I am suggesting that people like you should learn what a assault weapon is before you go running off at the mouth in the first place.

The Virginia Tech shooter took out 32 people, and I am quite sure that there wasn't a AR-15 on his person.
Click to expand...

Well, you've not been reading. "Assault rifle" is just a description for military combat weaponry. They had to have a name.

How many were taken out at Las Vegas or any other number of places where such weapons were used to kill many people at one time?
 
TurtleDude said:
Do people who drive tanks have immunity to small arms fire?
How about those who order tanks to roll over citizens?
Click to expand...
Or if you want a real dirty little war. How about families of those driving the tanks or APCs?
 
jet57 said:
Right; so citizens should always be armed enough to overthrow their elected government.

You gun guys and the NRA - still selling sedition and traitorism.

great - just what we need in this world
Click to expand...

NOpe, we just don't think fascist dictatorships are things that people should bow down and worship. Of course, statists love big brother and loathe any thought of citizens trying to rid themselves of an authoritarian scourge.
 
zsu2357 said:
Or if you want a real dirty little war. How about families of those driving the tanks or APCs?
Click to expand...

asymmetrical warfare can take many twists and turns.
 
Mr Person said:
Does this mean that there are X ways to do what I said re: shells and someone has seriously calculated how much they would cost?

Somehow, I suspect there has been no serious effort to do this. Why bother? It would add some cost no doubt and without a law to require it, it would be a turnoff for buyers. All the other times I suggested it, including here, I get told it's just a slippery slope to confiscation. No way the GOP is going along with it.




But is the casing (or whatever term) not in better condition than most bullets after impact with a human? The only real turning point for that piece of the suggestion is the magnitude of effect on legal gun owners vs. contribution to stopping straw buyer flow to the black market, as to the shell/cartridge/casing.

The more important point would be to restrict the flow of guns to the black market from one big channel. Can't promise you it would work well and couldn't judge it for quite a long time, but then I don't see that it is necessarily cost-prohibitive.
Click to expand...
Scrapped: Maryland ends bullet ID program after 15 years, $5M and zero cases solved | Fox News It was tried albeit they gave up in 2005. But it as predicted was a waste.
 
RetiredUSN said:
The US Military would take down the government before it ever turned on civilians.

Not to argue at all, but this still is, and was the sentiment among my military friends during my 42 years of active duty, and still living in the middle of the largest military complex on earth.
Click to expand...
And that is absolutely what would happen. Oh you may have a few pumped up concentrated tubes of testosterone wanting to try out their new toys but not many. Hell they'd wilt the first time a Sargent got in their face.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I believe that the civilian population should have access to the same weapons as the police forces around the country. With that said, if we take AR-15's away from civilians, then the cops should have them taken away as well.

This is where the gun grabbers fail in my opinion.
Click to expand...

After all, even Obama wanted a well armed and funded Civilian National Security Force equal to the US military. What the hell was he talking about?

Click to expand...

"Civilian National Security Force". And you can bet he would've been pulling all the strings.
404 Hmm private armies? I see most of those as civies.
Click to expand...
 
Praxas said:
You obviously didn’t watch the video. She was talking about the assault rifle bans. Context matters and your dishonesty is on display. Again show me where she says ALL firearms. Yes ou failed again.
Click to expand...

If she wants to ban and confiscate firearms that are used in less than 1.5% of the murders because she claims crime control is her only motivation, then anyone with any degree of intelligence, would believe that she also would want to ban handguns since they are used in many times more murders than stuff the ignorant call "assault rifles" (modern sporting rifles)
 
Praxas said:
So then there are NO democrats trying to ban all firearms. Thank you for your concession.
Click to expand...
No concessions here. However you seem to be satisfied to own your bolt action rifle. That is IF you have one because IT'S a gun. But if you do,don't get to attached because they will be next.
 
Mr Person said:
You bolded "The only way a gun registry works is with a serial number that cannot be obliterated. It works even better with the same for ammo. Actual parts of bullets are distorted on impact, but the ejected shell or casing or "cartridge" is generally not so poorly off."

There are tons of cases involving a gun with an obliterated serial number (or defaced, altered, obliterated, mutilated, or other word). Whatever is used now is far from foolproof - most criminals are fools - and does not require an understanding of "metallurgical science". I rather suspect that there are a number of ways in which it could be made much harder to alter a serial number. But there would be little point without the other set of laws, which are never going to be passed.

Edit: and it would certainly cost manufacturers and customers money. It's a cost-benefit thing.
Click to expand...

The problem is while it would be theoretically possible to trace a cartridge to the purchaser, there is no way to trace it to either the gun or the user. Upon firing the cartridge detaches itself from the weapon, and from the user.

I don't know what the cost/casing would be, but considering each casing must be individually stamped and individually recorded it won't be cheap. An as TD points out, a thousand rounds is a typical target shooter and/or an afternoon of plinking for a couple of shooters. Bulk .223 costs around $200/thousand. Half that on sale. That cost would at least double if registration is required. For zero gain.

Again, though, if you can find me a single incident of a serial number being removed or obliterated, or ascraped off serial number found at a crime scene I'd be interested.
 
jet57 said:
Right; so citizens should always be armed enough to overthrow their elected government.

You gun guys and the NRA - still selling sedition and traitorism.

great - just what we need in this world
Click to expand...
You are hot on "sedition and traitorism" aren't you? What makes you think that US "gun guys" And the NRA are for any of that kind of stuff? Any proof will do and no what you heard on MSNBC or from a friend of a friend don't count. I'd like to watch you argue that in court.
Barring your "sedition and traitorism."Ever hear of natural disasters or civil unrest. This comes to mind since it's kind of auspicious (4-29-92). The Rodney King riots right there in CA. I won't bore you with details,but if your not up to date well google it.
 
TurtleDude said:
If she wants to ban and confiscate firearms that are used in less than 1.5% of the murders because she claims crime control is her only motivation, then anyone with any degree of intelligence, would believe that she also would want to ban handguns since they are used in many times more murders than stuff the ignorant call "assault rifles" (modern sporting rifles)
Click to expand...

So again no dem has said they want to ban all firearms. Your assumptions are not my problem.
 
zsu2357 said:
No concessions here. However you seem to be satisfied to own your bolt action rifle. That is IF you have one because IT'S a gun. But if you do,don't get to attached because they will be next.
Click to expand...

If there is no concession then show us where a dem in congress has said they want to ban all firearms. Your concession is from your lack of actual proof.
 
Praxas said:
So again no dem has said they want to ban all firearms. Your assumptions are not my problem.
Click to expand...

Wanting to ban millions of guns rather than hundreds of millions of guns, still means the person is a gun banner. And if she is truthful about her reasons, do you DENY that she would also want to ban the guns that are used in far more crimes?
 
Praxas said:
If there is no concession then show us where a dem in congress has said they want to ban all firearms. Your concession is from your lack of actual proof.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe a politician is going to say that they want to ban all guns at this point-especially since they are going to face election again?
 
TurtleDude said:
Do you honestly believe a politician is going to say that they want to ban all guns at this point-especially since they are going to face election again?
Click to expand...

I they truly want them banned yes. So can we make assumptions about trump and call them fact that you will accept? Sorry you don’t like facts.
 
coco said:
That's why the second amendment is a load of ****. Its was designed 2 stop invasion 230 years ago,buy invaders with flintlock arms. But invaders will have more than AR15 semi autos in the 21st century. What a joke of a law. What you think your .223 will do against a laser guided bomb.
Click to expand...
Out of the mouth of babes. Maybe your military would jump to and yell YES SIR TWO BAGS FULL! And take civvies out.Not here.
 
Praxas said:
I they truly want them banned yes. So can we make assumptions about trump and call them fact that you will accept? Sorry you don’t like facts.
Click to expand...

You are speculating and either

1) ignorant of how the gun banners work

2) or you know but won't admit it

the fact is-if you HONESTLY believe that banning honest people from owning some guns, will keep criminals from getting them, then you have to also believe banning all guns will keep the criminals from getting even more guns

And guess what-a gun banner is just as putrid if they only want to ban 15% of the guns honest people own vs 100%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom