• 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!

Points of view regarding guns ownership, understanding and handling.

CLAX1911 said:
That's precisely why I thought this was a good video to post to start a discussion. He says several times it isn't the gun. It's a culture or an attitude, I think there is a lot more to it than that. But I found his commentary interesting
Click to expand...

The gun crowd says "it''s not the gun" all the time. But these things keep showing up at massacres...

Dynamite won't hurt anybody as it just sits there, but you can't walk into walmart and buy a few sticks. I wonder why?
 
jet57 said:
Dynamite won't hurt anybody as it just sits there, but you can't walk into walmart and buy a few sticks. I wonder why?
Click to expand...

Because the US Constitution doesn't recognize the right of the People to keep and bear explosives. ;)
 
jet57 said:
Yeah, he commented about the ones screamin about the second amendment and how they want to "look cool". That covers every gun guy on this board and Wayne La Pierre and his minions and right-wing politicians. All of which has the NRA's house a'fire: couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people. And HE DID put the militia into the second amendment combining the right with militia membership, and you guys just hate that.

AR15s, for whatever reason, are the weapon of choice. So they have to go.
Click to expand...

So do you want to ban GLOCKS since they are used in far more mass shootings than AR 15s? Do you want to not ban say the Beretta AR70 or some of the 556 ARSENAL rifles which function exactly like the AR15 but have ZERO incidents of being used in mass murder?

your argument is idiotic. A firearm's legality under the Heller paradigm and the second amendment is not based on how many times nutcases use it in the few mass murder shootings, but rather the following

Is it in common use?
Is it UNUSUALLY dangerous

with AR 15s-like any other semi automatic centerfire magazine fed rifle the answers are

YES
NO

and thus they are protected.
 
jet57 said:
The gun crowd says "it''s not the gun" all the time. But these things keep showing up at massacres...

Dynamite won't hurt anybody as it just sits there, but you can't walk into walmart and buy a few sticks. I wonder why?
Click to expand...

Two rifles-both shoot the same cartridge-both have the same range, and magazine capacity. one has been used in 20 mass shootings in the 50 years it has been available, the other has never been used in any mass shootings.

Tell me why one should be banned, but the other should not be
 
TurtleDude said:
So do you want to ban GLOCKS since they are used in far more mass shootings than AR 15s? Do you want to not ban say the Beretta AR70 or some of the 556 ARSENAL rifles which function exactly like the AR15 but have ZERO incidents of being used in mass murder? your argument is idiotic. A firearm's legality under the Heller paradigm and the second amendment is not based on how many times nutcases use it in the few mass murder shootings, but rather the following Is it in common use? Is it UNUSUALLY dangerous with AR 15s-like any other semi automatic centerfire magazine fed rifle the answers are YES NO and thus they are protected.
Click to expand...

So I don't think Glocks are present in 'far more' mass shootings, handguns yes, but not handguns are Glocks. (I would ban Glocks for a lack of positive safety, but that's just me) From what I've read handguns are present in many mass murders but their usage is generally AFTER the long gun/shotgun was used.

The 'paradigm' isn't nut cases as most mass murderers are not nut cases but rather 30 something white males out for revenge or targeting a group they hate.

Defining unusually dangerous is opinion not a real standard. Has California's bans been struck down? I believe a weapon can be modified without a ban. Fixed magazines perhaps. But I also think the decision doesn't rest with either extreme. The majority will decide, not the industry, and the courts will decide if it passes whatever paradigm. (I call it Constitutional muster)

Personally I wish the Republican't Senate hadn't blocked use of the terrorist watch list as part of the back round check, that reporting and maintaining the lists was done more often and professionally. Health care providers subject to criminal penalties if they cover for violent patients.

But we have had this discussion repeatedly... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
So I don't think Glocks are present in 'far more' mass shootings, handguns yes, but not handguns are Glocks. (I would ban Glocks for a lack of positive safety, but that's just me) From what I've read handguns are present in many mass murders but their usage is generally AFTER the long gun/shotgun was used.

The 'paradigm' isn't nut cases as most mass murderers are not nut cases but rather 30 something white males out for revenge or targeting a group they hate.

Defining unusually dangerous is opinion not a real standard. Has California's bans been struck down? I believe a weapon can be modified without a ban. Fixed magazines perhaps. But I also think the decision doesn't rest with either extreme. The majority will decide, not the industry, and the courts will decide if it passes whatever paradigm. (I call it Constitutional muster)

Personally I wish the Republican't Senate hadn't blocked use of the terrorist watch list as part of the back round check, that reporting and maintaining the lists was done more often and professionally. Health care providers subject to criminal penalties if they cover for violent patients.

But we have had this discussion repeatedly... :peace
Click to expand...

I guess you would ban revolvers too
 
TurtleDude said:
Two rifles-both shoot the same cartridge-both have the same range, and magazine capacity. one has been used in 20 mass shootings in the 50 years it has been available, the other has never been used in any mass shootings.

Tell me why one should be banned, but the other should not be
Click to expand...

This is like the dumbest thing ever. We keep seeing the most popular rifle being used in mass shootings I wonder why that is. I'm willing to bet the most popular car is involved in more wrecks.

we should just bring in those things in the wrecks would magically stop in the shootings with magically stop because it's how it works right
 
Last edited:
notquiteright said:
So I don't think Glocks are present in 'far more' mass shootings, handguns yes, but not handguns are Glocks. (I would ban Glocks for a lack of positive safety, but that's just me) From what I've read handguns are present in many mass murders but their usage is generally AFTER the long gun/shotgun was used.

The 'paradigm' isn't nut cases as most mass murderers are not nut cases but rather 30 something white males out for revenge or targeting a group they hate.

Defining unusually dangerous is opinion not a real standard. Has California's bans been struck down? I believe a weapon can be modified without a ban. Fixed magazines perhaps. But I also think the decision doesn't rest with either extreme. The majority will decide, not the industry, and the courts will decide if it passes whatever paradigm. (I call it Constitutional muster)

Personally I wish the Republican't Senate hadn't blocked use of the terrorist watch list as part of the back round check, that reporting and maintaining the lists was done more often and professionally. Health care providers subject to criminal penalties if they cover for violent patients.

But we have had this discussion repeatedly... :peace
Click to expand...

You didn't watch the videos in the op it's not the gun and gun legislation is not really going to work that well. Go watch the videos. Explains these things that you're complaining about have been around for over a hundred years.

Don't make an argument from ignorance especially when all the information is presented to you in the first place
 
jet57 said:
Yeah, he commented about the ones screamin about the second amendment and how they want to "look cool". That covers every gun guy on this board and Wayne La Pierre and his minions and right-wing politicians. All of which has the NRA's house a'fire: couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people. And HE DID put the militia into the second amendment combining the right with militia membership, and you guys just hate that.

AR15s, for whatever reason, are the weapon of choice. So they have to go.
Click to expand...

I don't believe his brush was as broad as yours. You probably got some on yourself with that diatribe, considering your ownership of a couple military weapons intended for heavy combat. Ever post any pics of yourself holding them? Since you're all into determining the motive and mindset of others- Just why did you choose those two particular weapons of war for your own use?


What did you think about what that guy in the video said is the ultimate purpose of the 2nd Amendment? This is the second time I've asked. Did you agree with that?
 
The gun debate is over. Ever heard of "ghost guns"? You can now get the blueprints and fairly inexpensive CNC milling machine and make all the guns you might want in your basement. Incredibly easy and cheap. 3D printing is making it even easier. It will soon be impossible to regulate guns in any meaningful way.

A couple of years ago I watched a friend machine the few parts necessary to convert a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic. Illegal, but not very difficult. Took it to the farm and tried it out. Then took the parts out because he just did it to see if it would work. But almost anyone could turn out those parts in large numbers.

In a total gun ban environment I could see a massive black market for "ghost guns" and conversion parts. Millionaires would be made. And criminals would still have their weapons. Because honest people would be the only ones who wouldn't buy a gun with no serial numbers.

Ain't technology great?
 
RF667799 said:
I don't believe his brush was as broad as yours. You probably got some on yourself with that diatribe, considering your ownership of a couple military weapons intended for heavy combat. Ever post any pics of yourself holding them? Since you're all into determining the motive and mindset of others- Just why did you choose those two particular weapons of war for your own use?


What did you think about what that guy in the video said is the ultimate purpose of the 2nd Amendment? This is the second time I've asked. Did you agree with that?
Click to expand...

A good friend was in Vietnam in '67 (combat engineers), AND he owns an M1 carbine; he has others, pistols, not too much. I bought my M1 at a gun show because I wanted to have something in common with him and we could go to the range etc. I hadn't owned any before. I also bought a .45 'cause the price was right: box and booklet included. My other one is an M91-30: it has 1938 stamped on the breach with the Sickle & Hammer. So mine are WWII collectibles, nothing more. I don't eat drink and sleep guns like some around here do and I don't lie about the second amendment or anything else, and Trurtledude in particular has never been able to prove any of the lies he accuses me of.

You and pingy jumped to a silly conclusion about a 30-.06 and are driving yourselves crazy trying to correct your mistake. I answered your second amendment question some time ago, so you'll have to go dig that one out. I think you skipped right over it in your zeal to make me wrong about - something - anything, but you've failed like pingy has And the rest of the minions./

The video guy however DOES link the second with the militia and gun ownership, which the minions and the NRA just hate, so you may want to go back and figure that out for yourself.
 
jet57 said:
It's so amusing to know that I take up so much space in your head for free.

How'z old Wayne La Pierre? Is he in jail yet?
Click to expand...

I merely laugh at the constant barrage of obviously wrong things that you post. I have no use for Wayne La Pierre but thanks for admitting that most, if not all, of your anti gun nonsense is not based on "crime control" but a hatred for the NRA. Keep posting-the error a day routine only helps demonstrate to those in the middle, how wrong anti gun advocates are.
 
jet57 said:
A good friend was in Vietnam in '67 (combat engineers), AND he owns an M1 carbine; he has others, pistols, not too much. I bought my M1 at a gun show because I wanted to have something in common with him and we could go to the range etc. I hadn't owned any before. I also bought a .45 'cause the price was right: box and booklet included. My other one is an M91-30: it has 1938 stamped on the breach with the Sickle & Hammer. So mine are WWII collectibles, nothing more. I don't eat drink and sleep guns like some around here do and I don't lie about the second amendment or anything else, and Trurtledude in particular has never been able to prove any of the lies he accuses me of.

You and pingy jumped to a silly conclusion about a 30-.06 and are driving yourselves crazy trying to correct your mistake. I answered your second amendment question some time ago, so you'll have to go dig that one out. I think you skipped right over it in your zeal to make me wrong about - something - anything, but you've failed like pingy has And the rest of the minions./

The video guy however DOES link the second with the militia and gun ownership, which the minions and the NRA just hate, so you may want to go back and figure that out for yourself.
Click to expand...

Lets see-look at my signature.
 
jet57 said:
A good friend was in Vietnam in '67 (combat engineers), AND he owns an M1 carbine; he has others, pistols, not too much. I bought my M1 at a gun show because I wanted to have something in common with him and we could go to the range etc. I hadn't owned any before. I also bought a .45 'cause the price was right: box and booklet included. My other one is an M91-30: it has 1938 stamped on the breach with the Sickle & Hammer. So mine are WWII collectibles, nothing more. I don't eat drink and sleep guns like some around here do and I don't lie about the second amendment or anything else, and Trurtledude in particular has never been able to prove any of the lies he accuses me of.

You and pingy jumped to a silly conclusion about a 30-.06 and are driving yourselves crazy trying to correct your mistake. I answered your second amendment question some time ago, so you'll have to go dig that one out. I think you skipped right over it in your zeal to make me wrong about - something - anything, but you've failed like pingy has And the rest of the minions./

The video guy however DOES link the second with the militia and gun ownership, which the minions and the NRA just hate, so you may want to go back and figure that out for yourself.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you bought a weapon of war to try and emulate your warrior buddy. Is he a pretty cool guy in your eyes? You feel a little cooler once that military carbine was in your hands? Sounds like the motives you ascribe to owners of AR15 type weapons are projection as much as anything. I've often figured that projection is behind a great deal of anti-gun fervor.

Here's the question for the third time: What did you think about what that guy in the video said is the ultimate purpose of the 2nd Amendment? This is the second time I've asked. Did you agree with that?

Despite your claims, you don't really seem to be responding to it.
 
RF667799 said:
Sounds like you bought a weapon of war to try and emulate your warrior buddy. Is he a pretty cool guy in your eyes? You feel a little cooler once that military carbine was in your hands? Sounds like the motives you ascribe to owners of AR15 type weapons are projection as much as anything. I've often figured that projection is behind a great deal of anti-gun fervor.

Here's the question for the third time: What did you think about what that guy in the video said is the ultimate purpose of the 2nd Amendment? This is the second time I've asked. Did you agree with that?

Despite your claims, you don't really seem to be responding to it.
Click to expand...

Don't be insulting.
 
RF667799 said:
The definition for "insulting" is NOT "noting disingenuous arguments and deflection".
Click to expand...

Our intelligence is insulted all the time with claims such as "AR 15s were designed for heavy combat" or "30-06 means hunting rifle"
 
RF667799 said:
The definition for "insulting" is NOT "noting disingenuous arguments and deflection".
Click to expand...

No, what you've done is run out of credible argument, and just gotten condescending and insulting.

:2wave:
 
jet57 said:
You've never been able to prove anything.

So, lay out your Heller Paradigm....
Click to expand...

You deny obvious facts and then repeat the same mistakes over and over.

Heller's holding

commonly used firearms that are not unusually dangerous are protected by the second amendment.

how does calling something "designed for heavy combat" or designed for "military combat" or for warfare-matter in this paradigm?

IT DOESN'T. so constantly haranguing for the ban of a rifle you dishonestly claim was designed for "heavy combat" or "for military combat" etc means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Period-
 
can't even see the videos cuz of our network at work, but I know it's Beau just by the way the op talked about it lol. love Beau.

we could use a lot more like him on this topic. though, since he's not a conservative, i don't think we'll be getting more like him from that side of the fence.
 
TurtleDude said:
You deny obvious facts and then repeat the same mistakes over and over.

Heller's holding

commonly used firearms that are not unusually dangerous are protected by the second amendment.

how does calling something "designed for heavy combat" or designed for "military combat" or for warfare-matter in this paradigm?

IT DOESN'T. so constantly haranguing for the ban of a rifle you dishonestly claim was designed for "heavy combat" or "for military combat" etc means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Period-
Click to expand...

Those rifles, including the AR15 are unusually dangerous because of what we've seen in the massacres of late: it is their capacity that carries them over the line and THAT capacity is what put them on the 1994 ban list and will put them there again. YOU only want to interpret all this the way you want it, and that is not how the world works.

I have proven over and over again that said weapons can do much more harm much faster than the rest of the field of firearms. Said weapons were designed for military use, not hunting or varmint eradication. There use in the most heinous massacres in American history is what singles them out. They will be right back on the ban list in due time and the second amendment will not save them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom