• 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!

There Weren't any US Mass Shootings Yesterday

Media_Truth said:
Most of these rejections were after Heller. Assault-like weapons will soon be history in this country, as sanity starts to restore itself.
Click to expand...

There we go again. Another claim without the guts to back it up with facts and reason.

I guess I'll ask again, a different way this time: Why should "assault-like weapons" be "history"? What makes them so special, specifically?
 
Tlrmln said:
There we go again. Another claim without the guts to back it up with facts and reason.

I guess I'll ask again, a different way this time: Why should "assault-like weapons" be "history"? What makes them so special, specifically?
Click to expand...

You and Turtledude should go on a hunting trip with your assault-like weapons. They are so sporty.
 
Media_Truth said:
You and Turtledude should go on a hunting trip with your assault-like weapons. They are so sporty.
Click to expand...

Keep dodging. It's so entertaining.
 
Media_Truth said:
Most of these rejections were after Heller. Assault-like weapons will soon be history in this country, as sanity starts to restore itself.
Click to expand...

what is going to happen to the 100 million firearms that people like you call "assault weapons"
 
Media_Truth said:
You and Turtledude should go on a hunting trip with your assault-like weapons. They are so sporty.
Click to expand...

You are constantly getting schooled on firearms issues, and instead of attempting to learn something, we get this crap?
 
TurtleDude said:
what is going to happen to the 100 million firearms that people like you call "assault weapons"
Click to expand...

Quibbling over definitions aside, I think that's a good case to take to the owners of these guns. Maybe the NRA can conduct a poll as to how turn them in, or store them in repositories.
 
Media_Truth said:
Quibbling over definitions aside, I think that's a good case to take to the owners of these guns. Maybe the NRA can conduct a poll as to how turn them in, or store them in repositories.
Click to expand...

Most won't. I know this for a fact. Around 1990-right before my appointment by GHWB to the DOJ, Cincinnati passed an 'assault weapon' ban that passed by one vote-and only because it allowed for a grandfather clause. Those who owned the guns that caused several council members to wet themselves, had 30 days to "register" them with the city or risk a M-1 (cities cannot impose felonies). I knew for a fact-having represented two really big gun dealers that operated right outside of the city limits-that there were thousands of "assault weapons" in the city. Less than a 100 of them were registered. Only one case-to the best of my recollection was prosecuted-some guy was going through a nasty divorce, and his hateful Ex called the cops and said he had a banned gun. The common pleas judge dismissed the charges-finding that the law was improper and noting that since Ohio was about to pass a pre-emption law-it was going to be flushed anyway. But Cincinnati's experience is common with other cities or states. Wonder how many people actually turned in "bumpstocks"
 
TurtleDude said:
Most won't. I know this for a fact. Around 1990-right before my appointment by GHWB to the DOJ, Cincinnati passed an 'assault weapon' ban that passed by one vote-and only because it allowed for a grandfather clause. Those who owned the guns that caused several council members to wet themselves, had 30 days to "register" them with the city or risk a M-1 (cities cannot impose felonies). I knew for a fact-having represented two really big gun dealers that operated right outside of the city limits-that there were thousands of "assault weapons" in the city. Less than a 100 of them were registered. Only one case-to the best of my recollection was prosecuted-some guy was going through a nasty divorce, and his hateful Ex called the cops and said he had a banned gun. The common pleas judge dismissed the charges-finding that the law was improper and noting that since Ohio was about to pass a pre-emption law-it was going to be flushed anyway. But Cincinnati's experience is common with other cities or states. Wonder how many people actually turned in "bumpstocks"
Click to expand...

Personally, I enjoy living within the law. If people want to keep their bumpstocks, they are no longer living within the law. You just never know when they might have to face the consequences.
 
Media_Truth said:
Personally, I enjoy living within the law. If people want to keep their bumpstocks, they are no longer living within the law. You just never know when they might have to face the consequences.
Click to expand...

I think anyone with a brain understands how stupid it is to turn millions of people who have never harmed anyone into "criminals"by declaring stuff they once owned legally and never harmed anyone with-contraband. But that is what you gun banners want to do
 
TurtleDude said:
I think anyone with a brain understands how stupid it is to turn millions of people who have never harmed anyone into "criminals"by declaring stuff they once owned legally and never harmed anyone with-contraband. But that is what you gun banners want to do
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the freedom has been abused way, way too often. Blame the White Supremacists, blame the hate groups ... instead you want to blame pacifists, who want the violence to stop. How much sense does that make?
 
Media_Truth said:
Unfortunately, the freedom has been abused way, way too often. Blame the White Supremacists, blame the hate groups ... instead you want to blame pacifists, who want the violence to stop. How much sense does that make?
Click to expand...

The only conclusion is the gop does not want shootings to stop
 
Media_Truth said:
Unfortunately, the freedom has been abused way, way too often. Blame the White Supremacists, blame the hate groups ... instead you want to blame pacifists, who want the violence to stop. How much sense does that make?
Click to expand...

blaming guns or honest people who own them is idiotic as a crime control measure. But I know that crime control doesn't motivate political activists -such as you-who see gun control as a weapon to use against your political opponents.
 
TurtleDude said:
blaming guns or honest people who own them is idiotic as a crime control measure. But I know that crime control doesn't motivate political activists -such as you-who see gun control as a weapon to use against your political opponents.
Click to expand...

Right, continue to spout your ignorance, as mass-murders are occurring on a daily basis. "My guns, my guns, my guns" - your viewpoint while people are lying in hospital beds and loved ones are grieving.
 
Media_Truth said:
Right, continue to spout your ignorance, as mass-murders are occurring on a daily basis. "My guns, my guns, my guns" - your viewpoint while people are lying in hospital beds and loved ones are grieving.
Click to expand...

real mass shootings are extremely rare. In california-an average of FIVE people a year are killed in real mass shootings. That gun banners DISHONESTLY call all sorts of things-like gangsters shooting other gangsters, or a family wiped out by a murder suicide, "mass shootings" is bogus and you know it. and you trying to insinuate that honest people sticking up for their rights is what causes those shootings is incredibly dishonest

but then again-dishonesty is your pretense that stopping crime is what motivates your chicken little clucking for more laws. Its all about harassing people who don't buy into your leftwing agendas.
 
TurtleDude said:
real mass shootings are extremely rare. In california-an average of FIVE people a year are killed in real mass shootings. That gun banners DISHONESTLY call all sorts of things-like gangsters shooting other gangsters, or a family wiped out by a murder suicide, "mass shootings" is bogus and you know it. and you trying to insinuate that honest people sticking up for their rights is what causes those shootings is incredibly dishonest

but then again-dishonesty is your pretense that stopping crime is what motivates your chicken little clucking for more laws. Its all about harassing people who don't buy into your leftwing agendas.
Click to expand...

We've averaged about one a day in 2019. I don't call that rare. My bar is not that low. Maybe yours is...
 
Media_Truth said:
We've averaged about one a day in 2019. I don't call that rare. My bar is not that low. Maybe yours is...
Click to expand...

out of 300 million plus people? I think look for any excuse to try to pass harassing legislation. I really don't think you really care about saving lives, since if saving lives was your goal, there are many things that kill far more people than the less than 500 people a year who are killed in real mass shootings
 
Media_Truth said:
We've averaged about one a day in 2019. I don't call that rare. My bar is not that low. Maybe yours is...
Click to expand...

Once you accept that the gop wants to increase these shootings not decrease them...it starts to make sense
 
Media_Truth said:
As the death count is still rising from the three horrendous mass shootings in the past week, and innocent victims continue to suffer in hospital beds, you have to ask yourself why gun owners are so stubborn about assault-style weapons. You would think that responsible, law-abiding gun owners who own common-sense weapons would be the first ones to desire a ban on assault-style weapons.

These weapons have no use for hunting. They are also impractical for self-defense. Their sole purpose is to kill people, and a lot of people.

Undoubtedly, we'll see the usual quibbling about definitions of assault weapons, types of triggers, gun add-ons, etc. If these folks are such experts on these weapons, they are the exact people that should draft the meaningful legislation to ban them nationwide.

We will see the usual 2nd Amendment references. C'mon - folks from the late 1700s would roll over in their graves, if they saw the carnage of our "civilized" society.

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Warrn Burger
View attachment 67261497

He declared on PBS that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

This quote is from 1991. Justice Burger's words ring even more TRUE today.
Click to expand...

The only problem is.. we are the experts.. and that's why we know that in no way will a assault weapons ban will work. AND by the way.. after that quote from Burger.. we had an assault weapons ban. and a high capacity magazine ban. for TEN.. that's right 10 years.. and you know what they found when they studied what 10 years of assault weapons ban did for crime, violence etc.

Researchers found that there was no significant effect on crime, injury from firearms, shootings etc. NO statistically significant effect.

But hey. lets not use valid research, science and logic to make our decisions shall we?

Lets use emotion and ignorance. Look at how well its worked with drug use in American, solving immigration.. and healthcare!..

Lets add assault weapons to the list.. because surely.. every mass murderer.. planning on shooting up a school... is going to be deterred by an assault weapons ban!..

Look how well banning marijuana has worked!..
 
Media_Truth said:
Personally, I enjoy living within the law. If people want to keep their bumpstocks, they are no longer living within the law. You just never know when they might have to face the consequences.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. we need to incarcerate people who own bumpstocks and haven't committed any violent act except own a block of steel. Heck.. thousands of them were sold and one guy misused his. Ban them all.

Up next.. pressure cookers!..

That's your logic at work there.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. we need to incarcerate people who own bumpstocks and haven't committed any violent act except own a block of steel. Heck.. thousands of them were sold and one guy misused his. Ban them all.

Up next.. pressure cookers!..

That's your logic at work there.
Click to expand...

Well that is that gun banner trump for you.

A vote for him is a vote for a gun banner
 
vegas giants said:
Well that is that gun banner trump for you.

A vote for him is a vote for a gun banner
Click to expand...

Yep.. trump has a long history of being against guns. In fact.. he is probably the single biggest threat to gun rights given that the republicans won't hold him responsible when he is anti gun.. because the democrats are so much worse.

The population which is generally not anti gun.. has held anti gun legislators responsible for their lack of common sense. Gore.. ended up paying for the antigun bills under Clinton. Even Clinton admitted that the anti gun legislation cost the democrats dearly.

Obama was smart enough to know better.. and the truth of the matter is.. he stayed away from the gun issue as much as possible. Because he knew that politically it was a third rail for democrats.

No one is going to switch their vote from republican to democrat because the democrats are going to ban guns.

But a lot of people did switch their vote from democrat to republican because of the democrats anti gun stance (Clintons)… and the same may end up happening in this next election...

Its very possible that if the democrats come out swinging on gun control.. Trump wins again.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yep.. trump has a long history of being against guns. In fact.. he is probably the single biggest threat to gun rights given that the republicans won't hold him responsible when he is anti gun.. because the democrats are so much worse.

The population which is generally not anti gun.. has held anti gun legislators responsible for their lack of common sense. Gore.. ended up paying for the antigun bills under Clinton. Even Clinton admitted that the anti gun legislation cost the democrats dearly.

Obama was smart enough to know better.. and the truth of the matter is.. he stayed away from the gun issue as much as possible. Because he knew that politically it was a third rail for democrats.

No one is going to switch their vote from republican to democrat because the democrats are going to ban guns.

But a lot of people did switch their vote from democrat to republican because of the democrats anti gun stance (Clintons)… and the same may end up happening in this next election...

Its very possible that if the democrats come out swinging on gun control.. Trump wins again.
Click to expand...

Go ahead. Vote for a gun banner. Dont blame me when he sells you out. Lol
 
Media_Truth said:
As the death count is still rising from the three horrendous mass shootings in the past week, and innocent victims continue to suffer in hospital beds, you have to ask yourself why gun owners are so stubborn about assault-style weapons. You would think that responsible, law-abiding gun owners who own common-sense weapons would be the first ones to desire a ban on assault-style weapons.
Click to expand...

First you've got to define what an assault style weapon is. Is a weapon an assault style weapon based on function? If that's the case then assault style weapons already are banned. Is a weapon an assault style weapon based on cosmetics? Should a weapon be banned just because it looks like something that a front line soldier might use as a primary weapon, even if it isn't?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom