• 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!

Stop the Slaughter of Our Children With These Weapons of War

jet57 said:
So where's all your nonsense about a "Heller Paradigm"? You just throw that out there like it means something; like Scalisa didn't know what he was talking about.
Click to expand...

Jet claims that the term "made for combat" or "designed for warfare" or several other similar phrases has some MEANING as to what firearms should be legal for private citizens. It totally ignores the current supreme court paradigm for determining what is protected by the second-=that being firearms in COMMON USE that are not UNUSUALLY dangerous. Jet never seems up to the task of explaining how "made for warfare" or "designed for heavy combat" or some of the other phrases he makes up-have ANY RELEVANCE to

1) is the weapon in COMMON use

2) is the weapon Unusually dangerous
 
TurtleDude said:
Jet claims that the term "made for combat" or "designed for warfare" or several other similar phrases has some MEANING as to what firearms should be legal for private citizens. It totally ignores the current supreme court paradigm for determining what is protected by the second-=that being firearms in COMMON USE that are not UNUSUALLY dangerous. Jet never seems up to the task of explaining how "made for warfare" or "designed for heavy combat" or some of the other phrases he makes up-have ANY RELEVANCE to

1) is the weapon in COMMON use

2) is the weapon Unusually dangerous
Click to expand...

Isn't the point of firearms to be "dangerous" ?

I'm not sure what a criteria for "unusually dangerous" would be.
 
Rich2018 said:
Isn't the point of firearms to be "dangerous" ?

I'm not sure what a criteria for "unusually dangerous" would be.
Click to expand...

stuff like bombs or militarized bio-agents like anthrax or poison gas.
 
TurtleDude said:
stuff like bombs or militarized bio-agents like anthrax or poison gas.
Click to expand...

They don't count as firearms though and as such aren't protected by the 2nd amendment.

What "firearms" are unusually dangerous...are we talking fully automatic ?
 
Rich2018 said:
They don't count as firearms though and as such aren't protected by the 2nd amendment.

What "firearms" are unusually dangerous...are we talking fully automatic ?
Click to expand...

I cannot think of any firearms (that being a weapon that is hand held and fires an inert projectile) that qualifies as unusually dangerous
 
Rich2018 said:
Neither can I...though some are less dangerous than others.
Click to expand...

I would agree to that. a poorly made firearm might be not very dangerous to an opponent but very dangerous to the user. On the other hand, a high quality automatic rifle or shotgun is completely safe to use but dangerous to opponents of the shooter
 
Rich2018 said:
And exactly the point I was making with a "looks aggressive" criteria ?
Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure neither I nor any gun supporter here was confused as to your point. Looks and perception, not facts, are what matters to you.


Rich2018 said:
But you having a firearm, means the criminal does too...so there's goes your mythical "advantage"
Click to expand...


It does not logically follow that because I have a firearm means the criminal does. Alternately in your world of gun control, just because I don’t have a gun doesn’t mean the criminal does not. To the second point, if the criminal does have a gun at least we are equal and I am not at a disadvantage. The reality is I’m in familiar ground. The reality is to you a 90lb woman at home is on equal footing to a 200lb man who broke in. As long as she’s not armed.

Rich2018 said:
So you claim not to live in a dream world and happily accept that in your preferred world, the muggers and rapists have guns.
Forgive me, if I don't share your vision.
Click to expand...

I’ve never made any claims to a dream world. It’s not my preferred world. It’s reality. Reality is equality of force won’t exist because you ban firearms. Reality is I don’t want equality. I want the most efficient means possible to protect myself.

You can claim otherwise. But the reality is that firearms allow a woman to defend herself from rapists and muggers and gun control makes them victims. You trample on the victims of violence when you make such ignorant and distorted claims.
 
jet57 said:
That means nothing and is a stupid post. I posted the facts on both rifles, so either prove them wrong or remain silly. Your choice.
Click to expand...

It only seems meaningless and stupid because your head is firmly up your ass. It’s a fact they are similar cars. That’s a fact. Prove them wrong or remain silly.
 
TurtleDude said:
Jet claims that the term "made for combat" or "designed for warfare" or several other similar phrases has some MEANING as to what firearms should be legal for private citizens. It totally ignores the current supreme court paradigm for determining what is protected by the second-=that being firearms in COMMON USE that are not UNUSUALLY dangerous. Jet never seems up to the task of explaining how "made for warfare" or "designed for heavy combat" or some of the other phrases he makes up-have ANY RELEVANCE to

1) is the weapon in COMMON use

2) is the weapon Unusually dangerous
Click to expand...


So there IS no "Heller Paradigm", it's just click bait into your usual debunked BS.

:2wave:
 
TurtleDude said:
I would agree to that. a poorly made firearm might be not very dangerous to an opponent but very dangerous to the user. On the other hand, a high quality automatic rifle or shotgun is completely safe to use but dangerous to opponents of the shooter
Click to expand...

You might be surpisd at the number of negligent discharges there are every year, and not just by incompetent fools with guns, but sometimes experienced professionals.
 
jet57 said:
So there IS no "Heller Paradigm", it's just click bait into your usual debunked BS.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

you really have perfected cowardly evasion of points rather well. You have been asked dozens of times what does "made for military use" or heavy combat have to do with the Heller case and you run from that question constantly
 
Rich2018 said:
You might be surpisd at the number of negligent discharges there are every year, and not just by incompetent fools with guns, but sometimes experienced professionals.
Click to expand...

What a great argument for disarming the military. They have so many arms. We could eliminate lots of negligent discharges.
 
Aberration said:
I’m pretty sure neither I nor any gun supporter here was confused as to your point. Looks and perception, not facts, are what matters to you.
Click to expand...

So called "assault style" guns are just one category of firearm I would seek to ban: semi auto and full auto long guns (rifles and smooth bore)


It does not logically follow that because I have a firearm means the criminal does...

Alternately in your world of gun control, just because I don’t have a gun doesn’t mean the criminal does not....
Click to expand...


No, but the law that lets you have a firearms means the criminal get get one fairly easily too
Criminals steal guns from "honest citizens" all of the time - burglary and breaking into cars


Many Cities Are Seeing A Rise In Guns Stolen From Cars : NPR


"According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), during the four-year period from 2012 to 2015, nearly half a billion dollars worth of guns were stolen from individuals nationwide, amounting to an estimated 1.2 million guns. Twenty-two thousand guns were stolen from gun stores during this same period. A gun is stolen in the U.S. every two minutes..."


Stolen Guns in America - Center for American Progress



...if the criminal does have a gun at least we are equal and I am not at a disadvantage....
Click to expand...

I would say a shotgun is a good option for you if your so paranoid that your home is subject to armed attack by criminals
(even strict British gun laws allow these)


I’ve never made any claims to a dream world. It’s not my preferred world. It’s reality....
Click to expand...

Specifically, it's YOUR perception of reality, or even your public perception of reality. Your opinion


I want the most efficient means possible to protect myself...
Click to expand...

No you don't, you want to own guns
I want the most efficient means of defending myself too...that means locking the doors. Stay clear of high crimes areas. Bingo, I'm defended.

...the reality is that firearms allow a woman to defend herself from rapists and muggers and gun control makes them victims....
Click to expand...


Nope, lack of gun control makes them victims, because it arms the criminals

If your hypothetical woman buys a gun, she is LESS safe:


How Guns At Home Can Make Women Less Safe – ThinkProgress



You trample on the victims of violence when you make such ignorant and distorted claims.
Click to expand...


No, you do. Your hysteria and paranoia about guns being the only thing keeping you alive is rebutted and utterly rejected.

Guns make people less safe

The only answer is to remove guns from society*


*That doesn't mean there will be no crime
*Some guns will still be allowed.


Only if you are a willful idiot.
Click to expand...

Explain
 
TurtleDude said:
you really have perfected cowardly evasion of points rather well. You have been asked dozens of times what does "made for military use" or heavy combat have to do with the Heller case and you run from that question constantly
Click to expand...

Where’s your “Heller Paradigm”?
 
jet57 said:
Where’s your “Heller Paradigm”?
Click to expand...

asked and answered: you demonstrate you don't understand what paradigm means.

where is your explanation why you constantly call AR 15s "weapons for heavy combat" and other such idiocy.
 
Last edited:
The difference between pro and anti-2nd amendment people is simple. The former wants to leave the decision about having arms up to the individual. The latter wants to make that decision for them based on what they think the proper course of action is. That, of course, begs the question of what other decisions they want to make for us and the answer is pretty much ALL of them. This isn't about public safety. If it were, they'd be assiduously trying to ban HANDGUNS which cause the vast majority of gun deaths and woundings.

No, it's simply about incrementalism. They start with the thing they can most easily deceive and frighten the gullible and uninformed with and then move on from there. Make no mistake, the left and their followers want all guns confiscated and the sooner the better. That's why pointing out statistics such as the infinitesimal numbers of gun deaths caused by semi-auto rifles or the huge numbers already in circulation, make no difference. This isn't about common sense. It's about whipping people up to where they have no problem whatever in trampling the rights of others. The best antidote to such people is, ironically, being well armed which is yet another reason they don't want you to have guns.
 
veritas1 said:
The difference between pro and anti-2nd amendment people is simple. The former wants to leave the decision about having arms up to the individual. The latter wants to make that decision for them based on what they think the proper course of action is. That, of course, begs the question of what other decisions they want to make for us and the answer is pretty much ALL of them...
Click to expand...

Like regulations on cars (all new cars have to have a reversing camera as of this year for example)
Banning certain drugs and food
Banning guns, bombs and knives etc on commercial planes
Banning driving without a seat belt
Banning under 21 to drink alcohol in a public bar
Various pollution laws
Various consecration of wife life laws



They start with the thing they can most easily deceive and frighten the gullible and uninformed with and then move on from there....
Click to expand...


Rest of post ignored as an hysterical rant about the aims of the gun control lobby.

Btw Trampling rights - what rights ???
 
bongsaway said:
A fetus is not a living breathing person. And why is the right so fascinated with a fetus but couldn't care less about innocent living breathing people slaughtered time after time? When our america did nothing after sandy hook, we reached a new low for money and politics.

Grow some balls or a vagina and put your careers on the line and 'do something'. How can these folks in congress who refuse to do anything live with themselves?
Click to expand...

A fetus is living and it by ever persons standard will be a person. You have mixed values, stop the BS. You want to murder babies but take guns away from legal owners because of afew nuts who commit atrocities. Sort of like the over 1/2 million abortions by baby killers each year but you are overwhelmed by mass shootings which kill nowhere near as many people. You have your morals and values messed up.
 
Integrityrespec said:
A fetus is living and it by ever persons standard will be a person. You have mixed values, stop the BS. You want to murder babies but take guns away from legal owners because of afew nuts who commit atrocities. Sort of like the over 1/2 million abortions by baby killers each year but you are overwhelmed by mass shootings which kill nowhere near as many people. You have your morals and values messed up.
Click to expand...

A fetus is not sentient. It is more vegetable that animal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom