• 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!

Have you ever shot an AR15?

Have you shot an AR15?

  • Yes - and guns like the AR15 should be banned

    Votes: 3 6.3%

  • Yes - and guns like the AR15 should not be banned

    Votes: 30 62.5%

  • No - and guns like the AR15 should be banned

    Votes: 3 6.3%

  • No - and guns like the AR15 should not be banned

    Votes: 11 22.9%

  • Yes - ban high capacity magazines

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No - ban high capacity magazines

    Votes: 1 2.1%
  • Total voters
    48
mike2810 said:
- "Most gun owners lack using logic and common sense." Your opinion only. Care to show studies to back that up?

-"Many gun owners on this forum believe we shouldn't restrict guns because the bad guys will still get them." and is that a wrong "belief"? Won't some "bad guys" find a way to get a gun.

At what point is enough laws enough for you?
Click to expand...

Many of the laws have holes in them. Too many state loopholes. Too many innocent people getting shot in cold blood.

When will senseless gun violence be enough for you? How many more people have to die?
 
joko104 said:
Why do you claim a gun death is bad but the Oklahoma city bombing wasn't? I would seem that by your messages you prefer that mass murders do the latter, right?
Click to expand...

You are simply lying. There is no first world country on earth with bombings equal to our gun death rate. Do you want less gun deaths in America.....because it seems the gop does not care
 
Bucky said:
In Australia, a maximum penalty for aggravated firearm trafficking across national and state borders is life imprisonment.

In the U.S you can buy guns and cross states lines. Apparently following Australia's good and common sense law hurts honest gun owners?

Please.
Click to expand...

irrelevant. why would our society be better off if it passed a law that made anyone who refuses to give up a firearm they owned (and never misused) for decades, a criminal subject to imprisonment.
 
Bucky said:
Many of the laws have holes in them. Too many state loopholes. Too many innocent people getting shot in cold blood.

When will senseless gun violence be enough for you? How many more people have to die?
Click to expand...

So many loopholes you can drive a truck thru them
 
Bucky said:
Many of the laws have holes in them. Too many state loopholes. Too many innocent people getting shot in cold blood.

When will senseless gun violence be enough for you? How many more people have to die?
Click to expand...

what are those loopholes, Bucky? I suggest you don't understand the term, whatsoever
 
Bucky said:
Many of the laws have holes in them. Too many state loopholes. Too many innocent people getting shot in cold blood.

When will senseless gun violence be enough for you? How many more people have to die?
Click to expand...

Big enough to drive a truck thru
 
Bucky said:
Most gun owners lack using logic and common sense.

Many gun owners on this forum believe we shouldn't restrict guns because the bad guys will still get them.

Then what is the point of even having laws to begin with? Also gun laws will help hinder and restrict people who shouldn't have guns from obtaining them or firing them. This is common sense. Of course it wont stop all the bad guys, but it will stop some, just as harsh laws against duis have lowered the number of drunk drivers on the road.
Click to expand...

While your message has an obvious logic to it, it leaves off the negative aspects. Here are a some of those:

1. Did prohibition of alcohol and then prohibition of many recreational drugs reduce their usage? Or did it;
a.) give rise to criminal organizations and a lot of murders and all that come with criminal organizations?
b.) create new federal police agencies - the FBI and the ATF
c.) put a lot of people in prison, turning law abiding citizens into criminals and all the harm to their families - and with recreational drugs require building prisons all over the country and the #1 reason people are imprisoned and given criminal records?

2. If a mass murderer or murderer can not get a gun he believes will kill lots of people, will he be cured or otherwise not want to murder people? Or will he use bombs, poison, aircraft/drones, and/or arson that has mass murdered many times more people than mass shootings ever have?

3. Enforcing anti-gun laws gets people killed.
Think of the example of trying to enforce gun laws in two cases in a sequence of events;
a.) Ruby Ridge - over an undercover officer convincing a man to cut a shotgun barrel 1/2 inch too short,
b.) Waco - over allegations of a full automatic rifle
c.) Oklahoma City bombing - a retaliation for Waco

Enforcing gun laws in just 2 instances resulted in over 850 victims with over 200 killed. Although there were lots of guns involved and fired, the vast majority of deaths were not by guns - but by fire, poison gas and a bomb. By far the majority of those killed were innocent people not involved in the crime or enforcement of the law at all - and overwhelmingly most killed were with the government - and the vast majority were innocent bystanders.

Notably, the mass murders in that sequence were not by guns. Nearly all killed were innocent people not involved in any illegal activity.

Guns are NOT the true "mass murder" weapon. Rather they are the least lethal way to commit mass murder.

Just two attempts to enforce gun restrictions and the result is over 170 federal employees dead and nearly 700 in the hospital, dozens of innocent civilians dead, massive property damage, the government losing millions in lawsuits and people in prison who otherwise would not be - only becoming criminals due to trying to enforce the law in only 2 cases. Over 200 innocent people killed and over 700 in the hospital - many crippled for life - all for just TWO illegal gun charges - mostly people with the government - and mostly children and women.

There are probably tens of millions of firearms that fall into the current definition of "assault weapon" and 5 to 10 times as many high capacity magazines. Given the historic realities I just cited involving prohibiting what people have and want, history says the result would be exactly the opposite of what you hope for.
 
Last edited:
Glitch said:
I can honestly say that I have never fired an AR15. I own an AR12, and for 8 years I had to qualify every year with both the M16A1 and M16A2, but I have never fired an AR15. Having said that, I think I do have some clue what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

The AR15 and M16 are effectively the same weapon.
 
A more fun question would be, who has fired an M60?
 
Bucky said:
In Australia, a maximum penalty for aggravated firearm trafficking across national and state borders is life imprisonment.

In the U.S you can buy guns and cross states lines. Apparently following Australia's good and common sense law hurts honest gun owners?

Please.
Click to expand...

The United States needs to pass a national constitutional carry law. Then, you would see a decline in violent crimes.
 
apdst said:
The United States needs to pass a national constitutional carry law. Then, you would see a decline in violent crimes.
Click to expand...

While I understand your reasoning, I would prefer the federal government make NO gun laws leaving it up to each state. If the federal government can in one move legalize something about all guns, in one move they can outlaw something about all guns too. Do you want the federal government to have that power? What if the current radical Democrats do win Congress and the White House?

Candidly, I can find nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government ANY authority to regulate guns. Anything not assigned to the federal government is "reserved to the states" - as if the federal government and federal courts give a damn what the Constitution and Bill Of Rights says.
 
joko104 said:
While I understand your reasoning, I would prefer the federal government make NO gun laws leaving it up to each state. If the federal government can in one move legalize something about all guns, in one move they can outlaw something about all guns too. Do you want the federal government to have that power? What if the current radical Democrats do win Congress and the White House?

Candidly, I can find nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government ANY authority to regulate guns. Anything not assigned to the federal government is "reserved to the states" - as if the federal government and federal courts give a damn what the Constitution and Bill Of Rights says.
Click to expand...

Commerce clause
 
Bucky said:
Many of the laws have holes in them. Too many state loopholes. Too many innocent people getting shot in cold blood.

When will senseless gun violence be enough for you? How many more people have to die?
Click to expand...

A response is not an answer to the question of at what is enough laws enough for you?

- When will senseless gun violence be enough for you?, (If not guns something else will be used by those wishing to do harm. There is no law that can be written to end violence)

-How many more people have to die? (ask the people who wish to do harm).:mrgreen:
 
joko104 said:
One of the annoyances of debating gun control is that those who want to ignore 2A are usually incredibly ignorant about firearms, so sound like idiots when they rant, particularly politicians.

So to pro-gun rights people who are experienced with firearms it never goes beyond the sense that the anti-gun rights person is just an idiot having no clue what they are talking about.

It would be like debating someone over legalizing marijuana, they oppose it - saying it is because thousands of people die from overdoses every year, causes birth defects, permanent blindness and impotency plus all of a person's hair falls out. How do you debate someone THAT wrong factually? Thus, you never actually get to real issues at all.

People who have no experience with firearms think anyone can just buy a gun and then go out and shoot to death gobs of people. After all, that is how Hollywood says it works. Everyone - except maybe the good guy - who is shot instantly flies back against a wall, dead before they hit the ground. Just point the gun pulling the trigger as fast as you can and everyone around is instantly killed.

Anyone who is experienced with firearms knows how truly ignorant/lack that is. Anyone can test this. There are gun shops and gun ranges that rent firearms for use. A few even full automatic machine guns. Go rent-a-gun and shoot at stationary targets at only 30 feet with any pistol or rifles over a 22LR. Big 8 inch diameter targets or human outline. Do it with an AR15 with a big magazine. Do it with a handgun 9mm or larger in caliber. Shoot FAST like a mass shooter would. Remember, these targets aren't moving - like people who will be running.

See how many times you hit within 4 inches of the center of the target - an 8 inch diameter. Then see how many people - people who stood their frozen like statues, squarely facing you - that you would have killed. Again, SHOOT FAST! You will quickly see that anyone who isn't a highly practiced shooter can't hit targets in the kill-zone if they are firing fast even if the target isn't moving. It is VERY difficult for a new shooter. Even for an experienced one.

To the response "the proof is how many are killed by mass shooters with such a "military assault rifle" (it's not), the answer is unless denied medical care (as the Obama FBI did to the LGBTs wounded in the Pulse nightclub allowed to bleed to death for 2 hours), the AR15 usually mostly only wounded those shot - and nearly everyone at the location got away unharmed. MANY other methods used for mass murder have vastly higher death rates - and usually allow the murderer to both escape and be unknown. Mass shooters are always killed, suicide, or surrender quickly.

So... have you shot an AR15? Do you have a CLUE what you are talking about? Or is it only what you have heard and just figure what they are like to shoot?
Click to expand...

I and my son had a discussion over dinner with a anti gun leftist. In the end after being bombarded with facts she finally admitted she had no idea what an assault weapon actually is, nor could she define one. But she knew they should be banned and wasn't interested in learning anything to the contrary.

The movie analogy is true. Only John Wayne can fire 2 six guns from the back of a running horse and take out 15 bad guys with rifles that are shooting back. The rest of us need a little practice.
 
jimbo said:
I and my son had a discussion over dinner with a anti gun leftist. In the end after being bombarded with facts she finally admitted she had no idea what an assault weapon actually is, nor could she define one. But she knew they should be banned and wasn't interested in learning anything to the contrary.

The movie analogy is true. Only John Wayne can fire 2 six guns from the back of a running horse and take out 15 bad guys with rifles that are shooting back. The rest of us need a little practice.
Click to expand...

Just a suggestion; next time you have such a discussion try listening to her and instead of just bombarding her with facts, educate her. Give her the opportunity to realize that there is more to the dialogue than just her side.

We can’t win this thing unless we get the banners to understand that their suggestions will do more harm than good.
 
joko104 said:
While I understand your reasoning, I would prefer the federal government make NO gun laws leaving it up to each state. If the federal government can in one move legalize something about all guns, in one move they can outlaw something about all guns too. Do you want the federal government to have that power? What if the current radical Democrats do win Congress and the White House?

Candidly, I can find nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government ANY authority to regulate guns. Anything not assigned to the federal government is "reserved to the states" - as if the federal government and federal courts give a damn what the Constitution and Bill Of Rights says.
Click to expand...

Leaving it up to the cities and states got us to where we are.
 
apdst said:
Leaving it up to the cities and states got us to where we are.
Click to expand...

My opinion is that the original design of the Constitution/Bill Of Rights was correct.

So you agree the federal government and BATF can continue to outlaw anything about firearms they want to?

If you think the Supreme Court is going to back up peasant gun owners if a Democratic Congress and president outlaw CCW unless a person goes thru a months long wait, has to answer 50 personal questions and requiring someone in law enforcement to sign off, I think you are mistaken. Such practices in the many Democratic states with such requirements have never been struck down. You are ok with the Federal government imposing the gun laws of California, New Jersey and New York?

The Supreme Court would rule you have a right to a shotgun, handgun or rifle in your home - but even then would support restrictions such as no magazine or limited magazine locked in place. If not, those laws would not exist anywhere in the country and they do.

My opinion: Without exception, looking to the federal government - political or bureaucratic - to protect your personal rights is inherently a bad idea.
 
Lord of Planar said:
A more fun question would be, who has fired an M60?
Click to expand...

I have. The M60E1 anyway. It required two people to operate then. As the biggest guy in the platoon, I was volunteered to carry the M60. However, that also meant I got to operate the firearm when we arrived at our destination. My partner carried the barrels and ammo, and his asbestos glove for changing the barrels. I understand now that there is an M60E3 variant that is not only man-portable, but you no longer need to change barrels.
 
joko104 said:
While I understand your reasoning, I would prefer the federal government make NO gun laws leaving it up to each state. If the federal government can in one move legalize something about all guns, in one move they can outlaw something about all guns too. Do you want the federal government to have that power? What if the current radical Democrats do win Congress and the White House?

Candidly, I can find nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government ANY authority to regulate guns. Anything not assigned to the federal government is "reserved to the states" - as if the federal government and federal courts give a damn what the Constitution and Bill Of Rights says.
Click to expand...

If the States decided to issue licenses/permits to individuals to carry special firearms, or firearms in a special way (e.g., concealed) then Congress may regulate how those licenses/permits are applied (if at all) to the other States under Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution. However, it doesn't require Congress. For example, in the case of driver's licenses there was no federal action taken. Instead it began in 1933 with the creation of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which appealed to the States for more uniform driving laws between the States.

Reciprocity between the States can be voluntary, like it is currently, or it can be forced by Congress if necessary.

I know that in Alaska's case the State will accept the CCP from all 50 States and any US territory, because there is no CCP requirement in Alaska. You are free to carry any firearm you like in any manner you please. The reverse is very different. Alaska will issue its citizens a CCP for reciprocity purposes upon request, but there are only about half of the States with which Alaska has a written agreement.
 
Lutherf said:
Just a suggestion; next time you have such a discussion try listening to her and instead of just bombarding her with facts, educate her. Give her the opportunity to realize that there is more to the dialogue than just her side.

We can’t win this thing unless we get the banners to understand that their suggestions will do more harm than good.
Click to expand...

We've tried. She has no interest in increasing her knowledge about weapons or anything else.

It's like that SCOTUS judge (don't remember which one) "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it."
 
vegas giants said:
Your legal opinion is noted and dismissed.


Scotus disagrees
Click to expand...

I understand. The Supreme Court declared the Constitution and Bill Of Rights null and void to the extent they want it to be in a take over of the government nearly 200 years ago - to the outrage of the author, Thomas Jefferson. The Supreme Court declared they had total authority over everything and everyone - that everyone including all of elected government is inferior to them. They declared they can erase any election, any Democratic action, any provision of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, federal law, state law and anything elected officials do at all levels of government.

There rationalization was the British law was superior to the Constitution invoking British common law as their basis. Because the president at the time wanted the ruling they made, this was accepted at the time - and then accepted permanently.

In fact, not a word of the US Constitution gives the Supreme Court or any federal court any authority other than hearing civil and criminal cases. Nothing gives the Supreme Court or any federal court the authority to void an election nor erase any legislation and laws by elected officials - and when the Supreme Court does so it fully erases democracy to non-existence, replacing it with their self-declared totalitarian authority upon British common law - despite this country's formation and war for independence was specifically to eliminate British common law over people in the British colony of America.

Who knows what the self declared demi-gods of the Supreme Court will do - or for that matter the 3000 federal judges who also claim absolute tyrannical authority over everything and everyone? The Supreme Court in the past has totally contradicted itself over prior rulings and there is absolutely no consistency by federal judges - why Democrats shop for their pet Democratic appointed judges - usually in California or lately Hawaii.

Regardless, the federal courts are part of the federal government so are by no means neutral parties in issues. The Constitution, Bill Of Rights and prior Supreme Court ruling are as relevant or irrelevant as 5 members of the Supreme court want it to be - and prior to that at the start the personal opinion of any of the 3,000 federal judges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom