• 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
Bucky said:
I believe, and many people believe the government has the right and take away a gun from a person they think may commit one of these heinous acts. Our country is in quite a mess. Too many people have guns that shouldn't. People with mental issues. Men that commit domestic violence. These are bad hombres. No one with a violent record or with suicidal thoughts should have a gun period. We need to take action and take away the thing they are going to use to kill someone!!!

Red flag laws? It is past red flag. The flag is upside down on fire!
Click to expand...

you don't believe in due process-either procedurally or substantive?

Suicidal thoughts-lets think that through

You go to your doctor-you tell him that you are depressed because your wife has just been diagnosed with ALS or pancreatic cancer and you say "I don't think I can live without her". The doctor tells the cops that you have uttered a suicidal thought,. the cops show up and seize your guns-maybe kill you if you resist.

so how many people who learn of that are going to go to a shrink after that

and how many people won't get treatment if they are worried about getting "randy weavered" by the cops.
 
Bucky said:
The truth, not consequence is less gun violence and less senseless deaths.
Click to expand...

so in your analysis-throwing lots of gun owners in jail before they do anything wrong is going to lead to LESS violence?
 
Bucky said:
If the majority of drivers are not responsible, then why do so many of them get approved for auto insurance?
Click to expand...

Not going to play your game. It is clear you do not want to discuss the topic.
 
Bucky said:
Thank you. We have a lot of rules and regulations on the road and in regards to driving a car.

Thank you for finally agreeing we need better laws on gun control.
Click to expand...

There are far more rules about using a gun than driving a car.
 
Seems some on the thread want the US to have a police force like in the "Minority Report" consisting of a Precrime Unit. Wonder if any posters here think they would qualify for the PreCogs?:lamo
 
TurtleDude said:
you don't believe in due process-either procedurally or substantive?

Suicidal thoughts-lets think that through

You go to your doctor-you tell him that you are depressed because your wife has just been diagnosed with ALS or pancreatic cancer and you say "I don't think I can live without her". The doctor tells the cops that you have uttered a suicidal thought,. the cops show up and seize your guns-maybe kill you if you resist.

so how many people who learn of that are going to go to a shrink after that

and how many people won't get treatment if they are worried about getting "randy weavered" by the cops.
Click to expand...

Most people believe what they tell a doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist is confidential and legally privileged. It is not.

Because of this, only a crazy person would talk to a psychologist or psychiatrist - pun intended.
 
mike2810 said:
Seems some on the thread want the US to have a police force like in the "Minority Report" consisting of a Precrime Unit. Wonder if any posters here think they would qualify for the PreCogs?:lamo
Click to expand...

I agree that is what they are claiming and probably would a require brain cat scan polygraph tests plus injected with truth serum - conducted by the police for any questions they may ask - and the police must like every answer you give as one condition of being allowed to own a firearm.
 
joko104 said:
Most people believe what they tell a doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist is confidential and legally privileged. It is not.

Because of this, only a crazy person would talk to a psychologist or psychiatrist - pun intended.
Click to expand...

Without going into a law school advanced criminal procedure lecture-there is a reason society has established these privileges-husband wife, Priest-parishoner, lawyer client and doctor patient. And whenever there is a infamous crime, low wattage types want the privilege erased. "Joe Smith told his priest that he killed three people"-if the priest told the cops, they could have stopped him from killing more"

Or-Dave Jones told his doctor he was suicidal and he then blew himself and 12 other people up when he crashed his plane into a cafeteria"

The reason why we have these privileges is because society-over MANY years has realized that society is better off when people are willing to honestly tell doctors, lawyers etc what they have done or how they feel. Now remember, if someone were to come to me-and say they killed the person they are charged with killing-I could not tell the cops-but if they were to say-they are going to wipe out the two witnesses that saw the killing-I have a duty to tell the cops just as a doctor does have a duty to tell the police about realistic threats (I defended a VA doctor who reported a patient when the patient said he was going to kill another patient=we won)

If this privilege were to change, then people with mental illnesses-at least those still capable of rational thought-would not seek treatment in many cases, meaning we'd have a lot more really mentally unstable people on the streets.
 
Bucky said:
You actually need a license to drive a car. You do not need a license to buy a gun.
Click to expand...

One-apples to cinder block comparison

not true in all states

You do need a license in most states to carry a gun on public property

Cars are not constitutionally protected

no one is trying to confiscate or ban cars. You are on record for wanting to ban guns so any one who reads your posts knows that when you call for licensing, you see it as a step towards BANNING.
 
joko104 said:
I agree that is what they are claiming and probably would a require brain cat scan polygraph tests plus injected with truth serum - conducted by the police for any questions they may ask - and the police must like every answer you give as one condition of being allowed to own a firearm.
Click to expand...

What many have not figured out is how to address the number of unregistered firearms in the US. Making a law that says one must register all guns will not ensure that happens. Some have an attitude of what the government doesn't know, won't hurt them.

It is like the census and asking certain households are all the people living here American citizens.
 
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...

too bad the poll is anonymous. People who want to ban something they don't know much about are probably the vast majority of the gun banners
 
TurtleDude said:
One-apples to cinder block comparison

not true in all states

You do need a license in most states to carry a gun on public property

Cars are not constitutionally protected

no one is trying to confiscate or ban cars. You are on record for wanting to ban guns so any one who reads your posts knows that when you call for licensing, you see it as a step towards BANNING.
Click to expand...

//// no one is trying to confiscate or ban cars. /// INCORRECT.....LEO confiscates cars in numerous cases where narcotics are involved.
 
Logician Man said:
//// no one is trying to confiscate or ban cars. /// INCORRECT.....LEO confiscates cars in numerous cases where narcotics are involved.
Click to expand...

that's a really stupid response-If a bank robber or a narcotics trafficker has a firearm taken from him-no pro second amendment advocate is going to call that "gun confiscation"/

and you know that. There is no movement to deprive LAW ABIDING citizens from owning cars.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's a really stupid response-If a bank robber or a narcotics trafficker has a firearm taken from him-no pro second amendment advocate is going to call that "gun confiscation"/

and you know that. There is no movement to deprive LAW ABIDING citizens from owning cars.
Click to expand...

Your response is stupid, and your positive claim you made in your previous post regarding confiscating cars was not true. You really need to own it when you post something that is fallacious. Adding a caveat ( law abiding) after the fact doesn't change the fact your claim was erroneous.
 
Logician Man said:
Your response is stupid, and your positive claim you made in your previous post regarding confiscating cars was not true. You really need to own it when you post something that is fallacious. Adding a caveat after the fact doesn't change the fact your claim was erroneous.
Click to expand...

so which major party is calling for a ban on the private ownership of cars? which member of the Democrat party crowded field of candidates wants to limit the cars citizens can own?

your desire to try to contradict stuff I post without actually having the facts to do so is getting pretty ridiculous
 
TurtleDude said:
so which major party is calling for a ban on the private ownership of cars? which member of the Democrat party crowded field of candidates wants to limit the cars citizens can own?

your desire to try to contradict stuff I post without actually having the facts to do so is getting pretty ridiculous
Click to expand...

Are cars confiscated by LEO, or not ? It's a simple YES or NO question.
 
Logician Man said:
Are cars confiscated by LEO, or not ? It's a simple YES or NO question.
Click to expand...

Your moronic questions are dishonest and stupid. I asked first-are there any mainstream politicians calling for a ban on a complete class of cars?
 
TurtleDude said:
Your moronic questions are dishonest and stupid. I asked first-are there any mainstream politicians calling for a ban on a complete class of cars?
Click to expand...

Actually what you did first was claim ///no one is trying to confiscate cars. //// post # 136 ... That is a false claim as I clearly demonstrated above. If you can prove me wrong, then go for it. good luck with that one.
 
TurtleDude said:
One-apples to cinder block comparison

not true in all states

You do need a license in most states to carry a gun on public property

Cars are not constitutionally protected

no one is trying to confiscate or ban cars. You are on record for wanting to ban guns so any one who reads your posts knows that when you call for licensing, you see it as a step towards BANNING.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is incorrect. Many groups, companies want to limit the number of drivers on the road promoting AI and ride-sharing. Fewer cars would mean less pollution.
 
TurtleDude said:
too bad the poll is anonymous. People who want to ban something they don't know much about are probably the vast majority of the gun banners
Click to expand...

My error as I don't do anonymous polls, just messed up on this one.
 
Logician Man said:
Are cars confiscated by LEO, or not ? It's a simple YES or NO question.
Click to expand...

You mean if a LEO wants a car for himself he just takes it? Or if it is involved in a crime - and then the police seize it AND permanently keep it? What do you mean by "confiscate?" It is extremely rare police "confiscate" a car. They may impounded it temporarily such as a DUI or as evidence. But it is rare to "confiscate" and that usually when other property are seized such as a drug dealer and it claimed the property (car or whatever) was derived from drug sales. In that situation they might confiscate anything - car, gun, house, jewelry etc.

I suspect you don't know what you're talking about with the word "confiscate" as opposed to impound or hold as evidence. They would not return an illegal firearm such as a shotgun cut too short nor return a firearm to a felon.

There has never been a circumstance where government has declared some brand or model of car people have is illegal and then confiscate all those cars from everyone. So in the context of your question and gun confiscation the answer is "NO."
 
Ive shot an AR15 and an actual M4. Good weapons, very low recoil and good accuracy- however the M4 jammed after a few rounds. It belonged to a foreign friend with government contacts. Im not a fan of DI weapons so I doubt I would get one.
 
joko104 said:
You mean if a LEO wants a car for himself he just takes it? Or if it is involved in a crime - and then the police seize it AND permanently keep it? What do you mean by "confiscate?" It is extremely rare police "confiscate" a car. They may impounded it temporarily such as a DUI or as evidence. But it is rare to "confiscate" and that usually when other property are seized such as a drug dealer and it claimed the property (car or whatever) was derived from drug sales. In that situation they might confiscate anything - car, gun, house, jewelry etc.

I suspect you don't know what you're talking about with the word "confiscate" as opposed to impound or hold as evidence. They would not return an illegal firearm such as a shotgun cut too short nor return a firearm to a felon.

There has never been a circumstance where government has declared some brand or model of car people have is illegal and then confiscate all those cars from everyone. So in the context of your question and gun confiscation the answer is "NO."
Click to expand...

YOu're correct-he was lying
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom