• 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!

Democrats are lying to you about gun control. Chapter 1: Assault Weapons

Nothing in the Second protects you owning military assault style weapons. It is not a right.

Hay, old buddy. The Constitution is not a limit on what I can do. It's a limit on what the government can do.

But that aside, It is a right. And it shall not be infringed

Assault style, defined as some bolt on after market parts, is a made up term to define skeery looking.

You keep repeating this. You keep getting shot down. Do you never get tired of losing?

BTW, I don't own an assault style weapon. Last one of those I handled was when in the military.
 
Last edited:
You do not have it as a right. It is a privilege being extended to you that could change in time.

As for the millions owned, use will be made illegal and there will be buyback programs to remove them from society.

Yes, I am sure you look at the Bill of Rights as a privilege, makes it easier to Ignore and change as you see fit. I and the Supreme Court disagree.

ROTFLMAO! You actually are naive enough to believe you can force a buy back program on the American People and they would comply? Really? Not in your wildest fantase would that work out in your favor.
 
Hay, old buddy. The Constitution is not a limit on what I can do. It's a limit on what the government can do.

But that aside, It is a right. And it shall not be infringed

Assault style, defined as some bolt on after market parts, is a made up term to define skeery looking.

You keep repeating this. You keep getting shot down. Do you never get tired of losing?

BTW, I don't own an assault style weapon. Last one of those I handled was when in the military.

No - in gun threads I fully expect a hostile audience. And you guys already deliver.
 
Yes, I am sure you look at the Bill of Rights as a privilege, makes it easier to Ignore and change as you see fit. I and the Supreme Court disagree.

ROTFLMAO! You actually are naive enough to believe you can force a buy back program on the American People and they would comply? Really? Not in your wildest fantase would that work out in your favor.

It might take a while - but that day will come.
 
So you're complaining that Democrats can't pass legislation due to the actions of Moscow Mitch? Well that's a first...
They had a virtually filibuster free Senate and huge majority in the House in 2009-2010; why didn't they pass the law then? Oh, yeah, they thought they didn't need a talking point to cling to beat GOP - they were basking in the glow of the "Permanent Democratic Majority" - funny how they screwed that up.
 
It might take a while - but that day will come.

Keep dreaming, there will always be Millions of AR:s in the hands of American Citizens, ban or no bans.
 
We've been over this topic time and time again and, through all the discussions, gun control proponents have failed to come up with a single good reason for banning "assault weapons" as they define them.

Instead, the conversation circles around the magazine size. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (like its proposed replacement) not only banned certain firearms based on irrelevant features, it also banned 11+ round magazines.

So if that's really the solution, why aren't Democrats pushing standalone Federal legislation restricting or banning 11+ round magazines? Why bury it in a whole bottle of poison pills?

Do they actually care about saving lives, or are they just pandering to their uniformed base?

I am against all gun bans because they are ineffective.


But let's not pretend the gop is interested in saving lives
 
A (usually) small calibre, semi-auto rifle. To become an "assault rifle" would require adding burst/full-auto capability.

So it is terminology that you differ with. If theoretically we wanted to ban the same gun as what many are terming a military style assault rifle but described it technically to your satisfaction, would that be more acceptable to you?
 
Keep dreaming, there will always be Millions of AR:s in the hands of American Citizens, ban or no bans.

How many millions do you think there are and what do you base that estimate on?
 
How many millions do you think there are and what do you base that estimate on?

Sales. Stats.....and those that I know that own them, both right and left leaning, approximately70% have or are about to buy, but then again I live in Texas. People here are not following your trend in other areas, but just the opposite. I agree with their thought line.
 
So, only those arms that can be born, i.e., carried around. That does eliminate the Abrams Tank.

It isn't illegal to own a tank. It's illegal to own a tank with an operational main gun.
 
It isn't illegal to own a tank. It's illegal to own a tank with an operational main gun.

Actually there are ways to also own a fully functional tank, but it ain't easy.
 
We've been over this topic time and time again and, through all the discussions, gun control proponents have failed to come up with a single good reason for banning "assault weapons" as they define them.

Instead, the conversation circles around the magazine size. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (like its proposed replacement) not only banned certain firearms based on irrelevant features, it also banned 11+ round magazines.

So if that's really the solution, why aren't Democrats pushing standalone Federal legislation restricting or banning 11+ round magazines? Why bury it in a whole bottle of poison pills?

Do they actually care about saving lives, or are they just pandering to their uniformed base?
You hit it out of the park. They are pandering for the almighty vote to stay in office. They for the most part could care less who gets shot as long as they get the vote.
 
You hit it out of the park. They are pandering for the almighty vote to stay in office. They for the most part could care less who gets shot as long as they get the vote.

Those damm Republicans
 
So it is terminology that you differ with. If theoretically we wanted to ban the same gun as what many are terming a military style assault rifle but described it technically to your satisfaction, would that be more acceptable to you?

Not with the reason for it being that it gives criminals too much firepower. That argument, while still logically flawed, would better support a handgun ban.

This brings us back to the founders intent of the 2A. Many tried, and eventually failed, to assert that the 2A's "militia" and "security" references applied to "the people" - i.e. only some subset of "the people" had 2A rights based on their (government assigned?) "militia" and or "security" status thus the government could "regulate" who had 2A rights.

I assert (if those 2A preamble words had any meaning at all) that the 2A's "militia" and "security" references applied to arms (specifically small arms, which are guns) and thus that "military styled" guns are precisely what the 2A is all about - not the guns only useful for target shooting or hunting wild game as many are trying to redirect (reasonably restrict?) its meaning to include.
 
Last edited:
=haymarket;1070567060]The single best reason has been explained to you countless times: because the majority of Americans do not feel such weapons have any use by civilians.
Who are all of these Americans anyway? That's the story line Liberal rags and MSNBC,CNN and others push. I have never been asked my opinion ever nor anyone I know of and I know a lot of people.
There is your reason. So please STOP lying and saying you have not heard of a reason because you have an excellent one.
That's a fall back back reason kinda like your nuclear weapons.
 
=haymarket;1070567128]All the Second guarantees is the right to keep and bear arms. It does NOT protect and style or brand of arms. All assault weapons could be banned and you would still enjoy the right as expressed in the Second.
Then let it be said that The First guarantees the right of free speech and freedom of the press,but it does NOT protect any style or brand of press. So ALL cellphones and computerized presses could be banned yet you would still enjoy the rights expressed in the First.
But I am convinced gun fanatics are pissing in their own water supply and eventually - and it might take a while - they will be hit with far more severe restrictions than our now being talked about. Eventually they will just become so irrelevant that the majority will run over them like a Mack truck hitting an armadillo on a Texas highway. And it will be there own fault for refusing to do anything when they had the chance.
Imagine 80-100 million fanatics running around. Hope you got a real big Mack with an even bigger plow blade on it.
 
Back
Top Bottom