• 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!

FBI: More people killed with knives, hammers, clubs and even feet than rifles in 2018

Nickyjo said:
The Supreme Court interprets it. In Heller, they said some regulations were valid. I don’t know if magazine limits have been challenged. If the courts have said such violate the second amendment, so be it. I repeat again that your question, to which I presume the answer is someone willing to commit armed robbery, suggests that no laws should be passed because some will not obey them. We prohibit speeding and find those who speed. Yet people still speed. Obviously we shouldn’t prohibit speeding. Ditto robbery, as in your example. Why outlaw it if people will still rob?
Click to expand...

Scalia noted that semi auto rifles and magazines are covered under Heller. The heller concessions were to state laws concerning carrying arms in public and to the federal bans on those who had been adjudicated unable to own firearms.

Robbery is a harmful action

Owning a 30 round magazine is not

criminals cannot own any firearms legally

you want to harass honest people -supposedly to prevent those who already rob and murder, from robbing and murdering: in reality, your past comments demonstrate your goal is to harass lawful gun owners.
 
Nickyjo said:
The Supreme Court interprets it. In Heller, they said some regulations were valid. I don’t know if magazine limits have been challenged. If the courts have said such violate the second amendment, so be it. I repeat again that your question, to which I presume the answer is someone willing to commit armed robbery, suggests that no laws should be passed because some will not obey them. We prohibit speeding and find those who speed. Yet people still speed. Obviously we shouldn’t prohibit speeding. Ditto robbery, as in your example. Why outlaw it if people will still rob?
Click to expand...

The proper analogy isn't to speeding. It's to prohibiting people from having cars capable of speeding because some people might speed. And you have already argued you aren't in favor of that because you might find it convenient to speed from time to time.
 
TurtleDude said:
Scalia noted that semi auto rifles and magazines are covered under Heller. The heller concessions were to state laws concerning carrying arms in public and to the federal bans on those who had been adjudicated unable to own firearms.

Robbery is a harmful action

Owning a 30 round magazine is not

criminals cannot own any firearms legally

you want to harass honest people -supposedly to prevent those who already rob and murder, from robbing and murdering: in reality, your past comments demonstrate your goal is to harass lawful gun owners.
Click to expand...

This is my harassment plan. You want a gun, fine. You need to clear a check that shows you haven’t walked away from a hospital for the criminally insane, that you don’t have a restraining order keeping you away from your spouse based on past violence. You need to keep your weapon secure in your home. The law and its regulations won’t allow you to have the same firepower as the police do. There you go. Get your gun. Go to the range. Protect yourself and your family. But if the police come, you are out gunned.
 
Nickyjo said:
This is my harassment plan. You want a gun, fine. You need to clear a check that shows you haven’t walked away from a hospital for the criminally insane, that you don’t have a restraining order keeping you away from your spouse based on past violence. You need to keep your weapon secure in your home. The law and its regulations won’t allow you to have the same firepower as the police do. There you go. Get your gun. Go to the range. Protect yourself and your family. But if the police come, you are out gunned.
Click to expand...

fortunately, you aren't in a position to tell us what to do. and citizens should have the same firepower as civilian police. Its fun watching left-wingers pretend to support the police.
 
RF667799 said:
The proper analogy isn't to speeding. It's to prohibiting people from having cars capable of speeding because some people might speed. And you have already argued you aren't in favor of that because you might find it convenient to speed from time to time.
Click to expand...

do you have any belief his goal is crime control?
 
TurtleDude said:
people are not interested in actually prosecuting criminals, hide that fact by calling for laws that prohibit objectively non-harmful behavior, because their real goal is harassing lawful gun owners
Click to expand...

The US inmate population which was over 2.1 million last time I looked it up, suggests that DA's officers are most definitely interested in prosecuting criminals

Don't be paranoid, why would anyone want to waste time "harassing lawful gun owners" for no purpose ?
You really think that is the goal ?

Do you think the ultimate goal is to disarm Americans in order to establish a Marxist-Leninist state (that can't be done if too many honest citizens have guns).
 
Rich2018 said:
The US inmate population which was over 2.1 million last time I looked it up, suggests that DA's officers are most definitely interested in prosecuting criminals

Don't be paranoid, why would anyone want to waste time "harassing lawful gun owners" for no purpose ?
You really think that is the goal ?

Do you think the ultimate goal is to disarm Americans in order to establish a Marxist-Leninist state (that can't be done if too many honest citizens have guns).
Click to expand...

that has to be one of the most stupid questions I have ever seen on this board. Of course left-wingers want to harass gun owners.,
 
TurtleDude said:
that has to be one of the most stupid questions I have ever seen on this board. Of course left-wingers want to harass gun owners.,
Click to expand...

But your statement suggested that "harassing lawful gun owners" was an end in itself


Is that what you truly believe ?
 
Rich2018 said:
But your statement suggested that "harassing lawful gun owners" was an end in itself


Is that what you truly believe ?
Click to expand...

yeah, there is a serious amount of cultural loathing of gun owners by leftwingers
 
Nickyjo said:
This is my harassment plan. You want a gun, fine. You need to clear a check that shows you haven’t walked away from a hospital for the criminally insane, that you don’t have a restraining order keeping you away from your spouse based on past violence. You need to keep your weapon secure in your home. The law and its regulations won’t allow you to have the same firepower as the police do. There you go. Get your gun. Go to the range. Protect yourself and your family. But if the police come, you are out gunned.
Click to expand...

That is very revealing.
 
TurtleDude said:
fortunately, you aren't in a position to tell us what to do. and citizens should have the same firepower as civilian police. Its fun watching left-wingers pretend to support the police.
Click to expand...

You’ve polled the police on that?
 
Nickyjo said:
You’ve polled the police on that?
Click to expand...

in 1996, Janet Reno, Clinton's AG, commissioned a massive poll of line police officers as to the Clinton Brady Bill and his gun ban. Less than 10% supported either. The results of this poll was not released for obvious reasons. I know what is said, since the Clinton US Attorney for the SD OH left it in the mail room in Cincinnati for a couple days, and most of us who were in the office that week were able to read it. The clinton gun ban prevented the sale of 11+ round magazines for a ten year period-assuming the magazines were made after the ban. Most cops tend to retire fairly young, in the federal system it is 57 for law enforcement officers with arrest powers . So many of them realize they will be "private citizens" for a couple decades and most of them don't want to be denied the same firearms they often carried as LEOs.
 
RF667799 said:
That is very revealing.
Click to expand...

It is hilarious that the people who most want to protect criminals also tend to be fans of the police (sometimes-most of the people whining about the police recently, tend to be gun banners).
 
TurtleDude said:
in 1996, Janet Reno, Clinton's AG, commissioned a massive poll of line police officers as to the Clinton Brady Bill and his gun ban. Less than 10% supported either. The results of this poll was not released for obvious reasons. I know what is said, since the Clinton US Attorney for the SD OH left it in the mail room in Cincinnati for a couple days, and most of us who were in the office that week were able to read it. The clinton gun ban prevented the sale of 11+ round magazines for a ten year period-assuming the magazines were made after the ban. Most cops tend to retire fairly young, in the federal system it is 57 for law enforcement officers with arrest powers . So many of them realize they will be "private citizens" for a couple decades and most of them don't want to be denied the same firearms they often carried as LEOs.
Click to expand...

Poll them when they are facing a perp.
 
Nickyjo said:
Poll them when they are facing a perp.
Click to expand...

that's really stupid. when someone is willing to shoot a police officer, only fools think that a magazine law is going to be followed by that person

do you have even the slightest understanding of how many normal capacity magazines are in circulation? and can you fathom the fact that when the idiotic Clinton ban expired, most knowledgeable shooters stocked up big time on those magazines? when Bush and Trump both won (04 and 16) the cost of magazines dropped rather substantially, and many of us really cashed in on those low prices.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really stupid. when someone is willing to shoot a police officer, only fools think that a magazine law is going to be followed by that person

do you have even the slightest understanding of how many normal capacity magazines are in circulation? and can you fathom the fact that when the idiotic Clinton ban expired, most knowledgeable shooters stocked up big time on those magazines? when Bush and Trump both won (04 and 16) the cost of magazines dropped rather substantially, and many of us really cashed in on those low prices.
Click to expand...

Again the same argument: fact that people will disobey a law obviously means we should not have have that law. Why outlaw murder if people will kill? Here’s what happens in the real world: you outlaw or restrict some item. Presumably fewer are made. Some are produced elsewhere and smuggled here. You find them, you arrest the man dealing them or smuggling them, confiscate them, whatever. This applies to anything from drug possession to political corruption to stop signs. Keep repeating to yourself, the fact that people will disobey a law does not argue against that law.
 
Last edited:
Nickyjo said:
Again the same argument. The fact that people will disobey a law means we should have no laws. Why outlaw murder if people will kill?
Click to expand...

you keep dodging the real question

some laws punish objectively harmful activity

you pretend punishing non-harmful activity will somehow prevent stuff that is already seriously punished
 
Nickyjo said:
Again the same argument: fact that people will disobey a law obviously means we should not have have that law. Why outlaw murder if people will kill? Here’s what happens in the real world: you outlaw or restrict some item. Presumably fewer are made. Some are produced elsewhere and smuggled here. You find them, you arrest the man dealing them or smuggling them, confiscate them, whatever. This applies to anything from drug possession to political corruption to stop signs. Keep repeating to yourself, the fact that people will disobey a law does not argue against that law.
Click to expand...

The fact that someone might use an item to harm someone is not a good argument for restricting or banning that item.

At least according to you in your spirited defense of owning a machine capable of breaking existing law and causing great harm.
 
TurtleDude said:
you keep dodging the real question

some laws punish objectively harmful activity

you pretend punishing non-harmful activity will somehow prevent stuff that is already seriously punished
Click to expand...

Other laws restrict or punish *potentially* harmful activity. We try to restrict access to weapons to the mentally ill, we issue restraining orders against people who abuse their spouses. There are reasons for libel laws, perjury laws, etc., despite the First Amendment. Sometimes no one will be harmed by failure to set those rules. Yes, shooting someone without cause is seriously punished. We might choose to limit the number of persons who can be shot without cause by restricting types of weapons in one form or another, in accord with the Constitution, as the courts say we can. I say it’s worth the inconvenience that for some reason irks you. You repeat that someone willing to disobey the law invalidates the law by that very action.
 
Nickyjo said:
Other laws restrict or punish *potentially* harmful activity. We try to restrict access to weapons to the mentally ill, we issue restraining orders against people who abuse their spouses. There are reasons for libel laws, perjury laws, etc., despite the First Amendment. Sometimes no one will be harmed by failure to set those rules. Yes, shooting someone without cause is seriously punished. We might choose to limit the number of persons who can be shot without cause by restricting types of weapons in one form or another, in accord with the Constitution, as the courts say we can.
Click to expand...

why are 10 rounds not harmful but 11 are? You just make this crap up because you really don't understand the issue. You merely want to harass lawful gun owners.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah, there is a serious amount of cultural loathing of gun owners by leftwingers
Click to expand...

So, in your conspiracy driven mind, what benefits do the left wing stand to gain by "harassing lawful gun owners" ?

Or are they, in your mind, just a bunch of malicious ogres who just want to spoil your fun for no other reason than for pure malice ?
 
Rich2018 said:
So, in your conspiracy driven mind, what benefits do the left wing stand to gain by "harassing lawful gun owners" ?

Or are they, in your mind, just a bunch of malicious ogres who just want to spoil your fun for no other reason than for pure malice ?
Click to expand...

Just cuz....
 
Fledermaus said:
Just cuz....
Click to expand...

Maybe much like some people will make moronic statements and then defend them to the point of near lunacy while trying to keep up a pretense they aren't.
 
TurtleDude said:
why are 10 rounds not harmful but 11 are? You just make this crap up because you really don't understand the issue. You merely want to harass lawful gun owners.
Click to expand...

Ten rounds can be harmful. As can eleven. The purpose of a restriction in use of any product is to lessen the damage that might be done, make use safer, etc. Fifty mph can result in death even if the speed limit is 60. Are you harassed by speed limits? Clean air rules and smog checks? Safety caps on medicine bottles? Seat belts? What’s your point? This is just one way out of many that we may choose to restrict the use of weapons, as we do with other items. It might not even be the most important, but the Supreme Court has no problem with it as far as I know. Why does this restriction “harass“ while the others don’t?
 
Nickyjo said:
Ten rounds can be harmful. As can eleven. The purpose of a restriction in use of any product is to lessen the damage that might be done, make use safer, etc. Fifty mph can result in death even if the speed limit is 60. Are you harassed by speed limits? Clean air rules and smog checks? Safety caps on medicine bottles? Seat belts? What’s your point? This is just one way out of many that we may choose to restrict the use of weapons, as we do with other items. It might not even be the most important, but the Supreme Court has no problem with it as far as I know. Why does this restriction “harass“ while the others don’t?
Click to expand...

Mandate that motor vehicles be governed to 25 mph. The potential for harm would be dramatically reduced.

Something tells me you won't accept that. Probably because you have argued that it is necessary for you to have that potential to cause great harm in that case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom