• 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!

How bad will it get?

How bad?

  • No change whatsoever

    Votes: 8 36.4%

  • Ban on new purchases of assault style rifles

    Votes: 4 18.2%

  • Ban on new purchases of semi-auto weapons

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • Seizing of existing weapons

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • Other, specify

    Votes: 6 27.3%
  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
swing_voter said:
It depends how you'd define them.


If you say "any semi automatic gun, capable of mounting a 20 round magazine or greater, that's based on a model issued by a military after 1945.", the mini 14 is covered because it's based on the M14.
Click to expand...

It seems the definition of it now is guns that look scary. That's how you just defined it.

this is why any kind of assault weapons banned is ineffectual because people don't really understand what they're talking about.

To regulate magazine capacity you have to regulate magazines not fire arms. Any gun that can accept a detachable magazine can accept 1000 round magazine if someone out there is willing to make 1000 round magazine. All You magazine is a box that holds ammo.
 
aociswundumho said:
I can't legally buy percocets, but they're easy to find on the black market. The government can't even keep illegal drugs out of controlled environments, like schools and even prisons.

Your war on guns is going to replicate the war on drugs.
Click to expand...

But guns and drugs are illegal in the UK, and while gun crime is accordingly very rare, drug use (even in prisons) sadly isn't


So using drug use/misuse as a basis, is a very flawed argument at best


The evidence has shown that in (developed countries) that have banned guns, gun crime is accordingly very low


The UK didn't start with 400 to 600 million guns. Guns will always be available to criminals, no matter what the government does.
Click to expand...

No, and the USA would be in that position if it banned guns* and started seizures


*Caveat: subject to previously mentioned exemptions
A gun ban would only harm the 99% of population who aren't violent criminals.
Click to expand...


Where's your evidence of that ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Any part of the Constitution can be repealed




Thank you, we'll need all the fortune we can get

And as luck would have it, Trump seems to be doing his best to hand the Senate to the Democrats (hopefully they can get 67 seat if not this year then in 2022





I don't even have a gun
I have a CCW though




"No you won't believe in If anymore
It's an illusion

If is for children
Building daydreams...




If you can get it, so can a criminal
If you can't get it, then neither will the vast majority of criminals

A gun ban* cannot eradicate guns, but like in the UK, it can make gun crime extremely rare

*subject to caveats previously mentioned




Their problem with "making peace" is on a level with the Devil buying ice skates ?
Click to expand...

Did you have anything of validity to ad with your post? Nothing that I could uncover....
 
smallvoice said:
Did you have anything of validity to ad with your post? Nothing that I could uncover....
Click to expand...

No, it rebutted all you little posts quite convincingly

Now, do you have anything more, that you perceive as a worthwhile contribution, to add ?
 
Rich2018 said:
No, it rebutted all you little posts quite convincingly

Now, do you have anything more, that you perceive as a worthwhile contribution, to add ?
Click to expand...

I see I have overwhelmed you. You may go now and see if you can understand what just happened to you.
 
smallvoice said:
I see I have overwhelmed you. You may go now and see if you can understand what just happened to you.
Click to expand...

How so ?

It was you who chose to "tap out" and issue a brief reply instead of addressing all the points made.

Whatever, your surrender is recognized.
 
Rich2018 said:
So then, there's nothing to worry about over the creation of a mandatory, national gun registry ???
Click to expand...

A National Gun Registry is unconstitutional in the same way a National Free Speech Registry in unconstitutional.

The second amendment explicitly prohibits Congress from passing Laws which infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

States however CAN and DO have mandatory registration of some types of firearms.

California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey and Connecticut have mandatory gun registration on all (or some types of) firearms.
 
SkyChief said:
A National Gun Registry is unconstitutional in the same way a National Free Speech Registry in unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

What way is that ?

Is it the same way the a citizen needs to REGISTER in order to vote ?


The second amendment explicitly prohibits Congress from passing Laws which infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

And registering your arms does not infringe on your ability to bear them, in any way conceivable


States however CAN and DO have mandatory registration of some types of firearms.
Click to expand...

If states can, then so can the federal government


California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey and Connecticut have mandatory gun registration on all (or some types of) firearms.
Click to expand...


They all should, and network them all together to be administered by the federal government in the guise of the ATF.
 
SkyChief said:
A National Gun Registry is unconstitutional in the same way a National Free Speech Registry in unconstitutional.

The second amendment explicitly prohibits Congress from passing Laws which infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

States however CAN and DO have mandatory registration of some types of firearms.

California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey and Connecticut have mandatory gun registration on all (or some types of) firearms.
Click to expand...

The USSC has not quite figured out how far the incorporation of the second amendment-through McDonald v Chicago-can go in wiping out state laws that clearly would violate the second amendment if they were passed federally
 
Rich2018 said:
What way is that ?

Is it the same way the a citizen needs to REGISTER in order to vote ?




And registering your arms does not infringe on your ability to bear them, in any way conceivable




If states can, then so can the federal government





They all should, and network them all together to be administered by the federal government in the guise of the ATF.
Click to expand...

which would be unconstitutional

the ATF should be eliminated anyway.
 
Rich2018 said:
How so ?

It was you who chose to "tap out" and issue a brief reply instead of addressing all the points made.

Whatever, your surrender is recognized.
Click to expand...

Claiming "victory" is the only way you'll get it, and it still means nothing. I have been eating your lunch, as have several others, so no, I didn't "tapout".
 
smallvoice said:
Claiming "victory" is the only way you'll get it, and it still means nothing. I have been eating your lunch, as have several others, so no, I didn't "tapout".
Click to expand...

I didn't claim victory, only recognize your abject surrender

Like a worn out boxer at the end of his tether "no mas, no pelo mas..."


I've been eating your dinner (and drinking your booze :)
 
I have never been in favor of wasting time and money passing laws that have no benefits. A national gun registration has no benefits. It would not stop a single shooting. The only thing it accomplishes is it is the first step to gun seizure. Stalin, Hitler, Chevez, and Mao were all for gun registration and seizure. What thinking being would want to put themselves in a situation where that could happen to them?
 
swing_voter said:
Back in the day, the NRA was friends with both the republicans and the democrats. Whichever group came to power, the NRA had friends.
Click to expand...

Back in the day a lot of democrats were pro-2nd amendment. Almost all democrats today don't give two ****s about the 2nd amendment.Almost all democrats cater to the side that wants to eliminate the 2nd amendment or through a set of laws that creates a de facto repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Now the NRA is republican, which is fine as long as the republicans are in power.
Click to expand...

Because that is the side that is typically pro-2nd amendment.


The NRA should've never stopped playing both sides. It's gross mismanagement.
Click to expand...

Why should the NRA be friends with people who want to severely restrict and or ban firearms? The NRA is a pro-2nd amendment group, it makes absolutely no ****ing sense sense for them to try to work with people against the 2nd amendment.
 
jamesrage said:
Back in the day a lot of democrats were pro-2nd amendment. Almost all democrats today don't give two ****s about the 2nd amendment.Almost all democrats cater to the side that wants to eliminate the 2nd amendment or through a set of laws that creates a de facto repeal of the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

No, because of Supreme Court rulings, you do have to repeal the 2nd amendment in order to pass any significant gun control legislation.
 
Rich2018 said:
You really refuse to see how such a resource could help with crime resolution ?
Click to expand...

Nearly all crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. Beyond that how is knowing who has a gun going to help solve a crime?
 
BahamaBob said:
Nearly all crimes are committed with illegally obtained guns. Beyond that how is knowing who has a gun going to help solve a crime?
Click to expand...

Because all guns were legally purchased at one time (or at least almost all)

And where is your evidence that nearly all crimes are committed with illegally purchased guns ?


Secondly, a national registry would have records of guns bought via straw-man purchases and through corrupt dealer (the two most common sources of guns for criminals according to studies)


Now suppose the criminal stole the gun, if we catch him via other police work (and thousands of criminals are caught all the time) the gun places him at the scene of the theft too so we clear up at least one other crime if not more as well as returning stolen items to the owner.
 
Last edited:
Rich2018 said:
Because all guns were legally purchased at one time (or at least almost all)

And where is your evidence that nearly all crimes are committed with illegally purchased guns ?


Secondly, a national registry would have records of guns bought via straw-man purchases and through corrupt dealer (the two most common sources of guns for criminals according to studies)


Now suppose the criminal stole the gun, if we catch him via other police work (and thousands of criminals are caught all the time) the gun places him at the scene of the theft too so we clear up at least one other crime if not more as well as returning stolen items to the owner.
Click to expand...

Motor vehicles are largely licensed and registered- as gun control advocates like to tout.

Yet the clearance rate for motor vehicle theft is something like a dismal 15% nationally.
 
RF667799 said:
Why do you assume there are no Democrat gun owners? It's a really stupid assumption.
Click to expand...

You will soon find out why you get stupid assumptions from rich lol.
 
Daddyo said:
You will soon find out why you get stupid assumptions from rich lol.
Click to expand...

I've known and do know a great many gun owners who are registered Democrats. Not even counting myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom