• 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!

would you support this gun control compromise?

Do you support Luna's gun control compromise?

  • Total voters
    20
Stewart said:
And Semi-Autos seem to have sufficient lethality as it is.

Anyway, this is not an issue i'm comfortable intruding on....
Click to expand...

It's cool, I don't bite. I don't have a problem with a certain level of gun control. It's when the law prevents me from the ability to protect myself that I have a problem. My little 5 shot .38 isn't a danger to anyone unless they present themselves as an immediate threat to life and limb.
 
Lokiate said:
It's cool, I don't bite. I don't have a problem with a certain level of gun control. It's when the law prevents me from the ability to protect myself that I have a problem. My little 5 shot .38 isn't a danger to anyone unless they present themselves as an immediate threat to life and limb.
Click to expand...

so you cannot come up with a good argument why one common class of firearms should be only available to the rich

OK

later
 
Lokiate said:
Automatic fire "increasing lethality" is a myth. All it does is ensure that you won't have a steady aim, and that your magazine empties in seconds. It's why the M-16 is no longer fully automatic, and hasn't been since Vietnam with only a few exceptions. Fully automatic weapons in the hands of civilians are just very expensive toys with no practicality.
Click to expand...

This is something I think a lot of civilians and those not familiar with automatic weapons don't get. I recommend people check out the Mythbusters episode, Hollywood Gunslingers (Season 10 episode 12) where they test just how realistic those long hollywood gunfights are.

They test a Mac-10, an Uzi, an AK47, an an M-16, all with magazines in the 30 round range. In every case they emptied the magazine in 2 seconds flat. When you move up to the large and larger magazines your just asking for a jam. Frankly, if someone is trying to gun me down, I would much rather they try to do it on fully automatic vice semi-automatic.
 
TurtleDude said:
It prevented any new weapons from being bought
Click to expand...
It prevented new unregistered fully automatic weapons from being bought and transferred.

do you believe only the rich should have access to firearms that are clearly constitutionally protected
Click to expand...
There's no such thing as a free lunch. If you want it bad enough, work for it.

do you think the Hughes Amendment is not in violation of the second amendment?
Click to expand...
It's an infringement, sure, but it doesn't prohibit the right of The People to self defense. With all the high capacity weapons with increased durability and reliability in circulation, it doesn't inhibit the armament of a well regulated Militia, either.
 
how about this for a compromise:

end background checks for rifles/shotguns.......but require background checks, 10-round limit for magazines, and limit purchases to one per month, for ALL handgun purchases.
 
Luna Tick said:
The compromise is as follows. The gun control people get something they want and the gun enthusiasts also get something they want.

1. We get universal background checks on all gun purchases, including gun shows, private sales, absolutely anywhere that guns are sold. Convicted felons are ineligible to buy guns, and the FBI is alerted if one tries to buy one. Anyone convicted of domestic violence is ineligible, as is anyone who's mentally unstable. It becomes illegal to sell any gun without a background check on the buyer.
2. The 1986 ban on civilians owning automatic weapons is repealed. The import of foreign-made assault rifles (such as the Russian AK-47, the Swiss SG 550, and the Israeli Uzi) is legalized. A person is no longer required to remanufacture a foreign assault rifle, including at least 10 American-made parts. He may purchase one from a foreign factory with all foreign parts, and it may include an automatic feature. (It still must be sent to a gun dealer, not directly to him, and there still must be a background check.)

So, the gun control people get #1, the gun enthusiasts get #2. Vote if you're for this.
Click to expand...

#1 goes to far, #2 not far enough.
 
Thunder said:
how about this for a compromise:

end background checks for rifles/shotguns.......but require background checks, 10-round limit for magazines, and limit purchases to one per month, for ALL handgun purchases.
Click to expand...

No to limits.
 
Thunder said:
how about this for a compromise:

end background checks for rifles/shotguns.......but require background checks, 10-round limit for magazines, and limit purchases to one per month, for ALL handgun purchases.
Click to expand...
Not so sure about that. AR-15's, Kalashnikovs, Sig 550's etc are also rifles. Not something you want the criminal element having free access to. I'd say no checks on .22 cal firearms. The cartridge itself limits the effective capacity of a magazine, and I don't see them as any legitimate threat to anything except marmots and paper targets.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
no to ANY limits on gun ownership?
Click to expand...

Umm, perhaps depending on what exactly we're talking about. But more specifically, no to the limits you proposed.
 
wolv67 said:
I would not accept anything other than no guns allowed outside one's place of residence.
Click to expand...

I will never be able to understand how a person convinces themselves this is logical and reality based rational. Its broken logic.

no guns outside ones home?! Im very thankful on a national level nothing like this will ever come to pass.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
how about this for a compromise:

end background checks for rifles/shotguns.......but require background checks, 10-round limit for magazines, and limit purchases to one per month, for ALL handgun purchases.
Click to expand...

uhm this doesnt even seem like a compromise. The limits are too much and pretty pointless.

Like I said 100 Times Im fine with background checks as long as they are pretty instant but the reality is the impact to prevent crimes will be little to nil.
 
Objective-J said:
...Like I said 100 Times Im fine with background checks as long as they are pretty instant but the reality is the impact to prevent crimes will be little to nil.
Click to expand...

1.3 million felons and others who have lost their right to own a gun, were prevented from buying a gun due to background checks.

that's a pretty large impact.
 
Thunder said:
1.3 million felons and others who have lost their right to own a gun, were prevented from buying a gun due to background checks.

that's a pretty large impact.
Click to expand...

We have 300+ million people. Its not actually that large of an impact.
 
Thunder said:
we only have 2.2 million people incarcerated.

adding 1.3 million would be a big deal.
Click to expand...

Were they going to commit crimes with those guns? All 1.3 million? If anything, it's perhaps cause to remove this restriction from felons whom have completed punishment periods.
 
Ikari said:
Were they going to commit crimes with those guns? All 1.3 million? If anything, it's perhaps cause to remove this restriction from felons whom have completed punishment periods.
Click to expand...

they can appeal to get these restrictions removed. They have due process.
 
Thunder said:
1.3 million felons and others who have lost their right to own a gun, were prevented from buying a gun due to background checks.

that's a pretty large impact.
Click to expand...

100% wrong thats the false and broken logic conclusion you come to but its nothing more than your opinion with little to no support. You keep repeating it as if it means somethign but it doesnt so Ill repost my answer from the other thread.

You can “say” it all you want but you are still wrong and have nothing to support your claim. LOL You are taking a random stat and trying to make it say what you want but that’s not how it works. It seems you don’t have the ability to see the reality of the situation. Your stat is meaningless to what you are trying to make people believe.

Lets be nice and say the 1.3million guns is actually 1.3 million people, I have some questions.
How many of these 1.3 million people were going to commit crimes? That’s right you have no clue
How many of these 1.3 million people still went and got a gun illegally? Again you have no clue
How many of these people still committed a crime with a gun? Again you have no clue

So your stat is meaningless and I stand by my claim that while Id support a background check its actual REALITY based impact would still be minimal because criminals don’t care about laws or regulations. And currently you have shown anything factual to impact that statement.

so call it large if you want you have no support for that claim :shrug:
 
wolv67 said:
100 million guns lying around leading to an insane homicide rate is
Click to expand...

Actually it is 270 million guns, 99.99%+ of which are never used in a crime.



The problems I'd have lay in two things:

Defining "mentally unstable" and how you determine who is and is not.... this could easily be subject to abuse.

Second, the domestic violence issue.... I know, as an ex-cop, there's a lot of men convicted of CDV who were actually DEFENDING themselves against a woman who initiated the violence, and I have some issues with a universal and permanent loss of gun rights from same in all cases.


Also, I'd rather have nationwide universal concealed-carry, than repeal of the machine-gun act.
 
Stewart said:
I had a feeling would come up, banning rubber bands no. But are there not certain stocks that allow bump firing much easier and more controllable, you could restrict them. The option is not simply oh, bump firing is possible let's make rifles with fully automatics actions legal without restriction. It seems a bit of a non-sequitur to me. Perhaps with limited mag capacity, maybe. But as you pointed out that is difficult to enforce. I just find it odd, shooting rampage occurs and suddenly renewed debate on legalizing fully automatic rifles.
Click to expand...

Automatic weapons manufactured prior to 1984(?) are already legal.
I can't remember a "rampage" using legally owned automatic weapons, in the past 20 years.

Automatic just sounds scary to people, but doesn't necessarily make them more dangerous.
 
Objective-J said:
...Lets be nice and say the 1.3 million guns is actually 1.3 million people, I have some questions.
How many of these 1.3 million people were going to commit crimes? That’s right you have no clue....
Click to expand...

sorry, but I do not share your trust & faith in convicted felons.

convicted felons cannot be trusted with guns, until our legal system deems them to be trustworthy.
 
Thunder said:
sorry, but I do not share your trust & faith in convicted felons.

convicted felons cannot be trusted with guns, until our legal system deems them to be trustworthy.
Click to expand...

Our judicial system isn't about "trust", I don't trust the vast majority of idiots out there. Doesn't mean I can infringe upon their rights cause they're stupid and on aggregate will certainly abuse their freedoms. The system is one of punishment based on crime against another's rights.
 
Ikari said:
Our judicial system isn't about "trust", I don't trust the vast majority of idiots out there. Doesn't mean I can infringe upon their rights cause they're stupid and on aggregate will certainly abuse their freedoms. The system is one of punishment based on crime against another's rights.
Click to expand...

that is incorrect, as many crimes can be committed against property.
 
Thunder said:
that is incorrect, as many crimes can be committed against property.
Click to expand...

Several, from vandalism to theft. What does that have to do with anything?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom