• 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!

Gun Control

Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 39.9%
  • No

    Votes: 74 50.0%
  • Others

    Votes: 15 10.1%

  • Total voters
    148
That's right, just armed police and armed military.



Than stop pretending you have the right to carry the same weapons as cops.

I do,that is what the second amendment says. it says I have the right to the same weapons as the military infantryman.
 
I am leaving for the night catawba but why don't you tell us what guns are protected by the second amendment.
 
I'm waiting until after the next AWB to buy my ar 15 so I can take pics post here and gloat.
 
How many magazines with a high capacity are sold each year?

How many are used in criminal actions? Or, how many are used in shooting other people

Here's a hint....

If those numbers are massively skewed towards the notion of "A very small percent actually are used for criminal activity or shooting people" then this answer:

"Those that wish to kill large numbers of people without reloading."

Is bull****. The correct answer would be "Those that wish to own a high capacity magazine for their arms"


"High-capacity ammunition magazines are the common thread that runs through most mass shootings: giving attackers the ability to fire numerous bullets without reloading. Last week's attack in Arizona joins a long list of mass shootings made possible by the easy availability of high-capacity ammunition magazines: Columbine, Virginia Tech, Luby's, Stockton, and all too many others.

Earlier this week, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) announced plans to introduce federal legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines. A similar ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines was in place for 10 years as part of the now-expired federal assault weapons ban.

Here are just 10 of the U.S. mass shootings that involved high-capacity ammunition magazines."

Josh Sugarmann: 10 U.S. Mass Shootings Involving High-Capacity Ammunition Magazines (Slide Show)
 
"High-capacity ammunition magazines are the common thread that runs through most mass shootings: giving attackers the ability to fire numerous bullets without reloading. Last week's attack in Arizona joins a long list of mass shootings made possible by the easy availability of high-capacity ammunition magazines: Columbine, Virginia Tech, Luby's, Stockton, and all too many others.

Earlier this week, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) announced plans to introduce federal legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines. A similar ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines was in place for 10 years as part of the now-expired federal assault weapons ban.

Here are just 10 of the U.S. mass shootings that involved high-capacity ammunition magazines."

Josh Sugarmann: 10 U.S. Mass Shootings Involving High-Capacity Ammunition Magazines (Slide Show)
Swapping magazines is trivial as long as no one is shooting at you. In the last twenty hears how many mass killings have there been? 60 or so? And all of them were in gun free zones. one-sixth of those involved large magazines.

The antidote? Put people in a position to return fire.
 
I do,that is what the second amendment says. it says I have the right to the same weapons as the military infantryman.

Where is the documentation of the court case that ruled you have the right to carry the same weapons as a cop? Surely an "attorney" would know that only the Court has the authority to decide on Constitutional questions.
 
I am leaving for the night catawba but why don't you tell us what guns are protected by the second amendment.

The guns the courts say you are allowed.
 
Swapping magazines is trivial as long as no one is shooting at you. In the last twenty hears how many mass killings have there been? 60 or so? And all of them were in gun free zones. one-sixth of those involved large magazines.

I call bull****! Let's see your numbers that back that up?
 
I can't justify the value of a semi-automatic for personal self defense with so many innocent people killed in this country with semi-automatic weapons with high capacity mags. And its looking like more and more people are feeling that way too.

Do you even have a clue what “semi-automatic” means in this context?
 
Do you even have a clue what “semi-automatic” means in this context?

Yes, it means you can shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger, and they usually accept high capacity mags.
 
Yes, it means you can shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger, and they usually accept high capacity mags.

Magazine size has absolutely nothing to do with being semi automatic. A bolt action rifle can have a 30 round magazine as can a shotgun etc.
 
The Constitution says nothing about assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We the people banned them before, and we can again.

The Constitution also doesn't say anything about radio, television, or the Internet. Yet the First Amendment clearly applies to these exactly as it does to standing on a soapbox or publishing a newspaper.
 
I think our society is probably a couple hundred years of evolution behind the UK in banning all guns.

That's exactly backward. The UK has not caught up, in terms of freedom, to where the United States was two centuries ago. We are at least those two centuries ahead of the UK, and likely more.

What you are advocating is that our society go BACKWARD, regressing to be more like the UK. There is a very, very good reason why our ancestors rebelled against Britain. There's a very good reason why we kicked their asses out of our country two centuries ago, and then kicked their asses again several decades later, when they again tried to tell us how to run our country. And those reasons remain every bit as valid today, as they were two centuries ago.

(Just as I am writing this, I have realized that it is that second war, that is now two centuries ago, to the year. All my life, I've been conditioned to think of our original revolution as having been two centuries ago; but the point where that was accurately true was most of my life ago.)

If you truly believe the UK is better, then by all means, feel free to emigrate there. America will be better off left to us who believe in the principles on which it was founded, rather than on the principles against which we rebelled in order to found it.
 
As long as replacements are offered free of charge, i.e. trade two 15-round magazines for a three 10-round magazines, or allow them to be grandfathered in, I have no problem with it. The problem occurs with offering no "fair market" funds for the "taking" of private legally owned private property.

On the other hand, I would find it equally unacceptable to use taxpayer funds for such a purpose. As a taxpayer, I must object not only to having my Constitutional rights openly violated, but with being forced to pay for it as well.

It is equally a violation of property rights to confiscate privately-owner property that the owner has every Constitutional right to keep and bear; or to take citizens' property in the form of taxes to be used to compensate the owners of the property to be confiscated.

Either way, it amounts to government illegally taking property to which it is not entitled.
 
You really have no idea what you're talking about.

AR-15s were manufactured and sold quite legally throughout the entire term of the AWB; they simply didn't have the banned features. You don't know what the law banned and didn't ban; you don't know the criteria for banning, and continually posting a link to WaPo story doesn't change anything.

If I'm not mistaken, they changed the name as well. It wasn't an “AR-15”; it was a “Sporter” or something like that. With the bayonet lug and flash suppressor omitted, and a few other minor changes, just enough for Colt to claim it was not an AR-15, but a distinctly different model, that didn't violate the letter of the fraudulent “assault weapon” ban.
 
LOL

I think if you get the war you want hardship is going to be a term you might rue.

You continue to lie constantly. tell us makes a gun more dangerous by having a bayonet lug

as to folding stocks, its easy to change a fixed one out

why should that be illegal

why do you lefties love silly restrictions that have no use against criminals?

Really, it gets down to their view of the whole relationship between government and the people.

If you believe government is to be the master over the people, then you can believe that government can and should impose restrictions that serve no useful purpose, and that if the people oppose these restrictions, then the burden is on them to prove that these restrictions are unreasonable and need to be lifted.

If you believe that government is supposed to be a servant of the people, then you must believe that the burden is on those who support imposing restrictions on the people to demonstrate that these restrictions are necessary and reasonable; and that such restrictions must not be imposed until this burden is met.

Our nation was founded in rebellion against the former point of view, and is based on the latter. Sadly, too many of our countrymen are regressing toward the former view.
 
No one, who is not 100% sane and stable , should be allowed to own a gun....

How do you propose that this be judged?

I do not think there is anyone who is truly, objectively, “100% sane and stable”. All of us are subject to emotions and irrational motives. It's an innate characteristic of all human beings.

I cannot see any application of trying to judge who is sufficiently “100% sane and stable” to own a gun that doesn't invite abuse. Perhaps someone charged with making such a determination might consider the desire to own a gun as sufficient proof of someone not being sane and stable enough to be allowed to do so. Catch–22.
 
well I suppose I could ask you why most of the anti gun posters whine about the NRA and not criminals

I could ask you why everyone of the most anti gun posters admit to being "progressive" or very liberal

everything wrong one can do with a gun is illegal. use a gun in a crime you get extra years. in some states many years

its illegal to possess a gun with the INTENT to use it in a crime

its illegal to posses a gun if you are a fugitive, have a felony or DV record, etc

so who is affected by laws that limit magazine capacity or flash hiders on rifles etc?

I cannot speak for others.

You ask me about magazine capacity. Could you please tell me the practical argument from the gun lobby side as why a user needs more than ten bullets available to them at one time?

I do not know of anybody who is FOR criminals. People who commit crimes like the Connecticut murders or the Batman film murders are the lowest sort of stacked crap and I certainy have no sympathy for them. For myself, I have long supported the death penalty for such atrocities. I think even you would agree Turtle that I am very anti-criminal.

As far as being anti-gun - I keep telling people I am pro Second Amendment while being against the gun lobby. There is a difference and it has a distinction.

I hope you notice that five days ago, right here on this very site, I took the position that the NRA took yesterday- namely that an armed police officer be in every school in America. People accuse me of being against the Second Amendment and somehow somehow way I end up as the person here who was right in sync with the NRA on this solution to the problem.
 
"High-capacity ammunition magazines are the common thread that runs through most mass shootings: giving attackers the ability to fire numerous bullets without reloading. Last week's attack in Arizona joins a long list of mass shootings made possible by the easy availability of high-capacity ammunition magazines: Columbine, Virginia Tech, Luby's, Stockton, and all too many others.

Earlier this week, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) announced plans to introduce federal legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines. A similar ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines was in place for 10 years as part of the now-expired federal assault weapons ban.

Here are just 10 of the U.S. mass shootings that involved high-capacity ammunition magazines."

Josh Sugarmann: 10 U.S. Mass Shootings Involving High-Capacity Ammunition Magazines (Slide Show)

LOL again the gun haters are dishonest, those were mostly STANDARD CAPACITY MAGAZINES

the glock was designed with a 17 round magazine

the only case of a high capacity magazine was Aurora where the guy had a Beta mag (100 rounds)

now that is higher than the one that the weapon came with

VT-another lie, the handgun was used with the standard capacity magazine

you gun haters assume that ten is all that should be allowed (today-next month it will be 6 and the oozing turd Bloomberg said three was all you should have) and that ten round was based on no evidence or constitutionally sound reasoning
 
The guns the courts say you are allowed.

that's the sort of evasive nonsense i expected. I asked you since right now the USSC has not said that other than MILLER which clearly suggest an M16 is protected
 
I cannot speak for others.

You ask me about magazine capacity. Could you please tell me the practical argument from the gun lobby side as why a user needs more than ten bullets available to them at one time?

I do not know of anybody who is FOR criminals. People who commit crimes like the Connecticut murders or the Batman film murders are the lowest sort of stacked crap and I certainy have no sympathy for them. For myself, I have long supported the death penalty for such atrocities. I think even you would agree Turtle that I am very anti-criminal.

As far as being anti-gun - I keep telling people I am pro Second Amendment while being against the gun lobby. There is a difference and it has a distinction.

I hope you notice that five days ago, right here on this very site, I took the position that the NRA took yesterday- namely that an armed police officer be in every school in America. People accuse me of being against the Second Amendment and somehow somehow way I end up as the person here who was right in sync with the NRA on this solution to the problem.

since every major police department has determined that the most suitable self defense tools are 15-17 round magazines in pistols and 20-32 round magazines in carbines that alone is suitable guidance

where did the anti gun nuts come up with 10 rounds when none of our police departments are so limited

will you tell us what (if any) magazine limit do you support? there is no government agency that has found 10 rounds to be a suitable limit for their employees that I am aware of
 
since every major police department has determined that the most suitable self defense tools are 15-17 round magazines in pistols and 20-32 round magazines in carbines that alone is suitable guidance

where did the anti gun nuts come up with 10 rounds when none of our police departments are so limited

will you tell us what (if any) magazine limit do you support? there is no government agency that has found 10 rounds to be a suitable limit for their employees that I am aware of

I am not talking about professional law enforcement officers entrusted with enforcing the law. I am talking about civillians who are not officers and who are not legally entrusted with enforcing the law.

You mention 15 - 17 rounds or 20-32 rounds as suitable. Why are they so?
 
I am not talking about professional law enforcement officers entrusted with enforcing the law. I am talking about civillians who are not officers and who are not legally entrusted with enforcing the law.

You mention 15 - 17 rounds or 20-32 rounds as suitable. Why are they so?

because massive government agencies have said so.

I realize its hard for many people to fathom but most of us with CCWs are better shots and as well or better trained than most cops

the government agencies spent years determining what were the best choices for self defense. I think its reasonable for HONEST law abiding to look to groups that have studied the issue and they all come up with the same type of weapon. when I was involved in a shooting the DA asked me in front of the Grand Jury why I had the gun I did and I said its the one my local department had listed as approved backup or off duty weapons and the DA noted that was a very good reason

I note that many of the antigun nuts assume that we are using these weapons improperly without understanding that felons and criminals are not allowed to owning guns
 
Back
Top Bottom