• 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
haymarket said:
I would never support a complete ban on guns as it would violate the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

so tell us what limits you support

The last pronouncement I saw was that if someone had ONE gun, a single shot 22, their second amendment rights were fulfilled and banning them from owning any other weapon still would not prevent them from "ENJOYING THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS


tell me Haymarket-to many of us who actually really care about this issue, we believe that the founders (as well as the MILLER COURT) decreed that all citizens of suitable age should be able to own the standard infantryman's individual weapon. In one era that was a smoothbore musket with bayonet, then a rifled musket, than a bolt action rifle or lever action rifle, then a semi automatic battle rifle, and then a select fire carbine.

if that is so, what would your answer be other than to pretend that the second amendment really did not say that
 
Catawba said:
Not if the ban is passed on high capacity magazines. I never said every semi-automatic would accept a high capacity mag, I said, "and they usually accept high capacity mags."
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with a ban or "usually" anything. High capacity magazines or a rifle or pistols ability to accept them have nothing at all to do with a weapon being semi automatic.

How can any one person post so much bull****.
 
TurtleDude said:
Oh BTW Haymarket, if i were intending to assassinate a politician after a war against guns was launched as opposed to defending myself against gangs, active shooters or looters I would use a far different weapon. an "assault weapon" whatever that may be is not ideal for taking out a politician who is surrounded by armed guards. For that, the best weapon is say a Lazzeroni War Bird or a Barrett 50 or an AI 300 Mag. stuff that you can make head shots at long distances with or stuff that is so powerful that it will blow right through body armor 800M out.

those weapons have almost no self defense use against criminals.

In case your are interested (since I doubt you have ever heard of a Lazzeroni) I have included a link of some of their current rifles. they cost a lot of money and take months to get



Lazzeroni Rifles
Click to expand...

Very revealing that you have given the assassination of government officials such thorough thought to go as far as selecting the weapon.
 
TurtleDude said:
so tell us what limits you support
Click to expand...

I would be glad to review any formal proposal for a law you would have me look at. Please do present one.

What I did announce support of was my idea of five days ago to place an armed police officer in every school in America. Yesterday, Wayne La Pierre of the NRA came out for that same idea. My idea turns out to also be the NRA idea.
 
haymarket said:
You are not listening.

What it is is simple: a police officer has the weapons he has NOT to exercise any Constitutional right - but to do a professional job they are hired to do.

You, me, all other civilians are NOT professional police officers. As such, we have no right to the make aclaim to have the same weaponry as a police officer does because that weaponry has not a darn thing to do with the second amendment and the exercise of it.

As such, your argument is a political one and NOT a Constitutional one. You are entitled to it. But it is not a Constitutional argument nor a legal one. It is a political one based on envy of the weaponry carried by professional police officers performing their job.

It has NOTHING at all to do with value judgments about who is more valuable. That is silly and irrelevant as that is NOT why officers have the weapons.
Click to expand...


Of course I am not listening, I am reading. and I know damn well that if someone asks me why I choose a 17 shot (Smith and Wesson 9mm-same as the biggest police department in my area uses) pistol for self defense or a 20 shot Rock River DEA carbine (yeah I have the same one the DEA is issued except mine does not have the three shot burst that SOME DEA carbines have) it is because I respect the decisions of those organizations.

They tested numerous weapons and concluded that those were the most suitable self defense weapons available for their employees to use in an urban environment. It has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the trials they put those weapons through proving the value and reliability of the weans.

And it is a constitutional argument that I can own what other civilians use. anything up to and including what an infantryman is issued as his primary individual weapon is obviously protected by the second amendment.

so the burden is now on you to show WHY is should not be able to own these weapons that I currently possess.
 
For those who are interested this is turtle endorsed self defense carbine


Rock River Arms: Pro-Series Government

note they have a version that meets the Silly Awb laws in non-free states

those have a pinned rather than collapsing stock and now flash hider
 
Catawba said:
Not if the ban is passed on high capacity magazines. I never said every semi-automatic would accept a high capacity mag, I said, "and they usually accept high capacity mags."
Click to expand...

A rifle will "usually accept" whatever has the proper mechanism designed to lock into and cycle rounds through it. That can be 10 or 15 rounds or 500. It doesn't matter.

Now tell me why for some reason this:

Products1714-500x334-66673.jpg

is more deadly than this?

501px-PostbanAR15A2standard.jpg

The first has a high capacity magazine (well drum really), and it has the suppressor. That suppressor slows the rounds down actually. Why is it MORE deadly than the POST BAN AR 15?
 
TurtleDude said:
And it is a constitutional argument that I can own what other civilians use. anything up to and including what an infantryman is issued as his primary individual weapon is obviously protected by the second amendment.

so the burden is now on you to show WHY is should not be able to own these weapons that I currently possess.
Click to expand...

Police officers are not civilians. Just yesterday I provided you with no less than three separate dictionary definitions which ALL agreed that they were not civilians. I will look for that post and present it again for you.

So your argument fails.
 
haymarket said:
Police officers are not civilians. Just yesterday I provided you with no less than three separate dictionary definitions which ALL agreed that they were not civilians. I will look for that post and present it again for you.

So your argument fails.
Click to expand...

Police officers are civilians.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Police officers are civilians.
Click to expand...

Sorry. You are wrong.



but forget what both you and I say about who is a civillian and who is not. Neither of us write dictionaries so lets use one.

ci·vil·ian /sɪˈvɪlyən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[si-vil-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
2. Informal. anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging; nonprofessional; outsider: We need a producer to run the movie studio, not some civilian from the business world.
3. a person versed in or studying Roman or civil law.
–adjective 4. of, pertaining to, formed by, or administered by civilians.
Click to expand...
Source(s):
dictionary.com

That is about as straight forward as you can get.

or how about this from The Free Dictionary

ci·vil·ian (s-vlyn)
n.
1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group.
2. A person who does not belong to a particular group or engage in a particular activity.
3. A specialist in Roman or civil law.
adj.
Of or relating to civilians or civil life; nonmilitary: civilian clothes; a civilian career.
Click to expand...

That is two for two telling you that you are using the word CIVILLIAN incorrectly.

Here is a third from Meriam-Webster

ci·vil·ian noun \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\

Definition of CIVILIAN

1
: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2
a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
b : outsider 1
— civilian adjective
See civilian defined for English-language learners »
See civilian defined for kids »
Examples of CIVILIAN

The bomb injured 12 civilians.
First Known Use of CIVILIAN

14th century
Click to expand...

And the Second Amendment has not a damn thing to do with it.
 
haymarket said:
Police officers are not civilians. Just yesterday I provided you with no less than three separate dictionary definitions which ALL agreed that they were not civilians. I will look for that post and present it again for you.

So your argument fails.
Click to expand...

OMG that is hilarious. POLICE OFFICERS ARE NOT CIVILIANS

so why are they called members of civilian LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

they certainly are under the federal law. where there are two types of people

military and civilian

why is the US ATTORNEY considered the ranking CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER in a judicial district and why does he and his assistants practice in FEDERAL CIVILIAN COURTS rather than MILITARY COURTS

and btw a suit against an FBI agent either in his OFFICIAL capacity or his individual capacity (a BIVENSconstitutional tort action) take place a civilian court rather than a military one


this is really funny stuff

and it does not answer my question-why should I not be able to own the same weapons CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ISSUE THEIR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
 
haymarket said:
Sorry. You are wrong.



but forget what both you and I say about who is a civillian and who is not. Neither of us write dictionaries so lets use one.


Source(s):
dictionary.com

That is about as straight forward as you can get.

or how about this from The Free Dictionary



That is two for two telling you that you are using the word CIVILLIAN incorrectly.

Here is a third from Meriam-Webster



And the Second Amendment has not a damn thing to do with it.
Click to expand...

So some dip**** (or wordsmith manipulator) got that crap put in a dictionary. Doesn't change the fact that police are civilians.
 
haymarket said:
Police officers are not civilians. Just yesterday I provided you with no less than three separate dictionary definitions which ALL agreed that they were not civilians. I will look for that post and present it again for you.

So your argument fails.
Click to expand...

your dictionary definitions are based not on US statute or the constitution. True, cops call non cops civilians

the Department of defense calls civilian law enforcement officers civilian law enforcement officers.
 
I dont think this crazy shooter should make us wanna take away our rights to have a gun. The founders of the USA put it in there for a reason and I dont think the government should take away those rights for us now. We are the greatest country in the world and we shouldnt let an evil jerk start taking our our rights away.
 
TurtleDude said:
OMG that is hilarious. POLICE OFFICERS ARE NOT CIVILIANS
Click to expand...

The people who write the dictionary say you are wrong. The "really funny stuff" is you attempting to blindly ignore reality and what words mean in the real world because you are pathetically scrounging for some way to justify you building up an armory to someday kill police officers and politicians and you want to be well armed to do it.

Your complete and continual utter failure on this line of attempted reasoning is that you are falsely using the term CIVILIAN to describe both you and me as well as professional police officers. They are NOT civilians the way you and I are. They are in a special professional occupational class that is far closer to paramilitary personnel. As such, they are entrusted with special powers, special authority and special weaponry that goes beyond what you and I have as non professional police officers.

but forget what both you and I say about who is a civillian and who is not. Neither of us write dictionaries so lets use one.

ci·vil·ian /sɪˈvɪlyən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[si-vil-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
2. Informal. anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging; nonprofessional; outsider: We need a producer to run the movie studio, not some civilian from the business world.
3. a person versed in or studying Roman or civil law.
–adjective 4. of, pertaining to, formed by, or administered by civilians.
Source(s):
dictionary.com
Click to expand...

That is about as straight forward as you can get.

or how about this from The Free Dictionary

ci·vil·ian (s-vlyn)
n.
1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group.
2. A person who does not belong to a particular group or engage in a particular activity.
3. A specialist in Roman or civil law.
adj.
Of or relating to civilians or civil life; nonmilitary: civilian clothes; a civilian career.
Click to expand...

That is two for two telling you that you are using the word CIVILLIAN incorrectly.

Here is a third from Meriam-Webster

ci·vil·ian noun \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\

Definition of CIVILIAN

1
: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2
a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
b : outsider 1
— civilian adjective
See civilian defined for English-language learners »
See civilian defined for kids »
Examples of CIVILIAN

The bomb injured 12 civilians.
First Known Use of CIVILIAN

14th century
Click to expand...


And all your attempted double talk and mockery will not change one of those dictionary definitions.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
So some dip**** (or wordsmith manipulator) got that crap put in a dictionary. Doesn't change the fact that police are civilians.
Click to expand...

Reality is what makes police NOT civilians. The dictionary simply confirms that reality.

Calling expert authorities childish names is a poor substitute for verifiable evidence and intelligent debate.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah you are right. even the military has both MILITARY POLICE (soldiers, not civilians and CIVILIAN Police officers (civilians not military)

Marine Corps Civilian Police Program
Click to expand...

The source you are quoting IS NOT DEFINING what a civilian is. They are merely using that word to differentiate between a Marine and anon marine in a police capacity within the corps. If you read your own link, you would have discovered that.

Now take your own link ot its logical conclusion. We are not in the Marine Corps in any capacity. So your link and article is irrelevant to what constitutes a non military police officer as a non civilian in the real world.
 
TurtleDude said:
your dictionary definitions are based not on US statute or the constitution. True, cops call non cops civilians

the Department of defense calls civilian law enforcement officers civilian law enforcement officers.
Click to expand...

The dictionary is not quoting cops calling non cops anything.
 
cops call non cops civilians. the federal statutes, the federal courts and the US Attorney calls them civilians

expert authorities are on my side Haymarket. Dirtpoorchris is 100% correct.

when a cop violates someone's rights he is tried in the same court as you and I would be.

that is the proof that trumps any of the crappy definitions you have posted.

and I should note that many federal LEOs are under the command of the president, they are part of the executive branch. the executive branch is a headed by a CIVILIAN and that is the president. while the president is commander and chief everyone knows this proves that CIVILIAN authority is above MILITARY AUTHORITY. The US Attorney is the highest federal LEO in a judicial district. He is appointed by the president. He is thus a civilian,

call up your US attorney Barbara McQuade, 313-226-9100

ask her if she is a civilian
 
I am still waiting for Haymarket to tell me why I should not be able to own the weapons I referenced-the 17 shot MP 9mm (the same pistol as issued by the Cincinnati PD) and the Rock River DEA carbine (sans the three shot burst device)
 
TurtleDude said:
cops call non cops civilians. the federal statutes, the federal courts and the US Attorney calls them civilians
Click to expand...

You have not presented anything other than you own word. Your Marine corps was explained to you, your interpretation of it was smashed and trashed, crushed and flushed as not meaning what you think it means.

Again, the people you seem to envy and want to copy their weaponry do NOT have weapons like that because of any Second Amendment right to them. They have those weapons because they are performing jobs which the peoples government has determined is necessary for them to perform their jobs. The Second Amendment - which covers YOUR RIGHT to have weapons - has not a damn thing to do with what weapons police and others have. Not a damn thing to do with it.

For you to argue that you have a right to something because other people use such things as tools on their jobs is ridiculous and without any foundation. And you have never shown any other than you own envy and want.
 
TurtleDude said:
I am still waiting for Haymarket to tell me why I should not be able to own the weapons I referenced-the 17 shot MP 9mm (the same pistol as issued by the Cincinnati PD) and the Rock River DEA carbine (sans the three shot burst device)
Click to expand...

I never gave you an opinion pro or con on what you should own or not own regarding any particular weapon. I have not taken a position on that so for me to be expected to tell you why you should or should not own some weapon is ludicrous.
 
haymarket said:
I never gave you an opinion pro or con on what you should own or not own regarding any particular weapon. I have not taken a position on that so for me to be expected to tell you why you should or should not own some weapon is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

so tell me Haymarket-do you think civilians who are not employed as civilian police officers ought to be able to own 17 shot pistols are 20 shot semi auto carbines
 
Blackdog said:
It has nothing to do with a ban or "usually" anything. High capacity magazines or a rifle or pistols ability to accept them have nothing at all to do with a weapon being semi automatic.
Click to expand...

"Most types of semi-automatic pistols rely on a removable magazine to store ammunition before it is fired, usually inserted inside the grip."
Semi-automatic pistol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you were saying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom