• 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
Catawba said:
You skipped a step. You haven't yet proven I was incorrect.
Click to expand...

Dude you are wrong. The magazine capacity has nothing to do with a weapon being a semiauto or not. And you just answered my question. Your a liar and don't own anything outside of a squirt gun.
 
Last edited:
dirtpoorchris said:
Alternating your load AxBxAxB medium spread pellets for hallway coverage and high velocity, high density slugs for accuracy + knock back. I dont care if that crazie is wearing body armor that slug is going to do something, especially if you hit him in the head or a joint.
Click to expand...

Oldie but a goody. I like 00 buck only in my tactical, and it's choked for very tight groups. I figure if you can take 9 .32 caliber slugs at a time in rapid succession, you are under the protection of God, lol.
 
TurtleDude said:
HIs failure is that I am honest about my motivations and catawba is trying to pretend that his suggestions are designed to make society safer when his real goal is to harass honest gun owners for not believing in the far left anti capitalist (and in many cases anti law and order) agenda he lives for
Click to expand...

You are correct, sir!

I've often gotten the feeling that the people arguing against your sensible points are those who don't really put the safety of people as their number one priority.

Instead, their emphasis seems to be on having their solution to the school shooting problem be the solution which is enacted, whether it be successful or not. Like they'd rather have all guns banned in America and still suffer from criminals doing bad things with illegal guns.

Rather than admitting that taking guns out of good people's hands is counter productive and non-sensical they'd rather prevail in the debate and the results (and damage to future victims) be damned.
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't think stripping law abiding people of their rights shows anything more than disgusting fascist tendencies
Click to expand...

"Machine guns have been banned in this country for decades. Even as it found an individual right to gun ownership in the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court made the following observation: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," that it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever" and noted "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.' " That opinion wasn't written by some wild-eyed liberal - it was written by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia."

Read more: Feinstein presses for assault weapons ban - SFGate
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Do you even have a clue what “semi-automatic” means in this context?
Click to expand...

Catawba said:
Yes, it means you can shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger, and they usually accept high capacity mags.
Click to expand...

Catawba said:
"Dude", the discussion I responded to was about semi-automatic pistols.
Click to expand...

That is what you were responding to. I hear your credibility banging around in the basement as usual as you were wrong and just don't want to admit it.

Catawba said:
You have provided only your opinion, "dude"!
Click to expand...

No... I have provided a fact. Fact the magazine AGAIN has nothing at all to do with a weapon being a single shot, semi-auto or full auto, period.

Wow your posts just boggle the imagination.
 
Blackdog said:
You lied again. That is what you were responding to. I hear your credibility banging around in the basement as usual.



No... I have provided a fact. Fact the magazine AGAIN has nothing at all to do with a weapon being a single shot, semi-auto or full auto, period.

Wow your posts just boggle the imagination.
Click to expand...



I call bull****! Link to where you have previously provided proof to me that most semi-automatic pistols do not rely on a removable magazine.
 
Catawba said:
I call bull****! Link to where you have previously provided proof to me that most semi-automatic pistols do not rely on a removable magazine.
Click to expand...

I did not say anything about "most" anything, nice strawman. All semiautomatic pistols can fire without any magazine at all. The magazine as I have stated does not have anything to do with the type of weapon it is.

I don't care if you don't believe me. You can remain in ignorance for all I care. I mean hell what would a military veteran and cop know about guns anyway.

You call bull****, LMAO! Oh man that is just so classic, it is sig worthy.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
I did not say anything about "most" anything, nice strawman. All semiautomatic pistols can fire without any magazine at all. The magazine as I have stated does not have anything to do with the type of weapon it is.

I don't care if you don't believe me. You can remain in ignorance for all I care. I mean hell what would a military veteran and cop know about guns anyway.

You call bull****, LMAO! Oh man that is just so classic, it is sig worthy.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your personal opinion, "dude"! :cool:
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for your personal opinion, "dude"! :cool:
Click to expand...

It's not my personal opinion man, it is a fact. You just want to remain ignorant on the subject and talk out of your ass. That's cool with me man.

Like I said 12 years in the military and a cop, but what the hell do I know about guns.

Your credibility can't really get any lower anyway, so it's not like it's a big deal.
 
Blackdog said:
It's not my personal opinion man, it is a fact. You are just want to remain ignorant on the subject and talk out of your ass. That's cool with me man.

Like I said 12 years in the military and a cop, but what the hell do I know about guns.
Click to expand...


A fact can be documented. You have provided only your opinion.
 
Catawba said:
A fact can be documented. You have provided only your opinion.
Click to expand...

If I was wrong don't you think one of the gun nuts would have corrected me by now? You are just playing some silly game and you can't even see how ridicules you look trying to argue against reality.

Reality: a semiautomatic weapon can fire 1 round per trigger pull, period. It will then load another round if available. If not it will not. That is all semiautomatic means. Capacity or magazine is irreverent because it has a chamber. If it has just a 5 round magazine or just one round, you will still only get one round per trigger pull.

You can't change reality no matter how hard you want to. Either way you know nothing about weapons at all, and don't own any as far as I can tell. So you probably lied about that as well. Hell i don't think you could handle a Nerf gun, LMAO!
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
If I was wrong don't you think one of the gun nuts would have corrected me by now? You are just playing some silly game and you can't even see how ridicules you look trying to argue against reality.
Click to expand...



Put up, or shot up!
 
Catawba said:
Put up, or shot up!
Click to expand...

I just did. You lose yet again, lol.

Shot up? In the immortal words of Cornholio! Are you threatening me? LMAO!
 
TurtleDude said:
well call up the US attorney and ask her. She is the chief law enforcement officer for the federal government in your judicial district

I know what Mine would say-and yours will say the same thing
Click to expand...

Be my guest. Do it. report back with the evidence that can be verified. And while you are talking to her get a copy of her credentials as a writer of dictionary definitions.
 
lizzie said:
I don't favor more gun control, first because of the 2nd amendment, and its importance, and secondly, because I don't believe it would have any effect on lessening violence in this culture. What we have is a cultural problem, not a gun problem.
Click to expand...

How about all the 2nd Amendment advocates join a well regulated militia which controlled the weaponry?

Have you forgotten well regulated militia?

Why do advocates conclude that gun ownership is an INDIVIDUAL right?

How do they justify that this amendment was written in a completely different time and is likely outdated? Can this be interpreted to mean that the well regulated militia can own tanks, and fighter jets etc?
 
haymarket said:
According to the modern twist supplied by the gun lobby it well may be. According to the working definition employed at the time - it means nothing of the kind.
Click to expand...

Well, I disagree, and I don't think the meaning is impacted by the gun lobby, "the right" or "the left" for that matter. It simply is what it is.
 
mac said:
Other than an "assault" weapons ban?
Click to expand...

where did I advocate that measure?

All I have advocated here is
1- a national discussion about the issue of the Second Amendment
2- building a memorial to the dead innocents
3- putting an armed police person in every school - which was then endorsed days later by Wayne La Pierre of the NRA

Those were my proposals.
 
haymarket said:
And if you and I had wings we would not need cars.

A cop does NOT have the weapons they have because of the Second Amendment. Cops all over the world in all sorts of countries bear weapons in nations where people have no right to keep and bear arms. But they do it for the same reason as American cops do it - because it is part of the equipment needed to do the job.
Click to expand...

There is no difference in the equipment they need to do their jobs and protect themselves then there is in the equipment needed to protect myself and my family. Firearms are not single purpose tools. The same firearm can be used in a number of roles.

For example, I can use a hammer to build a shed or to kill an intruder. See, more than one purpose. A tool is a tool.
 
Building memorials is a waste of time, money, and emotion. National discussion on a
constitutional right? Bunk. Putting armed guards in schools, fine idea. Take funds
from those given to our clapped-out "allies" including Israel,etc.
 
haymarket said:
where did I advocate that measure?

All I have advocated here is
1- a national discussion about the issue of the Second Amendment
Click to expand...

To what end other than to impact it's applicability? I agree that mental health issues should be a bar to firearm possesion, however I worry at the potential abuse of such a measure.

2- building a memorial to the dead innocents
3- putting an armed police person in every school - which was then endorsed days later by Wayne La Pierre of the NRA
Click to expand...

I agree with both of these. In fact, in regards to #2, like you...I brought this up several days before La Pierre did.

Those were my proposals.
Click to expand...

Right, and it's mainly number one that we disagree on.
 
mac said:
There is no difference in the equipment they need to do their jobs and protect themselves then there is in the equipment needed to protect myself and my family. Firearms are not single purpose tools. The same firearm can be used in a number of roles.

For example, I can use a hammer to build a shed or to kill an intruder. See, more than one purpose. A tool is a tool.
Click to expand...

Police officers do not have the equipment they do because of their right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. They have the equipment and arms they do because of the job they do as designed by the peoples government.

To pretend that anyone can then claim that they have a right to the same equipment when they DO NOT do the same job and are NOT employed in that capacity by the peoples government is simply faulty thinking and has nothing at all to do with anyones Constitutional rights. You do not have any right to demand to match people because they have the use of something on their job.
 
Catawba said:
No one is stripping anyone of their rights, if that were the case the USSC would have overturned the 1994 ban.
Click to expand...

Again there was no significant challenge to the ban because there was no significant limitation applied by it. The limit to magazine capacity and to the appearance of a weapon has little, if any impact on it's effectiveness. Further, it limited the sale of certain items it did not bar people from buying available items....so, there really was nothing to challenge.
 
haymarket said:
Police officers do not have the equipment they do because of their right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. They have the equipment and arms they do because of the job they do as designed by the peoples government.

To pretend that anyone can then claim that they have a right to the same equipment when they DO NOT do the same job and are NOT employed in that capacity by the peoples government is simply faulty thinking and has nothing at all to do with anyones Constitutional rights. You do not have any right to demand to match people because they have the use of something on their job.
Click to expand...

The faulty thinking is that a weapon is only suited for one purpose. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom