• 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!

A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

Would this compromise be acceptable?

  • Yes. This isn’t perfect, but no compromise is.

    Votes: 11 14.7%

  • No. I don’t mind some compromise, but this still takes away too much.

    Votes: 10 13.3%

  • No. We should never compromise our gun rights.

    Votes: 49 65.3%

  • No. This still gives too many gun ownership privileges.

    Votes: 3 4.0%

  • I can hit a target 400 yards away with my eyes closed.

    Votes: 2 2.7%
  • Total voters
    75
haymarket said:
You have asked this several times this evening and I gave you a clear answer each and every time. My mind does not change with the repositioning of the hour hand on the clock.

If the government adopted policies which denied citizens the right to keep and bear arms, then the Second Amendment would have been INFRINGED.
Click to expand...

Uh that is not an answer. I asked you if you believe at what number is there an infringement.
 
TurtleDude said:
incrementalists never admit that a next step is coming. to do so would destroy their arguments.

do you recall what Cuomo said when people claimed that a ten round limit was a stepping stone to more limits?
Click to expand...

Which hardly justifies usage of the Slippery Slope fallacy and refusal to engage in actually debating the issue at hand. It merely is convenient and imaginative justification for intellectual dishonesty as a debate tactic.

It appears that what is at the core of NRA supporters fear is indeed a type of extreme fear that has crossed over into dangerous paranoia fueled by extremist right wing politics brought on through a self imposed belief system completely detached from the reality of the America that we live in. As such, one can only hope to discuss this issue with the majority of Americans in the middle and pay no attention to the five million NRA sycophants who do not live in the same America that the rest of us do.
 
TurtleDude said:
Uh that is not an answer. I asked you if you believe at what number is there an infringement.
Click to expand...

Sorry - I thought you were keeping up with previous positions that were indeed clearly stated. For your benefit, here is what I stated just a bit ago on that very inquiry: I stated earlier this evening that there is no magic number and I believe the Court does not have one either. To pretend that there needs to be at this point is ludicrous and serves no rational purpose other than an attempt to bog down debate in an argument over a silly number. Thus, no reason for us or you to worry about that at this time since this issue is far from being decided with specific details.
 
haymarket said:
Which hardly justifies usage of the Slippery Slope fallacy and refusal to engage in actually debating the issue at hand. It merely is convenient and imaginative justification for intellectual dishonesty as a debate tactic.

It appears that what is at the core of NRA supporters fear is indeed a type of extreme fear that has crossed over into dangerous paranoia fueled by extremist right wing politics brought on through a self imposed belief system completely detached from the reality of the America that we live in. As such, one can only hope to discuss this issue with the majority of Americans in the middle and pay no attention to the five million NRA sycophants who do not live in the same America that the rest of us do.
Click to expand...

1) the leader of the modern gun hate movement-Nelson "pete" shields clearly set forth that handguns had to be banned incrementally. Given every ban has been achieved incrementally in this country as well as some others (like England and Australia) your attempts to support the creeping crud of confiscation by pretending a 10 round ban was not going to result in a 7 round ban etc is not really valid

2) you see people like Cuomo and his equally dishonest father-supported the ten round limit and claimed that it was not a stepping stone to a 7 round etc limit. and remember-its not like a ten round magazine was the problem that caused Cuomo to engage in such pandering. It was a CONVICTED MURDERER who should have been in prison who plotted the murder of firefighters with a stolen weapon using a 30 round magazine that spurred this idiocy

being against infringements on the second amendment that are based on pandering, emotion and a desire to punish the NRA for supporting Cuomo and Obama's opponents is hardly right wing extremism

and why cannot you tell us if there is any limit on magazine capacity that you would find to be a violation
 
TurtleDude said:
1) the leader of the modern gun hate movement-Nelson "pete" shields clearly set forth that handguns had to be banned incrementally.
Click to expand...

Sorry - never heard of him.

I did look him up and found out that he has been worm food for nearly twenty years now. As such, he is hardly the modern leader of anything today.
 
Ikari said:
It is most certainly possible to do without a weapon. It is in fact preferable to do without a weapon. Intelligent and informed voting and participation in the Republic can allow us to keep the Republic free without resorting to violence. But nothing is infinite, all that lives must die, and all government will trend towards tyranny. If we are lax, we lose it, if we lose it we are left with little choice.
Click to expand...

That trend, today, will not be deterred the the same way it was in the 17-1800's. My point is that the idea that at any point you could combat this trend by citizens stock piling weapons is just not realistic. The vigilance we need is intellectual, participatory, and cooperative. What's wrong today is not government intrusion, but lack of reasoned discourse, the ability to listen, consider, and even compose for the greater good.
 
haymarket said:
Sorry - never heard of him.

I did look him up and found out that he has been worm food for nearly twenty years now. As such, he is hardly the modern leader of anything today.
Click to expand...

He was the guy that Put what is now the Brady Bunch on the map. and Josh Sugarmann of the VPC got fired by the Brady bunch for admitting the goal was a complete gun ban

I guess you wouldn't consider Dr King the leader of the modern civil rights movement
 
TurtleDude said:
He was the guy that Put what is now the Brady Bunch on the map. and Josh Sugarmann of the VPC got fired by the Brady bunch for admitting the goal was a complete gun ban

I guess you wouldn't consider Dr King the leader of the modern civil rights movement
Click to expand...

Can I admit that your real agenda is to muddy the waters by pretending one person's comment settles the issue.
 
Boo Radley said:
Can I admit that your real agenda is to muddy the waters by pretending one person's comment settles the issue.
Click to expand...

my real agenda is to make sure that I and every other honest american of legal age can own easily the same weapons that our tax dollars equip CIVILIAN law enforcement officers with

I am a professional when it comes to dealing with the gun controllers. I have debated Shields, Brady, Metzenbaum among others. And I know that they constantly deny the incremental approach. Sarah Brady told me and all of Cincinnati City council that when she got her waiting period and background check passed she would not seek additional gun control laws

a lie

Schumer said on the floor of congress that the ten round limit was not the stepping stone for other restrictions

the minute it passed a reporter noted that the NRA said the AWB in 1994 was "the nose of the camel" under the tent and schumer sneered and said soon he'd show them the "Rest of the camel" including a 6 round limit

the 1994 elections sort of but a bitch slap on that scheme-at least at that time

sorry boo,, I have dealt with the anti gun scumbags too long to listen to people like you claiming that gun bans are not the real agenda.
 
TurtleDude said:
my real agenda is to make sure that I and every other honest american of legal age can own easily the same weapons that our tax dollars equip CIVILIAN law enforcement officers with

I am a professional when it comes to dealing with the gun controllers. I have debated Shields, Brady, Metzenbaum among others. And I know that they constantly deny the incremental approach. Sarah Brady told me and all of Cincinnati City council that when she got her waiting period and background check passed she would not seek additional gun control laws

a lie

Schumer said on the floor of congress that the ten round limit was not the stepping stone for other restrictions

the minute it passed a reporter noted that the NRA said the AWB in 1994 was "the nose of the camel" under the tent and schumer sneered and said soon he'd show them the "Rest of the camel" including a 6 round limit

the 1994 elections sort of but a bitch slap on that scheme-at least at that time

sorry boo,, I have dealt with the anti gun scumbags too long to listen to people like you claiming that gun bans are not the real agenda.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you will miss this, but I've already admitted your real agenda. Using your logic, it's settled now. We all know what you really want.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm sure you will miss this, but I've already admitted your real agenda. Using your logic, it's settled now. We all know what you really want.
Click to expand...

Yes what I want is honest and open. a major difference between you and some like you who pretend "you don't really care about" this issue and pretend you are not anti gun yet when all your posts are taken as a whole, you are a major league basher of gun owners and gun rights
 
TurtleDude said:
Yes what I want is honest and open. a major difference between you and some like you who pretend "you don't really care about" this issue and pretend you are not anti gun yet when all your posts are taken as a whole, you are a major league basher of gun owners and gun rights
Click to expand...

No, I've already admitted to your deception. By your logic, that's all it takes.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I've already admitted to your deception. By your logic, that's all it takes.
Click to expand...

your posts have morphed from being dishonest and evasive to plain idiotic
 
Boo Radley said:
I said you wouldn't get it. But I merely used your logic.
Click to expand...

Your posting history on guns leads me and others to question if you can actually apply logic in your posts on this subject.
 
TurtleDude said:
your silly games are transparent. just as your earlier claims you are not anti gun
Click to expand...

I'm messing with you because your logic is once again flawed. I tried giving you an example. Swwwooooosh!
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm messing with you because your logic is once again flawed. I tried giving you an example. Swwwooooosh!
Click to expand...

To do that you would have to be better educated on this subject and more intelligent. I think an honest evaluation of your posts clearly prove that you fail on the former and I will leave the latter to others to decide
 
TurtleDude said:
To do that you would have to be better educated on this subject and more intelligent. I think an honest evaluation of your posts clearly prove that you fail on the former and I will leave the latter to others to decide
Click to expand...

Goodnight TD. Sleep well. I know I will.
 
Boo Radley said:
Goodnight TD. Sleep well. I know I will.
Click to expand...

people like you sleep peacefully at night because rough men (with guns) stand ready to do violence in your stead

thanks
 
TurtleDude said:
people like you sleep peacefully at night because rough men (with guns) stand ready to do violence in your stead

thanks
Click to expand...

You're welcome, as I was one of those.
 
TurtleDude said:
people like you sleep peacefully at night because rough men (with guns) stand ready to do violence in your stead

thanks
Click to expand...

Nobody's saying we should disarm the military. :lamo
 
waas said:
Nobody's saying we should disarm the military. :lamo
Click to expand...

the NY law limited cops to 7 rounds too

and my wife and son sleep peacefully because I stand ready to kill on their behalf if I have to

and yes, if required I can be quite rough as two criminals can testify to
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom