• 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
jimbo said:
Do you understand what you just stated.

(1) You don't think the state should restrict your ability to respond

(2) You proceed to place the first restriction
Click to expand...

Life is not that simplistic.
There is always the intensity of reaction....and the speed of reaction.
When I was younger, I felt that it was OK for the shop owner to use a Ak-47 in defense of his business.
Now, with age comes maturity and respect for others in the line of fire.
IMO, a type of stun gun would suffice.
 
Dammitboy! said:
Funny, that's exactly what the founders meant by the 2nd amendment. Why do you think they were wrong/
Click to expand...
The founders were absolutely correct......FOR THE TIMES.....
We need balance, NOT police without guns, NOT "super armed" crazies, but balance.
 
earthworm said:
I do agree that, in the absence of police, that a man must be able to protect himself, and his family, but, he must also be able to prove that he is mentally competent.....
This we do not have, thoroughly and 100%...
Nor do I want anyone "protecting" me using weapons of mass destruction.
And, by the way, would you be happy in shooting the car thief monly to discover that it was your neighbors teen age son ?
There must be a better way, and guns are NOT it.
A thousand years ago ? YES
A hundred years ago ? Maybe
Today ? no
Tomorrow ?
But, our governments must do things to garner respect and trust.....many have not...
Click to expand...

Again you seem to have your thinking backwards; it is not incumbent on each citizen to "prove" that they are mentally competent or that they obey the law, it is the responsibility of the gov't after placing charges, based on reasonable suspicion, to get a guilty verdict from a judge/jury and only then declare someone a felon or mentally incompetent. We do have that 100%.

Pistols, rifles and shorguns are not WMDs, no matter what MSNBC tells you.

Every criminal is someone's son or daughter.

There is a better way - do not steal or commit violent crime.

Our government will have my respect and trust so long as they obey our Constitution, barring that, they deserve neither.
 
Last edited:
earthworm said:
Life is not that simplistic.
There is always the intensity of reaction....and the speed of reaction.
When I was younger, I felt that it was OK for the shop owner to use a Ak-47 in defense of his business.
Now, with age comes maturity and respect for others in the line of fire.
IMO, a type of stun gun would suffice.
Click to expand...

I was responding to a post which stated that there should be no restrictions, then listed the desired restrictions.

IMO means your opinion, and I agree with your right to use a stun gun, a box of rocks, or just rubbing their head and asking nice to not shoot you. But, I do not perceive these as workable methods for me. That is why we have the right to differing opinions, and protection devices.
 
Dammitboy! said:
That would depend on where you live, where you work, where you shop and what areas you have to travel through each day. In fact, if you are poor, you probably have to deal with the criminal element a lot more than the police do.
Click to expand...


True
There are areas of our nation that are not secured, not safe.
A man in these areas must be able to protect himself, obviously.
Question is....does he need an AK47 for his protection ?
 
earthworm said:
True
There are areas of our nation that are not secured, not safe.
A man in these areas must be able to protect himself, obviously.
Question is....does he need an AK47 for his protection ?
Click to expand...

Is there any area of the country that is safe? Planes have been blown out of the air, and flown into heavily secured buildings. Gated communities are often the target of home invasions, occupied and not. Automobiles are hijacked in all areas, Kennedy was shot on a city street lined with thousands of citizens. The last two mass murders occurred in gun free, supposedly safe areas. Fort Hood was the subject of a mass murder. And, you are right, a man must be able to protect himself.

I live in one of the safest neighborhoods in the Richmond area,. When I was working (I'm retired), I often went to very unsafe areas and entered many vacant houses. Yet the only time I have had a need for my weapon was in my front yard. I carry in both areas.

Your question as to the need for an AK 47 is irrelevant. Aside from the obvious Constitutional issue, the choice of arms is a personal matter. What works for you may or may not work for me.
 
earthworm said:
True
There are areas of our nation that are not secured, not safe.
A man in these areas must be able to protect himself, obviously.
Question is....does he need an AK47 for his protection ?
Click to expand...
Maybe. We have seen where it serves quite well for protection. We have also seen where the handgun and shotgun also serve quite well for protection. But as per the Constitution...that 'assault rifle' isn't for 'personal protection'...it is to preserve freedom, liberty, and the rights of all law abiding citizens GUARANTEED by the Constitution. That assault rifle in the hands of the average everyday US citizen is and was meant to be the last line of defense of Country vs Tyranny.
 
Dammitboy! said:
WRONG. Sawed-off shotguns were restricted because the courts said they could find no Military purpose for them.
Click to expand...

which was because the defendant (Miller) DIED AND there was no evidence placed before the trial court. You see at the first stage the TC threw out the case on second amendment grounds-it went up to the supremes where MILLER HAD NO ATTORNEY and on remand there was no evidence put in the record-SO shotguns were popular in WWI btw. The Supreme COurt's reasoning was specious and based on a desire to keep FDR happy
 
earthworm said:
Life is not that simplistic.
There is always the intensity of reaction....and the speed of reaction.
When I was younger, I felt that it was OK for the shop owner to use a Ak-47 in defense of his business.
Now, with age comes maturity and respect for others in the line of fire.
IMO, a type of stun gun would suffice.
Click to expand...

you constantly demonstrate how little you know about this subject. You have a stun gun and I have a knife and you will die

You have a stun gun, and I a firearm you will die even faster

You have a stun gun and I have a baton, an escrima stick or a sword, you will die almost as fast

a stun gun is worthless against lethal force
 
earthworm said:
True
There are areas of our nation that are not secured, not safe.
A man in these areas must be able to protect himself, obviously.
Question is....does he need an AK47 for his protection ?
Click to expand...

why shouldn't he have one for protection

either the man can be trusted with a firearm-be it a bolt action rifle which trained men can kill at 1000 Meters with, a handgun or an AK 47.or he is not trustworthy

and right now the law bans untrustworthy people from owning any firearms

and if a man can be trusted to own a 12 Bore shotgun, an AK 47 is equally plausible

none is more "deadly" than the other. It all comes down to the scenario
 
ecofarm said:
I, for one, consider myself so.
Click to expand...

Well, Pleazed To Meat You
Hope You Guessed My Name

I'm A Bit Of An Idiot Myself
You Ain't Half Bad For A MOD

**Explecitve, Deleted***
 
Last edited:
Dammitboy! said:
Funny, that's exactly what the founders meant by the 2nd amendment. Why do you think they were wrong/
Click to expand...

cpwill predicts no straightforward answer to this question.
 
Phys251 said:
If we are to renew the "assault weapons" ban, then let's grandfather it in. I.e., if someone legally owns an "assault weapon" before the ban takes effect, then they may keep that gun. Afterward, no such weapon may be legally purchased for civilian use.

Would this be acceptable or not?
Click to expand...

NO !!

Because A .223 Is A .223

The Monte Carlo Stock Is Not A Different Rifle Than A Pistol Grip

Except That The AR Looks SCAREY

The Difference Is Cosmetic
And The AR Is More Accurate
Because The Barrel & Stock Are On The Same Plane

The .223 IS A Legit Hunting Rifle
The Configuration Makes NO Difference At What It Is

I Don't Have $11 Hundred Bucks To Spend On Any Rifle
Or I Would Get The Reminton A-25 Chambered In .308
 
earthworm said:
The founders were absolutely correct......FOR THE TIMES.....
We need balance, NOT police without guns, NOT "super armed" crazies, but balance.
Click to expand...

I Could Buy A Howitzer At Dixie Gun Works
These Are NOT Toys
A Lot Of Dead Blue & Grays Could Attest To That

These Were Modern Arms In Their Times
You Can Buy A Military Jet, If You Want To
Danny Glover Owns A Super Saber

The Framers Of The Constitution Were Drunken Sots
But They Had More Brains Than YOU

And They Meant What They Said In Clear Common Language
That ANY American Can Understand

None Of That 'Didn't Read The Bill'
'Pass It To Know What's In It' Nonsense

But Hey,
that's your party, ain't it ??
 
Dammitboy! said:
So law abiding legal gun owning citizens are "crazies"? Careful, your clear bias is showing.
Click to expand...

Concealed Carry By Law Abideing Citizens Is The Only Proven Way To Reduce Violent Crime In America
In Switzerland, They Brandish Them Openly

I Can't Upload 'Why No One Robs A 7-11 In Israel' Photo
C'mon Guys, Help A Fella Out Here...

We're On The Same Side !!
 
Boo Radley said:
vide nice or not?
Click to expand...

What Is That ??

Latin Or Something ??

More Evidence Of Your Innate Superior Intellect

You Lefty Commie Bastard
Here's Your Sign:
Home » cpusa

Tell Me What You Don't Like About It
The Hammer & Sickle ??

Fancy-Assed Butthole
 
Last edited:
For You
Probably Not

(You've Achieved My 'Favorite Adversary'. But Then, I Just Showed Up)
 
Assault Weapon Watch

Since Sept 13, 2004 these dangerous assault weapons STILL have not injured ANYONE...
 
Viv said:
Allegedly.

What have these dangerous assault weapons been used for since 2004?
Click to expand...
They have been continuously monitored since then. None of them have so much as MOVED. Havent killed ANYONE (and as it turns out, that's also similar to the .223 rifle that Adam Lanzas mother owned).
 
TurtleDude said:
you constantly demonstrate how little you know about this subject. You have a stun gun and I have a knife and you will die

You have a stun gun, and I a firearm you will die even faster

You have a stun gun and I have a baton, an escrima stick or a sword, you will die almost as fast

a stun gun is worthless against lethal force
Click to expand...

In a gun free community, he will stun you.
 
VanceMack said:
They have been continuously monitored since then. None of them have so much as MOVED. Havent killed ANYONE (and as it turns out, that's also similar to the .223 rifle that Adam Lanzas mother owned).
Click to expand...

The .223 rifle Adam Lanza's mother owned, did move.

As could any of the guns you're pointlessly banging on about.

Have you noticed they are guns? Purpose built to kill...or do you think they make coffee?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom