• 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?


  • Total voters
    75

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
59,162
Reaction score
50,785
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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?
 
Nope.


We've compromised too much already.
 
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?

What's an assault weapon?
 
No, they shouldn't keep redefining our amendments towards what they would like to see happen.
 
I think you should have put the parentheses around Compromise too but I have yet to see a list of what these banned weapons would be, so nope.
 
You forgot to list "go pound salt" as a response option.
 
The so called assault weapons have killed fewer people then hammers and clubs. The need to ban them is one of control not safety. Grand fathering in existing rifles is telling future generations you have to pay our debts AND depend only on govt for your security. World history proves that will produce a horrible outcome for 10's and maybe even 100's of millions of people. NEVER.


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?
 
No compromises about anything related to guns.
 
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?

How is that preserving anyone's rights? "You can do it but he can't" is pretty much the opposite of equality.

Would you consider it just fine if there was a law that people who have money now can keep it but everyone else has to suck up a tax hike?
 
I have no idea what to make of this.
24.jpg
01.jpg
02.jpg
03.jpg
 
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?

what exactly are the pro rights people getting? absolutely nothing

I have a great idea-let us have the same individual weapons that are used in any civilian law enforcement agencies and we won't complain if you all say we cannot own RPGs or heavy machine guns/ that after all is at least a somewhat reasonable-perhaps overly restrictive-view of the second amendment

if your proposal is -we let you keep weapons you already have my proposal is we don't use those weapons against those who would break down doors and seize them
 
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?

My responce is, "Go piss up a rope."
 
Hey TD, you're my weapons guy and there are many of you that own guns. I have a question.

My son owns a Glock with a 10 or 12 shot magazine. If they limited magazines to 7 rounds, would that negate the gun or are there smaller magazines that are still physically correct for these guns?

This is pure curiosity and not any kind of input on 2nd amendment rights. Just curious about the physical aspects of a automatic handgun with its default magazine.

Thank you for educating me.
 
Hey TD, you're my weapons guy and there are many of you that own guns. I have a question.

My son owns a Glock with a 10 or 12 shot magazine. If they limited magazines to 7 rounds, would that negate the gun or are there smaller magazines that are still physically correct for these guns?

This is pure curiosity and not any kind of input on 2nd amendment rights. Just curious about the physical aspects of a automatic handgun with its default magazine.

Thank you for educating me.

I'm not TD but what would probably happen is that manufacturers would simply start making and selling the same size magazines but with a physical obstruction to keep them from being loaded with more rounds......which the owners would then quickly disable.
 
Hey TD, you're my weapons guy and there are many of you that own guns. I have a question.

My son owns a Glock with a 10 or 12 shot magazine. If they limited magazines to 7 rounds, would that negate the gun or are there smaller magazines that are still physically correct for these guns?

This is pure curiosity and not any kind of input on 2nd amendment rights. Just curious about the physical aspects of a automatic handgun with its default magazine.

Thank you for educating me.

In 1986 or so the Glock 17 was introduced to the US market. The issued magazine was 17 rounds

when the clinton gun ban was passed by two votes Glock did two things

1) they started making 10 round magazines as did other makes such as beretta (the army issue M9 is normally 15 rounds) etc. the magazines had to be the same length but there were several different ways to limit the magazine capacity to ten and in most cases it was difficult to remove the block

2) glock and other makers scaled down new models designed to hold ten rounds without any extra size. Hence stuff like the ten round Glock 26. Of course the anti gun nut cases whined about these more concealable pistols that were far smaller than stuff designed for 15-17 round magazines

another thing people did was to buy heavier caliber weapons-rather than buy 10 shot 9mms they started buying 10 shot 45 ACP or 40 caliber pistols

btw almost any weapon than can accept a 7 shot magazine can accept a far higher capacity magazine

the turd in NY might ban future sales of any magazine over 7 but he's gonna have a hard time preventing people from getting magazines from other states

you don't need a license or even an ID to buy magazines and while internet sellers probably won't ship 10 or 17 round magazines to NY someone can drive to my state and buy them and unless there is a federal law, Cuomo can piss up a rope. and I don't think he wants to deal with the firestorm that would ensue if he tried to confiscate currently owned magazines
 
Oh, OK, so the magazine would just have filler inside to limit the rounds to 7 but it would still be designed for the original gun. Right?

So, if they pass new laws about this, do you think they are considering making you trade in your magazines (in other words, your original magazine is now illegal) or just won't let the original magazines be produced. I realize you can only guess but I'm curious what you realistically think might happen if the laws are passed.


I'm not TD but what would probably happen is that manufacturers would simply start making and selling the same size magazines but with a physical obstruction to keep them from being loaded with more rounds......which the owners would then quickly disable.
 
Thank you Mr. TD. You've pretty much answered my question.



In 1986 or so the Glock 17 was introduced to the US market. The issued magazine was 17 rounds

when the clinton gun ban was passed by two votes Glock did two things

1) they started making 10 round magazines as did other makes such as beretta (the army issue M9 is normally 15 rounds) etc. the magazines had to be the same length but there were several different ways to limit the magazine capacity to ten and in most cases it was difficult to remove the block

2) glock and other makers scaled down new models designed to hold ten rounds without any extra size. Hence stuff like the ten round Glock 26. Of course the anti gun nut cases whined about these more concealable pistols that were far smaller than stuff designed for 15-17 round magazines

another thing people did was to buy heavier caliber weapons-rather than buy 10 shot 9mms they started buying 10 shot 45 ACP or 40 caliber pistols

btw almost any weapon than can accept a 7 shot magazine can accept a far higher capacity magazine

the turd in NY might ban future sales of any magazine over 7 but he's gonna have a hard time preventing people from getting magazines from other states

you don't need a license or even an ID to buy magazines and while internet sellers probably won't ship 10 or 17 round magazines to NY someone can drive to my state and buy them and unless there is a federal law, Cuomo can piss up a rope. and I don't think he wants to deal with the firestorm that would ensue if he tried to confiscate currently owned magazines
 
Oh, OK, so the magazine would just have filler inside to limit the rounds to 7 but it would still be designed for the original gun. Right?

Yes, typically they stamp an 'indent' in the sides of the magazine that prevents the follower from extending deeper to allow more cartridges. This doesn't change the original magazine dimensions in any way.

So, if they pass new laws about this, do you think they are considering making you trade in your magazines (in other words, your original magazine is now illegal) or just won't let the original magazines be produced. I realize you can only guess but I'm curious what you realistically think might happen if the laws are passed.

If trade in were free some law abiding citizens might participate. I expect the older ones to be grandfathered in. Those manufactured going forward will be 'new law' compliant.
 
Oh, OK, so the magazine would just have filler inside to limit the rounds to 7 but it would still be designed for the original gun. Right?

So, if they pass new laws about this, do you think they are considering making you trade in your magazines (in other words, your original magazine is now illegal) or just won't let the original magazines be produced. I realize you can only guess but I'm curious what you realistically think might happen if the laws are passed.
I would hope if they tried to arrest people for owning stuff that was once legal people would fight back both in the ballot box or with more extreme measures

cuomo is an asshole and he should not be able to avail himself of protection by those using weapons of higher capacity than those he lets "the peasants" own
 
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?

A compromise implies that both sides give up something in order to get something in return,usually something of equal value to what they gave up.If the 2nd amendment crowd gives up their right to purchase one of these so called assault weapons them they are not getting anything in return and the anti-2nd amendment side is not giving up anything at all.
 
Yes, typically they stamp an 'indent' in the sides of the magazine that prevents the follower from extending deeper to allow more cartridges. This doesn't change the original magazine dimensions in any way.



If trade in were free some law abiding citizens might participate. I expect the older ones to be grandfathered in. Those manufactured going forward will be 'new law' compliant.

and unless a federal law requires dates stamped on new magazines, who is to say when that owner of a Glock 17 in Rochester obtained those 17 round magazines he has now given if he comes to Ohio I can legally sell him one or 10 of the 100 or so I own
 
Oh, OK, so the magazine would just have filler inside to limit the rounds to 7 but it would still be designed for the original gun. Right?

So, if they pass new laws about this, do you think they are considering making you trade in your magazines (in other words, your original magazine is now illegal) or just won't let the original magazines be produced. I realize you can only guess but I'm curious what you realistically think might happen if the laws are passed.

That's a good question and the answer will make a really, really big difference in how the legislation is dealt with. My guess is that if they go ahead with such a law they will either grandfather old style magazines (which will make them a whole lot more expensive) or, possibly, assess a serious penalty for anyone caught with one after a turn in period.
 
Of course it is not acceptable. After all, the Second Amendment very clearly says

It is the undeniable right of every American nut job to have any freakin' firearm of any power made possible by technology for their use as long as they can get their hands on it and the peoples government and common sense be damned.

Its right there in the right wing Constitution.
 
Thanks for your answer. Which outcome do you expect, grandfathering or confiscation by illegality?


That's a good question and the answer will make a really, really big difference in how the legislation is dealt with. My guess is that if they go ahead with such a law they will either grandfather old style magazines (which will make them a whole lot more expensive) or, possibly, assess a serious penalty for anyone caught with one after a turn in period.
 
Of course it is not acceptable. After all, the Second Amendment very clearly says

It is the undeniable right of every American nut job to have any freakin' firearm of any power made possible by technology for their use as long as they can get their hands on it and the peoples government and common sense be damned.

Its right there in the right wing Constitution.


Link please....
 
Back
Top Bottom