• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

so tell us Haymarket, at what number of rounds do limits violate the constitution

Especially since NYS police routinely carry 17 round handgun magazines and 30 round rifle magazines

seems to me honest people can debate whether us civilians can own military issued weapons that can be deployed by an individual soldier but are not individually issued such as SAMS or LAWS but its hard to argue that civilian defensive police weapons are outside the scope of the second
 
specklebang said:
Thanks for your answer. Which outcome do you expect, grandfathering or confiscation by illegality?
Click to expand...

it would be tough to justify confiscation

I would hope if that happens it would be the end of the careers of those who enact such a law
 
I still can't comment on this proposal since I have no idea what is meant by the term assault weapon. How can I agree to ban something if I don't know what is going to be banned?
 
Federalist said:
I still can't comment on this proposal since I have no idea what is meant by the term assault weapon. How can I agree to ban something if I don't know what is going to be banned?
Click to expand...

I think hoplophobes want to define any weapon that is not a single shot musket as an assault weapon.
 
specklebang said:
Thanks for your answer. Which outcome do you expect, grandfathering or confiscation by illegality?
Click to expand...

My guess is that they will go with grandfathering but it will be contested and thrown out. It may take a couple of years but it will go away.
 
jamesrage said:
I think hoplophobes want to define any weapon that is not a single shot musket as an assault weapon.
Click to expand...

If that were indeed the case, then the proposed ban would be completely unacceptable to me.

However, I'll wait to hear from a proponent what is meant by assault weapon.
 
TurtleDude said:
so tell us Haymarket, at what number of rounds do limits violate the constitution

Especially since NYS police routinely carry 17 round handgun magazines and 30 round rifle magazines
Click to expand...

are you a NY City police officer? If not, your question is irrelevant.
 
haymarket said:
are you a NY City police officer? If not, your question is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

no, I am an expert on law enforcement rules of engagement, police weapons and tactics and I asked you a question that was based on facts
 
TurtleDude said:
no, I am an expert on law enforcement rules of engagement, police weapons and tactics and I asked you a question that was based on facts
Click to expand...

anybody here can claim to be anything they want to claim to be ...so what? That also is irrelevant.

A police officer has equipment because they are performing a specific job or duty for the peoples government.
 
Dickieboy said:
So the you furnishing a link shouldn't be too difficult...right?
Click to expand...

The obvious sarcasm with truth at its center is flying a mile over your head. :roll: I was paraphrasing the thought that comes out of the mouths of far too many right wing sycophants and toadies of the gun lobby.
 
haymarket said:
anybody here can claim to be anything they want to claim to be ...so what? That also is irrelevant.

A police officer has equipment because they are performing a specific job or duty for the peoples government.
Click to expand...


so at what point does a magazine limit violate the second amendment

and if the second amendment was designed to make sure most citizens had the same weapon as the average infantryman, it seems that common police weapons designed not for war but for civilian law enforcement would also be covered.

since you are on a gun thread are you willing to offer an opinion as to what the second amendment protects and at what point the idiocy of Cuomo 30 rounds then 10 rounds then 7 rounds then 5 rounds then 3 rounds (what the turd bloomberg wants) violates our rights
 
haymarket said:
The obvious sarcasm with truth at its center is flying a mile over your head. :roll: I was paraphrasing the thought that comes out of the mouths of far too many right wing sycophants and toadies of the gun lobby.
Click to expand...

toadies of the gun lobby are those who think honest citizens ought to be able to own the same stuff our tax dollars buys CIVILIANS employed by government agencies
 
CalGun said:
The so called assault weapons have killed fewer people then hammers and clubs.
Click to expand...

I'm tired of this stupid comment. Guns have one purpose and one purpose only. Killing. That's it. Everything else, clubs, hammers, knives, cars, etc, all have other purposes. Those purposes make them valuable and useful. There is no parallel, until guns can provide something besides violence. Stop with this stupidity.

The OP's idea solves exactly zero problems.
 
TurtleDude said:
so at what point does a magazine limit violate the second amendment

and if the second amendment was designed to make sure most citizens had the same weapon as the average infantryman, it seems that common police weapons designed not for war but for civilian law enforcement would also be covered.

since you are on a gun thread are you willing to offer an opinion as to what the second amendment protects and at what point the idiocy of Cuomo 30 rounds then 10 rounds then 7 rounds then 5 rounds then 3 rounds (what the turd bloomberg wants) violates our rights
Click to expand...

No language in the Second Amendment says any of the things in your post.
 
TurtleDude said:
toadies of the gun lobby are those who think honest citizens ought to be able to own the same stuff our tax dollars buys CIVILIANS employed by government agencies
Click to expand...

People can believe anything they want to believe. That is the funny thing about faith. It is all based on you believing something because you want to believe it.

Those beliefs are also irrelevant to what the Second Amendment actually says.
 
Paschendale said:
I'm tired of this stupid comment. Guns have one purpose and one purpose only. Killing. That's it. Everything else, clubs, hammers, knives, cars, etc, all have other purposes. Those purposes make them valuable and useful. There is no parallel, until guns can provide something besides violence. Stop with this stupidity.

The OP's idea solves exactly zero problems.
Click to expand...

every few weeks some anti gun person makes this moronic statement and gets shot down.

some guns are designed for anti personnel uses. some knives are too. I have randall model one knives that are designed for military use including killing. I have several knifes like the Gerber Mark II which only has one really good use-eliminating sentries. I have knives that are used for cutting fishing line, cardboard and steaks.

and I have guns that are purely for target use so your rant is indicative that you are absolutely clueless about the subject matter
 
haymarket said:
No language in the Second Amendment says any of the things in your post.
Click to expand...

that isn't the issue-the second amendment says that our rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed PERIOD

but I was asking you to state YOUR opinion given you are here on a gun thread and the issue involves gun rights and compromises involving rights that should not be compromised
 
haymarket said:
People can believe anything they want to believe. That is the funny thing about faith. It is all based on you believing something because you want to believe it.

Those beliefs are also irrelevant to what the Second Amendment actually says.
Click to expand...

sell maybe you will tell us what you actually believe the second amendment states and at what point it is violated. I believe many other posters have asked the same as well
 
Paschendale said:
I'm tired of this stupid comment. Guns have one purpose and one purpose only. Killing. That's it. Everything else, clubs, hammers, knives, cars, etc, all have other purposes. Those purposes make them valuable and useful. There is no parallel, until guns can provide something besides violence. Stop with this stupidity.

The OP's idea solves exactly zero problems.
Click to expand...

yes they do kill.....animals , those that wish to harm you or your family, and those who would try to enslave you.

animals, criminals, and governments.
 
TurtleDude said:
that isn't the issue-the second amendment says that our rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed PERIOD

but I was asking you to state YOUR opinion given you are here on a gun thread and the issue involves gun rights and compromises involving rights that should not be compromised
Click to expand...

Yea, I'll be holding my breath waiting on that little gem of commitment....
 
ernst barkmann said:
yes they do kill.....animals , those that wish to harm you or your family, and those who would try to enslave you.

animals, criminals, and governments.
Click to expand...

Well done!

/Respect!
 
Paschendale said:
I'm tired of this stupid comment. Guns have one purpose and one purpose only. Killing. That's it. Everything else, clubs, hammers, knives, cars, etc, all have other purposes. Those purposes make them valuable and useful. There is no parallel, until guns can provide something besides violence. Stop with this stupidity.

The OP's idea solves exactly zero problems.
Click to expand...

If it was truly about saving lives then the tool used should be irrelevant.
 
TurtleDude said:
sell maybe you will tell us what you actually believe the second amendment states and at what point it is violated. I believe many other posters have asked the same as well
Click to expand...

Hear that!?..........oh, wait...........nothing..........nevermind!

images.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom