• 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
TurtleDude said:
the average NRA member is both better educated and more affluent than the average voter. while it might comfort the timid gun haters to call NRA members "rednecks" its rather stupid because the odds are an NRA member makes more than the gun hater does and is better educated
Click to expand...

That doesn't make her wrong.
 
Boo Radley said:
Haven't read enough to know. Just pointed out what you responded too.
Click to expand...

she was whining about rednecks-a stupid stereotype about the NRA
 
TurtleDude said:
she was whining about rednecks-a stupid stereotype about the NRA
Click to expand...

It's funny the parts we focus on.

He is linking to inaccurate statistics. It matters that right wing rednecks and NRA may use inaccurate stats as propaganda to negatively influence popular opinion.

I highlighted what seemed more important to me.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's funny the parts we focus on.

He is linking to inaccurate statistics. It matters that right wing rednecks and NRA may use inaccurate stats as propaganda to negatively influence popular opinion.

I highlighted what seemed more important to me.
Click to expand...

when it comes to inaccuracy, your side of the gun debate is far far ahead.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't see that. I've used only accurate and objective stats. You haven't.
Click to expand...

reread my comments

and what inaccuracy have I used that comes close to claiming that the only purpose of an AR-15 is to kill people or that 30 round magazines are "high capacity" or that semi autos are WMDs and some of the other crap we see on this board

and when a politician says "these weapons of war have no place on our streets" while his guards have them that is several lies
 
TurtleDude said:
reread my comments

and what inaccuracy have I used that comes close to claiming that the only purpose of an AR-15 is to kill people or that 30 round magazines are "high capacity" or that semi autos are WMDs and some of the other crap we see on this board

and when a politician says "these weapons of war have no place on our streets" while his guards have them that is several lies
Click to expand...

I see crap from all sides. But I try to debate the person in front if me. I wish more did that. And that final comparison you se is just another stupid false comparison. Too many can't seem to see differences.
 
Boo Radley said:
I see crap from all sides. But I try to debate the person in front if me. I wish more did that. And that final comparison you se is just another stupid false comparison. Too many can't seem to see differences.
Click to expand...

uh what have I been dishonest about
 
TurtleDude said:
uh what have I been dishonest about
Click to expand...

.????

I didn't call you dishonest. I said two things:

1. Both sides (overall no one named) present crap (nothing about honesty).

2. Your comparison was false and stupid, ignoring real and significant differences.
 
Boo Radley said:
.????

I didn't call you dishonest. I said two things:

1. Both sides (overall no one named) present crap (nothing about honesty).

2. Your comparison was false and stupid, ignoring real and significant differences.
Click to expand...

what comparison was false and stupid?
 
TurtleDude said:
I am not seeing what you are talking about-perhaps quote the post
Click to expand...

Politicians are not the streets. If you're not making a comparison to people who are not politicians, the only left is that you're saying guns only have a place for politicians. But any clarification you can give might be helpful.
 
Boo Radley said:
Politicians are not the streets. If you're not making a comparison to people who are not politicians, the only left is that you're saying guns only have a place for politicians. But any clarification you can give might be helpful.
Click to expand...

Uh I really have no clue what you are getting at here
 
Federalist said:
What's an assault weapon?
Click to expand...

That's the million dollar question nobody seems able to answer? They intentionally made that requirement vague, as it could encompass whatever they see fit to throw under the name of "assault". According to some, the hunting rifle I own would be considered an "assault" rifle.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
That's the million dollar question nobody seems able to answer? They intentionally made that requirement vague, as it could encompass whatever they see fit to throw under the name of "assault". According to some, the hunting rifle I own would be considered an "assault" rifle.
Click to expand...

the main purpose was to use movie violence featuring real assault rifles to spur a desire for gun bans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom