• 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!

[W:606]Do you support Rep. Eric Salwell's gun control idea?

Do you support this gun control idea?

  • Total voters
    94
Mach said:
Looks like you missed the point. I'll spell it out this time.

Why did they choose it:
Civilian's chose it because it's ubiquitous as a result of its relationship to the military.
Which just moves the question to: OK, and why did the military choose it?

Would you look at that, the military chose it NOT because it was wildly popular with the military.
It's the civilian version of a weapon adopted by and in part designed by, the U.S. military for use as a standard issue infantry rifle.

Odd. So it was originally conceived of as civilian personal defense weapon, nor was it designed as a hunting weapon. It was designed to be a military rifle.

Glad that's settled!

If these guys used typical 9mm handgun, for example, we'd have fewer deaths. Instead they are using the equivalent of a military designed rifle on civilians. But that's a different discussion.
Click to expand...

Carlos Hathcock killed scores of Vietnamese soldiers with a Winchester 70 in 30-06. That also was-at the time, the rifle most popular with civilian big game hunters. It also was the rifle Hathcock won the national target championship with. Why did he choose this rifle to win target matches and whack Communist soldiers?

you understand that you aren't making a point that has any relevance.
 
TurtleDude said:
Carlos Hathcock killed scores of Vietnamese soldiers with a Winchester 70 in 30-06. That also was-at the time, the rifle most popular with civilian big game hunters. It also was the rifle Hathcock won the national target championship with. Why did he choose this rifle to win target matches and whack Communist soldiers?

you understand that you aren't making a point that has any relevance.
Click to expand...

Because something like a bolt action could never be as dangerous as one of those scary "assault weapons".....;)





 
gun banners usually arrive at their positions based on the politics of gun control-not because they understand how firearms work
 
Josie said:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...qeH_m_noBne0VujYf-5YvpvT-NvFQyp3plczT3GNUFfUk

WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.
In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”




Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”
Click to expand...

It's no worse than the $12 billion trump paid farmers to supplement the damage he did with his tariffs. The difference is: the rep's ideas are for public safety which I support.
 
Xelor said:
Would you please now answer the question I actually asked: "What non-rarefied "real world situations" expressly and universally necessitate (give functional merit to) non-LEO civilians ("regular folks" going about their daily lives) having semi-automatic firing capability?"
Click to expand...

you do know that civilians have had semi auto firearms before the military and civilian police did? You do know that 90% of the handguns sold over the last 25 years are semi auto as are most of the 22 rifles and at least half the shotguns. For sports like sporting clays and skeet, Semi autos are one of the two competitive designs-the other being the far more expensive over and under shotgun. Need is not relevant to constitutional rights and if our civilian police have them, then so should other citizens.

when someone suggests honest Americans be denied the same defensive weapons as Civilian police it means to me these gun restrictionists either distrust honest Americans while having almost unlimited faith in government (ie a classic leftwing perspective) or they want violent criminals to have an advantage over honest citizens (also a leftwing perspective but far more isolated)
 
lurchadams said:
It's no worse than the $12 billion trump paid farmers to supplement the damage he did with his tariffs. The difference is: the rep's ideas are for public safety which I support.
Click to expand...

so you want to have the government kill people who refuse to turn in their weapons and you think that advances public safety? very interesting
 
haymarket said:
The language of the First Amendment only applies to the First Amendment and no other. Anything else is fraud.
Click to expand...

Dead wrong. SCOTUS compares amendment restrictions when weighing whether one is too burdensome or not. It is not fraud, it is intended.

The fraud is you trying to lock off the comparison when that is one of the primary deciding factors in cases involving restrictions on rights.
 
haymarket said:
The logic is sound. Your invocation of a different amendment is intellectually dishonest. Stick to the Second.
Click to expand...

Salwell's bill would be destroyed by the 4th Amendment.
 
it is interesting how this poll is going. every one of the affirmative votes are hard core gun (Owner) haters: the only one who doesn't self-identify as far left is a European "libertarian" who hates gun ownership. The negative votes includes posters of several varied perspectives and leans including some hard core Trump bashers. That is telling.
 
Mach said:
Who claimed the NRA didn't acknowledge the fact that the AR's ubiquity made it the most popular rifle in America?
No one.

Leave it to people who post better, even in gun threads you apparently aren't getting anything correct.
Click to expand...
You really don't have much room to criticize me when you don't know the difference between the NRA acknowledging that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America (which I said) and the NRA PROMOTING it.(which you said.)
 
Last edited:
Bullseye said:
You really don't have much room to criticize me when you don't know the difference between the NRA acknowledging that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America (which I said) and the NRA PROMOTING it.
Click to expand...

His views about military use demonstrates a rather dishonest and confused understanding about civilian weapons use in the USA. Prior to WWI, the lever action rifle (the famous Winchester 1873 and 1894 models especially) was king in civilian hunting circles. Then thousands of men were conscripted to fight WWI and were trained on bolt action Springfield A3-03s and P17 rifles. They also became familiar with the superb German Mauser K98 action. After the war, the bolt action rifle became the most popular hunting rifle in the USA. Many were military surplus rifles that gunsmiths mounted scopes upon and turned the bolt down (to clear the scope). In WWII, most of our troops ended up being issued semi automatic MI Garand battle rifles and MI carbines. The popularity of semi auto rifles increased rapidly after WWII as a result.
 
Xelor said:
Would you please now answer the question I actually asked: "What non-rarefied "real world situations" expressly and universally necessitate (give functional merit to) non-LEO civilians ("regular folks" going about their daily lives) having semi-automatic firing capability?"
TurtleDude said:
you do know that civilians have had semi auto firearms before the military and civilian police did? You do know that 90% of the handguns sold over the last 25 years are semi auto as are most of the 22 rifles and at least half the shotguns. For sports like sporting clays and skeet, Semi autos are one of the two competitive designs-the other being the far more expensive over and under shotgun. Need is not relevant to constitutional rights and if our civilian police have them, then so should other citizens.

when someone suggests honest Americans be denied the same defensive weapons as Civilian police it means to me these gun restrictionists either distrust honest Americans while having almost unlimited faith in government (ie a classic leftwing perspective) or they want violent criminals to have an advantage over honest citizens (also a leftwing perspective but far more isolated)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Your remarks above do not answer the question asked.

Red:
  • Whether one knows that or doesn't is ingermane to whether be a currently extant necessity for their having semi-automatic firearms.
  • Who were the earliest adopters is ingermane to whether be a currently extant necessity for their having semi-automatic firearms.

Blue:

Pink:
My remarks specifically referred to people other than "civilian police."


Tan:
What is the ratio or quantity of involuntary gun deaths/injuries whereby an ostensibly "honest"/law abiding gun owner failed to adequately and lawfully maintain or use their firearm?

I don't know a specific quantity or rate, but I know it's got to be a lot because there is no sequence of events resulting in an involuntary gun death/injury whereby a, as you put it, "honest" gun owner didn't "drop the ball," thereby making possible the death/injury. So, by my reckoning, there's due cause for distrusting so-called honest gun owners.


Teal:
Who specifically has articulated that desire?
 
ObamacareFail said:
Perhaps the following will help:

What is and is NOT an Assault Rifle

That article goes by the Army definition. Referring to Assault style weapons as Assault weapons was a fully politically invented description. The anti-gun left knowing that fully automatic weapons were already banned, had to come up with something that made them sound like military weapons so they declared all weapons made with the cosmetic appearance of an assault weapon as Assault Weapons. They assumed that if they repeated that lie long enough, most would take it as fact. As for the M-16, that three round burst is still automatic fire. It's just limited to 3 round bursts. The AR 15 does not have that option. That would make the weapon illegal for private ownership.
Click to expand...
You are still writing “assault weapon” to refer to select fire military weapons instead of “assault rifle/b]”
The article you link to says exactly what I said but you’re still mixing up the terms.

And yes, under the law, 3 round burst is automatic fire, but having fired both the A1 and A2, there’s a real difference.
 
Xelor said:
Your remarks above do not answer the question asked.

Red:
  • Whether one knows that or doesn't is ingermane to whether be a currently extant necessity for their having semi-automatic firearms.
  • Who were the earliest adopters is ingermane to whether be a currently extant necessity for their having semi-automatic firearms.

Blue:

Pink:
My remarks specifically referred to people other than "civilian police."


Tan:
What is the ratio or quantity of involuntary gun deaths/injuries whereby an ostensibly "honest"/law abiding gun owner failed to adequately and lawfully maintain or use their firearm?

I don't know a specific quantity or rate, but I know it's got to be a lot because there is no sequence of events resulting in an involuntary gun death/injury whereby a, as you put it, "honest" gun owner didn't "drop the ball," thereby making possible the death/injury. So, by my reckoning, there's due cause for distrusting so-called honest gun owners.


Teal:
Who specifically has articulated that desire?
Click to expand...

I honestly don't have the desire nor time to try to decipher your color coded argument. the fact is this

1) the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and only in the last 80 years did the federal government try to interfere with that-and that interference was contrary to the words and intent of the Constitution

2) equitable concepts of estoppel work against any governmental entity that supplies its civilian employees with defensive firearms and then tries to claim those very same type of firearms have no valid purpose in the hands of other civilians
 
TurtleDude said:
I honestly don't have the desire nor time to try to decipher your color coded argument. ...
Click to expand...

Red:
That's fine, and TY for informing me that you don't comprehend, and don't care to, my prior remarks. That's enough information for me to know I have no need to read whatever, in response to my post, you wrote after having written the "red" statement above. There's no point to my reading remarks you've written about something you have stated you don't understand.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
That's fine, and TY for informing me that you don't comprehend, and don't care to, my prior remarks. That's enough information for me to know I have no need to read whatever, in response to my post, you wrote after having written the "red" statement above.
Click to expand...

there are far simpler ways of getting your point across than all the extra verbiage

need has no relevance to the exercise of constitutional rights or whether the federal government has the proper power to interfere with the actions of private citizens.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Dead wrong. SCOTUS compares amendment restrictions when weighing whether one is too burdensome or not. It is not fraud, it is intended.

The fraud is you trying to lock off the comparison when that is one of the primary deciding factors in cases involving restrictions on rights.
Click to expand...

The language of each Amendment is different. If they wanted it all to be the same they simply would have used boilerplate and covered them all protecting each the same way.

But they did NOT do that. Each amendment has its own rights .... its own protections.... its own language. The language of one does not apply to another.

They are all individual and distinct and separate from the others.
 
haymarket said:
The language of each Amendment is different. If they wanted it all to be the same they simply would have used boilerplate and covered them all protecting each the same way.

But they did NOT do that. Each amendment has its own rights .... its own protections.... its own language. The language of one does not apply to another.

They are all individual and distinct and separate from the others.
Click to expand...

Lord knows that's the truth. One need only peruse the notes of the debates of the first and second Continental Congresses.
 
apdst said:
Gun confiscatio will require searches with no probable cause.
Click to expand...

that's why the bannerrhoid politicians want registration first. If you have registered a gun that later is declared contraband, the BPs will claim that alone is probably cause for the cops to break down your doors to seize the now illegal property.
 
apdst said:
Gun confiscatio will require searches with no probable cause.
Click to expand...

Probable cause will be had when it is determined that ownership violates the law. That is probable cause for a search.

But then you already know that because it has been explained in a previous post when the same objection was raised.
 
haymarket said:
Probable cause will be had when it is determined that ownership violates the law. That is probable cause for a search.

But then you already know that because it has been explained in a previous post when the same objection was raised.
Click to expand...

How will they know who owns what?
 
Xelor said:
Would you please now answer the question I actually asked: "What non-rarefied "real world situations" expressly and universally necessitate (give functional merit to) non-LEO civilians ("regular folks" going about their daily lives) having semi-automatic firing capability?"
Click to expand...

Your question comes from the starting point of no firearms and asks for justification of why particular ones should be allowed. That’s backwards.

The starting point should be all firearms, and justify why some should be banned or restricted.

That s weapon is used by the military or law enforcement does not mean, by itself, that the weapon is too dangerous for civilians or even more dangerous than what civilians would have.
 
apdst said:
How will they know who owns what?
Click to expand...

That could be approached from different routes. There could a period of time where they make it mandatory for owners to pay a tax on the weapons and that would give them a record. They could make it compulsory to register the weapons. They could subpoena sales records.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom