• 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!

Current Attempts to destroy Gun rights in Congress

If you had an AK-47 (legal that is), why would you want to walk around with it scaring people ?

I wouldn't walk around with it scaring people, that would be a bad idea.

Which is all the more reason people should be allowed to own handguns. Handguns are much easier to conceal, so you can walk around with them concealed and not scare people.
 
Spam.

you know you made the comparison rich

No I don't because I didn't and if you claim to "know it, that post it or stop your lies.


He escaped the police and was the rat king of those clowns

He was a victim - he lost throughout the movie

Crime was not shown to pay.


It was an origin story (so he can hardly die can he), if you think he was somehow a "winner" in that movie, you were watching a different movie or have some serious interpretation skills.
 
I wouldn't walk around with it scaring people, that would be a bad idea.

Yet there are tons of videos with people walking round with guns strapped to them, trying to make a 2nd amendment point

In January over 20,000 mostly armed men descended on Richmond, Va scary people


Which is all the more reason people should be allowed to own handguns. Handguns are much easier to conceal, so you can walk around with them concealed and not scare people.


And so can criminal and people about to be mass shooters.
 
All the sponsors currently are Democrats. The chance of this getting passed is almost zero, but it shows what many Democrats want to impose on this Country

Text - H.R.5717 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

the biggest joke is listing hundreds of firearms-many of which are obsolete and no longer relevant as NOT banned.

I agree the handgun list is ridiculous, but what's the other problems with this?

Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Provide adequate and sustained funding for local violence intervention programs.
Require background checks for all gun sales, including at gun shows and online.
Enable federal public health agencies to conduct research into gun violence.
Strengthen laws to disarm all domestic abuser Enact extreme risk protection order laws to provide a tool to help individuals in crisis.
 
Yet there are tons of videos with people walking round with guns strapped to them, trying to make a 2nd amendment point

In January over 20,000 mostly armed men descended on Richmond, Va scary people
Maybe if I was part of a group doing a 2nd Amendment rally I might carry a long gun openly, if there were other people in the group doing that, but Im not going to go around with a long gun as I go about my day to day business, that's what handguns are for.

And so can criminal and people about to be mass shooters.
And criminals, including mass shooters, will always have handguns, although the vast majority of the time the primary weapons of mass shooters are long guns.
 
I agree the handgun list is ridiculous, but what's the other problems with this?

Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Provide adequate and sustained funding for local violence intervention programs.
Require background checks for all gun sales, including at gun shows and online.
Enable federal public health agencies to conduct research into gun violence.
Strengthen laws to disarm all domestic abuser Enact extreme risk protection order laws to provide a tool to help individuals in crisis.

what is an assault weapon and what is a high capacity magazine and why would anyone who actually supports the second amendment want such bans given that less than 2% of murders are facilitated by such weapons?
 
I seriously doubt H.R. 5717 will even make it to the Senate let alone the White House.
 
40,000 (approx) firearms related deaths a year (yes, I know a lot of those are suicides)
70,000+ firearms related injuries per year




So do I
But if you are indeed a lawyer, you'll know only humans are innocent until proven guilty, an inanimate object (like a gun) is guilty until proven innocent.

This is from Global 1 News Network:

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.
So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers!

So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ……………. Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It’s pretty simple:

Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.”

It’s not the lack of laws, it’s lack of Morality.
 
Maybe if I was part of a group doing a 2nd Amendment rally I might carry a long gun openly...

And openly scare people

Ask yourself why open carry isn't allowed at any of Trump's rallies if they're safe and peaceful


...if there were other people in the group doing that, but Im not going to go around with a long gun as I go about my day to day business, that's what handguns are for.

AP_991306203216-1920x1000-c-top.webp


Armed Civilians Have Been Guarding Military Recruiters




YouTube




...the vast majority of the time the primary weapons of mass shooters are long guns.


Where's your evidence of that ?


The vast majority of mass shooters use hand guns.
 
This is from Global 1 News Network:

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed....

Actually it's almost 40,000


"In 2017, gun deaths reached their highest level since 1968 with 39,773 deaths by firearm, of which 23,854 were by suicide and 14,542 were homicides. The rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 people rose from 10.3 per 100,000 in 1999 to 12 per 100,000 in 2017, with 109 people dying per day...."



Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia
 
what is an assault weapon and what is a high capacity magazine and why would anyone who actually supports the second amendment want such bans given that less than 2% of murders are facilitated by such weapons?

Because some people believe any ban is a good ban. I've heard them say things to the effect, "It's a good first step."

But of course, pointing out that some desire and hope for a slippery slope, is employing an invalid slippery slope fallacy. :roll:
 
Ask yourself why open carry isn't allowed at any of Trump's rallies if they're safe and peaceful
Because you can't have guns in places where the President makes public appearances, unless you're part of the President's security detail.

Where's your evidence of that ?

The vast majority of mass shooters use hand guns.
If we're talking about mass shooters in general you might be right, that most of the time they use handguns, but the vast majority of such shootings are gang related shootings, i.e. criminals shooting other criminals. What Im talking about are high profile mass shootings where many innocent people are killed, in those cases most always the primary weapon of the mass shooters are long guns.
 
Actually it's almost 40,000


"In 2017, gun deaths reached their highest level since 1968 with 39,773 deaths by firearm, of which 23,854 were by suicide and 14,542 were homicides. The rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 people rose from 10.3 per 100,000 in 1999 to 12 per 100,000 in 2017, with 109 people dying per day...."



Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia
And most of the gun deaths in the USA are suicides, your own sources say so.
 
Because you can't have guns in places where the President makes public appearances...

Why note


Did the gun community not claim the 20,000 mostly armed protesters in Rchmond, Virginia, protested peacefully and without incident

Why can Trump's protection team be scared about armed men being present at one of his rallies but the people of Richmond not be scared ?


...what Im talking about are high profile mass shootings where many innocent people are killed, in those cases most always the primary weapon of the mass shooters are long guns.


So you move the goal posts - RF would be proud of you

But again where's your evidence ?

The majority of "high profile mass shootings" involve hand guns, not long guns

(yes there are such mass shootings like that in Vegas, that involved long guns, but they are in the minority)


And most of the gun deaths in the USA are suicides, your own sources say so.

So what ?

10,000 approx are homicides.
 
Why note


Did the gun community not claim the 20,000 mostly armed protesters in Rchmond, Virginia, protested peacefully and without incident

Why can Trump's protection team be scared about armed men being present at one of his rallies but the people of Richmond not be scared ?
Because the law says you can't have guns in places where the President makes public appearances, that's why.

So you move the goal posts - RF would be proud of you
So what.

But again where's your evidence ?

The majority of "high profile mass shootings" involve hand guns, not long guns

(yes there are such mass shootings like that in Vegas, that involved long guns, but they are in the minority)
The only high profile mass shooting, as in a mass shooting that makes headline news, that I can think about offhand where handguns were the primary weapons was the Virginia Tech shooting.
 
To me, it's an enigma. Confusing.

Democrats elect democrats. And just about 99% of the democrats I know are gun totin' pro-2A kinda people. Who are electing these people?

Perhaps...

The 99% of those gun totin’ pro-2A Democrats may be electing those people since they have already secured guns for themselves and simple want those elected people to prevent others from getting guns.

Roseann:)
 
Because the law says you can't have guns in places where the President makes public appearances, that's why.

What law exactly ?


And if there is one (which I'm not sure there is) why is there such a law?

Why would the Secret Service enforce it ?

Do you think, they regard men openly carrying guns as a danger ?



So you admit to moving the goal posts ?
So you admit to not arguing honestly

First you say mass shootings ....and when you're proven to be wrong, you shift the goal posts to "high profile" mass shootings rather admit you're wrong
And even then you're still wrong



The only high profile mass shooting, as in a mass shooting that makes headline news, that I can think about offhand where handguns were the primary weapons was the Virginia Tech shooting.

The Orlando shooting involved a Glock 17 in addition to a rifle

The Sandy Hook shooting involved a pistol in addition to a rifle

The recent Molson Coors, Milwaukee shooting involved two handguns

The recent Pensacola Naval base shooting involved just one handgun

The 2019 Virginia Beach shooting used two pistols


• Guns used in mass shootings 1982-2019 | Statista
 
what is an assault weapon and what is a high capacity magazine and why would anyone who actually supports the second amendment want such bans given that less than 2% of murders are facilitated by such weapons?

The Feds and some states have already defined what constitutes an AW and I'm sure you know all of them.

I have no problem with some of the items in this and other proposed legislation, but that doesn't mean I don't support the 2nd. The claim conservatives make that any restrictions will result in someone coming to take their guns away is getting old. They stopped making their old claim that Social Security would result in making America communist. In the same way, they'll stop making this claim after the Democrats hold all three branches, pass some legislation and they realize no one came to take their guns away.

One of the features that define an AW is a ten round maximum magazine, I have no problem with this. If right-wing radicals believe they need more capacity to protect themselves from the hordes of non-whites spreading out from their ghetto's, intent on raping their wives, they can switch out a magazine. Practice, practice, practice.

I believe all branches of our armed forces relied on the 1911 for approx 75 years. For much of those 75 years, high capacity were readily available, the Browning Hi-Power for example, yet they stuck with the eight round 1911. Our service men and women survived, so can conservatives who want no restrictions on guns or gun ownership.

I don't doubt the percentages you cite, but AW 'bans' aren't intended to stop the approx 4k gun related deaths that take place every year. They're intended to keep the body count down to a reasonable level after some nutjob takes his collection of assault weapons to his city's church tower...
 
Last edited:
The Feds and some states have already defined what constitutes an AW and I'm sure you know all of them.

I have no problem with some of the items in this and other proposed legislation, but that doesn't mean I don't support the 2nd. The claim conservatives make that any restrictions will result in someone coming to take their guns away is getting old. They stopped making their old claim that Social Security would result in making America communist. In the same way, they'll stop making this claim after the Democrats hold all three branches, pass some legislation and they realize no one came to take their guns away.

One of the features that define an AW is a ten round maximum magazine, I have no problem with this. If right-wing radicals believe they need more capacity to protect themselves from the hordes of non-whites spreading out from their ghetto's, intent on raping their wives, they can switch out a magazine. Practice, practice, practice.

I believe all branches of our armed forces relied on the 1911 for approx 75 years. For much of those 75 years, high capacity were readily available, the Browning Hi-Power for example, yet they stuck with the eight round 1911. Our service men and women survived, so can conservatives who want no restrictions on guns or gun ownership.

I don't doubt the percentages you cite, but AW 'bans' aren't intended to stop the approx 4k gun related deaths that take place every year. They're intended to keep the body count down to a reasonable level after some nutjob takes his collection of assault weapons to his city's church tower...

Surely and rifle capable of taking a 10 round magazine can take one comprising 30 round or more ?
 
The Feds and some states have already defined what constitutes an AW and I'm sure you know all of them.

I have no problem with some of the items in this and other proposed legislation, but that doesn't mean I don't support the 2nd. The claim conservatives make that any restrictions will result in someone coming to take their guns away is getting old. They stopped making their old claim that Social Security would result in making America communist. In the same way, they'll stop making this claim after the Democrats hold all three branches, pass some legislation and they realize no one came to take their guns away.

One of the features that define an AW is a ten round maximum magazine, I have no problem with this. If right-wing radicals believe they need more capacity to protect themselves from the hordes of non-whites spreading out from their ghetto's, intent on raping their wives, they can switch out a magazine. Practice, practice, practice.

I believe all branches of our armed forces relied on the 1911 for approx 75 years. For much of those 75 years, high capacity were readily available, the Browning Hi-Power for example, yet they stuck with the eight round 1911. Our service men and women survived, so can conservatives who want no restrictions on guns or gun ownership.

I don't doubt the percentages you cite, but AW 'bans' aren't intended to stop the approx 4k gun related deaths that take place every year. They're intended to keep the body count down to a reasonable level after some nutjob takes his collection of assault weapons to his city's church tower...

magazine limits are among the most stupid of all the anti gun proposals because they serve no worthwhile purpose and only handicap honest people. reason-the government has bough millions upon millions of M16 (AR 15) magazines and even a complete ban would not prevent criminals easy access. Same with 17 round Glock and 15 round Beretta magazines. All these laws do is handicap honest people. Only morons truly believe that people willing to commit mass murder would abide by a magazine limit.
 
Surely and rifle capable of taking a 10 round magazine can take one comprising 30 round or more ?

yep, any weapon that takes a detachable magazine can take one of higher capacity except in some rare cases-that any semi competent machinist can overcome
 
the reasons for attempts to ban "assault weapons"

1) to harass gun owners. these type of firearms are mainly owned by serious gun owners and gun advocates. They are not (until recently) what lower income inner city folks buy for self defense. They are expensive and mainly owned by people serious about firearms rights

2) in the case of a civil war or a breakdown of government, they are the most useful firearm most people can legally obtain for both defensive and offensive use. Control freaks want to ban them to eliminate the best weapon for most citizens to use in resisting a dictatorship. That is why the AWBs are almost invariably the schemes of the left wing

3) to set a precedent. If gun banners can ban firearms that are almost never used in murders (less than 2%) then can set the precedent for banning handguns despite Heller (80% of murders)


Basically, the AWB is an attack on those who are serious about firearms rights and don't trust the government
 
Because some people believe any ban is a good ban. I've heard them say things to the effect, "It's a good first step."

But of course, pointing out that some desire and hope for a slippery slope, is employing an invalid slippery slope fallacy. :roll:

the anti gun movement is the most dishonest political movement in the USA. Few groups are less likely to reveal their true motivations.
 
Surely and rifle capable of taking a 10 round magazine can take one comprising 30 round or more ?

Of course.

round.webp

There's all kinds of laws covering all kinds of items and situations, broken everyday. Like any other law or restriction, some will follow the law and some will brake it. Does that mean we shouldn't have any on guns or gun ownership?

Some nutjob might have successfully hidden 10 pounds of C-4 in his basement for years, so he can protect himself when they come to take to take his guns away. But when caught, beyond losing their right to own a gun, they should be put away for many, many decades. Of course...
 
Of course.

View attachment 67277136

There's all kinds of laws covering all kinds of items and situations, broken everyday. Like any other law or restriction, some will follow the law and some will brake it. Does that mean we shouldn't have any on guns or gun ownership?

Some nutjob might have successfully hidden 10 pounds of C-4 in his basement for years, so he can protect himself when they come to take to take his guns away. But when caught, beyond losing their right to own a gun, they should be put away for many, many decades. Of course...

LOL, have you ever tried to use one of those things. How many have been used in successful active shootings.

we aren't talking about those when Democrats try to ban "high capacity magazines"

that really is a high capacity magazine. Anything over ten rounds is not a HC magazine for most of the 9mm handguns being sold over the last 40 years in the USA nor semi auto rifles sold over the last 75 years in the USA
 
Back
Top Bottom