• 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:22:181]They ARE coming for our guns.

Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

PleasantValley said:
Well, Mr. Fifth Columnist, I have a five shot .44 caliber revolver I call my "90 year old gun".
It is because when i am 90 years old, I would still be able to fire it in defense of my life, but not be able to pass your performance test that will get more and more difficult each and every year to the point only master marksmen will be able to pass it....in your world.

In my world (Texas) I will still be able to have it when I am 90 years old.
You see, OLD LIVES MATTER.

Though, I know in California and New York they hate "old white men" to the core.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my paranoia point.

Sincerely,

Another Old White Man
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

TurtleDude said:
so you don't support

1) magazine limits
2) "assault weapon bans"
3) the Hughes Amendment"
4) One gun per month restrictions

Good to hear
Click to expand...

No, would support magazine limits and ban on fully automatic weapons and some accessories. Buy a gun every day for all I care.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Rucker61 said:
Why should a transfer of a firearm from one non-prohibited person to another non-prohibited person be a crime? How is society hurt by this action?
Click to expand...

As long as the person who receives the weapon is certified as to its use, no problem.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Is it any particular "they" who are coming for the gunz, or just the usual generic non-specific bogeymen?
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Nickyjo said:
No, would support magazine limits and ban on fully automatic weapons and some accessories. Buy a gun every day for all I care.
Click to expand...

magazine limits are among the most stupid of laws since they have absolutely no ability to stop people who are already banned from possessing weapons from using them (there are millions of normal capacity magazines in circulation) but can criminalize honest owners who refuse to turn them in
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Nickyjo said:
As long as the person who receives the weapon is certified as to its use, no problem.
Click to expand...

"Certified"? I don't remember that being a Constitutional requirement to exercise a right. Any laws defining "certification" would be put in place by people who hate guns, have no idea how to use guns and hate the most logical organization that trains gun owners.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Manc Skipper said:
Is it any particular "they" who are coming for the gunz, or just the usual generic non-specific bogeymen?
Click to expand...

Just read "coming for the guns" as "coming for the gun rights", and you'll be fine.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Nickyjo said:
Sorry, but I and others through our representatives tell you (and you tell me) what we can and can't do with your property rather frequently on a local, state and federal level. The second amendment is no more absolute than the first. Look it up.
Click to expand...

I looked it up. I found that the Second Amendment protects "all firearms" (Caetano) "in common use for lawful purposes" (Heller) or "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia" (Miller), and extends those protections to the states (McDonald).
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

TurtleDude said:
magazine limits are among the most stupid of laws since they have absolutely no ability to stop people who are already banned from possessing weapons from using them (there are millions of normal capacity magazines in circulation) but can criminalize honest owners who refuse to turn them in
Click to expand...

Your presumed right to fire a large number of rounds without stopping. My presumed right to rush you or escape when you have to reload. An inconvenience for you, perhaps, but one I am sure you, unlike me, could live with if you really tried hard.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Nickyjo said:
Your presumed right to fire a large number of rounds without stopping. My presumed right to rush you or escape when you have to reload. An inconvenience for you, perhaps, but one I am sure you, unlike me, could live with if you really tried hard.
Click to expand...

That's your entire justification? Why not insist that the magazine limit be 9, or 5, or 2? You'd have even more time.

Magazines with capacity greater than 10 are in common use for lawful purpose and exist in the hundreds of millions. A law banning them would be both unconstitutional and unenforceable.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Nickyjo said:
Your presumed right to fire a large number of rounds without stopping. My presumed right to rush you or escape when you have to reload. An inconvenience for you, perhaps, but one I am sure you, unlike me, could live with if you really tried hard.
Click to expand...

I have a right to defend against criminals who don't obey laws. who is more likely to be impacted by such stupid laws

A criminal who already ignoring laws against hurting people and him having a gun or an honest citizen
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Rucker61 said:
That's your entire justification? Why not insist that the magazine limit be 9, or 5, or 2? You'd have even more time.

Magazines with capacity greater than 10 are in common use for lawful purpose and exist in the hundreds of millions. A law banning them would be both unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Click to expand...


GCAs rarely think things through. its an emotional response which makes no sense when examined
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Rucker61 said:
That's your entire justification? Why not insist that the magazine limit be 9, or 5, or 2? You'd have even more time.

Magazines with capacity greater than 10 are in common use for lawful purpose and exist in the hundreds of millions. A law banning them would be both unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Click to expand...

Ten sounds like a nice number we all could live with.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Nickyjo said:
Ten sounds like a nice number we all could live with.
Click to expand...

We don't want to live with it. It's unconstitutional and ineffective.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

TurtleDude said:
I have a right to defend against criminals who don't obey laws. who is more likely to be impacted by such stupid laws

A criminal who already ignoring laws against hurting people and him having a gun or an honest citizen
Click to expand...

Obviously it makes no sense to pass any laws.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Lutherf said:
Waiting for someone to actually kick you in the nuts instead of preparing yourself so you don't get kicked in the nuts is an act of stupidity.
Click to expand...

Running around screaming about how someone is going to kick you in the nuts when no such thing has or is going to happen makes you look like an idiot bud.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Fledermaus said:
Hysterical shrieking?

Where?

Oh, and denying someone the right to make a profit on a legally owned item IIRC conversion.

A bad thing.
Click to expand...

The hysterical shrieking about people coming to take your guns is happening here.

It's literally in the thread's title.

But it's not "taking one's gun".
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

PleasantValley said:
So, I see you would like to go on record and having absolutely no understanding about Texas and it's people.
" It's a whole 'nuther country ".
Why do you think we have our very own power grid.
That is not the only thing we are fiercely independent about.

When you advocate trying to take our guns away, you are invoking tyranny on us.
We won't stand for it.
This 2017 Newsweek article explains it pretty well. It should be make a STICKY and required reading for New York City types who want to impose their will on us.

https://www.newsweek.com/2017/12/15/america-guns-deadly-obsession-texas-736274.html

From the article...

Texas as an American state, like Texas as a republic before that and Texas as a Mexican state before that, survived only because armed civilians did what their government could not do—keep them safe, keep them alive. Without guns, there would be no Texas.
Click to expand...

And yet, you had no problems going to war to keep other human beings enslaved.

The hypocrisy is rather amusing.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

TurtleDude said:
and for the hundredth time-I am not worrying YET about the police breaking down doors and confiscating guns. I am asking if you support the law in question
Click to expand...

The entire premise of the thread is that people are "coming for your guns".

I addressed said premise by pointing out that no such thing is happening.

As for your question.......I don't have a strong opinion one way or another.

But I am not interested in listening to even more hysterics.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Tigerace117 said:
The hysterical shrieking about people coming to take your guns is happening here.

It's literally in the thread's title.

But it's not "taking one's gun".
Click to expand...

Nothing "hysterical" about the title.

There are people trying to take guns.

Period.
 
Re: [W:22]They ARE coming for our guns.

Black Dog said:
They aren't coming for our guns?


  • Bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name. Owners may keep existing weapons.
  • Bans any assault weapon that accepts a detachable ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock. Owners may keep existing weapons.
  • Bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Owners may keep existing magazines. - https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...eases&id=EFC76859-879D-4038-97DD-C577212ED17B

Yes nothing to see here, they aren't coming for our guns?

"In addition to Feinstein, Murphy and Blumenthal, cosponsors of the bill include Senators Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.). - Same as above.

Any questions?


What makes this most insidious? After you die or move to a state or municipality where you can't have it? Must be destroyed as it is illegal to sell or give away.

Trying to do an end run around the Constitution.
Click to expand...

But, they're not talking about taking your gun away are they.

They're just talking about banning sales and transport of certain types of guns and high capacity equipment aren't they.

So, there really is nothing top see and you're just being paranoid again aren't you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom