• 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:711] 2/3rds of Americans want an assault weapons ban

Logician Man said:
Maybe you should consider ceasing with the obvious tap dancing, and tell us what happens to those who refuse to adhere to the laws of the land.
Click to expand...

you just don't get it do you-in your haste to jump in and complain about my post-you miss the entire point of the conversation. Another poster was suggesting it would be great if guns were banned and I asked him what he wants to do with all the owners who won't comply. Your stupid question has no relevance to that. Its not what I want to do-I think unconstitutional laws should be struck down and ultimately, those who pass them, voted out of office and perhaps tried for treason. but that isn't the issue. The issue is what do the gun banners want to happen to gun owners that won't comply

Here was the question that you apparently couldn't understand

TurtleDude said:
what should be done to the thousands of people-who have never harmed anyone with a firearm, who refuse to surrender them to comply with spiteful laws passed by abject assholes?
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
you just don't get it do you-in your haste to jump in and complain about my post-you miss the entire point of the conversation. Another poster was suggesting it would be great if guns were banned and I asked him what he wants to do with all the owners who won't comply. Your stupid question has no relevance to that. Its not what I want to do-I think unconstitutional laws should be struck down and ultimately, those who pass them, voted out of office and perhaps tried for treason. but that isn't the issue. The issue is what do the gun banners want to happen to gun owners that won't comply
Click to expand...

I didn't 'complain' about anything. I asked you, a former prosecutor, what happens to those who refuse to adhere to the laws of the land.. Try getting your 'facts' straight.
 
VanceMack said:
This is a rifle caliber pistol.

View attachment 67262103

This is a rifle caliber pistol when it is shouldered.

View attachment 67262103

This is a rifle caliber pistol AFTER it has been shouldered.

View attachment 67262103

The BATF ruling correctly states that HOW you use the weapon does not change what a weapon is.
Click to expand...

Once you've added that stock you've changed the weapon from a pistol to a rifle. That is a physical change, not merely how you use the firearm. That photograph is of a rifle, not a pistol.
 
VanceMack said:
New machine guns are banned from manufacture or import.

Sort of.

There are about 20,000 registered full auto machine gun lower receivers which means in addition to the existing 543,073 registered fully automatic weapons in the hands of private citizens there is an additional potential fo around another 20,000.

However...it is NOT illegal to manufacture and import weapons going to dealers for demo weapons.
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, you buy them in one of the eight States I mentioned previously. Then there is no registration, no background checks, and no unconstitutional taxes infringing on my purchase.
 
apdst said:
I was referring to bans and confiscations. But, after we put down the bans and confiscations, we'll do away with background checks, too.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has already abolished mandatory background checks in Printz v. United States , 521 U.S. 898 (1997) for violating the Tenth Amendment.
 
Glitch said:
Once you've added that stock you've changed the weapon from a pistol to a rifle. That is a physical change, not merely how you use the firearm. That photograph is of a rifle, not a pistol.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it's a national thing or per state, but it is entirely possible to have a weapon that looks exactly like that and is classified as a pistol. My buddy's AR-15 that I shoot whenever we go to the range is classified as a pistol. That "stock" would be considered a "brace".
 
Glitch said:
Once you've added that stock you've changed the weapon from a pistol to a rifle. That is a physical change, not merely how you use the firearm. That photograph is of a rifle, not a pistol.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you are wrong. The blade and stabilizer brace are not 'stocks'...they are braces still designed to improve one hand accuracy. This is simply a fact.
 
Glitch said:
Unless, of course, you buy them in one of the eight States I mentioned previously. Then there is no registration, no background checks, and no unconstitutional taxes infringing on my purchase.
Click to expand...
Except of course purchase of new fully automatic weapons are governed by federal laws. True...in at least one of those states if you happen to find a fully automatic weapon on your porch or under your tree for Christmas you do not need to register it and can legally possess it.

In other words...its a lot like the states that legalize marijuana in opposition to federal law. The state wont get you...but the feds probably will.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
An 'assault weapon' ban would make the problem worse. Let's say AR-15s are totally banned. The next most popular rifle is the M1 Garand battle rifle, which is far more deadly than the AR.
Click to expand...

Ban this gun, bad dudes will use a different gun. Ban all guns, bad dudes will use knives. Ban knives, bad dudes will use bombs...or trucks...or fire...or acid...or bricks...or Antifa bike locks.

These people do not realize that they cannot legislate violence away.
 
Glitch said:
The Supreme Court has already abolished mandatory background checks in Printz v. United States , 521 U.S. 898 (1997) for violating the Tenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

LOL.... They ruled requiring local law enforcement to conduct the background checks was a violation of the 10th amendment, not that background checks were unconstitutional. Same principal as requiring local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law...

The requirement was an interim step while the national background check was being implemented. It's implemented now, so no worries...
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
Nope there was an assault weapons ban in 1986. that banned assault weapons.
in order to own one there is a whole entire process you must go through in order
to actually own an assault rifle.

a semi-automatic rifle is not an assault rifle.
Click to expand...

So "assault weapons" are one single type of weapon now?
 
Logician Man said:
I didn't 'complain' about anything. I asked you, a former prosecutor, what happens to those who refuse to adhere to the laws of the land.. Try getting your 'facts' straight.
Click to expand...

It depends. Millions of foreign nationals break our laws every year and nothing happens to them. States have nullified Federal law and nothing happened. I predict the same will happen in the instance of gun bans, especially so when it comes to confiscations.
 
apdst said:
It depends. Millions of foreign nationals break our laws every year and nothing happens to them. States have nullified Federal law and nothing happened. I predict the same will happen in the instance of gun bans, especially so when it comes to confiscations.
Click to expand...

If, or when ?
 
apdst said:
I predict "when". I believe the Left has gone full retard, with a now-or-never hail mary strategy.
Click to expand...

In what way? By advocating banning assault weapons and mandatory background checks?
 
Wayne Jr said:
An 'assault weapon' ban would make the problem worse. Let's say AR-15s are totally banned. The next most popular rifle is the M1 Garand battle rifle, which is far more deadly than the AR.
Click to expand...

So it can shoot 27 people in less the 30 seconds? That's what the Dayton shooter did with the AR. With the maximum 5 shot clip on the M! that is unlikely.
 
Grand Mal said:
Damn. My nice light lever-action Marlin just got banned. Can I hunt with a handgun in your world?
Click to expand...

I prefer that you use a spear or at the most, a bow and arrow old-school style... that way the prey has a chance.
 
VanceMack said:
Except of course purchase of new fully automatic weapons are governed by federal laws. True...in at least one of those states if you happen to find a fully automatic weapon on your porch or under your tree for Christmas you do not need to register it and can legally possess it.

In other words...its a lot like the states that legalize marijuana in opposition to federal law. The state wont get you...but the feds probably will.
Click to expand...

The feds won't touch you either. Wyoming's law goes so far as to threaten to arrest any federal agent attempting to impose federal firearm regulations on any firearm or firearm accessory manufactured in Wyoming. Federal firearm laws only extend as far as the Commerce Clause allows. In order words, if it crosses State or international borders then Congress may regulate it, but if it doesn't then Congress has no say. All intrastate commerce is off limits to Congress, including firearms manufactured, possessed, and used wholly within a given State.
 
TurtleDude said:
why do you post crap that we all know that you don't even believe?
Click to expand...

I believe that guns in the hands of madmen is a bad thing... so that means that guns are a bad thing... because if madmen could not get guns, then they could not use guns to kill innocent people.
 
VanceMack said:
What is 'simple'...'easy'...'done'...is that you have managed to expose yourself and the people that liked your comments as promoting simple minded rhetoric that simply does nothing. 13 of the last 16 'mass shootings' involved the use of pistols and shotguns as the weapon of choice. The vast majority of school shootings involve handguns, shotguns, and 22LRs.

But of course none of that matters when all you have is empty headed rhetoric tossed out to appeal to gun banners. Because your next comment will be "OK, so ban them too"...which is the anti-gun intent all along. First get people a taste for banning by targeting the 'scary' guns. Then you can say...well...golly...its still happening...hate to do it but I guess we have to ban them all...
Click to expand...

...and with less and less school/mass shootings people will come to realize that my simple and easy solution saved lives and should have been done sooner.
 
VanceMack said:
Sorry but you are wrong. The blade and stabilizer brace are not 'stocks'...they are braces still designed to improve one hand accuracy. This is simply a fact.
Click to expand...

It is only called a "brace" by those who are being deliberately dishonest, trying to pretend that it isn't a rifle when in reality it is.
 
BlueTex said:
LOL.... They ruled requiring local law enforcement to conduct the background checks was a violation of the 10th amendment, not that background checks were unconstitutional. Same principal as requiring local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law...

The requirement was an interim step while the national background check was being implemented. It's implemented now, so no worries...
Click to expand...

How exactly is Congress going to enforce their mandatory background checks when they can't require the States or local governments to comply with their stupid law?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom