• 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!

How far do you believe gun restrictions should go?

So you believe guns that are committed in minuscule amounts of crimes should be entirely banned? Also, what do you consider military style assault weapons as well as high capacity magazines. These terms are very ambiguous and vary from state to state. If your objective is to fight crime would you prefer to ban handguns? These are more likely to be involved in a crime.

Hand guns are very rarely used in mass killings of the kind we've see of late, and handguns as a weapon for home protections has been covered in the Heller decision. So no, I would not ban them. Crimes that we are referring to with respect to assault weapons are those that com under this defintion:

Assault Weapons | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Assault weapons are a class of semi-automatic firearms that are designed to kill humans quickly and efficiently. As the diagram below shows, the military features that clearly distinguish assault weapons from standard sporting firearms enable shooters to spray large amounts of ammunition quickly while retaining control of the weapons.

These include the military versions as seen below:

assaultweapon.jpg

High capacity magazines would be those of over 120 rounds.

The object is the weapon designed for modern military use. Crimes will be committed by people with knives, so getting the "massacre weapon" weapon out of the criminal element and keeping it away from the deranged , as in Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, cartel gangs operating in the US, and terrorists originating in the US is the means to an effective end of safer streets.

For the purposes of THIS debate, you have now moved the subject from what "would you do", to "assault weapons". That is two subjects.
 
Well, banning assault rifles certainly isn't a "brilliant" plan.

That'll just end up making things worse.

Interesting; please explain that conclusion.
 
So much for a debate...

No, we're supposed to be debating here. What others say should be having no effect on our contest; especially when they're lying.
 
Interesting; please explain that conclusion.

I've already explained it before:

All banning assault rifles would do is just create an extremely violent black market.
 
Last edited:
Hand guns are very rarely used in mass killings of the kind we've see of late, and handguns as a weapon for home protections has been covered in the Heller decision. So no, I would not ban them. Crimes that we are referring to with respect to assault weapons are those that com under this defintion:

Assault Weapons | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence



These include the military versions as seen below:

View attachment 67203836

High capacity magazines would be those of over 120 rounds.

The object is the weapon designed for modern military use. Crimes will be committed by people with knives, so getting the "massacre weapon" weapon out of the criminal element and keeping it away from the deranged , as in Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, cartel gangs operating in the US, and terrorists originating in the US is the means to an effective end of safer streets.

For the purposes of THIS debate, you have now moved the subject from what "would you do", to "assault weapons". That is two subjects.

So you would ban any gun that has any of those characteristics or do they need to possess more than 1 like in NY State with the Safe Act?

So you believe a standard 30 round magazine should be legal?

Also, are you only interested in stopping mass shootings? Handguns are routinely used to kill tons of inner city people year round at much higher rates. Do you not care about lives, or are you simply attempting to ban scary looking guns.
 
I've already explained it before:

All banning assault rifles would do is just create an extremely violent, unregulated black market.

(chuckle)

Child, the black market is already unregulated, that's why they call it "the black market". And we're talking about banning assault weapons from public sale, not from police and national guard use.

So unfortunately, your logic fails here.
 
(chuckle)
Child, the black market is already unregulated, that's why they call it "the black market".

Okay, whatever. Still doesn't dissuade from my point.

And we're talking about banning assault weapons from public sale, not from police and national guard use.

Yeah, I know that. What else did you think I was referring to?

So unfortunately, your logic fails here.

Unfortunately, you failed to even address my point at all.
 
(chuckle)

Child, the black market is already unregulated, that's why they call it "the black market". And we're talking about banning assault weapons from public sale, not from police and national guard use.

So unfortunately, your logic fails here.

So what Jet believes is that the police ought to have a better chance of surviving an attack by heavily armed criminals (who have any weapon they want) than other civilians whom JET wants to BE HANDICAPPED in terms of what we can own

But that is coming from a guy who thinks a MAGAZINE HOLDING TEN ROUNDS is only for warfare

so what we know is that JET wants criminals to be better armed than you or me

He also claims that banning you and I from owning say 10 round magazines will somehow keep criminals from having them

Ask Jet (since he is afraid to respond to me) why he thinks cops deserve better defense against violent criminals than you do or why he thinks the second amendment only applies to civilian police
 
(chuckle)

Child, the black market is already unregulated, that's why they call it "the black market". And we're talking about banning assault weapons from public sale, not from police and national guard use.

So unfortunately, your logic fails here.

Wow, freely admitting you are only interested in limiting access to law abiding citizens, and don't care a whit about the criminal element. Oops. :roll:
 
Wow, freely admitting you are only interested in limiting access to law abiding citizens, and don't care a whit about the criminal element. Oops. :roll:

its common. of course the gun banners are invariably left-wingers and guess which side of the aisle has always been the apologists for violent street criminals? Hell, gun control was a scheme bleeding heart liberals concocted to PRETEND they were doing something about violent street crime without actually upsetting those who saw attacks on street crime as "anti-black"
 
Hand guns are very rarely used in mass killings of the kind we've see of late, and handguns as a weapon for home protections has been covered in the Heller decision. So no, I would not ban them. Crimes that we are referring to with respect to assault weapons are those that com under this defintion:

Assault Weapons | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

These include the military versions as seen below:

View attachment 67203836

High capacity magazines would be those of over 120 rounds.

The object is the weapon designed for modern military use.
Crimes will be committed by people with knives, so getting the "massacre weapon" weapon out of the criminal element and keeping it away from the deranged , as in Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, cartel gangs operating in the US, and terrorists originating in the US is the means to an effective end of safer streets.

For the purposes of THIS debate, you have now moved the subject from what "would you do", to "assault weapons". That is two subjects.

1. 120 round magazines? Where? And does this mean a 30 round magazine does not rate the "high capacity" title?

2. YOUR firearms were BOTH designed for military use. Hypocrisy? I think so. CLUE: The AR-15 was intended for combat.

3. Columbine were not Assault weapons...
 
Last edited:
1. 120 round magazines? Where? And does this mean a 30 round magazine does not rate the "high capacity" title?

2. YOUR firearms were BOTH designed for military use. Hypocrisy? I think so. CLUE: The AR-15 was intended for combat.

Jet tries to demonize some weapons by claiming they were designed for COMBAT. now some weapons have no real purpose other than combat or killing. AR 15s are NOT one of those things. Grenades would be. a Garrote would be. This sort of knife comes close


GerberMkIIOrange.jpg


but the most popular hunting rifle in the USA (Remington 700) is based on the most prolific rifle in the two world wars (Mauser 98). The Winchester Model 70-probably the second most popular hunting rifle in the USA was famous as a sniper rifle in Viet Nam (Sgt Carlos Hathcock won the US long range rifle championship with one, killed dozens of VC and NVA with the same rifle)
 
Just want to get opinions on how far some people believe gun control laws should go. Full assault weapons ban? Handgun ban? Complete ban? Should we have less strict gun control laws, or none at all?

Any gun control law is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Change the amendment or abide by our Constitution.

Your choice.
 
Another vote for "too far already". Unsupervised children should not be allowed to carry weapons, and parents whose children are repeatedly caught with weapons should face charges of negligence. Beyond that, I do not think any gun or knife laws are necessary or desirable. (I'm fully in favor of bomb and grenade control.) There are gun control laws I consider acceptable compromises, but those laws would need to be paired with significant improvements in the ability of free citizens to own weapons and carry them in public.
 
Any gun control law is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

This is not true. Guns that have limited use for lawful purposes may be banned without violating our right to keep and bear arms. The prohibition on convicted felons and misdemeanor domestic abusers does not violate our right to keep and bear arms. A gun registry would not violate our right to keep and bear arms (though I'd argue it would violate our right to privacy) unless it was actually paired with gun confiscation. There may be other examples of gun control laws that do not violate the right to keep and bear arms.

I do not support these measures, but I cannot coherently argue that they are unconstitutional.
 
Okay, whatever. Still doesn't dissuade from my point.



Yeah, I know that. What else did you think I was referring to?



Unfortunately, you failed to even address my point at all.

I addressed everything you said, and I pointed out where you were wrong. So... I don't know what else to say to you unless you have a credible rebuttal.
 
Wow, freely admitting you are only interested in limiting access to law abiding citizens, and don't care a whit about the criminal element. Oops. :roll:

Your comments are miles form the truth of what I said.
 
I addressed everything you said, and I pointed out where you were wrong.

No you didn't, but go ahead and believe what you want to believe.

So... I don't know what else to say to you unless you have a credible rebuttal.

I've already given you a credible rebuttal. You can either address it or not, I don't really care.
 
This is not true. Guns that have limited use for lawful purposes may be banned without violating our right to keep and bear arms. The prohibition on convicted felons and misdemeanor domestic abusers does not violate our right to keep and bear arms. A gun registry would not violate our right to keep and bear arms (though I'd argue it would violate our right to privacy) unless it was actually paired with gun confiscation. There may be other examples of gun control laws that do not violate the right to keep and bear arms.

I do not support these measures, but I cannot coherently argue that they are unconstitutional.

I can at a federal level. and it violates the 9th and tenth amendments.
 
Any gun control law is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Change the amendment or abide by our Constitution.

Your choice.

Wrong again: see the Heller decision and the 10th amendment and the latest refusal by the supreme court to hear an appeal motion to overturn a state gun ban.
 
Wrong again: see the Heller decision and the 10th amendment and the latest refusal by the supreme court to hear an appeal motion to overturn a state gun ban.

you're sort of right. Federal gun control violates the second and tenth amendments.
 
No you didn't, but go ahead and believe what you want to believe.



I've already given you a credible rebuttal. You can either address it or not, I don't really care.

Sorry, but I did. YOU said that you already explained it, but you didn't to me, nor have you credibly refuted my rebuttal to you.
 
Sorry, but I did. YOU said that you already explained it, but you didn't to me, nor have you credibly refuted my rebuttal to you.

You didn't offer a rebuttal to my point at all. All you did was dance around my point instead of actually trying to address it.

And I've already explained my rebuttal to you, but I'll state it for you again:

"Banning assault rifles would only create a violent black market and make the problem even worse."
 
You didn't offer a rebuttal to my point at all. All you did was dance around my point instead of actually trying to address it.

And I've already explained my rebuttal to you, but I'll state it for you again:

"Banning assault rifles would only create a violent black market and make the problem even worse."

real assault rifles have no history of any use in violent crime by private citizens. the stuff the media calls "assault weapons" (in order to get the fearful think those semi auto rifles are used to ASSAULT people in violation of the penal codes) are used in less murders than knives, clubs, fists etc. and the war on drugs apparently has been forgotten, along with the lessons about the futility of trying to end a market driven behavior with criminal codes.
 
Back
Top Bottom