• 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 to ban guns without firing a single shot!

Looks like the shooters at Uvalde, Las Vegas, Allen, ... and dozens more... didn't get the memo
Wow, you can use Google. And you misrepresented my post. Let me make it simpler for you. The majority of shootings conducted by criminals including “mass shootings” use handguns. I never said at AR-15s weren’t used. In fact, if a rifle is used, it is likely to be an AR-15 since that is the most common rifle model sold in the US. Just like if a handgun is used, odds are it will be a Glock.
This is what I'm saying. ZERO arguments to rebut any of my points. Absolute nonsense like this or "it's like banning gasoline" or "assault weapons don't exist" or "you can also kill people with your bare hands" or ... similar nonsense. By their own admission, this is the BEST they could come up with.
Your points don’t need rebuttal because they are all bullshit and lies to begin with.
Simple as that! They can't come up with anything...

Could anybody hope for a better endorsement!
Nobody is endorsing your idiocy and desire for authoritarianism.
 
I don't give a crap about analogies. If you want to outlaw fuel, open a thread and give us your arguments. I think the topic would be too idiotic for me to bother with it, but THIS thread is about assault weapons ONLY.
So, you admit that this thread is about banning “assault weapons”. But you refuse to give us a definition because you know that you have no legal basis to stand on.
ANY argument of the type "if you want to ban the sale of assault weapons, why don't you ban the sale of... knives" is too absurd for any serious poster to waste ANY time on.

Now you know why I don't even READ most of your posts. As soon as I see that it's something like that, and unless I can think of something funny to say, I just close it and go to the next....
Authoritarians are not noted for listening to dissenting opinions.
 
Last edited:
So, you admit that this thread is about banning “assault weapons”. But you refuse to give us a definition because you no that you have no legal basis to stand on.

Authoritarians are not noted for listening to dissenting opinions.

Good catch.

"THIS thread is about assault weapons ONLY." is a lie as evidenced by his own OP.

Apparently, he thinks lying about his own arguments is as valid a tactic as lying about the arguments of others.
 
Looks like the shooters at Uvalde, Las Vegas, Allen, ... and dozens more... didn't get the memo

This is what I'm saying. ZERO arguments to rebut any of my points.
When you lie like this, you just look silly.
Absolute nonsense like this or "it's like banning gasoline" or "assault weapons don't exist" or "you can also kill people with your bare hands" or ... similar nonsense. By their own admission, this is the BEST they could come up with.

Simple as that! They can't come up with anything...

Could anybody hope for a better endorsement!
 
Wow, you can use Google.
Sure can! Read my sig!

Are you saying YOU can't?


And you misrepresented my post. Let me make it simpler for you. The majority of shootings conducted by criminals including “mass shootings” use handguns
So? What is your point?


. I never said at AR-15s weren’t used.
Yes you did! You said "Criminals don’t use AR-15s.". That's a direct quote!

Look.... let me make this clear for you. Even though it WOULD be clear already if you had read the OP. The purpose of this is NOT to stop ALL crime... or even ALL shootings. It's only make shooting using Assault Weapons more difficult. Which BTW, INCLUDES handguns that are assault weapons.

So your post is loaded with irrelevant nonsense that DOES NOT address my proposals because.... you haven't even READ them!
 
So, you admit that this thread is about banning “assault weapons”.
This thread is about every single word in the OP. I know that you've been having difficulties finding anything you can rebut in it. So you try to make it about something you THINK you can rebut. But you'll just have to work harder...
 
This thread is about every single word in the OP. I know that you've been having difficulties finding anything you can rebut in it. So you try to make it about something you THINK you can rebut. But you'll just have to work harder...

Then why did you lie and say this thread was about assault weapons ONLY?

Reflex?
 
This thread is about every single word in the OP.
Even fictional things like “cop killer” bullets? Do you live in movie land?
I know that you've been having difficulties finding anything you can rebut in it. So you try to make it about something you THINK you can rebut. But you'll just have to work harder...
 
Even fictional things like “cop killer” bullets? Do you live in movie land?

I think @Rich2018 might argue the case for infringing rights and civil liberties better than @Feynman Lives! does. Rich will say something stupid, but he will often consistently stand by it.
 
Even fictional things like “cop killer” bullets? Do you live in movie land?
This one was always funny to me so like regular bullets can't be used to kill cops what are they like the next tier and human evolution or something?

Even the fictitious dates are stupid
 
This thread is about every single word in the OP. I know that you've been having difficulties finding anything you can rebut in it. So you try to make it about something you THINK you can rebut. But you'll just have to work harder...
So you're upset you don't know what you're talking about just a minute it's okay I don't know everything about fishing
 
Even fictional things like “cop killer” bullets? Do you live in movie land?
So your best argument is that cop killer bullets don't exist. Of course it's just a name some give to certain bullets with coatings and/or design intended to penetrate some types of body armor. This is why the OP says "so-called cop killer bullets" (oops! You missed that part, didn't you!) But of course, this poster knows this. The fact that this is the ABSOLUTE BEST you could come up with to counter my arguments once again proves the strength of the OP.

The person trying to rebut my arguments acting dumb is one of the best endorsement for my proposals.
 
So your best argument is that cop killer bullets don't exist. Of course it's just a name some give to certain bullets with coatings and/or design intended to penetrate some types of body armor. This is why the OP says "so-called cop killer bullets" (oops! You missed that part, didn't you!) But of course, this poster knows this. The fact that this is the ABSOLUTE BEST you could come up with to counter my arguments once again proves the strength of the OP.

The person trying to rebut my arguments acting dumb is one of the best endorsement for my proposals.

You said this thread is about assault weapons ONLY. Did you lie,or did you forget?
 
So your best argument is that cop killer bullets don't exist.
They do you just called bullets you know cops are just people and you can kill them with the same kind of bullets you kill anyone else with?

I think the point is it's propaganda term created by retards kind of like assault weapon
Of course it's just a name some give to certain bullets
All bullets.
with coatings and/or design intended to penetrate some types of body armor.
This is why the OP says "so-called cop killer bullets" (oops! You missed that part, didn't you!)
Well he's pointing out retards name these things to control the minds of other retards.
But of course, this poster knows this. The fact that this is the ABSOLUTE BEST you could come up with to counter my arguments once again proves the strength of the OP.

The person trying to rebut my arguments acting dumb is one of the best endorsement for my proposals.
I don't think anybody's trying to rebut your argument I don't think you have one
 
I think the point is it's propaganda term created by retards kind of like assault weapon

I have no idea who created it or what their IQ is. But the fact is that the term EXISTS. And I don't think there is much to be gained from somebody who doesn't know this.

They have too much to learn to be of any use in a gun control debate.

I don't think anybody's trying to rebut your argument...
Clearly....

I've had this debate in many forums in the past. And there is always somebody who attempts an intelligent argument. Some of them have made me amend my proposals as you see them here. I'm sure there must be somebody here too who can attempt an intelligent rebuttal. They just haven't shown up yet.
 
They do you just called bullets you know cops are just people and you can kill them with the same kind of bullets you kill anyone else with?

I think the point is it's propaganda term created by retards kind of like assault weapon

All bullets.


Well he's pointing out retards name these things to control the minds of other retards.

I don't think anybody's trying to rebut your argument I don't think you have one

He mostly refuses to argue. Just refers you back to his earlier statements. His support for his statements is that he made them.
 
I have no idea who created it or what their IQ is.
You can kill cops with any bullets so they're IQ is clearly low.
But the fact is that the term EXISTS.
To manipulate low information types such as yourself. Blind leading the blind.
And I don't think there is much to be gained from somebody who doesn't know this.
But to point out that it's all make believe in fake is to say these terms don't mean anything outside of extremely low information people.
They have too much to learn to be of any use in a gun control debate.
There's no debate.
Clearly....

I've had this debate in many forums in the past. And there is always somebody who attempts an intelligent argument.
Maybe people are smart enough not to engage in your very very unintelligent argument.
Some of them have made me amend my proposals as you see them here. I'm sure there must be somebody here too who can attempt an intelligent rebuttal. They just haven't shown up yet.
Maybe people here don't engage with nonsense.
 
He mostly refuses to argue. Just refers you back to his earlier statements. His support for his statements is that he made them.
Of interacted with him on other forms he's not very good. I think he confuses petulance with intelligence.
 
I have no idea who created it or what their IQ is. But the fact is that the term EXISTS. And I don't think there is much to be gained from somebody who doesn't know this.

They have too much to learn to be of any use in a gun control debate.


Clearly....

I've had this debate in many forums in the past. And there is always somebody who attempts an intelligent argument. Some of them have made me amend my proposals as you see them here. I'm sure there must be somebody here too who can attempt an intelligent rebuttal. They just haven't shown up yet.
Every proposal you made has been rebutted. When you lie and claim it hasn’t, we point and laugh at you because you forgot there is a written record kept on the forum
 
You can kill cops with any bullets so they're IQ is clearly low.
Not as low as that of somebody who takes idioms literally. And even worse when THAT is they "best" argument against a proposal.

You dig? (By which, BTW, I'm not asking whether or not you are using a shovel to remove soil)
 
Not as low as that of somebody who takes idioms literally. And even worse when THAT is they "best" argument against a proposal.

You dig? (By which, BTW, I'm not asking whether or not you are using a shovel to remove soil)

So the term you used doesn't describe any specific bullet to be banned, and you admit that.

Your proposal is refuted on those grounds.

Got anything challenging?
 
Not as low as that of somebody who takes idioms literally. And even worse when THAT is they "best" argument against a proposal.

You dig? (By which, BTW, I'm not asking whether or not you are using a shovel to remove soil)
I didn't argue with your proposal I just declined. There's nothing to argue with go sell your crap to someone who's buying.

When a flea market merchant such as yourself is trying to sell me a broken toaster for $4,000 no. You can pay me $20 and I'll throw it away for you that's my counter proposal.
 
To be clear, I don't think banning all guns is possible in this country in any of our lifetimes. So relax. But we might be able to reduce the number of mass shootings by banning some. I also don't mean "banning" in the sense that cops are going to walk into homes and grab guns.

Be sure to read at the end of this post some silly and irrelevant arguments that some have made in the past, so you don't repeat them. But if you do, I'll just refer you to the proper "Irrelevant argument" number.

Remember: there is likely NO way to stop ALL mass shootings. But the idea here is to make them more difficult. So that there are less shootings. And when shootings are unavoidable, that less people get killed.

The whole process will take years... maybe decades. But we need to start now!

All we want to do is make mass shooting more difficult.

The following might help:
  1. Ban the sale to the public of "assault weapons". As well as parts and ammunition. Reinstate the Assault Weapon sales ban.
  2. No confiscation (except what is already in the law). But adopt a voluntary buy-back program with strong compensation, for guns and ammunition.
  3. Ban so-called "cop-killing" bullets.
  4. Ban the sale of high-capacity magazines.
  5. Ban ghost guns.
  6. Require a license to buy any firearm and ammunition.
  7. Require a "graduation process" to obtain and maintain a gun license.
  8. Mandatory buy back program for weapons acquired with a license for anybody who fails to renew their license.
  9. Implement a federal mandatory background check for all gun sales. No loopholes. And hold private sellers accountable if the gun sold without a check or to an unlicensed buyer is used in a crime.
  10. Give courts the authority to confiscate guns from people who they consider a threat to themselves and others. (Red Flag Law)
  11. Raise the age limit for buying any kind of guns to 21 (at least)
  12. Implement strong nationwide cash-for-guns programs focusing primarily on assault weapons.
  13. Repeal the PLCAA and investigate gun manufacturers and gun lobbyists' role in passing it.
  14. Require manufacturers to alter design of guns sold to public to make them as difficult to be modified as possible.
  15. Declare gun violence a preventable public health problem. Give the CDC funding an resources to study the relation between certain mental illnesses and gun violence.
  16. Repeal DoC v Heller given that the decision is based on factual historical and linguistic inaccuracies.

Feel free to skip the following absurd or irrelevant arguments
  • Irrelevant argument 1: People can print their guns: Sure... but that would be more difficult than just running down to the store. It's easy to print a gun with a kit. So selling kits must be outlawed. But many crazy people might not know HOW to print a gun without one. Some might not bother and just go jump of a bridge... or something. And then there are the bullets....
  • Irrelevant argument 2: They can kill people with .... (cars, bombs, knives, forks...): Read the sentence in "bold" at the top. It's HARDER to kill a lot of people with any of those items, than it is with a gun. Learning how to pull a trigger is easier than learning how to make a bomb without blowing yourself up in the process.
  • Irrelevant argument 3: You can't stop ALL shootings: Then we don't! That doesn't mean we can't stop ANY shootings.
  • Irrelevant argument 4: Guns don't kill people... people kill people: Bullshit!!
  • Irrelevant argument 5: But but but... the 2nd Amendment: Start here and continue through all the threads mentioned which debunk this inaccurate claime
  • Irrelevant argument 6: This xxxx [bump stock, cop killer bullets, assault rifles, ...] don't exist: MORE Bullshit! They do!
  • Irrelevant argument 7: What we need is more guns, not less (and variations like "arm teachers" and similar): There are more guns than there are people. So we have tried this. It hasn't worked! Countries have done the contrary (Australia, UK, Japan, ...etc) and it HAS worked.
  • Irrelevant argument 8: This is just a mental issue: There are as many nuts in other countries as there are in this one. And NO country has anywhere near as many shootings as we do. Over 600 every year since 2020, and almost 400 so far this year. Second place this year among developed countries: France with 6!)
I decline thank you.
 
Back
Top Bottom