• 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!

JMB1911A1 said:
That bill defines a semi-automatic pistol with an 8 round magazine as an “assault weapon”. Do you agree with that definition?
Click to expand...

Why in the world would I disagree with a definition?

The definition is the definition. I agree with including MORE types of arms as they are produced. But not less.... If we err, let's err on the side that saves more lives!
 
CLAX1911 said:
If you understood this definition you could explain it.
Click to expand...
What do you need explained? You need ME to explain to you what an AR-15 is?

See? This is the reason for my proposal (Point 7) that people who don't know the most basic concepts of gun ownership should NOT own guns.

CLAX1911 said:
The legal definition yes, that's why they don't use that in court rooms.
Click to expand...
They don't use a legal definition in courtrooms?

Uhmmmm.... ok....
 
Feynman Lives! said:
Why in the world would I disagree with a definition?

The definition is the definition. I agree with including MORE types of arms as they are produced. But not less.... If we err, let's err on the side that saves more lives!
Click to expand...
Nice to see that you are finally willing to man up and make a statement vice constant equivocation.

Let’s be honest. What you really want is confiscation of all semi-automatic firearms, to start.

The fact that you think that a 114 year old design is an “assault weapon” demonstrates your lack of knowledge and the fact that you can only speak in falsehoods.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
Why in the world would I disagree with a definition?

The definition is the definition. I agree with including MORE types of arms as they are produced. But not less.... If we err, let's err on the side that saves more lives!
Click to expand...

Begs the question.

Are you somehow prohibited from responding with anything other than fallacies?
 
Feynman Lives! said:
What do you need explained? You need ME to explain to you what an AR-15 is?
Click to expand...
Well no and AR-15 is just a rifle like any other. The retards that wrote this law don't know that.

Framing these kind of firearms as only meant for committing assault is propaganda. Propaganda is just a fancy word for lying.

So the retards that wrote this law were lying retards.
Feynman Lives! said:
See? This is the reason for my proposal
Click to expand...
Yes to get an inch so you can take a mile. Your proposal is rejected.
Feynman Lives! said:
(Point 7) that people who don't know the most basic concepts of gun ownership should NOT own guns.
Click to expand...
Yes you shouldn't own guns if you don't know that an AR-15 is just a rifle.
Feynman Lives! said:
They don't use a legal definition in courtrooms?
Click to expand...
Have you ever set on a jury before? You don't have a lawyer Reading 500 lines of definition to the reality is most of us would tune out.
Feynman Lives! said:
Uhmmmm.... ok....
Click to expand...
It's not written to be understood. It's written so you have to go through 8 years of school to be a lawyer.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
Let’s be honest. What you really want is confiscation ...
Click to expand...
What I want is irrelevant. Read my proposal. It says "no confiscation!"

If enacted, my proposals (regardless of what I want or don't want) would save lives by making it harder for mass shooters to get their hands on assault weapons. And this fact is proven by the fact that nobody has been able to rebut my points.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
What I want is irrelevant. Read my proposal. It says "no confiscation!"

If enacted, my proposals (regardless of what I want or don't want) would save lives by making it harder for mass shooters to get their hands on assault weapons.
Click to expand...

That's your claim.

Feynman Lives! said:
And this fact is proven by the fact that nobody has been able to rebut my points.
Click to expand...

It's not a fact.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
What I want is irrelevant. Read my proposal. It says "no confiscation!"

If enacted, my proposals (regardless of what I want or don't want) would save lives by making it harder for mass shooters to get their hands on assault weapons. And this fact is proven by the fact that nobody has been able to rebut my points.
Click to expand...
A pistol that has an 8 round magazine is NOT an “assault weapon”. The criteria used by the Democrat idiots and gun control advocates who wrote that legislation is not only a lie, but stupid and ineffective. Banning items due to cosmetic features will have zero effect on criminals.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
A pistol that has an 8 round magazine is NOT an “assault weapon”. The criteria used by the Democrat idiots and gun control advocates who wrote that legislation is not only a lie, but stupid and ineffective. Banning items due to cosmetic features will have zero effect on criminals.
Click to expand...
All we have to do is look at London you're not even allowed to have a knife there anymore so that's the ultimate goal ultimate control over the people. That's so they can kick in your door and arrest you for posting things on Twitter.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
Ok. I think your allotment of opportunities to prove that you have something serious to contribute to this discussion have run out....
Click to expand...
You don't have to respond to me. At this point it's just egotistical.

Nobody can contribute something serious to this discussion because the op is laughable . You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
A pistol that has an 8 round magazine is NOT an “assault weapon”.
Click to expand...
If it's in the definition, it is. If it's not, it isn't.

What could be simpler!

The one thing you fail to understand is that this is not about hurting the "feelings" of gun-advocates. It's about saving lives. Human life trumps... EVERYTHING. If you don't think you'll be able to live without a gun, choose one from the list of exceptions. But pro-gun advocates need to leave the rest of us out of their phallic-substitution fixations.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
If it's in the definition, it is. If it's not, it isn't.
Click to expand...
Well if that's the definition you're using then your proposal is rejected.

That particular Bill in Congress was killed too I wonder why that was.
Feynman Lives! said:
What could be simpler!
Click to expand...
Rejecting your proposal.
Feynman Lives! said:
The one thing you fail to understand is that this is not about hurting the "feelings" of gun-nuts. It's about saving lives. Human life trumps... EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...
No it's not it's about punishing people that don't agree with you. If it was about saving lives you wouldn't completely ignore the people who take lives to focus on political enemies.

It's 100% about feelings, your feelings.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
If it's in the definition, it is. If it's not, it isn't.

What could be simpler!

The one thing you fail to understand is that this is not about hurting the "feelings" of gun-nuts. It's about saving lives. Human life trumps... EVERYTHING. If you don't think you'll be able to live without a gun, choose one from the list of exceptions. But leave the rest of us out of your fixations.
Click to expand...
All your proposals do is disarm people in the face of criminals. 1.7 million defensive gun uses per a year but you are rooting for the criminal, not the citizens of this country.

Your authoritarian little fantasies will never come to fruition so get used to the disappointment.

And the reason for that is that do not pass the strict scutiny test of being narrowly tailored and the least instructive means possible of achieve it the goal.
 
Last edited:
JMB1911A1 said:
All your proposals do is disarm people in the face of criminals
Click to expand...
All my proposals do is disarm criminals. And you have not been able to rebut any of them. Guns help you defend against other guns. If there is nothing to defend against (as is the case in the REST of the developed world), then we will have saved many lives.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
All my proposals do is disarm criminals. And you have not been able to rebut any of them. Guns help you defend against other guns. If there is nothing to defend against (as is the case in the REST of the developed world), then we will have saved many lives.
Click to expand...
And once again, you quote me out of context. Your dishonesty and lack of integrity is off the charts.

However, since you admit that guns help defend you against criminals with guns, I will make you a little deal. Once you have disarmed every criminal in the U.S., you can start talking about infringing on my rights. Of course, there will be no need then since all the criminals will be disarmed.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
What I want is irrelevant. Read my proposal. It says "no confiscation!"

If enacted, my proposals (regardless of what I want or don't want) would save lives by making it harder for mass shooters to get their hands on assault weapons. And this fact is proven by the fact that nobody has been able to rebut my points.
Click to expand...
But you are lying when you post this. As you are fully aware each of your proposals was not only rebutted, but hilariously curb stomped.
 
Feynman Lives! said:
If it's in the definition, it is. If it's not, it isn't.

What could be simpler!

The one thing you fail to understand is that this is not about hurting the "feelings" of gun-advocates. It's about saving lives. Human life trumps... EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...

Absolute bullshit. Why do you pretend such things?

Feynman Lives! said:
If you don't think you'll be able to live without a gun, choose one from the list of exceptions. But pro-gun advocates need to leave the rest of us out of their phallic-substitution fixations.
Click to expand...

Somebody forced you to have a gun?
 
Feynman Lives! said:
All my proposals do is disarm criminals. And you have not been able to rebut any of them. Guns help you defend against other guns. If there is nothing to defend against (as is the case in the REST of the developed world), then we will have saved many lives.
Click to expand...

Guns can help you defend yourself against someone with a gun. This is true. They can also help you defend yourself against someone with a knife. Or even someone with nothing but their bare hands.

Your hypothetical about guns not existing isn't really a good argument in the real world. Your idea that without guns, the idea of self defense disappears is loony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom