• 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!

Man With Gun Detains Rapist

Rucker61 said:
Do you own any "assault weapons"? If so, why did you buy them.


We've had mass murders committed with "assault weapons", semiautomatic rifles not classified as "assault weapons", bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, pump action shotguns, double barrel shotguns, pistols, revolvers, and rimfire firearms.

Common legal uses for AR-15s and similar firearms:
1. Long distance shooting. http://thecmp.org/competitions/service-rifle/
2. Competition - http://3gunnation.com/news
3. Practice – for long distance or competition
4. Plinking/recreational shooting – cheapest centerfire ammo, low recoil, adaptable frame.
5. Varmint hunting - https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2013/1/10/best-ar-15-calibers-for-predator-hunting/
6. Big game hunting, in the proper caliber and legal magazine. - http://www.fieldandstream.com/artic...r-style-rifles-chambered-for-big-game-hunting
7. Self-defense. - http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/ultimate-300-aac-blackout-ammo-test/

The federal government sold hundreds of thousands of actual military grade, semiautomatic, magazine fed rifles to citizens for decades, without background checks and mailed them to their homes.


Evidently the government wanted the citizens to own these kinds of firearms.



Remember Virginia Tech. Let's ban .22 pistols.
Click to expand...
I have several WWII era MI Garands-some are in original condition, some are restored for match use with Krieger barrels etc. Other than the original FN-FAL I have, I'd consider them the "Deadliest" rifles I have given the 30-06 is far more lethal at far longer ranges than my 5.56, 5.45, and 762x39 carbines
 
TurtleDude said:
I want you to tell me what guns have no purpose other than killing people. And why should I have my rights destroyed because of what someone else does? I suspect that your real reason for pushing bans is political because almost everyone who wants to ban commonly owned firearms is a democrat or left-winger. BTW the guns most of you want to ban, are rarely used to kill others
Click to expand...
Many laws are made because of other people's actions----welcome to Earth.

Assault weapons are not "common" per se......

I am a conservative Republican. ---and yeah---I worked and trained rifle and pistol shooters for the NRA. Have you??
 
TurtleDude said:
I have several WWII era MI Garands-some are in original condition, some are restored for match use with Krieger barrels etc. Other than the original FN-FAL I have, I'd consider them the "Deadliest" rifles I have given the 30-06 is far more lethal at far longer ranges than my 5.56, 5.45, and 762x39 carbines
Click to expand...

I completely get why someone might want to collect antique firearms. Indeed I think any firearms manufactured before 1946 should be exempt from any ban.
 
Rich2018 said:
I completely get why someone might want to collect antique firearms. Indeed I think any firearms manufactured before 1946 should be exempt from any ban.
Click to expand...
I don't care, no firearm should be banned.
 
tshade said:
bullets
Click to expand...
that's really stupid because the average hunting rifle fires far more lethal bullets than the stuff the bannerrhoid movement calls "assault weapons"
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes they should. Most of them actually.
Click to expand...
I'd rather ban gun banners. They are enemies of our constitution and many of us took an oath to defend it. But that is the nice thing about being armed. Gun banners really cannot ban guns without having to rely on others with guns
 
tshade said:
rather narrow minded, don't you think???
Click to expand...
narrow minded is thinking a gun should be banned because one out of 1000 owners misuse it
 
tshade said:
hunting guns versus assault weapons----------big diff
Click to expand...
AR 15s are very popular hunting weapons. Why am I getting the feeling you really haven't a clue what you are talking about on this issue? Do you want to ban revolvers? say snub nosed revolvers? or do you want to ban AR 15s and other scary looking rifles?
 
TurtleDude said:
I'd rather ban gun banners. They are enemies of our constitution and many of us took an oath to defend it. But that is the nice thing about being armed. Gun banners really cannot ban guns without having to rely on others with guns
Click to expand...
"enemies of the constitution" ?????? What are you, a wacko??

Chill out. The Founders knew that guns have to regulated, as per the first part of the 2nd amendment
 
TurtleDude said:
AR 15s are very popular hunting weapons. Why am I getting the feeling you really haven't a clue what you are talking about on this issue? Do you want to ban revolvers? say snub nosed revolvers? or do you want to ban AR 15s and other scary looking rifles?
Click to expand...
I've hunted all my life and know of no one who uses that weapon in the woods. I, and others own them, but never for hunting.....
 
tshade said:
historically, laws are made that way.

Are you a murderer??? Well, most people are not, but there are laws against it.....
Click to expand...
murder is malum per se. owning the same gun that others have owned for 50 years and which police (civilians) are routinely issued is not objectively wrong
 
TurtleDude said:
I'd rather ban gun banners. They are enemies of our constitution and many of us took an oath to defend it. But that is the nice thing about being armed. Gun banners really cannot ban guns without having to rely on others with guns
Click to expand...

Because you don't care about the victims of gun violence

You just want to keep you guns period. No matter what.
You'd rather see the world burn than give up your guns.
 
Rich2018 said:
Because you don't care about the victims of gun violence

You just want to keep you guns period. No matter what.
You'd rather see the world burn than give up your guns.
Click to expand...
wrong, I don't believe I have a duty to sacrifice because someone else committed a crime. Liberals are always so willing to demand others sacrifice something so the liberal can take credit. So I ask you, what are YOU willing to give up to get rid of privately owned firearms?
 
Logician Man said:
How does one 'legally' "ban a gun banner" ?
Click to expand...

It's just a sound-byte the guns lovers have, like "when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away", or "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun".
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong, I don't believe I have a duty to sacrifice because someone else committed a crime. Liberals are always so willing to demand others sacrifice something so the liberal can take credit. So I ask you, what are YOU willing to give up to get rid of privately owned firearms?
Click to expand...

You don't have that duty

But government has the duty to make society safe, and IMO that means banning guns*


*Subject to exemptions previously discussed.
 
tshade said:
Many laws are made because of other people's actions----welcome to Earth.

Assault weapons are not "common" per se......
Click to expand...
According to Caetano v Massachusetts, the threshold for "in common use" is "hundreds of thousands sold". AR-15s certainly meet that threshold. In Maloney v Singas, a federal court in NY reduced that to 64,890. So yes, they are "in common use".

tshade said:
I am a conservative Republican. ---and yeah---I worked and trained rifle and pistol shooters for the NRA. Have you??
Click to expand...
I'm a moderate small L libertarian. I build my rifles from the ground up, every spring, pin and screw.

I was trained in the use of the service rifle in the Army. I trained soldiers in the use of the service rifle in the Army. I trained the trainers in the use of the service rifle in the Army. I was the training officer for my battalion in the Army. I am fairly well versed firearms similar to the AR-15.

Again, why do you think it was designed solely to kill people? Ah, hell, you'll never answer, so I'll respond thusly:|


The first semiautomatic rifle in the US was made in 1903, in .22 LR. It wasn't designed as military rifle. The first semiautomatic centerfire rifle in the US, equipped with a box magazine that held up to 15 rounds was the Remington Model 8 It was designed for hunting. The .224 caliber bullet was first used in the .220 Swift, in 1935, for hunting.

The .223 Remington was based on the .222 Remington, a hunting cartridge. The Remington model 760, a hunting rifle, chambered in .223 Remington, was sold to civilians before the M16 was used by the US military. The first rifle ever to use a pistol grip was the DELVIGNE PATENT carbine made by LESOINNE ET PIRLOT FILS, LIEGE in 1840

There is nothing unique to the AR-15, other than the bayonet lug, that wasn't used in a hunting rifle before ever being used in an M16 or AR-15. Show that a bayonet on an AR-15 was used to kill more than five people in the last 55 years and I’ll give up the bayonet lug.
 
tshade said:
"enemies of the constitution" ?????? What are you, a wacko??

Chill out. The Founders knew that guns have to regulated, as per the first part of the 2nd amendment
Click to expand...
“Well-regulated” modifies “militia”. The Constitution grants powers to government. The Bill of Rights restricts the powers of government.

The Constitution granted Congress the power to organize, arm and discipline the militia in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16. Congress, using this authority, has passed five Militia Acts since ratification of the Bill of Rights to regulate the militia. Current law on militia regulation is 10 USC 246.

U.S. Code § 246.Militia: composition and classes

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The Second Amendment can only limit the power of government, not expand it. That limitation was expressed in the clause "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Nothing in the Bill of Rights limits the rights of the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom