• 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!

Maybe we actually do something this time?

all why should anyone who has a clean record have to wait?
Maybe to save some ****ing lives?

I mean, run a ****ing stoplight TurtleDude, why should anyone with a clean driving record have to wait for the legal justification to cross a ****ing intersection?
Why do I have to wait for my tax return?
Why do birds ****?

I mean, surely you have better?
 
Not after how we have watched the Elite Class mistreat Mr Trump.

There has to be trust.
 
So two questions: At what point did I say I wanted to ban guns? and on what basis are background checks unconstitutional?

background checks imposed on private citizens who can only sell second hand guns INTRASTATE do not meet even the massively contorted FDR expansion of interstate commerce.

you said you wanted to ban "heavy assault weapons" and defined them to include most of the centerfire rifles sold in the USA over the last 25 years. that makes you a gun banner
 
well the good thing is Bucky, your idiotic suggestions are idiotic and rejected as such, BTW the citizen who confronts the violent criminal first is the first responder. Cops are the second responder. and you should be the one trying to disarm everyone of the guns you don't like. Its really silly to demand that men with guns back up your gun banning dreams. if you really believe in that plan, you should start implementing it.

If the argument is we need to have near unlimited access to guns so regular folks can be first responders in situations like this and prevent mass casualty why do we never see that happen?
 
Maybe to save some ****ing lives?

I mean, run a ****ing stoplight TurtleDude, why should anyone with a clean driving record have to wait for the legal justification to cross a ****ing intersection?
Why do I have to wait for my tax return?
Why do birds ****?

I mean, surely you have better?

that's a moronic analogy and you know it. its why I have so little use for anti gun posters' positions because their arguments are so incredibly stupid. there is no proof waiting periods decrease violent crime. and if someone already owns a gun, there is absolutely no argument for it whatsoever. a waiting period is clearly an infringement
 
If the argument is we need to have near unlimited access to guns so regular folks can be first responders in situations like this and prevent mass casualty why do we never see that happen?

you're lying. the recent case showed that a private citizen with a firearm caused the killer to flee. He didn't stop the killings but he stopped others being killed. in many cases, the criminal attacks don't become "mass shootings" because the killer isn't able to perpetrate enough deaths to qualify. I guess you missed the recent news in South Carolina.
 
1.) these guns do not need banned nor will they fix the problem and many rifles besides ar-15s are semi-auto
2.) Im ok with back ground checks but I would want somethign in return like national open carry concealed reciprocity :shrug:
3.) waiting periods only endanger me, my family and law abiding citizens like me they do nothing for criminals

Also for the record id support anything that follows the rule of punishing criminals and criminals and NOT punishing and endangering me and my family.

most gun banners are not motivated by controlling criminals but rather harassing gun owners and the NRA
 
So seemingly no time has passed since the deadliest mass shooting in American history and here we are with yet another bushel of Americans dead because its never the "right time" for gun control.

Can this finally be the time we do something. Can we finally ban heavy assault weapons. Can we finally close the Gun show loophole. Can we finally have universal background checks and waiting periods. etc. Or is it still not the time to be talking about this.

We need to address the elimination of the question mark in today's society, and improve our communication accuracy.
 
What a silly argument.

That's like arguing if you support deporting illegal aliens in this country that you have to volunteer and capture these illegals.

The law enforcement agency can handle that.

Law enforcement supports the 2A.
 
No, they will be simply arrested.

Because only the Authorities owning firearms worked so well in places like Germany, Kosovo, etc....

How did that work out Bucky?

Fortunately, we do have the second Amendment here....no amount of fantasizing will make it go away.
 
We need to address the elimination of the question mark in today's society, and improve our communication accuracy.

Have communication honesty? Really? How much interest could there possibly be in that?

*Biting Sarcasm*
 
Outside of hunting rifles, we need to ban all handguns and assault weapons, period, end of story.

Then quit ****ing around and get to work. Or are you all talk, and no action? It's looking more and more like the latter.
 
What a silly argument.

That's like arguing if you support deporting illegal aliens in this country that you have to volunteer and capture these illegals.

The law enforcement agency can handle that.


:lamo
 
because it has no value in stopping crime and is the holy grail for every group that wants to confiscate or ban guns. why should any gun owner support such a scheme? its also unconstitutional
1)No one is coming to take your guns.
2)No, it isn't.
 
Outside of hunting rifles, we need to ban all handguns and assault weapons, period, end of story.

Why allow hunting rifles? They are even more powerful then an AR-15, people don't use the AR-15 for hunting anything larger than a hog or coyote because it is one of the weaker rifles. You don't even want to know the type of damage a 30-06 could do if fired multiple of times into a crowd.

It would require doing away with the 2nd amendment to do what you suggest. Not likely to ever happen.
 
Why allow hunting rifles? They are even more powerful then an AR-15, people don't use the AR-15 for hunting anything larger than a hog or coyote because it is one of the weaker rifles. You don't even want to know the type of damage a 30-06 could do if fired multiple of times into a crowd.

It would require doing away with the 2nd amendment to do what you suggest. Not likely to ever happen.

You cant fire a hunting rifle 30 times one after the other the way you can an AR
 
that's a moronic analogy and you know it. its why I have so little use for anti gun posters' positions because their arguments are so incredibly stupid. there is no proof waiting periods decrease violent crime. and if someone already owns a gun, there is absolutely no argument for it whatsoever. a waiting period is clearly an infringement

According to you there is no proof any law deters any crime.
And you think it's unconstitutional to enact gun laws anyway.
It's like you have your fingers in your ears as you make the same tired, failed arguments. Or maybe it's from all that target practice :p
 
Why allow hunting rifles? They are even more powerful then an AR-15, people don't use the AR-15 for hunting anything larger than a hog or coyote because it is one of the weaker rifles. You don't even want to know the type of damage a 30-06 could do if fired multiple of times into a crowd.

It would require doing away with the 2nd amendment to do what you suggest. Not likely to ever happen.


Don't confuse people with facts and logic.
 
Because only the Authorities owning firearms worked so well in places like Germany, Kosovo, etc....

How did that work out Bucky?

Fortunately, we do have the second Amendment here....no amount of fantasizing will make it go away.
You think if those people had been armed it would have made a difference?:lamo

The Nazi's had ****ing Tiger tanks, rockets, and chemical weapons. No matter what, their arms would always trump the arms of the minority group they were oppressing.
 
1)No one is coming to take your guns.
2)No, it isn't.

I heard that nonsense in England, I heard it from people in Australia, I have heard it in NY and California. right now gun confiscators are limited to a few states. But like a cancer, the gun ban movement never stops trying to infect others. where does the federal government get the power to force people who own guns -sometimes for decades to register them?

I will assume you are ignorant of the fact that criminals cannot be punished for refusing to register their weapons
 
You cant fire a hunting rifle 30 times one after the other the way you can an AR

Of course that's true on average. But there is no spectrum according to gun owners. A knife can be used to kill just as many people, just as easily, according those these types. It's madness. Right wing media in general is madness, should it surprise anyone? It's all fake news anyway, every single station other than (right wing media) of course.
 
Maybe to save some ****ing lives?

I mean, run a ****ing stoplight TurtleDude, why should anyone with a clean driving record have to wait for the legal justification to cross a ****ing intersection?
Why do I have to wait for my tax return?
Why do birds ****?

I mean, surely you have better?

How does a waiting period for anyone who already owns guns save lives?
 
You think if those people had been armed it would have made a difference?:lamo

The Nazi's had ****ing Tiger tanks, rockets, and chemical weapons. No matter what, their arms would always trump the arms of the minority group they were oppressing.

if the 6 million Jews slaughtered by the Nazis had firearms, most of them would still have died. but if only one out of 20 had shot a Nazi before being dragged off to a death camp that would inflicted 300,000 casualties and that would have meant the allies would have had a much easier time wiping out the Third Reich. a few starving Jews with only the weapons they took from Nazis caused a major problem for the Nazis in the Polish Ghetto. It cost the Nazis on the Eastern Front supporting troops.
 
Back
Top Bottom