• 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!

My biggest pet peeve in gun debates

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,030
Reaction score
82,587
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
None of these are similar to how we regulate cars.

If we treated guns like cars:

1. There would be no background check to buy one.
2. There would be no limits on size, capacity, power or number owned.
3. Felons could own them.
4. 16 year old kids could take them to school.

Is this really what you want?






I'd like to see the cites that show that the NRA supported any of the items you listed.


It's not about other countries remaining free. It's about what laws passed in the US would be Constitutional, effective and enforceable.

PS: All hunting ammunition expands upon impact.
there are some arguments that I find totally disqualify a poster's arguments on guns being taken seriously. The expanding ammunition issue is one
 

natman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2020
Messages
844
Reaction score
516
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I would like possession or use of guns to be governed much as we do licenses to drive cars, another tool we regulate.
The "regulate like cars" argument ignores that gun ownership is an explicitly enumerated constitutional right, comparable to the right to free speech or freedom of religion. Car ownership is not.
 

Maidenrules29

Death to all but METAL!!
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
387
Location
Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I would like possession or use of guns to be governed much as we do licenses to drive cars, another tool we regulate. I would want, for example, there to be limits on magazine capacity, prohibition of bullets that expand upon impact. I would want guns to be required to be stored safely. In short, I would like some of the things the NRA supported before they freaked out after viewing the legislation proposed following the King and RFK assassinations in 1968, before they became a lobby for the gun industry. Other countries remain free while controlling guns. We persist in our carnage, gun violence that has a friend of mine confined to a wheelchair for decades.
Limits on magazine capacity would only affect law abiding gun owners, which make up 99% of the gun owning population. Why should I only be able to have 10 bullets when the criminals I may have to defend myself against have 30?
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
19,278
Reaction score
5,933
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Considering that the last 21 out of the last 27 terrorists to attack the US on its own soil came across the Canadian border, and not the Mexican border, it would certainly seem to me to be more prudent to improve the security along the northern US border. But we all know how fond leftists are with killing Americans and supporting terrorism, so that will never happen.
Oh yes, we leftists showed our true colors when we pushed for New Deal benefits, created Medicare, food assistance for the poor, the ACA, and topped it off by accepting the results of elections we lost. A sorry record.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,030
Reaction score
82,587
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Oh yes, we leftists showed our true colors when we pushed for New Deal benefits, created Medicare, food assistance for the poor, the ACA, and topped it off by accepting the results of elections we lost. A sorry record.
while not honestly getting a constitutional amendment to properly allow that stuff

explain why you are unable to fathom expanding bullets or why you want citizens to be handicapped in gun fights with criminals
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,030
Reaction score
82,587
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Limits on magazine capacity would only affect law abiding gun owners, which make up 99% of the gun owning population. Why should I only be able to have 10 bullets when the criminals I may have to defend myself against have 30?
because to gun banners- you are the enemy. You might vote against the leftists they want in office. Criminals almost never vote GOP. Gun banners need to pretend their schemes are targeting criminals but they really are designed to harass people like you and I
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
158,099
Reaction score
56,143
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Pet Peeve: Gunners pretending they know the law.


Hogg knows it better than all the pseudo-legal professors here combined.

Notwithstanding the lengthy opinions in Heller and McDonald, they technically ruled only that government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their homes. Heller tentatively suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings, laws restricting the commercial sale of arms, bans on the concealed carry of firearms, and bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

In other words: "Well regulated."

 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
16,066
Reaction score
6,982
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Pet Peeve: Gunners pretending they know the law.


Hogg knows it better than all the pseudo-legal professors here combined.
Now this is the biggest porky-pie I've seen on this site.
In other words: "Well regulated."
“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 Militia is "well-regulated".

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.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,030
Reaction score
82,587
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Now this is the biggest porky-pie I've seen on this site.

“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 Militia is "well-regulated".

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.
It is hilarious that gun banners continually prove they are ignorant about the constitution
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
158,099
Reaction score
56,143
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Now this is the biggest porky-pie I've seen on this site.

“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 Militia is "well-regulated".

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.
Blah, blah, blah ^

Thanks for proving my point though about pseudo legal beagling...lol
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
158,099
Reaction score
56,143
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
It is hilarious that gun banners continually prove they are ignorant about the constitution
It sure beats being dumb enough not to know that everything said in the 21st century can now easily be verified. Talk about dumb. That is dumb.

Hogg is right; you all are wrong.
 

natman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2020
Messages
844
Reaction score
516
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Oh yes, we leftists showed our true colors when we pushed for New Deal benefits, created Medicare, food assistance for the poor, the ACA, and topped it off by accepting the results of elections we lost. A sorry record.
I hate to indulge you in your obvious attempt to change the subject, but the notion that leftists "accept the results of elections we lost" is pretty funny, when you reflect on the four years of whining we just endured and the perennial "the Electoral College is a poo-poo head" threads that are STILL posted every week.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
158,099
Reaction score
56,143
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Leader of gun caucus guy speaking "Constitutionese"


...lol
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
19,278
Reaction score
5,933
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
while not honestly getting a constitutional amendment to properly allow that stuff

explain why you are unable to fathom expanding bullets or why you want citizens to be handicapped in gun fights with criminals
One would think that lawsuits challenging those benefits would be successful if they were unconstitutional. Have at it. FDR's NRA did fall to the courts.

As to expanding bullets aka, "cop-killer bullets" as they were known, no need for them. I would like to see criminals disarmed through more restrictions on gun ownership - stuff that NRA members seem to endorse - so that there is less need for citizens to get into gunfights with them. It would take time and probably can't be done, as single issue politics such as guns and abortion have the advantage even when they only enjoy minority support. In my world, I would trust what a group of hunters and inner city parents might come up with by way of gun policy per the Supremes decision, but fanatism rules this issue.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,030
Reaction score
82,587
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
One would think that lawsuits challenging those benefits would be successful if they were unconstitutional. Have at it. FDR's NRA did fall to the courts.

As to expanding bullets aka, "cop-killer bullets" as they were known, no need for them. I would like to see criminals disarmed through more restrictions on gun ownership - stuff that NRA members seem to endorse - so that there is less need for citizens to get into gunfights with them. It would take time and probably can't be done, as single issue politics such as guns and abortion have the advantage even when they only enjoy minority support. In my world, I would trust what a group of hunters and inner city parents might come up with by way of gun policy per the Supremes decision, but fanatism rules this issue.
several of us have noted that FDR and Truman appointed every single federal judge for 20 years and the GOP did not get control of any federal court after the New Deal nonsense was created until years after the various FDR court decisions allowing it.Conservative judges are far more likely to respect precedence.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,030
Reaction score
82,587
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
One would think that lawsuits challenging those benefits would be successful if they were unconstitutional. Have at it. FDR's NRA did fall to the courts.

As to expanding bullets aka, "cop-killer bullets" as they were known, no need for them. I would like to see criminals disarmed through more restrictions on gun ownership - stuff that NRA members seem to endorse - so that there is less need for citizens to get into gunfights with them. It would take time and probably can't be done, as single issue politics such as guns and abortion have the advantage even when they only enjoy minority support. In my world, I would trust what a group of hunters and inner city parents might come up with by way of gun policy per the Supremes decision, but fanatism rules this issue.
you don't know what you are talking about

expanding bullets are the exact opposite of what banners call cop killer bullets. when you make an error this substantial, how can anyone take your arguments seriously.
 

zsu2357

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2017
Messages
6,781
Reaction score
1,957
Location
Great state of (cough,cough)Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Limits on magazine capacity would only affect law abiding gun owners, which make up 99% of the gun owning population. Why should I only be able to have 10 bullets when the criminals I may have to defend myself against have 30?
The reason is obvious, we should have only 10 and a possible assailant 30 because the anti gun crowd say so.
 

zsu2357

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2017
Messages
6,781
Reaction score
1,957
Location
Great state of (cough,cough)Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
you don't know what you are talking about

expanding bullets are the exact opposite of what banners call cop killer bullets. when you make an error this substantial, how can anyone take your arguments seriously.
Remember the almighty Teflon coated cop killer bullets of the 80s? Teflon coated that meant nothing.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,030
Reaction score
82,587
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Remember the almighty Teflon coated cop killer bullets of the 80s? Teflon coated that meant nothing.
the bannerrhoids first went after the brass coated bullets (the teflon was to protect the barrel of the firearm) as cop killers because some of those bullets would defeat a vest that a lead bullet from the same caliber handgun would not (even though centerfire rifles blow right through most police vests). then the Bannerrhoids claimed hollow points are "cop killers" even though hollow points are far less likely to penetrate a vest than FMJs and certainly less than ones with brass or steel jackets.

In other words, gun banners use scary terms, hoping the uneducated masses will buy into the bullshit they push.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
19,278
Reaction score
5,933
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
several of us have noted that FDR and Truman appointed every single federal judge for 20 years and the GOP did not get control of any federal court after the New Deal nonsense was created until years after the various FDR court decisions allowing it.Conservative judges are far more likely to respect precedence.
FDR and Truman appointed judges cause people voted for democrats for president over and over again. Elections have consequences.

But let's get down to brass tacks, as they say. In my working life and afterwards, I have enjoyed Social Security benefits and unemployment insurance, plus pre-Medicare health insurance when pronounced uninsurable, thanks to a government program. A friend gets disability benefits after being shot and paralyzed by an unknown assailant. Would you eliminate those things, plus the minimum wage, job safety rules, environmental regs, etc.? I now enjoy Medicare, and my wife and black godson have been guaranteed protection against employment discrimination, which programs/protections came from the same spirit that FDR began. And the ACA protected my wife and son. These things are similar to things in all developed countries, and even in somewhat poorer countries like Mexico, which has a form of national health care. These and other progressive measures came out of the depression of the 1930s and the fight against fascism in the 1940s. Trump promised something better than the ACA, and the GOP position was "repeal and replace," not just repeal. Ayn Rand's quasi-fascist vision of selfishness as a virtue lives on perhaps in Rand Paul's brain but not in many other places. We long ago accepted that while "greed is good" (see the film Wall Street), capitalism isn't perfect.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,030
Reaction score
82,587
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
FDR and Truman appointed judges cause people voted for democrats for president over and over again. Elections have consequences.

But let's get down to brass tacks, as they say. In my working life and afterwards, I have enjoyed Social Security benefits and unemployment insurance, plus pre-Medicare health insurance when pronounced uninsurable, thanks to a government program. A friend gets disability benefits after being shot and paralyzed by an unknown assailant. Would you eliminate those things, plus the minimum wage, job safety rules, environmental regs, etc.? I now enjoy Medicare, and my wife and black godson have been guaranteed protection against employment discrimination, which programs/protections came from the same spirit that FDR began. And the ACA protected my wife and son. These things are similar to things in all developed countries, and even in somewhat poorer countries like Mexico, which has a form of national health care. These and other progressive measures came out of the depression of the 1930s and the fight against fascism in the 1940s. Trump promised something better than the ACA, and the GOP position was "repeal and replace," not just repeal. Ayn Rand's quasi-fascist vision of selfishness as a virtue lives on perhaps in Rand Paul's brain but not in many other places. We long ago accepted that while "greed is good" (see the film Wall Street), capitalism isn't perfect.
states should be able to do those things. proper procedure would have been to amend the constitution since I don't believe that stuff is proper at a federal level. BTW have you figured out that "cop killer" bullets is a fictional term and claiming hollow points are such things is massively ignorant?
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
19,278
Reaction score
5,933
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
you don't know what you are talking about

expanding bullets are the exact opposite of what banners call cop killer bullets. when you make an error this substantial, how can anyone take your arguments seriously.
I may be mistaken, but if memory serves, expanding bullets were referred to as "cop killers" when I lived in Denver in the 1970s and the issue arose. That may be different than the controversy about rounds that are Teflon coated and penetrate vests. My late father in law was a Denver police captain at the time and I might have picked the term up from him.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,030
Reaction score
82,587
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I may be mistaken, but if memory serves, expanding bullets were referred to as "cop killers" when I lived in Denver in the 1970s and the issue arose. My late father in law was a Denver police captain at the time and I might have picked it up from him.
well gun banners have called just about everything cop killer bullets but the ones that were legislated against were ones that were specifically designed to penetrate the lightweight vests that police wear (btw crossbows, spear guns and ice picks will go through them). Hollowpoints are LEAST likely to go through ballistic vests because they expand when they hit, which retards penetration. The purpose of hollow point bullets is to prevent OVER-PENETRATION, ricochets and to dump more energy into the target. If you shoot a deer with a FMJ military round in the chest, it will die as surely as if you shoot it with a soft nose expanding round but it will run much farther in most cases. Hollowpoints or soft nosed bullets have better instant stopping power. That doesn't mean they are more lethal- it is akin to stabbing someone in the lung with an icepick versus hitting him in the chest with a baseball bat.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
19,278
Reaction score
5,933
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
well gun banners have called just about everything cop killer bullets but the ones that were legislated against were ones that were specifically designed to penetrate the lightweight vests that police wear (btw crossbows, spear guns and ice picks will go through them). Hollowpoints are LEAST likely to go through ballistic vests because they expand when they hit, which retards penetration. The purpose of hollow point bullets is to prevent OVER-PENETRATION, ricochets and to dump more energy into the target. If you shoot a deer with a FMJ military round in the chest, it will die as surely as if you shoot it with a soft nose expanding round but it will run much farther in most cases. Hollowpoints or soft nosed bullets have better instant stopping power. That doesn't mean they are more lethal- it is akin to stabbing someone in the lung with an icepick versus hitting him in the chest with a baseball bat.
Thanks for the info. Your post reminded me of a show I saw many years ago where they demonstrated how a crossbow had more penetrating power than a .45, I believe, going through a sack of sand the bullets couldn't.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,030
Reaction score
82,587
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Thanks for the info. Your post reminded me of a show I saw many years ago where they demonstrated how a crossbow had more penetrating power than a .45, I believe, going through a sack of sand the bullets couldn't.
it is due to cutting or going between the fibers. its why an icepick will go through some kevlar vests and an ax won't. many vests have ceramic plates to guard against stuff like icepicks or very slender bullets. . Hollowpoints are the least likely -from a given caliber weapon-to penetrate since by spreading out, that means the fibers of the vest work better to retard penetration.
 
Top Bottom