• 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!

Survey: Nearly 110 Million Americans Have a Gun at Home

Whaaah. I said something about gun ownership you don't like. I must be baiting you. Whaaaah!

Lean how to quote people you are responding to. I am laughing at how pathetic your "arguments" are. I have been dealing with members of the BM for 40+ years. Nothing you can say about your hatred of gun owners is news to me. and nothing you can say is going to upset me
 
Please share.... What reasonable gun control are you talking about?

Thanks for the question.

There are so many.

I like the Israeli model to start

50 rounds a year.

2 guns per person

Insurance required.

No rifles (maybe a 30 aught bolt action if you can prove hunting which is evil).

One month waiting list.

A lot more
 
Thanks for the question.

There are so many.

I like the Israeli model to start

50 rounds a year.

2 guns per person

Insurance required.

No rifles (maybe a 30 aught bolt action if you can prove hunting which is evil).

One month waiting list.

A lot more

see-that proves you aren't interested in reasonable anything because even someone with an IQ of 50 would see that suggestion as extremist idiocy. 50 rounds a year-how would Kim Rhode win 6 olympic medals practicing only 50 rounds a year?
that's also unconstitutional
 
see-that proves you aren't interested in reasonable anything because even someone with an IQ of 50 would see that suggestion as extremist idiocy. 50 rounds a year-how would Kim Rhode win 6 olympic medals practicing only 50 rounds a year?
that's also unconstitutional

Why do you hate our Israeli allies? As for Kim she can rent or buy rounds at the range. Problem SOLved.
 
Why do you hate our Israeli allies? As for Kim she can rent or buy rounds at the range. Problem SOLved.

what a stupid response. how do you rent rounds. that's even more stupid. Its illegal for criminals to possess any firearms or any ammo-so you obviously are interested in passing laws that only harass honest gun owners

tell us what really motivates you? did someone you know eat a gun? on another board there is a poster who sounds just like you. It took a few months but he finally admitted his older brother killed himself with a gun over being gay. or was one of your friends a mope who got shot by someone he was trying to rob? Your level of silly hatred towards gun owners generally is motivated by an irrational hatred that in turn was caused by a traumatic personal event.
 
If I owned a gun range I would rent the rounds so I could have control over the casing. I am smart that way.
 
Survey: Nearly 110 Million Americans Have a Gun at Home
Well, we can throw that old Pew poll away. I still don't believe this one is accurate but it is more accurate than the last one. With all these guns around every household should have at least one death if you follow the logic of gun control fear mongers.

I don't think that's quite right - it's too high.

Mainly: people who own firearms tend to own more than one.
And people are families . . . multiple people know someone and if they're related then that doesn't mean they know separate people.

For example: no one in my entire family has a single firearm. Yet there was a time during which I owned several. Thus everyone in my family knew me and thus knew someone who owned a firearm.

I think their math is a bit off due to these two reasons. 1/2 of all adults in the US don't have a firearm in their home.
 
If you are not afraid you typically don't own guns unless you hate furry animals.
 
Thanks for the question.

There are so many.

I like the Israeli model to start

50 rounds a year.

2 guns per person

Insurance required.

No rifles (maybe a 30 aught bolt action if you can prove hunting which is evil).

One month waiting list.

A lot more

50 rounds a year? When I shoot 50 rounds is a warm up. I am currently (and legally) reloading 200 .38 in preparation for going to the range....

2 guns per person? Why? What will this solve?

No rifles? Really? What will that solve? The VAST majority of shootings were with handguns.

Looks like you want maximum restriction on law abiding gun owners while not really fixing anything.
 
If I owned a gun range I would rent the rounds so I could have control over the casing. I am smart that way.

You really demonstrate you have no clue about firearms. Rent rounds? geez that's in the hall of fame of stupid suggestions. Most people who don't reload leave their brass at public ranges. The one I shoot at has about 5 tons of the stuff they sell to a commercial reloading facility. Another chain of public ranges has a contract with a remanufacturing company that is owned by a friend of mine (he sponsors my son with discount ammo). They load over 10 million rounds a year-all from empty cartridges collected from the 4 public ranges owned by the chain. Now I reload much of what I shoot but for every serious shooter like me, there are hundreds of folks who do not
 
50 rounds a year? When I shoot 50 rounds is a warm up. I am currently (and legally) reloading 200 .38 in preparation for going to the range....

2 guns per person? Why? What will this solve?

No rifles? Really? What will that solve? The VAST majority of shootings were with handguns.

Looks like you want maximum restriction on law abiding gun owners while not really fixing anything.

He obviously has an emotionally based hatred of gun owners-most likely caused by what I suggested. some of the people who engage in this sort of stupidity are hard core Democrats who hate the voting patterns of gun owners and the NRA. But this guy claimed he was voting for Johnson so it suggests either a poe angle or a personal trauma
 
If you are not afraid you typically don't own guns unless you hate furry animals.

another lie. I mentioned Olympic Champion Kim Rhode. or Ginny Thrasher, or Vince Hancock or Matt Eamons or Matt Dryke or Lones Wigger Jr etc etc. Olympic gold medalists in shooting sports.

you are just demonstrating you are willing to lie to further your emotobabbling jihad against gun owners
 
I don't think that's quite right - it's too high.

Mainly: people who own firearms tend to own more than one.
And people are families . . . multiple people know someone and if they're related then that doesn't mean they know separate people.

For example: no one in my entire family has a single firearm. Yet there was a time during which I owned several. Thus everyone in my family knew me and thus knew someone who owned a firearm.

I think their math is a bit off due to these two reasons. 1/2 of all adults in the US don't have a firearm in their home.

You can think that.
 
It's very difficult to determine the true state of gun ownership via a survey, or self-reported data on any topic. People lie or skew the random sample by refusing to participate. I suspect that any survey for gun ownership will under-report, as I posit people with firearms are more likely to lie/decline than those without. I know I wouldn't answer such questions, and many gun owners I know think the same. I doubt many people claim to have firearms on such surveys when they don't, while the converse is much more likely to be the case. This is particularly true in the current political climate, where it's probable we'll have another Clinton in the WH and maybe even relive the nightmare of one party government. I suspect that there are drafts for a new "Assault Weapon Ban", and this time it won't have a sunset nor outlaw largely cosmetic attributes. If there's a dem sweep this November, the RTBA will be greatly curtailed.
 
Thanks for the question.

There are so many.

I like the Israeli model to start

50 rounds a year.

2 guns per person

Insurance required.

No rifles (maybe a 30 aught bolt action if you can prove hunting which is evil).

One month waiting list.

A lot more



Your definition of reasonable is my definition of oppressive, stupid, useless and unconstitutional.
 
Your definition of reasonable is my definition of oppressive, stupid, useless and unconstitutional.
The "reasonable" or "common sense" criteria should be tested by applying analogous restrictions to 1A rights. The quoted restrictions would be a limit of say 50 posts per year, each with a one month waiting period and background check. If one believes such conditions do not violate the 2A or the RTBA then, logically, they don't for the 1A as well.
 
The "reasonable" or "common sense" criteria should be tested by applying analogous restrictions to 1A rights. The quoted restrictions would be a limit of say 50 posts per year, each with a one month waiting period and background check. If one believes such conditions do not violate the 2A or the RTBA then, logically, they don't for the 1A as well.


Exactly right. Well said.


Another reasonable comparison is the hysteria some have over showing photo ID to vote, yet having no problem with photo ID, background checks and many other restrictions on 2A rights.
 
It's very difficult to determine the true state of gun ownership via a survey, or self-reported data on any topic. People lie or skew the random sample by refusing to participate. I suspect that any survey for gun ownership will under-report, as I posit people with firearms are more likely to lie/decline than those without. I know I wouldn't answer such questions, and many gun owners I know think the same. I doubt many people claim to have firearms on such surveys when they don't, while the converse is much more likely to be the case. This is particularly true in the current political climate, where it's probable we'll have another Clinton in the WH and maybe even relive the nightmare of one party government. I suspect that there are drafts for a new "Assault Weapon Ban", and this time it won't have a sunset nor outlaw largely cosmetic attributes. If there's a dem sweep this November, the RTBA will be greatly curtailed.

any party that tries to nationally confiscate guns will be in deep trouble in the polls. under Heller, I do not believe the federal government can pass a semi auto rifle ban which is what some Bannerrhoid states have started to attempt
 
Exactly right. Well said.


Another reasonable comparison is the hysteria some have over showing photo ID to vote, yet having no problem with photo ID, background checks and many other restrictions on 2A rights.
I've never quite understood how requiring a photo ID for voting puts an unfair burden on the poor, while it doesn't for purchasing a gun. Even more onerous, the CHL fee structure in Illinois: I did a calculation, and the training requirements, fees, etc, to acquire just the ability to purchase a CC firearm in Illinois is at a bare minimum $439: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rs-shootings-soar-chicago-post1065731047.html That's to exercise the 2A right to bear arms. Notice that the state-issed driver's license/ID costs $20.. Apparently, that's an unfair burden for voting, but nearly 22x as much is just peachy for the RTBA. And that's just the right, not actually the costs to acquire a firearm.
 
Last edited:
any party that tries to nationally confiscate guns will be in deep trouble in the polls. under Heller, I do not believe the federal government can pass a semi auto rifle ban which is what some Bannerrhoid states have started to attempt

I've never quite understood how requiring a photo ID for voting puts an unfair burden on the poor, while it doesn't for purchasing a gun. Even more onerous, the CHL fee structure in Illinois: I did a calculation, and the training requirements, fees, etc, to acquire just the ability to purchase a CC firearm in Illinois is at a bare minimum $439: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rs-shootings-soar-chicago-post1065731047.html That's to exercise the 2A right to bear arms. Notice that the state-issed driver's license/ID costs $20.. Apparently, that's an unfair burden for voting, but nearly 22x as much is just peachy for the RTBA. And that's just the right, not actually the costs to acquire a firearm.

Oh, and Heller will be reversed in very short order if Garland gets on the court. Barring that, any Clinton nominee would be as bad if not worse.
 
Last edited:
Is it that big of a deal for the numbers to be a little over-estimated?



They may very well be over estimated, as I doubt there are more than 125 million households in America last time I calculated it out. 110 million seems a bit high to me, if they are talking households rather than individuals.
 
I've never quite understood how requiring a photo ID for voting puts an unfair burden on the poor, while it doesn't for purchasing a gun. Even more onerous, the CHL fee structure in Illinois: I did a calculation, and the training requirements, fees, etc, to acquire just the ability to purchase a CC firearm in Illinois is at a bare minimum $439: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rs-shootings-soar-chicago-post1065731047.html That's to exercise the 2A right to bear arms. Notice that the state-issed driver's license/ID costs $20.. Apparently, that's an unfair burden for voting, but nearly 22x as much is just peachy for the RTBA. And that's just the right, not actually the costs to acquire a firearm.

Oh, and Heller will be reversed in very short order if Garland gets on the court. Barring that, any Clinton nominee would be as bad if not worse.

that would be the best thing that could happen for the GOP. Kogan claimed in her confirmation hearing the Heller was established precedent that should be respected.
 
Back
Top Bottom