• 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!

Venezuelans regret gun ban, 'a declaration of war against an unarmed population'

Tigerace117 said:
The Afghans have basically been in a state of Civil War since 1979.

That’s almost forty decades.

Or eight of our Civil Wars back to back, give or take.
Click to expand...

your math needs some serious work
 
RaleBulgarian said:
The point you’re attempting to make in the first paragraph is too vague to respond to.

As for magazine capacities and legal (for civilians) ammo, referring to inside the home is irrelevant. Applicable federal/state laws will apply whether in or outside of your home. And AFAIK, MA is the only state that requires firearms in the home to be locked up. I have firearms in my home that are always loaded, except when our grandson (almost 3 yo) comes to visit, in which case I unload and lock them away.


My opinion only, but banning full auto weapons and restricting allowed magazine capacity are two that, although I do not support the idea, would have no effect on my ability to protect myself/my family. Reasons are simple: first, getting one is not easy (even for bad guys) and rarely does a bad guy attack with a full auto weapon. And magazine capacity deficit can be overcome by carrying additional mags (I do). Yeah, yeah, I know the argument about lost time changing out mags, but part of gun ownership responsibility is proficiency in use. Practice shooting, practice mag swap outs. Again I’m not endorsing anything, just sayin’.
Click to expand...

the only purpose for magazine restrictions are to turn lawful owners prior to the ban into criminals and to desensitize the sheeple into accepting additional bans.
 
TurtleDude said:
the only purpose for magazine restrictions are to turn lawful owners prior to the ban into criminals and to desensitize the sheeple into accepting additional bans.
Click to expand...
The only logical conclusion.
 
American said:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuelans-regret-gun-prohibition-we-could-have-defended-ourselves


If ever there was a news article, that totally vindicates our founding fathers, and places the brightest spotlight squarely on the Democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists and communists in the United States, it's this one. This is what they want for the citizens of the United States. This is precisely the tyrannical regime they want for us, MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT. They would love ALL weapons to be confiscated, and protesters (read that conservatives) against their tyrannical regime would be shot like dogs in the streets. Read the article, it's frightening! They never go for our guns outright in one swoop, they start incrementally and they institute hate for American history in the schools to teach our children to hate/fear guns. Then when those generations come of age, they willing give up their guns without firing a shot for the good of all. Then the draconian communism begins in earnest. Pelosi, Feinstein and the like are working on it as we speak. The idiot citizens in Venezuela got their guns taken quickly because they've always had ****ty govts. But in the US is won't go that way in beginning, it'll start slow and ramp up.
Click to expand...

Democrats do not know what is wrong with their socialistic agenda. The devil is behind that big atheistic government totalitarian nonsense but I don't think most deluded democrats even know what horrible damage their party policies will do to America.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The Afghans have basically been in a state of Civil War since 1979.

That’s almost forty decades.

Or eight of our Civil Wars back to back, give or take.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that you meant 4 decades not 40 right? Perhaps if the Afghans had half the heart that Americans have it would have been a much, much shorter war? I dont know, that does not convince me that that Afghans are better than Americans.

At any rate this is not a pissing contest with Afghans. I think that you are grossly under evaluating American spirit and patriotism.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Perhaps if the Afghans had half the heart that Americans have it would have been a much, much shorter war?
Click to expand...
Afghans defeated/drove out Soviet forces. A not insignificant thing.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
First, you should invest in some reading comprehension courses because you clearly did not understand what I said, and are accusing me of things I did not say or imply. I did not call any law extreme. I also did not insult anyone, I pointed out what was very clearly an extreme exaggeration of OP’s future world scenario.

I made no such claim.

And there are many more Americans that support the 2nd Amendment, so no reason to get your panties in a wad. There are more guns than there are citizens, by many accounts, and we have long history and cultural belief in the right of self protection. Only deluded zealots see the “gun bogeyman” lurking around every corner. As for your idiotic registration theory, there are a great many legal firearms that aren’t currently registered and there’s no plan to register them. Besides, you register your car and your dog. Do you think the government has a nefarious plan to take them away from you too?
Click to expand...
You either work for them, or you don't know WTF you're talking about.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
That single step (that probably won’t go anyway) is one hell of a stretch from what American said.
Click to expand...
From the NFA of 1934 up to all the red flag this and that (which IF a red flag is done right OK). In OR. A red flag or (ERPO) law gives the person 24 HOURS to surrender any firearms. Now I gotta ask what is wrong there?
EXCERPT: "You must, within 24 hours, surrender all deadly weapons in your custody, control or possession to (insert name of local law enforcement agency), a gun dealer or a third party who may lawfully possess the deadly weapons. You must, within 24 hours, surrender to (insert name of local law enforcement agency) any concealed handgun license issued to you."
 
American said:
You either work for them, or you don't know WTF you're talking about.
Click to expand...
Based on your initial post it’s obvious that you don’t know WTF you’re talking about.
 
zsu2357 said:
From the NFA of 1934 up to all the red flag this and that (which IF a red flag is done right OK). In OR. A red flag or (ERPO) law gives the person 24 HOURS to surrender any firearms. Now I gotta ask what is wrong there?
EXCERPT: "You must, within 24 hours, surrender all deadly weapons in your custody, control or possession to (insert name of local law enforcement agency), a gun dealer or a third party who may lawfully possess the deadly weapons. You must, within 24 hours, surrender to (insert name of local law enforcement agency) any concealed handgun license issued to you."
Click to expand...
Are you against safety belts and airbags too?
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Based on your initial post it’s obvious that you don’t know WTF you’re talking about.
Click to expand...

I think that might earn some serious irony points
 
TurtleDude said:
I think that might earn some serious irony points
Click to expand...
Coming from someone who finds this post
American said:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuelans-regret-gun-prohibition-we-could-have-defended-ourselves


If ever there was a news article, that totally vindicates our founding fathers, and places the brightest spotlight squarely on the Democrats, liberals, progressives, socialists and communists in the United States, it's this one. This is what they want for the citizens of the United States. This is precisely the tyrannical regime they want for us, MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT. They would love ALL weapons to be confiscated, and protesters (read that conservatives) against their tyrannical regime would be shot like dogs in the streets. Read the article, it's frightening! They never go for our guns outright in one swoop, they start incrementally and they institute hate for American history in the schools to teach our children to hate/fear guns. Then when those generations come of age, they willing give up their guns without firing a shot for the good of all. Then the draconian communism begins in earnest. Pelosi, Feinstein and the like are working on it as we speak. The idiot citizens in Venezuela got their guns taken quickly because they've always had ****ty govts. But in the US is won't go that way in beginning, it'll start slow and ramp up.
Click to expand...
logical, reasonable, and informed? Thanks, but I’ll stay with the rational and informed folks.
 
Rucker61 said:
That would explain the long lasting British and Soviet rule in Afghanistan. Why do you think that the "rebels" won't have access to artillery or tanks in the US?
Click to expand...
I think he would rather just take in the back of the head and fall in a pit.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Coming from someone who finds this post logical, reasonable, and informed? Thanks, but I’ll stay with the rational and informed folks.
Click to expand...

you're ignorant of incrementalism?
 
=Tigerace117;1069416831]Ooh, those scary Democrats :roll:

Frankly bud it’s a lot more likely that the party which has been claiming there are good Nazis and Neo Confederates and which has apparently had its spine surgically removed given it’s kowtowing to a narcisstic draft dodger who likes to attack POWs is the one going to descend into tyranny..... but that’s a story for another day.

Here’s the thing—-there are a lot of different jobs in the military. Someone whose job was simply to carry a rifle isn’t necessarily going to know anything about how to operate a tank. They would certainly be harder to kill, since they at least understand the basic concepts needed, but the same problems still apply.

I hate to break it to you but a totalitarian state which has already secured control over the government of the US would certainly have locked down support from the regulars military. That’s pretty much step one. As for the National Guard.....it’s amazing how many of your own side’s flaws you can reconcile yourself to when the other one is shooting at you.

There seems to be this major disconnect in the logic people like you try to use. Supposedly there’s this big bad totalitarian state which clearly would have been willing to be utterly ruthless given that it would have totally seized power.....yet you seem to think that they wouldn’t have secured control over the military, or that they’d show restraint because their opposition were also Americans. There is zero reason to believe either one of those conditions would be true.

And again, a military machine of a totalitarian state? “Very ruthless” seems to be the standard.

So your movement’s first step would be to target innocent civilians.....and you expect the regular military or National Guard to support you?

Seriously?
Click to expand...
Everything Rucker says about the subject is up and up.
Originally Posted by Rucker61
I guess if that day ever comes, and I doubt it will, we shall see. How willing to fight American citizens will the federal government be knowing that their families are basically unprotected from rebels with access to names of dependents and addresses of homes and schools?
Click to expand...
Frankly I couldn’t think of a better way to ensure your little rebellion failed miserably.
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing it. I believe he is referring to the Bureaucrats not military. Besides I really think the military would take command of things until legitimate elections could be held.
 
Last edited:
RaleBulgarian said:
Nope, I’m not ignorant of incremtalization or hyperbole.
Click to expand...

so tell me-if someone wants to ban "assault weapons" to save lives even though such weapons are used in less than 3% of all murders-is it sensible to believe they don't also want to ban the firearms used in most murders?
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Are you against safety belts and airbags too?
Click to expand...
A safety belt is reasonable,never needed an air bag(but that's me). But if they make it commonsense to the point of being mandatory you have an auto pilot (that would piss off my wife since she would loose her job) operated by radar or flir or some such, I quit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom