• 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!

What is the end game for the Democrats who want to ban some firearms?

TurtleDude

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,390
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Almost 70% of the Democrats in the senate want to ban semi auto rifles that accept magazines, as well as banning normal capacity magazines. Their defenders say that they don't want to ban all guns or even most firearms. But how can that be? If they really are pushing for these bans to stop criminals from having access to these firearms and using them to harm or kill others, don't they, in order to be consistent, have to support banning handguns, given that handguns are 70 times more likely to be used for a murder than a semi auto magazine fed rifle?

And if they don't want to ban the firearm most used for murder, than clearly, their motivations for trying to ban semi auto rifles is something other than crime control
 
TurtleDude said:
Almost 70% of the Democrats in the senate want to ban semi auto rifles that accept magazines, as well as banning normal capacity magazines.
Click to expand...
Please be specific. Which Senators claim to want to "ban" which weapons.
 
beefheart said:
Looks like another long fevered night by the OP fretting about those damned democrats trying to come and take the guns....
Click to expand...
And most likely the asinine, disingenuous claim that any parent, or grandparent, who has lost a child in a mass school slaughter, or other similar tragedy, who wants to discuss stricter background checks must be a "bannerhoid', who doesn't really care about the safety of their children and grand children, but are only out to "harass honest gun owners."
 
Logician Man said:
And most likely the asinine, disingenuous claim that any parent who has lost a child in a mass school slaughter, or other similar tragedy, who wants to discuss stricter background checks must be a "bannerhoid', who doesn't really care about the safety of their children and grand children, but are only out to "harass honest gun owners."
Click to expand...
Yeah, it got old years ago.

Such a sad decline...
 
TurtleDude said:
Almost 70% of the Democrats in the senate want to ban semi auto rifles that accept magazines, as well as banning normal capacity magazines. Their defenders say that they don't want to ban all guns or even most firearms. But how can that be? If they really are pushing for these bans to stop criminals from having access to these firearms and using them to harm or kill others, don't they, in order to be consistent, have to support banning handguns, given that handguns are 70 times more likely to be used for a murder than a semi auto magazine fed rifle?

And if they don't want to ban the firearm most used for murder, than clearly, their motivations for trying to ban semi auto rifles is something other than crime control
Click to expand...
Your slippery-slope argument is empty. First, i'd remind you that an assault-weapons ban was signed by Reagan. Hmmmm...

What we want is to stop all the gun deaths. You on the white right have NO suggestions on how to do this. Just buy more guns, buy more guns, buy more guns, as the NRA has programmed you, while you ignore that the NRA has been nothing but a lobby for gun manufacturers. Do the math.

Slippery slope? Nope. I was raised knowing how to shoot. I own guns. I am a progressive Democrat. And so your paranoid narrative fails.
 
TurtleDude said:
Almost 70% of the Democrats in the senate want to ban semi auto rifles that accept magazines, as well as banning normal capacity magazines. Their defenders say that they don't want to ban all guns or even most firearms. But how can that be? If they really are pushing for these bans to stop criminals from having access to these firearms and using them to harm or kill others, don't they, in order to be consistent, have to support banning handguns, given that handguns are 70 times more likely to be used for a murder than a semi auto magazine fed rifle?

And if they don't want to ban the firearm most used for murder, than clearly, their motivations for trying to ban semi auto rifles is something other than crime control
Click to expand...
Yes, because the ones we're trying to ban are those useful in mass shootings, insurrection, and so on. We are not stupid and know very well that many of the white-rights with ARs have them for insurrectionist purpose. They are not intending to defend themselves against crime; they are intending to shoot Democrats!
 
Barros Serrano said:
Yes, because the ones we're trying to ban are those useful in mass shootings, insurrection, and so on.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every firearm type has been used in a mass shooting, and Biden told us that AR-15s aren't useful against the government. AR-15s were banned in 1994 even though they had never been used in a mass shooting.

If a ban is passed and someone uses three revolvers to kill 15 kids in a school, will the banners just shrug that off?

Barros Serrano said:
We are not stupid and know very well that many of the white-rights with ARs have them for insurrectionist purpose. They are not intending to defend themselves against crime; they are intending to shoot Democrats!
Click to expand...
Is that why so many of them were brought to DC on the 6th of January?
 
Barros Serrano said:
Your slippery-slope argument is empty. First, i'd remind you that an assault-weapons ban was signed by Reagan. Hmmmm...
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. Clinton signed it.
Barros Serrano said:
What we want is to stop all the gun deaths.
Click to expand...
Then you will have to ban and confiscate all guns. How many lives will be lost in that effort?

Your very goal requires a continued increase in banned firearms.

Barros Serrano said:
You on the white right have NO suggestions on how to do this. Just buy more guns, buy more guns, buy more guns, as the NRA has programmed you, while you ignore that the NRA has been nothing but a lobby for gun manufacturers. Do the math.

Slippery slope? Nope. I was raised knowing how to shoot. I own guns. I am a progressive Democrat. And so your paranoid narrative fails.
Click to expand...
Slippery slope stopped being a fallacy when Pelosi announced that it was part of the strategy.

"During an exchange with CBS News' Nancy Cordes, Pelosi suggested that Republicans might feel such a ban would be a "slippery slope" for other gun bills. "So what?" she said, adding, "I certainly hope so."

www.cbsnews.com

Nancy Pelosi calls on Ryan bring bump stock ban to floor

"The impatience of the American people is right on, and we have to do something about it," said Pelosi on Thursday
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
 
It's about mass shooters.

If it wasn't for mass shooters, gun control would fall off the radar.


OP doesn't even understand the gun control issue.


.
 
TurtleDude said:
Almost 70% of the Democrats in the senate want to ban semi auto rifles that accept magazines, as well as banning normal capacity magazines. Their defenders say that they don't want to ban all guns or even most firearms. But how can that be? If they really are pushing for these bans to stop criminals from having access to these firearms and using them to harm or kill others, don't they, in order to be consistent, have to support banning handguns, given that handguns are 70 times more likely to be used for a murder than a semi auto magazine fed rifle?

And if they don't want to ban the firearm most used for murder, than clearly, their motivations for trying to ban semi auto rifles is something other than crime control
Click to expand...
It's rather simple. Once they can gain public acceptance of a ban on "scary" firearms then it will get progressively easier to convince the public to accept additional bans . Once "scary" MSRs are banned then semi-auto pistols will become "scary" and then rifles designed to fire accurately over a distance of more than 50 yards and so on.
 
swing_voter said:
It's about mass shooters.

If it wasn't for mass shooters, gun control would fall off the radar.
Click to expand...

It's about media coverage. We had far more mass shootings in the 80s and 90s than we do now. The homicide rate was at times twice as high as it has been recently.
 
TurtleDude said:
Almost 70% of the Democrats in the senate want to ban semi auto rifles that accept magazines, as well as banning normal capacity magazines. Their defenders say that they don't want to ban all guns or even most firearms. But how can that be? If they really are pushing for these bans to stop criminals from having access to these firearms and using them to harm or kill others, don't they, in order to be consistent, have to support banning handguns, given that handguns are 70 times more likely to be used for a murder than a semi auto magazine fed rifle?

And if they don't want to ban the firearm most used for murder, than clearly, their motivations for trying to ban semi auto rifles is something other than crime control
Click to expand...

You make a strong argument, and I agree.

Hand guns will have to be SHARPLY curtailed as well.

Hey Turtle: S H A R P L Y fu#*ing curtailed.

(y)
 
TurtleDude said:
Almost 70% of the Democrats in the senate want to ban semi auto rifles that accept magazines, as well as banning normal capacity magazines. Their defenders say that they don't want to ban all guns or even most firearms. But how can that be? If they really are pushing for these bans to stop criminals from having access to these firearms and using them to harm or kill others, don't they, in order to be consistent, have to support banning handguns, given that handguns are 70 times more likely to be used for a murder than a semi auto magazine fed rifle?

And if they don't want to ban the firearm most used for murder, than clearly, their motivations for trying to ban semi auto rifles is something other than crime control
Click to expand...
Oh, I don't know. A nice endgame would be seeing the total number of US homicides fall below the five-digit range.
 
calamity said:
Oh, I don't know. A nice endgame would be seeing the total number of US homicides fall below the five-digit range.
Click to expand...
Color me silly, but the term 'deaths' and 'insignificant', should never be used in the same sentence, regardless of the cause/manner of death.
 
beefheart said:
Looks like another long fevered night by the OP fretting about those damned democrats trying to come and take the guns....
Click to expand...
They always need company at night, a boogeyman under their beds. 🤡
 
PeacefulWarrior said:
You make a strong argument, and I agree.

Hand guns will have to be SHARPLY curtailed as well.

Hey Turtle: S H A R P L Y fu#*ing curtailed.

(y)
Click to expand...
Best of luck with that, given Heller, McDonald and Caetano.

I trust you'll be lining up with SWAT to take doors in Baltimore and East St Louis?
 
Logician Man said:
Death is not a "concept." It's a real, tangible thing.
Click to expand...
Read what I wrote. "Statistically significant" has a mathematical meaning.

A child dying from being hit by a falling bit of space junk is still a tragedy. It's not a statistically significant cause of death.
 
MamboDervish said:
Please be specific. Which Senators claim to want to "ban" which weapons.
Click to expand...

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. SCHU- MER, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. CARPER, Mr. BROWN, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. WARREN, Mr. CASEY, Mr. KAINE, Mr. REED, Mr. WARNER, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. COONS, Ms. SMITH, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. ROSEN, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. LUJA ́N, Mr. PADILLA, Mrs. MURRAY, Mrs. GILLI- BRAND, Mrs. SHAHEEN, and Ms. STABENOW)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom