• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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 "well regulated" means in the 2nd Amendment

cabse5 said:
You mean like the number of deaths related to car accidents? Those are many more than deaths caused by guns. Are you planning to ban cars to keep you safe?
Click to expand...

Welcome to the discussion.. :2wave:

I lost track, but you are not the first to try this faulty 'argument'...

Banning bump stocks doesn't ban a SINGLE firearm... :roll:

The right to keep and bear arms hasn't been touched. It is the ability to PURCHASE a certain part for that firearm is what got banned, byyyyyyy

a self proclaimed rabid right 'defender' of the 2nd A. I ask you if Obama had done this would the response be as timid and weak kneed as it was/is to The Don????

So did tRump violate the Constitution by doing this... would you scream it if Obama did it??? :peace
 
VanceMack said:
I have answered your pathetic antigun question several times. And then you double down on pathetic.
Click to expand...

If I read between the deflections you are saying no number of deaths changes your position.

Now did tRump violate the constitution by banning bump stocks???? :confused:

So many rubbers are trilling it infringed the 2nd A. You are quite tame in your response. Has the ardor died??? :peace
 
notquiteright said:
If I read between the deflections you are saying no number of deaths changes your position.

Now did tRump violate the constitution by banning bump stocks???? :confused:

So many rubbers are trilling it infringed the 2nd A. You are quite tame in your response. Has the ardor died??? :peace
Click to expand...
You dont have to read between anything. Bumpfire stocks are not the problem, so your pathetic anti-gun question is ridiculous. Since you 'care' so much to use the typical anti-gun ploy, how many MORE people need to die by semiautomatic handgun fire before banning semiautomatic weapons makes sense?

As to Trumps decision, its funny...its almost like you are driven by your impotent hatred of the man that it causes you to just completely ignore peoples direct comments. I gave you my exact words on Trumps actions. Yet...you seem solely invested in your own constant partisan hatred.
 
VanceMack said:
You dont have to read between anything. Bumpfire stocks are not the problem, so your pathetic anti-gun question is ridiculous. Since you 'care' so much to use the typical anti-gun ploy, how many MORE people need to die by semiautomatic handgun fire before banning semiautomatic weapons makes sense? As to Trumps decision, its funny...its almost like you are driven by your impotent hatred of the man that it causes you to just completely ignore peoples direct comments. I gave you my exact words on Trumps actions. Yet...you seem solely invested in your own constant partisan hatred.
Click to expand...

You deflect again. There is a YUGE difference between a complete firearm system, semi-pistol or my RPK clone and an accessory... :doh

Banning an accessory isn't the same as a complete system... you are trying to warp the comparison- like when you tried car deaths... :roll:

But to be clear, no number of deaths would change your mind, tRump said 58 and done, you don't agree- I get it, now you own it.

I'd say it isn't my opinion of tRump that is interesting, it's your very muted response to him 'stabbing 'gun' owners in the back' (if it had been Obama)

So you dodge once again, tRump can ban something and it's barely a sigh of protest, guess some are willing to forgive anything if their dear leader 'infringes' it... :peace
 
apdst said:
If I can't get one, a criminal can still get one. What then? Tough ****? **** me and my family because you want to feel better?
Click to expand...

So what weapon(s) do you want ?

Bearing in mind that if you can legally get one, then a criminal can get one too - legally or otherwise.
 
notquiteright said:
You deflect again. There is a YUGE difference between a complete firearm system, semi-pistol or my RPK clone and an accessory... :doh

Banning an accessory isn't the same as a complete system... you are trying to warp the comparison- like when you tried car deaths... :roll:

But to be clear, no number of deaths would change your mind, tRump said 58 and done, you don't agree- I get it, now you own it.

I'd say it isn't my opinion of tRump that is interesting, it's your very muted response to him 'stabbing 'gun' owners in the back' (if it had been Obama)

So you dodge once again, tRump can ban something and it's barely a sigh of protest, guess some are willing to forgive anything if their dear leader 'infringes' it... :peace
Click to expand...
:lamo

Who's the one deflecting?

Semiautomatic handguns are used to kill thousands every year. How many MORE people need to die by semiautomatic handgun fire before banning semiautomatic weapons makes sense? Why dont you CARE???
 
apdst said:
Where was the compromise? Giving up our rights isn't a compromise.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. You already compromised when they infringed on your right to own personal nuclear arms. That was the first step in the slippery slope. It says nothing in the Constitution about what KIND of arms can be infringed. So it won't be long now before Barack Obama personally comes to your house and confiscates your nail clippers! :lamo
 
Rich2018 said:
Well a response might be, if people didn't want it, there would be no point in banning it.
Click to expand...
Does it appear to you that criminals are missing automatic weapons in ther criminal enterprise?
 
VanceMack said:
Does it appear to you that criminals are missing automatic weapons in ther criminal enterprise?
Click to expand...

Most of the ones in Chicago are getting them in Indiana, and the ones in Mexico are getting them in TX.

Hawaii, on the other hand, does fine with its gun regulations- no neighboring states to get stuff from.
 
ataraxia said:
So that means we should legalize the dealer selling them outside your local elementary school?
Click to expand...
TO the contrary...that means we should arrest the criminal and lock them away for a very very very long time.

IF, that is, you actually care about resolving the problem.
 
VanceMack said:
Does it appear to you that criminals are missing automatic weapons in ther criminal enterprise?
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Very few crimes committed with fully auto weapons
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo

Who's the one deflecting?

Semiautomatic handguns are used to kill thousands every year. How many MORE people need to die by semiautomatic handgun fire before banning semiautomatic weapons makes sense? Why dont you CARE???
Click to expand...

Many people die in cars too. Does that mean we should never worry about driving history, medical/vision screening, drunk driving history, or ever deny anyone a driver's license?
 
VanceMack said:
TO the contrary...that means we should arrest the criminal and lock them away for a very very very long time.

IF, that is, you actually care about resolving the problem.
Click to expand...

Would you wait until a drunk driver kills people before you arrest them?
 
ataraxia said:
Most of the ones in Chicago are getting it at gun shows in Indiana, and the ones in Mexico are getting it from gun shows in TX.

Hawaii, on the other hand, does great with its gun bans- no neighboring states to get stuff from.
Click to expand...
No...most of the criminals in Chicago are having friends and relatives and 'gun brokers' making straw purchases WITH background checks and providing those weapons to criminals. We've seen this...the numbers are over 60%. The flaw is not in the sales, its in the refusal of law enforcement t hammer the people illegally purchasing weapons for people they know are criminals.
Preventive Medicine University of Chicago gun study August 2015 | Bureau Of Alcohol | Survey Methodology

The simple fact of the matter is that it is NOT Indiana that has the gun crime problem...it is Chicago and that has NOTHING to do with the guns and everything to do with the **** communities they live in. And you and I both know you dont give a **** about them or their communities so why you thought this was going to be a winner of an argument, I'll never know.
 
ataraxia said:
Would you wait until a drunk driver kills people before you arrest them?
Click to expand...
By its very nature drunk driving is a crime. Are you REALLY committed to kicking your own ass in this discussion?
 
VanceMack said:
Who's the one deflecting? Semiautomatic handguns are used to kill thousands every year. How many MORE people need to die by semiautomatic handgun fire before banning semiautomatic weapons makes sense? Why dont you CARE???
Click to expand...

Oh the warping you engage in when desperate to get away from your position on 'gun' control.... :doh

I am for tighter regulations but not bans. Problem is the rubbers insist anything done to regulate is 'infringing'. For better or worse firearms are constitutionally protected, the right is a right. Now bump stocks are not a firearm and not protected. Odd I have to explain the 2nd A to you... :roll:

Try and flip the script all you want, the fact is self proclaimed 'defender' of the 2nd A did this with less than a whimper from the rabid right and or 'gun' rubbers... the very thought Obama MIGHT do something had the far right screaming traitor, so you don't care about fringe issues in the firearm debate as much as having a right wing conman in the Oval Office.

I sit between the 'slippery slope' ranters and the 'ban all firearms' wailers. I want more regulation, a stronger ATF, real teeth laws for firearm owners who leave weapons in easy reach of kids and burglars. Red flag laws, if the proper safe guards are in effect, holding mental health providers accountable for reporting dangerous patients. I'd really like to increase funding for mental health treatments….

Bump stocks weren't high on my list, they are damn near worthless unless you want to impress the other range bubbas, or need to defend yourself in a crowded elevator. But a lunatic did have a dozen of them and killed 58 in the time many smoke a cigarette and hurt 800 more. No practical use, enabled a mass murderer to lay down a base of fire like a trooper.... yeah I ain't sad tRump betrayed his base and banned them... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
Oh the warping you engage in when desperate to get away from your position on 'gun' control.... :doh

I am for tighter regulations but not bans. Problem is the rubbers insist anything done to regulate is 'infringing'. For better or worse firearms are constitutionally protected, the right is a right. Now bump stocks are not a firearm and not protected. Odd I have to explain the 2nd A to you... :roll:

Try and flip the script all you want, the fact is self proclaimed 'defender' of the 2nd A did this with less than a whimper from the rabid right and or 'gun' rubbers... the very thought Obama MIGHT do something had the far right screaming traitor, so you don't care about fringe issues in the firearm debate as much as having a right wing conman in the Oval Office.

I sit between the 'slippery slope' ranters and the 'ban all firearms' wailers. I want more regulation, a stronger ATF, real teeth laws for firearm owners who leave weapons in easy reach of kids and burglars. Red flag laws, if the proper safe guards are in effect, holding mental health providers accountable for reporting dangerous patients. I'd really like to increase funding for mental health treatments….

Bump stocks weren't high on my list, they are damn near worthless unless you want to impress the other range bubbas, or need to defend yourself in a crowded elevator. But a lunatic did have a dozen of them and killed 58 in the time many smoke a cigarette and hurt 800 more. No practical use, enabled a mass murderer to lay down a base of fire like a trooper.... yeah I ain't sad tRump betrayed his base and banned them... :peace
Click to expand...
There is no flipped script. I simply asked you the same antigun question that you defaulted to. Semiautomatic handguns are used to kill thousands every year. How many MORE people need to die by semiautomatic handgun fire before banning semiautomatic weapons makes sense? Why dont you CARE?

As to Trumps action, I cited my exact response when the ban came out. There was nothing vague about it. But you are consumed by your blind hatred so you cant 'see' answers unless they are what you want to see.

That...actually...makes you like Trump...in several ways...including your constant childish comments about him. As bad as he is...you are worse. Hell..the biggest difference I see between the two of you is he actually has made something of his life and you are just some rando anon leftist roiling 24/7 in your online rump hatred whereas he couldnt give the first **** about your very existence. :peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom