Honest debate: Libs...would the "AR15-pistol" w 10 Rd mag still be an "Assault Weapon"

[M14 Shooter]

Who cares what you call it -- it's your way to compensate for your small dick. Period.
It's not for hunting.
Or home protection.
Zombie apocalypse is a fantasy tv show so you won't need an AR for that.
Hmmmm.
What could it be for? Why would you need something that serves no practical purpose except making weak and frightened people feel big and strong.
micophallus.

More mindless, bigoted nonsense from the village useful idiot

 

[Slade3200]

I actually have an idea on how guns can be more regulated without infringing on the Constitutional rights of gun owners.
As far as a law keeping guns out of the hands of criminals though? No laws can do that. That is what makes them criminals.
Also, the purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts "punishable. " Especially acts which violate the rights of others.

Agreed.
And so - why do we have laws that limit the rights of the law abiding, enacted with the intent of preventing people from breaking other law?

We've been through this, how do you not understand? The more powerful a weapon you sell to a criminal the more damage they can inflict. Very simple
1. This doesn't eliminate all crime or gun violence.
2. This doesn't address illegal arms sales
3. This is a small part of a big problem

It is not the end all be all solution. It's a debate worthy of being had as some gun control measures are beneficial to the safety of our society... I thought we were in agreement about this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I actually have an idea on how guns can be more regulated without infringing on the Constitutional rights of gun owners.
As far as a law keeping guns out of the hands of criminals though? No laws can do that. That is what makes them criminals.
Also, the purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts "punishable. " Especially acts which violate the rights of others.

Agreed.
And so - why do we have laws that limit the rights of the law abiding, enacted with the intent of preventing people from breaking other law?

We've been through this, how do you not understand? The more powerful a weapon you sell to a criminal the more damage they can inflict. Very simple
1. This doesn't eliminate all crime or gun violence.
2. This doesn't address illegal arms sales
3. This is a small part of a big problem
It is not the end all be all solution. It's a debate worthy of being had as some gun control measures are beneficial to the safety of our society... I thought we were in agreement about this?

I don't really see an answer to my question.

Certain laws restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law.

As stated:
"The purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts 'punishable.' Especially acts which violate the rights of others."

If the purpose of laws in to punish people for committing certain acts, especially acts which violate the rights of others, why do we have laws that restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law - something we know laws cannot do?

 

[Slade3200]

I actually have an idea on how guns can be more regulated without infringing on the Constitutional rights of gun owners.
As far as a law keeping guns out of the hands of criminals though? No laws can do that. That is what makes them criminals.
Also, the purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts "punishable. " Especially acts which violate the rights of others.

Agreed.
And so - why do we have laws that limit the rights of the law abiding, enacted with the intent of preventing people from breaking other law?

We've been through this, how do you not understand? The more powerful a weapon you sell to a criminal the more damage they can inflict. Very simple
1. This doesn't eliminate all crime or gun violence.
2. This doesn't address illegal arms sales
3. This is a small part of a big problem
It is not the end all be all solution. It's a debate worthy of being had as some gun control measures are beneficial to the safety of our society... I thought we were in agreement about this?

I don't really see an answer to my question.

Certain laws restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law.

As stated:
"The purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts 'punishable.' Especially acts which violate the rights of others."

If the purpose of laws in to punish people for committing certain acts, especially acts which violate the rights of others, why do we have laws that restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law - something we know laws cannot do?

The answer is... The laws aren't going to stop people from committing crimes, they are intended to limit/reduce access and damage

 

[M14 Shooter]

I actually have an idea on how guns can be more regulated without infringing on the Constitutional rights of gun owners.
As far as a law keeping guns out of the hands of criminals though? No laws can do that. That is what makes them criminals.
Also, the purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts "punishable. " Especially acts which violate the rights of others.

Agreed.
And so - why do we have laws that limit the rights of the law abiding, enacted with the intent of preventing people from breaking other law?

We've been through this, how do you not understand? The more powerful a weapon you sell to a criminal the more damage they can inflict. Very simple
1. This doesn't eliminate all crime or gun violence.
2. This doesn't address illegal arms sales
3. This is a small part of a big problem
It is not the end all be all solution. It's a debate worthy of being had as some gun control measures are beneficial to the safety of our society... I thought we were in agreement about this?

I don't really see an answer to my question.

Certain laws restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law.

As stated:
"The purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts 'punishable.' Especially acts which violate the rights of others."

If the purpose of laws in to punish people for committing certain acts, especially acts which violate the rights of others, why do we have laws that restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law - something we know laws cannot do?

The answer is... The laws aren't going to stop people from committing crimes, they are intended to limit/reduce access and damage

You make a distinction w/o a difference.
How do laws " limit/reduce access and damage?"
By preventing crimes.

If the purpose of laws in to punish people for committing certain acts, especially acts which violate the rights of others, why do we have laws that restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law - something we know laws cannot do?

 

[Chuz Life]

I understand both sides. I have realized that your side is wrong. The sad thing is that you don't realize that. We will NEVER achieve safety by taking rights from people who haven't abused their rights.

You just stated the he Paris attacks were so violent because of automatic weapons. So the regulations we have put in autos here in the states prevents some criminals from getting and using them... Some not all... This proves that lives are being saved and the world is a little safer do to these laws

I disagree that ANY lives are literally saved by gun ban laws that prohibit certain types of weapons. . . or even total bans for that matter. Any criminal that is seriously determined to go on a killing spree will not even care and will not even be discouraged by those kinds of things. (Tim McVeigh for example)

Of course if somebody has the time, resources and determination they can get their hands on most anything and cause harm. But there are also criminals that act spontaneously or ones that are limited by resources that get deterred by our laws. Look at his kid that tried to kill trump last weekend. Great example. Had he been able to easily go buy a gun and carry it at the rally, Trump and possibly others would likely be dead.

Remove regulations and make an Uzi as accessible as a pistol and put those in more criminals hands. End result is going to be more damage and death. I don't understand how you deny this.

Laws like thise you are fighting for will only serve to discourage access to a small percentage of a specific kind of criminal. The vast majority of the other kinds of criminals either already have their weapons or the know how to get them on the streets.

Where do you get these stats from? Do you agree with my assessment of the Trump/Vegas kid situation?

Admittedly, I don't have access to the stats right now and on my phone. But use some common sense. . . How many murderers really want to run the risks of being caught in a gun store?

 

[Chuz Life]

I actually have an idea on how guns can be more regulated without infringing on the Constitutional rights of gun owners.
As far as a law keeping guns out of the hands of criminals though? No laws can do that. That is what makes them criminals.
Also, the purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts "punishable. " Especially acts which violate the rights of others.

Agreed.
And so - why do we have laws that limit the rights of the law abiding, enacted with the intent of preventing people from breaking other law?

We've been through this, how do you not understand? The more powerful a weapon you sell to a criminal the more damage they can inflict. Very simple
1. This doesn't eliminate all crime or gun violence.
2. This doesn't address illegal arms sales
3. This is a small part of a big problem
It is not the end all be all solution. It's a debate worthy of being had as some gun control measures are beneficial to the safety of our society... I thought we were in agreement about this?

I don't really see an answer to my question.

Certain laws restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law.

As stated:
"The purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts 'punishable.' Especially acts which violate the rights of others."

If the purpose of laws in to punish people for committing certain acts, especially acts which violate the rights of others, why do we have laws that restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law - something we know laws cannot do?

The answer is... The laws aren't going to stop people from committing crimes, they are intended to limit/reduce access and damage

You make a distinction w/o a difference.
How do laws " limit/reduce access and damage?"
By preventing crimes.

If the purpose of laws in to punish people for committing certain acts, especially acts which violate the rights of others, why do we have laws that restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law - something we know laws cannot do?

Exactly!

I dont know why we can't "like" posts on our phones anymore. But, great post.

 

[Slade3200]

I actually have an idea on how guns can be more regulated without infringing on the Constitutional rights of gun owners.
As far as a law keeping guns out of the hands of criminals though? No laws can do that. That is what makes them criminals.
Also, the purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts "punishable. " Especially acts which violate the rights of others.

Agreed.
And so - why do we have laws that limit the rights of the law abiding, enacted with the intent of preventing people from breaking other law?

We've been through this, how do you not understand? The more powerful a weapon you sell to a criminal the more damage they can inflict. Very simple
1. This doesn't eliminate all crime or gun violence.
2. This doesn't address illegal arms sales
3. This is a small part of a big problem
It is not the end all be all solution. It's a debate worthy of being had as some gun control measures are beneficial to the safety of our society... I thought we were in agreement about this?

I don't really see an answer to my question.

Certain laws restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law.

As stated:
"The purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts 'punishable.' Especially acts which violate the rights of others."

If the purpose of laws in to punish people for committing certain acts, especially acts which violate the rights of others, why do we have laws that restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law - something we know laws cannot do?

The answer is... The laws aren't going to stop people from committing crimes, they are intended to limit/reduce access and damage

You make a distinction w/o a difference.
How do laws " limit/reduce access and damage?"
By preventing crimes.

If the purpose of laws in to punish people for committing certain acts, especially acts which violate the rights of others, why do we have laws that restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law - something we know laws cannot do?

Laws reduce access and damage by controlling the inventory and firepower that we sell in our gun stores where SOME criminals get their guns. Yes, some criminals will go to the black market but not all. I never made the claim that all laws where only meant to prevent and punish.

I've used an example of the kid in vegas and how gun control most likely saved Trumps life and we can use common sense to understand that a criminal shooting an uzi will cause more damage than a criminal shooting a pistol. The principles of what i'm saying are sound.

 

[Slade3200]

You just stated the he Paris attacks were so violent because of automatic weapons. So the regulations we have put in autos here in the states prevents some criminals from getting and using them... Some not all... This proves that lives are being saved and the world is a little safer do to these laws

I disagree that ANY lives are literally saved by gun ban laws that prohibit certain types of weapons. . . or even total bans for that matter. Any criminal that is seriously determined to go on a killing spree will not even care and will not even be discouraged by those kinds of things. (Tim McVeigh for example)

Of course if somebody has the time, resources and determination they can get their hands on most anything and cause harm. But there are also criminals that act spontaneously or ones that are limited by resources that get deterred by our laws. Look at his kid that tried to kill trump last weekend. Great example. Had he been able to easily go buy a gun and carry it at the rally, Trump and possibly others would likely be dead.

Remove regulations and make an Uzi as accessible as a pistol and put those in more criminals hands. End result is going to be more damage and death. I don't understand how you deny this.

Laws like thise you are fighting for will only serve to discourage access to a small percentage of a specific kind of criminal. The vast majority of the other kinds of criminals either already have their weapons or the know how to get them on the streets.

Where do you get these stats from? Do you agree with my assessment of the Trump/Vegas kid situation?

Admittedly, I don't have access to the stats right now and on my phone. But use some common sense. . . How many murderers really want to run the risks of being caught in a gun store?

If you are talking about gang members or serial killers than probably not many. But crimes are committed all the time by people who get emotional or desperate and they use what they have or they use what they can easily get. It is why allowing people to run down to the store and get a high powered weapons with little to no barrier or oversight is a very dangerous thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Laws reduce access and damage by controlling the inventory and firepower that we sell in our gun stores where SOME criminals get their guns.

By "prevention".
Laws cannot prevent people from breaking other laws.

 

[Chuz Life]

I disagree that ANY lives are literally saved by gun ban laws that prohibit certain types of weapons. . . or even total bans for that matter. Any criminal that is seriously determined to go on a killing spree will not even care and will not even be discouraged by those kinds of things. (Tim McVeigh for example)

Of course if somebody has the time, resources and determination they can get their hands on most anything and cause harm. But there are also criminals that act spontaneously or ones that are limited by resources that get deterred by our laws. Look at his kid that tried to kill trump last weekend. Great example. Had he been able to easily go buy a gun and carry it at the rally, Trump and possibly others would likely be dead.

Remove regulations and make an Uzi as accessible as a pistol and put those in more criminals hands. End result is going to be more damage and death. I don't understand how you deny this.

Laws like thise you are fighting for will only serve to discourage access to a small percentage of a specific kind of criminal. The vast majority of the other kinds of criminals either already have their weapons or the know how to get them on the streets.

Where do you get these stats from? Do you agree with my assessment of the Trump/Vegas kid situation?

Admittedly, I don't have access to the stats right now and on my phone. But use some common sense. . . How many murderers really want to run the risks of being caught in a gun store?

If you are talking about gang members or serial killers than probably not many. But crimes are committed all the time by people who get emotional or desperate and they use what they have or they use what they can easily get. It is why allowing people to run down to the store and get a high powered weapons with little to no barrier or oversight is a very dangerous thing.

You are failing to recognize how many other things could be used to get much higher body counts (think about the explosive vests and ieds in Iraq and Afghanistan), gasoline, shot guns, fertilizer, propane tanks, etc.

You said it yourself, desperate killers are going to use anything they can get their hands on. So, why are you going after the weapons of choice for a huge segment of the population as a means to discourage a select few examples of the criminal element?

 

[Slade3200]

Laws reduce access and damage by controlling the inventory and firepower that we sell in our gun stores where SOME criminals get their guns.

By "prevention".
Laws cannot prevent people from breaking other laws.

I never said prevent, I said reduce damage and by damage I mean harm and death. In some cases it may prevent a murder if fists are used instead of guns

 

[Slade3200]

Of course if somebody has the time, resources and determination they can get their hands on most anything and cause harm. But there are also criminals that act spontaneously or ones that are limited by resources that get deterred by our laws. Look at his kid that tried to kill trump last weekend. Great example. Had he been able to easily go buy a gun and carry it at the rally, Trump and possibly others would likely be dead.

Remove regulations and make an Uzi as accessible as a pistol and put those in more criminals hands. End result is going to be more damage and death. I don't understand how you deny this.

Laws like thise you are fighting for will only serve to discourage access to a small percentage of a specific kind of criminal. The vast majority of the other kinds of criminals either already have their weapons or the know how to get them on the streets.

Where do you get these stats from? Do you agree with my assessment of the Trump/Vegas kid situation?

Admittedly, I don't have access to the stats right now and on my phone. But use some common sense. . . How many murderers really want to run the risks of being caught in a gun store?

If you are talking about gang members or serial killers than probably not many. But crimes are committed all the time by people who get emotional or desperate and they use what they have or they use what they can easily get. It is why allowing people to run down to the store and get a high powered weapons with little to no barrier or oversight is a very dangerous thing.

You are failing to recognize how many other things could be used to get much higher body counts (think about the explosive vests and ieds in Iraq and Afghanistan), gasoline, shot guns, fertilizer, propane tanks, etc.

You said it yourself, desperate killers are going to use anything they can get their hands on. So, why are you going after the weapons of choice for a huge segment of the population as a means to discourage a select few examples of the criminal element?

Bombs are illegal and the FBI goes after people who buy materials for bomb making. I've said many times that regulating guns isn't the answer to all our problems, it is a small piece. And I don't think we need to go crazy with it. I think bg checks are fine, watch list holds are fine, banning or regulating weapons capable of massive destruction in short periods of time is worth review. Simple points for common sense items. Criminal activity, mental health etc should also be highly focused on.

 

[Chuz Life]

I actually have an idea on how guns can be more regulated without infringing on the Constitutional rights of gun owners.
As far as a law keeping guns out of the hands of criminals though? No laws can do that. That is what makes them criminals.
Also, the purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts "punishable. " Especially acts which violate the rights of others.

Agreed.
And so - why do we have laws that limit the rights of the law abiding, enacted with the intent of preventing people from breaking other law?

We've been through this, how do you not understand? The more powerful a weapon you sell to a criminal the more damage they can inflict. Very simple
1. This doesn't eliminate all crime or gun violence.
2. This doesn't address illegal arms sales
3. This is a small part of a big problem
It is not the end all be all solution. It's a debate worthy of being had as some gun control measures are beneficial to the safety of our society... I thought we were in agreement about this?

I don't really see an answer to my question.

Certain laws restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law.

As stated:
"The purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts 'punishable.' Especially acts which violate the rights of others."

If the purpose of laws in to punish people for committing certain acts, especially acts which violate the rights of others, why do we have laws that restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law - something we know laws cannot do?

The answer is... The laws aren't going to stop people from committing crimes, they are intended to limit/reduce access and damage

Please give us an example of the way you would word the law that you are (seemingly) fighting for and tell us how that law would have prevented an Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, the columbine shooters, Omar Mateen, or any other murderer that you can be specific about.

 

[Slade3200]

I actually have an idea on how guns can be more regulated without infringing on the Constitutional rights of gun owners.
As far as a law keeping guns out of the hands of criminals though? No laws can do that. That is what makes them criminals.
Also, the purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts "punishable. " Especially acts which violate the rights of others.

Agreed.
And so - why do we have laws that limit the rights of the law abiding, enacted with the intent of preventing people from breaking other law?

We've been through this, how do you not understand? The more powerful a weapon you sell to a criminal the more damage they can inflict. Very simple
1. This doesn't eliminate all crime or gun violence.
2. This doesn't address illegal arms sales
3. This is a small part of a big problem
It is not the end all be all solution. It's a debate worthy of being had as some gun control measures are beneficial to the safety of our society... I thought we were in agreement about this?

I don't really see an answer to my question.

Certain laws restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law.

As stated:
"The purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts 'punishable.' Especially acts which violate the rights of others."

If the purpose of laws in to punish people for committing certain acts, especially acts which violate the rights of others, why do we have laws that restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law - something we know laws cannot do?

The answer is... The laws aren't going to stop people from committing crimes, they are intended to limit/reduce access and damage

Please give us an example of the way you would word the law that you are (seemingly) fighting for and tell us how that law would have prevented an Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, the columbine shooters, Omar Mateen, or any other murderer that you can be specific about.

you're either not listening to anything I've been saying or you are confusing me with somebody else... Either way I'm done explaining it to you

 

[Chuz Life]

Agreed.
And so - why do we have laws that limit the rights of the law abiding, enacted with the intent of preventing people from breaking other law?

We've been through this, how do you not understand? The more powerful a weapon you sell to a criminal the more damage they can inflict. Very simple
1. This doesn't eliminate all crime or gun violence.
2. This doesn't address illegal arms sales
3. This is a small part of a big problem
It is not the end all be all solution. It's a debate worthy of being had as some gun control measures are beneficial to the safety of our society... I thought we were in agreement about this?

I don't really see an answer to my question.

Certain laws restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law.

As stated:
"The purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts 'punishable.' Especially acts which violate the rights of others."

If the purpose of laws in to punish people for committing certain acts, especially acts which violate the rights of others, why do we have laws that restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law - something we know laws cannot do?

The answer is... The laws aren't going to stop people from committing crimes, they are intended to limit/reduce access and damage

Please give us an example of the way you would word the law that you are (seemingly) fighting for and tell us how that law would have prevented an Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, the columbine shooters, Omar Mateen, or any other murderer that you can be specific about.

you're either not listening to anything I've been saying or you are confusing me with somebody else... Either way I'm done explaining it to you

I would still like to see some examples of the law that you have in mind.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Please give us an example of the way you would word the law that you are (seemingly) fighting for and tell us how that law would have prevented an Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, the columbine shooters, Omar Mateen, or any other murderer that

No men under the age of 30 can walk into a gun store or gun show and purchase a weapon. Exceptions would be military and police.

Major reductions in gun deaths could be had by adopting this simple change.

 

[Slade3200]

We've been through this, how do you not understand? The more powerful a weapon you sell to a criminal the more damage they can inflict. Very simple
1. This doesn't eliminate all crime or gun violence.
2. This doesn't address illegal arms sales
3. This is a small part of a big problem
It is not the end all be all solution. It's a debate worthy of being had as some gun control measures are beneficial to the safety of our society... I thought we were in agreement about this?

I don't really see an answer to my question.

Certain laws restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law.

As stated:
"The purpose of a law is not to directly "control" criminal behavior. That's unreasonable. The purpose of laws is to make certain acts 'punishable.' Especially acts which violate the rights of others."

If the purpose of laws in to punish people for committing certain acts, especially acts which violate the rights of others, why do we have laws that restrict the rights of the law abiding with the intent to prevent people from breaking another law - something we know laws cannot do?

The answer is... The laws aren't going to stop people from committing crimes, they are intended to limit/reduce access and damage

Please give us an example of the way you would word the law that you are (seemingly) fighting for and tell us how that law would have prevented an Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, the columbine shooters, Omar Mateen, or any other murderer that you can be specific about.

you're either not listening to anything I've been saying or you are confusing me with somebody else... Either way I'm done explaining it to you

I would still like to see some examples of the law that you have in mind.

I'm not writing a law for you to critique. If there is a proposal to limit mag capacity and firepower then I'm fine with it. If they want to support more efficient background checks then I'd be ok depending on costs. Simple things like a 72 hour hold period for people on the watch list is a no brainier. Stuff like that I have no clue why you all object to

 

[M14 Shooter]

Laws reduce access and damage by controlling the inventory and firepower that we sell in our gun stores where SOME criminals get their guns.

By "prevention".
Laws cannot prevent people from breaking other laws.

I never said prevent, I said reduce damage and by damage I mean harm and death

Yes. By preventing people from breaking other laws.
Which laws cannot do.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bombs are illegal and the FBI goes after people who buy materials for bomb making.

I've purchased untold quantities of diesel fuel, fertilizer and gunpowder. Not once has the FBI questioned me.