• 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!

Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.[W:740]

Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Black Dog said:
Not going to be any apocalyps any time in the near future and if there is it will most likely involve our plentiful nuclear arsenals. So it's not going to matter much that the government has a full auto weapon registered to you. Red Dawn, is never going to happen except on movie screens, lol.
Click to expand...

Never said it would. However, the use of those lists is already happening in California starting in 2013 when they banned legal guns and can go door to door to confiscate the weapons not turned in voluntarily. California Gun Confiscation Bill Passes, Approves $24 Million To Expedite Illegal Gun Seizure

Then they did this which started January 1, 2016: California gun confiscation law takes effect Jan. 1 | Local News - Home
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Black Dog said:
You know I am 53. I have been hearing that same thing since I was 2. But let's not change the topic please.

This is about banning guns and confiscation, not the end times.
Click to expand...

I have 9 years on you and it makes no difference, make your own choices. Banning Guns and Confiscation have Everything to do with being prepared, only those ignorant of the use of guns would say such nonsense. I will not be handing over any of my guns or ammo unless less you would like to get them one round at a time, I am not alone.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Casper said:
Well I am so glad to know that, I will file that knowledge along with the proclamations from many other past naysayers.
Clue there are Many things that are far more likely to result in the collapse of society as we know it, Nukes are only one in a long line of possibilities, but since you brought it up I would ask you if you have any idea who Putin really is? Red Dawn, again down the list of possibilities, but under the right circumstances it could be a possible result, the US is no more immune to invasion than any other under the right circumstances.
You seem to overlook the far more likely possible scenarios such as
Economic Collapse (which we dance with daily)
Solar Flares or an EMP attack
Cyber Attacks on the power grid
Pandemics
Major Civil unrest leading to full blown Civil War
The list goes on and on and any of them can and probably would lead to what some would refer to as the Apocalypse.
Not to mention simple weather disasters such as what hit New Orleans which locally could fall into the same category.
A wise person prepares for emergencies, otherwise you would not pay for healthcare coverage, have spare batteries around the home or carry a spare tire in your care. Same thing applies to have some food and necessities stocked in the home and have a means to protect yourself from those that would steal from you or do you and yours harm. Be like the Ant or suffer the fate of the Grasshopper, life is full of choices, just remember some choices can result in the end of life for yourself and those you care about. Your Choice, I will stick by Mine.
Click to expand...

Again this is off topic. This belongs in Conspiracy theories, not here. This is about gun banning... confiscation etc.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Cisero said:
Yes, making a semi-automatic rifle fully automatic should be virtually impossible, or at least very difficult & expensive. Since we agree that fully automatic rifles are dangerous & are not used for sports, hunting or self-defense, it's logical to block that possibility. Reducing the risk of these sort of weapons landing in the wrong hands is more important than satsifying Rambo fantisies.
Click to expand...

A good machinist can make anything he wants in the matter of hours with little more than than a few bucks and his own time.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Casper said:
I have 9 years on you and it makes no difference, make your own choices. Banning Guns and Confiscation have Everything to do with being prepared, only those ignorant of the use of guns would say such nonsense. I will not be handing over any of my guns or ammo unless less you would like to get them one round at a time, I am not alone.
Click to expand...

This is again off topic and belongs in the conspiracy theory forums.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

ReverendHellh0und said:
Yes, the questions have all the information required and as everyone else had no problem in answering, you should consider doing the same given that's how I wish as the thread starter to approach this topic.
Click to expand...

So you fault me for wanting all the information available to make an sobering and intelligent decision. Amazing!!!!!
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Beaudreaux said:
Never said it would. However, the use of those lists is already happening in California starting in 2013 when they banned legal guns and can go door to door to confiscate the weapons not turned in voluntarily. California Gun Confiscation Bill Passes, Approves $24 Million To Expedite Illegal Gun Seizure

Then they did this which started January 1, 2016: California gun confiscation law takes effect Jan. 1 | Local News - Home
Click to expand...

Then don't move to CA?
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

no
no
no
no
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Eric7216 said:
It seems to me that you were being contradictory. IF the 2nd Amendment was overturned through the proper Constitutional channels you would have to decide whether supporting the Constitutionally revised Constitution overruled your support of the "former" 2nd amendment. Saying "no" is not sufficient if that happened.





I was just trying to get some people to think. I do not understand those who don't mind the rich and powerful from having armed escorts yet want to prevent the common man from the same protections. To me that is elitist and statist. And scary. If you want the President and other "important" people to be protected by firearms, and therefore you recognize the benefit of firearms, why deny that protection to the rest of us.

As long as government is heavily armed, the citizens must be as well. That, to me, is the reason for the 2nd amendment. Not to protect duck hunters or people defending themselves from criminals but rather to protect against an overly aggressive government. Those first two things were obvious to the framers. They wanted protection from government.
Click to expand...

The OP doesn't mention an Amendment to accomplish banning or confiscating - which would never happen anyway, so it isn't even a reasonable topic of discussion in this thread, IMHO.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Black Dog said:
This is again off topic and belongs in the conspiracy theory forums.
Click to expand...

So go whine to the Mods and see if they agree, don't like my posts ignore them, you have used up your allocated time with me on this topic.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Casper said:
So go whine to the Mods and see if they agree, don't like my posts ignore them, you have used up your allocated time with me on this topic.
Click to expand...

This is still off topic. Can we get back to guns and confiscation or do you want to go further off topic?
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Beaudreaux said:
The OP doesn't mention an Amendment to accomplish banning or confiscating - which would never happen anyway, so it isn't even a reasonable topic of discussion in this thread, IMHO.
Click to expand...

He provided a link to it occuring in CA right now.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Chomsky said:
Well I'm definitely not a conservative, but I'm in very good agreement here with the post above.

And to add:

In a nutshell, I strongly support The Castle Doctrine & 2A, and a man's right to protect his home & family, but no longer support public carry as a general principle.

Since public carry is now the law of the land, I deal with it but do not want to see open carry. Sorry, but in a civil & polite society I do not want to be part an armed camp around me. Contrary to pro-gun rhetoric, I see every additional gun around me in the public sphere as an additional accident or mishap waiting to happen. I'd prefer gun owners (here) keep their heat at home, rather than expose me to additional firearms and their subsequent potential for mishap.

I live on the edge of a large urban area, and I'm sure this colours my opinion of what I think is best for my local. I realize it's may not be appropriate for other areas, particularly out west or the Alaskan wilderness where a gun may be a working tool. I can respect this, which is why I'm predicating my POV as being specific to my urban/suburban area.

As much as I prefer these issues to be handled locally, I also realize local control (ex: Chicago, formerly) only encourages a black market and additional criminal activity from nearby less restrictive areas. So some things seem to me to be only effective nationally, which is the crux of the matter: it seems we're far too diverse a country to easily come-up with a national policy that fits everyone everywhere!
Click to expand...

Polite society is long gone in populated areas my friend.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Black Dog said:
This is still off topic. Can we get back to guns and confiscation or do you want to go further off topic?
Click to expand...

I already told you what you can do with your critic and with your ideas on gun bans and confiscation, stop whining.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

1. Would you support a ban of so called "assault weapons"? (assault weapons as defined as semi-automatic civillian versions of military rifles, carbines)
Click to expand...

I would support a ban on semi-automatic weapons that can easily and cheaply be converted to full automatic status. If a semi automatic is protected by the manufacturer against that and it conforms to other reasonable laws such as magazine limits - they I would say NO.

2. Would you support a ban of "handguns"?
Click to expand...

If handguns are defined as normal pistols used for self defense and conform to other laws such as magazine size limits - my answer would be NO.

3. Would you support a ban and confiscation of so called "assault weapons"?
Click to expand...

No... a legal weapon should be confiscated.

4. Would you support a ban and confiscation of "handguns"?
Click to expand...

As my answer about handguns in #2, NO as long as they are legal and are within other laws.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Casper said:
I already told you what you can do with your critic and with your ideas on gun bans and confiscation, stop whining.
Click to expand...

Yes you did and I am posting like I want to. I will also respond within the rules to anything I want.

Your idea's are the stuff of conspiracy theories and not polite debate with any kind of logic.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Black Dog said:
Not going to be any apocalyps any time in the near future and if there is it will most likely involve our plentiful nuclear arsenals. So it's not going to matter much that the government has a full auto weapon registered to you. Red Dawn, is never going to happen except on movie screens, lol.
Click to expand...

There are many domestic scenarios that would require people to be able to defend their property and their neighborhoods. It happened in Argentina about 10 yrs ago when their economy collapsed. Loss of govt and public infrastructure, no jobs, no food, etc.

In the US, it could happen on a limited but very likely basis due to an epidemic, a terrorist attack on infrastructure (even if just in one state or regional, those people need to be prepared), an EMP, a major natural or industrial or nuke facility disaster, etc.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Casper said:
The clock is ticking and it is just a matter of time now, far too many things in the world that could lead to it happening in the blink of an eye.

Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst.
Click to expand...
Can I play along?

I don't imagine a ticking clock, but our infrastructure is fragile. With the movement of goods, communications, and banking being entirely processed by computer, we are only one good hack away from cavemen. Imagine a sucessful hack on the EBT system. Do you think you are going to your local market with cash and taking your grub home?
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Black Dog said:
Then don't move to CA?
Click to expand...

WTF??? Seriously? This is your response? I made a comment about the ability of governments to use registration lists to go house to house to confiscate weapons (the topic of this thread), and use the movie Red Dawn (an obviously apocalyptic scenario but still relevant regarding the use of lists to confiscate), to which you say it isn't the apocalypse yet, and I in turn respond with empirical proof with links that show that such actions are already occurring, and all you say is "Then don't more to CA?" ???

You laughed at me and my earlier post, then I proved what I said is not only possible but is in fact occurring and then you dismiss it out of hand? An apology for the laughter is the least you should do, given that I have completely destroyed your unwarranted and indignant attitude with actual facts. BTW, I don't have to move to CA to be effected by their laws. All I have to do is travel through that state as a US Citizen and my Second Amendment Rights could be slaughtered. That makes two apologies due me from you.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Beaudreaux said:
Never said it would. However, the use of those lists is already happening in California starting in 2013 when they banned legal guns and can go door to door to confiscate the weapons not turned in voluntarily. California Gun Confiscation Bill Passes, Approves $24 Million To Expedite Illegal Gun Seizure Then they did this which started January 1, 2016: California gun confiscation law takes effect Jan. 1 | Local News - Home
Click to expand...

More rabid 2nd A poppycock. IF you read the confiscation bill it confiscates weapons from those who NO LONGER are legal to own firearms. Convicted felons and those determined to be mentally ill. The Rabid 2nd A's claim they are against criminals having weapons, or a murderer having mental issues but nothing was done... well this does something.. :doh

They don't go 'door to door, but to known residences tracking down CONVICTED FELONS and MENTALLY DISTURBED people a COURT OF LAW has judged to be a threat to themselves and others.... :peace
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Lursa said:
There are many domestic scenarios that would require people to be able to defend their property and their neighborhoods. It happened in Argentina about 10 yrs ago when their economy collapsed. Loss of govt and public infrastructure, no jobs, no food, etc.

In the US, it could happen on a limited but very likely basis due to an epidemic, a terrorist attack on infrastructure (even if just in one state or regional, those people need to be prepared), an EMP, a major natural or industrial or nuke facility disaster, etc.
Click to expand...

Did you read how this started? This is not about someone protecting a home from rioters which can and has happend. This is literally not about anything you are talking about.

He thinks a full blown Red Dawn scenario is going to happen, he used the word "apocalypse." He thinks the government registration list for fully automatic weapons puts people at risk if the apocalypse happens.

So again this belongs in the CT forum, not here.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

No to all.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Gaius46 said:
First my answers across the board are No. I subscribe to the view that the 2A is meant to secure a personal right to possess firearms and those firearms include anything that would be normally be carried by an individual. That would include fully automatic rifles. I wouldn't have an issue with somewhat more strict licensure requirements provided those weren't arbitrary and meant by design to disqualify as many people as people as possible.

I don't have an issue with concealed carry. I don't myself, getting a concealed carry permit in my jurisdiction in NY is painful and I'm weighing whether it's worth the cost and aggravation, but have no issue with people who decide the they want to for their own defense though there should be stringent training requirements at least to level that the police get. I do have to admit to doing a ully auto weaponrydouble take the first time I saw someone openly carrying - in Indiana when visiting my daughter. I don't care for the idea of everyone openly carrying - living in a visible armed camp isn't my idea of a good time - I'd rather people carry concealed. Actually I don't like seeing the NY cops walking around in combat gear and AR15s for the same reason.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think your argument is reasonable, though I'm definitely against fully auto weaponry in the hands of the public; that strikes me as far too much lethality in the hands of the average citizen. The line to increasingly more lethal weapons available for public consumption (explosives, RPG's, etc.) has to be drawn somewhere, and I draw mine at fully auto.

But I could've been more clear in my carry intentions: If we're bound to it (as it seems we currently are), I strongly prefer concealed vs open carry, for the same reasons as you, but one additional one: I have concerns that open carry may also cause intimidation on one hand, or make one a target on the other. And if you're a target, and I'm standing next to you, I'm now a target too!

But the problem here is: Is it also reasonable to require a Montana rancher to conceal his weapon, as it may be for an urbanite like me?

I think those of us against open carry often live in urban or denser populated areas, but you're right: I do not want to live in an armed camp! Not in the least! That doesn't feel safe OR free, to me. And it strikes me as oppressive.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Beaudreaux said:
WTF??? Seriously? This is your response? I made a comment about the ability of governments to use registration lists to go house to house to confiscate weapons (the topic of this thread), and use the movie Red Dawn (an obviously apocalyptic scenario but still relevant regarding the use of lists to confiscate), to which you say it isn't the apocalypse yet, and I in turn respond with empirical proof with links that show that such actions are already occurring, and all you say is "Then don't more to CA?" ???

You laughed at me and my earlier post, then I proved what I said is not only possible but is in fact occurring and then you dismiss it out of hand? An apology for the laughter is the least you should do, given that I have completely destroyed your unwarranted and indignant attitude with actual facts. BTW, I don't have to move to CA to be effected by their laws. All I have to do is travel through that state as a US Citizen and my Second Amendment Rights could be slaughtered. That makes two apologies due me from you.
Click to expand...

You did not prove anything. You are making a judgement based on what ONE state is doing. On top of that they are taking guns from those who can no longer legally possess them by the laws of that state. So no. Every time you buy a brand new weapon from a dealer it's registered. So what is the deal here? You afraid of some apocalyptic government coming for your gun? Give me a break. So yes not only am I laughing, I am still laughing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom