• 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!

Would You Give Up Your Guns?

Would you comply with a gun ban?

  • Yes, I would.

    Votes: 11 16.7%

  • No, I would not.

    Votes: 55 83.3%
  • Total voters
    66
Boo Radley said:
It won't ever happen. Can't really.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no society has EVER confiscated guns, or used a mandatory 'buy back' program to disarm citizens. Never happened. Ever.
 
Arbo said:
Yeah, no society has EVER confiscated guns, or used a mandatory 'buy back' program to disarm citizens. Never happened. Ever.
Click to expand...

We're not everyone or every time. We do function under our laws.
 
Boo Radley said:
They get fined? Registering isn't taking.
Click to expand...

you don't think the gun would be confiscated as well?

are you really that gullible or ignorant of reality?
 
TurtleDude said:
you don't think the gun would be confiscated as well?

are you really that gullible or ignorant of reality?
Click to expand...

Are you that easily silly scared?

If you're that worried, register it.
 
Boo Radley said:
Are you that easily silly scared?

If you're that worried, register it.
Click to expand...

I guess you don't recall what happened in NJ, NYC and California when people registered guns that were later ruled to be contraband
 
TurtleDude said:
I guess you don't recall what happened in NJ, NYC and California when people registered guns that were later ruled to be contraband
Click to expand...

Were they contraband? When you break one law, should you be allowed to get away with it.
 
All mine disappeared in a boating accident about a mile off the coast. All I have left are my NFA items.
 
Boo Radley said:
Were they contraband? When you break one law, should you be allowed to get away with it.
Click to expand...

there is that dishonesty that is patently obvious in your anti gun posts
 
Boo Radley said:
Not for mass consumption. Not individually. Not with the violence we see today. No, I don't think I'm off much at all.
Click to expand...

A lever action rifle or black powder six shooter would have blown their minds yet is considered archaic today. Hell, in 1780, people where terrified of the Girandoni repeating air rifle and thought it was a sign of the apocalypse. It was in actuality designed for for mass consumption. With a 20 round magazine, I guess they need to add it to the list of manned assault rifles. After all, it was also a military weapon. Guess they did not realize the AR was the true sign of the apocalypse..
 
BretJ said:
A lever action rifle or black powder six shooter would have blown their minds yet is considered archaic today. Hell, in 1780, people where terrified of the Girandoni repeating air rifle and thought it was a sign of the apocalypse. Guess they did not realize the AR was the true sign.
Click to expand...

ever heard of a puckle gun? believe me the concept of a machine gun or automatic weapon (a gatling gun is a machine gun but not an automatic) was far more able of comprehension in 1789 than satellite communications, telephones, televisions, computers, or xerox machines
 
Boo Radley said:
I asked a question. You expect no challenge?
Click to expand...

The 'dishonesty' he talks about is that the reality is there are places that required registration, then later decided to ban this or that gun. In the face of that, you came up with a half assed response about breaking the law. Of course the point is that if government has a list of who has what, they can later make things illegal for any number of illogical reasons.

Have you looked up to see what those governments did when they had a registration list showing people owning guns that were legal, but some bureaucrats just decided to ban after the fact? What happened?
 
TurtleDude said:
ever heard of a puckle gun? believe me the concept of a machine gun or automatic weapon (a gatling gun is a machine gun but not an automatic) was far more able of comprehension in 1789 than satellite communications, telephones, televisions, computers, or xerox machines
Click to expand...

Like I've been saying, we aways have to reassess new tech
 
Arbo said:
The 'dishonesty' he talks about is that the reality is there are places that required registration, then later decided to ban this or that gun. In the face of that, you came up with a half assed response about breaking the law. Of course the point is that if government has a list of who has what, they can later make things illegal for any number of illogical reasons.

Have you looked up to see what those governments did when they had a registration list showing people owning guns that were legal, but some bureaucrats just decided to ban after the fact? What happened?
Click to expand...
Only when it is contraband. I did a search, and outside of wild eyed gun sites, I can only find a court case in which the issue was not registration and a switch, but actual contraband, and the court upheld the taking of the weapon. Absent any new information, the question seems fair to me.
 
TurtleDude said:
what do you think the purpose of the second amendment is when adopted?
Click to expand...

To help maintain a citizen militia to call on when needed, which if those times very well, as weapons were not as common then as some think.
 
TurtleDude said:
ever heard of a puckle gun? believe me the concept of a machine gun or automatic weapon (a gatling gun is a machine gun but not an automatic) was far more able of comprehension in 1789 than satellite communications, telephones, televisions, computers, or xerox machines
Click to expand...
You need to add people who are unable to rely on themselves and must instead rely on government to "satellite communications, telephones, televisions, computers, or xerox machines". Also add hoplophobes.
 
Boo Radley said:
To help maintain a citizen militia to call on when needed, which if those times very well, as weapons were not as common then as some think.
Click to expand...

Probably due to a typo, but I have no idea what you mean by the bolded part.
 
Boo Radley said:
To help maintain a citizen militia to call on when needed, which if those times very well, as weapons were not as common then as some think.
Click to expand...

so counterbalancing a tyrannical government had no part of that


but if the amendment is not needed you all have to do two things

1) repeal it

2) and actually and honestly delegate the power to regulate small arms federally to congress rather than engage in the dishonesty FDR used

and if the purpose was to create a militia then the militia should have weapons equal (at least) to whatever threat it might face and thus that means at least M16 rifles and normal capacity military issue pistols (15 shots being the US military standard in the form of the Beretta 92 (M9) and the Sig-Sauer P226
 
Boo Radley said:
To help maintain a citizen militia to call on when needed, which if those times very well, as weapons were not as common then as some think.
Click to expand...

And not as uncommon as some would like to hope..... The majority of men that formed the first militias came equipped with their own weapons. It was after a period of time that the government realized that having so many different weapons to support (projectiles, repair parts etc.) was a real logistical problem.
 
the rapid fire puckle gun

The-Puckle-Gun.jpg

63 shots in 7 minutes, which was three times faster than the very best soldier with a smooth bore (much faster than a rifle) musket

devloped in 1718
 
TurtleDude said:
so counterbalancing a tyrannical government had no part of that


but if the amendment is not needed you all have to do two things

1) repeal it

2) and actually and honestly delegate the power to regulate small arms federally to congress rather than engage in the dishonesty FDR used

and if the purpose was to create a militia then the militia should have weapons equal (at least) to whatever threat it might face and thus that means at least M16 rifles and normal capacity military issue pistols (15 shots being the US military standard in the form of the Beretta 92 (M9) and the Sig-Sauer P226
Click to expand...

Like I said, times change. We have to deal with a countries love affair weapons. No one wants to really hinder hunting and legitimate self defense. So, politicians and courts have spent a long time dancing around the poorly written amendment. This is really something calm heads and reasonable people could easily address, but there are those who are so unreasonable that they want nearly all weapons available.

However, the courts have repeatedly allowed for limitations, realizing we really didn't want military weapons common place.
 
BretJ said:
And not as uncommon as some would like to hope..... The majority of men that formed the first militias came equipped with their own weapons. It was after a period of time that the government realized that having so many different weapons to support (projectiles, repair parts etc.) was a real logistical problem.
Click to expand...

The point being, it was the militia they wanted to make sure was viable.
 
Boo Radley said:
Like I said, times change. We have to deal with a countries love affair weapons. No one wants to really hinder hunting and legitimate self defense. So, politicians and courts have spent a long time dancing around the poorly written amendment. This is really something calm heads and reasonable people could easily address, but there are those who are so unreasonable that they want nearly all weapons available.

However, the courts have repeatedly allowed for limitations, realizing we really didn't want military weapons common place.
Click to expand...

I call BS on that-lots of gun haters want to ban hunting how can you support "legitimate self defense" if you think honest people can be limited to 7 rounds 5 rounds, 3 rounds (Bloomturd's proposal one night on Night Line) etc

tell me why my argument that we should clearly allow all honest citizens of age and clean backgrounds to own the same defensive weapons cops have is improper

and how can a governmental entity honestly say that the stuff our tax dollars arms our civilian LEOs with "has not legitimate use" in the same society when owned by other civilians-many of whom are far better trained than cops (many of whom are not exactly in the front lines of crime fighting)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom