View Poll Results: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapons?

Voters
119. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    9 7.56%
  • No

    109 91.60%
  • I don't know

    1 0.84%
Page 15 of 19 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 185

Thread: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapons?

  1. #141
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    NO VOTE
    No, I'd not like to see our government confiscate anything legally obtained.
    What I do want is legislation prohibiting the insane and semi-insane from owning any type of gun, and dangerous knives as well.
    Here the problems begin , I do not think we have the quality of people for this , yet....
    Maybe in 20 years, and we had best be working on this NOW.
    And why was the assault weapons ban ever lifted ???
    I agree we must focus on the issue of mentally ill people instead of focusing on "bad" weapons. With respect to the assault weapons ban it was expired and was not voted again since it was a ban on weapons that looked more violent in other words was cosmetic.

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    Like many polls I don't get a choice I can compromise myself to. How about all US citizens with assault weapons must be a member of the well regulated militia? Those with assault weapons should have more training and testing than say a shot gun owner. (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.)
    The point of the 2nd Amendment is that is that since it is necessary for an organized militia to exist and today we would recognize it as equivalent to the armed forces in particular as the ARMY and MARINES then as a consequence to protect the citizenry from possible actions that the government may use these forces against them it sates that we can be armed against those forces to protect our lives and rights. Today I would include in the "organized militia" those agencies of the Federal Government that have police powers such as the DEA and the ATF. The FBI is more an investigatory agency though they may be included to some extent. The DEA in particular is more a paramilitary orginization than others in our government and is also one reason that I support the end on the war against drugs.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  2. #142
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

    Quote Originally Posted by Viv View Post
    How often do you use your assault weapon on criminals?
    How often do you use your homeowners insurance or renters insurance? It is the same idea. Having an assault weapon is means of protection against those who want to violate our rights or person whether that is a base criminal or some upstart government jackbooted thug and their masters.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  3. #143
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

    Quote Originally Posted by Viv View Post
    Apparently, if people wish to stick to the letter of the 2nd, the people were afforded arms only in the context of defence of the realm.
    This may be a problem of your misunderstanding. The United States of America is not a realm. It is not based on a strata of classes determined by birth thus is not a realm. Americans are not subjects of and for the "realm". We are citizens and collectively are The People and under the this collection The People are listed in the Constitution of the United States as co-equal to the Federal Government and The Several Sates. The Second Amendment illudicates that The People will remain armed because governments try to make their citizens into subjects and serfs when they are not.



    How is it ethical to cherry pick only the parts of the 2nd one agrees with?
    The only ones who are cherry picking are those who try to devise meaning not in the plain language of that Amendment.



    If the context is military service only, their guns shouldn't be in use at any other time.
    If pigs can fly, we should eat Jell-O every day.


    You'd have thought you could just shoot the water and teach it who's boss.
    I'm not familiar with the meaning of the neologism would you care to illuminate.


    It makes as much sense as keeping an assault weapon to defend yourself from your own neighbours.
    Perhaps the English have done their job and pacified Scotland to the point that you have no fear of your neighbors or anyone at all for that matter. In the US we do have criminal gangs to deal with in some areas of the country and outside of that there are criminals who do engage in opportunity crimes and crimes like burglary and we do have to be able to defend ourselves against those who will commit murder or rape. So you cannot look to your country to see as an example to why we should not have this right.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  4. #144
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

    Quote Originally Posted by Viv View Post
    Which you had because your country had been at war. Now, you're not. War is over. How many other countries hold onto their weapons when the war ends?
    What countries hold on to their weapons after a war ends? Why those countries which are FREE of course!



    Imaginary intimidation is what guns are really about. Not freedoms. The people who bear arms will never be called to use them in defence of the realm and most of them will never be called to use them in self defence.
    The point of self defense and being able to bear arms is to be intimidating to those who would which us harm or violate our rights. The intimidation is real. And if you had your way when we do need to bear arms to defend ourselves they will not be there when we do need them. Also of course the USA is not a realm.



    In many countries outside US, effective policing doesn't involve bearing arms. Why are you unable to achieve that?
    In many countries outside of the US the countries do not have as many ethnic groups as the US thus we do not have a collectivist culture. We base our identity on Law and the following of the Law. The subject of a collectivist culture may not want a right to bear since that would threaten the collectivist identity. You are probably not understanding this point. Also the highest Law in the US is the Constitution which is a written constitution. You have a government that has what is know as an Unwritten Constitutional government form so you fail to understand to the extent of what is meant by a Constitutional Right. Constitutional Rights cannot be taken away from mere statutory procedures or laws. Only by being declared guilty of felonies and high misdemeanors can they be restricted and then only to a point. And only an amendment process could do away with the Second Amendment.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  5. #145
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    The right to form well-regulated militias is very important, as is the right of an individual to own guns, but can various regulations being put into place which restrict which kinds of guns that can be owned really be said to restrict the actual right? People would still have the right to own guns, after all.
    1) Forming a well regulated militia is a Power of government; it is NOT an individual right.

    2a) By the principal of IDENTITY: An infringement of a right is an infringement of a right.

    2b) By the principal of PROPORTIONALITY: An infringement of a right is proportional to the degree that restrictions are applied against that right.


    When people resort to slippery slope arguments, they deal in absolutes and argue, not from the position of what is actually advocated, but where it might lead. As such, they are indulging in fallacious reasoning, since they are dealing in hypotheticals. Indeed, one could just as easily argue that lack of such regulation will lead to people having the right to walk around with suitcase nukes. After all, if we are to argue the extreme end product at one end, why not the other?
    3) The slippery slope fallacy is an informal fallacy and thus is subject to some interpretation. There is a difference between an argument that if we allow some restriction on a right would then make it easier for further restrictions on the right (which is a reasonable expectation) than to ague that if we allow abortions to continue would mean that in the future that murderers would be given lighter sentences due to the lowered value on life (which would be a slippery slope arguments since the one doesn't have much to do about the other as opposed the the first argument).

    4) Almost no one who supports the 2nd Amendment is arguing from a absolute position (and thus is a straw man argument). Almost no one argues that individuals should own nuclear weapons. Very few would argue for small artillery or grenades though that could change if the more extreme members of Congress keep shooting off their mouths about what mandates and restrictions they want to inflict on the general populace.

    5) With respect of focusing on what a law might lead to, that is the point, having made a law they can make further restrictions since the law would be seen as a precedent and is only reasonable that this might happen. Furthermore, it is only reasonable to discuss of possible outcomes when such laws are enacted. A lot of bad law are made when a failure to foresee the outcomes that occurs.

    6) Hypotheticals are bread and butter when it comes to the application of laws and where they really apply. Ask any lawyer here.

    7) Your comment about the lack of laws would imply allowing to carry suitcase nukes is your straw man's argument about the slippery slope fallacy.

    8) The issue is not about arguing extremes but arguing what is a reasonable expectation of what some people in Congress would do in the future after such laws would be made and indeed what they say publicly is the goals in making the laws in the first place.



    Instead of dealing in the absolutes of slippery slope fallacies, though, why not deal with the issue in terms of where along a continuum we wish to place the ownership of weapons? We already restrict which kinds of weapons can be owned by which kinds of people, and so perhaps an honest recognition of this fact might go a long way towards avoiding many of the fallacies being offered by those favoring less restriction rather than more. It isn't an all or nothing proposition. It never has been and it never will.

    9) The problem with the idea it is never a all or none issue is that there are people in Congress who want it to be none or almost none. No one in Congress is saying that individuals should own baby nukes or even own small artillery. The only extremes are those who want to restrict and one cannot have an honest argument about where to restrict when one of sides have extremists leading one side.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  6. #146
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    Ah. So elections are not valid any longer. So leaders that know what is right have to fix it? What church do these leaders attend?
    There are some things that should NOT be subject to elections (majority rule) among these are rights of individuals.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  7. #147
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    If we have laws in place regulating (limiting) arms, and if those laws are Constitutional, then it follows that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. That was the point I was making originally.
    I don't know about Chist but I think that any law that limits the type or amount of arms is unconstitutional. I'm not advocating that a bazooka or a stinger missile is an arm so that would not be covered. Of course felons can have some restrictions on arms but only up to the time the sentence is for and not after.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  8. #148
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,736

    Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

    Here is another question for the gun haters who want guns to be confiscated

    ARE YOU willing to help seize the guns. Trust me, lots of gun owners would much rather shoot those who push for gun bans and doors being broken down than some cop who is ordered to do so



  9. #149
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    I'd like to know, if you could have it your way, would you want to see confiscation or requiring that gun owners turn over "assault" (whatever that means to you) and/or military style weapons?
    If I had it my way there wouldn't be an extant government to confiscate anything.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  10. #150
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain America View Post
    I am not one who needs to own muscle cars or bad-ass weaponry. I am quite satisfied with my penis size.

    But neither am I one who thinks others, not so lucky, should be deprived of making up for their shortcomings.
    The bearing of arms is neither a dick measuring contest or making up from some shortcoming. The bearing of weapons is in part a response to criminal predation. I am most certainly not the oldest one here but I am old enough to remember the arguments about the gun grabbers who insisted that women should not carry weapons even pepper spray to deter would be rapist and advised that it wold be best for the women to give in to the rapist for her own safety. This argument failed then and any anagolous argument most certainly should fail now.


    If I thought confiscation would lead to less gun violence and the killing of innocent children, I would be behind such an effort 100%.

    But the problem is not the guns. It's the sick minded people who use them. Take the guns away, they will just use something else.

    And their victims would also be more venerable.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

Page 15 of 19 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •