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 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 185

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

  1. #71
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Seen
    02-25-17 @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    805

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    No, not invaders. Self-defense against criminals.
    How often do you use your assault weapon on criminals?

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Viv View Post
    The poster clearly explained how that is inaccurate. The people were to bear arms in case they should be needed for military service.
    Correct. That is the reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people need arms and a familiarity with them in order to be able to, when necessary, muster into a militia.

    So can they rely on you to nip across to Afghanistan and help sort things out there? With your firearms, which you feel entitled to own and therefore can be called on to use in the service of your country's military...
    Of course they can rely on me. If I am drafted into the militia, I will serve.

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    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?
    My statement was that militarily effective firearms have a legitimate self-defense, as evidenced by many civilian police and sheriff's departments choosing to use them.

    I made no claims to owning any firearms. In fact I own no firearms myself. Unfortunately, I lost them all in a boating accident.

  4. #74
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Seen
    02-25-17 @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    805

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Correct. That is the reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people need arms and a familiarity with them in order to be able to, when necessary, muster into a militia.
    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.

    How is it ethical to cherry pick only the parts of the 2nd one agrees with?

    If the context is military service only, their guns shouldn't be in use at any other time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    My statement was that militarily effective firearms have a legitimate self-defense, as evidenced by many civilian police and sheriff's departments choosing to use them.

    I made no claims to owning any firearms. In fact I own no firearms myself. Unfortunately, I lost them all in a boating accident.
    You'd have thought you could just shoot the water and teach it who's boss.

    It makes as much sense as keeping an assault weapon to defend yourself from your own neighbours.

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    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.

    How is it ethical to cherry pick only the parts of the 2nd one agrees with?

    If the context is military service only, their guns shouldn't be in use at any other time.
    Because the context is not military service only. It is true that militia service is stated as being necessary to the security of a free state, but it is also true that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Please notice that it says THE right, as in the right that already was assumed to exist at the time the amendment was written. The wording of the amendment indicates that it is not bestowing a right upon the people, but it protecting an already existing right from infringement by the government.

    You'd have thought you could just shoot the water and teach it who's boss.
    What an odd thing to say. I have no idea what you mean by this comment.

    It makes as much sense as keeping an assault weapon to defend yourself from your own neighbours.
    Nearly all civilian police officers carry an assault weapon in their squad car. They do so because they are an effective sort of self-defense firearm. Now, you can question the need for such an arm, but I think that the evidence of their widespread use shows that they do indeed have a use in American society.

  6. #76
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Last Seen
    02-25-17 @ 07:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    805

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Because the context is not military service only. It is true that militia service is stated as being necessary to the security of a free state, but it is also true that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Please notice that it says THE right, as in the right that already was assumed to exist at the time the amendment was written. The wording of the amendment indicates that it is not bestowing a right upon the people, but it protecting an already existing right from infringement by the government.
    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 an odd thing to say. I have no idea what you mean by this comment.
    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.

    Nearly all civilian police officers carry an assault weapon in their squad car. They do so because they are an effective sort of self-defense firearm. Now, you can question the need for such an arm, but I think that the evidence of their widespread use shows that they do indeed have a use in American society.
    In many countries outside US, effective policing doesn't involve bearing arms. Why are you unable to achieve that?

  7. #77
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    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.)
    All able bodied persons are considered to be members of the militia.
    You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.

  8. #78
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,891

    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.
    Really? America isn't @ war? Someone had better tell the guys in Iraq or Afghanistan then.

    Also, you completely misunderstood what the militia is, read the sig.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  9. #79
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,540

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

    There hasn't been a declaration of war made since 1941.
    So, no, we aren't at war, not unless you count the war on drugs, war on poverty, and war on terror. Calling something a war is a lot like naming an apartment building after meadows, woods, brooks, or something else that doesn't exist where it has been built.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  10. #80
    Educator AreteCourage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    08-30-13 @ 12:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    790

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    There hasn't been a declaration of war made since 1941.
    So, no, we aren't at war, not unless you count the war on drugs, war on poverty, and war on terror. Calling something a war is a lot like naming an apartment building after meadows, woods, brooks, or something else that doesn't exist where it has been built.
    We haven't worked with formal declarations in a long time. To sit there and not recognize our conflicts in Iraq, and Afghanistan as wars is purely ignorant.

    I believe we should always make a declaration of war with a plan of withdrawal, but common sense doesn't exist in Washington DC.
    Libertarian and Atheist...wow I'm a hated man.

Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •