• 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!

'People punching' guns[W:249]

Should 'people punching' weapons be kept by civilians who want them?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 73.9%
  • No

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Not sure/it depends

    Votes: 1 4.3%

  • Total voters
    23
Just for argument's sake, though, it might be useful to examine the question from the opposite side: Is there any GOOD reason for a non-collector who is also a civilian to have a weapon like this. Maybe I'm truly not familiar enough with such weapons to answer that question, but as far as I now know, I can't think of a good reason.



Self-defense.

Militia service, if the militia should ever be called. Incidentally some states still have a militia.

Resisting tyranny, should such ever arise.

And any other lawful purposes.
 
Just for argument's sake, though, it might be useful to examine the question from the opposite side: Is there any GOOD reason for a non-collector who is also a civilian to have a weapon like this. Maybe I'm truly not familiar enough with such weapons to answer that question, but as far as I now know, I can't think of a good reason.

I'm currently in the Army National Guard. My issued personal weapons are the M249 Light Machiengun and M4 Assult Rifle. Due to time constraints and budget cuts, we get ridiculously little time in the year to train with our weapons and keep ready for the next terrorist atrack or national emergency. I literaly only shot my issued weapons once last year for about a half houre each.

We cannot fire our weapons even for training without the signature of the battallion comander. Needles to say that's a very dificult thing to get given said time restrainsts and budget cuts.

As with phisical fitness and verious online Army classes, I am willing to put my own time & money into keeping my weapon skills sharp, so that I'm ready for the next time we're called on to respond to the next terrorist attack, riot or national emergincy. I would also like to compete in the Governor's 20 competition as that would result in more Promotion Points and thus advance in rank faster.

The only way I can do that is if I can personaly own the same weapons as my issued weapons; both the M249 & M4 being modern machienguns.

To complicate the situation, when the day comes that I leave the service, these guns would still be my property, and so I would need to be able to own them as a pure civilian.
 
Just for argument's sake, though, it might be useful to examine the question from the opposite side: Is there any GOOD reason for a non-collector who is also a civilian to have a weapon like this. Maybe I'm truly not familiar enough with such weapons to answer that question, but as far as I now know, I can't think of a good reason.
Yes. The reason that we have a second amendment isn't about self defense. That should be a given. It's main purpose was so that people can retain power over the government.

A good reason, the best reason to own fire arms that are equal to the military is so we the people of this great republic can defend her against enemies forgein and domestic. An armed citizenry is the best defense.
 
Yes. The reason that we have a second amendment isn't about self defense. That should be a given. It's main purpose was so that people can retain power over the government.

A good reason, the best reason to own fire arms that are equal to the military is so we the people of this great republic can defend her against enemies forgein and domestic. An armed citizenry is the best defense.
I have to wonder how the Ukraine situation would diferent had that people not been denied the basic human right to keep and bear modern arms.

And also, how the Israel situation might differ if they denied civilians the right to keep and bear.
 
I have to wonder how the Ukraine situation would diferent had that people not been denied the basic human right to keep and bear modern arms.

And also, how the Israel situation might differ if they denied civilians the right to keep and bear.

I think we would be talking about them as if they used to be.
 
What exactly is a "people punching gun" ?

Could you list some examples of type, models and caliber that were designed as "people punchers " ?

An AR-15/M-16 is chambered for a cartridge that was designed and intended to be used for shooting ground hogs and other varmints not people.

See you'd have to have gone through special ops training to learn that. So if we tell you, we have to kill you. :mrgreen:
 
He must mean 'fists,' lol

510267-brassknuckles_1_.jpg
 
Yes. The reason that we have a second amendment isn't about self defense. That should be a given. It's main purpose was so that people can retain power over the government.

A good reason, the best reason to own fire arms that are equal to the military is so we the people of this great republic can defend her against enemies forgein and domestic. An armed citizenry is the best defense.

Unfortunately, using that is the only reason is overgeneralizing. You could use it to show equal justification for carrying around a flamethrower or keeping a backyard silo.
 
Unfortunately, using that is the only reason is overgeneralizing. You could use it to show equal justification for carrying around a flamethrower or keeping a backyard silo.
Missle silos are legal to own. In fact Clinton had the AirForce sell several to private buyers for about $1-3mil each. Today they're used by a veriaty of diferent civilian owners for everything from science labs to 'prepers'.

A construction trend amung the rich in Europ is to build down. Many rich homes have 2-4 stories underground, to include whole tennis courts and race tracks.
 
Unfortunately, using that is the only reason is overgeneralizing. You could use it to show equal justification for carrying around a flamethrower or keeping a backyard silo.
Any given person has a "flamethrower" sitting in their cabinet.

A silo is for storing grain, I didn't think anybody needed to justify that with an amendment.

But that is the justification for having guns, like it or not. It wasn't about hunting, or self defense. If you don't like that, I am sorry.
 
Any given person has a "flamethrower" sitting in their cabinet.

A silo is for storing grain, I didn't think anybody needed to justify that with an amendment.

But that is the justification for having guns, like it or not. It wasn't about hunting, or self defense. If you don't like that, I am sorry.

Slow down, there; your coherence is breaking up at a critical rate.

So much so that your own statements can be used against you, like this: "Oh sure; like 'any' person has a class-3 firearm sitting in their cabinet."
And of course, you know that some silos hold missiles instead of grain...
 
Slow down, there; your coherence is breaking up at a critical rate.

So much so that your own statements can be used against you, like this: "Oh sure; like 'any' person has a class-3 firearm sitting in their cabinet."
And of course, you know that some silos hold missiles instead of grain...
So far as I am aware, civilians can own decommissioned missile silos.

However I have never heard that civilians can own the ICBM's those silos were built to house, let alone the nuclear warheads they were armed with.

So saying someone can have a silo in their back yard is kinda misleading in that regard.
 
Slow down, there; your coherence is breaking up at a critical rate.

So much so that your own statements can be used against you, like this: "Oh sure; like 'any' person has a class-3 firearm sitting in their cabinet."
And of course, you know that some silos hold missiles instead of grain...
You don't seem to understand, several people own missile silos, it isn't against the law. If you want to be understood you should better communicate. People aren't allowed to own missiles. Silos are legal to own.

A Bic lighter and brake cleaner makes a "flamethrower" so yeah most people can pick that stuff up at a local Wal-Mart.

Your argument is still flawed. Because the second amendment isn't about hunting, or self defence lets look at the text to point this out.

"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."

A well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state...hum why do you suppose this was included?

And the right must not be infringed. Seems to spell it out the reason why rifles aren't illegal, no matter how scary you think they look is because the second amendment forbids it.
 
And of course, you know that some silos hold missiles instead of grain...
Sure, but you weren't talking about missles. You were only talking about silos:
Unfortunately, using that is the only reason is overgeneralizing. You could use it to show equal justification for carrying around a flamethrower or keeping a backyard silo.
See? No mention of missles in that post, only buildings. You can own a tank, too, because thats just a heavy tracked vehicle. Owning a functional cannon for it is a diferent story, but you can own a tank. Tom Cruse owns a Mustang Fighter. No machienguns, of course, but he owns the aircraft.
 
Unfortunately, using that is the only reason is overgeneralizing. You could use it to show equal justification for carrying around a flamethrower or keeping a backyard silo.
Flamethrowers are completely legal.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cut out the trolling and personal sniping.
 
Back
Top Bottom