• 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
APACHERAT said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that this is some sort of unbelievably lame effort to try to define a new class of “bad” firearms to push for having banned. Previous efforts at defining and banning “Niggertown Saturday Night Specials”, “junk guns”, and now “assault weapons” have largely failed. The public has come to see through these terms, and to realize the deception on which they are based.

I think the OP hasn't really thought through what it is he's trying to do, but I think he's imagining that if he can create a new term, “People-Punching Guns”, he can get some of the public to be convinced that guns described by this term should be banned, or at least severely restricted. I don't think he's gone as far ahead as trying to define which guns fall into this category, or which criteria would be used to define it.
 
Zyphlin said:
Really? Can you please indicate where one can find the designated "primary" purpose of any firearm? Is this some kind of label stamped on the gun that I'm unaware of?
Click to expand...

One could start by looking into how the firearm is marketed and to whom. And by asking "what could this gun be good for outside of the military?"
 
Goshin said:
BTW, this highlights something I've said many times here.... if you're going to propose restricting guns, please have the decency to do your homework and have SOME idea of what you're talking about.


It would at least make it easier for others to know what you mean.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is possible for others to know what he means, if he hasn't a clue himself what he means.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I'm guessing that this is some sort of unbelievably lame effort to try to define a new class of “bad” firearms to push for having banned. Previous efforts at defining and banning “Niggertown Saturday Night Specials”, “junk guns”, and now “assault weapons” have largely failed. The public has come to see through these terms, and to realize the deception on which they are based.

I think the OP hasn't really thought through what it is he's trying to do, but I think he's imagining that if he can create a new term, “People-Punching Guns”, he can get some of the public to be convinced that guns described by this term should be banned, or at least severely restricted. I don't think he's gone as far ahead as trying to define which guns fall into this category, or which criteria would be used to define it.
Click to expand...

For the record, the term has been used before. (Feel free to research it if you want.) And like opendebate, I am totally against the idea of confiscating handguns used for self-defense or weapons designed for hunting. It's only when some civilians would insist on a "right" to military-grade weapons that I begin to question their motives.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
For the record, the term has been used before. (Feel free to research it if you want.) And like opendebate, I am totally against the idea of confiscating handguns used for self-defense or weapons designed for hunting. It's only when some civilians would insist on a "right" to military-grade weapons that I begin to question their motives.
Click to expand...
but wasn't that the expressed intent of the founders? for a well regulated militia to possess weapons sufficient to prevent the standing army of government from overwhelming any mass opposition
 
Thrilla said:
no such animal as a "people punching gun"....


pretending they actaully did exist.... sure, civilians should keep and bear them... why not?
Click to expand...
Sure they exist.Although I guess you could use it to punch dogs, cats, cars, trashcans and other stuff.So calling it a people punching gun might be deceptive since it can be used to punch other things.
67170277d1406404340-people-punching-guns-index.jpg
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I'm guessing that this is some sort of unbelievably lame effort to try to define a new class of “bad” firearms to push for having banned. Previous efforts at defining and banning “Niggertown Saturday Night Specials”, “junk guns”, and now “assault weapons” have largely failed. The public has come to see through these terms, and to realize the deception on which they are based.

I think the OP hasn't really thought through what it is he's trying to do, but I think he's imagining that if he can create a new term, “People-Punching Guns”, he can get some of the public to be convinced that guns described by this term should be banned, or at least severely restricted. I don't think he's gone as far ahead as trying to define which guns fall into this category, or which criteria would be used to define it.
Click to expand...

The only firearm I can think of coming close to being a "people puncher" would be a 12 ga. shotgun loaded with less than lethal shotgun rounds like the "Bouncer" that fires two plastic balls that when it hits someone it's like getting hit with a baseball traveling at 80 MPH.

Works good on pesky black bears, most of the time. Always remember to have a back up round of a double 00 buck or a rifle slug. Pissed off bears are extremely dangerous to your health.

But when you go to the link you'll notice that liberal/progressive cities and states have outlawed less than lethal ammunition for some reason.

AmericanSpecialtyAmmo.com
 
Zyphlin said:
You don't "buy" it?

Like, you think those quotes aren't real? Or you disagree that those people meant what they said they meant? What exactly do you "not buy"?
Click to expand...


Oh, yeah you're right that could be interpreted that way. No, I don't mean I think those quotes aren't real (never even crossed my mind) I just don't think they prove the original intent behind the 2A
 
DifferentDrummr said:
This poll question refers to firearms that are designed for the primary purpose of killing several people at close or medium range in a very short time. If you answer, please explain why civilians should be able to keep them or why not.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you mean by "people punching gun".

For this discussion, here is my gun of choice:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...XNhNEog9q5Ob0lmq1A_bMdw&bvm=bv.71778758,d.aWw

I chose this one because I served in Afghanistan with it. The purpose of this firearm is to lay down supressive fire against soft targets during small squad tactics.

This firearm should be available for civilian purchase so that the civilian population is better prepaired to perform small squad tactics in defence of their homes and neighbors during emergincy situations, such as the next LA Riot or Hurricane looting mob.

And of course, zombies :)
 
Last edited:
DifferentDrummr said:
That would be hard to do without going through the list of hundreds (if not thousands) of available weapons. This isn't a legislative committee; I'm here for a more general discussion.
Click to expand...
I can't respond to your poll if I don't understand the question. You obviously don't know enough about guns to understand the question that you asked.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
What's wrong with a handgun in those situations?
Click to expand...
Look ate your typical modest small caliber pistol and imagin it firing 2 or 3 times when the trigger is pulled. Would you have a problem with someone carrying a machien pistol?
 
opendebate said:
Oh, yeah you're right that could be interpreted that way. No, I don't mean I think those quotes aren't real (never even crossed my mind) I just don't think they prove the original intent behind the 2A
Click to expand...
The Founders stating the intent behind 2A doesn't prove the original intent behind the 2A? K
 
Jerry said:
Look ate your typical modest small caliber pistol and imagin it firing 2 or 3 times when the trigger is pulled. Would you have a problem with someone carrying a machien pistol?
Click to expand...

That would depend on the number of rounds it could shoot without reloading.
 
justabubba said:
but wasn't that the expressed intent of the founders? for a well regulated militia to possess weapons sufficient to prevent the standing army of government from overwhelming any mass opposition
Click to expand...

For better or for worse, the United States military is VERY capable of overwhelming any mass opposition with today's weapon technology. So perhaps the founders would be disappointed on this score.

Still doesn't solve the problem of why today's civilians need to have military-grade weapons.
 
mpg said:
I can't respond to your poll if I don't understand the question. You obviously don't know enough about guns to understand the question that you asked.
Click to expand...

Can you at least tell me why it should be okay for a garden-variety civilian to own a military grade firearm? Do you understand this question?
 
mpg said:
The Founders stating the intent behind 2A doesn't prove the original intent behind the 2A? K
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm trying and failing miserably to say. I don't care whether or not the original intent was to allow for every citizen to own a firearm because I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with them being allowed to own how every many they want and any kind of firearm they want and I do think there are people who just shouldn't be able to own one at all. We can't know whether or not they intended to allow eveyone access to the kind of weapons available to them today and I don't think those quotes can prove they would not have sought restrictions if they were here today
 
DifferentDrummr said:
For better or for worse, the United States military is VERY capable of overwhelming any mass opposition with today's weapon technology. So perhaps the founders would be disappointed on this score.

Still doesn't solve the problem of why today's civilians need to have military-grade weapons.
Click to expand...

Why do you think you can restrict what people can own by claiming they don't need it? Who really cares if they need it?
 
opendebate said:
We can't know whether or not they intended to allow eveyone access to the kind of weapons available to them today and I don't think those quotes can prove they would not have sought restrictions if they were here today
Click to expand...

A militia. The weapons not to be infringed upon are those used by a militia. A militia is infantry, not an armada, air force, nukes, etc, but standard infantry issue arms. Not ordnance, arms. There's not really a temporal consideration.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Can you at least tell me why it should be okay for a garden-variety civilian to own a military grade firearm? Do you understand this question?
Click to expand...
I understand the question but you clearly have no idea what a military grade firearm is. The military uses all kinds of weapons including basic pistols.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Can you at least tell me why it should be okay for a garden-variety civilian to own a military grade firearm? Do you understand this question?
Click to expand...

Because the act of owning a weapon is in no way infringing on your rights? Was it supposed to be a hard question?
 
opendebate said:
No, that's not what I'm trying and failing miserably to say. I don't care whether or not the original intent was to allow for every citizen to own a firearm because I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with them being allowed to own how every many they want and any kind of firearm they want and I do think there are people who just shouldn't be able to own one at all. We can't know whether or not they intended to allow eveyone access to the kind of weapons available to them today and I don't think those quotes can prove they would not have sought restrictions if they were here today
Click to expand...

People that want to force their will on others suck.
 
Isn't the purpose of all weapons to kill large numbers of people in a short time? The gun became popular because it could kill more people at a faster rate than crossbows. Crossbows were popular because they could do it better than a bow. And bows could do it better than rocks.
 
opendebate said:
No, that's not what I'm trying and failing miserably to say. I don't care whether or not the original intent was to allow for every citizen to own a firearm because I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with them being allowed to own how every many they want and any kind of firearm they want and I do think there are people who just shouldn't be able to own one at all. We can't know whether or not they intended to allow eveyone access to the kind of weapons available to them today and I don't think those quotes can prove they would not have sought restrictions if they were here today
Click to expand...
What you're saying now is different from when you said "I don't mean I think those quotes aren't real (never even crossed my mind) I just don't think they prove the original intent behind the 2A".
 
ecofarm said:
A militia. The weapons not to be infringed upon are those used by a militia. A militia is infantry, not an armada, air force, nukes, etc, but standard infantry issue arms. Not ordnance, arms. There's not really a temporal consideration.
Click to expand...

I think it's nonsense to allow gun control idiots to ban newer weaponry. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom