• 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

DifferentDrummr

Bald eagle
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
7,437
Reaction score
1,950
Location
Confirmation Bias Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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.

Also, the question has nothing to do with whether these types of firearms are legal and constitutional to own (in the US), but whether they should be.
 
Why not? Self defense usually occurs at close to mid range, and often in a rapidly developing situation. Makes sense to me :shrug:
 
What's wrong with a handgun in those situations?
ROF and ammo capacity could be inadequate for some situations. I'm still not entirely sure as to what you mean by "people punching guns" though. Perhaps a clarification would help answer some of these questions.
 
I'm not familiar with them, so I can't formulate a valid opinion.

Can you please provide more info about these weapons? Thank you.
 
I'm not familiar with them, so I can't formulate a valid opinion.

Can you please provide more info about these weapons? Thank you.

I think the op is trying to ask if semi-automatic firearms should be banned or these should be banned- index.jpg
 
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.

Also, the question has nothing to do with whether these types of firearms are legal and constitutional to own (in the US), but whether they should 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.
 
I voted yes.


The second amendment was a very important right to our founders (I mean it was the second on the list after all) and one of the crucial reasons our founders thought it was so important was so that we could protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. If we allow the government to arm themselves with machine guns, and heavy weaponry while limiting the citizens to hunting rifles and 10 magazine handguns it sorta defeats the whole purpose doesn't it.
 
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.

Also, the question has nothing to do with whether these types of firearms are legal and constitutional to own (in the US), but whether they should be.

Are you talking about semi-automatic or automatic/burst firearms?


Semi-automatic firearm- One round is fired per trigger squeeze.

automatic firearm- rounds keep firing until the trigger is released.

Burst Mode - a automatic firearm that fires a predetermined amount of rounds per trigger squeeze.A M16-A2 assault rifle for example fires 3 rounds per trigger squeeze.
 
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.

Also, the question has nothing to do with whether these types of firearms are legal and constitutional to own (in the US), but whether they should be.



I have no idea what "People Punching Guns" are. If I went down to the gunstore and asked to buy one, I'm sure they'd laugh me out of the place.

I'd have to assume you're talking about repeating weapons with the capacity of firing more than one round per reloading, as that matches the description and covers almost all modern weapons except single-shot firearms.


The answer is yes, they should be allowed. If you need to shoot someone in self-defense, you might need more than one shot to stop them; or they might have accomplices.
 
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.
 
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.

I'm not sure why this is so unclear. The OP defines these weapons as having a primary purpose of killing multiple targets within a very short time. Some, but not all, semiautomatics would fit that mold.
 
I'm not sure why this is so unclear. The OP defines these weapons as having a primary purpose of killing multiple targets within a very short time.
What do you consider a short amount of time?
Where did you get the term 'people punching guns' from?

Some, but not all, semiautomatics would fit that mold.


How so?
 
I'm not sure why this is so unclear. The OP defines these weapons as having a primary purpose of killing multiple targets within a very short time. Some, but not all, semiautomatics would fit that mold.


Then maybe you should have said "semiautomatics of X characteristic".


You can potentially kill several people in a short time at close range with a 1880s style Colt Frontier revolver, or a pump shotgun of the type you'd also use for duck hunting.


Are you trying to say "Assault weapons" without saying it, or something? Because this "people punching" term is something I've never heard before and can make no sense out of. It brings to mind the mental image someone posted of the gun-shaped toy with the fist.


Guns don't punch people.
 
I voted yes.


The second amendment was a very important right to our founders (I mean it was the second on the list after all) and one of the crucial reasons our founders thought it was so important was so that we could protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. If we allow the government to arm themselves with machine guns, and heavy weaponry while limiting the citizens to hunting rifles and 10 magazine handguns it sorta defeats the whole purpose doesn't it.

The government has to be armed with heavy weaponry to be prepared for war. The second amendment was not created so that every citizen could have the firepower to fight their own personal wars.
 
The government has to be armed with heavy weaponry to be prepared for war. The second amendment was not created so that every citizen could have the firepower to fight their own personal wars.

So the government has more of a right to acquire goods than I do? How wonderful. Hell, it's even more wonderful that you think the government should have a better ability to defend itself than me.
 
The government has to be armed with heavy weaponry to be prepared for war. The second amendment was not created so that every citizen could have the firepower to fight their own personal wars.
No...the 2nd Amendment was created to ensure citizen soldiers could augment the military and serve as a last line of defense in a worst case scenario. They ABSOLUTELY intended for the average citizen to possess military grade firearms. The right to self defense and hunting weapons was a given. They would have **** on anyone stupid enough to believe that citizens should be deprived of the right to self defense. Their words AND actions spoke very clearly as to their intent.
 
Then maybe you should have said "semiautomatics of X characteristic".
Fair enough.
You can potentially kill several people in a short time at close range with a 1880s style Colt Frontier revolver, or a pump shotgun of the type you'd also use for duck hunting.
Neither one of these was designed with the primary purpose of killing large numbers of people, however.
Are you trying to say "Assault weapons" without saying it, or something?
Not my intention, but as far as I know, most if not all assault weapons would qualify. In addition, there'd be some firearms that technically aren't assault weapons but would still qualify.
Because this "people punching" term is something I've never heard before and can make no sense out of. It brings to mind the mental image someone posted of the gun-shaped toy with the fist.

Guns don't punch people.
Point taken: I'll try to stay away from the term for the rest of the thread.
 
No...the 2nd Amendment was created to ensure citizen soldiers could augment the military and serve as a last line of defense in a worst case scenario. They ABSOLUTELY intended for the average citizen to possess military grade firearms. The right to self defense and hunting weapons was a given. They would have **** on anyone stupid enough to believe that citizens should be deprived of the right to self defense. Their words AND actions spoke very clearly as to their intent.

And military grade weapons in the 18th century couldn't do much beyond individual self defense and hunting, so it was a moot point at the time.
 
No one can profess to have a definite understanding of the intentions of the authors of the 2A. It's meaning is still hotly contested and it's my understanding that the current interpretation didn't come about until relatively recently:

2010: In two decisions clarifying their 2008 Heller ruling, the Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment limits the government’s ability to restrict the right to keep and bear arms—meaning that states and cities could not significantly limit this right. The Court didn’t say what sorts of gun control laws would be permissible.

Isn't this correct?
 
And military grade weapons in the 18th century couldn't do much beyond individual self defense and hunting, so it was a moot point at the time.

The whole notion that the government could fund for better military equipment doesn't have much constitutional basis either. Your point?
 
Fair enough.

Neither one of these was designed with the primary purpose of killing large numbers of people, however.

Not my intention, but as far as I know, most if not all assault weapons would qualify. In addition, there'd be some firearms that technically aren't assault weapons but would still qualify.

Point taken: I'll try to stay away from the term for the rest of the thread.



To my knowledge, NO weapon is made with the express purpose of killing large numbers of people in a short time at close range.


A LOT of weapons may be CAPABLE of such a feat. In the right hands, as I said, an 1880s Colt Frontier .45 could kill up to six people at close range in a couple seconds.

A pump sporting shotgun, loaded with #00 buck, could put forty-five .30 lead balls in the air at potentially lethal velocity in about 2-3 seconds.


A semi-auto deer rifle in 30-06 could typically kill three or four people at close range in a couple seconds, in moderately skilled (or lucky) hands... and they generally do not have a detachable magazine. 30-06 is a powerful and lethal round, which could penetrate and kill or wound several people with one round. It is a hunting rather than military round... the 5.56 used by the M16/AR15/M4 is weak tea by comparison.
 
No one can profess to have a definite understanding of the intentions of the authors of the 2A. It's meaning is still hotly contested and it's my understanding that the current interpretation didn't come about until relatively recently:

2010: In two decisions clarifying their 2008 Heller ruling, the Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment limits the government’s ability to restrict the right to keep and bear arms—meaning that states and cities could not significantly limit this right. The Court didn’t say what sorts of gun control laws would be permissible.

Isn't this correct?



The Founders themselves, the guys who wrote it, were pretty clear about its meaning, and that it applied to private arms and individuals.



"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison


The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
 
Back
Top Bottom