View Poll Results: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

Voters
54. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, because...

    6 11.11%
  • No, because...

    46 85.19%
  • Other

    2 3.70%
Page 24 of 32 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 313

Thread: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

  1. #231
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    151,856

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Most of Carter's reasons seemed pretty poor, but I agree with him in that assult weapons can kill many people at once.

    Even though I roughly consider myself pro-gun, my reason are for hunting, self defence, overthrowing this gov, protection against invasions, and getting rid of ascess to all types of guns doesn't reduce crime.

    and i dont' see how those reasons will be impeded by getting rid of assult weapons.
    you do realize that almost all civilian (repeat CIVILIAN) law enforcement agencies have determined that 17-19 shot semi auto handguns and select fire carbines are the weapons of choice for SELF DEFENSE IN URBAN AREAS

    So if all of these municipal organizations with government authority have --in their infinite wisdom--that such guns that liberals call "assault weapons" are the very firearms CIVILIAN (repeat CIVILIAN not military) law enforcement officers ought to use for SELF DEFENSE IN URBAN AREAS that clearly establishes that such weapons are also the BEST CHOICE FOR SELF DEFENSE BY US OTHER CIVILIANS
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Why would you not want to register your weapon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrity View Post
    , as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

  2. #232
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    151,856

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    I don't know the specific differences between an assult rifle and an assault weapon. Maybe an assult rifle doesn't put people at risk, you agree ethat assult weapons do, and that is what my position is.
    Maybe you ought to learn such things before spending so much time posting about the subject
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Why would you not want to register your weapon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrity View Post
    , as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

  3. #233
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    151,856

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maxientius View Post
    WHAT?
    The definition of arms can easily be debated. If used in a proper way a ****ing pencil is an arm or "weapon" as you gave the definition.
    Arms are simply weapons designed to kill in specific manner. Firearms, therefore, kill through force trauma by a projectile.
    Certain arms should be banned while others should not. Specificly anti-personel arms SHOULD BE banned while other weapons that can be used for self-defense or to defend from government opression, should not be.
    This move by the government could be taken as an attempt to disarm the people and make them more submissive to the will of the increasingly Socialist government now in place.
    Feel free to tell the the difference in those weapons. I have trained in weapons all of my life and I have no idea of the difference you claim.
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Why would you not want to register your weapon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrity View Post
    , as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

  4. #234
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    I was looking at some sources and talking about gun laws with my siblings... and right now I consider myself firmly in the pro-gun catagory.

    I am offically fine with people buying any sort of weapons that a common soldier would have as long as someone is not a criminal. This includes any sort of machineguns or assults weapons.

    As long as there is a short waiting period and an organization that tracks the weapons, (which there is) then im fine with almost anyone having them.


    I am still against rocket launchers and anti-tank weapons. Those are not what a normal soldier would have.

  5. #235
    Professor
    Shewter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Puget Sound
    Last Seen
    02-21-13 @ 08:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,995

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    I was looking at some sources and talking about gun laws with my siblings... and right now I consider myself firmly in the pro-gun catagory.

    I am offically fine with people buying any sort of weapons that a common soldier would have as long as someone is not a criminal. This includes any sort of machineguns or assults weapons.

    As long as there is a short waiting period and an organization that tracks the weapons, (which there is) then im fine with almost anyone having them.


    I am still against rocket launchers and anti-tank weapons. Those are not what a normal soldier would have.
    While I could care less if anyone had a "rocket launcher" or various anti-tank weapons (which just to let you know encompasses a LOT of weaponry, including things that you consider okay now ) I would not want to restrict them either. Just as long as they are monitored like other FFLIII items.

    I am glad you've given this a bit more thought. I do have to ask, what made you see automatics in this new light? (Of course I am assuming that it wasnt our debate and/or provided data.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Don't apologize to me over that silly ****. I could care less if I can see the dust or not.
    Now apologize for apologizing!

  6. #236
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    151,856

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    I was looking at some sources and talking about gun laws with my siblings... and right now I consider myself firmly in the pro-gun catagory.

    I am offically fine with people buying any sort of weapons that a common soldier would have as long as someone is not a criminal. This includes any sort of machineguns or assults weapons.

    As long as there is a short waiting period and an organization that tracks the weapons, (which there is) then im fine with almost anyone having them.


    I am still against rocket launchers and anti-tank weapons. Those are not what a normal soldier would have.
    1) why should I have to wait when the current background check is as accurate as anything that can be done in 5 days


    2) one can argue that a rocket launcher is not an individual infantry weapon honestly. Of course, that begs the question-what part of the constitution empowers the FEDERAL government to ban such items?
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Why would you not want to register your weapon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Celebrity View Post
    , as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

  7. #237
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    1) why should I have to wait when the current background check is as accurate as anything that can be done in 5 days


    2) one can argue that a rocket launcher is not an individual infantry weapon honestly. Of course, that begs the question-what part of the constitution empowers the FEDERAL government to ban such items?
    Fair enough. A 5 day background check is what I support then.

    You are right that the federal government has no power to restict rocket launchers. However, the government Unconstitutionally has so many other powers, such as SS, Medicare ect that the 10th amendment is violated in much worse ways then by banning rocket launchers. Pick your battles

  8. #238
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shewter View Post
    While I could care less if anyone had a "rocket launcher" or various anti-tank weapons (which just to let you know encompasses a LOT of weaponry, including things that you consider okay now ) I would not want to restrict them either. Just as long as they are monitored like other FFLIII items.

    I am glad you've given this a bit more thought. I do have to ask, what made you see automatics in this new light? (Of course I am assuming that it wasnt our debate and/or provided data.)
    I think it was the statistics about how so few people were legally killed by automatic weapons from before. I was just skeptical because it did not include where the illegal weapons are from.

    My brother was saying that even if gun regulations don't reduce crime, that they are used in Mexico. However, I saw a source that says only 17% of some guns that were found in a drug raid were from America.

    Apparently, there is many powerful weapons that come to Mexico (and America I must assume) from Israel, South Africa, Russia and many South American countries.

    so that seems to remove some of my doubt about stolen weapons that are originally purchased illegally.

  9. #239
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maxientius View Post
    WHAT?
    The definition of arms can easily be debated. If used in a proper way a ****ing pencil is an arm or "weapon" as you gave the definition.
    Arms are simply weapons designed to kill in specific manner. Firearms, therefore, kill through force trauma by a projectile.
    Certain arms should be banned while others should not. Specificly anti-personel arms SHOULD BE banned while other weapons that can be used for self-defense or to defend from government opression, should not be.
    This move by the government could be taken as an attempt to disarm the people and make them more submissive to the will of the increasingly Socialist government now in place.

    All weapons are anti-personnel weapons.

    Oh.

    No weapons should be banned.

    The ones the government fears most are the ones the people need most to keep the government in line.

  10. #240
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maxientius View Post
    Certain arms should be banned while others should not. Specificly anti-personel arms SHOULD BE banned while other weapons that can be used for self-defense or to defend from government opression, should not be.
    Gotta ask...
    Which weapons from the latter category do not also fall into the former category?

Page 24 of 32 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... 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
  •