View Poll Results: Would You Resist Federal Confiscation of Arms?

Voters
74. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    44 59.46%
  • No

    15 20.27%
  • Other

    15 20.27%
Page 13 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 259

Thread: Would You Resist Federal Confiscation?

  1. #121
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Would You Resist Federal Confiscation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    Oh, good grief.

    "The evil socialist gummint is comin to take mah guns!"

    If you saw early proposals from our current president or some anti-second groups you would know how serious they are. I've seen some lists of "dangerous guns" like, semi-automatic pistols(pretty much anything that isn't a revolver, btw, revolvers have the same effect, one pull/one bullet), anything with a modified stock, anything with cowling or barrel shrowd, too high of a calibre, long guns, semi-automatic rifles, any magazines that can hold more than 8 rounds, etc. etc.
    Last edited by LaMidRighter; 03-15-10 at 02:27 PM.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #122
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,697

    Re: Would You Resist Federal Confiscation?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    If it's about nothing but ownership of arms, that would imply there are no limits, and I can buy a surface-to-air missile or small thermonuclear device or whatever.
    It is understood the 2nd only covers man portable arms under a certain bore. Anything else is considered an "explosive or destructive device" and covered under a different set of state and Federal laws.

    "A destructive device is a firearm or explosive device that, in the United States, is regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Examples of destructive devices are grenades, and firearms with a bore over one half of an inch, including some semi-automatic shotguns. While current federal laws allow destructive devices, some states have banned them from transfer to civilians. In states where banned, only law enforcement officers and military personnel are allowed to possess them." - [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device]Destructive device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


    I tend to agree with this as no civilian needs a 75mm or larger cannon etc. where I disagree is certain states banning fully automatic weapons or machine guns.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 03-15-10 at 02:30 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  3. #123
    Tavern Bartender
    #NeverOprah
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,615

    Re: Would You Resist Federal Confiscation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    It is understood the 2nd only covers man portable arms under a certain bore. Anything else is considered an "explosive or destructive device" and covered under a different set of state and Federal laws.

    "A destructive device is a firearm or explosive device that, in the United States, is regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Examples of destructive devices are grenades, and firearms with a bore over one half of an inch, including some semi-automatic shotguns. While current federal laws allow destructive devices, some states have banned them from transfer to civilians. In states where banned, only law enforcement officers and military personnel are allowed to possess them." - Destructive device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I think the amendment speaks to both the militia (group) and the people (individual), and therefore there is no limit on arms. I think it is understood the differences between personal arms and those of a group.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  4. #124
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    01-20-18 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,195

    Re: Would You Resist Federal Confiscation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    Oh, good grief.

    "The evil socialist gummint is comin to take mah guns!"

    One only has to look at states like Illinois, California, New york or some other anti-2nd amendment state to see that they are trying.A musician was sentenced to prison in NewYork for possessing a loaded firearm in his tourbus something which he as an American citizen has a constitutional right to.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 03-15-10 at 02:39 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  5. #125
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,697

    Re: Would You Resist Federal Confiscation?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I think the amendment speaks to both the militia (group) and the people (individual), and therefore there is no limit on arms. I think it is understood the differences between personal arms and those of a group.
    If you mean the group being law enforcement or military yes. Otherwise no. A random group does not need a fully armed tank etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  6. #126
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would You Resist Federal Confiscation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    It is understood the 2nd only covers man portable arms under a certain bore. Anything else is considered an "explosive or destructive device" and covered under a different set of state and Federal laws.
    Ah, so there are classes of weapons that are covered, and classes that aren't.

    I tend to agree with this as no civilian needs a 75mm or larger cannon etc. where I disagree is certain states banning fully automatic weapons or machine guns.
    Okay, here you're basing the difference on "civilian need." So the next question is why do civilians need fully automatic rifles (let's just concede that all handguns are protected), let alone machine guns? Isn't it reasonable to say that civilians don't need machine guns any more than they need a 75mm cannon?

  7. #127
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Would You Resist Federal Confiscation?

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I think the amendment speaks to both the militia (group) and the people (individual), and therefore there is no limit on arms. I think it is understood the differences between personal arms and those of a group.
    So you're saying there is no limit whatsoever?

    And are you saying some rights in the 2nd are conditional on militia membership?

  8. #128
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    01-20-18 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,195

    Re: Would You Resist Federal Confiscation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    If you mean the group being law enforcement or military yes. Otherwise no. A random group does not need a fully armed tank etc.
    Arms are arms and the 2nd amendment does not specify what arms and when you consider one of the intentions of the 2nd amendment was so that a armed population can take down the government. Then civilians should be able to get their hands on what ever the police and military can get assuming those people pay for those things themselves and have a place to store it.Seeing how there is a part at the end that shall not be infringed then the government has no business restricting,requiring licenses or registrations or any other pre-existing conditions to that right.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 03-15-10 at 02:42 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  9. #129
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,697

    Re: Would You Resist Federal Confiscation?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Ah, so there are classes of weapons that are covered, and classes that aren't.
    By the 2nd Amendment yes and no. I said it is understood. Some disagree and feel it means any weapon system.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Okay, here you're basing the difference on "civilian need."
    No. Not at all. It has nothing to do with need. It is a right.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    So the next question is why do civilians need fully automatic rifles (let's just concede that all handguns are protected), let alone machine guns? Isn't it reasonable to say that civilians don't need machine guns any more than they need a 75mm cannon?
    Because they are covered under a different law. I did not say they cannot get them. I said they don't need them, so they require different licensing. Rest assured they can get them and need has nothing to do with it as I said.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  10. #130
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,697

    Re: Would You Resist Federal Confiscation?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Arms are arms and the 2nd amendment does not specify and when you consider one of the intentions of the 2nd amendment was so that a armed population can take down the government. Then civilians should be able to get their hands on what ever the police and military can get assuming those people pay for those things themselves and have a place to store it.
    That is one interpretation. Many disagree.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

Page 13 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... 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
  •