• 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!

Would You Resist Federal Confiscation?

Would You Resist Federal Confiscation of Arms?

  • Total voters
    65
misterman said:
Was anyone's ability to defend themselves reduced by this action?
Click to expand...
That's not the point. The point is why do cosmetics make a difference?
 
misterman said:
Was anyone's ability to defend themselves reduced by this action?
Click to expand...

Yes. It caused the price on many affordable weapons to sky rocket.

It was a waste of tax payer dollars as well as it meant literally nothing in the way of affecting crime.

When was the last time someone used a bayonet in a crime? That is an example of what a waste of time this legislation was.
 
Blackdog said:
Yes. It caused the price on many affordable weapons to sky rocket.
Click to expand...

Why? And do you have a constitutional right to a cheap weapon?

It was a waste of tax payer dollars as well as it meant literally nothing in the way of affecting crime.
Click to expand...

I think you're probably right about that.
 
Ethereal said:
If the Federal government started confiscating weapons en masse, would you violently resist them?

I say absolutely. I would rather die than let that happen.
Click to expand...

I would like to add that I am completely anti-gun,... I hate them. In fact, I'm making it my personal mission in life to collect and (maybe some day) destroy every gun I can get my hands on,...

So, if you have a gun and want to help me in my worth and noble cause,... send them to me.

P.S. I especially hate those military styled weapons with their high capacity mags and such... (send ammo too)

:)
 
misterman said:
The point is whether it was constitutional or not.
Click to expand...
Then why did you bring up the point of whether they could protect themselves or not. The constitution is about the ownership of arms.
 
misterman said:
Why? And do you have a constitutional right to a cheap weapon?
Click to expand...

No, however it could be viewed as a backhanded way of the government essentially forcing guns out of the hands of the citizenry through a different means which would still violate the spirit of the law.

It'd be akin to this misterman...

Would you support people being able to have free speech, but requiring a permit to do so in places that you don't personally own or in locations that pay for the right to allow speech to occur in their location, due to the publics safety of having to regulate what speech they hear. Naturally, as the governments wants less speech to occur they begin to increase the price needed to get a lisense however suggest you're still able to speak freely on your property and still have an option to buy the ability to do it in public, so its not infringed.

So is it okay in that instance for the government to infringe upon a right if they make it possible to pay to use more of the right and that they say you can only use that right in certain locations?

Would it be constitutional and in the spirit of it in your mind if the government, rather than not issuing taxes on religions, began issuing a 250% property tax on all Mosque's due to concern with their links to terrorism, and continually increase its tax over time. Additionally it puts forth a tax on any utility provider that works with Mosque's. So over time Mosque's become too expensive to even run, thus restricting peoples ability to practice that religion. However apparently there should be nothing wrong with that, because I mean...is there a constitutional right that it should be cheap to run a Mosque or that the freedom of expression must actually be free in terms of the moneys used for it?

Its amazing that people want almost no restriction to be placed on Freedom of Speech (remember the, correct, uproar over "free speech zones"?), Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion, etc...

But the Right to Bare Arms? Hell, restrict the crap out of that one.
 
misterman said:
Why? And do you have a constitutional right to a cheap weapon?



I think you're probably right about that.
Click to expand...
Is there a Constitutional right to an expensive one? Do you have a constitutional right to anything cheap, like healthcare?
 
misterman said:
Why? And do you have a constitutional right to a cheap weapon?
Click to expand...

No, but when the government through their (waste of tax payer time and money) actions restricts the availability, whether they meant to or not, it does affect peoples rights.
 
American said:
Then why did you bring up the point of whether they could protect themselves or not. The constitution is about the ownership of arms.
Click to expand...

Just wondering if anyone links the 2nd Amendment to self-defense.

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.
 
Blackdog said:
No, but when the government through their (waste of tax payer time and money) actions restricts the availability, whether they meant to or not, it does affect peoples rights.
Click to expand...

So do you or don't you?
 
Zyphlin said:
No, however it could be viewed as a backhanded way of the government essentially forcing guns out of the hands of the citizenry through a different means which would still violate the spirit of the law.

It'd be akin to this misterman...
Click to expand...

Before we go on, let me say that I basically agree with you and support the right to bear arms. I'm being devil's advocate to work out the details.

Please back up and tell me how restrictions on assault rifles made handguns more expensive in the first place. I don't get that.
 
Ethereal said:
If the Federal government started confiscating weapons en masse, would you violently resist them?

I say absolutely. I would rather die than let that happen.
Click to expand...

Well that is the reason for the 2nd amendment.
 
misterman said:
Please back up and tell me how restrictions on assault rifles made handguns more expensive in the first place. I don't get that.
Click to expand...

They had nothing to do with each other. We are talking about the AWB, not hand guns. But what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
Yes. But that doesn't answer my question.



No.

You agree?
Click to expand...
I don't think the govt has a right to determine what kind of gun you have a right to.
 
American said:
I don't think the govt has a right to determine what kind of gun you have a right to.
Click to expand...

Considering the answers, I don't think he understood what anyone was saying.
 
Ethereal said:
If the Federal government started confiscating weapons en masse, would you violently resist them?

I say absolutely. I would rather die than let that happen.
Click to expand...

Oh, good grief.

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

:roll:
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Oh, good grief.

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

:roll:
Click to expand...
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:
misterman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Blackdog said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Oh, good grief.

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

:roll:
Click to expand...
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:
American said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you mean the group being law enforcement or military yes. Otherwise no. A random group does not need a fully armed tank etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom