• 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!

Making gun ownership illegal

Vote:

  • I'm for making gun ownership illegal for private citizens

    Votes: 2 2.7%

  • I'm against making gun ownership illegal for private citizens

    Votes: 71 97.3%
  • Total voters
    73
Bob Blaylock said:
Please note that the terms “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” do not mean the same thing. An assault rifle is a medium-caliber rifle, capable of both semiautomatic and fully-automatic operation. Because of the fully-automatic capability, true assault rifles are already very strictly regulated in this nation, and it is nearly impossible for a common citizen to legally acquire or own one. (In my opinion, this is a serious and blatant violation of the Second Amendment—if anything they are the sort of weapon whose ownership ought to be recognized as most protected under the Second Amendment as they are the weapons that are most relevant to the stated purpose of this Amendment).

“Assault weapon” is a fraudulent term, that was cooked up by the anti-gun vermin, with the specific, deliberate attempt to deceive the public into thinking that it was fully-automatic weapons that were being banned under that name. Nearly all of the meaningful characteristics that are used to distinguish “assault weapons” from similar weapons that aren't covered by that term are purely cosmetic features that have no bearing on the weapon's use for any purpose, legitimate or otherwise. One can only support bans or restrictions on “assault weapons” out of ignorance or dishonesty or both.
Click to expand...

If by impossible you mean a $200 tax stamp away. It doesn't take much to get a Class 3 weapon, if you have the money. Or if you have ALOT of money you can buy an old Machine gun that is grandfathered in that doesn't even require a tax stamp.
 
Lachean said:
If by impossible you mean a $200 tax stamp away. It doesn't take much to get a Class 3 weapon, if you have the money. Or if you have ALOT of money you can buy an old Machine gun that is grandfathered in that doesn't even require a tax stamp.
Click to expand...

after the 68 amnesty program there is no such thing as such a weapon. to buy a pre-86 machine gun that gun had to be registered and the buyer has to buy the stamp
 
TurtleDude said:
after the 68 amnesty program there is no such thing as such a weapon. to buy a pre-86 machine gun that gun had to be registered and the buyer has to buy the stamp
Click to expand...

Really? Perhaps I have been mislead...
 
Since having a C&C permit and a legal handgun is what kept my and my wife from getting robbed by some knife wielding methhead a few years back,and my oldest daughter owning a hand gun saved her my eldest daughter from being raped, (her assailant is doing 25 years at Angola State Pen.confined to a wheelchair courtesy of my daughter's handgun.) I'm going to vote no on making handguns illegal.
 
I am up here in the Great White socialist North, and we tried to REGISTER long guns. Didn't work. The USA is already armed to the teeth, so I would put the probability of outlawing ownership very close to absolute zero, and I think that is not all bad at all. Just as simple as most have said: the outlaws would still have guns (only there would be tens of millions more outlaws by definition) nor would I trust government of any kind.
 
No x 1000.

Personally, I would want to see more citizens armed and carrying.

The people who are carrying out these mass shootings show a deeper problem in our country, in which gun ownership is not the cause.
 
I voted no. I have no problem with citizens owning paintball guns, potato guns, or squirt guns. But guns that are really loud need to be banned.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
I voted no. I have no problem with citizens owning paintball guns, potato guns, or squirt guns. But guns that are really loud need to be banned.
Click to expand...

lets ban gun hating lefties first
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
I voted no. I have no problem with citizens owning paintball guns, potato guns, or squirt guns. But guns that are really loud need to be banned.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Suppressors should be mandatory on all large-caliber weapons.
 
Just because something is legal doesn't mean you should actually do it. Gun ownership is one such example, like being a crackhead. Crack ought to be legal, but you still shouldn't do it.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
I voted no. I have no problem with citizens owning paintball guns, potato guns, or squirt guns. But guns that are really loud need to be banned.
Click to expand...

Do you have kids? I ask because squirt guns, stopper guns, and any of those ones that light up and make 1,000 different sounds I would support banning......
 
I'm completely against it. It wouldn't really solve the problem (there are hundreds of millions of guns in the US, and the authorities wouldn't get them all), and it would probably lead to armed insurrection in the country. All in all a terrible idea.
 
Paschendale said:
Just because something is legal doesn't mean you should actually do it. Gun ownership is one such example, like being a crackhead. Crack ought to be legal, but you still shouldn't do it.
Click to expand...

well in a free society, you don't have to own one and those of us who want to can.
 
TurtleDude said:
well in a free society, you don't have to own one and those of us who want to can.
Click to expand...

How about those of us who have a mental disorder?
 
Djoop said:
How about those of us who have a mental disorder?
Click to expand...

Depends on what kind of mental disorder it is and whether it make the person dangerous. The problem with saying "we shouldn't sell guns to nutjobs" is that there are a lot of people who have mental problems but are perfectly safe to own guns. My wife is one of them. She has dealt with clinical depression for her whole life, and tried to commit suicide a couple of times in high school. At the moment though, her depression is well-managed, and her psychiatrist has agreed that it's no more dangerous for her to own guns than it is anyone else.

The other problem is that there's not a good way to catch the people that are dangerous. A lot of them are undiagnosed or untreated, so there's no record that they have a mental illness.

A lot of this kind of thing falls on individuals. In both this case and the Colorado theater shooting, it seems there were warning signs before it happened that the person who ended up doing it was unstable. But no one did anything. I'm not sure how we fix that though.
 
MMC said:
Due to the fact that guns are not the only Arms that people can take up against the Government.
Click to expand...

Correct. The original intent was to make it clear to the people governing us that a move to despotism could result in armed insurrection and replacement of the government.

In the days of flintlock rifles and cannon, that would have been possible.


If we're to be able to overthrow the government by force today, then that "militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment would have to have similar arms to those of the government. A ragtag bunch of civilians armed with handguns and hunting rifles wouldn't stand a chance.

No, the "right to bear arms", if it really is a right, would have to include missiles, bombs, drones, in fine, all arms.

Owning guns should be a privilege, just as owning and operating a car is a privilege. Anyone think we should de regulate cars, allow just anything and anyone, licensed or not, on the road?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Correct. The original intent was to make it clear to the people governing us that a move to despotism could result in armed insurrection and replacement of the government.

In the days of flintlock rifles and cannon, that would have been possible.


If we're to be able to overthrow the government by force today, then that "militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment would have to have similar arms to those of the government. A ragtag bunch of civilians armed with handguns and hunting rifles wouldn't stand a chance.

No, the "right to bear arms", if it really is a right, would have to include missiles, bombs, drones, in fine, all arms.

Owning guns should be a privilege, just as owning and operating a car is a privilege. Anyone think we should de regulate cars, allow just anything and anyone, licensed or not, on the road?
Click to expand...


Course then there was the American Indian and all those bows and arrows, and yes you are Right. It would have to include all those others. As not only would Militias be set up. But also an Underground and or Resistances by the people.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Correct. The original intent was to make it clear to the people governing us that a move to despotism could result in armed insurrection and replacement of the government.

In the days of flintlock rifles and cannon, that would have been possible.


If we're to be able to overthrow the government by force today, then that "militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment would have to have similar arms to those of the government. A ragtag bunch of civilians armed with handguns and hunting rifles wouldn't stand a chance.

No, the "right to bear arms", if it really is a right, would have to include missiles, bombs, drones, in fine, all arms.

Owning guns should be a privilege, just as owning and operating a car is a privilege. Anyone think we should de regulate cars, allow just anything and anyone, licensed or not, on the road?
Click to expand...


But it isn't a privilge, any more than Free Speech or voting is: it is an enumerated Constitutional RIGHT.
 
MMC said:
What kind of Mental Disorder? If they are mentally handicapped. Then the answer is No!
Click to expand...

Even this term can be misunderstood. There is a clear difference between Mental illness and Developmental disorder or mental disorder. Most people would equate the last two with Mentally handicapped. If we are talking bout guns or the law you need to be very very clear.
 
wolfman24 said:
Even this term can be misunderstood. There is a clear difference between Mental illness and Developmental disorder or mental disorder. Most people would equate the last two with Mentally handicapped. If we are talking bout guns or the law you need to be very very clear.
Click to expand...

What do you think about those that have Bi-polar disorder?
 
MMC said:
What do you think about those that have Bi-polar disorder?
Click to expand...

This term is new to me. WHen I was studying Human behavior in College (I have a degree) this term was not used. As I understand it it falls within the DD catagory because it is a neurological abnormality or imbalance just like Aspergers Syndrome but demonstrates itself in other ways.

If I remember correctly when I was in school this was grouped with a category known as manic depressive. Just going on memory though
 
wolfman24 said:
This term is new to me. WHen I was studying Human behavior in College (I have a degree) this term was not used. As I understand it it falls within the DD catagory because it is a neurological abnormality or imbalance just like Aspergers Syndrome but demonstrates itself in other ways.

If I remember correctly when I was in school this was grouped with a category known as manic depressive. Just going on memory though
Click to expand...


This is the same thing they are saying Jesse Jackson Jr Has. That he is Bipolar. This was used to explain away his actions and behaviors. If people are so Bi-polar that they have to be on all kinds of Medications for depression and coping with life. Should they be allowed to own a Gun?

Should see how much this is used in the Garbage Division of the Courts along with ADHD. Emphasis on the Hyperactive allegedly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom