• 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!

Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.[W:740]

Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Cisero said:
First off, I would like to point out that your definition of assault rifle is curious. I would argue an assault rifle is NOT a semi-automatic rifle. They are two different things. I tend to agree with wikipedia's definition :

An assault rifle is a fully automatic selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

So if we're talking about banning semi-autos :

1) No
2) No
3) No
4) No

For me, guns have 3 uses :

- Hunting
- Sport
- Defense

I don't think a fully automatic assault rifle can be used in any of these categories. Some argue they are necessary for self-defense, but in what situation would a fully automatic rifle (heck, any rifle) be more useful than a handgun? Self-defense implies an immediate threat, isn't a handgun better, or a shotgun ?

Banning Wikipedia's definition of assault rifles is, for me, an obvious YES.
Click to expand...



I am going by the media/US governments faulty definition for argument's sake.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

I support banning all guns, knives, baseball bats, and football. But not swords or wooden bow and arrows.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

haymarket said:
Your post and your statements are well written and make a great deal of sense. A question for you regarding what you said here: if a manufacturer makes a semi-automatic weapon available to the public and it can be easily converted to fully automatic rather cheaply and easily, would you still favor its legal availability to the public?

Should there be some obligation on the part of the manufacturer to create the weapon in such a way so as to make it virtually impossible - or at the least other difficult and expensive to boot - to convert such a weapon to get around the ban?
Click to expand...

Cisero said:
Yes, making a semi-automatic rifle fully automatic should be virtually impossible, or at least very difficult & expensive. Since we agree that fully automatic rifles are dangerous & are not used for sports, hunting or self-defense, it's logical to block that possibility. Reducing the risk of these sort of weapons landing in the wrong hands is more important than satsifying Rambo fantisies.
Click to expand...
I'd like to comment on this, if you gentlemen don't mind?

There is the technicality of the law, and the spirit of the law.

It would seem to avoid technical avoidance of the law, it should not be allowed to advertently or intentionally design a weapon to be easily converted to fully auto, or to supply parts to specifically do so. To facilitate conversion to auto would seem to fall under the legal definition of "furtherance", IMO.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

haymarket said:
Your post and your statements are well written and make a great deal of sense. A question for you regarding what you said here: if a manufacturer makes a semi-automatic weapon available to the public and it can be easily converted to fully automatic rather cheaply and easily, would you still favor its legal availability to the public?

Should there be some obligation on the part of the manufacturer to create the weapon in such a way so as to make it virtually impossible - or at the least other difficult and expensive to boot - to convert such a weapon to get around the ban?
Click to expand...



Please answer the OP's 4 questions like everyone else. Thank you.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

No to all.

As to full auto weapons. I like the fact they are registered with the government and the federal tax is also OK. However the ban on new purchases etc is bull.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Beaudreaux said:
I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I uphold that oath every day of my life. Under your criteria, I presume that you would see me as a rabid Constitutionalist - if so, I will take that label which is meant to be a condemnation to belittle people... and wear that label with pride.
Click to expand...

The question was about whether you would support bans of some firearms. As you know, the Constitution does allow for amendments and certainly the 2nd Amendment could be altered. As a Constitutionalist you realize that.
I would not be opposed to living in a country in which no firearms were allowed except for the Dept of Defense. Not really a fan of firearms or see much purpose in them. It gets tricky when we allow so many governmental organizations to own firearms yet prohibit citizens from owning them. Don't like government clearly signaling that firearms are required yet forbidding citizens from owning them. Citizens should be armed as well as internal government units. Firearms for all or firearms for none (except from foreign attack).
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

No across the board. I think all small arms are protected under the Second Amendment and the natural right which it acknowledges.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Beaudreaux said:
I want to comment that you're reasoning is the only reason that is legitimate, IMHO, against open carry - mishap, accidental firing, etc. You're reasoning is further bolstered in logic by your recognition that illegal purchase and carry will occur regardless of what restrictions are put on law abiding citizens.

I don't agree with you on your reasoning against open carry, but I respect your reasoning because it's a valid concern, IMHO. I'm concerned about open carry for the same reasons that you are against it. I just don't go as far as to want it outlawed. I am a supporter of CCW license requirements which include training the people that conceal carry, although I also believe this to be a infringement of my Second Amendment Right.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out, before you were potentially confronted, that your reasoning is not the normal bannoid (as TD has named them) reasoning, and is IMHO a reasonable argument, even if I disagree.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the comment.

Yes, I see every additional gun in the public as an additional potential mishap, whether through poor execution or poor judgement. I cannot see this denied.

But I'm also aware of the counter-argument of a gun offering protection from assault, and that is a valid argument.

What this all comes down to in my mind, is how do we balance the general safety of the public from firearms mishap and mischief, with one's personal rights to personal protection?

That's really what's up for debate, I think.

But besides the societal rationale here, we've got that little thing called the Constitution to respect, along with what those nine guys in DC read out of it.

So this gets complicated fast.

But yeah, I see it as a "my safety vs your safety", and "my rights vs your rights" thing. It's the classic conundrum of where do my rights end, and yours begin!
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

matchlight said:
It's clear that the Second Amendment originally was a limitation only on the federal government. But in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, the Supreme Court made clear that amendment is incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and through it applies to the states also.

The fact the Court incorporated a right from one of the first eight amendments does not necessarily mean it considers that right fundamental. But it considers all the First Amendment rights fundamental, and it used language in D. C. v. Heller that suggests it also puts the right to keep and bear arms in that elite category. Like the First and Fourth Amendment rights, the Second Amendment right predates the Constitution, and the fact is is placed right after the First Amendment indicates the importance the First Congress attached to it in drafting the Bill of Rights.

What makes the question of a right's status as fundamental so important is that when government actions that involve fundamental rights are challenged, they are subject to the Court's "strict scrutiny" standard. That places the burden on the government to prove that its restriction of the right is necessary for a compelling government purpose, which in practice is almost impossible to do.

A few weeks ago, a panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held for the first time that the right protected by the Second Amendment IS fundamental. That means all the states subject to that court's jurisdiction ruling had better be very careful to respect it in their laws. Some day, the ruling may end up before the Supreme Court, but not to worry. I'm sure if Barack Obama is allowed to replace Justice Scalia, whoever he appoints will be a fast friend of the Second Amendment. And even if he doesn't, don't we all know how deeply Mr. Trump would care about appointing originalist justices to the Court if he were to become President?
Click to expand...

I was with you up until the (what I suppose was) sarcasm of the last two sentences.

I'm in agreement with Justice Thomas that the Slaughter-House Cases should be revisited and overturned regarding the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment as he stated in the last paragraph of his concurrence in McDonald: [Page 121-122] "I agree with the Court that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the States. I do so because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship." He also held that the finding in Cruikshank was incorrect: "In my view, the record makes plain that the Framers of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the ratifying-era public understood—just as the Framers of the Second Amendment did—that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty. The record makes equally plain that they deemed this right necessary to include in the minimum baseline of federal rights that the Privileges or Immunities Clause established in the wake of the War over slavery. There is nothing about Cruikshank’s contrary holding that warrants its retention."
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

ReverendHellh0und said:
Please answer the OP's 4 questions like everyone else. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I am trying to gather the proper information so that they may be answered intelligently.

Do you object to that approach?
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

notquiteright said:
I took that oath before you was a twinkle in your saint of a mother's eye. I don't see that as de facto rabid anything. Now go to a Federal bird sanctuary, wave firearms around and demand the Feds 'give back' all the land they manage while swearing the Oath is making you do it...

Ya might be a rabid Oath Taker, (I wouldn't call you a Constitutionalist).... :peace
Click to expand...

Every now and then, I'll forget why I put someone on "ignore" and try to interact with them, and they invariably will remind me why they were on ignore in the first place.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Cisero said:
Yes, making a semi-automatic rifle fully automatic should be virtually impossible, or at least very difficult & expensive. Since we agree that fully automatic rifles are dangerous & are not used for sports, hunting or self-defense, it's logical to block that possibility. Reducing the risk of these sort of weapons landing in the wrong hands is more important than satsifying Rambo fantisies.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your answer.

Would it be fair then to say that you also then favor banning semi-automatic weapons if they are not made in such a way so that they cannot be easily or cheaply converted to full automatic status?
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Black Dog said:
No to all.

As to full auto weapons. I like the fact they are registered with the government and the federal tax is also OK. However the ban on new purchases etc is bull.
Click to expand...

My opinion as well. I waiver on the registration due to the apocalyptic use by the government of the records showing who to go after (the movie Red Dawn scenario for instance), but it's not the apocalypse yet.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Eric7216 said:
The question was about whether you would support bans of some firearms. As you know, the Constitution does allow for amendments and certainly the 2nd Amendment could be altered. As a Constitutionalist you realize that.
Click to expand...
I had already answered the OP questions before the post you quoted, as all No's.
Eric7216 said:
I would not be opposed to living in a country in which no firearms were allowed except for the Dept of Defense. Not really a fan of firearms or see much purpose in them. It gets tricky when we allow so many governmental organizations to own firearms yet prohibit citizens from owning them.
Click to expand...
The first and last sentences in the above three sentences are in violent conflict with each other - which I think was your purpose to demonstrate your struggle in deciding upon a single position that could balance your dislike of guns in the public sphere and the danger of the government being the only armed people.
Eric7216 said:
Don't like government clearly signaling that firearms are required yet forbidding citizens from owning them. Citizens should be armed as well as internal government units. Firearms for all or firearms for none (except from foreign attack).
Click to expand...
The former is possible and functional, the latter is not.

If you don't mind me asking, why are you concerned with private citizens possessing guns? I'm referring to law abiding citizens, not criminals, because criminals by definitions will not be deterred by any law restricting gun possession.
 
Last edited:
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Beaudreaux said:
My opinion as well. I waiver on the registration due to the apocalyptic use by the government of the records showing who to go after (the movie Red Dawn scenario for instance), but it's not the apocalypse yet.
Click to expand...

Key word: Yet
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Casper said:
Key word: Yet
Click to expand...

Beaudreaux said:
I first wrote the end of that sentence this way: ..., but it's not the apocalypse - yet.
Click to expand...

Not going to be any apocalyps any time in the near future and if there is it will most likely involve our plentiful nuclear arsenals. So it's not going to matter much that the government has a full auto weapon registered to you. Red Dawn, is never going to happen except on movie screens, lol.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Beaudreaux said:
I first wrote the end of that sentence this way: ..., but it's not the apocalypse - yet.
Click to expand...


The clock is ticking and it is just a matter of time now, far too many things in the world that could lead to it happening in the blink of an eye.

Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Casper said:
The clock is ticking and it is just a matter of time now, far too many things in the world that could lead to it happening in the blink of an eye.

Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst.
Click to expand...

You know I am 53. I have been hearing that same thing since I was 2. But let's not change the topic please.

This is about banning guns and confiscation, not the end times.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Beaudreaux said:
I had already answered the OP questions before the post you quoted, as all No's.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that you were being contradictory. IF the 2nd Amendment was overturned through the proper Constitutional channels you would have to decide whether supporting the Constitutionally revised Constitution overruled your support of the "former" 2nd amendment. Saying "no" is not sufficient if that happened.

The first and last sentences in the above three sentences are in violent conflict with each other - which I think was your purpose to demonstrate your struggle in deciding upon a single position that could balance your dislike of guns in the public sphere and the danger of the government being the only armed people. The former is possible and functional, the latter is not.
Click to expand...

If you don't mind me asking, why are you concerned with private citizens possessing guns? I'm referring to law abiding citizens, not criminals, because criminals by definitions will not be deterred by any law restricting gun possession.
Click to expand...

I was just trying to get some people to think. I do not understand those who don't mind the rich and powerful from having armed escorts yet want to prevent the common man from the same protections. To me that is elitist and statist. And scary. If you want the President and other "important" people to be protected by firearms, and therefore you recognize the benefit of firearms, why deny that protection to the rest of us.

As long as government is heavily armed, the citizens must be as well. That, to me, is the reason for the 2nd amendment. Not to protect duck hunters or people defending themselves from criminals but rather to protect against an overly aggressive government. Those first two things were obvious to the framers. They wanted protection from government.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Beaudreaux said:
Every now and then, I'll forget why I put someone on "ignore" and try to interact with them, and they invariably will remind me why they were on ignore in the first place.
Click to expand...

The Army I was in had a term for what you're feeling... butt hurt... :2wave:
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Black Dog said:
Not going to be any apocalyps any time in the near future and if there is it will most likely involve our plentiful nuclear arsenals. So it's not going to matter much that the government has a full auto weapon registered to you. Red Dawn, is never going to happen except on movie screens, lol.
Click to expand...

Well I am so glad to know that, I will file that knowledge along with the proclamations from many other past naysayers.
Clue there are Many things that are far more likely to result in the collapse of society as we know it, Nukes are only one in a long line of possibilities, but since you brought it up I would ask you if you have any idea who Putin really is? Red Dawn, again down the list of possibilities, but under the right circumstances it could be a possible result, the US is no more immune to invasion than any other under the right circumstances.
You seem to overlook the far more likely possible scenarios such as
Economic Collapse (which we dance with daily)
Solar Flares or an EMP attack
Cyber Attacks on the power grid
Pandemics
Major Civil unrest leading to full blown Civil War
The list goes on and on and any of them can and probably would lead to what some would refer to as the Apocalypse.
Not to mention simple weather disasters such as what hit New Orleans which locally could fall into the same category.
A wise person prepares for emergencies, otherwise you would not pay for healthcare coverage, have spare batteries around the home or carry a spare tire in your care. Same thing applies to have some food and necessities stocked in the home and have a means to protect yourself from those that would steal from you or do you and yours harm. Be like the Ant or suffer the fate of the Grasshopper, life is full of choices, just remember some choices can result in the end of life for yourself and those you care about. Your Choice, I will stick by Mine.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

Chomsky said:
Well I'm definitely not a conservative, but I'm in very good agreement here with the post above.

And to add:

In a nutshell, I strongly support The Castle Doctrine & 2A, and a man's right to protect his home & family, but no longer support public carry as a general principle.

Since public carry is now the law of the land, I deal with it but do not want to see open carry. Sorry, but in a civil & polite society I do not want to be part an armed camp around me. Contrary to pro-gun rhetoric, I see every additional gun around me in the public sphere as an additional accident or mishap waiting to happen. I'd prefer gun owners (here) keep their heat at home, rather than expose me to additional firearms and their subsequent potential for mishap.

I live on the edge of a large urban area, and I'm sure this colours my opinion of what I think is best for my local. I realize it's may not be appropriate for other areas, particularly out west or the Alaskan wilderness where a gun may be a working tool. I can respect this, which is why I'm predicating my POV as being specific to my urban/suburban area.

As much as I prefer these issues to be handled locally, I also realize local control (ex: Chicago, formerly) only encourages a black market and additional criminal activity from nearby less restrictive areas. So some things seem to me to be only effective nationally, which is the crux of the matter: it seems we're far too diverse a country to easily come-up with a national policy that fits everyone everywhere!
Click to expand...


First my answers across the board are No. I subscribe to the view that the 2A is meant to secure a personal right to possess firearms and those firearms include anything that would be normally be carried by an individual. That would include fully automatic rifles. I wouldn't have an issue with somewhat more strict licensure requirements provided those weren't arbitrary and meant by design to disqualify as many people as people as possible.

I don't have an issue with concealed carry. I don't myself, getting a concealed carry permit in my jurisdiction in NY is painful and I'm weighing whether it's worth the cost and aggravation, but have no issue with people who decide the they want to for their own defense though there should be stringent training requirements at least to level that the police get. I do have to admit to doing a double take the first time I saw someone openly carrying - in Indiana when visiting my daughter. I don't care for the idea of everyone openly carrying - living in a visible armed camp isn't my idea of a good time - I'd rather people carry concealed. Actually I don't like seeing the NY cops walking around in combat gear and AR15s for the same reason.
 
Re: Your stance on banning guns, and confiscation.

haymarket said:
I am trying to gather the proper information so that they may be answered intelligently.

Do you object to that approach?
Click to expand...


Yes, the questions have all the information required and as everyone else had no problem in answering, you should consider doing the same given that's how I wish as the thread starter to approach this topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom