• 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!

Should we overturn the 1986 automatic weapons ban?

Should we overturn the 1986 automatic weapons ban?


  • Total voters
    50
That's one. These things have gone back and forth. See 1842 and 1875. Those went the other way. He point is, regulations have nearly always been here.

Btw, I didn't limit it to federal, and you responded to it.

I was sticking to federal--you see I believe that until the 14th amendment incorporations, the states actually had the power, consistent with their constitutions-to regulate the use of guns.
 
I was sticking to federal--you see I believe that until the 14th amendment incorporations, the states actually had the power, consistent with their constitutions-to regulate the use of guns.

I personally see no difference. If you really fear tyranny, both can be tyranical.
 
I personally see no difference. If you really fear tyranny, both can be tyranical.

I see a big difference based on the powers delegated or NOT delegated to the federal government
 
I see a big difference based on the powers delegated or NOT delegated to the federal government

Mostly semantics, as we've seen the courts allowing what you believe to be not delegated. The point is if tyranny is what you are worried about, that can be exercised both ways. And if a federal government wanted, they could quietly work with states to meet your requirement and still impose their will. So, it really makes no difference.

The point is, one or the other has been setting limitations nearly from the beginning.
 
It should definitely be overturned. The only limitations that I support on the ownership of firearms in this country are....

1. Proof you do not have a felony conviction, or a drug/alcohol conviction on your record
2. Proof you have not been adjudicated mentally incompetent
3. Proof you are an American Citizen over the age of 18
4. Proof that you can safely store and handle the firearm/weapon in question

If you can prove that you can safely store and handle an M1 Abrams MBT, I have no problem with someone owning one.

M1 tanks are not eco-friendly, therefore I want them banned. :mrgreen:
 
R
M1 tanks are not eco-friendly, therefore I want them banned. :mrgreen:

That's nice. I couldn't care any less about the environment so your argument has been ignored.
 
In a single word.... YES. These people have proven that they cannot be trusted by the general public to follow the rules. Just like someone who has been convicted of marijuana possession.

I agree; however, I would add the provision that their right should be restored after going for a set period with no violations.
 
I was sticking to federal--you see I believe that until the 14th amendment incorporations, the states actually had the power, consistent with their constitutions-to regulate the use of guns.

I don't think the 14th is really applicable. Tennessee has been considering laws to nullify all federal regulation.

The only singular problem I personally have with an auto ban is that I've long wanted an old tommy gun. I couldn't afford to fire it regularly but I'd still like to have one.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom