• 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 like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapons?

Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapons?


  • Total voters
    102
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

If the day ever comes that our government starts to confiscate firearms than you know our movement into totalitarianism is nearly complete.

That step has been crucial for many different authoritarian governments. Disarm the citizens.

Now we already have legislation in effect that attack our rights.

The Patriot Act violates privacy rights.

NDAA violates many rights of habaes corpus. This past version of NDAA has allowed the use of propaganda to be used on Americans. Search The Smith-Mundt Act to get details on it.

Our slow decent into totalitarianism is progressing. Remember...in an authoritarian government...there always has to be a threat, and these new measures are for our own "safety."

Never forget...freedom is not safe and never was intended to be safe.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Bull****, the poll clearly shows how most feel.

I was making fun of small towns. The point being, we must compare population to gun crimes, or shooting, or killings per capita to figure just how many of these we might expect in a village.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

What possible use can there ever be for an assault weapon in a domestic setting?

Apparently may civilians, most notably sheriffs and police officers, carry them because they are an effective self-defense tool.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Like many polls I don't get a choice I can compromise myself to. How about all US citizens with assault weapons must be a member of the well regulated militia? Those with assault weapons should have more training and testing than say a shot gun owner. (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.)
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

I was making fun of small towns. The point being, we must compare population to gun crimes, or shooting, or killings per capita to figure just how many of these we might expect in a village.

I know you were.

I have been to Honduras within the last year, nothing we are seeing here compares to that place.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Like many polls I don't get a choice I can compromise myself to. How about all US citizens with assault weapons must be a member of the well regulated militia? Those with assault weapons should have more training and testing than say a shot gun owner. (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.)

The right of the who? Answer that and you'll be on the right track.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Like many polls I don't get a choice I can compromise myself to. How about all US citizens with assault weapons must be a member of the well regulated militia?

Why would you consider violating, through contravention, the right of the people in such a manner? The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not contingent on them being members of a well regulated militia.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

If the day ever comes that our government starts to confiscate firearms than you know our movement into totalitarianism is nearly complete.

That step has been crucial for many different authoritarian governments. Disarm the citizens.

Now we already have legislation in effect that attack our rights.

The Patriot Act violates privacy rights.

NDAA violates many rights of habeas corpus. This past version of NDAA has allowed the use of propaganda to be used on Americans. Search The Smith-Mundt Act to get details on it.

Our slow decent into totalitarianism is progressing. Remember...in an authoritarian government...there always has to be a threat, and these new measures are for our own "safety."

Never forget...freedom is not safe and never was intended to be safe.
Good points, but I disagree.
Privacy.....cannot be with criminal attacks at the same time...Or, do you wish to live with the murderous thugs ??
We must have faith in our government....here they can do more...
Gun Rights These must be limited for obvious reasons....the truth is, our government wishes NOT to confiscate...be not swayed with the voice of extremism.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Good points, but I disagree.
Privacy.....cannot be with criminal attacks at the same time...Or, do you wish to live with the murderous thugs ??
We must have faith in our government....here they can do more...
Gun Rights These must be limited for obvious reasons....the truth is, our government wishes NOT to confiscate...be not swayed with the voice of extremism.

When you paint with a broad brush...it effects nearly everyone. The Patriot Act has led to more unwarranted wiretaps on phones from completely innocent people. Freedom from these things are meant as a check on government control.

Faith in our government? No, I have distrust of my government. When power hungry people achieve power...what do they desire? More of it. The people should always hold a bit of distrust when it comes to government especially when it grows and starts to infringe on rights.

I wish to live free. I have no desire for the government to take any rights away from anyone. We gave rights of habeas corpus to former Nazis, spies, terrorists, etc....now they can indefinitely detain Americans upon simple suspicion with no evidence? That type of unyielding power was never meant to happen.

Gun Rights are another thing. I know the government isn't seeking confiscation yet. That step is not here. I do not think they shouldn't restrict guns from responsible people because criminals and sociopaths will find ways to obtain them....legal or not.

Faith in government has never been the way of Americans. Historically, the citizens have held a level of distrust of government. That distrust is what leads the people to balance away the power of government.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Like many polls I don't get a choice I can compromise myself to. How about all US citizens with assault weapons must be a member of the well regulated militia? Those with assault weapons should have more training and testing than say a shot gun owner. (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.)

An excellent idea and a solution to the problem....if the TurtleDude agrees.....and this "militia" had best be much better regulated than the men Rambo had to put up with in First Blood.
Next case......
 
Last edited:
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Why would you consider violating, through contravention, the right of the people in such a manner? The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not contingent on them being members of a well regulated militia.
I have read it over and over again. It is one sentence. The 2nd describes the reason for the 2nd. It makes it very clear. Often with other rules the reason and justification for the rule is omitted. Not in the 2nd. And it doesnt state that one has to be a member of a militia, but it does state that the state may make you a member of the militia at the states choice. The state made me a member of a well regulated militia when I didn't want to be and even trained me a bit on the use of an assault rifle. (I missed getting a ribbon by one shot placed in the adjacent target.) The 2nd wasn't written to allow rebellion against the state if a group didn't like the state. It was written to provide the state with a militia when necessary.
(A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.)
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

I have read it over and over again. It is one sentence. The 2nd describes the reason for the 2nd. It makes it very clear. Often with other rules the reason and justification for the rule is omitted. Not in the 2nd. And it doesnt state that one has to be a member of a militia, but it does state that the state may make you a member of the militia at the states choice. The state made me a member of a well regulated militia when I didn't want to be and even trained me a bit on the use of an assault rifle. (I missed getting a ribbon by one shot placed in the adjacent target.) The 2nd wasn't written to allow rebellion against the state if a group didn't like the state. It was written to provide the state with a militia when necessary.
(A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.)

Ok, putting aside the 2nd for a, well, second. What constitutional authority would the government have to take legally obtained and owned property (from those who you don't feel should have a right to mean looking guns)? Any concerns about due process?
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

I have read it over and over again. It is one sentence. The 2nd describes the reason for the 2nd. It makes it very clear. Often with other rules the reason and justification for the rule is omitted. Not in the 2nd. And it doesnt state that one has to be a member of a militia, but it does state that the state may make you a member of the militia at the states choice. The state made me a member of a well regulated militia when I didn't want to be and even trained me a bit on the use of an assault rifle. (I missed getting a ribbon by one shot placed in the adjacent target.) The 2nd wasn't written to allow rebellion against the state if a group didn't like the state. It was written to provide the state with a militia when necessary.
(A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.)

You are right on its definition, but what happens when the free state is no longer free?

It clearly says "free state." I cannot consider the state free if it takes legally owned property from its citizens.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

I have read it over and over again. It is one sentence. The 2nd describes the reason for the 2nd. It makes it very clear. Often with other rules the reason and justification for the rule is omitted. Not in the 2nd. And it doesnt state that one has to be a member of a militia, but it does state that the state may make you a member of the militia at the states choice. The state made me a member of a well regulated militia when I didn't want to be and even trained me a bit on the use of an assault rifle. (I missed getting a ribbon by one shot placed in the adjacent target.) The 2nd wasn't written to allow rebellion against the state if a group didn't like the state. It was written to provide the state with a militia when necessary.
(A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.)

The amendment commands that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It also states that a well regulated (i.e. "in good working order") militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Now, if you are advocating that people be drafted into the militia, I suppose then that's a discussion we can have. But whether or not to muster the militia and to draft people into it is a separate question from whether the government may infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Your suggestion to forbid anyone who is not in the organized militia from bearing militarily effective arms seems to be a clear infringement on the rights of the people.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Ok, putting aside the 2nd for a, well, second. What constitutional authority would the government have to take legally obtained and owned property (from those who you don't feel should have a right to mean looking guns)? Any concerns about due process?
None. Just the right to have one become a member of our militia. And follow the rules of the militia. I didn't even own a gun and the government made me a member of a militia against my will and did it legally.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

None. Just the right to have one become a member of our militia. And follow the rules of the militia. I didn't even own a gun and the government made me a member of a militia against my will and did it legally.

So are you saying that, instead of confiscation, the govt should draft those who have assault weapons into a militia?
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Just to be clear, this isn't a poll about banning weapons, it's about taking them away from lawful owners. I do not believe most people who agree with banning weapons would also agree to the confiscation of legally obtained firearms. There are obviously a few who would like to see it but they're a small minority of the gun control side.

I guess I misunderstood then. A ban on something would make it illegal to own it, use it, sell it, etc. So if you're for a ban on so-called "assault weapons", then you want them taken away from people who already have them.... don't you?
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Apparently may civilians, most notably sheriffs and police officers, carry them because they are an effective self-defense tool.

Self defence against what? Is your country under invasion?
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Self defence against what? Is your country under invasion?

No, not invaders. Self-defense against criminals.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

The amendment commands that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It also states that a well regulated (i.e. "in good working order") militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Now, if you are advocating that people be drafted into the militia, I suppose then that's a discussion we can have. But whether or not to muster the militia and to draft people into it is a separate question from whether the government may infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Your suggestion to forbid anyone who is not in the organized militia from bearing militarily effective arms seems to be a clear infringement on the rights of the people.

The poster clearly explained how that is inaccurate. The people were to bear arms in case they should be needed for military service.

So can they rely on you to nip across to Afghanistan and help sort things out there? With your firearms, which you feel entitled to own and therefore can be called on to use in the service of your country's military...
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

No, not invaders. Self-defense against criminals.

How often do you use your assault weapon on criminals?
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

The poster clearly explained how that is inaccurate. The people were to bear arms in case they should be needed for military service.

Correct. That is the reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people need arms and a familiarity with them in order to be able to, when necessary, muster into a militia.

So can they rely on you to nip across to Afghanistan and help sort things out there? With your firearms, which you feel entitled to own and therefore can be called on to use in the service of your country's military...

Of course they can rely on me. If I am drafted into the militia, I will serve.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

How often do you use your assault weapon on criminals?

My statement was that militarily effective firearms have a legitimate self-defense, as evidenced by many civilian police and sheriff's departments choosing to use them.

I made no claims to owning any firearms. In fact I own no firearms myself. Unfortunately, I lost them all in a boating accident.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Correct. That is the reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people need arms and a familiarity with them in order to be able to, when necessary, muster into a militia.

Apparently, if people wish to stick to the letter of the 2nd, the people were afforded arms only in the context of defence of the realm.

How is it ethical to cherry pick only the parts of the 2nd one agrees with?

If the context is military service only, their guns shouldn't be in use at any other time.

My statement was that militarily effective firearms have a legitimate self-defense, as evidenced by many civilian police and sheriff's departments choosing to use them.

I made no claims to owning any firearms. In fact I own no firearms myself. Unfortunately, I lost them all in a boating accident.

You'd have thought you could just shoot the water and teach it who's boss.

It makes as much sense as keeping an assault weapon to defend yourself from your own neighbours.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Apparently, if people wish to stick to the letter of the 2nd, the people were afforded arms only in the context of defence of the realm.

How is it ethical to cherry pick only the parts of the 2nd one agrees with?

If the context is military service only, their guns shouldn't be in use at any other time.

Because the context is not military service only. It is true that militia service is stated as being necessary to the security of a free state, but it is also true that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Please notice that it says THE right, as in the right that already was assumed to exist at the time the amendment was written. The wording of the amendment indicates that it is not bestowing a right upon the people, but it protecting an already existing right from infringement by the government.

You'd have thought you could just shoot the water and teach it who's boss.

What an odd thing to say. I have no idea what you mean by this comment.

It makes as much sense as keeping an assault weapon to defend yourself from your own neighbours.

Nearly all civilian police officers carry an assault weapon in their squad car. They do so because they are an effective sort of self-defense firearm. Now, you can question the need for such an arm, but I think that the evidence of their widespread use shows that they do indeed have a use in American society.
 
Back
Top Bottom