• 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

Federalist said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which you had because your country had been at war. Now, you're not. War is over. How many other countries hold onto their weapons when the war ends?

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

Imaginary intimidation is what guns are really about. Not freedoms. The people who bear arms will never be called to use them in defence of the realm and most of them will never be called to use them in self defence.

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.
Click to expand...

In many countries outside US, effective policing doesn't involve bearing arms. Why are you unable to achieve that?
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

OhIsee.Then said:
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.)
Click to expand...

All able bodied persons are considered to be members of the militia.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Viv said:
Which you had because your country had been at war. Now, you're not. War is over.
Click to expand...

Really? America isn't @ war? Someone had better tell the guys in Iraq or Afghanistan then.

Also, you completely misunderstood what the militia is, read the sig.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

There hasn't been a declaration of war made since 1941.
So, no, we aren't at war, not unless you count the war on drugs, war on poverty, and war on terror. Calling something a war is a lot like naming an apartment building after meadows, woods, brooks, or something else that doesn't exist where it has been built.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Dittohead not! said:
There hasn't been a declaration of war made since 1941.
So, no, we aren't at war, not unless you count the war on drugs, war on poverty, and war on terror. Calling something a war is a lot like naming an apartment building after meadows, woods, brooks, or something else that doesn't exist where it has been built.
Click to expand...

We haven't worked with formal declarations in a long time. To sit there and not recognize our conflicts in Iraq, and Afghanistan as wars is purely ignorant.

I believe we should always make a declaration of war with a plan of withdrawal, but common sense doesn't exist in Washington DC.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

AreteCourage said:
We haven't worked with formal declarations in a long time. To sit there and not recognize our conflicts in Iraq, and Afghanistan as wars is purely ignorant.

I believe we should always make a declaration of war with a plan of withdrawal, but common sense doesn't exist in Washington DC.
Click to expand...

Nor does respect for the Constitution.

During Vietnam, they at least labeled the war as a "conflict" in order to get around the Constitution.

During the last wars, they simply ignored the Constitution altogether.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Dittohead not! said:
Nor does respect for the Constitution.

During Vietnam, they at least labeled the war as a "conflict" in order to get around the Constitution.

During the last wars, they simply ignored the Constitution altogether.
Click to expand...

We're in absolute agreement here.

I think we would both like to see a return of formal declarations of war instead of the nonsense we have now.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

AreteCourage said:
We're in absolute agreement here.

I think we would both like to see a return of formal declarations of war instead of the nonsense we have now.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
While we're at it. let's pick up the rest of the Constitution, dust the footprints off of it, and replace it as the cornerstone of liberty, what do you say?
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Dittohead not! said:
Absolutely.
While we're at it. let's pick up the rest of the Constitution, dust the footprints off of it, and replace it as the cornerstone of liberty, what do you say?
Click to expand...

Be nice wouldn't it?

The Constitution is what gives balance of power between government and people...If our greedy politicians would understand that they are supposed to be statesmen instead of politicians...well, this wouldn't be an issue.

Power hungry people can never be satisfied and always crave more until they have to be stopped.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

X Factor said:
So are you saying that, instead of confiscation, the govt should draft those who have assault weapons into a militia?
Click to expand...
Not exactly. Essentially they are already members of the our militia they can be called up at any time. Now if you think along the lines of "1. Registration 2. Confiscation 3. Extermination" you could already be a member of a militia. So the next obvious question is whose?
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Viv said:
Which you had because your country had been at war. Now, you're not. War is over. How many other countries hold onto their weapons when the war ends?
Click to expand...

No, we didn't have the right to keep and bear arms because we had recently fought a war. We had the right to keep and bear arms by virtue of being humans and having inalienable human rights. At least that's what the founders thought.

Imaginary intimidation is what guns are really about. Not freedoms. The people who bear arms will never be called to use them in defence of the realm and most of them will never be called to use them in self defence.
Click to expand...

I think your statement is contradicted by the huge number of civilian police officers who do, in fact, use militarily effective firearms as self-defense tools.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Federalist said:
No, we didn't have the right to keep and bear arms because we had recently fought a war. We had the right to keep and bear arms by virtue of being humans and having inalienable human rights. At least that's what the founders thought.



I think your statement is contradicted by the huge number of civilian police officers who do, in fact, use militarily effective firearms as self-defense tools.
Click to expand...

I notice that a lot of people from other countries have a hard time with the concept of our rights. They just don't seem to understand how important they are.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Josie said:
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?
Click to expand...
I always took the idea of a ban to mean a ban on the production and sale of an item. US laws typically grandfather in any existing situations that conflict with the new law. For example, when an area gets dense enough in population and housing, the village/town/city often requires driveways to be paved instead of being dirt or gravel. That doesn't mean every gravel driveway has to be paved, just that new driveways must be paved. I've always assumed any "ban" on guns would follow this convention just as they have in the past.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

I always forget to vote on these things. :lol: I say my opinion, and then I forget to vote.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

ChrisL said:
I always forget to vote on these things. :lol: I say my opinion, and then I forget to vote.
Click to expand...
In a lot of polls I don't vote because the options often don't fit my ideas on the subject. This one was simple enough, though. :)
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

MoSurveyor said:
In a lot of polls I don't vote because the options often don't fit my ideas on the subject. This one was simple enough, though. :)
Click to expand...

I don't vote sometimes because of that too. If there is no "other" option and I can't agree I won't vote, but a lot of times I just forget to vote after I post. I remembered this time though. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

X Factor said:
So are you saying that, instead of confiscation, the govt should draft those who have assault weapons into a militia?
Click to expand...
I think they essentially are in a militia, but one that has almost no rules or training required. I think a bit of training and some testing would be a good thing; but not near as much as those that carry assault weapons in our active military. And going over some instructions on how to report when called etc.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

X Factor said:
Yes, it's another gun thread.


My greatest concern regarding the discussion about gun control is that it there seems to be some support for requiring gun owners turn over certain types of weapons that they currently legally own. I'm curious how extensive this support is. I'm not asking if you think such measures will ever be taken. I also realize there's another poll similar to this one, but that one's in terms of what you're willing to accept. I'd like to know, if you could have it your way, would you want to see confiscation or requiring that gun owners turn over "assault" (whatever that means to you) and/or military style weapons?

(hat tip to the member who gave me the idea for this poll, you know who you are ;))
Click to expand...

I said "Don't know" but a better characterization would be "Don't care."

Like most things people in this country care about, its not an issue that is worth the attention or effort that goes into it from either side of the aisle.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Morality Games said:
I said "Don't know" but a better characterization would be "Don't care."

Like most things people in this country care about, its not an issue that is worth the attention or effort that goes into it from either side of the aisle.
Click to expand...

It most certainly is worth the attention. Without a guarantee of constitutional rights, they will be slowly eroded away. I would venture to say that the majority of people in this country would adamantly defend our right to free speech, freedom of assembly, and right not to have our persons/property searched and seized without due cause, but as we have seen over the past twelve years, if we don't defend it, and look the other way, while politicians intrude on our rights, they get slowly trampled upon. The second amendment is every bit as important as any other right, and could essentially be considered THE most important, as it is the only one that, in the end, gives the populace any teeth whatsoever.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

lizzie said:
….. The second amendment is every bit as important as any other right, and could essentially be considered THE most important, as it is the only one that, in the end, gives the populace any teeth whatsoever.
Click to expand...
I want to understand how the teeth could be effectively used. Please give us some examples of this. And some details if they have been used in the past. Thanks.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

ChrisL said:
I notice that a lot of people from other countries have a hard time with the concept of our rights. They just don't seem to understand how important they are.
Click to expand...

All too many people from this country also have a hard time with the concept of our rights.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

lizzie said:
It most certainly is worth the attention. Without a guarantee of constitutional rights, they will be slowly eroded away. I would venture to say that the majority of people in this country would adamantly defend our right to free speech, freedom of assembly, and right not to have our persons/property searched and seized without due cause, but as we have seen over the past twelve years, if we don't defend it, and look the other way, while politicians intrude on our rights, they get slowly trampled upon. The second amendment is every bit as important as any other right, and could essentially be considered THE most important, as it is the only one that, in the end, gives the populace any teeth whatsoever.
Click to expand...

The right to form well-regulated militias is very important, as is the right of an individual to own guns, but can various regulations being put into place which restrict which kinds of guns that can be owned really be said to restrict the actual right? People would still have the right to own guns, after all.

When people resort to slippery slope arguments, they deal in absolutes and argue, not from the position of what is actually advocated, but where it might lead. As such, they are indulging in fallacious reasoning, since they are dealing in hypotheticals. Indeed, one could just as easily argue that lack of such regulation will lead to people having the right to walk around with suitcase nukes. After all, if we are to argue the extreme end product at one end, why not the other?

Instead of dealing in the absolutes of slippery slope fallacies, though, why not deal with the issue in terms of where along a continuum we wish to place the ownership of weapons? We already restrict which kinds of weapons can be owned by which kinds of people, and so perhaps an honest recognition of this fact might go a long way towards avoiding many of the fallacies being offered by those favoring less restriction rather than more. It isn't an all or nothing proposition. It never has been and it never will.
 
Last edited:
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

lizzie said:
I would venture to say that the majority of people in this country would adamantly defend our right to free speech, freedom of assembly, and right not to have our persons/property searched and seized without due cause,
Click to expand...

And yet, the people of this country have put up with asset forfeiture for several decades now, have said nothing about the Patriot Act, and are silent about indefinite detention without trial.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Dittohead not! said:
All too many people from this country also have a hard time with the concept of our rights.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that is all too true and scary. :shock:
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

ChrisL said:
I would like to know what would give the government the right to confiscate anyone's weapons as long as they were legal weapons and the person did not break any laws.
Click to expand...

Supposedly when they make gun the owner has illegal and therefore possesion unlawful, and thus the owner in violation of said law. Thats the theory. Of course it does violate ex post facto but nobody seems to care about that these days along with the rest of the constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom