• 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

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...


A mass turn over or confiscation of certain types of weapons, to what end?

I don't even think a federal ban of a specific type can pass at this time or maybe ever.

Here's what I would like to see at the federal level:

A major crackdown on traffickers of illegal guns.
Stricter punishments for any licensed dealer who does business out the backdoor or under the table.
Facilitate more efficient sharing and updating of background information and trace data.
Prosecute federal gun crimes.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

mr4anarchy said:
A mass turn over or confiscation of certain types of weapons, to what end?

I don't even think a federal ban of a specific type can pass at this time or maybe ever.

Here's what I would like to see at the federal level:

A major crackdown on traffickers of illegal guns.
Stricter punishments for any licensed dealer who does business out the backdoor or under the table.
Facilitate more efficient sharing and updating of background information and trace data.
Prosecute federal gun crimes.
Click to expand...

HOw about arresting those who lie on 4473s?
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

TurtleDude said:
I agree that arms as intended does not include artillery or ordnance

but tell me where did the constitution give the federal government to regulate what arms or artillery or ordnance a citizen might own?
Click to expand...

Obviously, it does not.

And yet, the SCOTUS has supported limiting arms possession.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

ChrisL said:
We ALREADY have laws in place to take care of the problems you mentioned.

Why don't you tell me what additional laws you would like to see and what you think they will accomplish.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating any further laws. I'm trying to understand why you will accept laws that are already in place, while at the same time saying that the right to keep and bear arms is absolute.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Dittohead not! said:
Obviously, it does not.

And yet, the SCOTUS has supported limiting arms possession.
Click to expand...

that's because they worship bad precedent
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

TurtleDude said:
that's because they worship bad precedent
Click to expand...

So, any limits at all on the right to bear arms is bad precedent?

The Second Amendment does not allow for any infringement on the right o keep and bear arms, yet you seem to want to exclude "ordinance" from that right. Ordinance is a type of arms, is it not?

The point I'm trying to make here is that the Second Amendment is not clear. The purpose is not clear. The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. Therefore, citing the Second Amendment as evidence that proposed gun control laws are unconstitutional is a difficult argument to make, particularly when accepting existing laws regarding the possession of arms.

The SCOTUS has come up with some guidelines, but even that is open to interpretation.

and my own position on the subject is that anyone who can pass a background check and a gun safety class should be able to have firearms as personal protection. Is that a violation of the Second Amendment?
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Dittohead not! said:
So, any limits at all on the right to bear arms is bad precedent?

The Second Amendment does not allow for any infringement on the right o keep and bear arms, yet you seem to want to exclude "ordinance" from that right. Ordinance is a type of arms, is it not?

The point I'm trying to make here is that the Second Amendment is not clear. The purpose is not clear. The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute. Therefore, citing the Second Amendment as evidence that proposed gun control laws are unconstitutional is a difficult argument to make, particularly when accepting existing laws regarding the possession of arms.

The SCOTUS has come up with some guidelines, but even that is open to interpretation.

and my own position on the subject is that anyone who can pass a background check and a gun safety class should be able to have firearms as personal protection. Is that a violation of the Second Amendment?
Click to expand...

1) having studied the second amendment for close to 40 years

2) and debated the subject for almost as long including public appearances before legislative bodies, and students and alumni of ABA accredited law schools

3) and having consulted with leading constitutional scholars including Akhil Reed Amar (Sterling Professor of Con Law-Yale), Steven Calabresi (NW) and former acting US Attorney General Peter Keisler and currently a supreme court practitioner with Sidley and Austin, I have concluded that ARMS in the context of the second amendment meant stuff the average citizen was expected and predicted to own and use and provide if needed for the defense of the community and his household.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

TurtleDude said:
1) having studied the second amendment for close to 40 years

2) and debated the subject for almost as long including public appearances before legislative bodies, and students and alumni of ABA accredited law schools

3) and having consulted with leading constitutional scholars including Akhil Reed Amar (Sterling Professor of Con Law-Yale), Steven Calabresi (NW) and former acting US Attorney General Peter Keisler and currently a supreme court practitioner with Sidley and Austin, I have concluded that ARMS in the context of the second amendment meant stuff the average citizen was expected and predicted to own and use and provide if needed for the defense of the community and his household.
Click to expand...

OK, then you, I, and the SCOTUS are more or less in agreement as to the interpretation of what "arms" should mean.

This despite the actual wording of the amendment.

What about background checks and requiring a class in gun safety?

If limiting what "arms" are OK is not an infringement, is attempting to ascertain that the bearers of arms are at least sane, competent, and non violent not OK as well?
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Dittohead not! said:
OK, then you, I, and the SCOTUS are more or less in agreement as to the interpretation of what "arms" should mean.

This despite the actual wording of the amendment.

What about background checks and requiring a class in gun safety?

If limiting what "arms" are OK is not an infringement, is attempting to ascertain that the bearers of arms are at least sane, competent, and non violent not OK as well?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with bgc from licensed dealers

on private sellers its a waste of time and the fiction of interstate commerce is even more a joke

gun safety class-cannot find anything in the constitution that allows the fed government to impose that
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

YES
emotionally
I knew that I would be in a minority and that the gun lovers are very much evident
the Progressives are quiet.
The good solution is for only a "well trained/well regulated militia" and the police and our military to have these weapons..
Its insane to allow regular citizens like me to have assault weapons - insane !
We same to be up to insanity, but are we up to fair and balanced regulation and control ????
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

TurtleDude said:
I have no problem with bgc from licensed dealers

on private sellers its a waste of time and the fiction of interstate commerce is even more a joke

gun safety class-cannot find anything in the constitution that allows the fed government to impose that
Click to expand...

Then, if its not in our Constitution, the NRA should not bother with "gun safety"...
Is that what you are trying say ???
To use a scrap of paper designed and written three centuries ago is ludicrous....that , to a sane man, should be obvious.
"bgc" = back ground check.......this must be from all dealers, or, all dealers must be state licensed, and this should also include all private transactions... as it does now for automotive transactions...
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

mr4anarchy said:
Here's what I would like to see at the federal level:

A major crackdown on traffickers of illegal guns.
Stricter punishments for any licensed dealer who does business out the backdoor or under the table.
Facilitate more efficient sharing and updating of background information and trace data.
Prosecute federal gun crimes.
Click to expand...

Plus, as part of the background checks, I'd like to see the semi-insane prohibited from gun ownership. "Privacy" , that, IMO, is used to disguise criminal activity.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

TurtleDude said:
I have no problem with bgc from licensed dealers

on private sellers its a waste of time and the fiction of interstate commerce is even more a joke

gun safety class-cannot find anything in the constitution that allows the fed government to impose that
Click to expand...
Nor is there anything in the constitution that limits the types of weapons allowed. That is an interpretation that has been made by the SCOTUS.

What good does it do to require licensed gun dealers to do a background check, but not private sellers?
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

earthworm said:
Then, if its not in our Constitution, the NRA should not bother with "gun safety"...
Is that what you are trying say ???
To use a scrap of paper designed and written three centuries ago is ludicrous....that , to a sane man, should be obvious.
"bgc" = back ground check.......this must be from all dealers, or, all dealers must be state licensed, and this should also include all private transactions... as it does now for automotive transactions...
Click to expand...

I cannot help it if you don't respect the constitution.

I don't need to be licensed to sell my car to someone

and how are you going to enforce that

do you anti gun types even apply the smallest iota of rational analysis to the crap you spew?
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Dittohead not! said:
Nor is there anything in the constitution that limits the types of weapons allowed. That is an interpretation that has been made by the SCOTUS.

What good does it do to require licensed gun dealers to do a background check, but not private sellers?
Click to expand...

ask congress-that is the law they passed 20 years ago

but here is why

1) dealers have a duty under the GCA of 68 to record all guns they receive and sell. One can argue since they clearly receive firearms in the course of interstate commerce this at least passes the FDR version of the commerce clause nexus test

2) you can enforce this because dealers have to keep the 4473 for every retail transaction. If I am a ATF inspector I will know say how many firearms smith and wesson sent Joe's gun shop and he better have a record of each of them being received and if not still in inventory-the 4473 or FFL license of who he sold them to

and that 4473 has to have a NICS confirmation number on it

how are you going to enforce that if I sell a gun to my brother. I have no duty to record when I got the gun (yes it was before the new law was passed) or when I sold it (Yes, it was before the new law was passed)

the only way to enforce that is to make all citizens keep the same records dealers do and make all citizens subject to surprise inspections
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

earthworm said:
Plus, as part of the background checks, I'd like to see the semi-insane prohibited from gun ownership. "Privacy" , that, IMO, is used to disguise criminal activity.
Click to expand...

tell us what other rights you want to get rid of so you can feel better.

semi insane in my book applies to anyone who thinks there should be no restrictions whatsoever on what can be told to the government by a Health care provider
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

TurtleDude said:
ask congress-that is the law they passed 20 years ago

but here is why

1) dealers have a duty under the GCA of 68 to record all guns they receive and sell. One can argue since they clearly receive firearms in the course of interstate commerce this at least passes the FDR version of the commerce clause nexus test

2) you can enforce this because dealers have to keep the 4473 for every retail transaction. If I am a ATF inspector I will know say how many firearms smith and wesson sent Joe's gun shop and he better have a record of each of them being received and if not still in inventory-the 4473 or FFL license of who he sold them to

and that 4473 has to have a NICS confirmation number on it

how are you going to enforce that if I sell a gun to my brother. I have no duty to record when I got the gun (yes it was before the new law was passed) or when I sold it (Yes, it was before the new law was passed)

the only way to enforce that is to make all citizens keep the same records dealers do and make all citizens subject to surprise inspections
Click to expand...

I suppose you have a point there regarding private arms sales.

Now, if you sell a gun to Snake, who uses it to commit an armed robbery, and if he shoots Joe Citizen in the process, can Joe sue you for having provided Snake with the weapon?

It would seem that registering guns would protect the seller, much as sending the record of sale of a motor vehicle protects the seller from the buyer's acts.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

earthworm said:
Plus, as part of the background checks, I'd like to see the semi-insane prohibited from gun ownership. "Privacy" , that, IMO, is used to disguise criminal activity.
Click to expand...

How exactly do you define "semi-insane"?
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Dittohead not! said:
I suppose you have a point there regarding private arms sales.

Now, if you sell a gun to Snake, who uses it to commit an armed robbery, and if he shoots Joe Citizen in the process, can Joe sue you for having provided Snake with the weapon?

It would seem that registering guns would protect the seller, much as sending the record of sale of a motor vehicle protects the seller from the buyer's acts.
Click to expand...

1) that is a good point which is why I only sell through a dealer or to people I know have CCW permits
2) if I were to sell to someone I don't know I would request to see both a drivers' license (to make sure they live in ohio and are old enough) and that they have a CCW or if I saw them complete a 4473 and pass a background check
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Dittohead not! said:
I suppose you have a point there regarding private arms sales.

Now, if you sell a gun to Snake, who uses it to commit an armed robbery, and if he shoots Joe Citizen in the process, can Joe sue you for having provided Snake with the weapon?

It would seem that registering guns would protect the seller, much as sending the record of sale of a motor vehicle protects the seller from the buyer's acts.
Click to expand...

Joe cannot sue me SUCCESSFULLY if I had no reasonable belief that snake had a record etc

If I ascertained that Snake had a CCW or if I saw him buy a weapon from a dealer after the dealer called NICS then I would be safe.

If however, I personally knew that Snake was a felon or under indictment, I'd be toast as well as be in violation of federal law
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

TurtleDude said:
the sister poll to this would be

do you want to see previously law abiding citizens and cops being killed as a result?
Click to expand...

...and yet another related poll....

Do you think hyperbole is constructive to argument?
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

TurtleDude said:
Joe cannot sue me SUCCESSFULLY if I had no reasonable belief that snake had a record etc

If I ascertained that Snake had a CCW or if I saw him buy a weapon from a dealer after the dealer called NICS then I would be safe.

If however, I personally knew that Snake was a felon or under indictment, I'd be toast as well as be in violation of federal law
Click to expand...
And, if you didn't check out Snake at all, just took his money and gave him the gun, and if Joe had a really smart lawyer, I'd not want to be in your shoes.

Gun registration and background checks are good ideas. They won't keep all guns out of the hands of felons, but they would help, and they would protect the sellers.

And, if Snake gets caught with a gun, then the cops know it is not registered and he isn't supposed to have it.
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Dittohead not! said:
And, if you didn't check out Snake at all, just took his money and gave him the gun, and if Joe had a really smart lawyer, I'd not want to be in your shoes.

Gun registration and background checks are good ideas. They won't keep all guns out of the hands of felons, but they would help, and they would protect the sellers.

And, if Snake gets caught with a gun, then the cops know it is not registered and he isn't supposed to have it.
Click to expand...

no gun registration is not a good idea since

1) it cannot be applied to criminals due to 5th amendment concerns

2) is not something the government properly has the power to do

3) based on the divulgence of gun permit holders' residences in NY can be abused by crooked cops or media whores

4) facilitates confiscation or taxation

5) and if Snake is a felon it doesn't matter if the gun is registered or not-he will be charged for possession but he cannot be charged for failure to register it
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

upsideguy said:
...and yet another related poll....

Do you think hyperbole is constructive to argument?
Click to expand...


like using dead children to advance an agenda that has no intention of saving children?
 
Re: Would you like to see the govt confiscate legally obtained/owned "assault" weapon

Shadow Serious said:
… The point of the 2nd Amendment is that is that since it is necessary for an organized militia to exist and today we would recognize it as equivalent to the armed forces in particular as the ARMY and MARINES then as a consequence to protect the citizenry from possible actions that the government may use these forces against them it sates that we can be armed against those forces to protect our lives and rights. Today I would include in the "organized militia" those agencies of the Federal Government that have police powers such as the DEA and the ATF. The FBI is more an investigatory agency though they may be included to some extent. The DEA in particular is more a paramilitary orginization than others in our government and is also one reason that I support the end on the war against drugs.
Click to expand...
It seems irrational to me that a government would make a rule that if any part of the population didn’t like the government he or they could use their guns to remove the government and replace it. Shadow can you reference for us the historical documentation that supports your POV on what the 2nd was intended to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom