• 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!

'People punching' guns[W:249]

Should 'people punching' weapons be kept by civilians who want them?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 73.9%
  • No

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Not sure/it depends

    Votes: 1 4.3%

  • Total voters
    23
As for this alleged concern over full auto weapons.... they're already heavily restricted. Mostly you can't own one without a Class III license, which has some pretty stringent requirements, and the weapons themselves are mostly far too expensive for the average person to own.


To my understanding, there have only been two incidents in the past half century where a Class III weapon was used in a crime, and one of those was a police officer using a duty weapon.



It's much ado about nothing.
 
I think you'll find that in the gun forum such wording will have the opposit effect.

depends on who you're talking to I guess
 
depends on who you're talking to I guess
Right, and most who visit the gun forum will take it as propiganda, not humor, because word games are the bread & butter of anti-gun.
 
I am not sure what a "people punching gun" is so I will not participate in the poll.

But to address the OP, yes I think the citizens should be able to have such weapons. Because a well armed society is a safe society.

I would think that the armaments make the government fear the people, as it should be. Because the only other option is that the people, would fear the government.
 
I suppose bullets do actually punch people.

Kinda.
 
A militia. The weapons not to be infringed upon are those used by a militia. A militia is infantry, not an armada, air force, nukes, etc, but standard infantry issue arms. Not ordnance, arms. There's not really a temporal consideration.
A infantry squad can have anything from m16A4s to heavy machines and mortars depending on the type of infantry squad it is. What is standard infantry issue arms depends on the type of infantry unit it is.
 
That tank coming to kill you doesn't give a **** about your pee shooter nor does that bomb care that you're on the ground running around with guns. You're still very much dead.
Infantry units do not just carry 'pea' shooters.
 
Why would people want or need to punch a gun? What good would that do besides maybe hurting your knuckles?

But hey, if that's the sort of thing that gets you off......
 
What is a people punching gun?
 
Oh, and where's the poll option for stupidest phrase in a thread title/op ever????
 
What is a people punching gun?

maybe its one of these?

OSS_pistol_Glove.jpg444,xcitefun-brass-knuckle-pistol-3.jpg20120709102455.jpg
 
You're not very well read on political philosophy I take it right?

I have read all the major Social Contracts theories and even some of the minor ones.

No, the "Social Contract" has never been suggested or implied to be a literal, tangible, actual "contract". That's ridiculous.

If it's not a literal, tangible, actual contract it is not bidding and I dare say doesn't exist anywhere but someones mind. You can not bind me to something you can not even prove I agreed to. It's nonsensical gibberish that means no more to me than someone claiming something is scientific fact and then going forth and not providing any proof it is.

Did you know Thomas Hobbes's "The Leviathan" wasn't actually talking about a giant sea monster either, right?

Yes, hobbes was using it as a metaphor for the state. It did however act much like a sea monster, imho. :D

And the "State of Nature" is not an actual "State" nor is it necessarily LITERALLY meaning someone that's just out in "nature"

Again, I realize this. It doesn't change the fact that you can not call something a contract that is in fact not a contract.
 
Last edited:
A infantry squad can have anything from m16A4s to heavy machines and mortars depending on the type of infantry squad it is. What is standard infantry issue arms depends on the type of infantry unit it is.

Mortars are ordnance, not arms. I'm fine with crew served arms being included, though am willing to compromise there. Having served in the 82nd, I'm well aware of the weapons made available to infantry units.
 
Mortars are ordnance, not arms. I'm fine with crew served arms being included, though am willing to compromise there. Having served in the 82nd, I'm well aware of the weapons made available to infantry units.

You know, there is a such thing as homemade mortars. Just sayin..
 
As for this alleged concern over full auto weapons.... they're already heavily restricted. Mostly you can't own one without a Class III license, which has some pretty stringent requirements, and the weapons themselves are mostly far too expensive for the average person to own.


To my understanding, there have only been two incidents in the past half century where a Class III weapon was used in a crime, and one of those was a police officer using a duty weapon.



It's much ado about nothing.

A lot of people on this thread would call this an obvious violation of the 2A. Do you agree?
 
I understand the question but you clearly have no idea what a military grade firearm is. The military uses all kinds of weapons including basic pistols.

Your attempt to ignore the question doesn't negate its existence.
 
sometimes several people need to be terminated extremely quickly. Like a bunch of home invasion robbers.

you appear to be terrified guns unless only the government owns them

It appears I have to say it again: I have no problem with civilians owning guns for hunting and/or owning pistols/handguns for self defense.

You obviously missed ecofarm's post that contained the following: "Some weapons are tools of the state and do not belong in the hands of private individuals. The founders knew this and thus specified "A... militia" not "a private army and navy"."
 
Your attempt to ignore the question doesn't negate its existence.
The question is too vague to be answered in any meaningful way. It's like asking if fast cars should be banned. How fast is fast? What type of fast? top speed? acceleration? cornering?
 
A lot of people on this thread would call this an obvious violation of the 2A. Do you agree?


I have mixed feelings about the current Class III situation.

On the one hand, I think some restrictions of the weapons covered under Class III, which include machine guns and support weapons of unusual destructive potential, might pass Strict Scrutiny as an essential societal good. However other aspects of Class III are, IMO, excessively broad and restrictive.

I support restrictions on explosives ordinance, since explosives are indiscriminately destructive and can be dangerous if stored improperly.

As for full-auto weapons, I think some of the restrictions under the current Class III system should be loosened.


It's a grey area and one I feel conflicted about, as I said.
 
Your attempt to ignore the question doesn't negate its existence.


Neither does your failure to specify exactly what constitutes a "military grade firearm", or why they must be restricted as an essential societal good.
 
Back
Top Bottom