• 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
Goshin said:
Neither does your failure to specify exactly what constitutes a "military grade firearm", or why they must be restricted as an essential societal good.
Click to expand...

And how would you suggest the question be worded so that those who don't have extensive firearm expertise could still participate in a meaningful discussion with those who do?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
And how would you suggest the question be worded so that those who don't have extensive firearm expertise could still participate in a meaningful discussion with those who do?
Click to expand...


I am not sure, frankly. How do you propose to determine what firearms you wish restricted or banned if you cannot describe their features accurately?

There are many subjects of political contention in which some basic knowledge of the subject is all but required for any intelligent discourse to take place.
 
Goshin said:
I am not sure, frankly. How do you propose to determine what firearms you wish restricted or banned if you cannot describe their features accurately?

There are many subjects of political contention in which some basic knowledge of the subject is all but required for any intelligent discourse to take place.
Click to expand...

In that case, until someone does come up with a better way to word the question, I'll continue to use whatever terms I think will appeal to the entire board audience, and the purists can get as outraged with me as they like. :cool:
 
Goshin said:
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.
Click to expand...
Personally I am against the Class III system entirely but this is one area where I could grant some latitude to the gun control crowd. Most people familiar with these weapons realize that they aren't the best for standard criminal operations because the portable stuff is laughably inaccurate and the mounted stuff limits mobility, they are inefficient in that each hit will require wasted ammunition at a pretty wide ratio. That said, I think if people would accept a general license to own and operate that class and removal of the tax stamp and other restrictions I could support an idea like that. Personally I think they should just be legal but that's for a different day.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
In that case, until someone does come up with a better way to word the question, I'll continue to use whatever terms I think will appeal to the entire board audience, and the purists can get as outraged with me as they like. :cool:
Click to expand...



Like "people punching firearms", which met with such widespread acceptance and approval? Which was universally understood immediately by most? Erm.... :roll:


It's not just the "purists". NOBODY really knows what exactly you're talking about. Full-auto? Semi-auto? Magazine capacity? Ordinance? Revolvers? "Scary looking guns"? :shrug:

If you can't accurately describe what you want to restrict or ban, I'm sorry but I can't debate with you seriously. You could spend an hour or two with Wikipedia and come back with a far greater understanding of that which you seem to wish to condemn... and if you can't be bothered to make that effort, why should anyone bother to engage you?


Your inability to accurately describe what you oppose leaves your entire argument floating away on the breeze....
 
DifferentDrummr said:
In that case, until someone does come up with a better way to word the question, I'll continue to use whatever terms I think will appeal to the entire board audience, and the purists can get as outraged with me as they like. :cool:
Click to expand...

God forbid that you attempt self-education.

Knowledge is power, and ignorance is just ignorant.
 
ecofarm said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would like to see a sort of explosives/ordinance permit to own those, actualy, similer to a demolitions license, fireworks permit or hazardous materials endorsment on a CDL.
 
Goshin said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have to agree, there's a world of diference between a pistol rigged to fire twice per trigger pull, and a .50cal heavy machiengun.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
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"."
Click to expand...

you don't know enough about guns to tell others what they should or shouldn't own

anything civilian cops use the rest of us should have.

Ecofarm is hardly my source of what is authority on this issue. but I agree with him-private individuals are not guaranteed a right to own ordnance or artillery. but stuff like assault rifles and submachine guns or "sniper rifles" absolutely
 
Henrin said:
You know, there is a such thing as homemade mortars. Just sayin..
Click to expand...

What does that to do with anything? Are you still defining rights (a social construct) by an individual perspective? Please stop that. Defining a higher order of existence (social) by a lower order (individual) is [socio]logically offensive.
 
Jerry said:
I would like to see a sort of explosives/ordinance permit to own those, actualy, similer to a demolitions license, fireworks permit or hazardous materials endorsment on a CDL.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with private ownership of explosives/ordnance but I do not believe access to those is integral to the realization of the right to defense, given authority in the form of liberal democracy.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
What does that to do with anything? Are you still defining rights (a social construct) by an individual perspective? Please stop that. Defining a higher order of existence (social) by a lower order (individual) is [socio]logically offensive.
Click to expand...

If another person or group of people are to bind another person or group of people to a contract there is little doubt that their consent must take place.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm fine with private ownership of explosives/ordnance but I do not believe access to those is integral to the realization of the right to defense, given authority in the form of liberal democracy.
Click to expand...
I think when we're talking hand grenades and recoiless rifles, we're not talking basic self defence. I think that falls under the "security of a free state" category.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
What's wrong with a handgun in those situations?
Click to expand...
Less capable of engaging multiple targets? Lower ammo capacity necessitating reload? Lower rate of fire?


Edit: I presume here that you are asking about weapons with good magazine capacity and ability to fire many rounds rapidly (whether semi-auto or auto).

Not at all sure why you're calling those "people punching guns". Quite nonsensical.
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
Less capable of engaging multiple targets? Lower ammo capacity necessitating reload? Lower rate of fire?


Edit: I presume here that you are asking about weapons with good magazine capacity and ability to fire many rounds rapidly (whether semi-auto or auto).

Not at all sure why you're calling those "people punching guns". Quite nonsensical.
Click to expand...

I've made an open invitation for someone to come up with a better term. So far, everyone's copped out or been silent...
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I've made an open invitation for someone to come up with a better term. So far, everyone's copped out or been silent...
Click to expand...

There is already accurate terminology, your was just a meaningless one; No one is copping out of anything.

Any term is better than a meaningless one. The Mark was right, "quite nonsensical."
 
DifferentDrummr said:
This poll question refers to firearms that are designed for the primary purpose of killing several people at close or medium range in a very short time. If you answer, please explain why civilians should be able to keep them or why not.

Also, the question has nothing to do with whether these types of firearms are legal and constitutional to own (in the US), but whether they should be.
Click to expand...
Show me where in the 2A there is a ban on them.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I've made an open invitation for someone to come up with a better term. So far, everyone's copped out or been silent...
Click to expand...

Read for yourself, and learn by yourself.

PS - it's not silence, as nobody here really cares.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom