• 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!

Which weapons should be legal to personally own?

Which weapons should be legal to personally own? (select as many as apply)

  • All types of handguns

    Votes: 51 81.0%

  • A fully automatic AK-47

    Votes: 41 65.1%

  • A fully automatic M-16

    Votes: 40 63.5%

  • a pipe bomb

    Votes: 25 39.7%

  • dynamite

    Votes: 35 55.6%

  • an atomic bomb

    Votes: 11 17.5%

  • none of the above

    Votes: 10 15.9%
  • Total voters
    63
earthworm said:
My mind is not changed, but, do know this, it would be a case of "over my dead body".
Click to expand...
Ah -- so your 'love and tolerance' line was just meaningless rhetoric.
Thanks for clearing that up.
 
earthworm said:
This, of course is impossible to prove one way or the other
Click to expand...
So you admit that you cannot support your claim.
Your claim is the basis for your argument, and, left unsupported, leaves your argument without merit.

Do you really think the law is effective??
Click to expand...
The 'insane' are already banned from having guns.
What more do you want? Banning them double? How ill that be more effective?
 
Kandahar said:
Can you explain it? Isn't it a BAD thing that terror groups are able to fight the military to a standstill? Or am I misunderstanding you here?
Click to expand...

I get you now. Misunderstanding... yes. It is BAD that the terror groups do that to us, and that is the point. If our government decided to go down the path of tyrrany, like Jefferson warned us about, we would be able to create the exact kind of havoc against the government that the terror groups are using against us. We would be able to defend ourselves.
 
Ethereal said:
Screw that! Cyclic rate of fire!
Click to expand...

300px-M249mg.jpg


Get surgical with suppression fire. :smoking:
 
I don't want to ban any of these, except the atomic bomb. However, I also believe there should be restrictions. For handguns I think you should at least have a shoting certificate. For AK-47 and M-16 there should be a lot more requirments, but it should be legal.
 
ads said:
All weapons should be banned. I live in Australia and gun ownership is illegal here, in doing so we have far less crime per capita then the United States. I'm not trying to offend Americans here (i'm quite fond of Yanks) but I completely diagree with some of the constitution you have in place.
Click to expand...
No, you don't.
Victimization in Australia is 30.4% (first place), it's 21.1% in the US.

In general Australia has a higher crime rate, except in the number of homocides. Check it out in the link below.

Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/as-australia/cri-crime&all=1
 
Last edited:
MrFungus420 said:
We don't even need to look to the founding fathers:

US Code; TITLE 10; Subtitle A; PART I; CHAPTER 13

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Click to expand...
So upon reaching the age of 45 you have to hand over your gun? :roll:
 
Skateguy said:
Silencers should be made legal. there is no reason for them not to be.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is...because I want one.

It makes guns less noisy...not soundless.

Currently silencers can be possessed with a special stamp from BATFE (also known as "those bastards").
 
Ethereal said:
And unicorns, too?
Click to expand...

Of course not unicorns! Unicorns are a dangerous weapon! Have you seen the horns on those things!?! Clearly they must be regulated and strictly controlled by the government for own good. Think of how many children are killed by unicorns every day! Think of the children!

We must take unicorns away from all irresponsible people, and by irresponsible people I mean everyone. No one has the right to use a deadly mythical beast to harm another human, even if that human is a psychotic serial killing child rapist seeking to harm your family. You should dial 9-1-1 and wait for professionals who are trained to use unicorns to arrive much too late to actually prevent the crime in progress.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The legitimate use of machine guns is the hosing down of tyrants and those who support them.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm - and that does work? I mean it worked in Zimbabwe didn't it?

It worked in Iraq didn't it?

And these are countries where it is not that difficult to get guns.

But the great American myth rolls on..............

Tell me, when exactly are you going to take up arms?
 
My basic formula: You can fire one cartridge of no more power than a .50 BMG per pull of the trigger.
 
Kandahar said:
Of the choices on your list...I'd pick handguns and dynamite for sure, as they have legitimate uses.

I'm on the fence regarding AK-47s and M-16s. They really have no legitimate use and they're often used in gang crimes...but I realize that not everyone who wants to own them plans to go out and kill people. I don't necessarily think they need to be banned outright, but they should probably be restricted to a higher degree than handguns.

Pipe bombs and nuclear bombs are clearly a no...They serve no legitimate purpose.
Click to expand...

Most police departments have M16s

In other words, local and state governments have determined that some civilians have a legitimate use for a real assault rifle. Police are limited to the same rules OTHER civilians are bound by concerning the use of lethal force

In other words, if it is legitimate for the state police, the FBI or the the LAPD to have assault rifles, there are certainly legtimate reasons for OTHER civilians to have them too
 
ads said:
All weapons should be banned. I live in Australia and gun ownership is illegal here, in doing so we have far less crime per capita then the United States. I'm not trying to offend Americans here (i'm quite fond of Yanks) but I completely diagree with some of the constitution you have in place.
Click to expand...

yeah our total ban on crack and heroin has really been a raging success here.

so you want to ban swords? my son and I are both black belts and the wife is getting close. How about hatchets? I took some training in tomahawk fighting--nasty weapon-ever see The Patriot? Peter Lagana stuff. I also have a 7000 dollar Katana made by Howard Clark. Should that be banned? what about the machete I use for work around my fields? Sticks-spent a few years doing escrima too. A master lock with 3 feet of chain-nasty nasty weapon, better than a knife in some cases.

knives> ever see Leo Gaje? 45 cuts in 5 seconds?

bans on weapons only bans them from honest people

you can be a slave if you want

I choose not to

I choose the ways and means to deal with someone trying to hurt me or my family
 
Kandahar said:
Of the choices on your list...I'd pick handguns and dynamite for sure, as they have legitimate uses.

I'm on the fence regarding AK-47s and M-16s. They really have no legitimate use and they're often used in gang crimes...but I realize that not everyone who wants to own them plans to go out and kill people. I don't necessarily think they need to be banned outright, but they should probably be restricted to a higher degree than handguns.

Pipe bombs and nuclear bombs are clearly a no...They serve no legitimate purpose.
Click to expand...
are you sure that your a liberal:)
 
Kandahar said:
Pipe bombs and nuclear bombs are clearly a no...They serve no legitimate purpose.
Click to expand...
So far.

And a pipe bomb is nothing more than a crude frag grenade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom