• 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

Luna Tick

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
2,148
Reaction score
867
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Which weapons should be legal to personally own?
 
Anything the military and law enforcement can get.


See my signature-

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

Kind of hard to do that if only the criminals and government have high powered weapons.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
I am surprised that someone voted that it should be legal to own an atomic bomb. Or maybe I'm not surprised.
 
Examining the writings of the founders for original intent, I came up with the following as a likely basis for deciding:

All small arms suitable for militia/infantry service; or for self-defense, hunting, sport, or any other lawful purpose.

This would include handguns, shotguns, rifles, SMG's, selective-fire rifles like the M16, AK47 and M4.

Things like SAWs, M60's, grenade launchers and such might be debateable. They are suitable for militia service and carried by a single soldier, but classed as light weapons. Presently one can possess these weapons in many states with a Class III license. That sounds about right to me.

Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man
." (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense
." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour
." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)

On what is the militia:

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
Debates, 425-426)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

James Madison: "A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the
best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789,
emphasis added.


Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
(Federalist Paper #29)

"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed
and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is
something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one
is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)
 
Last edited:
On what is the militia:

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.
 
I am surprised that someone voted that it should be legal to own an atomic bomb. Or maybe I'm not surprised.

Well, for purposes of demolishing that pesky mountain blocking your backyard view of the ocean...
 
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...

handguns are used more often in crime, including gang crime, than rifles or automatics.
 
Every man is a responsible gun owner till they shoot their wife.
 
Every man is a responsible gun owner till they shoot their wife.

When did you stop beating your wife?


Lets face it, both statements are equally incorrect and offensive.
 
I voted none.
It's impossible to answer as I believe that all of the above should be regulated in some way.
 
handguns are used more often in crime, including gang crime, than rifles or automatics.

Ya but that's because there are a lot more handguns than automatics, and because handguns are more appropriate for the average murder. Automatics are a better choice for a very specific KIND of murder.
 
All weapons usable by a single or multiple (as in, a team of) soldiers.

This would include:
All types of handguns
A fully automatic AK-47...and any other weapons of this type or related types.
A fully automatic M-16...see above.
A pipe bomb...What is a pipe bomb but a crude grenade?
dynamite...Besides the obvious uses in completely legal ways?
An atomic bomb...If, in the future, atomic bombs of a small size are used in private asteroid mining methods (although this seems unlikely), or as a propulsive method by private space ships, why not?

And, of course, all tanks, APC’s, Artillery pieces, machine guns, Gatling-style guns, aircraft, helicopters, etc.

Basically, everything.

Obviously, illegal use of these things would be…frowned upon.

Let the accusations of my insanity commence...after all, they would be accurate.
 
Ya but that's because there are a lot more handguns than automatics, and because handguns are more appropriate for the average murder. Automatics are a better choice for a very specific KIND of murder.

Nope, handguns are better as they can be concealed more easily and for the crimes you're talking about are more accurate. I mean, if we're talking about choice for specific gang activities, it should be a damned good rifle. Mount up some ambush or station people on roofs with a good ol' rifle and pick people off below. It'd be a hell of a lot more devastating and effective that holding down the trigger to a spray and pray gun.
 
Nope, handguns are better as they can be concealed more easily and for the crimes you're talking about are more accurate. I mean, if we're talking about choice for specific gang activities, it should be a damned good rifle. Mount up some ambush or station people on roofs with a good ol' rifle and pick people off below. It'd be a hell of a lot more devastating and effective that holding down the trigger to a spray and pray gun.

IF any of em can aim...
 
I think hunting rifles should be legal nationwide, but regulated by the state or local governments. By this, I mean I don't believe they should be criminalized anywhere but things like a license should be done by state or local governments.

I think handguns and shotguns should be regulated on the state and local levels. For instance, the use of handguns in New York City shouldn't be the same as the more rural areas of New York state. In areas with fewer population densities, handguns make sense but in bigger cities they should determine for themselves whether they should be legal or not. Local and state governments should be free to work that out.

I think automatic firearms should be tightly regulated. I think they should be owned only for collectors and have their ballistic fingerprint recorded in case they are used in a crime. If a collector loses an automatic firearm or has one stolen and does not report it, he goes to jail and loses his collectors license.

The above is for civilians. Members of law enforcement and the military may be exempt, but that is to be determined by local and state law. However, if a LEO or serviceman uses a firearm in a crime, they get an automatic life sentence. As someone who is well trained in the use of a firearm, they know more than anyone else what the repercussion of using a firearm is, and if they do so for criminal purposes should face the greatest of punishments because they should know better than anybody else.

Those are my views on gun control.
 
any guns and weapons that are used by SWAT or police forces... that is basically all the terror groups use and look at how difficult it has been for our forces to defeat them in the ME.
 
I voted none.
It's impossible to answer as I believe that all of the above should be regulated in some way.

You voted none because they should be regulated? They are regulated. The question is which ones should be legal to own.
 
Silencers should be made legal. there is no reason for them not to be.
 
any guns and weapons that are used by SWAT or police forces... that is basically all the terror groups use and look at how difficult it has been for our forces to defeat them in the ME.

Is this an argument IN FAVOR of allowing their ownership? :confused:
 
yes it is... sorry if I worded it strangely...

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?
 
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.
 
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.

Guns are illegal in Australia? I didn't know that. Honestly I never would've guessed...
 
From 1980 gun ownership in Australia has been on the decline, after several high-profile shootings in the late 80's early 90's the government made a national doctrine for illegality of all firearms with exempt permission for farmers who need to shoot feral/introduced animals. This law comes under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearm policy. Ever since, crime per capita in Australia has been decreasing by approximately 4% per year.
 
Back
Top Bottom