• 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 Resist Federal Confiscation?

Would You Resist Federal Confiscation of Arms?


  • Total voters
    65
Do you understand the point Hazlenut? The point is that if sweeping legislation for registration and confiscation were passed which would be completely unconstitutional and thus completely illegal government action, there would be no such thing as legal arms.
BTW, that wasn't meant to be a personal attack or a sarcastic comment. I wanted to make sure that both sides of the debate were on the same page.
 
Well, that's where judgment comes along.

Unfortunately with those leaning to far left or right, their judgment is clouded by partisan bigotry.
 
Do you understand the point Hazlenut? The point is that if sweeping legislation for registration and confiscation were passed which would be completely unconstitutional and thus completely illegal government action, there would be no such thing as legal arms.

Yes -- I understood that in the far-fetched hypothetical, you could live out your fantasy...

I get it -- *if*....:roll:
 
There is a difference between being vigilant and being paranoid, regardless of how you present the word paranoid with parenthesis to try and temper the meaning.

I've never needed an assault rifle to hunt with nor to target shoot with. No one needs an automatic weapon outside of the military (not even law enforcement) and there is a reason why they were banned.

we need them for the same reason civilian law enforcement officers need them. For self defense in urban environments. are you so ignorant to believe that civilian law enforcement officers do not have access to automatic weapons.


I own weapons for many reasons--one being in case people like you try to confiscate my weapons based on your idiotic concept of what I need
 
I've never needed an assault rifle to hunt with nor to target shoot with. No one needs an automatic weapon outside of the military (not even law enforcement) and there is a reason why they were banned.

I'm an Army reservist and own a civilian version of the M16-A2 for practice on my own time to stay sharp.

What harm is there is allowing me to own an actual M16-A2? The only difference is the 3-round burst.
 
I'm an Army reservist and own a civilian version of the M16-A2 for practice on my own time to stay sharp.

What harm is there is allowing me to own an actual M16-A2? The only difference is the 3-round burst.

excellent point--the DCM (now a private corporation but for years part of the US government) supplied civilians with 1903 Springfields, MI Garands, MI carbines and suitable ammo so civilians would be able to shoot military rifles accurately. I used to shoot garand matches as a young man and the ammo was government supplied. i have bought several MI garands and carbines and lots of surplus ammo from that entity and practice with them. Hoping they sell of some M16's in the future for the same reason
 
I'm an Army reservist and own a civilian version of the M16-A2 for practice on my own time to stay sharp.

What harm is there is allowing me to own an actual M16-A2? The only difference is the 3-round burst.

Indeed,.. I how many 'hell fire' trigger systems there are out there?

And a good working three round burst HAS to be 10 times safer and more accurate than any "bump fire" systems.

Or,... Just grab a rubberband!


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVfwFP_RwTQ"]YouTube- www.PoormansMachinegun.com Episode 1[/ame]
 
I've never needed an assault rifle to hunt with nor to target shoot with. No one needs an automatic weapon outside of the military (not even law enforcement) and there is a reason why they were banned.


None of what I am talking about was a full auto/assault rifle.

No one needs a car that goes over 80mph but there they are, in almost every drive way.
No one needs fancy/flashy clothes but again they exist every where.

Remember it's not the "Bill of Needs," it's the "Bill of Rights."
 
Do you own any illegal or unregistered firearms?

Are your guns stored in accordance with the laws of your state/county?

Then toss that copy of The Tuner Diaries in the trash and chill the f out...:2razz:

I seriously hope your not insinuating that Eth is a Nazi sympathizer.
 
Yes -- I understood that in the far-fetched hypothetical, you could live out your fantasy...

I get it -- *if*....:roll:
I rather doubt living without basic services and in constant fear of one's life while in revolt from the most powerful government in the world is anyone's fantasy. But if you can read minds now, I guess you are free to prove me wrong ... :shrug:
 
Do you own any illegal or unregistered firearms?

Are your guns stored in accordance with the laws of your state/county?

Then toss that copy of The Tuner Diaries in the trash and chill the f out...:2razz:

I'll chill out as soon as people like you stop trying to violate my rights.
 
You paranoid gun freak!

;)

Ive carried concealed for...geez...30 years now. Ive had reason to pull a weapon 4 times. Point it once. Never had to fire it. Emphasis on HAD TO. Could have. Didnt. The presence was enough.

2 were directly involving someone confronting me...both times with weapons. The other two involved strangers...people I really didnt HAVE to get involved with. 1 of those incidents involved a very pregnant woman and her toddler being pulled out of a car by some very unsavory types. In exactly none of those incidents was there a police officer handy. I dont fault them...its not like they can be everywhere. It IS a little annpying that in the last case it took them over 20 minutes to respond...and I really dont want to imagine what might have happened.

I think the founders would roll over in their grave and tell us all to kiss their collective asses if they saw the pathetic nature of people today and their dependence on the government to take care of them. Knowing something of their history I cant imagine their intent in a bill of individual rights that they would ever conceive that we would ever even CONSIDER disarming ourselves as a people. I believe the ability to protect SELF was 'understood'. I believe the second amendment supports the right of the individual to protect themselves, their family, their state, and ultimately country from tyranny.


Totally understand and agree 100% -- and that is the big picture I think people aren't quite getting.

I've been robbed at gunpoint, twice. Now I didn't own a gun at that time, nor do I think I would have had time to do anything with a gun, even if I'd had one.. give the circumstances surrounding the two incidents (I was working in a financial institution).

It's funny though, how many people will automatically assume that if you are carrying a sidearm, that you'll suddenly be like a wild west gunslinger with an itchy trigger finger.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard people tell me that I must be a chicken little, or that I must be scared of my own shadow because I choose to carry a firearm.

I see it as a preventative measure, it's my right and I choose to exercise it and nothing more.
 
If the Federal government started confiscating weapons en masse, would you violently resist them?

I say absolutely. I would rather die than let that happen.

I would definately not resist violently, not that I own weapons. I would however be opposed to it if the government just up and decided to take everyone's guns. However, if the Constitution was ammended in the appropriate way, I'd be fine with it. I'd be happy about it actually. The public has no business with guns in the vast majority of cases in my opinion.
 
I would definately not resist violently, not that I own weapons. I would however be opposed to it if the government just up and decided to take everyone's guns. However, if the Constitution was ammended in the appropriate way, I'd be fine with it. I'd be happy about it actually. The public has no business with guns in the vast majority of cases in my opinion.

Exactly!

And,.. by the way,... we are all with YOU.

We don't have any guns or any use for them either.

Wink wink,... nudge nudge,.. say no more,...
 
I would definately not resist violently, not that I own weapons. I would however be opposed to it if the government just up and decided to take everyone's guns. However, if the Constitution was ammended in the appropriate way, I'd be fine with it. I'd be happy about it actually. The public has no business with guns in the vast majority of cases in my opinion.
I really can't believe there are still people out there that are this naïve ...
 
I really can't believe there are still people out there that are this naïve ...

Well, that's really just your opinion. My opinion is that allowing just anyone who wants a gun to have one only leads to violent crime and unnecessary death. I honestly don't understand why people have this need to be armed with a deadly weapon. I really don't. Feel free to try to explain it to me, but odds are I just wont see what you're getting at. It's just surreal to me.

However, even though I don't agree with the 2nd amendment, it's still an amendment and as such cannot simply be disregarded, as that sets a horrible precedent and puts the actually rational amendments at risk. Do I hope we one day get to a place where a majority of the country can agree to give up firearms? Yes. Would I support the government taking those firearms away from people before that day came? No.
 
Well, that's really just your opinion. My opinion is that allowing just anyone who wants a gun to have one only leads to violent crime and unnecessary death. I honestly don't understand why people have this need to be armed with a deadly weapon. I really don't. Feel free to try to explain it to me, but odds are I just wont see what you're getting at. It's just surreal to me.

However, even though I don't agree with the 2nd amendment, it's still an amendment and as such cannot simply be disregarded, as that sets a horrible precedent and puts the actually rational amendments at risk. Do I hope we one day get to a place where a majority of the country can agree to give up firearms? Yes. Would I support the government taking those firearms away from people before that day came? No.

You really should read some of the prior conversations before posting comments like these. This gound has been covered several times now.

The fact is the right to keep and bear arms pre-dates the Constitution. the 2nd. Amendment is an expansion on the right to keep and bear,... it gives us the secured right to form militias in defense of our States.

If you don't want a gun? That's great,... don't have one.

But ask yourself,... where did the founding father's get their rights to wage war against the King for our independence,... given the fact that the Constitution hadn't even been written yet.
 
Totally understand and agree 100% -- and that is the big picture I think people aren't quite getting.

I've been robbed at gunpoint, twice. Now I didn't own a gun at that time, nor do I think I would have had time to do anything with a gun, even if I'd had one.. give the circumstances surrounding the two incidents (I was working in a financial institution).

It's funny though, how many people will automatically assume that if you are carrying a sidearm, that you'll suddenly be like a wild west gunslinger with an itchy trigger finger.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard people tell me that I must be a chicken little, or that I must be scared of my own shadow because I choose to carry a firearm.

I see it as a preventative measure, it's my right and I choose to exercise it and nothing more.

Oh yes...I hear that as well...the whole living in fear thing...I laugh.

The reality is that violent crimes happen every minute of every hour of every day. Police carry firearms to deal with criminals...but people forget...those criminals arent out there targeting armed and uniformed cops. They are targeting citizens.

And I laugh when people start talking about the wild west scenario. One...it simply has NOT happened where CCW has been implemented (and its been over 30 years). Two...most of the CCW permit instructors I know teach that use of a firearm is a 'gravest extreme' option. Three...annual stats prove that areas with strict gun laws are far more likely to have higher crime rates. Now...I dont know how that is even possible since in those areas gun ownership is severely restricted. Like drug bans, surely gun bans will prevent criminals from having them.

I actually have found that people are much less likely to even be in conflict situations when they carry. They are typically more conscious of their surroundings. They typically avoid trouble. They are more alert which gives off a signal that they arent an easy target. Of course these are simply 'typcial' cases and not EVERY case. But I would say it is the norm...not the exception.
 
Well, that's really just your opinion. My opinion is that allowing just anyone who wants a gun to have one only leads to violent crime and unnecessary death. I honestly don't understand why people have this need to be armed with a deadly weapon. I really don't. Feel free to try to explain it to me, but odds are I just wont see what you're getting at. It's just surreal to me.

However, even though I don't agree with the 2nd amendment, it's still an amendment and as such cannot simply be disregarded, as that sets a horrible precedent and puts the actually rational amendments at risk. Do I hope we one day get to a place where a majority of the country can agree to give up firearms? Yes. Would I support the government taking those firearms away from people before that day came? No.

Opinions are fine...but when confronted with the FACT that the most violent cities in America ALL are cities where the private ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens are restricted...you either cling to what you know is a flawed 'opinion' or accept the fact that it isnt the law abiding citizen with a firearm that should concern you.
 
You really should read some of the prior conversations before posting comments like these. This gound has been covered several times now.

The fact is the right to keep and bear arms pre-dates the Constitution. the 2nd. Amendment is an expansion on the right to keep and bear,... it gives us the secured right to form militias in defense of our States.

If you don't want a gun? That's great,... don't have one.

But ask yourself,... where did the founding father's get their rights to wage war against the King for our independence,... given the fact that the Constitution hadn't even been written yet.

I won't deny that I didn't read the whole thread, it's just too long. But I still wanted to register my opinion regarding the poll and the OP. If you think my argument is to redundant to warrant responding to, feel free not to respond.

I also won't deny that the 2nd amendment made sense at the time, and that I understand why the founding father's put it in the Constitution. However, like many things that have been in the Constitution, I find it outdated, irrelevant, and unnecessary in our modern society. That's just my opinion.
 
Well, that's really just your opinion. My opinion is that allowing just anyone who wants a gun to have one only leads to violent crime and unnecessary death. I honestly don't understand why people have this need to be armed with a deadly weapon. I really don't. Feel free to try to explain it to me, but odds are I just wont see what you're getting at. It's just surreal to me.

You seem to live in a bubble where everything is safe and clean and nobody has to defend themselves from violence. Heck, I live in the bubble too, but I'm not naive about it. I don't carry a gun, even in scary places where I've been, but come on, you can't imagine any reason for it?
 
Well, that's really just your opinion.
No, it is actually the opinion of the people who wrote the Bill of Rights. They knew a thing or two about government tyranny and protection of one's self and belongings, so that's why they put it in there.
My opinion is that allowing just anyone who wants a gun to have one only leads to violent crime and unnecessary death. I honestly don't understand why people have this need to be armed with a deadly weapon. I really don't. Feel free to try to explain it to me, but odds are I just wont see what you're getting at. It's just surreal to me.
Yeah, you probably won't get it up until you are the victim of a violent crime. I hope for your sake you survive the experience. Regardless, you have no right nor standing to tell me if I may or may not have a gun, Second Amendment or not.
However, even though I don't agree with the 2nd amendment, it's still an amendment and as such cannot simply be disregarded, as that sets a horrible precedent and puts the actually rational amendments at risk.
"Rational"? :roll:
Do I hope we one day get to a place where a majority of the country can agree to give up firearms? Yes. Would I support the government taking those firearms away from people before that day came? No.
You will never get that majority, ever. Even if you did, it would be useless. Even if you were able to get 99% of the country to give up their arms, you would still have a population of people equal to that of Cleveland who are free to victimize unarmed people at will. Are you willing to accept that risk? I doubt it.

I have firearms to protect myself and my family from people who may choose to do us harm. As long as you do not choose to threaten me or mine, you have absolutely nothing to worry about from my firearms.
 
I actually have found that people are much less likely to even be in conflict situations when they carry. They are typically more conscious of their surroundings. They typically avoid trouble. They are more alert which gives off a signal that they arent an easy target. Of course these are simply 'typcial' cases and not EVERY case. But I would say it is the norm...not the exception.

I almost typed this very same thing. Same for when I first started taking karate,... never needed it because I was more prepared than ever and more aware of my surroundings.
 
I almost typed this very same thing. Same for when I first started taking karate,... never needed it because I was more prepared than ever and more aware of my surroundings.
I'm surprised they haven't tried to ban martial arts yet, honestly. 'Cuz it's like, dangerous 'n stuff.
 
Back
Top Bottom