View Poll Results: Which guns should be banned?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • None. If I can afford it, I should be allowed to own it.

    16 36.36%
  • Machine guns, RPGs, flame-throwers, tanks, etc. Only small arms should be allowed.

    12 27.27%
  • In addition to heavy weapons, assault weapons should also be banned.

    12 27.27%
  • Handguns and semi-automatic rifles should also be banned.

    4 9.09%
+ Reply to Thread
Page 21 of 45 FirstFirst ... 11 19 20 21 22 23 31 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 450

Thread: Should ANY weapons be banned?

  1. #201
    Senior Member Floyd1982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    5,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesod View Post
    Toehold is pushing hard for the honorary canadian status with this post.
    Yes he is with his sweeping generalities, huge assumptions, and the "people can't be trusted, the gubment gotz our back" mentality. Of course you accept a guy that wants government to overstep their authority and deliver us from evil, strip away our rights, all in the name of "safety."
    .............

  2. #202
    Senior Member Floyd1982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    5,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toehold View Post
    Interesting.

    Sounds to me like most of these people are not as into REAL WORLD SURVIVAL (i.e., making enough money to provide for themselves and their families, and other more practical concerns) as they are into survival scenarios that are MUCH less likely to occur.

    And that, by proxy, means a lot of those people are far less intelligent than those who spend more time figuring out how to make it through the more common day to day struggles in life.

    Doesn't surprise me one bit in the least.
    Learning to be self-sufficient is not a waste. Being smug to people that live their lives differently from yours while setting an arbitrary standard of living for them to measure up to is a HUGE waste and a dick move...
    .............

  3. #203
    Member johncfc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Hamilton
    Posts
    4,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyThai View Post
    I don't really care what kind of weapons people have as long as they aren't using them to kill people.

    On another note, I've noticed that all my friends who are super into their guns and are "prepping" for the commies or government to take over by caching all their AR ammo and "tactical gear", don't seem to be doing very well for themselves in the "real world", and seem to use this fantasy of the "end of the world" to distract from it.
    From your description, I would think they would be more likely to snap and go on a shooting spree then to use the guns to protect themselves from the gubmint.

    The above post is actually from Toehold. He private messaged it to me, but didn`t want to post it because he doesn`t want to out-smug us Canadians.
    He almost never knows what the **** he's talking about it, which explains why his 'opinions' are always so ****ed up.

    He's a 10 year old who memorizes information intended for intelligent adults. He doesn't understand what he knows.

    -Vlad on JackelSporty

    mmaweekly's first diss rap! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzNE3...ature=youtu.be

  4. #204
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    6,248

    Default

    the actual 2nd amendment is pretty simple,
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

    The "common weapons" does not necessarily refer to common military style weapons, the supreme court has repeatedly said that, as will be discussed lower.

    there have been huge changes since the constitution. there actually wasn't a federal military at the time, back then it was the states and locals. James Madison actually argued to not have a Bill of Rights (and with it 2nd amendment) because he didn't think that the federal government could arrange an army strong enough to fend of the militia.

    A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny.

    the landmark Supreme Court case that defended the 2nd Amendment was District of Columbia vs Heller, and even that which is a very pro indidual rights did say that there can be limits as seen below

    "(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courtís opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

    To clarify that its ruling does not invalidate a broad range of existing firearm laws, the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said:[156]

    Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[157]

  5. #205
    MMAWeekly Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    10,491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Faydee View Post
    you can fucking have him...
    From what I have seen on this forum in terms of many people's views, I will take that as a complement. And that is NOT to say I agree with all the views of those I am being grouped in with either...
    Last edited by Toehold; 01-02-2013 at 03:52 PM.

  6. #206
    Senior Member Floyd1982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    5,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toehold View Post
    I'm not going to really get that involved in this, but you are wrong if you think I think "the gubment has our back" at all times, even remotely.

    I do think that there MIGHT be cases in which safety could be more important than all of our "rights" taken in a very literal sense. We have the right to "life"...just as we have the right to "bear arms". Again, I'm a guy who is for conceal carry permits and who is actually probably NOT against the right to buy assault weapons.

    If everyone had the right to go out and buy a nuclear weapon, the U.S. would probably no longer exist within a few months time.

    I know that might be a crazy generality to make, but the way I see it, that could be one of the results of our "rights to bare arms" being taken to the extreme over our "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Especially the "life" part...

    The opposite extreme that you and others are talking about could be just as bad.

    But I really shouldn't be talking about this, I don't even know what most of my political views are yet, they are in constant flux, so I am stepping out of this thread...
    Theoretically, rights should not be limited. You shouldn't have a "right" to do something in example "A" but then not in example "B." For example (and somethign we haven't talked about yet), a right to to a fair trail should not be limited. However, due to some language in the Patriot Act, americans can be detained without reason, that is a right that should never be limited but it is and it does not make it right.

    I want to parallel your argument here though. What if there is a new law that forbids martial arts b/c too many people get hurt? Too many people get into fights and too many assault and battery charges lead legislators to think if MMA wasn't allowed on TV and people practicing martial arts shouldn't be allowed anymore, there would be less violence. Using your own argument, you should be okay with that b/c do you really ever need to use your martial arts? I mean seriously, how many street fights do you think you will be in? I know plenty of people that went their whole lives without ever being in a fight so that leads me to believe that you are okay with it as long as it (A) isn't necessary, (B) people actually get hurt b/c of it, (C) people will be safer and less apt to recieve harm b/c of it, and (D) rights can be limited in some cases.

    I would like to see an argument where your logic against guns can't be used as ab argument against martial arts. Neither are "necessary," both can harm people, and both are perfectly safe if the person participating is a responsible adult. I mean, should Cobra Kai really result in other people not being able to enjoy martial arts?
    .............

  7. #207
    MMAWeekly Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    10,491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Floyd1982 View Post
    Theoretically, rights should not be limited. You shouldn't have a "right" to do something in example "A" but then not in example "B." For example (and somethign we haven't talked about yet), a right to to a fair trail should not be limited. However, due to some language in the Patriot Act, americans can be detained without reason, that is a right that should never be limited but it is and it does not make it right.

    I want to parallel your argument here though. What if there is a new law that forbids martial arts b/c too many people get hurt? Too many people get into fights and too many assault and battery charges lead legislators to think if MMA wasn't allowed on TV and people practicing martial arts shouldn't be allowed anymore, there would be less violence. Using your own argument, you should be okay with that b/c do you really ever need to use your martial arts? I mean seriously, how many street fights do you think you will be in? I know plenty of people that went their whole lives without ever being in a fight so that leads me to believe that you are okay with it as long as it (A) isn't necessary, (B) people actually get hurt b/c of it, (C) people will be safer and less apt to recieve harm b/c of it, and (D) rights can be limited in some cases.

    I would like to see an argument where your logic against guns can't be used as ab argument against martial arts. Neither are "necessary," both can harm people, and both are perfectly safe if the person participating is a responsible adult. I mean, should Cobra Kai really result in other people not being able to enjoy martial arts?
    Well, you see, I am not at all anti-gun.

    In fact, I'm not sure I'm anti assault weapons, so I'm not sure where you are going with this, and so no, I would not be against people banning martial arts in your scenario.

    I keep going back and forth on the issue of "assault weapons", because I COULD see there being a need if our country was suddenly at war.

    There are cases however, where I think the "possible need" might be outweighed by the "possible harm", like with biological weapons, nuclear weapons, anti aircraft guns, weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons.

    I don't see anyone arguing that anyone should be able to go out and buy the most hazardous bomb making materials, so maybe some other people agree with me.

    I am actually more afraid of what cars are capable of, and made the argument that I think cars shouldn't have the ability to exceed a certain speed, and that I see as a bigger issue.

    But the post I had initially responded to (and we could discuss this further in PM cause I don't feel like talking a lot more in this thread) was the one where you said that you thought I thought the government should be able to take away all our rights to bare arms and all that **** and would always protect us from everything.

    I never said anything like that at all and I don't think that even remotely.

  8. #208
    Senior Member sonzai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Slurrey, BC
    Posts
    5,424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Floyd1982 View Post
    I disagree with the first part, you are basing your argument on the assumption that other armed citizens are not trained. What if the guy served in the military or was a firearms instructor? At the very least, what if this person has taken firearm safety or a concealed carry class (which most responsible gun owners would do)? I know people who will run wind sprints or do a cardio circuit before firing their guns at a range to mimic the adrenaline rush they would get and be used to the situation if it ever came to it.

    I don't think this argument is irrelevant to the discussion when you operate under the premise that concealed carry citizens are trained to some degree. This very easily could have been a marine that was conceal carrying whe noticed the disturbance. It still demonstrates the idea that good people with guns can and will stop bad people with guns.

    Even without this example, the argument is still relevant. I know of a gentleman that shot a guy who was raping a girl at knife point, it was a justified shot, girl wasn't raped, and after an investigation, no charges were filed. Banning guns (I'm not saying this is your argument, just in general) is operating under the idea that bad guys don't break laws. Murder is illegal, speeding is illegal, drinking and driving is illegal yet people do these things all the time so one would argue that if we banned assault rifles, history shows us that people will still own them.
    There are quite a few conditionals in your argument here. I could turn all those "ifs" around and replace the trained, former military person with the small-dicked, power-tripping hothead who just wants to blow things up, or even worse, I could replace that person with Honey Boo-boo's mom. So, this is becoming an "is/ought" problem. Gun-owners ought to be well-trained and prepared to deal with any and all situations. They ought to prepare as your friends do. Question is, do they? There certainly are many responsible, law-abiding owners who are, I'm sure, but the crux of the problem is that as this level of training and ability is not required and purchasing a gun in many places is so incredibly easy that the responsible, trained gun owner becomes an ever shrinking minority. I'm unaware of which, if any, jurisdictions require of gun users even half of what is required of car owners. Yet such licensing requirements are anathema to many "pro-gun" advocates it seems, as they find an unnecessary regulation on their constitutional right. The NRA and others accept this training, but only as a voluntary option (that is, unless they've changed their position recently).

    I'm not recommending a ban on guns in the US (faaaaar too late for that), just looking to mitigate the effects of this classic race to the bottom.
    The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart.
    -- Camus

  9. #209
    Senior Member Floyd1982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    5,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sonzai View Post
    There are quite a few conditionals in your argument here. I could turn all those "ifs" around and replace the trained, former military person with the small-dicked, power-tripping hothead who just wants to blow things up, or even worse, I could replace that person with Honey Boo-boo's mom. So, this is becoming an "is/ought" problem. Gun-owners ought to be well-trained and prepared to deal with any and all situations. They ought to prepare as your friends do. Question is, do they? There certainly are many responsible, law-abiding owners who are, I'm sure, but the crux of the problem is that as this level of training and ability is not required and purchasing a gun in many places is so incredibly easy that the responsible, trained gun owner becomes an ever shrinking minority. I'm unaware of which, if any, jurisdictions require of gun users even half of what is required of car owners. Yet such licensing requirements are anathema to many "pro-gun" advocates it seems, as they find an unnecessary regulation on their constitutional right. The NRA and others accept this training, but only as a voluntary option (that is, unless they've changed their position recently).

    I'm not recommending a ban on guns in the US (faaaaar too late for that), just looking to mitigate the effects of this classic race to the bottom.
    I understand and agree which is why I would support licensing but it is a sticky situation. Do we need to register guns? Seems odd b/c it won't help b/c criminals won't register them, same goes for getting the license. There are millions upon millions of guns in circulation right now in America, we can't disarm the masses and a registry or licensing requirement won't do anything for the guns in circulation now.

    I don't know what the answer is, but gun "control" is not going to do anything other then piss off the law-abiding citizens. Focusing on mental health, resources for the impoverished, and putting our heads together to focus on societal problems would be more productive. I also don't believe the minority should cause the majority to suffer (suffer being a relative term).
    .............

  10. #210
    Member JROD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Ozark Mtns, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OliG83v.2 View Post
    JROD, it's because we live differently. It's interesting to us as it is so far removed from what we are living! We have never had a wide access to firearms and we don't cry everyday wishing we had an assault rifle or an RPG (can you guys get them?!)

    Plus, the idea of you guys rising up against your government is pretty ludicrous frankly! The 2nd amendment was to protect the people from tyrannical governments, yes? So when the patriot act was signed allowing American citizens to be detained without trial or release dates, wasn't that a tyrannical over-reach?

    So where were the people rising up against the government? Or did that over reach not warrant firearms bought into the situation?!

    I completely get why you guys want to keep them, I really do. I mean, look at your politics, to run for a Senate position you've got to have millions, so staight away the "average man on the street" can't do it. Which is kind of not democracy, so you guys have to just lump it on whatever is passed, so you VIGOROUSLY defend your right to bare arms against your hypothetical future tyrannical governments. It's pretty much comes across as pretending you still have the "power" when you actually know that you, the average man, gets bent over a f*cked by the government and there is not a damn thing you can do about it!

    Not specifically you my friend, that's just what governments do! You make one group happy, the other group gets pissed off, and vice versa!

    But honestly speaking, what would you do, and what would it take for you to rise up against your government? Serious question! Give me an example of a scenario where the government has made such a blatant overstep you would dust down those hundreds of guns you own, wrap yourself in extra ammo and storm the White House? Or would you go a different route?

    Serious question!
    Oli

    Yes, we live differently. But you are incorrect in your assumption as to the previous access to firearms that your countrymen had.

    I agree the Patriot Act was disgusting as to the powers that were granted the government, by the government. All in the name of safety. Same excuse as every other time they pass some overstepping shiiiit.

    No, you don't completely get why that not only do I want to keep them, but at the level of ferocity that shall be brought down on those big bad jack-booted storm troopers when they come to enforce the latest safety net, so designed to "protect the children." Yes, I am a sworn Law Enforcement Officer of my state, albeit a Reserve Deputy, but I shall lay the smack down on anyone foolish enough to make an attempt at me and mine.

    A rifle is the symbol of a Free Man. Always has been. Yes, I agree, the average man takes it in the ass throughout their entire life from Uncle Sam, but at some point, each man must make a decision what they are going to stand for.

    This is my point. This is my line in the sand. I've spent the last 18 years of my life serving this nation, whether it be the military, VOLUNTEER law enforcement, VOLUNTEER firefighter, VOLUNTEER wilderness search & rescue, weapons and tactics instructor for all kind of gov't agencies, community functions, whatever. I've never asked a single thing from America. Not a single fuccin thing.

    I came from nothing. A dirt poor farm boy from Southeast Oklahoma who left the farm to become a Ranger. I've done things I'm not proud of, I've stood among great men, I lost much of my soul under the service of this nation's flag. But everything I did, I did it without asking or expecting anything in return. Upon getting out, I completed an apprenticeship to become a Journeyman Millwright, went on to get tons of skilled trade certifications, completed my testing to become a Industrial Electrican, put myself through college during the day while working as a Industrial Maintenance Technician in a steel plant at night, went on to get my Bachelors Degree in Business Management, moved up the food chain. Promoted in 2010 to Maintenance Engineering Manager, in charge of all plant maintenance, engineering, and production operations at a local company. I only answer to the Site Manager and God. Now, I'm working on completing my Master's in the spring. So don't think I'm some paranoid "prepper", guys. I ain't. I've just been on the other side of the fence and seen first hand the atrocities committed by governments (mine included) to those they deem fit to conquer. And the argument that most who feel as I do are a bunch of losers who haven't done anything with their lives? Re-read this paragraph boys. Most of the guys who've been where I've been have been extremely successful, myself included.

    I've put my ass on the line. For my buddies. For my community during crazy ass rescues. For the famlies of missing persons in the backcountry. For the famlies of drowning victim in whitewater rapids. And I've done it all without asking for anything. I don't want or need anything from anyone. I did it all because it needed to be done, and I happened to be capable of doing it.

    But this is it for me, boys. I've done nothing but complain when they've passed another fucctard law, or regulation, or whatever, all in the name of safety or security. I'm not complaining any longer. It is what it is and America has asked for our liberties to be taken away. "Oh, make us safer, O'Master". Don't let the big bad people hurt us.

    My line in the sand is there. Those who choose to step across it do so at their own peril, cause I know a thing or two about warfare. And to those who say, what can a mere rifle do against tanks, planes, and rockets. That shouldn't be too hard to figure out. Ask the "insurgents" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ask the "sammies" in Mogadishu. Ask the "VC" in Vietnam.

    And they didn't have anywhere near the level of training that me and WHOLE TON of my buddies have had.

    Molon Labe.........
    Last edited by JROD; 01-02-2013 at 04:28 PM.
    ut ceteri vivant

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts