• 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!

At what point should weapons be illegal?

Not only do I believe every law-abiding citizen has the right to own a gun but our Constitution says it as well . It's NOT the gun it is the person ! And if this terrorist mass shooting taught us anything , we live in a very , very dangerous Country today and I'm certain if those people would have been carrying we would NOT have seen such carnage .

Spot On!

The only difference would have been possibly the security was armed. Less people would have died, but people would have still dies. The people in the club would have been unarmed because alcohol was served there.

Security was armed. He was an off duty cop, moonlighting as a bouncer and initially engaged the shooter, but was unable to get a clean shot w/o collateral damage. In a crowed night club, bad place to have to shoot in self defense.
 
Last edited:
You're right. But. Just maybe, in the future, AK47s won't be an easy option.

How about AR15s? SKS? Tavor Bullpups? HK 91s and 93s and their clones? Sten guns?

You do know we can legally make our own at home or office right....with no serial numbers or knowledge by the BATF?

You see Maggie, I like to prepare for any scenario. I've been to 3 different riots in Oakland, SF and LA. I know what absoouter lawless chaos exists.
If a terrorist group, or any foreign threat, gets access to our water supply, power grid( both all computerized now), activates an EMP, or for any other reason...................those AKs, ARs and all the other 20 something designs, will be invaluable to the citizens, because there will be no Law Enforcement!
Of course, that entails a large supply of ammo for the different weapons as well.

And do you really think that if they banned all of those weapons by the end of this year, it would make a dent? These things have been selling by the millions, since 2004, with a huge surge since 2008. Plus, they can be manufactured at home.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I believe the average citizen should be allowed to own guns. You have the right to defend yourself and your family. Guns can greatly assist in that endeavor, whereas grenades and poisonous gas won't.

Obviously, for most people, there is a line drawn somewhere in which the potential danger to the public outweighs the right to defend oneself. Personally, I have zero problems with a person being able to concealed carry a handgun. Yes, some people will abuse it, but it is also the most effective and convenient way for a person to defend themselves from an aggressor. Even a 5 foot, 100 lb woman can stop a would-be rapist if she has this tool.

Because the right to defend oneself is one of the most important rights, barriers to acquire a handgun should be minimal. I do admit that when talking about more sophisticated weaponry, like an AR-15, I am comfortable with more checks. I don't think they should be banned, but I am starting to think more thorough background checks might not be the worst thing for these types of guns. Yeah, I know that sounds noncommittal. I am currently having some serious internal debates regarding this subject and my opinion seems to be changing by the hour.

If a person is a good guy, he/she should not have any restrictions on what they can be trusted with....I'm a good guy and all my family members, friends and most neighbors are good guys. I've trained about 8,000 people, both police and civilian, who are good guys.

The guy in Orlando was not a good guy and the FBI should have never taken him off the no fly list!
 
"Concealed??"" I'd like to see an America where seeing someone walking down the street openly carrying a firearm doesn't turn a single head.

I also keep wondering when someone is going to get sued for failing to prevent a mass killing. Since a private business can be sued for failing to be safe in a lot of other ways. when do we see a lawsuit for a mass attack like this where the business owner gets sued for making the business a target with a "No guns allowed." policy? For the anti-gun group, a successful lawsuit like this could change things across the board...

Agreed! Great point!
 
A weapon is anything that can be used against another for attack or defense - so the answer is making all weapons illegal is impossible. You bring a gun to a gun fight, a knife to a knife fight, a bat to fight a burglar, poison to kill a rat, fire to kill a forest, water to drown a traitor, rope to hang a thief, .....well, you see where I'm going with this. There will always be weapons to injure or kill others. It is in our nature and this is all the way down to our own personal strength. Animals in the wild is really all that we are if it comes down to it to defend ourselves and take what we perceive is ours to take.

I hate to be so philosophical but people who think that removing guns will stop violence are just stupid ideologists. They should all just sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya - about the same thing will be accomplished.
 
Last edited:
Spot On!



Security was armed. He was an off duty cop, moonlighting as a bouncer and initially engaged the shooter, but was unable to get a clean shot w/o collateral damage. In a crowed night club, bad place to have to shoot in self defense.

At some point the collateral damage becomes moot I would think. Just my opinion mind you.
 
A weapon is anything that can be used against another for attack or defense - so the answer is making all weapons illegal is impossible. You bring a gun to a gun fight, a knife to a knife fight, a bat to fight a burglar, poison to kill a rat, fire to kill a forest, water to drown a traitor, rope to hang a thief, .....well, you see where I'm going with this. There will always be weapons to injure or kill others. It is in our nature and all the way down to our own personal strength. Animals in the wild is really all that we are if it comes down to it to defend ourselves and take what we perceive is ours to take.

I hate to be so philosophical but people who think that removing guns will stop violence are just stupid ideologists. They should all just sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya - about the same thing will be accomplished.

Stellar post! Water to drown a traitor, was a delightful addition. There's a certain politician, that would be applicable


:applaud:applaud
 
At some point the collateral damage becomes moot I would think. Just my opinion mind you.

Agreed, but a very tough call to make and it can come back to bite you in the ass, much later.
 
How about AR15s? SKS? Tavor Bullpups? HK 91s and 93s and their clones? Sten guns?

You do know we can legally make our own at home or office right....with no serial numbers or knowledge by the BATF?

You see Maggie, I like to prepare for any scenario. I've been to 3 different riots in Oakland, SF and LA. I know what absoouter lawless chaos exists.
If a terrorist group, or any foreign threat, gets access to our water supply, power grid( both all computerized now), activates an EMP, or for any other reason...................those AKs, ARs and all the other 20 something designs, will be invaluable to the citizens, because there will be no Law Enforcement!
Of course, that entails a large supply of ammo for the different weapons as well.

And do you really think that if they banned all of those weapons by the end of this year, it would make a dent? These things have been selling by the millions, since 2004, with a huge surge since 2008. Plus, they can be manufactured at home.

I agree with most everything you said here. But I'm still of the opinion that we will never be called upon to become a militia. And if we are, your AK47 is going to be worthless.
 
At what point should weapons be illegal?

Easy, when the POTUS says so. ;)
 
Yes, I believe the average citizen should be allowed to own guns. You have the right to defend yourself and your family. Guns can greatly assist in that endeavor, whereas grenades and poisonous gas won't.

Obviously, for most people, there is a line drawn somewhere in which the potential danger to the public outweighs the right to defend oneself. Personally, I have zero problems with a person being able to concealed carry a handgun. Yes, some people will abuse it, but it is also the most effective and convenient way for a person to defend themselves from an aggressor. Even a 5 foot, 100 lb woman can stop a would-be rapist if she has this tool.

Because the right to defend oneself is one of the most important rights, barriers to acquire a handgun should be minimal. I do admit that when talking about more sophisticated weaponry, like an AR-15, I am comfortable with more checks. I don't think they should be banned, but I am starting to think more thorough background checks might not be the worst thing for these types of guns. Yeah, I know that sounds noncommittal. I am currently having some serious internal debates regarding this subject and my opinion seems to be changing by the hour.

NO......you are where a lot of us are on the issue. I personally believe that a mandatory background check should be standard procedure for all purchases private and public. I get sick and tired of the ignorant anti-gunners who speak about gun show loopholes. There are no loopholes with gun shows. In fact, gun shows are scrutinized big time. Private sales are another story that should be questioned.
 
The best means of self defense should always be available. I don't care if its laser guns with unlimited ammunition.
 
Not only do I believe every law-abiding citizen has the right to own a gun but our Constitution says it as well . It's NOT the gun it is the person ! And if this terrorist mass shooting taught us anything , we live in a very , very dangerous Country today and I'm certain if those people would have been carrying we would NOT have seen such carnage .

What if there were 40 people in there with semi automatic weapons...I think it still could've gotten pretty bloody. If everyone had a basic single shot pistol, I feel like the gunman may have killed 5 tops. And I think a person could defend themselves pretty well with one.
 
Of course, we should be allowed to have guns. The question that needs debating, IMO, is "what kind." Even those people I know who keep loaded firearms on their walls, leaning by their front and back doors, who live in fly-over cities, towns and burgs, do not see a need to own AK47's. We really don't live in the Wild West. There isn't a psycho behind every bush.

Realistically, what we need more than anything is, not stricter laws, but stricter punishments. Mandatory sentences...more prisons...trying juveniles in adult court...two strikes and you're out. That's the real way to curb gun crime, IMO. And it's all about less crime...not less guns...'cause the genie's out of the bottle on that.

I agree. I heard someone recently defending their right to own semi automatic guns with large clips and he used the scenario of what if more than one person breaks in and starts spraying his house with bullets. Really, how often does that happen? Also, many people had complained about the Orlando killer's racism and wild talk about killing this, that, and the other person and he was still able to get a special permit. I've heard that someone even contacted the FBI. He'd been causing problems at Pulse before the night of the shooting, so there were tons of warning signs. So yes, there should've been stricter gun laws in his case or if there were, they should've been followed. This guy should've done some jail time and should've been set straight in a very stern way by the FBI.
 
I think a rational understanding of what constitutes appropriate arms would be exactly what the Revolutionary ideologues would have upheld; what would be the arms and armaments any militiaman would be expected to have when called to service in defense of his home, State, or Nation? That is the proper understanding of the first clause of the Second Amendment.

Pretend we don't have a standing army (something those Revolutionary leaders opposed as a threat to liberty), and then imagine what current weapons you would want a militiaman to actually need if required to muster in a minute (Minutemen). The idea that responsible citizenship includes accepting responsibility for self-defense and the defense of the nation.

I would add going back to civics courses in high school as a requirement, and exposing youth to training in the safe and responsible use of firearms, much like driving lessons before permitting a juvenile to drive a car.

Should the average person be allowed to own an M16A4? You would probably go to war with a bunch of ammo and possibly some grenades as well. Then there are those that carry the .50 cal's, etc...
 
You think stricter punishment would have stopped the Orlando? I for one doubt it, after all the guy died in a shootout. That's about as steep of a punishment as it gets.

I think in this country EVERYONE should be packing something concealed or otherwise almost everywhere. I think it should be required in fact. Weapons should be fashion accessories here. The more armed people there are the less likely people will use them. How often does someone attack a police station?

It wouldn't have stopped that no. But make the punishment for straw purchases severe and require all private transfers and sales to go through a background check with an FFL. It would be a bit of a hassle and an added $25 or so for the background checks but in all pretty minor. Way better than banning certain types of guns.
 
Should the average person be allowed to own an M16A4? You would probably go to war with a bunch of ammo and possibly some grenades as well. Then there are those that carry the .50 cal's, etc...

To the best of my knowledge and experience, explosives are not standard issue, nor is a .50 Cal machine gun.

The basic infantryman carries a rifle of some kind, a pistol, and enough ammunition to sustain a firefight with.

Grenades are issued as needed, and turned in when not. Crew-served weapons like machine guns are not standard issue, they are issued to a specific crew.

Artillery and Tanks are not "standard infantry issue" either. Would you like to list any other specific types that you think might fit in with what a standard infantryman will always have as basic issue?
 
Last edited:
To the best of my knowledge and experience, explosives are not standard issue, nor is a .50 Cal machine gun.

The basic infantryman carries a rifle of some kind, a pistol, and enough ammunition to sustain a firefight with.

Grenades are issued as needed, and turned in when not. Crew-served weapons like machine guns are not standard issue, they are issued to a specific crew.

Artillery and Tanks are not "standard infantry issue" either. Would you like to list any other specific types that you think might fit in with what a standard infantryman will always have as basic issue?

Ok, if we're just going off of a standard issue rifle, I'm pretty sure the Marines are using the M16A4. Are you okay with anyone owning one, provided they pass an effective background check and get proper training?
 
Ok, if we're just going off of a standard issue rifle, I'm pretty sure the Marines are using the M16A4. Are you okay with anyone owning one, provided they pass an effective background check and get proper training?

I am, with two caveats.

1. Citizens incarcerated for criminal acts or mental illness lose their right for the duration of such incarceration, and

2. While I support training, I do not support background checks.

Like weapon permits, I consider that a flag to government that YOU own a weapon. I don't care what other people believe about such checks being merely a vetting process. Despite government assurances to the contrary, I believe that our government security forces maintain records of such checks and may use them to identify weapons owners.

Assuming otherwise despite all the lies, spying, and other deceptions our government perpetrates in the name of security is IMO very foolish.
 
Last edited:
What if there were 40 people in there with semi automatic weapons...I think it still could've gotten pretty bloody. If everyone had a basic single shot pistol, I feel like the gunman may have killed 5 tops. And I think a person could defend themselves pretty well with one.

That would be a fair statement .
 
Agreed, but a very tough call to make and it can come back to bite you in the ass, much later.

True. Mitigating circumstances would have definitely been pointed out, he was a police officer and it would have been in the line of duty even though the he was moonlighting.
 
It wouldn't have stopped that no. But make the punishment for straw purchases severe and require all private transfers and sales to go through a background check with an FFL. It would be a bit of a hassle and an added $25 or so for the background checks but in all pretty minor. Way better than banning certain types of guns.

No. That wouldn't have stopped this. That stops pretty much nothing. The background checks heretofore like the TSA checks at the airport have been kabuki theater, and therefore pointless. No mas. I yield no more of my rights. Sorry. Its time to man up and admit that all the gun control in the world does jack crap except makes us less free. There is no real solution to mad men unless we wish to live in a very strict police state. I have said before weapons in this country need to become ubiquitous EVERYONE from 2 on up need to be carrying openly and proudly their preferred arms it the only way to minimize the effects of mad men and keep our freedom. Instead of asking others to protect us its high time we took on that responsibility ourselves. That's my opinion on the matter.
 
I am, with two caveats.

1. Citizens incarcerated for criminal acts or mental illness lose their right for the duration of such incarceration, and

2. While I support training, I do not support background checks.

Like weapon permits, I consider that a flag to government that YOU own a weapon. I don't care what other people believe about such checks being merely a vetting process. Despite government assurances to the contrary, I believe that our government security forces maintain records of such checks and may use them to identify weapons owners.

Assuming otherwise despite all the lies, spying, and other deceptions our government perpetrates in the name of security is IMO very foolish.

Fully agree, that why some people I know well, don't get them.
 
Do you believe the average citizen should be allowed to have any guns? If not, can we possess large knives, pepper spray, or tasers? If so, just some, or all? If all, should we also be allowed to possess grenades and poisonous gas? At what point do you believe weapons should be illegal?

I believe that every human being possesses the inalienable human right to keep and bear arms-- in this case, "arms" is described as any weapon that is broadly useful for lawful purposes, especially self-defense and militia duty, but also including hunting, sport shooting, and weapons training for those lawful purposes. So yes, that is all personal firearms, all large knives and swords, and all single-target non-lethal weapons. It would also include all comparable weapons that have not been invented yet, such as laser and sonic weapons that only affect a single target.

It does not include grenades and poisonous gas, because they are not broadly useful for lawful purposes. It does not include biological weapons, lethal or permanently harmful chemical weapons, explosive ordnance, or weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons should all either be licensed, banned for civilian use, or banned for all purposes, depending on their potential for legitimate use.

I do not believe that human rights should ever be subject to license, but I am willing to tolerate weapons licenses as long as they are:
  • Mandatory issue
  • Inexpensive
  • Based on reasonable training standards
  • Not restricted by the availability of government training.

So if you could pay, say, $50 (and no more) and demonstrate proficiency equal to a standard police officer, and the government would be required to issue you a license that allowed you to purchase, own, and carry the majority of lawful personal weapons... I would be okay with that. Of course, gun grabbers are never going to offer that compromise, because no matter how much they lie, they do not respect the fundamental human right to keep and bear arms.
 
Last edited:
Do you believe the average citizen should be allowed to have any guns? If not, can we possess large knives, pepper spray, or tasers? If so, just some, or all? If all, should we also be allowed to possess grenades and poisonous gas? At what point do you believe weapons should be illegal?

All of those things are appropriately legal, whereas grenades and gas are strictly military.

All non automatic, small caliber firearms should be legal for citizens in good legal standing to own. If the liberals don't like it tell them to remove the second amendment, and come take them.
 
Back
Top Bottom