In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
We need a test...
WoundedWolf
Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
Allright, this forum is getting a little wacky. I think we need some sort of test to know where each of us is coming from. As Highball says, "The forum is divided between those believing in gun control...and those who don't." And there are some faces around that I don't recognize and would like to know for the record where they stand on the issues.
I'm thinking something like 5 or 10 questions that really get to the core issues off gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. A while back I posted a thread asking where you would draw the line, meaning where you would begin restricting access to various arms, all the way from a single shot rifle to a nuclear missle. I think we could craft a few questions that would give us an idea of where each of us stand on the major gun rights issues.
I for one have openly admitted that I support some limited background checks for the purchase of a firearm. On the other side, some folks have expressed that it should be legal for guns to be sold out of vending machines.
Maybe we can come up with a short set of questions, that maybe pickenup can post as a sticky at some point, that will really gauge where we all stand. Hell, I would even be up for a rating system, 0 means that you believe you should be able to buy a nuke at anytime anywhere, whereas 100 means you are Stalin or Hitler. I think I would probably rate about a 15 or 20.
Just a thought,
Wolf
MOLON LABE
The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.
I'm thinking something like 5 or 10 questions that really get to the core issues off gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. A while back I posted a thread asking where you would draw the line, meaning where you would begin restricting access to various arms, all the way from a single shot rifle to a nuclear missle. I think we could craft a few questions that would give us an idea of where each of us stand on the major gun rights issues.
I for one have openly admitted that I support some limited background checks for the purchase of a firearm. On the other side, some folks have expressed that it should be legal for guns to be sold out of vending machines.
Maybe we can come up with a short set of questions, that maybe pickenup can post as a sticky at some point, that will really gauge where we all stand. Hell, I would even be up for a rating system, 0 means that you believe you should be able to buy a nuke at anytime anywhere, whereas 100 means you are Stalin or Hitler. I think I would probably rate about a 15 or 20.
Just a thought,
Wolf
MOLON LABE
The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.
Comments
"The most persistent sound which reverberates through man's history is the beating of war drums."
Arthur Koestler, UK
Let us bend out considerable intelligence..[:D] to the task at hand...how to determine Pro-gun/Anti-gun stances of a person.
1; Do you believe that any citizen should be denied the right to buy,possess, carry in any fashion..any non-crew served weapon of his choice ?
Now..The devil is in the details. This supposes we are also willing to PUNISH those misusing this freedom..and take responsibility for our actions..
I say...EVERY BODY throw in a question..let us dissect them in our innemitable fashon..[:D]..and come up with a list of 8-10 question revealing ALL...[:0]
Come ON,fellers..this could help up in the soft war !! Such a good idea..I am ashamed to have not thought of it myself.
I need a little clarification on your question Highball. Under my definition, something along the lines of a LAW rocket or AT-4 does not qualify as a "crew-served" weapon, since it is used by an individual soldier. How do you see this?
Back on point, I will say this. I believe that it is the the right (and responsiblity) of all able-bodied Americans to have and know how to use the basic American Infantry weapons proficiantly.
This includes rifles, pistols, as well as light and medium machine guns.
Weapons that require specialty training, such as rockets, mortars, tanks, arty, ect. do not apply......
Molon Labe
At least until the ranks of crazies are thinned out a bit....
I DO, however..believe that crew served weapons OUGHT to be maintained at the local Armoury...watched over by some retred old Gunny Sergent..and citizens taught how to use them at EVERY opportunity..checked out for use on the Armoury range under his supervision...
I DO, however..believe that crew served weapons OUGHT to be maintained at the local Armoury...watched over by some retred old Gunny Sergent..and citizens taught how to use them at EVERY opportunity..checked out for use on the Armoury range under his supervision...
This I agree with.....hell, I'd pay for the ammo if I got to shoot Ma Deuce again
Molon Labe
Do you believe that gun laws should limit posession of firearms by non-violent people?
Just one simple question will do.
Do you believe that gun control is the answer to ending crime ?
A 'Yes' answer indicates the mind control from the Elites is working well.
Some would, but others.......
The gene pool needs chlorine.
I've said it. Don't we all feel a lot better now that it's out in the open?
Allow the Elites their total gun ban....and within 50 years watch the Genocide unfold in this fair country.( Assuming no reaction by the brain-dead masses)
History don't lie....
I don't know about the rest of you, but I've got a soft spot for battle/assult rifles such as the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M2 Carbine, M1A, M14, and M21, among others. And the feds want to take my .30 cal rifles away from me? Screw that! All I own is .30 cal. Personally, I feel that the military should get rid of the 5.56mm NATO and go back to the 7.62x51mm NATO as a standard caliber for all of their small arms weapons. But I'm ranting on a completly different issue now.
Gun registration is:
A. A potentially powerful crime fighting device for forensics.
B. A useless concept meant to appear as a crime fighting tool.
C. An infringement of the 2nd Amendment.
D. A list gathered to assist in confiscation later.
E. (insert reason here)
The inserted response will be added to the poll, and the start-up of this new response will be noted at what point it occured.
Answer A would indicate that the questioned would agree that registration is necessary, while answer B would indicate that it is neither helpful, nor harmful, possibly deceptive, answer C would indicate that registration should not be allowed for ethical reasons, while answer D would indicate that registration is counterproductive and dangerous. There really isn't any other way to go than this.
Next question:
Gun registration is NOT:
A. A potentially powerful crime fighting device for forensics.
B. A useless concept meant to appear as a crime fighting tool.
C. An infringement of the 2nd Amendment.
D. A list gathered to assist in confiscation later.
E. (insert reason here)
Answer A would indicate that registration does nothing useful for the rest of society. Answer B would indicate that registration is a wonderful tool for fighting crimes. Answer C would indicate that the bearing of arms is recorded, not infringed, and therefore acceptable. Answer D would indicate full faith in the gov't not to abuse its power.
Have these questions asked at different intervals and you may learn more about the individual questioned on gun rights than by arguing points in debate form. These question don't ask why, which is bad, but cover enough area so as to make the questioned concept relevant.
No law will ever stop crime.
Does restricting a gun to a "nutcase" count as gun control?
Of course it does. If the "nutcase" can't be trusted with a gun, he can't be trusted to roam freely about society where a gun is about the least of your issues.
Always a pleasure to read an intelligent response..there is a small group on this side that absolutely "Make my day"..quite often.
I cannot for the life of me understand good folks willing to forfeit their own (and MINE) RIGHTS...so as to protect the garbage that roams freely about the populace...in effect, reducing themselves (and ME) to the same level of degradation as the criminally insane.
Whats that ABOUT...??????
But it reminds me, for my own amusement I once started to assemble a political test to help determine where people stand on general political issues. My idea was to assign point values to each answer, just like those silly personality tests you see online. I didn't get very far, but here is what I came up with:
1. Where do you stand on abortion?
A. Abortion should be illegal in all forms, even if the mother's life is at stake.
B. Abortion should be illegal, with limited exception if the mother's life is at stake.
C. Abortion should be illegal, with limited exceptions if the mother's life is at stake, or the child is a product of rape/incest, or perhaps if there is a severe birth defect detected.
D. Abortion should be legal only in the first trimester, or later if the mother's life is at stake, or the child is a product of rape/incest, or perhaps if there is a severe birth defect detected.
E. Abortion should be legal through the second trimester, or later if the mother's life is at stake, or the child is a product of rape/incest, or perhaps if there is a severe birth defect detected, however the "partial-birth" method should be outlawed.
F. Abortion should be legal through the second trimester, or later if the mother's life is at stake, or the child is a product of rape/incest, or perhaps if there is a severe birth defect detected, and the "partial-birth" method should be available if a doctor deems it necessary.
G. Abortion should be legal in all forms, up to the moment of natural birth.
2. Where do you stand on homosexuality?
A. Homosexuality is wrong and should not be tolerated in any form. Those that practice it should face legal repercussions.
B. Homosexuality is wrong, but those that practice it should be allowed to do so in private. However public displays of homosexuality should not be allowed.
C. Homosexuality is wrong, but we should be tolerant of those that practice it. Homosexuals should not face any legal repercussions, but society should work to discourage homosexuality.
D. It is not my place to judge homosexuals. Society should be tolerant of all forms of sexuality. I may choose not to participate, but I do not condone nor condemn homosexuality. However I do not believe gays should be allowed to neither marry nor adopt children.
E. It is not my place to judge homosexuals. Society should be tolerant of all forms of sexuality. I may choose not to participate, but I am respectful towards homosexuals. I believe gays should be allowed to get married and/or adopt children under certain circumstances.
F. Homosexuality is perfectly natural. We should be accepting of homosexuals and their chosen lifestyle. I may choose not to promote or participate in homosexuality, but I completely honor and accept homosexuals. I think gay marriage and gay adoption should be legal.
G. Homosexuality should be celebrated. It is a wonderful lifestyle choice and may even provide advantages over heterosexuality. Society should openly promote homosexuality and acknowledge its equivalence to heterosexuality. Homophobia in any form should be confronted and eradicated. I support gay marriage and gay adoption.
3. Where do you stand on gun rights?
A. As stated in the U.S. Constitution, no government may infringe upon an individual's right to keep and bear arms. This includes all forms of armament, from handguns to machineguns, and perhaps even explosives and modern military weaponry like rockets, tanks, or missiles.
B. As stated in the U.S. Constitution, no government may infringe upon an individual's right to keep and bear arms. This includes all firearms that can be used by an individual, from handguns to machineguns. This does not include explosives or military weaponry like rockets, tanks, or missiles.
C. The U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. However this does not mean that the federal or state government cannot regulate firearms. The government should have the power to regulate or outlaw the purchase and possession of certain firearms. At the very least they should be able to track those that purchase and possess certain types of firearms.
D. Regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says, there is a need in modern times to reasonably restrict the possession of certain weapons. Individuals have the right to keep and bear firearms, but the government should be allowed to determine which kind of firearms are safe and who should be allowed to possess them.
E. Regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says, there is a need in modern times to restrict the possession of certain weapons. Individuals may be allowed to keep and bear firearms, but the government needs to determine which kind of firearms are safe, who should be allowed to possess them, and how they should be stored and kept.
F. The U.S. Constitution is ambiguous or irrelevant on this issue. Individuals have no fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The government may allow certain individuals to own firearms if they comply with strict government standards. The sale and possession of firearms should be heavily restricted and require full compliance with whatever regulations are deemed necessary.
G. Individuals have no fundamental right to keep and bear arms, and should not have access to firearms whatsoever. Only law enforcement and perhaps highly screened citizens that provide a service that requires a firearm should be allowed to possess them. Society needs to be disarmed and the government should actively work to achieve full disarmament of the citizenry.
4. Where do you stand on the War on Terror?
A. I fully support President Bush's actions against terrorism. In fact, I think we need to be even more aggressive in fighting terrorism by using stronger weapons and tactics, and by using force against other nations that may be harboring or supporting terrorists.
B. I support President Bush's actions against terrorism. I feel we are doing the right things in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think we need to flush out terrorism wherever it may exist around the world, but we should wait until we have stabilized our current commitments in the Middle East before we take on any more campaigns.
C. I mostly support U.S. actions in the Middle East and against terrorism around the world. I do think we could have handled some things differently, but since we are now committed we have to get the job done. However, I think we should not commit ourselves to any more campaigns against terrorism at this time.
D. I support our troops, but I do not support the Bush Administration's prosecution of the War on Terrorism. I think it is important for us to fight terrorism around the world, but the Bush Administration has led us off course. We did the right thing in Afghanistan, but Iraq was unnecessary. Removing Saddam was a good thing, but the resulting instability has distracted us from fighting the real terrorists. We need to clean up our mess and get out of there.
E. I support our troops, but we need to bring them home now. The Bush Administration has based the Iraq War on lies and deceit. We need to get out of Iraq now. Confronting the Taliban in Afghanistan may have been necessary, but now things are just out of control.
F. Terrorism is a realistic threat, but to respond to it with violence only feeds it even more. The Bush Administration's actions have perpetuated terrorism for decades to come. Instead of responding by leading the world in an international effort to peacefully negotiate a solution, they have condoned the violent tactics used by the terrorists by responding in kind.
G. The War on Terrorism is a total farce. The Bush Administration has manufactured this illegal war as an excuse to attack innocent people around the world and illegally imprison and mistreat people that disagree with U.S. interests. It is obvious that the whole movement is sponsored by corporate globalists and is a veiled neo-colonial attempt to control all of the remaining natural resources in the world.
5. Where do you stand on illegal immigration?
A. We have a serious problem with illegal aliens storming our borders. We need to close our borders now until we get a handle on this problem. The government should actively locate and deport all illegal aliens and punish anyone who hires or harbors them.
B. Illegal immigration is a problem. We need to have more security on our borders by increasing our Border Patrol personnel. We also need to discourage illegal immigrants from coming here in the first place by increasing the penalties for those who hire or harbor them. We need to deport illegal immigrants when they are discovered.
C. Illegal immigration is a burden. We should try harder to prevent illegal immigrants from getting into our country. Illegal immigrants should be deported when they are discovered, but we shouldn't punish anyone when they are found.
D. Illegal immigration is a burden, but we have other issues that we need to deal with. As long as illegal immigrants aren't causing any trouble, then we should just leave them be. They are a necessary evil for our society.
E. Undocumented immigrants are just people looking for a better life. They take jobs that Americans don't want and they perform important services that support our economy. We may not like that they are here, but they are doing more good than bad.
F. Undocumented immigrants are an oppressed segment of our society. They perform valuable work that boosts our economy and quality of life with little reward in return. We should provide them with safe and secure surroundings and create programs that encourage them to function in our society, such as providing driver's licenses, health care, schooling, and services in their own language.
G. The U.S. needs to stop inhibiting the flow of immigration. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. We are all immigrants to this country. We need to open our borders to these hard working and oppressed people. We should provide open amnesty to everyone in this country and encourage others to come to America and join us in building a prosperous nation.
Maybe I can come up with a strictly gun rights version of this kind of test. What do you guys think?
-Wolf
Maybe I can come up with a strictly gun rights version of this kind of test. What do you guys think?
Go for it. [:)]
Codenamepaul;
Always a pleasure to read an intelligent response..there is a small group on this side that absolutely "Make my day"..quite often.
I cannot for the life of me understand good folks willing to forfeit their own (and MINE) RIGHTS...so as to protect the garbage that roams freely about the populace...in effect, reducing themselves (and ME) to the same level of degradation as the criminally insane.
Whats that ABOUT...??????
I feel honored to have make your day. And I totally agree. Why should I be subject to the same resrictions as someone who was unwilling to follow the rules to begin with?
Well, I got the idea from you. I figure if we try a test, we need it scored by something relevant as a means to understand someone, because scalars are stupid. How would something like this sound:
0-15 Antigun
16-30 Moderate
31-45 Stern on gun issues
46-50 Extremist
What does something like this tell us? Nothing useful, really. The tendencies of the people the test would be conducted on may be recordable, but we have nothing else to base any research on.
When we could do something like this:
Subject indicates an extreme regard to the US Constitution as the law of the land, and that he/she has a great distrust of the federal gov't, explanable by the belief that they are not following the US Constitution.
Or this:
Subject believes he is best being served by his gov't, and that the processes of registration is for his own good.
Or this:
Subject has indicated a contradiction in his testing, concluding that registration is a crime fighting tool and it is not a crime fighting tool. (see where this is going?)
This might give us more information on the human psyche.