• 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!

26 reported killed in Newtown [W:72/89]

Ikari said:
What business is it of yours? To keep and bear arms is a right, and one is free to exercise their rights. So long as one does not infringe upon the rights of others, they should be free to do as they like.
Click to expand...

Banning assault weapons does not prevent anyone from "keeping and bearing arms". Society has every right to place reasonable and responsible restrictions on the type of weapons we want in our midst. There isn't a single legitimate purpose for these types of weapons and its time that citizens stand up to the wacko gun lobby.
 
disneydude said:
Banning assault weapons does not prevent anyone from "keeping and bearing arms". Society has every right to place reasonable and responsible restrictions on the type of weapons we want in our midst. There isn't a single legitimate purpose for these types of weapons and its time that citizens stand up to the wacko gun lobby.
Click to expand...

Certainly prevents them from keeping and bearing anything you're willing to label as an "assault weapon". You claim "no legitimate purpose", but you have nothing to quantify that claim with. It is merely your opinion, and your opinion is not enough to infringe upon the rights of others.

Society has no rights, BTW, only individuals possess rights.
 
Ikari said:
Certainly prevents them from keeping and bearing anything you're willing to label as an "assault weapon". You claim "no legitimate purpose", but you have nothing to quantify that claim with. It is merely your opinion, and your opinion is not enough to infringe upon the rights of others.

Society has no rights, BTW, only individuals possess rights.
Click to expand...

I notice that you haven't been able to name a legitimate purpose. Very telling. The reality is, the second amendment does not say that a citizen has a right to every known weapon available. Only that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. You can place reasonable limits on the types of weapons without infringing on the right to bear arms.
 
disneydude said:
I notice that you haven't been able to name a legitimate purpose. Very telling. The reality is, the second amendment does not say that a citizen has a right to every known weapon available. Only that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. You can place reasonable limits on the types of weapons without infringing on the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

I've noticed you have not been able to quantify why these have no "legitimate purpose". Very telling. The reality is, the second amendment does not restrict class of weapon from the People. You cannot limit a right without infringing upon the exercise of that right.
 
disneydude said:
The founders of our Constitution could not have possibly imagined this type of weapon when they wrote the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not prevent reasonable restrictions on guns. There is nothing in the second amendment that says that you cannot ban assault weapons.
Click to expand...

I think you ignore what the Founders did and did not know, but more importantly, what they considered.

Had the Founders wanted the average citizen to never rise above being able to own a musket, they would have stated such. If you were to study such, you would read that they clearly intended firearms in the hands of good people so as to be able to defend against firearms in the hands of bad people, to include a bad government. They anticipated that bad people would arm themselves as well as possible, and as such, they did not restrict the good people ;)
 
disneydude said:
I notice that you haven't been able to name a legitimate purpose. Very telling. The reality is, the second amendment does not say that a citizen has a right to every known weapon available. Only that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. You can place reasonable limits on the types of weapons without infringing on the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Why does there have to be a "legitimate purpose"? I've never read that gun ownership has to be justified.
 
Ikari said:
I've noticed you have not been able to quantify why these have no "legitimate purpose". Very telling. The reality is, the second amendment does not restrict class of weapon from the People. You cannot limit a right without infringing upon the exercise of that right.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. We do it all the time. Even with weapons we place restrictions. I'm still waiting for a single person including yourself to list one legitimate purpose these weapons serve.
 
disneydude said:
Sure you can. We do it all the time. Even with weapons we place restrictions. I'm still waiting for a single person including yourself to list one legitimate purpose these weapons serve.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you to quantify why these are not legitimate. You're the one that wants to infringe upon the exercise of a right, you're the one who has to prove their position.
 
Hairytic said:
Instead of claiming the shooter was evil, lets take a look at the shooters mental
state. Perhaps if we had already had health care implemented, the sick individual who took these inocent lives would have gotten the mental health care he obviously needed and that would have prevented such a horrible situation. We have to address these problems. We can't just claim people like the shooter are evil and we can't do anything to prevent this sort of thing. These things will continue to happen over and over agian until we address the problems and come up with common sense solutions.
The GOP are against health care for all and gun control. I would like to know why.
Click to expand...

His parents were very well off. Chances are he had plenty of oppurtunities to get mental health access and may have been on one or a few of medications.

Our second son was diagnosed with Aspergers when he was 5. After a couple of different attempts at medication we realized that there was nothing wrong with a shy but yet very intelligent kid.

That chemical alteration of this innately brilliant child (our son not the killer ) was the worse option given to us as Doctors, teachers and drug companies push products to make children conform to a perception of normal.

From my personal experience the shooter was Aspergers with a very controling Mother and was allowed to isolate to the point of losing all touch with the outside world. That mothers control pushed him to a hatred that was so severe he wanted to do as much damage to her as possible.

I'm curious to know what medications he was on. It's not like a Aspergers child to strike out in violence.

Our son is the most honest and sweetest of our kids and in the 3 rd grade was helping his older sister with her Algebra 1 Homework.

Aspergers kids are future scientist, engineers, physicist, etc.

The Columbine shooters were both medicated and they're tying other violent acts by kids to some of the medications given to force their conformity.

New Gun laws ? Why ? You know all schools advertize that there is NO ONE ON CAMPUS with a means to protect their selves from a gun wielding intruder ?

Yep, "gun free zones" are soft targets.

Its liberal thinking and its absurd as ever as emotion and zero tolerance over ride intelligence.
 
nota bene said:
Why does there have to be a "legitimate purpose"? I've never read that gun ownership has to be justified.
Click to expand...

I have to give you credit for at least recognizing that they serve no legitimate purpose. As for "legitimacy", Constitutional law addresses the issue all the time. Constitutional rights are not ABSOLUTE and have never been. The Constitution requires that any restriction on a Fundamental Constitutional right serve a compelling state interest. If the weapons in questions serve a legitimate function, it would be much harder to claim a compelling state interest to justify any infringement on the right. If the weapon in question serves no legitimate interest, it is much easier to claim a compelling state interest in upholding the restriction. That's conlaw 101
 
disneydude said:
I have to give you credit for at least recognizing that they serve no legitimate purpose. As for "legitimacy", Constitutional law addresses the issue all the time. Constitutional rights are not ABSOLUTE and have never been. The Constitution requires that any restriction on a Fundamental Constitutional right serve a compelling state interest. If the weapons in questions serve a legitimate function, it would be much harder to claim a compelling state interest to justify any infringement on the right. If the weapon in question serves no legitimate interest, it is much easier to claim a compelling state interest in upholding the restriction. That's conlaw 101
Click to expand...

Credit denied, and don't put words in my mouth please. I don't think there needs to be any justification for owning any gun beyond the fact that I may want to own it.
 
nota bene said:
Credit denied, and don't put words in my mouth please. I don't think there needs to be any justification for owning any gun beyond the fact that I may want to own it.
Click to expand...

Sorry....but second amendment rights, like any other Constitutional right are not absolute.
 
disneydude said:
The founders of our Constitution could not have possibly imagined this type of weapon when they wrote the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not prevent reasonable restrictions on guns. There is nothing in the second amendment that says that you cannot ban assault weapons.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the Second Amendment is that the people shall be armed as the government is armed.

We the people are the organized militia, we the people are the keepers of the Bill of Rights/Constitution.

A lot of people fail to see the intent behind the Second Amendment.
 
Fenton said:
His parents were very well off. Chances are he had plenty of oppurtunities to get mental health access and may have been on one or a few of medications.

Our second son was diagnosed with Aspergers when he was 5. After a couple of different attempts at medication we realized that there was nothing wrong with a shy but yet very intelligent kid.

That chemical alteration of this innately brilliant child (our son not the killer ) was the worse option given to us as Doctors, teachers and drug companies push products to make children conform to a perception of normal.

From my personal experience the shooter was Aspergers with a very controling Mother and was allowed to isolate to the point of losing all touch with the outside world. That mothers control pushed him to a hatred that was so severe he wanted to do as much damage to her as possible.

I'm curious to know what medications he was on. It's not like a Aspergers child to strike out in violence.

Our son is the most honest and sweetest of our kids and in the 3 rd grade was helping his older sister with her Algebra 1 Homework.

Aspergers kids are future scientist, engineers, physicist, etc.

The Columbine shooters were both medicated and they're tying other violent acts by kids to some of the medications given to force their conformity.

New Gun laws ? Why ? You know all schools advertize that there is NO ONE ON CAMPUS with a means to protect their selves from a gun wielding intruder ?

Yep, "gun free zones" are soft targets.

Its liberal thinking and its absurd as ever as emotion and zero tolerance over ride intelligence.
Click to expand...

I have a child with Asperger's as well. Fortunately, with passive manifestations. However, there are some afflicted who are prone to violent outbursts. Going by some of what I have read, this kid in CT seemed to have issues beyond such as well, being very reclusive. I do not see evidence that the Mother was overbearing either. Perhaps she was, but she had a child who apparently had numerous mental issues. What I see is that she tried several approaches. I do fault her for having guns available to a child with such disorders. As the kid planned the event, it was not a random outburst either. And she missed the signs.
 
Mr.Nick said:
The purpose of the Second Amendment is that the people shall be armed as the government is armed.

We the people are the organized militia, we the people are the keepers of the Bill of Rights/Constitution.

A lot of people fail to see the intent behind the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

I agree. But there is nothing in the second Amendment that says that people have a right to every weapon available. The second Amendment only prohibits to government from an outright ban. Banning assault weapons does nothing to infringe on that right.
 
disneydude said:
I agree. But there is nothing in the second Amendment that says that people have a right to every weapon available. The second Amendment only prohibits to government from an outright ban. Banning assault weapons does nothing to infringe on that right.
Click to expand...

Who told you that? Do you even understand what infringe mean?
 
disneydude said:
Sorry....but second amendment rights, like any other Constitutional right are not absolute.
Click to expand...

The amendment in question does not agree. For that matter the first amendment also disagrees with your assessment.
 
disneydude said:
The founders of our Constitution could not have possibly imagined this type of weapon when they wrote the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not prevent reasonable restrictions on guns. There is nothing in the second amendment that says that you cannot ban assault weapons.
Click to expand...

The Founders weren't granting rights. They were stating them when they drafted the Constitution. I find it absolutely hilarious that you would think these enlightened men, these geniuses who drafted the greatest document ever conceived in Human History, didn't have the foresight to know technology would create more formidable weaponry. I can guarantee the Founders would have loved to get their hands on AKs when they fought the British for Independence. You're tossing out simplistic, irrational, and emotional arguments that have no basis in facts.

The Founders purposely stated the "Right To Bear Arms shall not be infringed" for a reason. An armed and moral citizenry is the last line of defense against tyranny and oppression. Let's look at the history Gun Control:

Turkey established gun control in 1911. As a result 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

In 1929, the Stalin gun control. Then, from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents were rounded up and killed.

In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were rounded up and killed.

In 1935, China established gun control. 20 million dissidents were rounded up and killed from 1948 and 1952 .

In 1956 Cambodia enshrined gun control. Over one million ‘educated’ people were rounded up and killed within 2 years.

In 1964 Guatemala locked in gun control. 100K Mayans were killed

In 1970 Uganda embraced gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded up and killed.

The worst mass murder committed at a school was in 1927. The killer was a politician who used dynamite.

Andrew Kehoe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Andrew Philip Kehoe (February 1, 1872 – May 18, 1927) was an American farmer and treasurer of his township school board, notable as a mass murderer for killing his wife and blowing up their home and farm, as well as killing 43 other people, mostly children, and injuring 58 in setting off bombs in the Bath School Disaster on May 18, 1927. He killed himself in one of the explosions at the school, when he set off dynamite in his car.
Click to expand...

Evil exists. The cops can't magically appear in your house when it breaks in to save you. If you don't want to own a gun, don't buy one. Put a sign in front of your house that says "Gun Free Home". Good luck with that.
 
disneydude said:
Sorry....but second amendment rights, like any other Constitutional right are not absolute.
Click to expand...

While that may be true on some relative scale, you cannot merely state "no one who owns these guns is moral and they serve no legitimate purpose" as an excuse to limit rights, particularly when you talk about doing so through government force. Opinion and bias are not enough to infringe upon rights.
 
disneydude said:
I agree. But there is nothing in the second Amendment that says that people have a right to every weapon available. The second Amendment only prohibits to government from an outright ban. Banning assault weapons does nothing to infringe on that right.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. You are restricting a right, which previously put no restriction on type, to prevent one from keeping or bearing certain weapons. If you wish to do so, you must first have legitimate argument.
 
Fenton said:
His parents were very well off. Chances are he had plenty of oppurtunities to get mental health access and may have been on one or a few of medications.

Our second son was diagnosed with Aspergers when he was 5. After a couple of different attempts at medication we realized that there was nothing wrong with a shy but yet very intelligent kid.

That chemical alteration of this innately brilliant child (our son not the killer ) was the worse option given to us as Doctors, teachers and drug companies push products to make children conform to a perception of normal.

From my personal experience the shooter was Aspergers with a very controling Mother and was allowed to isolate to the point of losing all touch with the outside world. That mothers control pushed him to a hatred that was so severe he wanted to do as much damage to her as possible.

I'm curious to know what medications he was on. It's not like a Aspergers child to strike out in violence.

Our son is the most honest and sweetest of our kids and in the 3 rd grade was helping his older sister with her Algebra 1 Homework.

Aspergers kids are future scientist, engineers, physicist, etc.

The Columbine shooters were both medicated and they're tying other violent acts by kids to some of the medications given to force their conformity.

New Gun laws ? Why ? You know all schools advertize that there is NO ONE ON CAMPUS with a means to protect their selves from a gun wielding intruder ?

Yep, "gun free zones" are soft targets.

Its liberal thinking and its absurd as ever as emotion and zero tolerance over ride intelligence.
Click to expand...

I have Aspergers, it can be difficult at times. I suppose those of us who have the "talent" get frustrated with those who are unwilling to let pride (politics or anything for that matter) go to see the truth, but at the same time that frustration should never be acted out in the form of violence.

I love guns, I love our liberties and hold our Bill of Rights in high regard - not because those rights grant me freedoms, moreso because thousands died so their children (our forefathers) had rights that weren't dictated by a monarchy or a church. When our rights are taken away, we may as well revert back to the time when kings and queens ruled the land or when the church enforced the law.

We're unique as a nation because we stood up with our guns and said "NO!"

Even as a non-violent man, given the aforementioned I will not let their dream die when they died for it.

They died so we could be free, and that idea should be learned and taught and never forgot.

Sorry I went from Aspergers to guns but our civil liberties should be highly valued and respected instead of twenty-somthings or progressives disrespecting what many men died for. Not only do they disrespect those that died for our liberties, they disrespect the philosophy this land was founded.

Now to use a quote to close out my "rant."

"That is all I have to say about that" - Forrest Gump :)
 
disneydude said:
Sure you can. We do it all the time. Even with weapons we place restrictions. I'm still waiting for a single person including yourself to list one legitimate purpose these weapons serve.
Click to expand...
It is legal in many states to hunt with a .223 rifle, that is one legitimate purpose.
Currently AR-15 style rifles are legal to own, so owning one is a second legitimate purpose.
(think of it as a piece of artwork, does it really need a purpose?)
I would hope it never comes to invoking the third box of Liberty, but an AR-15 style rifle, would
be a lot more useful than a shotgun.
FYI, At the time of ratification of the Constitutions, and the bill of Rights,
Private Citizens could and did own Cannon, the most powerful weapon of the day.
 
presluc said:
The NRA said "easy fix" after Columbine , Virginia tech, the little girl that got shot in Flint Aurura, and here we are????
Click to expand...

Where's your link?

If a crazy person has a bomb a knife and a sig and a glock and a 223 if you removed the 3 guns could you not concentrate more on the bomb and the knife .
A bomb can not be bought legally a knife you can either throw or get up close in which a chair good be a good weapon against a knife, not against a gun though..
Click to expand...

Have you heard of Timothy McVeigh?

I did not say honest responsible people should not be able to buy guns I said nuts should not be accessable to a gun nor be able to buy one
Click to expand...

And I said: How do you do that without violating their right to privacy?

So you buy a gun to protect yourself from nuts buying guns?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Am I missing something here?:peace
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
Moot said:
Funny, he didn't say a word about constitutional rights. But you did. Twenty children were just ruthlessly shot full of holes and all you care about is that someone might take away your toys??? Yes, there is a mental health problem in this country and it's called conservatism.
Click to expand...

Yes he did. The right to privacy. And I've said nothing about gun-control...for or against. You're letting your bias read for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom