• 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!

Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

Mustachio said:
Every one of those suggestions has a detrimental effect on the citizens of this country. Banning certain types of guns (not "banning guns," adopting new regulations which include the prohibition of a certain few types of firearms) does no harm to anyone. Sorry, I know you love to shoot big, powerful guns, and I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that you don't need them - no citizen needs them - and they can fall into the hands of a disturbed individual who uses them to kill dozens of people (or more). So the result is nobody is worse off, everybody is better off. That's what is very different from any of your oh-so-hilarious suggestions.
Click to expand...

since when are rights based on need?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Who are you to determine what I need to protect my family and property? Each person has there unique needs and preferences when it comes to firearms or any other defense mechanism. To make a blanket statement of "you don't need them" is the height of arrogance showing a complete lack for situational preferences. You may not like some of the choices available and that's fine, but you have no right deny others from making their own choices...
Click to expand...


I think the testimony of David Wheeler, father of the late Ben Wheeler, answers that best:

“As elected representatives,” he said, “it is your job to craft the legislation that keeps your constituents safe. Thomas Jefferson described our inalienable rights as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the rights with which we are endowed, for the protection of which we have instituted governments.”

“I do not think the composition of that foundational phrase was an accident,” Mr. Wheeler continued. “I do not think the order of those important words was haphazard or casual. Liberty, of a person to own a high-powered magazine, is second to the right of my son to his life. His life. To the right to live, of all of those children and those teachers. To the right to the lives of your children, of you, of all of us. All of our lives. It is second. Let’s honor the founding documents, and get our priorities straight.”

Another Newtown Parent Answers Non-Heckling Gun Nuts Everywhere | Mediaite
 
Kal'Stang said:
I even bolded the relevent parts for you and you still ignore it. I might disagree with SCOTUS on occasion but at least I don't ignore them outright.
Click to expand...

Aren't you ignoring the 100 years that SCOTUS considered the 2nd Amendment to apply to state militia's and not individuals?
 
Catawba said:
I think the testimony of David Wheeler, father of the late Ben Wheeler, answers that best:

“As elected representatives,” he said, “it is your job to craft the legislation that keeps your constituents safe. Thomas Jefferson described our inalienable rights as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the rights with which we are endowed, for the protection of which we have instituted governments.”

“I do not think the composition of that foundational phrase was an accident,” Mr. Wheeler continued. “I do not think the order of those important words was haphazard or casual. Liberty, of a person to own a high-powered magazine, is second to the right of my son to his life. His life. To the right to live, of all of those children and those teachers. To the right to the lives of your children, of you, of all of us. All of our lives. It is second. Let’s honor the founding documents, and get our priorities straight.”

Another Newtown Parent Answers Non-Heckling Gun Nuts Everywhere | Mediaite
Click to expand...
How is that quote any kind of credential for you?

In fact that quote harms your argument.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Besides the obvious argument, that criminals do not obey laws, especially the suicidal ones, you leave out an important, still legal, weapons option; using multiple semi-automatic handguns. They are much easier to conceal allowing one to gain entry appearing to be "normal", and with a loaded backup gun (or two) at the ready, you can more confidently choose when to attempt a brief pause for a magazine swap. Note that you still have the ability to use the backup handgun(s) for covering fire. Pistol ammo is smaller and lighter so you may also carry more total rounds. The bottom line is that without confiscation of the existing "scary looking" weapons and the larger capacity magazines they will likely still remain readily available for at least 50 years.
Click to expand...

What is the cost of multiple semi-automatic handguns?
 
Catawba said:
I think the testimony of David Wheeler, father of the late Ben Wheeler, answers that best:

“As elected representatives,” he said, “it is your job to craft the legislation that keeps your constituents safe. Thomas Jefferson described our inalienable rights as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the rights with which we are endowed, for the protection of which we have instituted governments.”

“I do not think the composition of that foundational phrase was an accident,” Mr. Wheeler continued. “I do not think the order of those important words was haphazard or casual. Liberty, of a person to own a high-powered magazine, is second to the right of my son to his life. His life. To the right to live, of all of those children and those teachers. To the right to the lives of your children, of you, of all of us. All of our lives. It is second. Let’s honor the founding documents, and get our priorities straight.”

Another Newtown Parent Answers Non-Heckling Gun Nuts Everywhere | Mediaite
Click to expand...
Apparently Mr Wheeler would have preferred his son died by being shot with a .22 than a .223. Look...we get it. Horrible tragedy drives the parent to somehow make the tragedy 'count'. They cling to a cause to give it all meaning. Its understandable...but folly. Unhindered gunman walking a school for 10 minutes. It doesnt MATTER what type of weapon he used. Any more than it mattered at Virginia Tech. But cling to the 'cause'.
 
Catawba said:
I think the testimony of David Wheeler, father of the late Ben Wheeler, answers that best:

“As elected representatives,” he said, “it is your job to craft the legislation that keeps your constituents safe. Thomas Jefferson described our inalienable rights as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the rights with which we are endowed, for the protection of which we have instituted governments.”

“I do not think the composition of that foundational phrase was an accident,” Mr. Wheeler continued. “I do not think the order of those important words was haphazard or casual. Liberty, of a person to own a high-powered magazine, is second to the right of my son to his life. His life. To the right to live, of all of those children and those teachers. To the right to the lives of your children, of you, of all of us. All of our lives. It is second. Let’s honor the founding documents, and get our priorities straight.”

Another Newtown Parent Answers Non-Heckling Gun Nuts Everywhere | Mediaite
Click to expand...

So, now the magazine itself is a high-powered weapon? Using emotional statements of those who have just lost a loved one does nothing to promote any argument you are attempting to get across. I don't agree with his statements, but I certainly understand his emotions...
 
Jerry said:
How is that quote any kind of credential for you?

In fact that quote harms your argument.
Click to expand...



Only with the extreme far right!
 
Catawba said:
Aren't you ignoring the 100 years that SCOTUS considered the 2nd Amendment to apply to state militia's and not individuals?
Click to expand...
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America

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
Click to expand...
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Click to expand...
.......
 
Jerry said:
.......
Click to expand...

"For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not.

The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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 courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon."

"Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker
 
Catawba said:
"For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not.

The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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 courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon."

"Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker
Click to expand...
That's a blog. I quoted the Supreme Court and the Constitution directly. Your blog is factually incorrect, which invalidates your statement, which invalidates your opinion.
 
Catawba said:
"For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not.

The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “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 courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon."

"Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker
Click to expand...
Considering the FACT that we are...what...240 years into our existence as a country and the private citizen always has and still does have the right to keep and bear military grade weapons, I'd say it is a safe bet Burger and you are both very much in the minority in your opinion. Wouldnt you?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
A decent (Ruger or Taurus) 9mm is about $350 new so you could get 3 (plus some extra magazines) for the price of a new AR-15.
Click to expand...

Not quite. From just a quick check:

"If you really want to be a cheap bastard on this but still remain competitive, something to look at is Kel Tec’s SU-16A. One like this one seen being used by a member of an all-female 3-gun team at a recent competition who were quite competitive. The base model clocks in with an MSRP of $665 and is compatible with AR-15 mags, so you won’t need to buy all new gear when you decide to make the next move. "

Ask Foghorn: Best Budget AR-15 for Cheap Bastards | The Truth About Guns

That's a $385 difference. Higher price means restricted accessibility.
 
Jerry said:
That's a blog. I quoted the Supreme Court and the Constitution directly. Your blog is factually incorrect, which invalidates your statement, which invalidates your opinion.
Click to expand...

A blog that featured the opinion of Constitutional Scholar, Jeffrey Toobin. Your quote did not disprove what Mr. Toobin stated.
 
Catawba said:
Not quite. From just a quick check:

"If you really want to be a cheap bastard on this but still remain competitive, something to look at is Kel Tec’s SU-16A. One like this one seen being used by a member of an all-female 3-gun team at a recent competition who were quite competitive. The base model clocks in with an MSRP of $665 and is compatible with AR-15 mags, so you won’t need to buy all new gear when you decide to make the next move. "

Ask Foghorn: Best Budget AR-15 for Cheap Bastards | The Truth About Guns

That's a $385 difference. Higher price means restricted accessibility.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that money was not the real object, especially if the mission includes suicide - then who cares about cost? On the other hand, if you wish to commit multiple crimes, and actually get away with them, then that big AW is not exactly hard to recognize going in and out of buildings.

Cheaper pistols can be had as well, but I was offereing some fairly decent tools here. Also after the AWB/HCM laws options may be limitted, so adaptation is key, even for nut jobs and criminals. ;)
 
VanceMack said:
Considering the FACT that we are...what...240 years into our existence as a country and the private citizen always has and still does have the right to keep and bear military grade weapons, I'd say it is a safe bet Burger and you are both very much in the minority in your opinion. Wouldnt you?
Click to expand...


I am not arguing that the present day interpretation by the courts that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals. That doesn't however mean that it wasn't interpreted by the courts for a century to mean a state militia and not individual right to bear arms. Under a more liberal court, the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment may change again in the future.

And getting back to the OP, it doesn't mean that a ban on high capacity magazines would necessarily be ruled to be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I was under the impression that money was not the real object, especially if the mission includes suicide - then who cares about cost? On the other hand, if you wish to commit multiple crimes, and actually get away with them, then that big AW is not exactly hard to recognize going in and out of buildings.

Cheaper pistols can be had as well, but I was offereing some fairly decent tools here. Also after the AWB/HCM laws options may be limitted, so adaptation is key, even for nut jobs and criminals. ;)
Click to expand...

Part of reducing accessibility to criminals and crazies is increasing costs.
 
Catawba said:
I am not arguing that the present day interpretation by the courts that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals. That doesn't however mean that it wasn't interpreted by the courts for a century to mean a state militia and not individual right to bear arms. Under a more liberal court, the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment may change again in the future.

And getting back to the OP, it doesn't mean that a ban on high capacity magazines would necessarily be ruled to be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
Au contraire. the fact is that we have ALWAYS had consistent rulings...or did you miss the fact that it is you and people like you attempting to alter and change what has been accepted historically?
 
VanceMack said:
Au contraire. the fact is that we have ALWAYS had consistent rulings...or did you miss the fact that it is you and people like you attempting to alter and change what has been accepted historically?
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion on constitutional history, but I'll go with the Constitutional Scholar who found that for over 100 years, SCOTUS interpreted the 2nd to mean it applied to a state militia and not individuals.
 
Catawba said:
Part of reducing accessibility to criminals and crazies is increasing costs.
Click to expand...

Criminals are not in the habit of acquiring their guns through legal means. They are usually stolen or purchased on the streets at prevailing value. "Crazies" are a whole other issue...
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for your opinion on constitutional history, but I'll go with the Constitutional Scholar who found that for over 100 years, SCOTUS interpreted the 2nd to mean it applied to a state militia and not individuals.
Click to expand...
You ALWAYS side with those few minority voices that fit your ideology and ignore facts and reality. There is a...trend...
 
Catawba said:
Aren't you ignoring the 100 years that SCOTUS considered the 2nd Amendment to apply to state militia's and not individuals?
Click to expand...

Proof? Good luck in that as they actually they never did do that. As my first link explained...

It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]
Click to expand...

Besides which it wouldn't matter if other past SCOTUS cases decided different or not. The newest ones over rule the past ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom