• 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!

Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Chicago Gun Ban

Owning rockets, grenades, mortars, cannons, etc.. one would have to look at the circumstances, and I really don't see how its relevant to what we are discussing.

Do you really not see a difference between the 1st and 2nd Amendment, they are NOT the same? Obviously the Freedom of speech and expression should be extended into new communication technologies as they arrive. Increasing the capacity of an individual to speak and exchange ideas with others causes no harm. However the problem is that with the 2nd amendment the technology has increased the capacity to kill of a single person.
You do realize that if I owned a .50 caliber machine gun for example, I could take it out to a high-way, or park it in front of a building, and lay waste to literally hundreds of people? What if causing the deaths of thousands of people was as simple as walking into a store, buying the proper equipment, because there is no regulation on arms, and using it? Sure it might be expensive but a terrorist with international backing wouldn't have a problem with it.
What security is there in that? How are our freedoms protected when a single individuals can unleash the kind of destruction that modern weapons can. One only has to look at the LA bank robbery where those two men with fully automatic RPKs fought off a hundred police for 4 hours. Living in constant fear is NOT freedom.

What I'm advocating is a change to the 2nd amendment which better defines what kind of arms can and cannot be owned. And again, I'm not against the 2nd amendment entirely, I'm a gun owner myself. Please don't lump me into whatever neat little lines and stereotypes you've built into your head.
 
Wiseone said:
You do realize that if I owned a .50 caliber machine gun for example, I could take it out to a high-way, or park it in front of a building, and lay waste to literally hundreds of people? .
Click to expand...


2 little tiny points:

1. 50 cal machine gun IS an ASSAULT WEAPON and has been banned since long before 1974.

2. Being a murderous psychopath has NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment.


There is NO justification to trample the Constitution... irrational fear isn't even reason for a discussion.. just therapy!
 
I thought we were arguing that such a ban is a breach of the 2nd Amendment? Which it actually is technically. But it still exists for an important reason, that reason being the kind of destructive power such weapons can provide such a single person.

I have no problem with gun laws the way they are now, Federal gun laws are reasonable for me, and I believe states and communities should have the right to make gun laws based on how they want to live in their state or community. Just like I don't want some guy from California coming into Arizona and messing with our gun laws, making them stricter, I don't want some guy from Arizona going to California or Chicago and changing their laws. Its their state, its their community, its their life.
 
Wiseone said:
I have no problem with gun laws the way they are now, Federal gun laws are reasonable for me, and I believe states and communities should have the right to make gun laws based on how they want to live in their state or community. Just like I don't want some guy from California coming into Arizona and messing with our gun laws, making them stricter, I don't want some guy from Arizona going to California or Chicago and changing their laws. Its their state, its their community, its their life.
Click to expand...

And they are all free to do so as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of the individual in the process.
 
Wiseone said:
I its their community, its their life.
Click to expand...

True'dat... BUT the SCOTUS is now offering waivers for the uS Constitution to local municipalities... another slippery slope...

Let's say OK locals can pass laws to circumvent the 2nd Amendment, where do you then draw the line? Nothing is now sacred and the states can just do damnwell as they please IE: Cal.'s legalization of marijuana... or for giggles let's say slavery in Alabama...

We can't demand adherence to PART of the Constitution, and we should damnwelll repeal any past laws that do so.. The Constitution is a signed (ratified) contract and the Federalist Papers where the "Bill of Goods" which was "sold" to the States.. Which I for one, DEMAND adherence to... ALL of IT, NOT PART of IT.
 
ConservaBill said:
True'dat... BUT the SCOTUS is now offering waivers for the uS Constitution to local municipalities... another slippery slope...

Let's say OK locals can pass laws to circumvent the 2nd Amendment, where do you then draw the line? Nothing is now sacred and the states can just do damnwell as they please IE: Cal.'s legalization of marijuana... or for giggles let's say slavery in Alabama...

We can't demand adherence to PART of the Constitution, and we should damnwelll repeal any past laws that do so.. The Constitution is a signed (ratified) contract and the Federalist Papers where the "Bill of Goods" which was "sold" to the States.. Which I for one, DEMAND adherence to... ALL of IT, NOT PART of IT.
Click to expand...
Unless it makes all types of offensive weapons ilegal, then it dosn't break the letter of the constitution.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
Unless it makes all types of offensive weapons ilegal, then it dosn't break the letter of the constitution.
Click to expand...

If it infringes in the least, it does break the letter of the Constitution.
 
Ikari said:
If it infringes in the least, it does break the letter of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in the constitution does it enumerate what is and isn't an "arm". What is widely accepted are restrictions of some type or another on those. That means that the only difference between Chicago/DC etc. and anywhere else is where that line is drawn.
 
Wiseone said:
My point isn't about the technology changing itself, its about the increase in destructive capacity that change brings. And if you think that has nothing to do with the argument, you're completely wrong because it has everything to do with the argument.
Click to expand...
It is still the technology argument, and as such, it still fails.

That technology has progressed to the point where it is 'more dangerous' is not limited to weapons; if your argument regarding weapons is sound, then it is also sound in those other areas - but no, the 4th still applies to telephones and the 1st still applies to CNN and the internet.

The reasons you can't own an F-15...
Click to expand...
We're talking about guns, not F15s.

An F-15 is an "arm" a howitzer is an "arm", a nuclear bomb is a "arm,"
Click to expand...
Not as the term is used in the context of the 2nd.

a full automatic machine gun is an arm.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes it is. As such, it is protected by the 2nd.

But no one has a right to purchase one of these things...
Click to expand...
You very certainly have the right to purchase and use a machinegun.

I am not advocating the complete and total outlawing of guns or firearms, I am a gun owner myself, what I am advocating is reasonable regulation.
Click to expand...
"Reaonable regulation" miust pass the strict scrutiny test.
That is, it must acheieve a compelling state interest in the most narrow and least limiting way possible.
Show that your ban on machineguns does this.

I think the line drawn at fully-automatic is a reasonable regulation, a line which most states agree too.
Click to expand...
Um...no. Most states do not agree as most states do not ban machineguns - and even if they did, popular consensus in state law does not trump the 2nd amendment.

Under both of the relevant SCotUS decisions, machineguns qualify as 'arms' and as such fall under the protection of the 2md.

I know exactly what the Constitution says, and I know exactly what the intention of the 2nd Amendment is.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, it is then impossible to argue how machineguns do not qualify as 'arms' and thus fall under its protection.

But fact is that it came into the Constitution in 1790, 220 years ago, and the changes that have taken place in the mean time need to be considered.
Click to expand...
This is just a re-statement of the unsound technology argument.

The Constitution is NOT the Bible, it is not some holy document which changing is some kind of sin.
Click to expand...
Of course not -- that's why there is an Article V.
Until it is changed, however, it must be adhered to, including the protection of the right to arms.

Its a malleable document that is meant to be changed, has been changed(not just with amendments but with judicial rulings and interpretation, and comes with procedures for how to change it.
Click to expand...
You're confusing 'interpretation' and/or 'clarification' with 'change'.
 
Wiseone said:
You do realize that if I owned a .50 caliber machine gun for example, I could take it out to a high-way, or park it in front of a building, and lay waste to literally hundreds of people?
Click to expand...
You do realize that if you have a penis, you could rape hundreds of women?
You do realize that if you have a vagina, you could turn hundreds of tricks?

Point is, we do not restrict peoples rights becuase of what the might do with them - that's called prior restraint, and violates the Constitution.

What I'm advocating is a change to the 2nd amendment which better defines what kind of arms can and cannot be owned.
Click to expand...
The SCotUS hase defined 'arms', and it includes all classes of firearms.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
Nowhere in the constitution does it enumerate what is and isn't an "arm".
Click to expand...
The court has.

What is widely accepted are restrictions of some type or another on those
Click to expand...
Yes. Those that pass the strict scrutiny test, just like for all other constitutional rights.

Take the restrcitions on the first amendment, apply them to guns, and you'll see what I mean.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
Here have a stick with a nail in it.

Your armed.

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

At the cost of infringing upon which arms I can have. Which violates the Constitution.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
Here have a stick with a nail in it.
Your armed.
Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
This is no different than arguing the banning of Catholocism does not violate the 1st amendment, as you can still be a Lutheran.

Or that banning criticism of the President does not violate the 1st amendment becaus eyou can still criticize Congress.
 
Ikari said:
At the cost of infringing upon which arms I can have. Which violates the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The amendment doesn't set any specifics either way and that is where the wriggle room lies. One can argue that a stick with a nail in it meets the qualification of armed, and therefor banning everything else but that does not make you disarmed. ie follows the letter of the amendment.

Now we are into the territory of exactly where the line should be drawn, and that is best left up to individual municipalities IMO.
 
Wiseone said:
Owning rockets, grenades, mortars, cannons, etc.. one would have to look at the circumstances, and I really don't see how its relevant to what we are discussing.
Click to expand...

All those things are arms.

Do you really not see a difference between the 1st and 2nd Amendment, they are NOT the same?
Click to expand...

They are both constitutional rights. So they are the same.

Obviously the Freedom of speech and expression should be extended into new communication technologies as they arrive.
Click to expand...

So should the 2nd amendment. The need to defend against a tyrannical government or to remove that tyrannical government, to defend oneself,property, others and against a armed invasion do not go away.

When you try to use the BS technology argument regarding rights you are opening the door for other rights to be infringed up. For example they didn't have color magazines back then so the government can regulate what you can and can not print, they didn't have computers,phones, TV and other communication devices so the government can put bugs in those devices to spy on you, The Mormons did not exist back when the 1st amendment so the government can ban Mormons, they didn't have mass printing presses when the first amendment was written so the government can restrict what you use those things to print and so on.


Increasing the capacity of an individual to speak and exchange ideas with others causes no harm.
Click to expand...

You can spill national secrets,slander someone, have someone killed and so on with words.



However the problem is that with the 2nd amendment the technology has increased the capacity to kill of a single person.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. I single person back then could kill multiple people with a grenade,bomb, rocket, Hwacha( a multi rocket arrow launcher, it had two wheels so it could be pulled by one individual), and other weapons.



You do realize that if I owned a .50 caliber machine gun for example, I could take it out to a high-way, or park it in front of a building, and lay waste to literally hundreds of people?
Click to expand...

Not if everyone else has a 50 cal machine gun,rifle or some other high powered weapon.Plus you sitting there firing such a large,loud and cumbersome weapon would make you an easy target for someone with a smaller weapon.



What if causing the deaths of thousands of people was as simple as walking into a store, buying the proper equipment, because there is no regulation on arms, and using it?
Sure it might be expensive but a terrorist with international backing wouldn't have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

You can do that already. With the right know how you can make such weapons.


What security is there in that?
Click to expand...

Security is not freedom.If you want security then have yourself locked up in a supermax prison.


How are our freedoms protected when a single individuals can unleash the kind of destruction that modern weapons can.
Click to expand...

How are our freedoms protected when only the government and thugs/criminals have modern arms?

One only has to look at the LA bank robbery where those two men with fully automatic RPKs fought off a hundred police for 4 hours.
Click to expand...

That is just a prime example of how strict regulation does not work and police not being adequately armed and protected. What next are you going to use Chicago a city with some of the most anti-2nd amendment laws in the country to prove that we need gun control?


Besides they had three Romanian AIM rifles (an AKM copy), a modified HK91 and an AR-15. They also possessed two 9 mm Beretta 92F pistols, a .38-caliber revolver, and approximately 3,300 rounds of ammunition in box and drum magazines.(according to wikipedia)

Living in constant fear is NOT freedom.
Click to expand...

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

I'm advocating is a change to the 2nd amendment which better defines what kind of arms can and cannot be owned.
Click to expand...

The only change I would advocate is making the" shall not be infringed" part in bold and perhaps much larger that the rest of the 2nd amendment seeing how many of you anti-2nd amendment loons fail to notice that part.

And again, I'm not against the 2nd amendment entirely, I'm a gun owner myself. Please don't lump me into whatever neat little lines and stereotypes you've built into your head.
Click to expand...

If you advocated hate speech laws, a restriction of religion, a restriction on who can peacefully assembly and petition the government for a redress of grievances,what you can print in color magazines and what exactly the press can and can not report would you be considered pro-1st amendment.

What if you were for the government putting bugs inside every electronic communication device, would you be considered pro-4th amendment?

What if you were for the government housing troops inside people's houses without asking the property owner's permission, would you be considered pro-3rd amendment?

What if you for citizens being tried more than once for the same crime, being arrested with no charges and other things that blatantly violated the 5th amendment, would you be considered pro-5th amendment?

Owning a gun, knife, bow and arrow,sword,pipe bomb or what ever else does not make you 2nd amendment proponent. When you advocate the restriction/infringement of a right you are not amendment proponent of that right you wish to have restricted/infringed. The Technology argument is nothing more than a load of hogwash that rights opponents use try to justify restricting rights.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
The amendment doesn't set any specifics either way and that is where the wriggle room lies. One can argue that a stick with a nail in it meets the qualification of armed, and therefor banning everything else but that does not make you disarmed. ie follows the letter of the amendment.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean you can infringe any way you like so long as you leave one option. It means shall not be infringed.
 
Goobieman said:
This is no different than arguing the banning of Catholocism does not violate the 1st amendment, as you can still be a Lutheran.

Or that banning criticism of the President does not violate the 1st amendment becaus eyou can still criticize Congress.
Click to expand...

Yes it is exactly like that isn't it. Just like you can't marry a person of the same gender, after all you are free to marry a person of the opposite one.

Don't you just love grey areas.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
Yes it is exactly like that isn't it. Just like you can't marry a person of the same gender, after all you are free to marry a person of the opposite one.

Don't you just love grey areas.
Click to expand...

Well marriage isn't covered in the Constitution, but freedom of religion is. So it's not so much a gray area as much as it is stupidity to suggest that the government can legitimately act against our rights.
 
Ikari said:
Well marriage isn't covered in the Constitution, but freedom of religion is. So it's not so much a gray area as much as it is stupidity to suggest that the government can legitimately act against our rights.
Click to expand...

No it's not covered in the constitution, but the net result of the choice is. ie, equally unpalleteable
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
The only one that qualifies there is a sword. The others are dual use.
Click to expand...
False, proving again you know nothing about tactical weapons training. Anything that can be used as a weapon is an arm. This is why, if a pencil was used as a murder weapon we would say "The assailant armed himself with a pencil".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom