• 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!

Why I SUPPORT MILITARY STYLE WEAPONS ON THE STREETS OF THE USA

TurtleDude

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,391
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
In the hands of law abiding citizens

1) because our Tax dollars supply them to CIVILIAN police officers for self defense against criminals

thus our elected leaders and their surrogates have determined that such weapons are the MOST SUITABLE devices for somewhat trained police officers to use for SELF DEFENSE against the very criminals we face in society

therefore we should follow the advice of those leaders and equip ourselves with the best possible defensive tools against criminals since OUR LIVES ARE JUST AS VALUABLE as cops

2) cops generally choose the time and place to engage in a confrontation with a criminal They often have backup and are wearing protective body armor-on warrant entries they have ballistic shields

we OTHER CIVILIANS, don't have such ability to choose when we have to confront armed criminals and we usually don't have backup, vests or two way radios on our persons to call for armed backup


3) criminals will have weapons NO MATTER what the laws are

4) REAL MILITARY WEAPONS are the ones that the second amendment protects. THus ones that are less efficient are also protected
 
someone continually squawks why I support people having these weapons

yet he won't even address this thread

go figure
 
TurtleDude said:
4) REAL MILITARY WEAPONS are the ones that the second amendment protects. THus ones that are less efficient are also protected
Click to expand...

How do you know?
These were the only guns around back then:
2ch5nav.jpg
 
TheDemSocialist said:
How do you know?
These were the only guns around back then:
2ch5nav.jpg
Click to expand...

good, using your "logic" the government can hook your testicles up to a jumper cable to shock a confession of out you because that sort of cruel punishment did not exist within the minds of the Founders

and of course you can be arrested for publishing anti government thoughts on the internet or on TV as well

what a moronic comment

lefties who hate rights try to limit them to the state of the art circa 1790

yet you claim Griswold was correct because the right of privacy that was FOUND to exist in the ninth covered IUDs and latex condoms and birth control pills-stuff that NEVER EXISTED in 1790
 
Well if there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that more guns equals less gun crimes. Am i right?

Not at all.

But here's the twist: more guns doesn't reduce gun crimes either. WHOA! It's like an M. Night Shyamalan movie.

gunsandcrimeratepercapita.webpgunsandgundeathrate.webp

I love nothing more than taking the third side of a false dichotomy.
 
idk said:
Well if there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that more guns equals less gun crimes. Am i right?

Not at all.

But here's the twist: more guns doesn't reduce gun crimes either. WHOA! It's like an M. Night Shyamalan movie.

View attachment 67145120View attachment 67145121

I love nothing more than taking the third side of a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...

well given the duty is clearly upon those who want to make more restrictions it looks like you have proven that gun restrictionists have failed to make their case
 
TheDemSocialist said:
How do you know?
These were the only guns around back then:
2ch5nav.jpg
Click to expand...

Actually, that firearm wasn't around when the Constitution was ratified. What you have there is a caplock mechanism which didn't become available until the 1800's.
 
Lutherf said:
Actually, that firearm wasn't around when the Constitution was ratified. What you have there is a caplock mechanism which didn't become available until the 1800's.
Click to expand...

good catch, matchlocks, wheel locks and of course flintlocks were all that was available

the percussion cap was introduced around 1820
 
TheDemSocialist said:
How do you know?
These were the only guns around back then:
2ch5nav.jpg
Click to expand...

Read The Federalist Papers for some insight. James Madison says that the militia should be armed with the equivalent firearm of an infantry soldier. AR-15 is close enough.
 
TurtleDude said:
well given the duty is clearly upon those who want to make more restrictions it looks like you have proven that gun restrictionists have failed to make their case
Click to expand...

I think you're right. I think gun control advocates haven't come up with nearly creative enough solutions to our truly horrendous gun crime problem. They way most pursue their goals forces honest gun owners to remain on the defensive, when we should really be enlisting their help in order to create a consensus solution.
 
idk said:
I think you're right. I think gun control advocates haven't come up with nearly creative enough solutions to our truly horrendous gun crime problem. They way most pursue their goals forces honest gun owners to remain on the defensive, when we should really be enlisting their help in order to create a consensus solution.
Click to expand...

that's an excellent point but it ASSUMES that crime control is the main concern of the gun restrictionists. I argue it is not. The main goal is to put gun owners on the defensive and harass them
 
TurtleDude said:
that's an excellent point but it ASSUMES that crime control is the main concern of the gun restrictionists. I argue it is not. The main goal is to put gun owners on the defensive and harass them
Click to expand...

Well... It's hard for me to believe that if there weren't thousands of gun related murders each year, gun control would still be a major issue. No, I'm pretty certain that crime control is the primary objective, people have simply gotten obsessed with an understandable red herring: the guns themselves.
 
Lutherf said:
Actually, that firearm wasn't around when the Constitution was ratified. What you have there is a caplock mechanism which didn't become available until the 1800's.
Click to expand...

Beat me to it.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
How do you know?
Click to expand...
I can brain:

District of Columbia v. Heller
Section II, A, 1(Operative Clause), b("keep and bear arms"), paragraph four:

...Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g.,Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Click to expand...

Back then the Musket and Kentucky Long Rifle were 'in common use at the time', and so those arms were protected. Today the M16 is 'in common use at the time', and so the M16 is protected. In 50 years should sci-fi laser rifles become 'in common use at the time', laser rifles will be protected for private ownership by the 2nd Amendment.
 

Attachments

  • 800px-Girandoni_Air_Rifle.webp
    800px-Girandoni_Air_Rifle.webp
    11.2 KB · Views: 88
  • Mid 18th Century DutchGrenadeLauncher.webp
    Mid 18th Century DutchGrenadeLauncher.webp
    52 KB · Views: 86
  • blunderbuss1.webp
    blunderbuss1.webp
    11.9 KB · Views: 87
  • duckfoot pistol.webp
    duckfoot pistol.webp
    17.5 KB · Views: 87
  • nock gun.webp
    nock gun.webp
    6.9 KB · Views: 81
Last edited:
idk said:
Well if there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that more guns equals less gun crimes. Am i right?

Not at all.

But here's the twist: more guns doesn't reduce gun crimes either. WHOA! It's like an M. Night Shyamalan movie.

View attachment 67145120View attachment 67145121

I love nothing more than taking the third side of a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...
I like how you stick to gun crime only and not any other violent crime.
 
TurtleDude said:
In the hands of law abiding citizens

1) because our Tax dollars supply them to CIVILIAN police officers for self defense against criminals

thus our elected leaders and their surrogates have determined that such weapons are the MOST SUITABLE devices for somewhat trained police officers to use for SELF DEFENSE against the very criminals we face in society

therefore we should follow the advice of those leaders and equip ourselves with the best possible defensive tools against criminals since OUR LIVES ARE JUST AS VALUABLE as cops

2) cops generally choose the time and place to engage in a confrontation with a criminal They often have backup and are wearing protective body armor-on warrant entries they have ballistic shields

we OTHER CIVILIANS, don't have such ability to choose when we have to confront armed criminals and we usually don't have backup, vests or two way radios on our persons to call for armed backup


3) criminals will have weapons NO MATTER what the laws are

4) REAL MILITARY WEAPONS are the ones that the second amendment protects. THus ones that are less efficient are also protected
Click to expand...


I'll Add this.....with yours. ;)

“The freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility”!
 
graph1_zpsc32bf4b5.webp

Virtually no correlation between the number of guns and the number of violent gun crimes. So, more guns doesn't solve the problem. Getting rid of guns is utterly impractical and doesn't solve the problem either.
 
MMC said:
I'll Add this.....with yours. ;)

“The freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility”!
Click to expand...
Can't wait to see a free market for bioweapons and nukes.
 
idk said:
Can't wait to see a free market for bioweapons and nukes.
Click to expand...

Straw man. The standard interpretation has been The Federalist Papers which refutes this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom