• 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!

Gun Control

Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 39.9%
  • No

    Votes: 74 50.0%
  • Others

    Votes: 15 10.1%

  • Total voters
    148
Would that mean that we should all have arms like that of the military and train as such? Seems like that means more military training. At least if are going to follow the founding fathers' intent only.

But the fact is that they DID intend for home front defense as well. That website I provided included quotes from Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, and Washington, and Jefferson on arms for defense against criminals. I would call that intent greater than militia.

I would say no, and yes.

It's not likely, now, that we will ever find need for an armed uprising against or own govt. We've established quite a record of resolving differences within the law. So, I say no, we do not necessarily need weapons capable of holding of an Army. However, the possibility does exist, so we do have need buy some time while we appropriate the correct weapons should the need ever materialize.
 
Not at all. here is 2



If the law permits you a firearm - your right has NOT been broken.
If the law permits you a firearm - your right has NOT been transgressed.
If the law permits you a firearm - your right has NOT been neglected or disobeyed.

And lets consider the complete definition please. Do not focus on a single tree when the entire forest is before you. Unless of course the rest of the forest causes that single tree to appear otherwise than what you want it to be.

If the law limits the effectiveness of your weapon, you right has been broken and transgressed. By your reasoning, allowing the equipping of butter knives sufficiently fulfills the second amendment.
 
If the law limits the effectiveness of your weapon, you right has been broken and transgressed. By your reasoning, allowing the equipping of butter knives sufficiently fulfills the second amendment.

Sorry - but that is NOT what the Second Amendment says.

I would also point out to you that the definition listed as #1 is placed there because it is the most common and most used definition. As you go down the list, they become less commonly used. that means that the #1 definition is the prime one to examine.

1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
 
Actually, all of them that made any statement concerning it were clearly stating that it is an armed populace that keeps their govt in check. Indisputable fact.
That is.....dependent upon.....any of them actually commenting on it. That isn't a fact, it is conjecture based upon nothing presented by you.



And the right to bear arms was ratified.
No chit, the point was that it was not created with singularity and unity as you keep trying to imply. There were multiple views, it has had an evolution in understanding....and again, in spite of your flip-flopping understanding, it has never applied to military weaponry.
 
If you tell me "what I am saying" at least have the decency to quote it. But you and i both know that is NOT what I am saying - that is your spin on my views designed to give you a standard talking point to reply to with your own standard talking point.

Your life, my life, a cops life - nobody is saying one is higher. My point was clear. My point was unambiguous. My point was unmistakable. here it is again in case you were confused the first several times:

YOU ARE NOT A COP AND YOU DON'T DO THEIR JOB. BECAUSE OF THAT YOU DO NOT NEED THE TOOLS THEY NEED.

Clear on that now?

Flush all the other crap.

the only time a cop needs the weapon is when he is facing an imminent threat of severe bodily harm or death and that is the same for other civilians. what you are trying to say (and you are wrong) is that cops face more SERIOUS threats than other civilians. That is not true. and as I have noted, cops or almost never the target of unprovoked attacks like convenience store owners etc are. When cops are in a gun fight with mopes the cops usually know that they are going into a dangerous situation. When you are walking down the street or sitting in a movie theater or shopping in a mall you are not expecting a criminal attack. Same when you are sleeping in your bed.

that is why non LEOs usually are facing more dire circumstances than cops. Its because the criminals almost always initiate the deployment of a weapon FIRST against a civilian. Not so with cops who often do felony search warrants or arrest warrants on unsuspecting criminals or at least get a dispatch call of a problem

so your claim is completely wrong, counter to real life experience and is contrary to fact
 
So police officers are a class of prestige above non-cops and you want to see people become youtube sensations instead of defending themselves. Im not a cop and I have been shot at once and had a someone brandish a gun on me twice. So your personal experience really doesn't count for everyone's. (thankfully I didn't need a gun to get out of the situation in all these cases but that's not the point.)


some people think government employees are a more important class of civilians over those of us who pay their salaries. The fact is crime victims almost never initiate armed violence against criminals while police officers often do. thus citizens who are not LEOs ought to have even better weaponry than the police who have the advantage of surprise and backups
 
We are all already members of militias. It is automatic.
Where is this stated that applies to you and me?
Why was I drafted and sworn into a militia if I was already a member?
I hadn't done anythig wrong so by what authority did they not allow me to have a gun?
 
Again the argument was that citizens have the right to own weaponry that govt entities (militias, military, police) possess.

This is a total falsehood, the 2nd Amendment does not give you this right as the courts have shown (my citations on the previous page bear this out).


the second amendment and the bill of rights GIVE nothing. THEY MERELY RECOGNIZE EXISTING RIGHTS THAT WERE NEVER ABROGATED BY THE DELEGATION OF SPECIFIC POWERS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
 
In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.

District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

actually:

"The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added)."
 
the second amendment and the bill of rights GIVE nothing. THEY MERELY RECOGNIZE EXISTING RIGHTS THAT WERE NEVER ABROGATED BY THE DELEGATION OF SPECIFIC POWERS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Uh, you are arguing over verbiage, not the content. The content is that you do not have an existing right, protected by the govt, to possess military weaponry.
 
the second amendment and the bill of rights GIVE nothing. THEY MERELY RECOGNIZE EXISTING RIGHTS THAT WERE NEVER ABROGATED BY THE DELEGATION OF SPECIFIC POWERS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

I appreciate this argument, and it is important to understanding the constitution itself. But all you're going to get is a debate on natural rights followed by 'living constitution' and your point will be forgotten by all except those who actually give a crap about the document itself and what it meant.
 
That is.....dependent upon.....any of them actually commenting on it. That isn't a fact, it is conjecture based upon nothing presented by you.

What is it that you are denying here? That founders made comments on the reasoning behind the second amendment or that I do not understand their comments?

No chit, the point was that it was not created with singularity and unity as you keep trying to imply. There were multiple views, it has had an evolution in understanding....and again, in spite of your flip-flopping understanding, it has never applied to military weaponry.

There may have been, but only one view was ratified and codified into law. That is that there exists the pre-existing right to arm one's self and that Constitution limits the govt from infringing that right.
 
Sorry - but that is NOT what the Second Amendment says.

The second amendment clearly says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and the SCOTUS has confirmed that.

I would also point out to you that the definition listed as #1 is placed there because it is the most common and most used definition. As you go down the list, they become less commonly used. that means that the #1 definition is the prime one to examine.

1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.

And in this case the conditions are to not infringe the right to keep and bear arms. :shrug:
 
Magazine size has absolutely nothing to do with being semi automatic. A bolt action rifle can have a 30 round magazine as can a shotgun etc.

Not if the ban is passed on high capacity magazines. I never said every semi-automatic would accept a high capacity mag, I said, "and they usually accept high capacity mags."
 
actually:

"The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added)."
Ah mac, if you really are still trying to argue that the 2nd amendment protects a "right" for you to possess military weapons, then tell me how it is that the Assault Weapon Ban was never challenged in the SC?
 
So there's 10 such cases. Good for you. Now it'd need the other end of the equation I placed forth....how many have been sold.


Reading is fundamental - "Here are just 10 of the U.S. mass shootings that involved high-capacity ammunition magazines."
 
What is it that you are denying here? That founders made comments on the reasoning behind the second amendment or that I do not understand their comments?
Seriously, you are having this much trouble in understanding what I said? I suggest you again reread the conversation between us because once again you are going off into the weeds as you are prone to.



There may have been, but only one view was ratified and codified into law.
No, that is the point, it was a compromise, not one view.
That is that there exists the pre-existing right to arm one's self and that Constitution limits the govt from infringing that right.
Oh my...this is getting incomprehensible.
 
So you are saying that you can copy and paste the same rules from other nations and it will work perfectly? It doesn't matter that we have a significantly higher population, land mass, inner city poverty ratings, and simple numbers of firearms?

I didn't know that was how it worked. So why does democracy not work in the Middle East?

I'll bet you that in 25 years after the ban of high capacity magazines is effect that you will see a reduction in the number massacres.
 
I appreciate this argument, and it is important to understanding the constitution itself. But all you're going to get is a debate on natural rights followed by 'living constitution' and your point will be forgotten by all except those who actually give a crap about the document itself and what it meant.

I don't really give too much thought about people who don't understand the constitution: your point has vast merit though.
 
"Some" founders saying "it" is not the relevant point, the point still is that the courts have determined that the 2nd amendment does not grant a right to a citizen to possess military weaponry. Further, if the founders could see the weaponry available NOW, they would agree with the court findings.

PS...the 2nd amendment was a compromise between the Congress and the 13 states, there were many competing and conflicting views.



I think many here cannot accept that the Courts are the only body authorized specifically in the Constitution for its interpretation.
 
I'll bet you that in 25 years after the ban of high capacity magazines is effect that you will see a reduction in the number massacres.

well given crime has been decreasing for years that is not really surprising

what we do know is that the gun hating loons claimed that when the AWB sunset, blood would run in the streets

the were wrong

the gun ban has no real reason other than to harass gun owners its not intended to deter criminals and would not f it were so intended.
 
Uh, you are arguing over verbiage, not the content. The content is that you do not have an existing right, protected by the govt, to possess military weaponry.

the constitution disagrees with you

I am sorry that you do not understand it.
 
well given crime has been decreasing for years that is not really surprising

I did not say crime, I said massacres, which have been on the increase.
 
Ah mac, if you really are still trying to argue that the 2nd amendment protects a "right" for you to possess military weapons, then tell me how it is that the Assault Weapon Ban was never challenged in the SC?

I never did try to argue that, as I explained to you. You, however, took a single line out of a SCOTUS decision and misrepresented it's meaning. The assault weapons ban was never challenged because it didn't actually do anything meaningful.
 
Back
Top Bottom