• 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
You gave us a definition which had
1- modern meanings of the word INFRINGED, and
2- the meaning of the word INFRINGED which was labeled as OBSOLETE

The modern definition applies to this period of time. The obsolete definition applies to the time period of the Second Amendments writing.

Good Lord! Both definitions could be applicable, but given the context of the SA, it is obvious that the first definition applies. Anyone with half a brain could figure that out. Of course, I don't put SOME people above being intellectually dishonest about it. Example above.

This is NOT about my interpretation. It is about the definition that you provided for us and the meaning of the term at the time the Amendment was written.

Infringe still means to restrict our rights. It is really quite simple. I'm so sorry that you have such a difficult time understanding the meanings of words in the context of what the Second Amendment is supposed to mean to us.

Everyone knows that the word was used to prevent the government from taking the right to bear arms away from citizens of the United States. It is also obvious because at the time the document was written, we had been fighting off an oppressive government (or monarchy if you prefer). The context of the written words in combination with what was happening at the time the amendment was added makes it quite obvious that our new government was trying to prevent tyranny and injustice to United States citizens.

Really, Haymarket, it doesn't take a rocket scientist. :lol:
 
As long as replacements are offered free of charge, i.e. trade two 15-round magazines for a three 10-round magazines, or allow them to be grandfathered in, I have no problem with it. The problem occurs with offering no "fair market" funds for the "taking" of private legally owned private property.
Or in my case, six 10rnd mags for every 60rnd mag I choose to turn in.
 
Herre it is for you and from you post 303 and many many many after that in which the participants agreed to use that definition

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/139998-abc-nightline-pushing-gun-issue-w-194-a-31.html

You provided the definition.
You agreed to its use.

Of course, after you came to realize that the only part that actually applied in the historical being discussed was the part you provided labeled as OBSOLETE, you tried to back pedal away from it since it did not conform to the modern NRA party line that you endorse.

But that changes nothing. It still came from you and was agreed upon my you, Federalist, myself and others as the one to use. It was Federalist who challenged me to show that the OBSOLETE definition was applicable in that time period and I then did that. And that seemed to make some folks very unhappy.

I don't know who you think you're fooling. You NEVER prove any of your claims.
 
Nobody is asserting that you must keep a gun for home/personal defense, yet you seem to assert "knowing better" and wish to impose your "don't do that" beliefs upon others. Some people have definitely used guns to save the loss of life and property, others have had terrible outcomes from domestic violence, suicides or accidents. Each person, must make that personal decision, but also must remain allowed to do so according to our Constitution. Freedom is very closely linked to personal responsibility, desire for an althoritarian form of gov't, aka the nanny state, has not shown sufficient appeal, thus far, to amend our Constitution. Until that time comes, please respect both our freedom and our Constitution and I will respect your personal decision to not keep and bear arms. :)

Just know the statistics. Link a mention of those too. I'm not calling for any law to recent you, but I do want to help you be safer. ;)
 
Actually according to logic wouldn't 66% NOT be deterred by a dog? And 44% would plan another house?

Doesn't really say that. I'd be shocked if you could find that said in any study.
 
Good Lord! Both definitions could be applicable, but given the context of the SA, it is obvious that the first definition applies. Anyone with half a brain could figure that out.

I will not speak for the use of the half brained.

I will note that the definition YOU SUPPLIED AND YOU AGREED TO clearly contained modern definitions and one that was clearly labeled as OBSOLETE because it has fallen out of common usage. When challenged by Federalist, I presented authoritative evidence in fact the very same authority that your yourself presented - which clearly proved that it was the OBSOLETE definition which was used at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment.
 
The previous ban wasn't long enough to significantly reduce the number of these guns out there...
The previous ban didnt reduce the number of "these" guns out there because the previous ban didnt actually ban anything - it could have been in effect for 1000 years and the number of "these" guns would have increased based on market supply and demand.
 
I will not speak for the use of the half brained.

I will note that the definition YOU SUPPLIED AND YOU AGREED TO clearly contained modern definitions and one that was clearly labeled as OBSOLETE because it has fallen out of common usage. When challenged by Federalist, I presented authoritative evidence in fact the very same authority that your yourself presented - which clearly proved that it was the OBSOLETE definition which was used at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment.

I supplied a definition that happened to include the word "obsolete" in it. I never saw you present any evidence whatsoever. Perhaps you should repost it since it was so "authoritative." LOL!

BTW, I have NEVER agreed to anything with you. I don't know WHAT you're talking about.

And your definition does not make any sense in the context of the second amendment. It is just delusional.
 
The previous ban didnt reduce the number of "these" guns out there because the previous ban didnt actually ban anything - it could have been in effect for 1000 years and the number of "these" guns would have increased based on market supply and demand.

The supply will not continue to keep up with demand forever once manufacture and sales have been banned.
 
The supply will not continue to keep up with demand forever once manufacture has been banned.
You dont understand: Gun manufacturers did not stop LEGALLY making them and people did not stop LEGALLY buying them because the ban didnt actually ban anything.
So, it doesnt matter how long the ban would have been in place - the number of "those" guns would have increased based on market supply and demand.

Your claim that the previous ban wasn't long enough to significantly reduce the number of these guns out there is therefore unsound.
 
I supplied a definition that happened to include the word "obsolete" in it. I never saw you present any evidence whatsoever. Perhaps you should repost it since it was so "authoritative." LOL!

BTW, I have NEVER agreed to anything with you. I don't know WHAT you're talking about.

And your definition does not make any sense in the context of the second amendment. It is just delusional.

Why would you lie about a discussion you participated in?
 
Why would you lie about a discussion you participated in?

I participated in a discussion. I NEVER agreed with you, and if I ever did it was PURELY sarcasm. Sorry but I don't agree with or respect anything that comes out of your silly intellectually dishonest pie hole, and if I ever do please get a gun and shoot me.
 
You dont understand: Gun manufacturers did not stop LEGALLY making them and people did not stop LEGALLY buying them because the ban didnt actually ban anything.
So, it doesnt matter how long the ban would have been in place - the number of "those" guns would have increased based on market supply and demand.

Your claim that the previous ban wasn't long enough to significantly reduce the number of these guns out there is therefore unsound.


"The 1994 ban outlawed the new manufacture and sale of specific named weapons, including the Colt AR-15, UZI and TEC-9, and high-capacity magazines and clips that held more than 10 bullets."

Old assault-weapons ban draws attention from Obama and others, but it was an imperfect law - The Washington Post
 
"The 1994 ban outlawed the new manufacture and sale of specific named weapons, including the Colt AR-15, UZI and TEC-9, and high-capacity magazines and clips that held more than 10 bullets."
Old assault-weapons ban draws attention from Obama and others, but it was an imperfect law - The Washington Post
And yet, AR-15s, and similar weapons, were sold as fast as they could be built. I, myself, legally, bought three.

How is that?

The gun manufacturers changed their designs to make them legal.
Please see:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/146518-those-support-reinstatement-1994-awb.html

So, it doesnt matter how long the ban would have been in place - the number of "those" guns would have increased based on market supply and demand.

Your claim that the previous ban wasn't long enough to significantly reduce the number of these guns out there is therefore unsound.
 
And yet, AR-15s, and similar weapons, were sold as fast as they could be built. I, myself, legally, bought three.

If you bought a Colt AR-15 during the ban, you bought it illegally.
 
I participated in a discussion. I NEVER agreed with you, and if I ever did it was PURELY sarcasm. Sorry but I don't agree with or respect anything that comes out of your silly intellectually dishonest pie hole, and if I ever do please get a gun and shoot me.

here it is for you

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/139998-abc-nightline-pushing-gun-issue-w-194-a-31.html

start on page 31

you provided a definition and we all agreed to use it. When you were boxed in by your own definition you tried to pretend it was a sinking ship and you tried to desert. I can see why you want to distance yourself from it . Your performance was the classic building your own gallows and then stepping into the noose and jumping hard on the trap door so it opened.
 
And yet, AR-15s, and similar weapons, were sold as fast as they could be built. I, myself, legally, bought three.

How is that?

The gun manufacturers changed their designs to make them legal.
Please see:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/146518-those-support-reinstatement-1994-awb.html

So, it doesnt matter how long the ban would have been in place - the number of "those" guns would have increased based on market supply and demand.

Your claim that the previous ban wasn't long enough to significantly reduce the number of these guns out there is therefore unsound.
Don't forget: the rifle used in the school shooting was 1994AWB compliant, even with the 30rnd mags.
 
....................

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

AR-15s were manufactured and sold quite legally throughout the entire term of the AWB; they simply didn't have the banned features. You don't know what the law banned and didn't ban; you don't know the criteria for banning, and continually posting a link to WaPo story doesn't change anything.
 
Dumb criminal breaks into a place with a dog.

Dumb homeowner thinks a dog will protect him from a criminal with a gun. If you survive you can write an editorial for your local paper about how dumb the guy was who shot your dog. The irony would be exquisite.
 
Back
Top Bottom