• 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
OhIsee.Then said:
I was wondering what a "well regulated militia" was when the amendment was written.
Click to expand...
Given that the right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the constitution, belongs to the people, it is largely irrelevant.
 
haymarket said:
And if you look in dictionaries of the day you will find out that the word INFRINGE does NOT mean what the NRA and gun culture believe it means today.

Home :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

Webster's 1828 dictionary




In the day of the era of the Constitution , INFRINGE meant to break of contravene or destroy . As long as the government does NOT do that, you still have your right to keep and bear arms and it is not being INFRINGED.
Click to expand...

You sorta ignored that word HINDER.
 
haymarket said:
It is sad and pathetic that one cannot simply accept that there are legitimate differences in a question of public policy without having to resort to intentional and fraudulent deliberate distortion of a persons position not to mention silly name calling.
Click to expand...

That being said, just what is (we all know, quite well, what is not) your desired public policy on civilian gun ownership and carrying procedures/rules/laws?
 
dirtpoorchris said:
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.)
Click to expand...
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).
 
OhIsee.Then said:
I was wondering what a "well regulated militia" was when the amendment was written.
Click to expand...
Well regulated meant well trained. It meant being able to hit what one intended to. Militia? That was just a bunch of guys getting together to parade a bit and drink beer.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
I was wondering what a "well regulated militia" was when the amendment was written.
Click to expand...

Private citizens with their own weapons and the training to use them. Legally, the militia is still defined as any free man aged 18-45 that is capable of wielding a rifle in national defense-- it just isn't "well-regulated" because less than half of the militia owns appropriate weaponry and much less than half is adequately trained in militia tactics.

As a matter of national defense, this is something I believe the government has a compelling and vested interest in correcting.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
The M16 (officially Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16) is the United States military designation for the AR-15 rifle adapted for semi-automatic, three-round burst and full-automatic fire.
Click to expand...

But there IS a difference right? Not the same gun. At least that is how I feel. Feel free to differ, but honestly...the design may be the same...but the internal parts make the difference.

Kind of like a car...the same truck or car can have a 6 or 8 cylinder, but that hardly means that the 6 and 8 cylinder are capable of the same things. Economics vs horsepower. Semi vs auto? Economic vs horsepower lol(I you buy your own ammo anyway).
 
stonewall50 said:
But there IS a difference right? Not the same gun. At least that is how I feel. Feel free to differ, but honestly...the design may be the same...but the internal parts make the difference.

Kind of like a car...the same truck or car can have a 6 or 8 cylinder, but that hardly means that the 6 and 8 cylinder are capable of the same things. Economics vs horsepower. Semi vs auto? Economic vs horsepower lol(I you buy your own ammo anyway).
Click to expand...
I don't know why you keep on not understanding that the AR-15 was the basis for the M-16....and if you are going to say that developed variations of the weapon make it a Ford and not a Chevy, you are just relying far too much on feelings and not on knowledge.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't think so. If you have anything present it. I'll do a search once I get to my computer. Some are planned, but not most.
Click to expand...

No, there's usually a fair bit of planning involved in these mass murders.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I don't know why you keep on not understanding that the AR-15 was the basis for the M-16....and if you are going to say that developed variations of the weapon make it a Ford and not a Chevy, you are just relying far too much on feelings and not on knowledge.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect. The M-16 is the original weapon, the AR-15 is a civilianized version that came later.
 
haymarket said:
And if you look in dictionaries of the day you will find out that the word INFRINGE does NOT mean what the NRA and gun culture believe it means today.

Home :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

Webster's 1828 dictionary




In the day of the era of the Constitution , INFRINGE meant to break of contravene or destroy . As long as the government does NOT do that, you still have your right to keep and bear arms and it is not being INFRINGED.
Click to expand...

#2 kinda renders your take on this inaccurate.
 
stonewall50 said:
But there IS a difference right? Not the same gun.
Click to expand...
The original design for thje M16 was designated AR-15 by its designer.
When the military adopted it, it became the M16.

At some point, Colt decided to develop a civilan version of the M16 and called it the AR-15; about a zillion ther manufacturers followed suit.

The original AR-15 is not the same rifle as the M16 or the current AR-15.
The M16 is not the same rifle as the current AR-15.

Any argument that relates the AR-15, the M16 or the AR-15 as 'the same weapon' is inherently unsound, because they are not.
 
mac said:
That's incorrect. The M-16 is the original weapon, the AR-15 is a civilianized version that came later.
Click to expand...
FFS....you guys are such experts...



The AR-15 is based on the 7.62 mm AR-10, designed by Eugene Stoner, Robert Fremont, and L. James Sullivan of the Fairchild ArmaLite corporation.[9] The AR-15 was developed as a lighter, 5.56 mm version of the AR-10. The "AR" in AR-15 comes from the ArmaLite name. ArmaLite's AR-1, AR-5, and some subsequent models were bolt action rifles, the AR-7 a semiautomatic survival rifle and there are shotguns and pistols whose model numbers include the "AR" prefix.[9]


ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt in 1959. After a tour by Colt of the Far East, the first sale of AR-15s was made to Malaysia on September 30, 1959, with Colt's manufacture of their first 300 AR-15s in December 1959.[10] Colt marketed the AR-15 rifle to various military services around the world, including the U.S. Navy, Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps. The AR-15 was eventually adopted by the United States military under the designation M16.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Except...this doesn't apply to non-militia members.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. It says "of the people" that phrase is used throughout the Constitution and clearly means the citizens of the US having nothing to do with their participation in a militia.
 
mac said:
Incorrect. It says "of the people" that phrase is used throughout the Constitution and clearly means the citizens of the US having nothing to do with their participation in a militia.
Click to expand...
This is the historically, legally, and constitutionally correct interpretation.
 
mac said:
Incorrect. It says "of the people" that phrase is used throughout the Constitution and clearly means the citizens of the US having nothing to do with their participation in a militia.
Click to expand...
I posted the court findings of cases involving the 2nd Amd. focusing on whether it grants a right to citizens possessing govt weaponry. It doesn't, your argument that citizens have a right to police weaponry is not supported.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
FFS....you guys are such experts...



The AR-15 is based on the 7.62 mm AR-10, designed by Eugene Stoner, Robert Fremont, and L. James Sullivan of the Fairchild ArmaLite corporation.[9] The AR-15 was developed as a lighter, 5.56 mm version of the AR-10. The "AR" in AR-15 comes from the ArmaLite name. ArmaLite's AR-1, AR-5, and some subsequent models were bolt action rifles, the AR-7 a semiautomatic survival rifle and there are shotguns and pistols whose model numbers include the "AR" prefix.[9]


ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt in 1959. After a tour by Colt of the Far East, the first sale of AR-15s was made to Malaysia on September 30, 1959, with Colt's manufacture of their first 300 AR-15s in December 1959.[10] Colt marketed the AR-15 rifle to various military services around the world, including the U.S. Navy, Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps. The AR-15 was eventually adopted by the United States military under the designation M16.
Click to expand...

Well, regardless...the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle no different than the Ruger Mini-14 in capability.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I posted the court findings of cases involving the 2nd Amd. focusing on whether it grants a right to citizens possessing govt weaponry. It doesn't, your argument that citizens have a right to police weaponry is not supported.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they have a right to police weaponry. I did say that is what the founders intended since it was their intent to arm the people against their own govt.
 
mac said:
Well, regardless...the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle no different than the Ruger Mini-14 in capability.
Click to expand...
Straw, I wasn't discussing anything other than the relationship between the AR-15 and the M-16.
 
mac said:
I didn't say they have a right to police weaponry. I did say that is what the founders intended since it was their intent to arm the people against their own govt.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely losing track of the argument you were part of.



haymarket said:
Oh but I think that is exactly the issue. You are not a cop. To pretend that the standards and equipment needs that apply to them as professional police officers apply to civilians is simply not a solid argument.

That is a difference and I suspect most people recognize that difference. You are NOT fighting criminals the way police are. You are NOT in the same environment they are as officers performing their duties.
Click to expand...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Straw, I wasn't discussing anything other than the relationship between the AR-15 and the M-16.
Click to expand...

Good for you. Regarldess, it is no more an assault weapon than the Ruger mini 14 due to it's semi-auto only firing.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are absolutely losing track of the argument you were part of.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I've never argued for the general population to be able to have select fire weapons, regardless of the founders intent.
 
mac said:
Good for you. Regarldess, it is no more an assault weapon than the Ruger mini 14 due to it's semi-auto only firing.
Click to expand...
Further straw and more evidence that you just refuse to follow along with the conversation I was involved in.
 
stonewall50 said:
Really? They wanted the populace to be able to be armed. Would you agree?
Click to expand...

For a specific reason, yes. That's the problem, you ignore the reason *WHY* they wanted it done. You entirely ignore the whole first half of the second amendment because it doesn't make any sense anymore, you just take the second half out of context and thing you've made an intelligent point.

You're wrong.
 
mac said:
No, I'm not. I've never argued for the general population to be able to have select fire weapons, regardless of the founders intent.
Click to expand...
Again, you are still off the track, in the weeds, going red-line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom