• 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
Gimmesometruth said:
This is funny, you still are not aware of the discussion and you fail to understand that an AR-15 IS a "machine gun".
Click to expand...

Maybe he'd understand it better if it were actually true. It isn't. An AR-15 isn't even an "assault rifle", because it is semi-automatic without a burst-fire capability; it is a civilian model sporting rifle for use in hunting and target shooting. The M-16 is an assault rifle, because it is a small caliber rifle with burst-fire capability. The M-60 is a machine gun, because it is a fully automatic weapon that fires rifle ammunition.

The sheer ignorance of firearms and firearm terminology among gun control advocates is one of the main reasons that gun enthusiasts don't take their arguments seriously; quite frankly, it is obvious that they are talking about things that they do not possess the least bit of knowledge about and that they are not interested in becoming educated about. Under a rational government, this level of staggering ignorance would disqualify them from writing and passing laws about it.
 
Last edited:
H. Lee White said:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Click to expand...

You know that case was in regard to a handgun ban, right?

"Machine guns have been banned in this country for decades. Even as it found an individual right to gun ownership in the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court made the following observation: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," that it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever" and noted "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.' " That opinion wasn't written by some wild-eyed liberal - it was written by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia."

Read more: Feinstein presses for assault weapons ban - SFGate
 
SanderO said:
Why do advocates conclude that gun ownership is an INDIVIDUAL right?
Click to expand...

Because the 1st Amendment enumerates an individual right, along with the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments and because it is completely and utterly unnecessary for a government with an armed police force and standing military to assert that its right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because there is no agency capable of restricting its right to do so.

It's the only logical conclusion.

SanderO said:
How do they justify that this amendment was written in a completely different time and is likely outdated?
Click to expand...

Because outdated or not-- and I am firmly in the camp that it is not-- it is the law, and it is a part of the same body of law that protects every other human right and civil liberty that you hold dear. If the government is capable of overturning or violating the 2nd Amendment because it is "outdated", or because it is "necessary", then it is capable of doing so for the aforementioned 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments as well.

SanderO said:
Can this be interpreted to mean that the well regulated militia can own tanks, and fighter jets etc?
Click to expand...

It could be. Our Founding Fathers, at the time that it was written, would have interpreted it exactly that way as it was entirely legal for members of the militia-- such as ourselves-- to own artillery pieces and other purely military armaments. However, legally, the Supreme Court has ruled that for the purposes of "militia", the right for private citizens to keep and bear arms is limited to weapons in common infantry usage.

Which, of course, means that the current prohibition on automatic weapons is unconstitutional.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Maybe he'd understand it better if it were actually true. It isn't. An AR-15 isn't even an "assault rifle", because it is semi-automatic without a burst-fire capability; it is a civilian model sporting rifle for use in hunting and target shooting. The M-16 is an assault rifle, because it is a small caliber rifle with burst-fire capability. The M-60 is a machine gun, because it is a fully automatic weapon that fires rifle ammunition.

The sheer ignorance of firearms and firearm terminology among gun control advocates is one of the main reasons that gun enthusiasts don't take their arguments seriously; quite frankly, it is obvious that they are talking about things that they do not possess the least bit of knowledge about and that they are not interested in becoming educated about. Under a rational government, this level of staggering ignorance would disqualify them from writing and passing laws about it.
Click to expand...

one of the best posts yet on this subject

and the reason why ignorance permeates their posts is that hassling honest gun owners is their goal, not fashioning a serious attempt to limit the actions of people who ignore capital murder charges when they perpetrate mass murder
 
TurtleDude said:
one of the best posts yet on this subject
and the reason why ignorance permeates their posts is that hassling honest gun owners is their goal, not fashioning a serious attempt to limit the actions of people who ignore capital murder charges when they perpetrate mass murder
Click to expand...
They gleefully wake each morning, hoping to hear about another Newton shooting, so they can further push their mindless agenda.
Pathetic.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Maybe he'd understand it better if it were actually true. It isn't. An AR-15 isn't even an "assault rifle", because it is semi-automatic without a burst-fire capability; it is a civilian model sporting rifle for use in hunting and target shooting. The M-16 is an assault rifle, because it is a small caliber rifle with burst-fire capability. The M-60 is a machine gun, because it is a fully automatic weapon that fires rifle ammunition.

The sheer ignorance of firearms and firearm terminology among gun control advocates is one of the main reasons that gun enthusiasts don't take their arguments seriously; quite frankly, it is obvious that they are talking about things that they do not possess the least bit of knowledge about and that they are not interested in becoming educated about. Under a rational government, this level of staggering ignorance would disqualify them from writing and passing laws about it.
Click to expand...

If I could make the 2nd paragraph my sig, I would.
 
H. Lee White said:
They gleefully wake each morning, hoping to hear about another Newton shooting, so they can further push their mindless agenda.
Pathetic.
Click to expand...

the blood of innocents is the fuel that propels the anti gun jihad
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Maybe he'd understand it better if it were actually true. It isn't. An AR-15 isn't even an "assault rifle", because it is semi-automatic without a burst-fire capability; it is a civilian model sporting rifle for use in hunting and target shooting. The M-16 is an assault rifle, because it is a small caliber rifle with burst-fire capability. The M-60 is a machine gun, because it is a fully automatic weapon that fires rifle ammunition.

The sheer ignorance of firearms and firearm terminology among gun control advocates is one of the main reasons that gun enthusiasts don't take their arguments seriously; quite frankly, it is obvious that they are talking about things that they do not possess the least bit of knowledge about and that they are not interested in becoming educated about. Under a rational government, this level of staggering ignorance would disqualify them from writing and passing laws about it.
Click to expand...
Ironic that you talk about ignorance, since on the one hand the discussion involved 1st generation AR-15's, which I am sure with your vast knowledge of all and everything realize that they were fully auto and are owned privately.....along with the knowledge that anyone with a $10.00 manual, a jig, some basic tools and a few legal parts can convert a modern AR-15 to fully automatic. Heck, you can even install a slide-fire stock and go the low-tech path to "full auto" conversion.

But...I'm sure you knew all that anyway.....being super knowledgeable and all.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
It could be. Our Founding Fathers, at the time that it was written, would have interpreted it exactly that way as it was entirely legal for members of the militia-- such as ourselves-- to own artillery pieces and other purely military armaments. However, legally, the Supreme Court has ruled that for the purposes of "militia", the right for private citizens to keep and bear arms is limited to weapons in common infantry usage.

Which, of course, means that the current prohibition on automatic weapons is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
LOL....and you are a Constitutional lawyer too!

Funny how the SC has never supported that view....but then you are omniscient.

Guess how many fingers I'm holding up.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Ironic that you talk about ignorance, since on the one hand the discussion involved 1st generation AR-15's, which I am sure with your vast knowledge of all and everything realize that they were fully auto and are owned privately.....along with the knowledge that anyone with a $10.00 manual, a jig, some basic tools and a few legal parts can convert a modern AR-15 to fully automatic. Heck, you can even install a slide-fire stock and go the low-tech path to "full auto" conversion.

But...I'm sure you knew all that anyway.....being super knowledgeable and all.
Click to expand...

idiocy alert, you had to have a class three tax stamp to own real m16s. I won't get into whether Gene Stoner's first prototypes at the division known as armalite were available to the public prior to the USAF (the first government buyer) ordering them and the weapon getting the M16 terminology.

and guess what, those who have the ability to convert a AR 15 (which is much harder than the hysterics claim plus its a ten year federal felony) to fully automatic safely (you can put an extended firing pin in and it makes the weapon and uncontrollable pseudo open bolt weapon that often blows the bolt out the side or causes the case to rupture for reasons I won't bore you with) have the ability to build machine guns. Ever heard of a sten gun or a M2 grease gun? ever heard of a bridgeport lathe? well my late father knew how to run a machine shop and when he was at sea in WWII they came up with some pretty effective SMGs in the battleship's machine shop.
 
TurtleDude said:
ever heard of a bridgeport lathe? well my late father knew how to run a machine shop and when he was at sea in WWII they came up with some pretty effective SMGs in the battleship's machine shop.
Click to expand...
Uh...my point exactly. The coversion is not rocket science.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
Ironic that you talk about ignorance, since on the one hand the discussion involved 1st generation AR-15's, which I am sure with your vast knowledge of all and everything realize that they were fully auto…
Click to expand...

Sometimes, it seems there just aren't enough of these available: :failpail:
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Uh...my point exactly. This is not rocket science.
Click to expand...

yeah what it shows is that someone who is willing to kill people isn't going to worry about getting busted for an illegally made machine gun

people who would never think of making an illegal machine gun are generally those of us who don't shoot up schools or banks

its already highly illegal to USE a machine gun in any way that harms another
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah what it shows is that someone who is willing to kill people isn't going to worry about getting busted for an illegally made machine gun

people who would never think of making an illegal machine gun are generally those of us who don't shoot up schools or banks

its already highly illegal to USE a machine gun in any way that harms another
Click to expand...
No kidding....but that wasn't the point.

And what is really funny is how you seem to now make argument about the difficulty of access....when previously you were arguing for the legal right to possess said weapons.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No kidding....but that wasn't the point.

And what is really funny is how you seem to now make argument about the difficulty of access....when previously you were arguing for the legal right to possess said weapons.
Click to expand...

I have been saying the same thing long before you showed up here-we can debate all day if the second amendment recognizes a right to possess individually deployable weapons that are issued to groups rather than individuals such as mortars or LAWS or strelas but there is not doubt that civilian police weapons which are only to be used for defense of self or others against violent attack, are protected by the amendment for all citizens.

and since cops use select fire carbines and SMGs we too should be able to get them without significant hassles

now crew served HMGS-different story since that is not an individually issued weapon that is common to almost all members of the military though I am hard pressed to find where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was properly delegated the power to regulate a weapon that when used, does not normally have interstate or international implications
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Because the 1st Amendment enumerates an individual right, along with the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments and because it is completely and utterly unnecessary for a government with an armed police force and standing military to assert that its right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because there is no agency capable of restricting its right to do so.

It's the only logical conclusion.



Because outdated or not-- and I am firmly in the camp that it is not-- it is the law, and it is a part of the same body of law that protects every other human right and civil liberty that you hold dear. If the government is capable of overturning or violating the 2nd Amendment because it is "outdated", or because it is "necessary", then it is capable of doing so for the aforementioned 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments as well.



It could be. Our Founding Fathers, at the time that it was written, would have interpreted it exactly that way as it was entirely legal for members of the militia-- such as ourselves-- to own artillery pieces and other purely military armaments. However, legally, the Supreme Court has ruled that for the purposes of "militia", the right for private citizens to keep and bear arms is limited to weapons in common infantry usage.

Which, of course, means that the current prohibition on automatic weapons is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
I think if congress declares formal war for homeland defense then well regulated militias subservient to each city of residence should be able to defend with such stuff. 1 person per group with a video camera may even count as well regulated as long as it doesn't appear to be hiding anything.
 
Update from Jon Adler, national president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association:

Dec 24 - Gun safety advocates ready for action
The Connecticut tragedy brings to light proposals to reduce gun deaths that are years in the making.

"Adler, national president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, had a list of policy changes -- from legislative to regulatory to "tactical" coordination -- at the ready, in detail. He cited, chapter and verse, the law that makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly possess a firearm in a school zone. He wanted that upgraded to a felony."


One option to strengthen background checks could be to close the so-called gun show loophole, which exempts buyers who purchase firearms from non-licensed sellers, often at gun shows, from going through a check.

"Individual-to-individual sale is for all intents and purposes not covered under federal law," said Jim Kessler, co-founder of Third Way, a moderate Democratic think tank. Kessler said Congress should act to encourage all gun sellers to transfer weapons responsibly, or face legal consequences.

"If you're selling a gun to somebody without a background check and that gun is later used by that person in a crime, you're more liable in our view than the bartender who is selling more drinks to a drunk person and handing them keys to their car," Kessler said."


"Coming from the Thursday meeting with Biden, Adler said he was encouraged that the administration's efforts were not "couched around the simple premise of reinstating the assault ban."

Gun safety advocates ready for action | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram
 
Catawba said:
Update from Jon Adler, national president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association:

Dec 24 - Gun safety advocates ready for action
The Connecticut tragedy brings to light proposals to reduce gun deaths that are years in the making.

"Adler, national president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, had a list of policy changes -- from legislative to regulatory to "tactical" coordination -- at the ready, in detail. He cited, chapter and verse, the law that makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly possess a firearm in a school zone. He wanted that upgraded to a felony."
Click to expand...

It was already illegal in a gun free zone, threatening a mass shooter with a harsher penalty for possession as he is going on a shooting spree? :lol:

Great idea, maybe next they'll try making it illegal to break the law, maybe that will work. :roll:

Oh the naivety...
 
Lachean said:
It was already illegal in a gun free zone, threatening a mass shooter with a harsher penalty for possession as he is going on a shooting spree? :lol:

Great idea, maybe next they'll try making it illegal to break the law, maybe that will work. :roll:

Oh the naivety...
Click to expand...

I think think the most effective measure will be the one you chose to ignore in the report:

"One option to strengthen background checks could be to close the so-called gun show loophole, which exempts buyers who purchase firearms from non-licensed sellers, often at gun shows, from going through a check.

"Individual-to-individual sale is for all intents and purposes not covered under federal law," said Jim Kessler, co-founder of Third Way, a moderate Democratic think tank. Kessler said Congress should act to encourage all gun sellers to transfer weapons responsibly, or face legal consequences.

"If you're selling a gun to somebody without a background check and that gun is later used by that person in a crime, you're more liable in our view than the bartender who is selling more drinks to a drunk person and handing them keys to their car," Kessler said."
By Upholding Machine Gun Ban, High Court Makes Country Safer - Sun Sentinel
 
ChrisL said:
What about people who can't be honest with how they feel about an issue and constantly side track discussions with a lot of stupid distractions and arguments? That really does bother me.
Click to expand...


I see nobody who posts on this topic that is not taking a position. Perhaps you simply do not understand that position or are confused because it is different than yours? Positions that do not conform to traditional orthodoxy may be unsettling to those who follow the crowd.
 
haymarket said:
I see nobody who posts on this topic that is not taking a position. Perhaps you simply do not understand that position or are confused because it is different than yours? Positions that do not conform to traditional orthodoxy may be unsettling to those who follow the crowd.
Click to expand...

:shock: Seriously? I have YET to see a position taken by you. Why don't you spell out YOUR position on the Second Amendment and what exactly that "allows" us citizens?

You seem to think that you're fooling people, but you are actually only making a fool of yourself.
 
ChrisL said:
:shock: Seriously? I have YET to see a position taken by you. Why don't you spell out YOUR position on the Second Amendment and what exactly that "allows" us citizens?

You seem to think that you're fooling people, but you are actually only making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

I have repeatedly. I suspect that true believers only want to know one of two things: do you prostrate yourself before the same altar and worship the same gods as I do? Or not? Real life complications such as nuance of position escape them, confuse them, frustrate them and cause them to become angry. So when they cannot place someone in a neat little compartment that their limited mind can handle, they become irritable and attack what escapes their limited understanding.

It is sad but it is simply part of life.

My position on the Second Amendment has always been crystal clear. I am a strong supporter of the US Constitution and that includes the Second Amendment. You ask me what does it "allow US citizens"? I imagine many would object to the your use of the word allow. However, going with you in spirit, I would state does not allow anything specifically other than one important protection: it prevents the federal government from having your right to keep an bear arms INFRINGED by them.

As you well know because you participated in it, we have had an exhaustive and most thorough discussion about what that word means. And using authoritative sources from the era of the writing and adoption of the Amendment that are expert in the meaning and usage of words, I have provided you and the board with a very exact meaning of the word INFRINGED.

It means that the government cannot defeat, break, contravene or destroy your right.

That is what the second amendment "allows US citizens"..... as you put it.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
My position on the Second Amendment has always been crystal clear. I am a strong supporter of the US Constitution and that includes the Second Amendment. You ask me what does it "allow US citizens"? I imagine many would object to the your use of the word allow. However, going with you in spirit, I would state does not allow anything specifically other than one important protection: it prevents the federal government from having your right to keep an bear arms INFRINGED by them.

As you well know because you participated in it, we have had an exhaustive and most thorough discussion about what that word means. And using authoritative sources from the era of the writing and adoption of the Amendment that are expert in the meaning and usage of words, I have provided you and the board with a very exact meaning of the word INFRINGED.

It means that the government cannot defeat, break, contravene or destroy your right.

That is what the second amendment "allows US citizens"..... as you put it.
Click to expand...

or limit it, as is well supported by SCOTUS interpretations.
 
mac said:
or limit it, as is well supported by SCOTUS interpretations.
Click to expand...

Except it does not say that. And that sort of incrementalism is a development that is not at all reflected in the finality of the actual definition which applied at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom