• 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!

A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

Would this compromise be acceptable?

  • Yes. This isn’t perfect, but no compromise is.

    Votes: 11 14.7%

  • No. I don’t mind some compromise, but this still takes away too much.

    Votes: 10 13.3%

  • No. We should never compromise our gun rights.

    Votes: 49 65.3%

  • No. This still gives too many gun ownership privileges.

    Votes: 3 4.0%

  • I can hit a target 400 yards away with my eyes closed.

    Votes: 2 2.7%
  • Total voters
    75
Federalist said:
So you don't think that the people ought to be able to own the same weapons carried by police officers. Okay, so what firearms DO you think citizens ought to be allowed?
Click to expand...

There is not one word in the Second Amendment which states anything about owning comparable or same weapons as police officers. I do NOT make a judgment about what weapons people should have. Those decisions are made jointly by the citizen and by the duly elected representatives of the peoples government in accordance with the Constitution.
 
If they renew the assault weapons ban, it will grandfather in those that already exist. That is the only way the assault weapons ban could be passed, and at the same time a big part of what will make a new assault weapons ban ineffective.
 
haymarket said:
There is not one word in the Second Amendment which states anything about owning comparable or same weapons as police officers. I do NOT make a judgment about what weapons people should have. Those decisions are made jointly by the citizen and by the duly elected representatives of the peoples government in accordance with the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Police officers are not mentioned in the Constitution, let alone the 2nd Amendment. I do NOT make a judgment about police. I like this game.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Police officers are not mentioned in the Constitution, let alone the 2nd Amendment. I do NOT make a judgment about police. I like this game.
Click to expand...

Nor do they need to be since the carrying of a weapons by a police officer has nothing to do with the Second Amendment or the Constitution.

That is why these comparisons between what a civilian can carry and what a police officer has for use is pointless and irrelevant.
 
haymarket said:
If the government denies the citizenry the right to have firearms, then the right is violated. That has always been my position. That is still my position.
Click to expand...

but you have said owning one single shot rifle would mean you are enjoying your second amendment rights. at what point does magazine restrictions or number of weapons you can own become a violation?

it seems to me a clear bright line that makes sense is that if CIVILIAN police officers can use something OTHER Civilians should be able to own it
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Here's a compromise.

Give us the same weapons the government has access to, but keep explosives regulated.

There. Compromise.
Click to expand...

Excellent! I just love common sense. I'm in!
 
haymarket said:
There is not one word in the Second Amendment which states anything about owning comparable or same weapons as police officers. I do NOT make a judgment about what weapons people should have. Those decisions are made jointly by the citizen and by the duly elected representatives of the peoples government in accordance with the Constitution.
Click to expand...

true, the intent was that we have the same weapons individual infantry soldiers have. That is why having the same stuff cops have is a no brainer. we should have M16 and M4 rifles.
 
TurtleDude said:
but you have said owning one single shot rifle would mean you are enjoying your second amendment rights. at what point does magazine restrictions or number of weapons you can own become a violation?

it seems to me a clear bright line that makes sense is that if CIVILIAN police officers can use something OTHER Civilians should be able to own it
Click to expand...

Hah! Waiting for a response to this!!
 
TurtleDude said:
true, the intent was that we have the same weapons individual infantry soldiers have. That is why having the same stuff cops have is a no brainer. we should have M16 and M4 rifles.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment says no such thing.
 
SMTA said:
Hah! Waiting for a response to this!!
Click to expand...

what is it exactly that you feel is worthy of a response? It has already been well established that those using such an argument clearly do NOT understand that the role and duty of a police officer has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Police officers the world over carry weapons that citizens are not allowed to have regardless if those nations and people have a right to bear arms or not. The carrying of arms by police officers has nothing to do with the Second Amendment and it is thus irrelevant to the discussion.
 
haymarket said:
The Second Amendment says no such thing.
Click to expand...

Sure it does, indeed the Miller decision implies that. so tell us Haymarket-what is your opinion on what weapons are involved in our right to keep and bear them
 
SMTA said:
Heh - it does not say no either - fail.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. The Second Amendment - just like any other amendment - is only important for what it says.
 
TurtleDude said:
Sure it does, indeed the Miller decision implies that. so tell us Haymarket-what is your opinion on what weapons are involved in our right to keep and bear them
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment does not say that. Feel free to quote from it and show us the parts where it does.

Here it is in its complete and full glory with nothing edited, changed or omitted

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
 
SMTA said:
Heh - it does not say no either - fail.
Click to expand...

the incrementalists will never say where the line is breached because to the incrementalists the right diminshes every time another restriction is passed. its the leftwing ratchet of jurisprudence. In the 1920s no one questioned your right to buy a firearm by mail or own a tommy gun. Then in 1934, the most statist president in history (so far) decided to rape the second amendment. Then in 1968 another rape occurred and of course again in 1986 and then 1984. Look at NY-in response to a massacre involving someone who committed capital murder to get a weapon that held 30 rounds they are now banning the sale of anything that holds more than 7 rounds
 
TurtleDude said:
but you have said owning one single shot rifle would mean you are enjoying your second amendment rights. at what point does magazine restrictions or number of weapons you can own become a violation?

it seems to me a clear bright line that makes sense is that if CIVILIAN police officers can use something OTHER Civilians should be able to own it
Click to expand...

And so if CIVILIAN police officers have to undergo training to use weapons, then OTHER civilians should have to undergo similar training?
 
haymarket said:
The Second Amendment does not say that. Feel free to quote from it and show us the parts where it does.
Click to expand...

militia useful weapons was part of the decision. what is more useful than the standard infantry arm of the nation's armed forces?

I have clearly stated what weapons are clearly protected. I have clearly stated that some weapons are gray area-such as weapons that are in their nature like artillery but can be deployed by one individual. same with ordnance like grenades and rockets. You have yet to proffer a bright line test because I believe you want to generally whittle away at our rights and have a moveable definition that is based on incremental bans-just like your party does
 
spud_meister said:
And so if CIVILIAN police officers have to undergo training to use weapons, then OTHER civilians should have to undergo similar training?
Click to expand...

we do-to carry them on the streets of our cities like police officers do. as to stuff you keep in your home-no. Most CCW permit holders are safer and better shots than most cops. Anyone who trains both cops and non LEO civilians as I do will tell you that. and when you have people like me who are former olympic level shooters who have law degrees and years of experience in this area of the law-I am way way better trained than cops. I shoot every week. I have cleaned every police or LEO qualification test in my area including the County Sheriff's course and the Federal US Marshalls' Service (where I posted a "distinguished expert" rating-the highest available)
 
haymarket said:
Never heard of it. Could you please provide for us a record of such and the official listing of equipment that a member was expected to provide and bring with them?
Click to expand...

You've never heard of the minutemen? Or the battles at Lexington and Concord? I thought you were a history teacher.
 
TurtleDude said:
militia useful weapons was part of the decision. what is more useful than the standard infantry arm of the nation's armed forces?

I have clearly stated what weapons are clearly protected. I have clearly stated that some weapons are gray area-such as weapons that are in their nature like artillery but can be deployed by one individual. same with ordnance like grenades and rockets. You have yet to proffer a bright line test because I believe you want to generally whittle away at our rights and have a moveable definition that is based on incremental bans-just like your party does
Click to expand...

thank you for making it clear that you cannot cite anything in the actual Second Amendment which supports your view about any supposed right of citizens to have comparable firearms as police officers.
 
haymarket said:
There is not one word in the Second Amendment which states anything about owning comparable or same weapons as police officers. I do NOT make a judgment about what weapons people should have.
Click to expand...
Then why are you arguing with Turtledude, telling him that he shouldn't have the same weapons as a police officer? You certainly seem to be making a judgement.
 
Federalist said:
You've never heard of the minutemen, or the battles at Lexington and Concord? I thought you were a history teacher.
Click to expand...

The events you mention predate the US Constitution and the Second Amendment. As a history teacher, I knew that. And now you do also. :)
 
haymarket said:
thank you for making it clear that you cannot cite anything in the actual Second Amendment which supports your view about any supposed right of citizens to have comparable firearms as police officers.
Click to expand...

and you won't even tell us what weapons are protected.

do you think the weapons civilian police officers are issued are of a lower level of offensive capability than what say my nephew-a captain in the Green Beret used in his patrols in Afghanistan and Iraq?

what is the purpose of a police issued weapon

what is the purpose of the second amendment

its really not so tough a question
 
Federalist said:
Then why are you arguing with Turtledude, telling him that he shouldn't have the same weapons as a police officer? You certainly seem to be making a judgement.
Click to expand...

the incrementalist attack on the second amendment requires its adherents never to say where the line is crossed because the line changes every time they achieve another infringement of our rights

got to run

BBL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom