• 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?


  • Total voters
    75
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.

Hate to point this out, but there's nothing there saying they can't, either.
 
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.

Touche...


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)

Yes, we know, and you cured AIDS with your free hand.
 
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.

I simply stated that there is nothing in the Second Amendment which states that a citizen can have the same weapons as a police officer. I further stated that the weapons carried by a police officer have nothing at all to do with the Second Amendment. Police officers do NOT carry the firearms they do because they have a Second Amendment right as a citizen to do so. They carry firearms because that is a necessary piece of equipment to performa and carry out their job. That is pretty much the rule the world over regardless of what rights a citizen may or may not have regarding firearms in a nation.
 
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

Your right is either INFRINGED or is NOT INFRINGED. It is an all or nothing proposition and is not incremental. You either have the right or you do not have the right.
 
The events you mention predate the US Constitution and the Second Amendment. As a history teacher, I knew that. And now you do also. :)

So what? That doesn't mean a militia will never be necessary in the future. And if people don't have militarily effective firearms, the call-up of such a militia would be impossible.
 
I simply stated that there is nothing in the Second Amendment which states that a citizen can have the same weapons as a police officer. I further stated that the weapons carried by a police officer have nothing at all to do with the Second Amendment. Police officers do NOT carry the firearms they do because they have a Second Amendment right as a citizen to do so. They carry firearms because that is a necessary piece of equipment to performa and carry out their job. That is pretty much the rule the world over regardless of what rights a citizen may or may not have regarding firearms in a nation.

I know what you stated. I'm asking you WHY you stated it.
 
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

I do not have the power nor authority to make a determination as to what firearms are protected by law. Nor do you. Only the duly elected representatives of the American people and the courts can do that.

NIKE had a good slogan some years back that applies here "why ask why?" It saves lots of brain cells from idle and pointless speculation that does not alter nor change reality.
 
Soap box--------> ballot box-------->cartridge box.

More an idiot saying. In today's world, a useless thought and not something rational people consider viable.
 
So what? That doesn't mean a militia will never be necessary in the future. And if people don't have militarily effective firearms, the call-up of such a militia would be impossible.

Again, I know nothing of this militia call up nor the rules that apply to such that you refer to under the era of the US Constitution. And you seem unable to point it out.
 
More an idiot saying. In today's world, a useless thought and not something rational people consider viable.

Obviously you have no respect or understanding of our country's origins.
 
Which is irrelevant because what it is NOT there does NOT give you anything.

Right, so what's in there then?

"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."

So you've got to have a high-fibre diet to keep your militia regular, and, of course, your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Therefore, the founding fathers gave carte blanc to every paranoid-schizophrenic to own and carry anti-personnel mines and SAW's. Now we get to Turtle's point, that that's a wee bit unreasonable, considering we humans have gotten quite efficient at projecting lead. So, therefore, despite the wording, infringement must occur, and Turtle likes to draw his arbitrary line at what police can use. Of course, some want the line arbitrary line in other places, hence all the arguing. But, going by what is there, there is no limitations at all.
 
Obviously you have no respect or understanding of our country's origins.

I have both. But I also understand all of history, including modern history. And I have not met one person spouting that nonsense who wasn't an idiot.
 
Again, I know nothing of this militia call up nor the rules that apply to such that you refer to under the era of the US Constitution. And you seem unable to point it out.

Point what out? That the people may need to form a militia? It would seem that this would be obvious to any student of history.
 
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

Such a thing would be no more acceptable than saying that the government should be able to limit you to only one political in nature public comment a year and it should be constitutional because it doesn't "[deny] the citizenry the the right to have [free speech]", it just restricts when, how much, and how said speech can occur.
 
If we are to renew the "assault weapons" ban, then let's grandfather it in. I.e., if someone legally owns an "assault weapon" before the ban takes effect, then they may keep that gun. Afterward, no such weapon may be legally purchased for civilian use.

Would this be acceptable or not?

No, to keep and bear arms is a right. That's all there is to it. It's a right. It's high time we start living by the responsibilities and repercussions of freedom.
 
If we are to renew the "assault weapons" ban, then let's grandfather it in. I.e., if someone legally owns an "assault weapon" before the ban takes effect, then they may keep that gun. Afterward, no such weapon may be legally purchased for civilian use.

Would this be acceptable or not?

That's not a compromise.
 
Such a thing would be no more acceptable than saying that the government should be able to limit you to only one political in nature public comment a year and it should be constitutional because it doesn't "[deny] the citizenry the the right to have [free speech]", it just restricts when, how much, and how said speech can occur.

What a perfect comparison.
Great job. :thumbs:
 
Right, so what's in there then?

"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."

So you've got to have a high-fibre diet to keep your militia regular, and, of course, your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Therefore, the founding fathers gave carte blanc to every paranoid-schizophrenic to own and carry anti-personnel mines and SAW's. Now we get to Turtle's point, that that's a wee bit unreasonable, considering we humans have gotten quite efficient at projecting lead. So, therefore, despite the wording, infringement must occur, and Turtle likes to draw his arbitrary line at what police can use. Of course, some want the line arbitrary line in other places, hence all the arguing. But, going by what is there, there is no limitations at all.

All one has to do is to then know the meaning of the word INFRINGED as it was used in the era of history at the time of the adoption of the Amendment to know that the Second Amendment is not at all what the gun lobby paints it to be.
 
Point what out? That the people may need to form a militia? It would seem that this would be obvious to any student of history.

ancient history more aptly.
 
And you point out this real world situation because...?

because of the ridiculous and fallacious comparison of citizens with the equipment necessary for the job performance and duty of police officers.
 
because of the ridiculous and fallacious comparison of citizens with the equipment necessary for the job performance and duty of police officers.

And you feel it necessary to point this out because...?
 
Back
Top Bottom