• 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
If one considers the American war for independence to be ancient history, then yeah sure.

You do realize that it happened BEFORE the Constitution was written and adopted?

And you do also realize it happened before the Second Amendment was written?

So again, do you have recent examples of the militia being called up? And for those examples could you please include the list of items that each member was ordered to bring with them? Otherwise, your claim that people needs these weapons for possible militia call up is just engaging in fiction.
 
And you feel it necessary to point this out because...?

because it is an important part of the discussion here.

And now my turn ...... and you feel you have to ask these pointless questions to me because.......?
 
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?

Im not seeing a compromise there.
 
I feel the second amendment compromise has already happened.
Modern Full Automatic machine guns (made after 1986)and squad level weapons and above, are no longer
allowed to be owned by individuals.
The modern AR-15 is really no more than a light weight hunting rifle with a lot of accessory options.
Note: none of those options include a full auto function.
If the anti gun types want to ban all private gun ownership, our Constitution has an
amendment process.
Until the Constitution is amended, any infringement on any of the rights expressed in the Bill of
rights, is an infringement on the Bill of rights itself.
Our Government Officials do not get to pick and choose which of those rights will be infringed,
and which will not. They have sworn an oath to uphold the entire document, not just pieces.
 
Why would I give up my rights in a compromise? Sorry, but the idea doesn't make any sense to me.
 
You do realize that it happened BEFORE the Constitution was written and adopted?

And you do also realize it happened before the Second Amendment was written?

Yes, I know when the Battles of Lexington and Concord occurred.

So again, do you have recent examples of the militia being called up?

No.

And for those examples could you please include the list of items that each member was ordered to bring with them? Otherwise, your claim that people needs these weapons for possible militia call up is just engaging in fiction.

Hm, so the American people have needed to form themselves into militias before, but you somehow conclude that they never will have to ever do so again.

Are you sure you're a history teacher?
 
because it is an important part of the discussion here.

And it's important because...?

And now my turn ...... and you feel you have to ask these pointless questions to me because.......?

Because I'm trying to understand why it is you spend so much time arguing that citizens don't need to carry the same firearms as civilian police officers, yet continue to claim that you're not interested in the subject.
 
Yes, I know when the Battles of Lexington and Concord occurred.



No.



Hm, so the American people have needed to form themselves into militias before, but you somehow conclude that they never will have to ever do so again.

Are you sure you're a history teacher?

Thank you for admitting you have no examples of this being done with the USA under the Constitution.

And yes, we are still under the Constitution and not the Articles of Confederation as was the case in the time period you pointed out.

Consider yourself educated on this issue by a history teacher. ;):cool:

and for your information, there have indeed been militia bodies in action over the last 200 years. But I will leave it to you to discover them and explain their relevance to the 21st century and the issue of why you need certain firearms. It is only fair since that is your argument and not mine.
 
Last edited:
And it's important because...?



Because I'm trying to understand why it is you spend so much time arguing that citizens don't need to carry the same firearms as civilian police officers, yet continue to claim that you're not interested in the subject.

Could you please quote where I stated I was not interested in "the subject" (what ever that term may mean)?

I strongly suspect your "understanding" has nothing at all to do with these questions. But that is just my impression from repeated contact of this type in previous threads.
 
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.

This is the definition of infringed in the 1780's. I'm not sure why you repeatedly insist otherwise, except that it fits your own agenda.

From a complete dictionary of the English language, by Thomas Sheridan:

View attachment 67140882
 
Thank you for admitting you have no examples of this being done with the USA under the Constitution.

And yes, we are still under the Constitution and not the Articles of Confederation as was the case in the time period you pointed out.

Consider yourself educated on this issue by a history teacher.

And thank you for not attempting to deny the possibility that the people may need to form themselves into a militia in the future.
 
Could you please quote where I stated I was not interested in "the subject" (what ever that term may mean)?

My apologies for misunderstanding. So you ARE interested in the subject?
 
This is the definition of infringed in the 1780's. I'm not sure why you repeatedly insist otherwise, except that it fits your own agenda.

From a complete dictionary of the English language, by Thomas Sheridan:

View attachment 67140882

Exactly. The right must be destroyed or broken or violate or hindered to the extent that it is destroyed or broken. Just asI have been insisting all along and just like the 1828 Websters agrees with that has been posted here many times.

and here it is again.... please note that the hinder part is LITTLE USED and thus not nearly as important as the other more definitive descriptions.


infringe

INFRINGE, v.t. infrinj'. [L. infringo; in and frango,to break. See Break.]

1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.
3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]
 
And thank you for not attempting to deny the possibility that the people may need to form themselves into a militia in the future.

Nor do I deny the possibility of three inch flaming monkeys playing professional basketball under the surface of Uranus sometime in the future. I will not however formulate current public policy around that sort of speculation.
 
Exactly. The right must be destroyed or broken or violate or hindered to the extent that it is destroyed or broken. Just asI have been insisting all along and just like the 1828 Websters agrees with that has been posted here many times.

and here it is again.... please note that the hinder part is LITTLE USED and thus not nearly as important as the other more definitive descriptions.

Broken and destroyed are similar, but not the same thing. Infringment doesn't mean something is destroyed. it means its integrity is altered.
 
Broken and destroyed are similar, but not the same thing. Infringment doesn't mean something is destroyed. it means its integrity is altered.

In this case it means that you no longer can exercise the right.
 
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.

Which is how I read it. And quite frankly to read it ANY other way, including Turtledudes is a complete bastardization rendering the amendment absolutely meaningless. Its one of the reasons I dont support the NRA and think they are a bunch of ******s. All this started with the compromise on free speach. Its either free or its not. That includes yelling fire in a theature. You compromise on one right and then you compromise on all the rest.
 
In this case it means that you no longer can exercise the right.

"Shall not be infringed" implies that the 2nd was not to be altered, broken, destroyed, or otherwise touched. Of course it doesn't keep power-hungry politicians from doing whatever the hell they want, but they've already violated our rights. The problem is, too many people are too ignorant, or don't care (such as yourself) enough to fight to preserve it intact.
 
Exactly. The right must be destroyed or broken or violate or hindered to the extent that it is destroyed or broken. Just asI have been insisting all along and just like the 1828 Websters agrees with that has been posted here many times.

Where the **** did you get that from?

The text in the pic reads "To violate, to break laws or contracts, to destroy, to hinder"

So if the founders had written "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be violated/broken/destroyed/hindered" Other than being grammatically unsound, it would have the same meaning, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
"Shall not be infringed" implies that the 2nd was not to be altered, broken, destroyed, or otherwise touched. Of course it doesn't keep power-hungry politicians from doing whatever the hell they want, but they've already violated our rights. The problem is, too many people are too ignorant, or don't care (such as yourself) enough to fight to preserve it intact.

NO. It does not say that. Those were not the words used. There is nothing incremental about the word INFRINGED. It clearly means that the right must be negated so that you no longer have that right.

Ask yourself this simple question: if the broader meaning, if the more modern meaning, if the NRA endorsed meaning of INFRINGED is correct and has been correct and it cannot be "otherwise touched" as you put it - why then have we have laws for a very long time on almost every level which did indeed encroach upon, limit, and even outright deny the right to keep an bear arms on some folks in some situations and they have not been overruled by the Supreme Court?

If your broader and more modern view of the term embracing incremental encroachment was and is correct, nothing in American history supports that. Nothing.
 
Where the **** did you get that from?

The text in the pic reads "To violate, to break laws or contracts, to destroy, to hinder"

So if the founders had written "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be violated/broken/destroyed/hindered" Other than being grammatically unsound, it would have the same meaning, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you are exercising the right, then by its very nature you cannot have the right violated or broken or destroyed. One cannot have their right INFRINGED if one also is enjoying the same right. One cancels out the other. The existence of one precludes the existence of the other. Its like being pregnant: you either are or are not.
 
Again, what is this reference to "the subject"?

Whether it should be legal for citizens to possess the same firearms that are used by police officers.

You claim that you don't make a judgement about what weapons people should have, yet you argue incessantly with Turtledude specifically about that topic, telling him that it's absurd to think that an ordinary citizen should be allowed to carry such firearms. I'm sure you can imaging the confusion caused by such mixed signals.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom