• 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
Boo Radley said:
If you weren't so incredibly wrong, you might have a point. If you're this wrong about me, it is likely you are wrong about others.
Click to expand...

you can deny all you want. I have read just about every post you have made on guns including your constant dishonest claims that you really don't have a real position. That is BS based merely on what posts you "like" and your rather large output. But I have been dealing with anti gunners for almost 4 decades and your style and strategy is exactly what the brady thugs teach their advocates and propagandists


deny all you want-I know what is going on
 
TurtleDude said:
you can deny all you want. I have read just about every post you have made on guns including your constant dishonest claims that you really don't have a real position. That is BS based merely on what posts you "like" and your rather large output. But I have been dealing with anti gunners for almost 4 decades and your style and strategy is exactly what the brady thugs teach their advocates and propagandists


deny all you want-I know what is going on
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you're just not factually accurate. Do you visit conspiracy forums often?
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm sorry, but you're just not factually accurate. Do you visit conspiracy forums often?
Click to expand...

part of the incremental gun banner strategy is denying that banning guns is a goal

Josh Sugarmann of the VPC was booted out of the Brady organization because he admitted gun bans were what were desired
 
TurtleDude said:
part of the incremental gun banner strategy is denying that banning guns is a goal

Josh Sugarmann of the VPC was booted out of the Brady organization because he admitted gun bans were what were desired
Click to expand...

Is that the best you have? Again, there are laws, and leaders would be voted out if they banned guns and it would be over turned. You're overreacting here TD.
 
haymarket said:
All I have said is that there is no right under the Second Amendment for anyone to claim that they have a right to have the same level of weaponry as a police officer or soldier.
Click to expand...

How's that then? The BoR, including the 2nd amendment, are not limitations on THE PEOPLE, they are limitations upon the government. I have every expectation to the same level of weaponry as police or military as the government is not to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms.
 
Ikari said:
How's that then? The BoR, including the 2nd amendment, are not limitations on THE PEOPLE, they are limitations upon the government. I have every expectation to the same level of weaponry as police or military as the government is not to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Good luck with that. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Yeah, great comeback. Way to address anything under factual and rational argument. Haymarket made a completely stupid and invalid argument, I pointed out why it was wrong. The ever continuing battle to maintain freedom is necessary and as soon as people adopt the sick philosophy that the Constitution is a limit on the People, that the government is innate owner of sovereignty and may do as they like; it puts the struggle to maintain freedom in jeopardy.

Some people can live by the repercussions and responsibilities of freedom, others cower from it and seek protection from the very entity best able to steal their freedom. Rather foolish and shortsighted if you ask me.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah, great comeback. Way to address anything under factual and rational argument. Haymarket made a completely stupid and invalid argument, I pointed out why it was wrong. The ever continuing battle to maintain freedom is necessary and as soon as people adopt the sick philosophy that the Constitution is a limit on the People, that the government is innate owner of sovereignty and may do as they like; it puts the struggle to maintain freedom in jeopardy.

Some people can live by the repercussions and responsibilities of freedom, others cower from it and seek protection from the very entity best able to steal their freedom. Rather foolish and shortsighted if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I simply don't believe your view will the day. I thought that was a short hand way to say it. Nor do I believe there is anything foolish or shortsighted.
 
haymarket said:
That is why these comparisons between what a civilian can carry and what a police officer has for use is pointless and irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. Why does a police officer carry a semi-auto pistol with two magazines holding 16 rounds each and have an AR-15 style carbine in the trunk of his patrol car? The answer is to be on an equal footing with the criminal element in this country, the same criminals any law abiding citizen is equally exposed to. We have an inherent right to self-defense and trying to limit us to weapons inferior to that of the criminal element is in fact, infringing on our right to self-defense.

If I don't "Need" such firearms, there is no "Need" for the police force to have such firearms. If there is a need for the police to carry such arms the same holds true for any other civilian.
 
Boo Radley said:
I simply don't believe your view will the day. I thought that was a short hand way to say it. Nor do I believe there is anything foolish or shortsighted.
Click to expand...

There is plenty that is foolish and shortsighted, abdication of rights of temporary "safety" being amongst them.
 
cpwill said:
Yeah, does Washington's quote "Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master" mean anything to you?
Click to expand...

Interesting to be sure. I prefer Honest Abe.
 
Federalist said:
Yes, you've stated your opinion on this many times. I can only assume you continue to so doggedly do so because you want the law to prevent them from doing so and are backing up your wish with what you believe to be a constitutional justification.
Click to expand...

I am simply attempting to do what I did for 33 years - teach about American government.
 
TurtleDude said:
maybe if you would finally tell us what arms are PROTECTED we pro rights advocates could have a more meaningful conversation with you
Click to expand...

No class of arms is any more protected than any other. No specific model or usage of firearm is specially protected more than any other.
 
Ikari said:
How's that then? The BoR, including the 2nd amendment, are not limitations on THE PEOPLE, they are limitations upon the government. I have every expectation to the same level of weaponry as police or military as the government is not to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

What you want to do in the way of your own personal expectations is your business. You simply have no RIGHT to have that same level of weaponry however.
 
haymarket said:
What you want to do in the way of your own personal expectations is your business. You simply have no RIGHT to have that same level of weaponry however.
Click to expand...

You have no argument by which that is true.
 
Dammitboy! said:
I have to disagree. Why does a police officer carry a semi-auto pistol with two magazines holding 16 rounds each and have an AR-15 style carbine in the trunk of his patrol car? The answer is to be on an equal footing with the criminal element in this country, the same criminals any law abiding citizen is equally exposed to. We have an inherent right to self-defense and trying to limit us to weapons inferior to that of the criminal element is in fact, infringing on our right to self-defense.

If I don't "Need" such firearms, there is no "Need" for the police force to have such firearms. If there is a need for the police to carry such arms the same holds true for any other civilian.
Click to expand...

A police officer has weapons because of the performance of his duties as a professional law enforcement officer in the employ of the peoples government. It has nothing at all to do with any right under the Second Amendment. As such, your rights under the Second Amendment have not a darn thing to do with that reality of being a police officer.
 
Ikari said:
You have no argument by which that is true.
Click to expand...

A police officer does NOT have the weapons they due because of the Second Amendment. As such, to claim that the Second Amendment affords you to you the same level of weaponry is ridiculous and without foundation. It is simply NOT a Second Amendment issue in any way shape or form.
 
haymarket said:
A police officer does NOT have the weapons they due because of the Second Amendment. As such, to claim that the Second Amendment affords you to you the same level of weaponry is ridiculous and without foundation. It is simply NOT a Second Amendment issue in any way shape or form.
Click to expand...

Certainly not, but one has nothing to do with the other. Police officers have the weapons they have because the government says they should have them; but that has nothing to do with the second amendment which clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

As I said, you have no real argument, not one that stands to reason and logic anyway.
 
Ikari said:
Certainly not, but one has nothing to do with the other. Police officers have the weapons they have because the government says they should have them; but that has nothing to do with the second amendment which clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

As I said, you have no real argument, not one that stands to reason and logic anyway.
Click to expand...

You agree with me. Great.

My position is based on the actual wording of the SECOND AMENDMENT and what the word INFRINGED meant at the time of its writing. For your right to be infringed the government would have to create a situation where you are denied the right to keep and bear arms. It would have to be denied so as to be destroyed or negated. And telling you that you cannot have one item on a menu when the menu carries much else that you can have is not starving you.
 
haymarket said:
You agree with me. Great.

My position is based on the actual wording of the SECOND AMENDMENT and what the word INFRINGED meant at the time of its writing. For your right to be infringed the government would have to create a situation where you are denied the right to keep and bear arms. It would have to be denied so as to be destroyed or negated. And telling you that you cannot have one item on a menu when the menu carries much else that you can have is not starving you.
Click to expand...

Government force is elicited to prevent my from exercising the full of my right to keep and bear arms, yes.

People like you accept "free speech" zones and all sorts of infringements. "Well you can't print dissent against the government, but you can print agreements of the government; thus the right of freedom of press is preserved". It's a rather stupid argument in the end and has no basis in the Constitution, reason, or logic.
 
Ikari said:
Government force is elicited to prevent my from exercising the full of my right to keep and bear arms, yes.

People like you accept "free speech" zones and all sorts of infringements. "Well you can't print dissent against the government, but you can print agreements of the government; thus the right of freedom of press is preserved". It's a rather stupid argument in the end and has no basis in the Constitution, reason, or logic.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as your artificial creation of the fiction FULL EXERCISE. Either you can keep and bear arms or you cannot. Telling you you cannot have an item you want when you can have others to exercise your right is not a denial of your rights.

It is your argument that has no basis in the Constitution.

Or is it your position that the Second Amendment gives you the right to have any arm of any type that you want?
 
Justice Scalia has already stated that in his considered opinion, and he is heralded as the intellectual anchor of the 'conservative' wing in the Supreme Court, the 2nd A is not an unlimited right, that might mean a 5-4 opinion for new restrictions.

Good luck with the 'I get what cops get' effort. :peace
 
haymarket said:
Or is it your position that the Second Amendment gives you the right to have any arm of any type that you want?
Click to expand...

Ideally any type of arm allowed to the government. If you are uncomfortable with an individual having a particular armament, then government should not have it either.

Also, I'm creating no fiction. Government force, or outside force in general, is necessary to prevent the exercise of a right. Government force is used to limit one's right to keep and bear arms. There's no bones about it. That's just reality, measured and observed.
 
Ikari said:
There is plenty that is foolish and shortsighted, abdication of rights of temporary "safety" being amongst them.
Click to expand...

I kind of disagree with all of that. No rights are being abdicated. I think there is just a misunderstanding of the right. Nor do I believe that what little help it gives to safety is temporary. They will be a small effect, and it will be long term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom