• 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
I am simply attempting to do what I did for 33 years - teach about American government.

That's a nice story, but I don't believe you. Quite frankly, I don't think you're being honest. I have concluded that you do, in fact, want ordinary citizens prevented from possessing the same firearms as the police and the standing army.

I have come to this conclusion based upon many encounters with your dissembling, evasions, and your passive aggressive comments about firearms and gun owners. Couple this with the fact that you have never, ever made any statement supportive of the right of the people to possess such weapons. Coupled this with your incessant and dogged constitutional arguments for why the people have no right to own the same firearms as the police and standing army.

For some unknown reason, you prefer play coy and insist that you have no desire to strip your fellow man of his freedoms. I no longer buy your act. So just know that, unless and until you convince me otherwise, I am operating under the assumption that you are the same as all the other gun-grabbers out there who wish to whittle away at our freedoms until your ultimate goal of complete effective disarming is accomplished.

I know you will protest and keep up your act, but it's over. It ain't working any more.
 
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.

There is misunderstanding of the right, but I fear it is not upon my behalf. Limiting the tools of the militia undercuts the militia, and the militia is a necessity to a free state. Will there be an affect? No, not significant, nothing beyond probably 1.5 sigma at best. And yet with these insignificant, perchance imperceptible, "effects" we have those joyously jumping up and down for government force against the free exercise of rights. You will get no safety, all you will do is to enslave yourself further to the government as it isolates itself from the People. This is the natural course of unrestrained government.
 
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.

Police officers and soldiers who work for the government have the weapons they do as tools to do a specific job. You and I and other citizens DO NOT HAVE THOSE JOBS. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
 
That's a nice story, but I don't believe you. Quite frankly, I don't think you're being honest.

Whatever self imposed delusions you want to believe in are your own matter. Not mine.
 
Police officers and soldiers who work for the government have the weapons they do as tools to do a specific job. You and I and other citizens DO NOT HAVE THOSE JOBS. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

No, we do not have those jobs. I did not pretend that I did; please abstain from lying. It's just that one has nothing to do with the other. Yes, police are armed as much as government wants to arm them, they have job, blah blah blah. I have a job too, one that is far greater. Protecting and proliferating the freedom and posterity of the Republic. And for that, we require the militia, and because of that the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You keep wanting to somehow connect police with my rights; but the existence of the police as the armed division of the government set against the People does not alter my rights. So you can stop with that retarded argument.
 
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.


really-so why don't you tell us what sort of infringements you think are allowed. I am glad that you and I agree-a browning over and under shotgun and a Beretta AR 70 select fire true assault rifle should be treated the same.

somehow though, I believe that you think the government has the power to pretty much ban anything while I don't think the federal government has any proper power to regulate either except perhaps as to import duties since both are made in Europe
 
really-so why don't you tell us what sort of infringements you think are allowed.

According to him, so long as you're afforded a bullet, a nail, and hammer; your right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed upon.
 
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.
well see that is interesting-in your post above this one I quoted you said all firearms have the same level of protection and now you claim that individual citizens do not have the right to own the same stuff police use

which means you don't believe civilians have the right to own any firearm essentially since you have admitted each is protected at the same level


or what you mean is that the second amendment does not apply to individuals which probably is how you can claim to be a big supporter of the amendment-you merely interpret it not to apply to the vast majority of the citizens in the USA
 
According to him, so long as you're afforded a bullet, a nail, and hammer; your right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed upon.

well I think I just proved what he really believes. his two posts I have just immediately prior to this post quoted demonstrates that

1) all firearms have the same level of 2nd Amendment protection
2) that most civilians do NOT have the right to own the same weapons CIVILIAN police do

3) Ergo-the second amendment does not protect individual civilians at all no matter what type of gun they want to own

that is the only possible way to find consistency in his two posts combined with his many claims that he supports "the second amendment"

However, his interpretation of the second amendment is contrary to what 70% of the Public believes and that of which almost every constitutional scholar and 5 of the current USSC justices believe
 
well I think I just proved what he really believes. his two posts I have just immediately prior to this post quoted demonstrates that

1) all firearms have the same level of 2nd Amendment protection
2) that most civilians do NOT have the right to own the same weapons CIVILIAN police do

3) Ergo-the second amendment does not protect individual civilians at all no matter what type of gun they want to own

that is the only possible way to find consistency in his two posts combined with his many claims that he supports "the second amendment"

However, his interpretation of the second amendment is contrary to what 70% of the Public believes and that of which almost every constitutional scholar and 5 of the current USSC justices believe

None of which is logical. His positions are created on his own invented definitions and delusions, nothing rooted in the Constitution nor in rational argument. Cops have guns, that means you can't! Seriously...what sort of argument is that? Ridiculous, as if my rights, my innate and inalienable rights, are augmented by the existence of the police. Absurd.
 
According to him, so long as you're afforded a bullet, a nail, and hammer; your right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed upon.
Or a sword.
 
None of which is logical. His positions are created on his own invented definitions and delusions, nothing rooted in the Constitution nor in rational argument. Cops have guns, that means you can't! Seriously...what sort of argument is that? Ridiculous, as if my rights, my innate and inalienable rights, are augmented by the existence of the police. Absurd.

at least 4-5 people a day ask me what the limits should be as to what us civilians can own and I always say

AT LEAST the same stuff civilian cops are allowed to use. after we get to that place we can debate belt fed machine guns, automatic grenade launchers and a STRELA
 
Or a sword.

Exactly. Police have guns so if we're restricted to swords our right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed upon. I have absolutely no idea what sort of delusion and paranoia can lead one to such illogical conclusions.
 
Exactly. Police have guns so if we're restricted to swords our right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed upon. I have absolutely no idea what sort of delusion and paranoia can lead one to such illogical conclusions.

Authoritarians say the darndest things...when they are stamping on your face with their boot.
 
Would my Est-wing hand axe count? :lol:

You call that an ax?

This is an ax:

yhst-87491460501412_2238_80488656.jpg
 
Authoritarians say the darndest things...when they are stamping on your face with their boot.

Yes, but it hurts them too. We're all in this together. Keep the Republic or lose it, there is no try. If we lose it, we're all ****ed.
 
No, we do not have those jobs. I did not pretend that I did; please abstain from lying. It's just that one has nothing to do with the other. Yes, police are armed as much as government wants to arm them, they have job, blah blah blah. I have a job too, one that is far greater. Protecting and proliferating the freedom and posterity of the Republic. And for that, we require the militia, and because of that the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You keep wanting to somehow connect police with my rights; but the existence of the police as the armed division of the government set against the People does not alter my rights. So you can stop with that retarded argument.

I did not say you lied. I said you were engaging in being disingenuous because of your invoking of the fallacy of false equivalency.

And you have to rights to have comparable weapons with police officers so you have nothing to alter.
 
really-so why don't you tell us what sort of infringements you think are allowed. I am glad that you and I agree-a browning over and under shotgun and a Beretta AR 70 select fire true assault rifle should be treated the same.

somehow though, I believe that you think the government has the power to pretty much ban anything while I don't think the federal government has any proper power to regulate either except perhaps as to import duties since both are made in Europe

Your rights under the Second Amendment cannot be INFRINGED. That is clear and I have made that crystal clear over and over and over again. If the government creates a nation where the citizenry cannot have arms to keep and bear, then they have been INFRINGED.

I have explained this many many times.
 
I said you were engaging in being disingenuous because of your invoking of the fallacy of false equivalency.

Which I did not do, which is why it's a lie. At no point did I say the citizen had equal job to the police.
 
There is misunderstanding of the right, but I fear it is not upon my behalf. Limiting the tools of the militia undercuts the militia, and the militia is a necessity to a free state. Will there be an affect? No, not significant, nothing beyond probably 1.5 sigma at best. And yet with these insignificant, perchance imperceptible, "effects" we have those joyously jumping up and down for government force against the free exercise of rights. You will get no safety, all you will do is to enslave yourself further to the government as it isolates itself from the People. This is the natural course of unrestrained government.

I do not believe this was their intent. Nor do I believe today they would write the same amendment. Nor do I think you can restrain government today by use of weapons. Not here, not now. China for example could not be restrained by force. Countries we see degrading by using force have not restrained government, but destabilized life for all. Today, there needs to be a plan B.
 
well see that is interesting-in your post above this one I quoted you said all firearms have the same level of protection and now you claim that individual citizens do not have the right to own the same stuff police use

which means you don't believe civilians have the right to own any firearm essentially since you have admitted each is protected at the same level


or what you mean is that the second amendment does not apply to individuals which probably is how you can claim to be a big supporter of the amendment-you merely interpret it not to apply to the vast majority of the citizens in the USA

Go back and read again what you think you quoted from me. Compare it to what I actually said and NOT to what you think I was saying. You should then see the fundamental and serious error you are making.

I hope that helps.
 
China for example could not be restrained by force.

China has near 1/5 of the world's population. If they revolted, the government could not resist. If they had arms, they could easier defend their freedom.
 
Back
Top Bottom