• 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
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.

Oh but you did engage in a false equivalency and that has been well established.
 
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.

that makes no sense. My second amendment rights were infringed 25 years before I was born with the 1934 NFA. and then with the 1968 GCA and then the 1986 Hughes Amendment and then with the Clinton AWB

and you have never told us what actions constitute an infringement

you have stated that we civilians are not entitled to own the same guns the police officers (CIVILIANS) are issued. you also said that all firearms have the same second amendment protection

the only way you can make both statements is to claim that the second amendment does not apply to most civilians or their rights
 
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.

Not if their military didn't revolt. No.
 
Oh but you did engage in a false equivalency and that has been well established.

Is this all you got? There was no false equivalency on my part, nor could you accurately quote it. If you care to engage the argument, let me know.
 
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

NO. The only consistency is that you are completely misinterpreting what I said and then making assumptions from that false interpretation which are wrong.

Again, here was my statement in answer to your question

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.

You are making an erroneous interpretation of it and then making false assumptions based on your erroneous interpretation. Go back and read what I said please.
 
Not if their military didn't revolt. No.

Well the military would split, as would ours, but you can't do much against 1/5 of the world's population. Well I suppose if you had equal 1/5; but the government does not.
 
Is this all you got? There was no false equivalency on my part, nor could you accurately quote it. If you care to engage the argument, let me know.

I already have done both.
 
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.

I highly doubt that Chinese citizens, if armed with your basic firearm, could restrain the Chinese military. The Chinese military would just completely overwhelm the citizenry.

That's why I found this whole "guns need to stand up again the US government and the military" type of talk a little silly.
 
NO. The only consistency is that you are completely misinterpreting what I said and then making assumptions from that false interpretation which are wrong.

Again, here was my statement in answer to your question



You are making an erroneous interpretation of it and then making false assumptions based on your erroneous interpretation. Go back and read what I said please.

I did and you said that civilians do not have the right to possess the same weapons that police do. so you believe that the police can own some weapons we cannot but you said all firearms are equally protected

ergo, if we don't have the right to own some firearms used by police we don't have the right to own any firearm under the second amendment
 
I highly doubt that Chinese citizens, if armed with your basic firearm, could restrain the Chinese military. The Chinese military would just completely overwhelm the citizenry.

That's why I found this whole "guns need to stand up again the US government and the military" type of talk a little silly.

surgical assassination and the imposition of terror against those who support the government is the proper resistance. Ever see "The Patriot". while its historically silly in some cases, there is some value in how to deal with a much bigger army on your own land
 
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.

Now that's interesting. You realize that, added to your argument that the government has the right to ban "military style" weapons, this means that in your opinion the Second Amendment means that the government can ban any and all weapons?
 
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.

Actually as members of the militia, they do.

10 USC 311: The Militia consists of all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States.

However, as I recall, you were a public school teacher, and so as I don't think that Howard Zinn covered that part, you can be excused for not knowing it.




However, the job of the soldiers and police, broadly, is to protect us from predators abroad and at home. When did I give up the right to protect myself against criminals?
 
Now that's interesting. You realize that, added to your argument that the government has the right to ban "military style" weapons, this means that in your opinion the Second Amendment means that the government can ban any and all weapons?

I laid that argument out in detail an hour or so ago. It is true, when he said we civilians do not have the right to even own police defensive weapons and when he also said all firearms have equal protection under the second amendment, the only logical conclusion is that he does not believe the second amendment actually protects the rights of individual civilians who are not employees of state or federal government
 
Actually as members of the militia, they do.

10 USC 311: The Militia consists of all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States.

However, as I recall, you were a public school teacher, and so as I don't think that Howard Zinn covered that part, you can be excused for not knowing it.




However, the job of the soldiers and police, broadly, is to protect us from predators abroad and at home. When did I give up the right to protect myself against criminals?

he confuses why police are ISSUED weapons and why the rest of us have to buy them vs us having the same right to BUY stuff that the police are ISSUED
 
I highly doubt that Chinese citizens, if armed with your basic firearm, could restrain the Chinese military. The Chinese military would just completely overwhelm the citizenry.

That's why I found this whole "guns need to stand up again the US government and the military" type of talk a little silly.

I don't know. They should be afforded the chance...and I wouldn't want to go up against that many people.
 
I laid that argument out in detail an hour or so ago. It is true, when he said we civilians do not have the right to even own police defensive weapons and when he also said all firearms have equal protection under the second amendment, the only logical conclusion is that he does not believe the second amendment actually protects the rights of individual civilians who are not employees of state or federal government


That is precisely correct.


I wonder what his response will be to having worked himself into that particularly ridiculous pretzel?
 
zstep18 said:
I highly doubt that Chinese citizens, if armed with your basic firearm, could restrain the Chinese military. The Chinese military would just completely overwhelm the citizenry.
I don't know. They should be afforded the chance...and I wouldn't want to go up against that many people.


Well, gosh. Afghani and Pakistani Taliban seem to mostly depend upon AK-47's, homemade explosives, and pieces of string. How are they doing?
 
MOre unabated idiocy. Of course you cannot see any objection. You want people disarmed.

claiming the NRA is the voice of the radical right is the sort of psychobabble your posts are famous for. The biggest argument against the NRA is that they don't take a strong enough position against the pimps in DC and their anti right idiocy

You're the type of person I would prefer to see banned from guns. You right wing radicals are the problem. Listen to yourself. I don't want to pay the US Military to defend your old family investments, and you take it for granted. You neocons like permanent war and its many investment opportunities. Someone might take away your 100 round clips and you squeal like wee pukkin' porkers. Gimme a break.
 
You're the type of person I would prefer to see banned from guns. You right wing radicals are the problem. Listen to yourself. I don't want to pay the US Military to defend your old family investments, and you take it for granted. You neocons like permanent war and its many investment opportunities. Someone might take away your 100 round clips and you squeal like wee pukkin' porkers. Gimme a break.

I have a great idea-try to ban my guns yourself. BTW there is no such thing as a 100 round clip. comments like that not only prove your comments are inane and silly but that you really don't know about guns at all

and I don't own any 100 round magazines. They are not legal in ohio, and they are extremely unreliable and make my AR 15 or M4 rifles far harder to carry

they only work if they are carefully maintained and used on a weapon that can shoot on full auto for sustained periods

(shooting a standard M4 in full auto 100 rounds in a row is not conducive for the service life of that weapon


your rant about paying the military is a howler. chances are you aren't paying for what you use let alone for what others use
 
That is precisely correct.


I wonder what his response will be to having worked himself into that particularly ridiculous pretzel?


it took a while but I could see the path he had prepared for himself and where it was leading.
 
Well, gosh. Afghani and Pakistani Taliban seem to mostly depend upon AK-47's, homemade explosives, and pieces of string. How are they doing?

As a matter of fact, we're pulling out of Afghanistan. Everybody pulls out of Afghanistan. Are you planning on declaring victiory? As far as I'm concerned we should have gatten OBL at Tora Bora and pulled out. A management fubar prevented that. A correction was made, OBL is now dead and it is time to leave. I would not declare victory. Than again, there are lots of natural resources in Afghanistan and nice pipeline routes. All the Afghanis need is those AK47s to do quite well. So is that all we need here? But not with 100 round clips.
 
As a matter of fact, we're pulling out of Afghanistan

Golly gee willickers, you mean the claim that armed, trained, civilians can generally stand toe-to-toe with an industrial military in an insurgency if they are able to retain the explicit consent or implicit noninterference of the populace?

Goodness Gracious, it seems all those folks who are arguing that the "oh well we could never stand up to the government anyway" are dead wrong.

Who could have known?


All the Afghanis need is those AK47s to do quite well. So is that all we need here? But not with 100 round clips.

Agreed. 100 round clips are stupid. Why, the rounds would fall right off, the whole dang thing would be impossibly unwieldy, you could never fire from the prone... That's why no one has ever built any. HOWEVER, the term is useful because it does highlight anyone in the gun debates who doesn't know what they are talking about :).
 
Well the military would split, as would ours, but you can't do much against 1/5 of the world's population. Well I suppose if you had equal 1/5; but the government does not.

Are you sure?

I think the point is being missed. Technology has changed the world. Traditional weapons are no longer the end all they once were. Those countries relying on weapons are seriously crappy places to live. This country is a great place to live, and bee hold the power to overthrow the government without a shot being fired. The "gun" way is much less I viable today.
 
Are you sure?

I think the point is being missed. Technology has changed the world. Traditional weapons are no longer the end all they once were. Those countries relying on weapons are seriously crappy places to live. This country is a great place to live, and bee hold the power to overthrow the government without a shot being fired. The "gun" way is much less I viable today.

Regretfully more true than you know.
 
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.

Why does the police officer have those weapons, what would he use them for, what is their purpose? They would use them as any law abiding civilian would use them, in self-defense against armed criminals. I did not say the police have them "because of the 2nd amendment" I said they have them to be on an equal footing with criminals. Is there a reason you think criminals should have an advantage in firepower?
 
Back
Top Bottom