• 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
TurtleDude said:
I think he cannot get out of what he has said

1) all firearms are "protected equally under the second amendment"

2) we do not have a right under the second amendment to have the same civilian defensive weapons civilian police are issued for self defense

3) therefore no firearms are protected for civilians who are not servants of the local state or federal governments

there is no other possible explanation
Click to expand...

And notice that he ignores the logical bear trap he just stepped in with the lame, "That's your opinion, not my opinion." More dissembling -- how very surprising.
 
Ikari said:
Technology has certainly had a large impact. Government hold tremendous power (BTW, more reason to not trust it), they certainly are better able to defend themselves should the People wish a change. But it is still the right of the People to fight for that change, and it is not written in stone that the government will win. Our own troops have terrible times fighting low numbers of insurgents and they don't have a formal army, no tanks (in fact a formal army puts you in a worse situation with our military), etc.

People can succeed even against seemingly insurmountable odds, and we are owed the chance. It is our government and we have right to replace it should it be necessary.
Click to expand...

I do not suggest you trust the government. I suggest armed conflict is not the best, desirable or effective way to combat government today. Armed conflict is an antiquated idea that has limited effect today. And would last so long, cost so much, accomplish so little as to make it the least effective option.
 
haymarket said:
I have no idea what you are talking about and apparently neither do you since you quoted no such thing from me. I provided you with the names of many judicial experts who also subscribe to the same methodology of ORIGINALISM that I am employing in correctly describing the original meaning of the word INFRINGED.

Why are you attempting to employ the fallacy of ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM in a discussion about ideas?

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Great, so just show me an article by one of your fellow originalists who agrees with your interpretation of what the founders meant by infringed.
 
Federalist said:
And notice that he ignores the logical bear trap he just stepped in with the lame, "That's your opinion, not my opinion." More dissembling -- how very surprising.
Click to expand...

There is no way out-and you and cp have seen it as well. The only way one can say they support the second amendment and be consistent with the other positions is to also hold the rejected "states' rights" model which holds (and was destroyed by the Lautenberg amendment to the 68 GCA and later in Emerson and Heller and McDonald) that the second only applies to the several states and not individuals. Got to run but that is the only possible consistency available
 
cpwill said:
You stated that no class of weapons is more or less protected than any other, and that the government has the right to ban particular classes of weapons.

If the remaining classes of weapons are not protected more than those that were banned, what about the state move against the remaining classes causes it to suddenly become an infringement?
Click to expand...

You are making the same fundamental error that a previous poster made last night when discussing this same subject. NO class of weapons is protected as a class or type or group. I have clearly stated that if the government were to ban ALL weapons then that would clearly cause the Second Amendment to be INFRINGED and it would be unconstitutional.
 
Boo Radley said:
I do not suggest you trust the government. I suggest armed conflict is not the best, desirable or effective way to combat government today. Armed conflict is an antiquated idea that has limited effect today.
Click to expand...

:lamo yeah. so antiquated. That's why the Taliban is about to win in Afghanistan using the power of protest marches and posting really meaningful songs on Youtube :mrgreen:
 
Federalist said:
Great, so just show me an article by one of your fellow originalists who agrees with your interpretation of what the founders meant by infringed.
Click to expand...

Why is the employment of the fallacy of ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM so important to you?

Why do you refuse to consider the validity of an idea based on its merits alone?

That sort of approach by you seems terribly anti-intellectual.

I have not looked for anyone who either agrees with me or who may disagree with me. It means nothing to me and is irrelevant to the validity of the idea I have put forth.
 
haymarket said:
You are making the same fundamental error that a previous poster made last night when discussing this same subject. NO class of weapons is protected as a class or type or group. I have clearly stated that if the government were to ban ALL weapons then that would clearly cause the Second Amendment to be INFRINGED and it would be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Yes. What you have failed to do is depict a distinction between the bans that you find to be constitutional and the bans that you find to be unconstitutional that is consistent with this claim of yours. You have given no particular reason that why a ban on some classes of weapons would be legal but a ban on others would not.

If the government banned all guns except for nail guns, would that be Constitutional?
 
cpwill said:
:lamo yeah. so antiquated. That's why the Taliban is about to win in Afghanistan using the power of protest marches and posting really meaningful songs on Youtube :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Would you want to live there? Is that the future you would like to see for this country? Read what I said, the part you cut off (an attempt to mislead?):

And would last so long, cost so much, accomplish so little as to make it the least effective option.

And hell, they had a foreign invader and not merely overreacting gun owners.
 
cpwill said:
Really? Because as I recall when I quoted you the original meaning of the Founders you complained that you preferred Abraham Lincoln. Then I tried pointing out to you several points where the Founders had even written their meaning into law, and you claimed it was "just a piece of paper".


The Founders, it is worth noting, believed in the private ownership of artillery, and when the government tried to take theirs, they used it on them.
Click to expand...

The opinion of a Founder changes nothing that they wrote in the actual Constitution. It is still just an individual opinion.

My use of the Lincoln quote - "a government of the people, by the people and for the people" was simply used to show what type of government we do indeed have. It was not used or employed to support my view or my interpretation of any law or part of the Constitution.
 
haymarket said:
Why is the employment of the fallacy of ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM so important to you?

Why do you refuse to consider the validity of an idea based on its merits alone?
Click to expand...

I think that is rather the point. The point is found to be completely without merit, yet you insist on it. He is therefore demonstrating to you it's ineptitude by forcing you to come to grips with the fact that people who know what they are talking about and/or have the ability to remain logically consistent universally think the positions you have taken in this thread are unworthy of support.
 
haymarket said:
Why is the employment of the fallacy of ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM so important to you?

Why do you refuse to consider the validity of an idea based on its merits alone?

That sort of approach by you seems terribly anti-intellectual.

I have not looked for anyone who either agrees with me or who may disagree with me. It means nothing to me and is irrelevant to the validity of the idea I have put forth.
Click to expand...

Thank you for conceding that your interpretation is unsupported by any constitutional scholar.
 
cpwill said:
Yes. What you have failed to do is depict a distinction between the bans that you find to be constitutional and the bans that you find to be unconstitutional that is consistent with this claim of yours. You have given no particular reason that why a ban on some classes of weapons would be legal but a ban on others would not.

If the government banned all guns except for nail guns, would that be Constitutional?
Click to expand...

You are wrong. I have very clearly stated that if a ban resulted in eliminating all firearms that would clearly cause t he Second Amendment to be INFRINGED as the original meaning of the word clearly states.

As I understand it, a nail gun is not a traditional arm in the area of self defense nor is that its primary purpose and intended use. But please feel free to show where its primary use indeed is for that purpose.
 
Boo Radley said:
Would you want to live there? Is that the future you would like to see for this country? Read what I said, the part you cut off (an attempt to mislead?):

And would last so long, cost so much, accomplish so little as to make it the least effective option.

And hell, they had a foreign invader and not merely overreacting gun owners.
Click to expand...

Retaining sovereignty =/= accomplishing so little. I'd rather be poor and free than an upper middle class subject.



But "if ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams
 
Federalist said:
Thank you for conceding that your interpretation is unsupported by any constitutional scholar.
Click to expand...

I am NOT doing that. I have clearly told you the following:

Why is the employment of the fallacy of ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM so important to you?

Why do you refuse to consider the validity of an idea based on its merits alone?

That sort of approach by you seems terribly anti-intellectual.

I have not looked for anyone who either agrees with me or who may disagree with me. It means nothing to me and is irrelevant to the validity of the idea I have put forth.

So can you tell us why you refuse to consider the validity of an idea on its merits alone and insist upon using a fallacy to try to attack the idea since you are unable to do it on its own merits?
 
haymarket said:
You are wrong. I have very clearly stated that if a ban resulted in eliminating all firearms that would clearly cause t he Second Amendment to be INFRINGED as the original meaning of the word clearly states.
Click to expand...

You have done no such thing, and you continue to dodge the question about what causes it to suddenly become an infringement when the government is banning a class of weapons that is equally protected as those which it can legally ban.

As I understand it, a nail gun is not a traditional arm in the area of self defense nor is that its primary purpose and intended use. But please feel free to show where its primary use indeed is for that purpose.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment not being designed for self-defense, that would be irrelevant. However, now we are getting somewhere. Are you arguing that the government does not have the right to ban "a traditional arm in the area of self defense"? If so, how do you explain your sudden switch to a position where one class of weapons (traditional arms in the area of self defense) are now more protected than others (non traditional arms in areas other than self defense).?
 
cpwill said:
If the government banned all guns except for nail guns, would that be Constitutional?
Click to expand...
You will never get an honest answer to this question.
 
TurtleDude said:
I think he cannot get out of what he has said

1) all firearms are "protected equally under the second amendment"

2) we do not have a right under the second amendment to have the same civilian defensive weapons civilian police are issued for self defense

3) therefore no firearms are protected for civilians who are not servants of the local state or federal governments

there is no other possible explanation
Click to expand...

Where did I say that firearms are protected under the Second Amendment?

That is your serious error of misinterpretation. And thus all your attacks upon me fail because of your basic error in understanding what I actually said.

again, to help and assist you - here is my statement from the discussion yesterday that you continue to misinterpret

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.
Click to expand...
 
cpwill said:
Retaining sovereignty =/= accomplishing so little. I'd rather be poor and free than an upper middle class subject.



But "if ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
- Samuel Adams
Click to expand...

Did they? Which sovereignty? The one they had before we invaded? The one we placed in there? Or a new one?

And who said anything about giving up liberty? I said there are more effective ways, especially here.
 
Federalist said:
You will never get an honest answer to this question.
Click to expand...

Well, he's worked himself into a place where he is making mutually contradicting arguments, but he's too stubborn to admit it. :shrug: I suppose a bit of cognitive dissonance is required for him to justify taking the party line on this one.
 
Federalist said:
You will never get an honest answer to this question.
Click to expand...

You were proven wrong. Please see my response in 363 which preceded this statement of yours attacking me.
 
cpwill said:
Well, he's worked himself into a place where he is making mutually contradicting arguments, but he's too stubborn to admit it. :shrug: I suppose a bit of cognitive dissonance is required for him to justify taking the party line on this one.
Click to expand...

You only believe this because you and others are either not grasping the point I made or are intentionally misinterpreting it to purposely engage in intellectual fraud.
 
Boo Radley said:
Did they? Which sovereignty? The one they had before we invaded? The one we placed in there? Or a new one?

And who said anything about giving up liberty? I said there are more effective ways, especially here.
Click to expand...

Giving up liberty is the premise of the thread. If the government attempts to remove or seriously restrict your second amendment rights, then not only is your liberty reduced, but it has been done so forcibly, meaning that the government has attempted to seize sovereignty from the people. According to our theory of governance, this means that the government has initiated a state of war with the people, and the people have the right to defend themselves.
 
cpwill said:
Giving up liberty is the premise of the thread. If the government attempts to remove or seriously restrict your second amendment rights, then not only is your liberty reduced, but it has been done so forcibly, meaning that the government has attempted to seize sovereignty from the people. According to our theory of governance, this means that the government has initiated a state of war with the people, and the people have the right to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

What THEORY OF GOVERNANCE would that be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom