• 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
Why are you focusing on the trivial and the obscure which was clearly identified as LITTLE USED and ignoring the mainstream meaning which is far more definitive?

Every judge for the last 200 plus years who has ever upheld a law restricting guns agrees with my position that you can limit such things as long as you still allow people to keep and bear arms.

And that is a legion of scholars and judges.

Now your are being purposely deceptive about your position. Your position has been that as long as long as one is not disarmed by the government, then the government is obeying the 2nd amendment. This position of your relies upon your "odd" interpretation of the word infringed, and based upon this interpretation, the only prohibited infringement would be a complete ban on all arms.

This is a preposterous position that would allow a ban on all firearms except black powder muzzle loading flintlocks.

As I said before, I might give your ridiculous interpretation some passing consideration if you can provide any constitutional scholars who support this "anything but a complete ban is constitutional" line of thinking.
 
The sovereignty of the individual is one of the key fundamentals of our Republic style government. One cannot be so daft as to not understand what it means.

I have found from experience that the term can mean different things to different people depending where they are on the far right spectrum. It is always better to ask and get a definition than it is to assume.
 
I see, you have a failure to comprehend issue, since I posted nothing of the sort. Either that or you are being intellectually dishonest on purpose in a failed effort to discourage open discourse.

Surely you are not claiming the the Court did not rule that the 2nd amendment is an individual right to self-defense?

I never claimed otherwise.

I have no idea why you seek to attack me in your first sentence as I was clearly speaking about the material posted here regarding the false equivalency between police having weapons and the claimed rights of a citizen to have the same just because the police do.
 
Now your are being purposely deceptive about your position. Your position has been that as long as long as one is not disarmed by the government, then the government is obeying the 2nd amendment. This position of your relies upon your "odd" interpretation of the word infringed, and based upon this interpretation, the only prohibited infringement would be a complete ban on all arms.

This is a preposterous position that would allow a ban on all firearms except black powder muzzle loading flintlocks.

As I said before, I might give your ridiculous interpretation some passing consideration if you can provide any constitutional scholars who support this "anything but a complete ban is constitutional" line of thinking.

The position on flintlocks is YOUR position. It is not my position. Why do you insist on perverting, distorting and generally completely misrepresenting what I have stated instead of dealing with my actual words and positions?

It is not my fault that the wording of the Second Amendment is as it is. It is not my fault that the word INFRINGED meant what it meant according to mainstream popular usage at that time of American history.
 
The position on flintlocks is YOUR position. It is not my position. Why do you insist on perverting, distorting and generally completely misrepresenting what I have stated instead of dealing with my actual words and positions?

That most certainly is your position. Based upon your interpretation of the word infringed, you have said that as long as people are able to enjoy their right to keep and bear arms they are being protected by the 2nd amendment. A person who owns a black powder muzzle loading flintlock can be said to be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, according to your a ban on all other arms would still pass constitutional muster, since the people may still enjoy their right to keep and bear arms.

So now I'm going to ask you a question. It is a true/false question. I go on record as predicting that you will respond but provide no actual answer, but it will be instructive for the audience to see you respond anyway. Here's the question: "A ban on all weapons but muzzle loading black powder flintlocks is constitutional. True or false?"
 
Good, let's see if you can continue to be honest and straightforward.

Why do the police carry AR-15's and high capacity handguns? In your humble opinion, what is the need for such weapons?

I was a teacher for 33 years. I now work in the state legislature formulating policy and politics. I honestly do not have the knowledge nor the experience of a police officer to answer such a question. Perhaps a police officer would be the proper expert to pose these questions to.
 
That most certainly is your position.

No it is not. But feel free to provide the quote where I clearly stated that position about flintlocks. I look forward to it.

As the rest of your post is obviously based on a false premise about my position, it deserves no response despite your effort to play Prosecutor in the Starr Chamber.


My personal opinion is that the Supreme Court would never agree with your musket scheme as Constitutional. But again, I do not and cannot speak for them.
 
I was a teacher for 33 years. I now work in the state legislature formulating policy and politics. I honestly do not have the knowledge nor the experience of a police officer to answer such a question. Perhaps a police officer would be the proper expert to pose these questions to.

Ahh, back to deflection to avoid discourse. Just as I suspected, you have no wish to advance the discussion. Obfuscation is a pretty weak crutch, but I guess you need it having no real argument against reasonable self-defense. Not that I'd expect anything different from someone who "works" as a policy wonk. Thanks for getting out of teaching though.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right to self-defense. They also ruled that it is reasonable that the founders meant by "arms" any firearm in common use by the general public. The AR-15 rifle is the most commonly owned rifle in the United States.

Why do the police carry AR-15's? Police departments all across the country upgraded to the AR-15 when they decided that their use of shotguns as a patrol vehicle firearm left them outgunned in some cases when confronting criminals. This is the same reason the police upgraded from six shot revolvers to 16 shot Glock .40 caliber sidearms. In order to keep up with what criminals would most likely be using against the police officer.

So if the police see a realistic need to have AR-15's and Glock .40's to defend themselves against the criminal element, it seems reasonable and logical to expect that other civilians not in uniform would be prudent to defend themselves in the same manner against the same criminals they might come in contact with.

Please note: I'm not claiming police are mentioned in the 2nd amendment. I'm not claiming AR-15's are discussed in the 2nd. I'm also not mentioning Unicorns. I'm discussing self-defense which is covered by the 2nd and giving relevant examples of self-defense. I really don't expect you to become enlightened however, so please do continue being intellectually dishonest in as political a fashion as you like.
 
Ahh, back to deflection to avoid discourse. Just as I suspected, you have no wish to advance the discussion. Obfuscation is a pretty weak crutch, but I guess you need it having no real argument against reasonable self-defense. Not that I'd expect anything different from someone who "works" as a policy wonk. Thanks for getting out of teaching though.

You ask me for technical expertise that a police officer has and I inform you I posess no such knowledge.

Why are you attacking me for an honest answer?

Why are you thanking me for getting out of teaching?

You pontificate about "advancing the discussion" but your tone and statements here show that honesty on your part is in short supply.
 
You ask me for technical expertise that a police officer has and I inform you I posess no such knowledge.

I did no such thing. I asked you for your humble opinion about why the police carry such firearms. It's common knowledge and easily googled searched if you'd like to educate yourself. It's also fairly reasonable and logical to be able to comprehend why they carry such firearms. Are you saying you have neither the ability or desire to make any such deduction? Did your ability to use the cognitive thought process stop functioning when you stopped teaching?

Or are you just continuing to deflect without addressing the points I brought up? This is the obvious and most reasonable answer. No one is saying your opinion would be counted as technical expertise. lol
 
I did no such thing. I asked you for your humble opinion about why the police carry such firearms. It's common knowledge and easily googled searched if you'd like to educate yourself. It's also fairly reasonable and logical to be able to comprehend why they carry such firearms. Are you saying you have neither the ability or desire to make any such deduction? Did your ability to use the cognitive thought process stop functioning when you stopped teaching?

Or are you just continuing to deflect without addressing the points I brought up? This is the obvious and most reasonable answer. No one is saying your opinion would be counted as technical expertise. lol

I have no inside knowledge of the duties or job performance of a police officer regarding weapon needs and requirements.

Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

Am I suppose to take the same 'shoot from the lip and pontificate about crap you don't really know much about' that far too many others do to pretend to be knowledgable when they clearly are not? I consider that a vice and not a virtue and will not contribute to such nonsense.

There are many things I can speak with a firm base of knowledge and experience from. This technical area of police weaponry is not one of them.

Why is it here that some folks get extremely frustrated and become snarky with personal attacks when you state that you simply have nothing to say on a particular item in a discussion? Could it be that they felt they were laying some sort of trap and they became angry when it failed to spring as designed? I strongly suspect as much. But that is just my own humble opinion based on experience and knowledge.
 
Last edited:
No it is not. But feel free to provide the quote where I clearly stated that position about flintlocks. I look forward to it.

As the rest of your post is obviously based on a false premise about my position, it deserves no response despite your effort to play Prosecutor in the Starr Chamber.


My personal opinion is that the Supreme Court would never agree with your musket scheme as Constitutional. But again, I do not and cannot speak for them.

Once again, you evade, avoid, and dissemble.

You have put forth the argument that "to infringe" relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms means only to completely destroy the right, and that extensive "reasonable" regulations are legitimate and do not infringe the right.

Okay, so now, if we are to accept your assertion, we must conclude that it is constitutional to enact restrictions on gun ownership, just as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not destroyed. You have told us this yourself.

Therefore, based upon your requirement, a restriction banning all other guns but black powder, muzzle loading flintlocks would not destroy the right to keep and bear arms, since someone with such a firearm can certainly be said to be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms.

If you don't agree with the result of your own logic, then perhaps your logic is flawed in the first place.
 
Deflection duly noted. Don't you have some policy to wonk somewhere? Are you playing on the internet while you are supposed to be working? I hope you aren't being paid with my tax dollars.
 
Once again, you evade, avoid, and dissemble.

You have put forth the argument that "to infringe" relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms means only to completely destroy the right, and that extensive "reasonable" regulations are legitimate and do not infringe the right.

Okay, so now, if we are to accept your assertion, we must conclude that it is constitutional to enact restrictions on gun ownership, just as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not destroyed. You have told us this yourself.

Therefore, based upon your requirement, a restriction banning all other guns but black powder, muzzle loading flintlocks would not destroy the right to keep and bear arms, since someone with such a firearm can certainly be said to be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms.

If you don't agree with the result of your own logic, then perhaps your logic is flawed in the first place.

No. That is your assumption based on what you think I believe. I never said a word about flintlocks or muskets passing any sort of Constitutional test. In fact, I said the opposite.

here it is - again - for you

My personal opinion is that the Supreme Court would never agree with your musket scheme as Constitutional. But again, I do not and cannot speak for them.

I hope that clears up your confusion on the matter.
 
Deflection duly noted. Don't you have some policy to wonk somewhere? Are you playing on the internet while you are supposed to be working? I hope you aren't being paid with my tax dollars.

You really do not like honest answers that frustrate your rather shabbily laid traps now do you? Attacking me is a poor substitute for being able to discuss the issue honestly.
 
You really do not like honest answers that frustrate your rather shabbily laid traps now do you? Attacking me is a poor substitute for being able to discuss the issue honestly.

Why do you attack me? I merely asked straightforward questions which you have avoided answering at all costs. You have not been honest at all, intellectually or otherwise. Deflection is the hobgoblin of the dishonest. Shabbily laid traps? Paranoid much? lol

Please explain for the class how I am laying traps for you honey.
 
Petition to the White House:

To lead by example and issue an Executive Order to the Secret Service and armed divisions of every federal agency except for DOD to immediately stop using all weapons and magazines that would be banned under the legislation the president supports.

The president says these weapons of war have no place on the streets of America. Unless the administration is at war with the American people it doesn't need them any more then the public does.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/set-example-gun-owners-country/rSwfrqbR
 
Why do you attack me? I merely asked straightforward questions which you have avoided answering at all costs. You have not been honest at all, intellectually or otherwise. Deflection is the hobgoblin of the dishonest. Shabbily laid traps? Paranoid much? lol

Please explain for the class how I am laying traps for you honey.

It is obvious that you became very frustrated and went on the attack impugning my professional work both now and in teaching when I told you I did not have the technical expertise to answer your questions. You obviously had a prepared response in your mind and were eager to knock down the dominoes if only I had played along and read the lines you scripted for me.
 
Petition to the White House:

To lead by example and issue an Executive Order to the Secret Service and armed divisions of every federal agency except for DOD to immediately stop using all weapons and magazines that would be banned under the legislation the president supports.

The president says these weapons of war have no place on the streets of America. Unless the administration is at war with the American people it doesn't need them any more then the public does.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/set-example-gun-owners-country/rSwfrqbR

Yeah right...the government would not disarm.
 
It is obvious that you became very frustrated and went on the attack impugning my professional work both now and in teaching when I told you I did not have the technical expertise to answer your questions. You obviously had a prepared response in your mind and were eager to knock down the dominoes if only I had played along and read the lines you scripted for me.

How long have you been suffering from this paranoid delusion?

Wait - this is just more deflecting from the discussion right? You clever little minx!
 
Yeah right...the government would not disarm.

Psst! Psst!

Not everyone knows this....only the smart ones.

Be vewry, vewry quiet.
 
No. That is your assumption based on what you think I believe. I never said a word about flintlocks or muskets passing any sort of Constitutional test.

Quite true. You never explicitly said a word about flintlocks. And now, for the benefit of the class, I'm going to do a little exercise. We call it logical reasoning.

Your position is that "to infringe", relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, means only to completely destroy the right.

So how does one destroy the right to keep and bear arms? By completely preventing its exercise. As you have said before, if a person possesses a firearm, then they can be said to be enjoying their right to do so. Therefore, the possession of a firearm, any firearm at all, is evidence that the right to keep and bear arms has not been destroyed.

Therefore, (and watch carefully, because what we're doing here is what grown-ups call "logical reasoning"), if all guns are banned except black powder, muzzle loading flintlocks, then people are still legally able to possess such firearms. A person in possession of such a firearm can be said to be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms. If a person is enjoying a right, that right has not been destroyed. Therefore, per your definition of infringe, a complete ban on all firearms except black powder, muzzle loading flintlocks is completely compatible with your demented interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Now, if you are not happy with the outcome of this logical, please feel to explain why your initial premises cannot lead to the conclusion we reached.
 
Little Jimmy through gum at Cindy's hair, now no-one in school can chew gum... Basically the Gov. is punishing everyone for something that just a couple people have done. They shouldn't punish us, but up their security. If Obama is focusing on children, then up the security around schools... It is my right to protect my property I do believe, if I'm wrong please tell me, and if we are not allowed to own guns with significant fire power, that will give thiefs/criminals who do own these firepowers illegally the upper hand when robbing houses. In my old neighborhood there was a man who stopped a robbery by shooting the thief... What if he hadn't had a gun!? I mean seriously the abolishment of all guns is completely retarded, but to get rid of automatics could prove tragic as well. It is not the guns that is the problem, but the requirements to own a gun and the security placed around schools and other popular zones of shootings. Don't punish me for something I never did.
 
Back
Top Bottom