• 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!

Would you want a gun in this situation?

Would you want a gun in this situation?


  • Total voters
    59
that's a specious argument the fact that people owned cannon was not because of the 2A.

Nothing was because of the 2A, the 2A came into being as a means to protect those people's rights to own those weapons.
 
Seriously, Glen, you are making less sense the farther you go. This will be my last attempt at education.

(1) Caliber has nothing to do with whether or not a weapon is termed a rifle or a weapon. Whether or not it will fire multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger does. Actually, assault rifles are selective fire. Non selective automatics are termed machine guns. AR 15s are assault weapons. Please look it up.

Guy, whatever you do or do not want to call it, it is still a rifle that can fire the same high-power round that an M-16 fires, am I correct?

(2) You really believe that all sniper rifles should be banned based on the off chance that someone will use one in an assassination? That makes no sense, and certainly is at odds with your claim that you do not want to stop law abiding citizens from owning firearms.

I don't know of any recent cases where arsenic was used to kill someone...so does that mean that we should allow just about anyone to buy arsenic? Just because someone hasn't used a weapon that is designed to be used to kill people does NOT mean that we should allow people to buy it...because sooner or later it WILL be used to kill people.

Makes me wonder just which firearms you would allow. Could you enlighten me?

No military-style sniper rifles, no semi-automatic rifles that can be fairly easily converted over to automatic fire, no large-capacity clips (if you'll remember, the only reason people were able to tackle the Arizona shooter was because he had to stop to change clips). I'd require training for any purchase of a new class of firearms (and the NRA can do this). I'd require registration and insurance.

What does this leave law-abiding gun owners? Pretty much everything but sniper rifles and rifles that can be easily converted over to automatic fire. I know that's SUCH an intrusion on your oh-so-holy 2A freedom....

(3) There is no practical way to stop baseball bats, bowling balls, tennis racquets from being used in crimes. Should these to be banned?

bats, balls, and racquets are not designed to be used to kill people, are they? And for the life of me, I can't think of a massacre that's taken place using any of those.

(4) I'm 76, I have a weapon(s). I do recognize the need to communicate.

Good for you.
 
The only thing that matters is the original position, as written in the original documents because that's what was actually ratified by the states. Twisting things to make them conform to a modern approach isn't Constitutional.
Arms

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment
 
Guy, whatever you do or do not want to call it, it is still a rifle that can fire the same high-power round that an M-16 fires, am I correct?



I don't know of any recent cases where arsenic was used to kill someone...so does that mean that we should allow just about anyone to buy arsenic? Just because someone hasn't used a weapon that is designed to be used to kill people does NOT mean that we should allow people to buy it...because sooner or later it WILL be used to kill people.



No military-style sniper rifles, no semi-automatic rifles that can be fairly easily converted over to automatic fire, no large-capacity clips (if you'll remember, the only reason people were able to tackle the Arizona shooter was because he had to stop to change clips). I'd require training for any purchase of a new class of firearms (and the NRA can do this). I'd require registration and insurance.

What does this leave law-abiding gun owners? Pretty much everything but sniper rifles and rifles that can be easily converted over to automatic fire. I know that's SUCH an intrusion on your oh-so-holy 2A freedom....



bats, balls, and racquets are not designed to be used to kill people, are they? And for the life of me, I can't think of a massacre that's taken place using any of those.



Good for you.

calling the 556 NATO round high powered again is more proof you are completely ignorant about firearms. a 556 NATO round is usually considered too UNDERPOWERED for hunting white tailed deer in many states. When you continually post crap that any person who has actually served in the military knows is crap, you have no credibility when arguing with people who know this stuff inside and out

What is a sniper rifle Glen? You keep yapping about sniper rifles without being able to define one

Ever heard of Carlos Hathcock? the rifle he won the national target championship with-an Old Winchester 70 in 30-06 with a 16 power Unertl scope (a common target rifle in the 60s"|: the model 70 in 30-06 might be the most popular hunting rifle for medium game up to black bear in the USA circa WWII-1975) was the SAME RIFLE he used to kill most of the 93 confirmed kills in Viet Nam

A sniper rifle and a long range target rifle and a rifle for shooting pronghorn antelope or mountain goats are pretty much the same thing

and thanks for now proving you are A GUN BANNER



btw you cannot buy a semi auto that can be "EASILY CONVERTED to full auto"

sorry Glen, you are a gun banner
 
To be honest though, the Supreme Court is often hobbled by the fact that the genie is out of the bottle and there's no real way to put it back and therefore, their decisions need to be practical, even if they stray from the Constitution.

that sure was not the case with Citizens United.
 
its rich that you talk about the TEXT OF THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION when you do creative interpretation for the Commerce Clause and then pretend SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED does not prevent infringement


the fact that it took 130+ years for someone to "find" a power to regulate small arms in the Commerce Clause shows how bankrupt your argument is

It makes no difference how long it takes to discover truth.
 
you make me sad:( , because of your constant failings to prove the founders wrong.

Where did I attempt to show the Constitution was wrong? What did I fail in.

Lets see the evidence Herr Barkmann.... lets see it and to the devil with your own evaluation.
 
It makes no difference how long it takes to discover truth.

you would have a bit more credibility in your argument if you admit what almost everyone else knows

FDR wanted to regulate machine guns and was told by his AG that the Constitution didn't allow it so they just made up the power

to claim that the founders intended the CC as a gun control power is dishonest
 
I have been posting on guns probably longer and in more depth than anyone on DP though there was this one guy who shows up every once in awhile who is pretty specific and well educated.

I have always said the founders saw WEAPONS OF WAR in three CATEGORIES

ARMS-what someone would keep and bear-muskets, spears, lances, swords, pistols, rifles, shotguns
the stuff you'd bring to the muster if the village militia was called up

ORDNANCE-bombs, rockets, grenades, greek fire

ARTILLERY-Cannon, howitzers, mortars

Unfortunately for that labored argument - the Constitution makes no such distinction.
 
that's another dishonest argument because we all understand that the ND supreme court ignored the actual words of the constitution to suck up to FDR

WE ALL UNDERSTAND!?!?!?!?!? :shock::doh:roll: Just who is WE ALL and where do you get this assumption from?
 
That question is for you to answer. You claim to not want to deny law abiding citizens the right to keep and bear, then list those I don't need, to include AR 15 styles, sniper rifles, any weapons based on military calibers, .22s if they look scary. Many others.

Why don't you tell me what you think I should be allowed to keep and bear? It shouldn't take long.

Dude, for all I care you can have anything short of a military sniper rifle or anything that can be easily converted over to automatic fire. I know that's SUCH a TYRANNICAL violation of your oh-so-holy 2A rights, leaving you almost nothing at all except for almost anything you care to buy out there already...but there it is.
 
Arms

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried.

But any time somebody says the Amendment only protects weapons used in colonial times you strongly object. You cannot it it both ways Turtle.
 
you would have a bit more credibility in your argument if you admit what almost everyone else knows

Just who is EVERYONE ELSE?
Does that presumption really include EVERYONE or just those with whom you agree?
 
But any time somebody says the Amendment only protects weapons used in colonial times you strongly object. You cannot it it both ways Turtle.

that is so moronic that anyone who utters it is condemned to the rubbish Heap of idiots because the entire purpose was to allow citizens to bear the same weapons as the militia. There was no restriction based on the state of the art in 1789

and the 2A does not say that so you are again lying Its like saying Protestant denominations that were not in existence in 1789 are not covered by the First Amendment or that forms of execution and torture not known in that era can never be objectionable as cruel or unusual


Kids, Guns, and the Commerce Clause: Is the Court Ready for Constitutional Government?
 
Just who is EVERYONE ELSE?
Does that presumption really include EVERYONE or just those with whom you agree?

everyone who has studied the constitution. those who support the current expansion of the commerce clause always defend it in terms of "it was best for the nation" rather than it was a proper application of original intent.
 
The product of the 55 Founders is the Constitution. that is what we are discussing.

here is the quote again...

you make me sad:( , because of your constant failings to prove the founders wrong.

no where is the word constitution posted......so am i suppose to jump into the constitution...

the post means you state something, and i post something from the founders that counters your statement...making it wrong
 
that is so moronic that anyone who utters it is condemned to the rubbish Heap of idiots because the entire purpose was to allow citizens to bear the same weapons as the militia. There was no restriction based on the state of the art in 1789

and the 2A does not say that so you are again lying Its like saying Protestant denominations that were not in existence in 1789 are not covered by the First Amendment or that forms of execution and torture not known in that era can never be objectionable as cruel or unusual


Kids, Guns, and the Commerce Clause: Is the Court Ready for Constitutional Government?

I am sorry but I have no idea what using terms like MORONIC and IDIOTS have to do with the intellectual contradictions of positions constantly taken for you self but criticize in regarding the arguments of others. Either the Constitution is limited to the conditions at the time of its adoption or it adapts to the new developments throughout history. You cannot have it one way with your claim about you defining what constitutes arms and then belittle or berate others when they want to limit arms to that same period.
 
everyone who has studied the constitution. those who support the current expansion of the commerce clause always defend it in terms of "it was best for the nation" rather than it was a proper application of original intent.

Which is clearly NOT everybody else now that you put your own special ideological and very personal qualifiers upon it rendering the term EVERYBODY ELSE completely and utterly without any true meaning.
 
here is the quote again...



no where is the word constitution posted......so am i suppose to jump into the constitution...

the post means you state something, and i post something from the founders that counters your statement...making it wrong

The only collective document on government the 55 Founders gave us was the Constitution. So what in that am I or did I trying to prove wrong?

Your problem is that you commit the mortal sin of intellectual fraud and trickery in invoking the sainted term THE FOUNDERS when you do not mean the FOUNDERS at all buy only an individual or two.

Your dishonest tactics have been exposed and you should cease and desist in this fraud when you are clearly NOT referring to the work of the 55 FOUNDERS but only selected individuals who agree with some of your own views.
 
Which is clearly NOT everybody else now that you put your own special ideological and very personal qualifiers upon it rendering the term EVERYBODY ELSE completely and utterly without any true meaning.

who has publicly claimed that FDR's "discovery" of this power was consistent with the founders intent?
 
I am sorry but I have no idea what using terms like MORONIC and IDIOTS have to do with the intellectual contradictions of positions constantly taken for you self but criticize in regarding the arguments of others. Either the Constitution is limited to the conditions at the time of its adoption or it adapts to the new developments throughout history. You cannot have it one way with your claim about you defining what constitutes arms and then belittle or berate others when they want to limit arms to that same period.


its dishonest and moronic to pretend that the founders-people who had just thrown off England's tyranny and who believed in Natural rights, would delegate all sorts of unwritten powers that have nothing to do with international issues to a national government

in other words, its unbelievable anyone can say -with a straight face-that retail firearms sales or how an individual citizen keeps and bears arms is something the founders thought was an area of federal concern or federal jurisdiction
 
Back
Top Bottom