• 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!

'People punching' guns[W:249]

Should 'people punching' weapons be kept by civilians who want them?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 73.9%
  • No

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Not sure/it depends

    Votes: 1 4.3%

  • Total voters
    23
The Founders themselves, the guys who wrote it, were pretty clear about its meaning, and that it applied to private arms and individuals.



"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison


The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

Yeah, I've seen this before G. I still don't buy it. I'm standing my ground on this one
 
I can own a sword without ever actually using it the way it was intended to be used. The act of owning a lethal weapon doesnt ever implicate that it will be used to kill people.

When one starts taking away objects that may be used to harm people you end up with a world with no corners because they might hurt someone. Take away scissors because someone might run with them.

AH but one might say that at least scissors cant kill a lot of people easily. Well a vehicle certainly can. Ban those damn cars!

3 Children Killed, 3 Injured In North Philadelphia Hit-Run; $110K Reward Offered « CBS Philly

 
Yeah, I've seen this before G. I still don't buy it. I'm standing my ground on this one


Ignoring something you don't like doesn't make it go away, nor change what they said.


It's in plain English. You can check the quotes and see if they are legit.


And they're pretty clear. Let's focus on just one for now, to avoid overload and confusion...


"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"


I'd like to see someone explain how this isn't an endorsement of the 2A as an individual right, without looking silly in the process.
 
Last edited:
And military grade weapons in the 18th century couldn't do much beyond individual self defense and hunting, so it was a moot point at the time.



Cannon.


Private citizens could own cannon. :)
 
And military grade weapons in the 18th century couldn't do much beyond individual self defense and hunting, so it was a moot point at the time.
Obviously it was not a 'moot point', any more so than their decision to protect other individual rights. They had the foresight and wisdom to see that some people would both readily abandon personal rights and/or insist the government has the right to seize those personal rights and freedoms. Thats why they were included. They are guarded from foolish revisionism.
 
I can own a sword without ever actually using it the way it was intended to be used. The act of owning a lethal weapon doesnt ever implicate that it will be used to kill people.

When one starts taking away objects that may be used to harm people you end up with a world with no corners because they might hurt someone. Take away scissors because someone might run with them.

AH but one might say that at least scissors cant kill a lot of people easily. Well a vehicle certainly can. Ban those damn cars!

That's why states issue (and can revoke) driver's licenses. Are you saying you support gun operator licenses? :)
 
In that case, what purpose was a modern, belt-fed machine gun made for?


Chiefly, suppressive fire. That is, making the enemy keep their heads down and not shoot back.


No ****. Look it up. :)


Also, one of those isn't very useful in close combat. Too awkward. Actually meant for longer ranges.
 
No one can profess to have a definite understanding of the intentions of the authors of the 2A. It's meaning is still hotly contested and it's my understanding that the current interpretation didn't come about until relatively recently:

2010: In two decisions clarifying their 2008 Heller ruling, the Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment limits the government’s ability to restrict the right to keep and bear arms—meaning that states and cities could not significantly limit this right. The Court didn’t say what sorts of gun control laws would be permissible.

Isn't this correct?
The founders very clearly stated their intent. People today try their damnedest to change their meaning based on their own personal bias but you CAN NOT refute the founders intent. Even if you dont like it.
 
Obviously it was not a 'moot point', any more so than their decision to protect other individual rights. They had the foresight and wisdom to see that some people would both readily abandon personal rights and/or insist the government has the right to seize those personal rights and freedoms. Thats why they were included. They are guarded from foolish revisionism.

The "nuh uh" defense adds no strength to your argument at all.
 
Chiefly, suppressive fire. That is, making the enemy keep their heads down and not shoot back.


No ****. Look it up. :)


Also, one of those isn't very useful in close combat. Too awkward. Actually meant for longer ranges.

You wouldn't mind providing a source, would you?
 
......................

Ignoring something you don't like doesn't make it go away, nor change what they said.

I'm not ignoring it. It's just obvious that a debate with you on this will go nowhere. Which is fine. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.

And they're pretty clear. Let's focus on just one for now, to avoid overload and confusion...
gee thanks

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

This actually represents a big part of the problem here. I'm actually not interested in debating the intention of the 2A because I don't have a problem with individuals owning firearms. I endorse making restrictions like background checks on private and gun show sales, automatic weapons ban federal law.
 
You still need to specify exactly which weapons you're polling about.

That would be hard to do without going through the list of hundreds (if not thousands) of available weapons. This isn't a legislative committee; I'm here for a more general discussion.
 
The founders very clearly stated their intent. People today try their damnedest to change their meaning based on their own personal bias but you CAN NOT refute the founders intent. Even if you dont like it.

When was that interpretation endorsed by the SC?
 
I'm not ignoring it. It's just obvious that a debate with you on this will go nowhere. Which is fine. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.


gee thanks



This actually represents a big part of the problem here. I'm actually not interested in debating the intention of the 2A because I don't have a problem with individuals owning firearms. I endorse making restrictions like background checks on private and gun show sales, automatic weapons ban federal law.


Define what sort of automatic weapons you wish banned, please.
 
if the well regulated militia uses those arms, then so should they be available to civilians
if not, no
 
how about a sawed off, double barrel shotgun, 12 ga., barrels cut to six inches, with a pistol grip. Not good for hunting. Not good for sharpshooting. Not much good for anything, except perhaps "people punching."
 
I have no idea with a "people punching" gun is but my answer is still yes. The only beneficiary of gun control is the government and I don't particularly want them armed when I can't be armed.
 
I'm not sure why this is so unclear. The OP defines these weapons as having a primary purpose of killing multiple targets within a very short time. Some, but not all, semiautomatics would fit that mold.

Really? Can you please indicate where one can find the designated "primary" purpose of any firearm? Is this some kind of label stamped on the gun that I'm unaware of?
 
Yeah, I've seen this before G. I still don't buy it. I'm standing my ground on this one

You don't "buy" it?

Like, you think those quotes aren't real? Or you disagree that those people meant what they said they meant? What exactly do you "not buy"?
 
You wouldn't mind providing a source, would you?

Would you mind providing a source for any particular firearm having the explicit "primary purpose of killing several people at close or medium range in a very short time"?
 
no such animal as a "people punching gun"....


pretending they actaully did exist.... sure, civilians should keep and bear them... why not?
 
Back
Top Bottom