• 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!

Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

Are gun owners STILL paranoid?


  • Total voters
    25
On the contrary -- my parallel is spot on.

Disagree?

Tell me:
How does the argument that speech that 'could start a riot' is not protected by the 2nd in any way apply to the simple ownership and/or posesion of 'assault weapons'?

Because your original argument was that you couldn't place restrictions on free speech, such as criticizing the President.

The fact is, there can be reasonable restrictions on free speech and there can be reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms.
 
I don't know that there actually is a definition that everyone would agree on. However, I do believe that a moderate view on limitations would serve the interests of all.
Given your argument, banning simple posession of 'assault weapons' is no more moderate (or constitutional) than banning public criticism of the President.
 
Because your original argument was that you couldn't place restrictions on free speech, such as criticizing the President.
I never made that argument.

The fact is, there can be reasonable restrictions on free speech and there can be reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms.
Please:
Explain the 'reasonable restrictions' on free speech, and then apply them directly to the right to arms.
 
Given your argument, banning simple posession of 'assault weapons' is no more moderate (or constitutional) than banning public criticism of the President.

Sure it is....just like banning incindiary speech....reasonable restrictions on weapons such as assault weapons is a moderate and constitutional restriction, even with the composition of todays Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
Sure it is....just like banning incidendiary speech...
OK....
Explain to me the argument behind banning incendiary speech, and then tell me how it then applies to the banning os simple posession of assault weapons.

That is, tell me WHY incenduiary speech is banned, and then tell me how that argument supports the constitutionality of a ban on 'assault weapons'.
 
OK....
Explain to me the argument behind banning incendiary speech, and then tell me how it then applies to the banning os simple posession of assault weapons.

That is, tell me WHY incenduiary speech is banned, and then tell me how that argument supports the constitutionality of a ban on 'assault weapons'.

Incendiary speech is banned because of the potential for violence that such speech has the potential to incite.

Assault weapons similarly are a reasonable restriction. Assault weapons place law enforcement at risk and thus place our society at risk.

The Court engages in a weighing process...what are the benefits of such v. the potential for danger.

If you read the Supreme Court decision affiriming the right to bear arms (can't remember the name right off), it is clear that the justices would uphold such a ban.
 
I;d argue:
-The SCouTS has made it clear that the right of the individual, regardless of his connection to the militia, is protected by the 2nd.
-The 2nd amendment, applied to the states thru the 14th amendment, would prohibit states from violating TRKBA in the same manner as it prohibits the federal government from doing so.

I agree, regardless of his connection to a militia, but I would say that eliigibility for militia duty, not direct connection with said militia, should be a factor in the individual right.

I would then ALSO say only the mentally incompetant and felons could be disqualified for militia duty. (All physical impaired people would still be considered qualified for non-combat duty and such so would enjoy that personal right to bear arms)

I'm not saying that connection is neccesary for the right to be allowed, only the potential for connection.

I would then add that ONLY those who are deemed dangerous to the general populous by reason of prior history or mental impairment could be denied that right.


Then again, some states may individually choose to exclude nobody, and allow both felons and the mentlaly impaired to own firearms.

I feel that this would also be the state's right to decide, not the federal governemnts, since the second explicitly bans them form making such decisions for the states.


In total, I firmly believe that the right is an individual one, and I don't believe it can ever fall within th epurview of the federal governemnt.

But I do think that the individual State's have the right to exclude certain people under very strict conditions related to their danger to society form being elligible for militia duty. They may not make such exclusions for reasons beyond mental impairment or felonious activities.

All others should be assumed as eligible, and therefore enjoy the individual right.
 
Incendiary speech is banned because of the potential for violence that such speech has the potential to incite.
No.
It is banned because it creates a clear and present danger to others -- an immediate threat to pubic safety.

Simple posession of an 'assault weapon' creates no such danger -- and so, the argument you present, above, falls to support the constitutionality of banning them.

If you read the Supreme Court decision affiriming the right to bear arms (can't remember the name right off), it is clear that the justices would uphold such a ban.
Given the above, this is unsupprtable.
 
Last edited:
I agree, regardless of his connection to a militia, but I would say that eliigibility for militia duty, not direct connection with said militia, should be a factor in the individual right.
Not sure how you can do that, given that the individual hlds the right 'regardless of any connection to the militia'.

I would then ALSO say only the mentally incompetant and felons could be disqualified for militia duty. (All physical impaired people would still be considered qualified for non-combat duty and such so would enjoy that personal right to bear arms)
Well, that's fine - but unnecessary.

I would then add that ONLY those who are deemed dangerous to the general populous by reason of prior history or mental impairment could be denied that right.
We have that now. No issues.

Then again, some states may individually choose to exclude nobody, and allow both felons and the mentlaly impaired to own firearms.
They could, but then the federal prohibition would still apply.

In total, I firmly believe that the right is an individual one, and I don't believe it can ever fall within th epurview of the federal governemnt.
Many have made the 10th amendment argument. It is sound in terms of there being no power for the Feds to ban posession and use of firearms.

All others should be assumed as eligible, and therefore enjoy the individual right.
:applaud:2dance:
 
Last edited:
Incendiary speech is banned because of the potential for violence that such speech has the potential to incite.

Such is the consequence of free speech. I disagree with the vast majority of the laws enacted by the government against speech, association, and assembly.

Assault weapons similarly are a reasonable restriction. Assault weapons place law enforcement at risk and thus place our society at risk.

1) Define Assault Weapon
2) The authority is not supposed to be free from risk from the People.

The Court engages in a weighing process...what are the benefits of such v. the potential for danger.

Freedom is inherently dangerous. The benefits are ultimate check upon the government. The danger is that removing them puts the People at risk of horrible abuse of power and oligopoly. Either the government is restricted or the People are. Choose.

If you read the Supreme Court decision affiriming the right to bear arms (can't remember the name right off), it is clear that the justices would uphold such a ban.

More reason to uphold our right to keep and bear arms.
 
Last edited:
They could, but then the federal prohibition would still apply.

I actually do not agree with the federal prohibition for those deemed dangerous. I believe the states, and the states alone, should deem this or not.

Maybe failing to explain this fully is where I went wrong in my post.

I think that the state's alone should be able to prohibit arms to those deemed dangerous. A federal prohibition on these people is a violation of the second, unless the person was a felon regarding a federal crime.

I don't think the Federal government has the right to prohibit anyone form bearing arms for felonious actions that have been charged by the state. Each state should be allowed to use out of state felonies as a reason for disqualification, but the federal govenrment should only be allowed to create such a prohibition for federal crimes, not local one's that extend beyond their jurisdiction.

Should a state allow felons and the mentally deranged to have the right to bear arms, that should not be something that the Federal government can "trump".
 
I actually do not agree with the federal prohibition for those deemed dangerous. I believe the states, and the states alone, should deem this or not.

Maybe failing to explain this fully is where I went wrong in my post.
No, I got you. You were clear.

I believe this is one of those cases where both the states and the Federal government share competency.

I don't think the Federal government has the right to prohibit anyone form bearing arms for felonious actions that have been charged by the state.
Why not?
 
From:
Urban Policy



So now, it is official White House policy to reinstate the AW Ban.

Seems to me we were told there was no rational reason to express concern for our right to keep and bear arms under the Obama Administration...

Seeing how paranoia is described as irrational or baseless suspicion of the motives of others and there is actual evidence to show that Obama and liberals in general wish to take away and or severely restrict 2nd amendment rights, I would have to say 2nd amendment proponents are not paranoid. It is a fact that liberal politicians wish to take away/restrict/ severely infring on 2nd amendment rights. Some of them even tried using some blatant crock of **** misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment that the ACLU uses so they can try to weasel out of defending 2nd amendment rights. Those claiming that 2nd amendment proponents are paranoid are either lying or they are delusional.
 
No, I got you. You were clear.

I believe this is one of those cases where both the states and the Federal government share competency.

Got ya. I would disagree with the sharing of competancy, as I''l explain in the next part



This stems primarily from the fact that I lean towards anti-federalism, the principle that I believe that teh bill of rights was created from.

I see the bill of rights, and especially the second amendment, as limiting federal authority. While I believe that the rights explicitly mentioned in the bill of rights are rights that everyone should have, I also believe that they firmly limit the federal govenrment from having any say whatsoever on those matters.

I believe the bill of rights limitted the scope of the federal government in order to try and prevent much of what we see today in regards to loss of freedoms.

I also believe that it was done in order to prevent the "centralzation" of government with the federal authority.

The wording of the second ammendment is such that I bleive it to be an individual right as well as something that can only fall within the power of the states to regulate.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I don't feel that the wording was used in order to make it so that only those within the militia can be eligible for that right, I believe that wording was chosen to prevent the federal governemnt from saying how the states should regulate their own militias.

I feel that it actually includes two rights within it.

The individual right to bear arms.

And the States' rights to regulate their own militias.

To me, given the anti-federalist nature of the BoR, it appears that there is not equal power to exclude certain dangerous entities from bearing arms. It falls solely within the rights of each state.

I think the wording also excludes the rights of the States from infringing upon this right for any reason other than being deemed psychologically ineligible for militia duty, by derangement or felonious action.

But that does not mean that they are to be forced to do so.

It is within the state's right to not choose this option.

I believe that it is in the best interest of each state to do so, but I do not think the federal authirty has the right to control the states in this fashion.

Again, this is given the nature of the BoR and how they initially came to be.

I do not think that the individual state has a right to infringe upon any of the rights inherent in the BoR, but I do think that the wording of the second is such that it grants them the ability to regulate their militia as they see fit. This can include disqualifying person's for militia elligibility on the basis of their psychological fitness for duty.
 
I see the bill of rights, and especially the second amendment, as limiting federal authority. While I believe that the rights explicitly mentioned in the bill of rights are rights that everyone should have, I also believe that they firmly limit the federal govenrment from having any say whatsoever on those matters.
Ok... I don't really disagree with anything you said here.

My question:
If the BOR only applies to the actions of the federal government and does not restrict the states, what stops the states from, say, banning 'assault weapons'?
 
Ok... I don't really disagree with anything you said here.

My question:
If the BOR only applies to the actions of the federal government and does not restrict the states, what stops the states from, say, banning 'assault weapons'?

I do believe that the BoR can restrict the states from infringing upon the expressed rights of the people that it describes. I believe that it restricts the federal authority more, though.

Certain speech, for example, cannot be banned by the States except for reasons like inciting a riot as you've described earlier. For reasons relating to directly endagering others.

But I feel that it cannot be banned by the federal government for any reason, even directly endangering others, because teh federal authority on these matters has been removed by the BoR.


So regarding a state trying to implement an assualt weapons ban, I believe you explained the reasons they cannot perfectly before.

Simple posession of an 'assault weapon' creates no such [clear and present danger to others -- an immediate threat to pubic safety] -- and so, the argument you present, above, falls to support the constitutionality of banning them.

Simple possesion of a firearm of any sort cannot be construed as a clear and present danger. The states do not have the right to prevent simple possesion.

They can, in essence, eliminate people deemed to be a "clear and present danger to others -- an immediate threat to pubic safety" from eligibility for firearms.

Thus the State's rights remain solely in the realm of preventing such clear and present dangers from being eligible for militia duty.

The federal government does not even retain these rights.

I believe that the States and local governments are the only entities that have the ability to make laws abridging these rights, and ONLY for reasons related to immediate threats to public safety. The federal governemtn reliquished this ability to the states with the BoR, but that doesn't mean the states have the right to arbitrarily infringe on the rights outlined by the BoR.
 
Part of the reason that the 2nd amendment was made was so that a people could not be oppressed by their government. The 2nd amendment gave them the possibility to rise up against the government should it become overly oppressive. This is evident in the Declaration of Independance. Though the DoI is not a law document it does help set the base of America and what America stands for. IE Freedom of the People.

Because of this I do not support any ban on any type of weapon short of nuclear. I even support a civilians right to carry rockets if they think they need to. Though I do support restrictions on where weapons may be carried. Carrying weapons into courthouses and police stations is not needed and could be highly dangerous.
 
GAT Dernit Obamaer don't take my guns! How else am I gonna do some shootin!? Wat if them ppl come to meye home and steal my wife/daughter.
 
GAT Dernit Obamaer don't take my guns! How else am I gonna do some shootin!? Wat if them ppl come to meye home and steal my wife/daughter.
Thanks for wasting our time!
 
No.
It is banned because it creates a clear and present danger to others -- an immediate threat to pubic safety.

Simple posession of an 'assault weapon' creates no such danger -- and so, the argument you present, above, falls to support the constitutionality of banning them.


Given the above, this is unsupprtable.

No response from D-Dude?
Hmmmm.
 
No response from D-Dude?
Hmmmm.

There can be no response to your post.....because you are simply wrong.
The government can and will continue to place reasonable restrictions of Constitutional rights. Just because you claim that a restriction on assault weapons is not reasonable doesn't make it so.
 
There can be no response to your post.....because you are simply wrong.
I was wrong about... what, specifially?

That incendiary speech is banned not because of potential threat, but because of a clear and present, immediate danger?

Or that the simple posession of an 'assault weapon' does not create a clear and present, immediate danger?
 
Last edited:
I was wrong about... what, specifially?

Your post and analysis were wrong on many levels.

The first problem.....you have to understand how Constitutional Analysis works and how the court goes about determining whether a ban meet Constitutional muster.

If you actually believe that the Supreme Court would find that having possession of assault weapons is a "fundamental right" THAT is the first error in your analysis...and when you begin your analysis with an error, it is unlikely your final analysis will be correct.
 
There can be no response to your post.....because you are simply wrong.
The government can and will continue to place reasonable restrictions of Constitutional rights. Just because you claim that a restriction on assault weapons is not reasonable doesn't make it so.

Why is it reasonable? What evidence does anyone have that placing these restrictions will reduce crime? Are our Constitutional Rights considered inalienable?
 
Back
Top Bottom