• 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
What I'm trying to reconcile is the idea of conservatives being staunchly "tough on crime" with the idea of preventing police from being able to solve gun crimes. The Tiahrt amendment sounds retarded. If gun "enthusiasts" wanted to gain a bit of credibility in my eyes, they'd do everything in their power to make sure that it was as hard as possible for known felons to gain access to firearms.

And this is coming from someone who believes we are waaaay overpoliced.
Maybe we should talk about the percentage of crimes commited with registered weapons versus unregistered. How much crime would you expect a citizen with a concealed-carry permit to commit?
 
Your post and analysis were wrong on many levels.
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, to pubic safety?

Or that the simple posession of an 'assault weapon' does not create a clear and present, immediate danger?

The first problem.....you have to understand how Constitutional Analysis works and how the court goes about determining whether a ban meet Constitutional muster.
Hmm.
Seems we were looking at rerstrictions on the 1st amendment; you were telling me how the restrictions on incendiary speech support the constitutionality of a ban on 'assault weapons'.

Do you or do you not stand by that argument?

If so, then address the specifics of my post.
if you cannot address thise specifics, then concede the point.

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...
Not that you have show thus far, even though you have been given aple opportunity to do so.
 
Why is it reasonable? What evidence does anyone have that placing these restrictions will reduce crime? Are our Constitutional Rights considered inalienable?

The first question that the Supreme Court addresses in analysis is whether the right infringed upon is a "fundamental" right or a lower level right.

Assuming for sake of argument that the Court were to find possession of assault weapons to be a "fundamental" right...(which is unlikely)...the next step of the analysis would be whether curtailing that right serves a "compelling" governmental interest.

One of the main compelling arguments would be that assault weapons place law enforcement at risk. Do you recall the North Hollywood shootout in LA?
Law Enforcement were held off for hours because they could not match the shooting power of the men with the assault weapons.

Regardless...it is unlikely that the Court would ever find possession ofassault weapons to be a "fundamental right". It was difficult for them to find possession of handguns to be such. Likely they would find the right to possess AW to be a lower level right which would require the goverment to only have an "important" or "legitimate" reason to limit them.
 
The first question that the Supreme Court addresses in analysis is whether the right infringed upon is a "fundamental" right or a lower level right.

Assuming for sake of argument that the Court were to find possession of assault weapons to be a "fundamental" right...(which is unlikely)...
... and thus, you descend into unsupportable opinion.
 
... and thus, you descend into unsupportable opinion.

just because you DEEM it unsupportable doesn't make it so....I actually supported my position. Perhaps you can argue why possession of assault weapons is a "fundamental right" and if so, how it will pass Constitutional Muster.
 
Wherever there is a government, gun owners should always be paranoid.
 
just because you DEEM in unsupportable doesn't make it so....I actually supported my position
You have not, as you have not even tried to address the specific exceptions I took with your argument to that effect.

We were looking at rerstrictions on the 1st amendment; you were telling me how the restrictions on incendiary speech support the constitutionality of a ban on 'assault weapons'.

Do you or do you not stand by that argument?

If so, then address the specifics of my post.
If you cannot address thise specifics, then concede the point.
 
You have not, as you have not even tried to address the specific exceptions I took with your argument to that effect.

We were looking at rerstrictions on the 1st amendment; you were telling me how the restrictions on incendiary speech support the constitutionality of a ban on 'assault weapons'.

Do you or do you not stand by that argument?

If so, then address the specifics of my post.
If you cannot address thise specifics, then concede the point.

I've already supported that argument, I'm not going to continue to rehash the same argument over and over just because you want to begin the argument from your original flawed premise.
Restrictions on speech and on assault weapons can be placed because not all speech nor all weapons are considered "fundamental".

I'm still waiting for your argument on how assault weapons are "fundamental" and assuming that they are, how do they meet Constitutional muster under a "strict scrutiny" analsysis......
 
The first question that the Supreme Court addresses in analysis is whether the right infringed upon is a "fundamental" right or a lower level right.

Assuming for sake of argument that the Court were to find possession of assault weapons to be a "fundamental" right...(which is unlikely)...the next step of the analysis would be whether curtailing that right serves a "compelling" governmental interest.

The compelling interests of government were only to be preservation of each individuals rights to life, liberty, and property. and none is to be restricted in favor of another.



One of the main compelling arguments would be that assault weapons place law enforcement at risk. Do you recall the North Hollywood shootout in LA?
Law Enforcement were held off for hours because they could not match the shooting power of the men with the assault weapons.

That is a red herring. Fear is never a good reason to restrict rights of individuals.

Regardless...it is unlikely that the Court would ever find possession ofassault weapons to be a "fundamental right". It was difficult for them to find possession of handguns to be such. Likely they would find the right to possess AW to be a lower level right which would require the goverment to only have an "important" or "legitimate" reason to limit them.

The rights that we have were meant to be inalienable, undeniable. There can be no logical argument as to why they are restrict able.
 
I've already supported that argument
I must have missed it. What post number?
Please link to the post that addresses the issues I raised.
 
Your post and analysis were wrong on many levels.
Actually, Gobieman got it exactly right, you just don't like the outcome because it doesn't favor your side.

The first problem.....you have to understand how Constitutional Analysis works and how the court goes about determining whether a ban meet Constitutional muster.
Take your own advice chief. Gobieman explained the clear and present danger standard, which was based solely on the "necessary and proper" procedural need to reign in a right, the speech being infringed in the example can cause immediate harm and is intended to do so. Simple possesion of any firearm harms no one, and cannot, so "clear and present danger" and thus "necessary and proper" do not apply to infringement upon the second amendment. So Gobieman isn't the one with the problem here, your analysis is flawed, possibly intentionally,

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.
If they care about correctly interpreting the constitution they will find that assault rifles and machine guns are in fact protected, also, it is impossible for them to allow or disallow the posession of "assualt weapons" because they don't exist. If you knew anything about firearms you would realize that there is not much difference between an assault rifle and semi-auto.
 
The compelling interests of government were only to be preservation of each individuals rights to life, liberty, and property. and none is to be restricted in favor of another.





That is a red herring. Fear is never a good reason to restrict rights of individuals.



The rights that we have were meant to be inalienable, undeniable. There can be no logical argument as to why they are restrict able.

You are taking a way too generic approach to the issue. Constitutional rights have never been completely unrestrict-"able".
 
Actually, Gobieman got it exactly right, you just don't like the outcome because it doesn't favor your side.

Take your own advice chief. Gobieman explained the clear and present danger standard, which was based solely on the "necessary and proper" procedural need to reign in a right, the speech being infringed in the example can cause immediate harm and is intended to do so. Simple possesion of any firearm harms no one, and cannot, so "clear and present danger" and thus "necessary and proper" do not apply to infringement upon the second amendment. So Gobieman isn't the one with the problem here, your analysis is flawed, possibly intentionally,

If they care about correctly interpreting the constitution they will find that assault rifles and machine guns are in fact protected, also, it is impossible for them to allow or disallow the posession of "assualt weapons" because they don't exist. If you knew anything about firearms you would realize that there is not much difference between an assault rifle and semi-auto.
Oh, you took ALL my fun away...
:mrgreen:
 
Actually, Gobieman got it exactly right, you just don't like the outcome because it doesn't favor your side.

Take your own advice chief. Gobieman explained the clear and present danger standard, which was based solely on the "necessary and proper" procedural need to reign in a right, the speech being infringed in the example can cause immediate harm and is intended to do so. Simple possesion of any firearm harms no one, and cannot, so "clear and present danger" and thus "necessary and proper" do not apply to infringement upon the second amendment. So Gobieman isn't the one with the problem here, your analysis is flawed, possibly intentionally,

If they care about correctly interpreting the constitution they will find that assault rifles and machine guns are in fact protected, also, it is impossible for them to allow or disallow the posession of "assualt weapons" because they don't exist. If you knew anything about firearms you would realize that there is not much difference between an assault rifle and semi-auto.

Do you understand the process by which "constitutionality" is determined?
If so, your post here does not demonstrate it.

You DO understand, do you not that there are three levels of constitutional analysis with different standards depending on the level of the right infringed upon demands?
 
Do you understand the process by which "constitutionality" is determined?
If so, your post here does not demonstrate it.

You DO understand, do you not that there are three levels of constitutional analysis with different standards depending on the level of the right infringed upon demands?

He said:

Gobieman explained the clear and present danger standard, which was based solely on the "necessary and proper" procedural need to reign in a right, the speech being infringed in the example can cause immediate harm and is intended to do so. Simple possesion of any firearm harms no one, and cannot, so "clear and present danger" and thus "necessary and proper" do not apply to infringement upon the second amendment. So Gobieman isn't the one with the problem here, your analysis is flawed, possibly intentionally,

Seems to me that he DOES understand, and that YOU are stonewalling.

Again:
I must have missed the post where you supported your position.
What post number?
Please link to the post that addresses the issues I raised.
 
Last edited:
I must have missed the post where you supported your position.
What post number?
Please link to the post that addresses the issues I raised.

There were numerous posts....you can go back and flow through the argument.
BTW....I'm STILL waiting for you to argue that possession of Assault Weapons is a "fundamental right" and even if...how it withstands Constitutional muster under the strict scrutiny standard.

What are you waiting for?

Its becoming clear that perhaps you don't understand the process and thus cannot make the argument.
 
Last edited:
just because you DEEM it unsupportable doesn't make it so....I actually supported my position. Perhaps you can argue why possession of assault weapons is a "fundamental right" and if so, how it will pass Constitutional Muster.
You are wishing this was so, but it isn't, and here is why:

The first question that the Supreme Court addresses in analysis is whether the right infringed upon is a "fundamental" right or a lower level right.
Anyone with a decent civics class under their belt understands that the first ten amendments of the constitution cannot be altered or changed, and that they are individual and inaliable rights, any attemps to limit the protections of these first ten rights must have compelling reasons based on a standard of what is necessary and proper. Compelling reasons for fighting words, incitement, and incendiary speech are an immediate, provable, clear, and present danger to the public in the form of ensuing chaos stemming from the utterance (action)of the words. In the scenario that you wish the supreme court to mis-interpret the second using the same standard, there is no clear and present danger inherent in simply possessing a fire arm, the action of mis-use and you would have a point, but we already have laws in place to do that, such as murder, negligent homicide, unlawful discharge, public nuisance, etc. therefore a pre-emptive ban would be an unnecessary and thus unlawful infringement of a god-given, hence inaliable right. Certain justices always get that wrong whether intentionally or unintentionally, but the effect would be the same.
Assuming for sake of argument that the Court were to find possession of assault weapons to be a "fundamental" right...(which is unlikely)...the next step of the analysis would be whether curtailing that right serves a "compelling" governmental interest.
If assault weapons existed then they would be protected because the first is all encompassing and shall not be infringed.

One of the main compelling arguments would be that assault weapons place law enforcement at risk. Do you recall the North Hollywood shootout in LA?
Law Enforcement were held off for hours because they could not match the shooting power of the men with the assault weapons.
That is not a compelling argument in that they would have access to the same firearms as the general populace, likewise protected by the very same second amendment, secondly, what would the weapon class in question be? are we talking about assault rifles, machine guns, sub-machine guns, rifles, shotguns. Let's talk about real weapons and not the "assault weapons".

Regardless...it is unlikely that the Court would ever find possession ofassault weapons to be a "fundamental right". It was difficult for them to find possession of handguns to be such. Likely they would find the right to possess AW to be a lower level right which would require the goverment to only have an "important" or "legitimate" reason to limit them.
Any court that needs to invent compelling reason is wrong, the language is simple.
 
You're right but no one is proposing an constitutional amendment so those rights can't be touched by any lesser law.

There is no need for a Constitutional "Amendment". The issue of assault weapons hasn't come in front of the court. An amendment would only be required if they place a ban on assault weapons.
 
There were numerous posts....you can go back and flow through the argument.
What are you waiting for?
For you to directly address the issues I brought up which defeat your argument that the ban on incendiary speech supports the constitutionality of a ban on 'assault weapons'.

And I am -still- waiting...
 
There is no need for a Constitutional "Amendment". The issue of assault weapons hasn't come in front of the court. An amendment would only be required if they place a ban on assault weapons.

Are you then admitting that these weapons are unrestricted until the constitution is amended? That is why the amending process exists.
 
Sorry.:doh But don't worry, I see a yeah but.....yeah but......response coming soon.

That's OK. :mrgreen:

DD knows he can't support his position that the reasoning that supports the banning of incendary speech supports the constitutionality of a ban on assault weapons -- which is why he is doing all that he can to avoid having to address that issue.
 
You are wishing this was so, but it isn't, and here is why:

Anyone with a decent civics class under their belt understands that the first ten amendments of the constitution cannot be altered or changed, and that they are individual and inaliable rights, any attemps to limit the protections of these first ten rights must have compelling reasons based on a standard of what is necessary and proper. Compelling reasons for fighting words, incitement, and incendiary speech are an immediate, provable, clear, and present danger to the public in the form of ensuing chaos stemming from the utterance (action)of the words. In the scenario that you wish the supreme court to mis-interpret the second using the same standard, there is no clear and present danger inherent in simply possessing a fire arm, the action of mis-use and you would have a point, but we already have laws in place to do that, such as murder, negligent homicide, unlawful discharge, public nuisance, etc. therefore a pre-emptive ban would be an unnecessary and thus unlawful infringement of a god-given, hence inaliable right. Certain justices always get that wrong whether intentionally or unintentionally, but the effect would be the same.
If assault weapons existed then they would be protected because the first is all encompassing and shall not be infringed.

That is not a compelling argument in that they would have access to the same firearms as the general populace, likewise protected by the very same second amendment, secondly, what would the weapon class in question be? are we talking about assault rifles, machine guns, sub-machine guns, rifles, shotguns. Let's talk about real weapons and not the "assault weapons".

Any court that needs to invent compelling reason is wrong, the language is simple.


I'm sorry....but your post displays that your understanding of Constitutional analysis doesn't go much beyond your high school "civics" class.

There are multiple layers of analysis depending on the level of the right infringed upon and the class of individuals infringed upon.

If the right is "fundamental" or the class of individuals determined to be a "suspect" class - the level of governmental interest required to justify the infringment must be compelling

If the right is not "fundamental" or the class of individuals is not a "suspect" class - the level of governmental interest required to justify the infringement need only be "legitimate".

There is an intermediate level that they court sometimes engages in for rights that aren't quite "fundamental" or for certain classes that are not traditionally determined to be "suspect classes" - an intermediate level for which the level of govermental interest required to justify the infringement must be "important".

unless you understand this multiple level, fairly complex process, its difficult to debate the issue.
 
That's OK. :mrgreen:

DD knows he can't support his position that the reasoning that supports the banning of incendary speech supports the constitutionality of a ban on assault weapons -- which is why he is doing all that he can to avoid having to address that issue.

See post #66...and #74 should help you as well.

Show all that are following that you can actually make the argument....

What are you waiting for Goobie....prove me wrong and show that you can support your argument......I'm still waiting.
 
Back
Top Bottom