• 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
Harry Guerrilla said:
Are you then admitting that these weapons are unrestricted until the constitution is amended? That is why the amending process exists.
Click to expand...

No...they are unrestricted right now because no ban has been placed or ruled upon by the Supreme Court. The "amendment" process is unnecessary until there is a ban, the ban is determined to be "constitutional" and someone seeks to overturn the ban.
 
disneydude said:
See post #66...and #74 should help you as well.
Click to expand...
I'll take that as your concession of the point -- that the reasoning that supports the banning of incendary speech indeed does NOT support the constitutionality of a ban on assault weapons.

So then, we're back to where we started:

Arguing that 'its OK to ban 'assault weapons' because you will still be able to buy handguns and shotguns' is no different that arguing that 'it is Ok to ban speech that criticizes the President because you can still criticize the rest of the govenment'.

Disagree? Why?
 
disneydude said:
I'm sorry....but your post displays that your understanding of Constitutional analysis doesn't go much beyond your high school "civics" class.
Click to expand...
Good try there cochise, but that civics class example was set out to show how easy the concepts are. I was stating college level poli-sci theorum, taught by political modern liberals and centrists. You fail.

There are multiple layers of analysis depending on the level of the right infringed upon and the class of individuals infringed upon.
Click to expand...
That part you are actually right on, but you are wrong on the level of protection you are trying to apply, you are trying to use the most outer circle, that being limited to no protection as applied to harmful speech or useless speech and applying it incorrectly to the harmless action of simple posession of certain firearms, which can harm no one and has the same usage as other firearms, hence, you are wrong, as would anyone else be trying to use that standard/

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
Click to expand...
Glad you're starting to see the truth, now, what's the compelling interest of marking certain guns illegal, especially since almost none of them are used in crime.

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".
Click to expand...
The bill of rights are fundamental, always have been considered such, so therefore the onus is on government to prove a credible argument, which it has never done.

unless you understand this multiple level, fairly complex process, its difficult to debate the issue.
Click to expand...
I've already shown how you mis-apply it, and you haven't covered anything I haven't known for years, so what's your point?
Click to expand...
 
Goobieman said:
I'll take that as your concession of the point -- that the reasoning that supports the banning of incendary speech indeed does NOT support the constitutionality of a ban on assault weapons.

So then, we're back to where we started:

Arguing that 'its OK to ban 'assault weapons' because you will still be able to buy hansguns and shotguns' is no different that arguing that 'it is Ok to ban speech that criticizes the President because you can still criticize the rest of the govenment'.

Disagree? Why?
Click to expand...


I'm beginning to think that you and our old friend "Stinger" are the same person...because you both engage in the same old "Shuffle".

Why can't you even attempt to make the argument that assault weapons are a "fundamental" right and support your argument under Constitutional analysis.
You haven't even given it a shot....you've simply been shuffling through your same old song and dance.

Banning speech the way you define it would not meet Constitutional muster because there is no legitimate let alone compelling reason to ban it.
I have given you compelling reasons that the government could use to justify banning assault weapons even if it were determined to be a fundamental right, which is likely would not be. There certainly are less "compelling" reasons that otherwise would be deemed "important" or "legitimate" under lower standards.

So, Goobie....are you going to make an attempt to justify your position and put it through Constitutional analysis....or are you going to continue with your silly Stinger shuffle?
 
creativedreams said:
Assault rifles able to be loaded with full metal jackets(armer piercing), large magazine clips, and easily manipulated to be converted to fully-automatic.

What true purpose do they serve?

I may even be willing to ban any semi-automatic rifle because what true sportsman even wants one?

But I would never like to see any bans beyond that.
Click to expand...

The same exactly logic could be applied to a semi auto handgun like the Glock 9
 
LaMidRighter said:
Good try there cochise, but that civics class example was set out to show how easy the concepts are. I was stating college level poli-sci theorum, taught by political modern liberals and centrists. You fail.

That part you are actually right on, but you are wrong on the level of protection you are trying to apply, you are trying to use the most outer circle, that being limited to no protection as applied to harmful speech or useless speech and applying it incorrectly to the harmless action of simple posession of certain firearms, which can harm no one and has the same usage as other firearms, hence, you are wrong, as would anyone else be trying to use that standard/

Glad you're starting to see the truth, now, what's the compelling interest of marking certain guns illegal, especially since almost none of them are used in crime.

The bill of rights are fundamental, always have been considered such, so therefore the onus is on government to prove a credible argument, which it has never done.
I've already shown how you mis-apply it, and you haven't covered anything I haven't known for years, so what's your point?
Click to expand...

The bolded part shows that you don't understand the analysis and the multi-tiered approach. Constitutional analysis is not a simplistic as you want to argue it is.
Click to expand...
 
disneydude said:
Yeah...because a ban on assault weapons sooooo infringes on your ability to have hunting rifles or even handguns in your home....:roll::doh
Click to expand...

You do know what all the assault weapon ban brought to the table right?

Oh, and btw. An AR-10 is an EXCELLENT hunting rifle. It shoots a .308 win. or 7.62x51 (nato) round and currently holds 10-20 rounds at a time (using the FAL magazines) you wanna know why it is banned under the AWB?

Because it's got a pistol grip, and a detachable magazine.

Explain to me the logical reasoning for banning a rifle with a 24" heavy barrel, a 50mm objective scope, and too much recoil to bump fire effectively.

Unless there isnt one and the assault weapons ban does nothing but waste money.
 
disneydude said:
No...they are unrestricted right now because no ban has been placed or ruled upon by the Supreme Court. The "amendment" process is unnecessary until there is a ban, the ban is determined to be "constitutional" and someone seeks to overturn the ban.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately they are restricted in several ways right now. The Constitution is firm that no ban can be effected unless the Constitution is amended. The Supreme Court can not rule that a ban is constitutional unless the Constitution is amended.
 
disneydude said:
I'm beginning to think that you and our old friend "Stinger" are the same person...because you both engage in the same old "Shuffle".
Click to expand...
So... you DO agree that arguing that 'its OK to ban 'assault weapons' because you will still be able to buy hansguns and shotguns' is no different that arguing that 'it is Ok to ban speech that criticizes the President because you can still criticize the rest of the govenment'.

Good for you.
 
Phoenix said:
No they aren't and statements like this contribute to the anti gun 's propaganda.
Click to expand...
Depends on the assault rifle, AK-series are full, most carbines issued now are burst fire, but Overall I see where you are going with the point.
 
Phoenix said:
No they aren't and statements like this contribute to the anti gun 's propaganda.
Click to expand...

Actually, an "assault rifle" is fully automatic or burst capable. "Assault Rifle" is an actual term referring to a machine gun for military use.

"Assault weapon" is the fake term.

Assault rifles are only available to people who go through the lengthy and well regulated process of attaining a class III FFL, and find a machine gun or similar fully automatic weapon that was sold before 1986 (when manufactured automatic weapons were no longer available to be purchased by any member of the public directly from the manufacturers)


Assault rifles are the least of anyones concerns when it comes to the general public as they account for less than 1% of (non criminal on criminal) gun violence.

Hell even the weapons that are restricted under the assault weapons ban account for less than 3% of all (non criminal on criminal) gun violence.

Yet they still deem it necessary to take them away from you and I.
 
disneydude said:
The bolded part shows that you don't understand the analysis and the multi-tiered approach. Constitutional analysis is not a simplistic as you want to argue it is.
Click to expand...
Yes, actually it is, the complications come from people who want to infringe rights........such as people like you. The Bill of Rights are fundamental rights not to be changed or infringed upon, that you refuse to concede that shows you have a fundamental lack of knowledge of the U.S. constitution.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Unfortunately they are restricted in several ways right now. The Constitution is firm that no ban can be effected unless the Constitution is amended. The Supreme Court can not rule that a ban is constitutional unless the Constitution is amended.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works. The Supreme court rules all the time regarding whether bans are constitutional without amending the Constitution. Generally, Amendments come about in order to overcome the courts ruling that the restriction is constitutional.
 
Shewter said:
Assault rifles are the least of anyones concerns when it comes to the general public as they account for less than 1% of (non criminal on criminal) gun violence.

Hell even the weapons that are restricted under the assault weapons ban account for less than 3% of all (non criminal on criminal) gun violence.

Yet they still deem it necessary to take them away from you and I.
Click to expand...
"Assault weapons" are no more or less a part of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, nor do they present a greater threat to society than handguns or other long guns; given that the court has ruled that you cannot ban hansdguns, there's no way to argue that you can ban 'assault weapons'.

After all, more police are killed with their own service weapons than with 'assault weapons'.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Yes, actually it is, the complications come from people who want to infringe rights........such as people like you. The Bill of Rights are fundamental rights not to be changed or infringed upon, that you refuse to concede that shows you have a fundamental lack of knowledge of the U.S. constitution.
Click to expand...

Debating with extremists is difficult....debating with those who do not understand the analysis is impossible. Do a little reading on Constitutional Analysis and then get back to me.
 
Shewter said:
Actually, an "assault rifle" is fully automatic or burst capable. "Assault Rifle" is an actual term referring to a machine gun for military use.

"Assault weapon" is the fake term.
Click to expand...
Yes. And when you point this out to people, they rarely think 'hmm... what ELSE do I not know about the subject, and if I know so little, why do I hold this position?
 
creativedreams said:
Assault rifles able to be loaded with full metal jackets(armer piercing), large magazine clips, and easily manipulated to be converted to fully-automatic.

What true purpose do they serve?

I may even be willing to ban any semi-automatic rifle because what true sportsman even wants one?

But I would never like to see any bans beyond that.
Click to expand...

Please, allow me to explain to you why this is ignorant (possibly not by your own fault)

Fully metal jacketed ammunition is available for any gun. Why then would an AR-15 .223/5.56 semi-automatic carbine be targeted? As opposed to say, a bolt action .308/7.62x51?

Large magazines are irrelevant. The VAST majority of gun crimes are commited with weapons that hold 8 or less rounds at a time.

"Easily manipulated to become fully automatic" you say? Please, explain to me the process in which you make the weapon fully automatic?

It is not easy. Unless you are talking about bump firing in which the weapon is still firing in semi-automatic, the shooter is just maximizing his or her speed.


What would be the point in banning semi-automatic weapons?

You ask what is their purpose? Why would anyone need them?

I ask you what would it help if we did not have them? What GOOD would come of it?
 
Goobieman said:
"Assault weapons" are no more or less a part of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, nor do they present a greater threat to society than handguns or other long guns; given that the court has ruled that you cannot ban hansdguns, there's no way to argue that you can ban 'assault weapons'.

After all, more police are killed with their own service weapons than with 'assault weapons'.
Click to expand...

Ok....that's a start....now give us your full and complete argument why possession of assault weapons is a "fundamental right" and your argument on why a ban would not meet constitutional scrutiny.
 
disneydude said:
Debating with extremists is difficult....debating with those who do not understand the analysis is impossible. Do a little reading on Constitutional Analysis and then get back to me.
Click to expand...
That, ladies and gentlemenm, in a classic example of the pot-calling-the-kettle-black, is DD's rather lame attempt to desengage from a discussion he knows he cannot carry.
 
Goobieman said:
Yes. And when you point this out to people, they rarely think 'hmm... what ELSE do I not know about the subject, and if I know so little, why do I hold this position?
Click to expand...

Misinformation is everywhere and it is very easy to be afraid of an object before a person.

After all, guns kill people right? Not people who would kill people with or without the gun?
 
Goobieman said:
That, ladies and gentlemenm, in a classic example of the pot-calling-the-kettle-black, is DD's rather lame attempt to desengage from a discussion he knows he cannot carry.
Click to expand...

says the man who has been shuffling around the argument for the last 3 pages...:doh
 
disneydude said:
That's not how it works. The Supreme court rules all the time regarding whether bans are constitutional without amending the Constitution. Generally, Amendments come about in order to overcome the courts ruling that the restriction is constitutional.
Click to expand...

Then what is law? If it can be disregarded so easily then why shouldn't call them guidelines. The Supreme Court is made of men and as such do you not think they are infallible or perhaps they have hidden agendas?
 
Shewter said:
Misinformation is everywhere and it is very easy to be afraid of an object before a person.
Click to expand...
The anti-gun left -hates- people that know what they are talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom