• 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
People tend to put members of our government over the members of society that allow them to hold their positions.

I can see why they do it though. The propaganda the comes from government is hard to deflect especially when generations have already been indoctrinated. I'm not using it in the extreme sense but the propaganda does exist.
 
You are asking to engage in a philosophical debate which would take forever and would really be a different topic. The Supreme Court never engages in that type of philosophical discussion and what we are talking about here is whether any ban of any weapon by the Supreme Court would meet constitutional muster.

I am merely asking for the reasoning behind a want for any ban.

I am well aware that even the supreme court can rule in favor of unconstitutional measures. What are we to do if they break the rules?

Unfortunately the constitution is written in an almost foreign language and is able to be swayed based on (True/False) interpretation.

I personally believe that a ban on any projectile device I.E. Gun, would be unconstitutional. Reasoning provided above.

However, you cannot argue facts to facts when it comes to the constitution unfortunately.
 
If you are NOT making that argument....
The arguments I've made are all perfectly clear.
When you muster the testicular fortitude to honestly address them, let me know.

Then enlighten all of us on what weapons you believe CAN be legitimately banned.
Any weapon that does not fall under the definition of "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment.
 
For hunting and personal protection - yes.
For warfare and committing mass murder - no.
What weapons that are for "warfare and committing mass murder" are not also suitable for use in "hunting and personal protection"?

And, given the reason we have a 2nd amendment - why is that standard relevant?
 
I am merely asking for the reasoning behind a want for any ban.

I am well aware that even the supreme court can rule in favor of unconstitutional measures. What are we to do if they break the rules?

Unfortunately the constitution is written in an almost foreign language and is able to be swayed based on (True/False) interpretation.

I personally believe that a ban on any projectile device I.E. Gun, would be unconstitutional. Reasoning provided above.

However, you cannot argue facts to facts when it comes to the constitution unfortunately.

The generic reasoning behind a want for any ban is that there are some weapons for which there is no legitimate interest and that the government has justification for banning because it puts our society at risk.
If you take the anti-gun/ban position --- ANY gun puts our society at risk.
If you take the pro-gun/anti-ban position ---NO weapon should be restricted.

The bigger question is what falls within the gray areas.
 
The arguments I've made are all perfectly clear.
When you muster the testicular fortitude to honestly address them, let me know.


Any weapon that does not fall under the definition of "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment.

Sounds like yet another cop-out. What weapons don't fall under the definition "arms" in your opinion?

Automatic machine guns? Grenade launchers?......????
 
For hunting and personal protection - yes.
For warfare and committing mass murder - no.
And WHY is England's murder rate so much lower than ours ?

What is the population in comparison to ours? Then take the crime and murder rates and compare them with ours.

United States: 303,824,640 (July 2008 est.)
(North America, bordering both the North Atlantic Ocean and the North Pacific Ocean, between Canada and Mexico )

Murder rates (per capita) 0.042802 per 1,000 people

United Kingdom: 60,943,912 (July 2008 est.)
(Western Europe, islands including the northern one-sixth of the island of Ireland between the North Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea, northwest of France)

Murder rates (per capita) 0.0140633 per 1,000 people

Now, think about those numbers. We have roughly 4.98x the population of the entire United Kingdom in the United States of America. Yet our Murder rate is ONLY 3x as much as theirs.

Do the math if you wish, but the numbers speak for themselves.

Looks like the UK isnt as innocent as you claim? Oh yeah, and they don't have **** for guns.
 
Last edited:
The generic reasoning behind a want for any ban is that there are some weapons for which there is no legitimate interest and that the government has justification for banning because it puts our society at risk.
If you take the anti-gun/ban position --- ANY gun puts our society at risk.
If you take the pro-gun/anti-ban position ---NO weapon should be restricted.

The bigger question is what falls within the gray areas.

The arguement that an inanimate object puts our society at risk is ludicrous.

Arguements like that are why people end up relating cars to guns when it comes to death.

NO inanimate object puts our society at risk. Period. Unless the object specifically acts without human management.
 
Sounds like yet another cop-out. What weapons don't fall under the definition "arms" in your opinion?
You don't know?
If you don't know, how can you possibly have an informed discussion on the matter?

Do the research. Get back to me when you are less ignorant.
 
Sounds like yet another cop-out. What weapons don't fall under the definition "arms" in your opinion?

Automatic machine guns? Grenade launchers?......????

Those both fall under the arms category.

1.Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms.

Technically anything specifically designed as a weapon functioning under the use of a single person is considered "arms".
 
Technically anything specifically designed as a weapon functioning under the use of a single person is considered "arms".
That's one way of describing the term as used in the 2nd.
 
Those both fall under the arms category.



Technically anything specifically designed as a weapon functioning under the use of a single person is considered "arms".


That could basically be anything then. What weapon cannot function under the use of a single person?
 
Dancing the shuffle.
-Your- ignorace will not allow you to have a meaningful discussion.

Your ignorance is not MY fault; don't blame ME for YOUR unwillingness to learn what you need to learn to carry on an intelligent conversation.

My position is that any weapon that does not fall under the definition of "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment bay be banned without violating the Constitution; by extentsion, any weapon that DOES fall under that definition cannot.

If you don't understand that position, figure it out.
If you disagree with that position, explain why.
 
Last edited:
The generic reasoning behind a want for any ban is that there are some weapons for which there is no legitimate interest and that the government has justification for banning because it puts our society at risk.
The reasoning is flawed, the first reason being that a right does not depend on necessity or legitimacy, a right is inate. Secondly, all guns serve a purpose and there are really only three variances in guns, how the firing primer is ignited, rimfire, centerfire, and muzzle fire, any other differences are based on range and rate of fire, many guns can be modified as per rate of fire by someone knowledgable enough to change the springs at the trigger mechanism and range can be changed by powder load, all without the government knowing the difference. Third, the government has no justification in banning anything that is not provably necessary and proper as pertaining to rights, something they have failed in proving immensely throughout the history of anti-second law.
If you take the anti-gun/ban position --- ANY gun puts our society at risk.
And yet, cars kill more people statistically if you include all fatalities including suicide, murder, accidental shootings, and personal protection, if you take out the irrelevant data, such as suicide, defensive homicide, and accidents, the ratio shrinks even further, so what exactly could be a compelling reason for public safety over cars, airplanes, etc.
If you take the pro-gun/anti-ban position ---NO weapon should be restricted.
We have the constitution, founders writings, statistics, and the Bill of Rights on our side, so the onus isn't on us.

The bigger question is what falls within the gray areas.
There is no grey area, the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, and the Bill of Rights are individual rights, as written by the founders. That is as black and white in plain english as it gets.
 
-Your- ignorace will not allow you to have a meaningful discussion.

Your ignorance is not MY fault; don't blame ME for your unwillingness to learn what you need to learn to carry on an intelligent conversation.

My position is that any weapon that does not fall under the definition of "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment bay be banned without violating the Constitution; by extentsion, any weapon that DOES fall under that definition cannot.

If you don't understand that position, figure it out.
If you disagree with that position, explain why.


Its a shuffle....because there is no definition of "Arms" as a term used in the second amendment. All that is known now is that handguns and rifles probably cannot be banned. What can remains to be seen.
At least Shewter made an attempt to define what he believes fits within the definition of "arms"....something that you continue to shuffle around.
 
The reasoning is flawed, the first reason being that a right does not depend on necessity or legitimacy, a right is inate. Secondly, all guns serve a purpose and there are really only three variances in guns, how the firing primer is ignited, rimfire, centerfire, and muzzle fire, any other differences are based on range and rate of fire, many guns can be modified as per rate of fire by someone knowledgable enough to change the springs at the trigger mechanism and range can be changed by powder load, all without the government knowing the difference. Third, the government has no justification in banning anything that is not provably necessary and proper as pertaining to rights, something they have failed in proving immensely throughout the history of anti-second law.
And yet, cars kill more people statistically if you include all fatalities including suicide, murder, accidental shootings, and personal protection, if you take out the irrelevant data, such as suicide, defensive homicide, and accidents, the ratio shrinks even further, so what exactly could be a compelling reason for public safety over cars, airplanes, etc.
We have the constitution, founders writings, statistics, and the Bill of Rights on our side, so the onus isn't on us.

There is no grey area, the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, and the Bill of Rights are individual rights, as written by the founders. That is as black and white in plain english as it gets.

The Constitution is not black/white nor will it ever be. If it were, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court.

Just as in other rights defined in the bill of rights and elsewhere in the Constitution....they are not absolute.
 
Last edited:
Its a shuffle....because there is no definition of "Arms" as a term used in the second amendment. All that is known now is that handguns and rifles probably cannot be banned. What can remains to be seen.
At least Shewter made an attempt to define what he believes fits within the definition of "arms"....something that you continue to shuffle around.

The problem here is that you say handguns and rifles cannot be banned.

Every firearm is a handgun or rifle.

Whether it is a long-rifle, sub-gun or Carbine if you will, small arms I.E. Pistols and sub-compact pistols.

They are all under those two definitions. This is not an issue for myself or anyone else who supports the right to keep and bear arms in its fullest, it is however, an issue for those who would like to see any gun banned.
 
From:
Urban Policy

Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
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...

There is no 2nd amendment right to bear arms.
 
Infringed has a very definite meaning. If the Constitution isn't B&W, then why did Obama retake the oath of office?
 
The Constitution is not black/white nor will it ever be. If it were, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court.

Just as in other rights defined in the bill of rights and elsewhere in the Constitution....they are not absolute.

It is black and white actually.

The "grey area" as you so put it, comes into play when people try to bend the intent of the constitution. It is not the fault of the writing or the founding fathers, it is the fault of society.
 
Last edited:
Its a shuffle....because there is no definition of "Arms" as a term used in the second amendment.
Psst... your ignorace is showing.
The definition of "arms" ans used in the 2nd has been addressed in 2 SCotUS rulings.

My position is that any weapon that does not fall under the definition of "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment bay be banned without violating the Constitution; by extentsion, any weapon that DOES fall under that definition cannot.

If you don't understand that position, figure it out.
If you disagree with that position, explain why.
 
Its a shuffle....because there is no definition of "Arms" as a term used in the second amendment. All that is known now is that handguns and rifles probably cannot be banned. What can remains to be seen.
At least Shewter made an attempt to define what he believes fits within the definition of "arms"....something that you continue to shuffle around.

This link defines what arms are pretty well. :lol:

BustedTees*-*Second*Amendment
 
The problem here is that you say handguns and rifles cannot be banned.

Every firearm is a handgun or rifle.
You are, of course, right.

This is what happens when people discuss things they know nothing about.
 
Back
Top Bottom