• 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!

Do you support a new ban on 'assault weapons'?

Do you support a new ban on 'assault weapons'?

  • Total voters
    37
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
It's not supposed to wash, it's supposed to shoot.
Click to expand...

:rofl what a clown...


If you want to wash with your arms, go to the river with the other old ladies and find a clean flat rock.
Click to expand...

:rofl what a silly clown...


How'd you manage to get moderator status when you deliberately ignore the points made in a post and focus on a minor issue at the end merely to sound as if you responded to the post?
Click to expand...

:rofl What a stupid question.

Why don't you focus on what I am saying, instead of what you want to hear me say and perhaps, just perhaps you won't sound so stupid.

Look, elevate your game or I am gonna simply ignore your dumb ass....



:2wave:
 
Last edited:
tlmorg02 said:
By your argument then, marijuana should be legal, because it grows in nature like tobacco and may have harmful effects, but it is still there and should be used because we may want it over tobacco. To keep it illegal is to take away rights. Right?
Click to expand...

I agree-the federal government has no proper authority to ban marijuana.

Half the stuff the federal government does is illegal-at least.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Sort of like a individual fish belongs to a school of fish? That makes sense...
Click to expand...

he compares it to being on a jury. You have a right to serve but only in a collective group

He was one of my closest friends in college but I don't agree with him on this. It is clearly an individual right-period--and the Federal government has no proper constitutional power to regulate small arms.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Well, SCOTUS is wrong, and I have shown in the past how wrong they have been as well...
Click to expand...
No.... you interpret the same material differently.
That doesn't make THEM wrong, It makes YOU wrong.
 
tlmorg02 said:
How did you "factually," rebut any of my assertions.
Click to expand...
I told you how your assertions were wong.
I can provide excessive detail, if you want.

I will put my Savage tactical against any [assault weapon] any day of the week.
Click to expand...
You'll lose against my M1A Supermatch.

The only possible rifle that could compare would be the Springfield M1, which is nowhere near an [assault weapon]
Click to expand...
Assault rifle?
We're discussing 'assault weapons'. The M1A qualifies.
And I do have to ask - why can't you hunt with an M1A?

As to preserving the rights of arms, lets be realistic, banning [assault weapons] is a far cry from taking away the right to bear arms
Click to expand...
No more than banning the Roman Catholic Church is a far cry from taking away the freedom of religion.

Do I change my position?
Click to expand...
Given that the assertions upon which you based your argument are incorrect - you should.
 
Last edited:
tlmorg02 said:
You guys really, really misunderstand the Founding Fathers. A militia in their eyes was not a neighborhood clan of guys with guns running to fight the tyrants of government. It was the right of each state to have a militia or national guard as the case presently is.
Click to expand...
The fact remains that the FF potected the individual's right to own the weapons necessary for that militia to be effective, and did not tie the use or ownership of those weapons to service in that militia.

Do you have the right to own a tank or a F-16? No, so you will not have equal force with your M16, will you?
Click to expand...
You can argue all you want about tans and F16s and nukes... but it is impossible to argue that 'assault weapons' - indeed, any class of firearm - are not protected by the 2nd.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Rights can be collective, a bunch of individual rights together...
Click to expand...
His point was that a group of people cannot have a right that each of the people in that group do not, individually and outside their connection to that group, already posess.
 
TurtleDude said:
he compares it to being on a jury. You have a right to serve but only in a collective group

He was one of my closest friends in college but I don't agree with him on this. It is clearly an individual right-period--and the Federal government has no proper constitutional power to regulate small arms.
Click to expand...

Interesting... that makes sense, and I understand that you don't agree. In all honesty, I am starting to lean a little more towards Individual Right for some reason, though I still think that there is a Collective Right sewn in there somehow.
 
Goobieman said:
No.... you interpret the same material differently.
That doesn't make THEM wrong, It makes YOU wrong.
Click to expand...


Perhaps that is so... I have been wrong before. But so has SCOTUS. ;)
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Therefore, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms is absolute to create a pool of well regulated militia men who can be mustered.
Click to expand...

I guess that I don't understand why people argue against Collective Rights then, it doesn't make any difference in the end.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I guess that I don't understand why people argue against Collective Rights then, it doesn't make any difference in the end.
Click to expand...




my guess is that if they all were individual rights except for the 2nd, it would be odd to say the least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom