View Poll Results: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

Voters
54. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, because...

    6 11.11%
  • No, because...

    46 85.19%
  • Other

    2 3.70%
Page 12 of 32 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 313

Thread: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

  1. #111
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Interpretation? Dude, this was the guy who wrote it.

    Not to mention, I don't know where or when you went to school, but when I was in school this was the normal understanding of what the 9th and 10th Amendments were for.
    nm I agree with you.

    I checked out some other sites.

    Thanks, I always like getting more from the Constitution. I haven't in a while now.
    Last edited by nerv14; 04-28-09 at 09:32 PM.

  2. #112
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    48,248

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

    Since in the Constitution people have a right to life (in how I can't yell fire in a burning building) however, the 9th amendment also says that those rights can't be used to deny my other rights. I have a right to freedom of speech, however that right would violate the rights of others to life.

    Am I missing something?

    Don't worry, im not a complete Constitution trasher (compared to most people anyway) but this condridiction is interesting. we should at least aknowedge this
    You are missing something, it is true. Listen, I'm not here to disparage against people for the most part...less they're total partisan hacks; then I do but only for entertainment purposes...most people here can attest to that.

    Here's what it is. The Constitution is a system of permits and denials towards what the government is able to do. The reason why there was a debate towards even having a Bill of Rights was because of the perception it could have on government and generations to come. This is the source of the 9th amendment. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers both. Many people real most of the Federalist, I've come across few whom have read the Anti-Federalist. No condescension, read both of those because they are both important portals into the thoughts and ideologies of the founders. The 9th amendment was born from this argument between the two groups. One wanted to make damned sure there were a certain set of rights the government could not ever disparage against; and they favored the Bill of Rights. There were those whom worried because they thought that listing but a few of our rights would mean that the government would think those to be our only rights. Thus was born the 9th amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by 9th amendment
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    The enumbered rules and regulation in the constitution, of certain rights. This is the Bill of Rights, these are the enumerated rights; 1-10. shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Shall not think itself able to deny or disparage the other non-enumerated rights which are retained by the People. AKA, the 10 rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not the only rights retained by the People. And just because only 10 rights are laid out before the government in the Bill of rights does not mean, does not insinuate, does not lend itself to believe that those 10 rights are the only rights of the People. And those rights not enumerated within the Bill of Rights are not the only rights retained by the People; the government is further restricted from infringing upon those rights retained by the People but not enumerated within the Constitution itself.

    I do not know how to make it any more clearer than that! That is the purpose of the 9th amendment. Please learn about its history before you begin spouting off non-sense.
    Last edited by Ikari; 04-28-09 at 10:51 PM.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #113
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 03:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Because they are not necessary. You don't need a mega-powerful gun to defend yourself.
    Yes actually you do, you don't need a SAW but you're going to want something with a lot of stopping power if a methed out freak breaks into your home.

  4. #114
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    but when you have your definition of an "arm" then can't a nuclear rocket launcher fit under that catagory of something "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" and those that members of the militia "supplied themselves and of the kind in common use at the time".
    How many troops are issued nuclear weapons?
    Answer: None: they are issued to special, specific units, not individual troops.
    That pretty much answer that question, doesn't it?

    I would be curious what people think "ordinary weapons are"
    Clearly, it covers any class of firearm you care to mention.

  5. #115
    Student Maxientius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The United States of America
    Last Seen
    03-15-12 @ 12:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    207

    Caution Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    There is no strong argument. How can there be?
    People have the right to arm themselves.
    Some people worry that the government may be stripping them of their right to bear arms to make them more submissive to government will and interests.

  6. #116
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    How many troops are issued nuclear weapons?
    Answer: None: they are issued to special, specific units, not individual troops.
    That pretty much answer that question, doesn't it?


    Clearly, it covers any class of firearm you care to mention.
    Yeah. If we don't take the second amendment literally, by having an interpretation that isn't specifically spelled out in the Second Amendment.

    One of my only comments has been that the second amendment, by itself, doesn't specify what it considers arms to be. We can interpret it as "normal weapons" but that is only because the Bill of Rights shouldn't be taken literally. If the Bill of Rights was taken completely literally, word for word, then nuclear weapons would in fact be allowed by normal citizens.

    I do think that is an accurate interpretation of the Second amendment, (In that I believe its what the founding fathers intended). Despite that, I can still wish that they would change the 2nd amendment to get rid of fully automatic assult weapons. Yes, I am currently supporting something unconstitutional, but that just means I want to change the second amendment.
    Anyway, the reasons for if the second amendment should be altered should at least be discussed enough if we should follow the Bill of Rights on principle, even if there is negative outcomes.
    Last edited by nerv14; 04-29-09 at 10:31 AM.

  7. #117
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Yeah. If we don't take the second amendment literally, by having an interpretation that isn't specifically spelled out in the Second Amendment.

    One of my only comments has been that the second amendment, by itself, doesn't specify what it considers arms to be. We can interpret it as "normal weapons" but that is only because the Bill of Rights shouldn't be taken literally. If the Bill of Rights was taken completely literally, word for word, then nuclear weapons would in fact be allowed by normal citizens.
    If you want to do that, fine. However, in doing so, you concede the argument that it then also covers any and all firearms.

    Arguing to change the constittion is fine, so long as you agree that until it is changed, the 2nd prohbits banning 'assault weapons'.

  8. #118
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If you want to do that, fine. However, in doing so, you concede the argument that it then also covers any and all firearms.

    Arguing to change the constittion is fine, so long as you agree that until it is changed, the 2nd prohbits banning 'assault weapons'.
    Yes, in a sense. The problem is that we didn't even get to that arguement yet because unless the Bill of Rights is agreed on not being taken completely literally, then you can't classify that firearms are just "normal weapons" only from the Bill of Rights.

  9. #119
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Yes, in a sense. The problem is that we didn't even get to that arguement yet because unless the Bill of Rights is agreed on not being taken completely literally, then you can't classify that firearms are just "normal weapons" only from the Bill of Rights.
    Hmm.
    Under what argument are all firearms NOT considered 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd, and how is that argument sound?

    See, the problem here is that your 'literally' argument fails in that the literal terms - freedom of speech, arms - ARE used, and thus the Constitution IS taken literally. The question then revolves around the definition of the terms.

  10. #120
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Hmm.
    Under what argument are all firearms NOT considered 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd, and how is that argument sound?

    See, the problem here is that your 'literally' argument fails in that the literal terms - freedom of speech, arms - ARE used, and thus the Constitution IS taken literally. The question then revolves around the definition of the terms.
    But how are you coming to that by definition, arms are just normal weapons that the military uses? Why wouldn't special weapons be considered arms? So I am sure you understand that saying "arms" are "normal weapons" is not a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment.

    I think even you would agree that special weapons would have to be included "arms" would include all types of rocket launchers. From nuclear, biological or just very strong ones. If someone says that we shouldn't be able to have those, then that is just from a non-literal translation of the Second Amendment.
    Last edited by nerv14; 04-29-09 at 11:38 AM.

Page 12 of 32 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •