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 13 of 32 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 313

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

  1. #121
    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 how are you coming to that by definition, arms are just normal weapons that the military uses?
    Thats what the USSC came up with. There's some question as to if that definition covers grenade launchers and light ATMs, but for most purposes regarding the 2nd amendment, that discussion need not be had.

    Without question,the term covers all firearms.

  2. #122
    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
    Thats what the USSC came up with. There's some question as to if that definition covers grenade launchers and light ATMs, but for most purposes regarding the 2nd amendment, that discussion need not be had.

    Without question,the term covers all firearms.
    But there is a difference in the USSC coming up with a not completely literal interpretation of the second amendment (which I believe has rightfully happened) and people saying that the Supreme court is still literally following the Second Amendment by just defining what arms are. (which has not happened, and would not make sense)

    I mean, the definition of arms is not in debate... because it can be looked up. All it says is that they are weapons. Once again, I don't think that you really think that rocket launchers and light ATMs aren't arms.

    I agree that fully automatic weapons aree supported in the Second Amendment, if I would be am willing to break it or not as a politician is another story. However, we should still accept that since the Second Amendment needs to be interpreted for its intended meaning by the founders, instead of depending on the definition of arms, which includes arms that maybe should not be included in the Second Amendment.

    This is because we can at least agree that nuclear rocket launchers are litereal arms (=weapons) but they should be illegal to own.
    Last edited by nerv14; 04-29-09 at 12:36 PM.

  3. #123
    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
    I mean, the definition of arms is not in debate... because it can be looked up. All it says is that they are weapons. Once again, I don't think that you really think that rocket launchers and light ATMs aren't arms.
    False. The dictionary term is not the same as the legal term.

    I agree that fully automatic weapons aree supported in the Second Amendment, if I would be am willing to break it or not as a politician is another story. However, we should still accept that since the Second Amendment needs to be interpreted for its intended meaning by the founders, instead of depending on the definition of arms, which includes arms that maybe should not be included in the Second Amendment.
    There's no supportable argument that allows for the exclusion of full-auto firearms from the protection of the 2nd.

  4. #124
    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'?

    WHAT?
    The definition of arms can easily be debated. If used in a proper way a ****ing pencil is an arm or "weapon" as you gave the definition.
    Arms are simply weapons designed to kill in specific manner. Firearms, therefore, kill through force trauma by a projectile.
    Certain arms should be banned while others should not. Specificly anti-personel arms SHOULD BE banned while other weapons that can be used for self-defense or to defend from government opression, should not be.
    This move by the government could be taken as an attempt to disarm the people and make them more submissive to the will of the increasingly Socialist government now in place.

  5. #125
    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
    False. The dictionary term is not the same as the legal term.
    What determines the legal term?

    Once again, if someone must actually interpret that, then that means that the Second Amendment can't be interpeted literally. I am just saying that there is inherent leeway in the Bill of Rights.

    I call it the document not being taken completely literally.
    There's no supportable argument that allows for the exclusion of full-auto firearms from the protection of the 2nd.
    ??? I am not saying the opposite. you don't want to respond to my post, that fine but if you do, then at least watch what I am saying.

  6. #126
    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 Maxientius View Post
    WHAT?
    The definition of arms can easily be debated. If used in a proper way a ****ing pencil is an arm or "weapon" as you gave the definition.
    Arms are simply weapons designed to kill in specific manner. Firearms, therefore, kill through force trauma by a projectile.
    Certain arms should be banned while others should not. Specificly anti-personel arms SHOULD BE banned while other weapons that can be used for self-defense or to defend from government opression, should not be.
    This move by the government could be taken as an attempt to disarm the people and make them more submissive to the will of the increasingly Socialist government now in place.
    where did that come from? The real definition of arms is a weapon. hence "nuclear arms"

    but we are beyond that to its "legal" definition anyway. You are debating what ideally you think the 2nd amendment should be, not what it literally is.

  7. #127
    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
    where did that come from? The real definition of arms is a weapon. hence "nuclear arms"
    No... the "real" definition is that which is relevant to the issue at hand.
    In the contect of the term as it is used in the 2nd, its definition does not include nukes, rendering irrelevant any argument that includes them.

  8. #128
    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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    but we are beyond that to its "legal" definition anyway. You are debating what ideally you think the 2nd amendment should be, not what it literally is.
    i dont debate the second amendment. it was written over 200 years ago. they can cote to amend it to suit their agenda. (they here meaning the Obama administration)
    and this thread has nothing to do with nuclear arms. its "assault weapons". if you wanna talk about nukes go to the israeli thread. im there too so we can still fight, thought your obvious lack of understanding would make it an easy victory for me.

  9. #129
    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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No... the "real" definition is that which is relevant to the issue at hand.
    In the contect of the term as it is used in the 2nd, its definition does not include nukes, rendering irrelevant any argument that includes them.
    and u said it must be interpreted as the founding fathers meant it. did they have nukes?
    nope.
    so how does that support your arguement?

  10. #130
    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
    What determines the legal term?
    That depends.
    When you're talking about legislation, the legislation itself can define the terms used in that legislation.
    When you're talking about other legal terms, an unclear definition may be determined by a court.
    That's what we have in the case of the 2nd.

    Once again, if someone must actually interpret that, then that means that the Second Amendment can't be interpeted literally.
    You're wrong. The amendment IS being interpreted literally, in that all arms -- as the term is used in the 2nd -- are protected.

    I am just saying that there is inherent leeway in the Bill of Rights.
    Yes... and you're trying to argue that the literal interpretation of the amendment allows for the banning of machineguns, since all weapons are 'arms' and the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Page 13 of 32 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... 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
  •