• 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!

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

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

  • Total voters
    40
Maxientius said:
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.
:doh
Click to expand...

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.
 
nerv14 said:
where did that come from? The real definition of arms is a weapon. hence "nuclear arms"
Click to expand...
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.
 
nerv14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :cool:
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
nerv14 said:
What determines the legal term?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Lol not you goobie
Nerv did. I'd quote it but my iphone makes that rather hard. I apologize for your misunderstanding.
And this debate about nukes is off topic.
 
Goobieman said:
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.
Click to expand...

yes, so it can't be taken literally. When I was saying that the bill of rights couldn't be taken literally, I meant that it is related to the issue at hand.

Great. If we believe the same thing, then there is no reason argueing about what you call it.

Maxientius said:
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. :cool:
Click to expand...

well luckily for me you don't know what I am arguing or the context of this so you can just be some comedy.
 
Maxientius said:
Lol not you goobie
Nerv did. I'd quote it but my iphone makes that rather hard. I apologize for your misunderstanding.
And this debate about nukes is off topic.
Click to expand...

lol yeah we did get off topic
 
nerv14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not the 2nd amendment that is in question, but rather a functional categorization of "arms". The Constitution is a literal document, the Bill of Rights is meant to be taken literally; including the 2nd. And it is. It's not debate about what the 2nd amendment says, it's debate on functional category. That's it.
 
nerv14 said:
yes, so it can't be taken literally.
Click to expand...
It IS taken literally.

When I was saying that the bill of rights couldn't be taken literally, I meant that it is related to the issue at hand.
Click to expand...
And what you fail to understand that there is a difference bwtween 'taken literally' and 'defining the terms'.

well luckily for me you don't know what I am arguing or the context of this so you can just be some comedy.
Click to expand...
On the contrary -- you agree that the 2nd covers machineguns, but you want to ban them anyway. You're using the argument that 'the 2nd isnt interpreted literally' to allow you to argue that "arms" covers ALL weapons, and then use THAT to argue that since ALL weapons cannot possibly pe protected, 'the line has to be drawn somewhere, so why not machineguns.'

Explain how I misunderstand you.
 
Ikari said:
It's not the 2nd amendment that is in question, but rather a functional categorization of "arms". The Constitution is a literal document, the Bill of Rights is meant to be taken literally; including the 2nd. And it is. It's not debate about what the 2nd amendment says, it's debate on functional category. That's it.
Click to expand...

And a debate on the functional catagory is a debate on what the second amendment says. because what something says odviously is about what it means.

lol This is so pointless to debate on if we are debating about the meaning of the second amendment. that is a waste of time now.

Goobieman said:
It IS taken literally.


And what you fail to understand that there is a difference bwtween 'taken literally' and 'defining the terms'.
Click to expand...

see above

On the contrary -- you agree that the 2nd covers machineguns, but you want to ban them anyway. You're using the argument that 'the 2nd isnt interpreted literally' to allow you to argue that "arms" covers ALL weapons, and then use THAT to argue that since ALL weapons cannot possibly pe protected, 'the line has to be drawn somewhere, so why not machineguns.'

Explain how I misunderstand you.
Click to expand...

You aren't reading what I am writing. I have never said that second amendment won't be violated by banning machineguns. I have never said otherwise.

Even though i know outlawing machineguns violates the second, I am still support banning automatic machineguns for my political purposes. I am not going to pursue a strict interpretation of the Constitution in how I would vote if I was a politician.

I would support people agreeing to follow the 10th amendment and make the 2nd clearer, but I wouldn't sacrifice my issues for that.
 
nerv14 said:
And a debate on the functional catagory is a debate on what the second amendment says. because what something says odviously is about what it means.

lol This is so pointless to debate on if we are debating about the meaning of the second amendment. that is a waste of time now.
Click to expand...

What do you mean now? These arguments have been a waste of time since post 1. I've shown you were mistake with the 9th amendment and with the "Constitution isn't literal" thing. You're the one who keeps trying to misuse it to further your argument. Waste of time now...HA. The whole "not literal" and 9th amendment thing was a waste of time from the very beginning.
 
Ikari said:
What do you mean now? These arguments have been a waste of time since post 1. I've shown you were mistake with the 9th amendment and with the "Constitution isn't literal" thing. You're the one who keeps trying to misuse it to further your argument. Waste of time now...HA. The whole "not literal" and 9th amendment thing was a waste of time from the very beginning.
Click to expand...

? we both agree that there needs to be a form of interpretation of the Bill of Rights. that Greats I think that means that we agree with the substance of our arguements.

Yes, you were right about the 9th amendment though.

But hey, if you want to argue with me for the sake of argueing go right ahead....
 
Last edited:
nerv14 said:
? we both agree that there needs to be a form of interpretation of the Bill of Rights. that Greats I think that means that we agree with the substance of our arguements.

Yes, you were right about the 9th amendment though.

But hey, if you want to argue with me for the sake of argueing go right ahead....
Click to expand...

dude, there is a form of interpretation. First, its taken as what it says. There is no deeper context.
Also, the government can interpret it how they see fit. how are you going to stop them?
 
nerv14 said:
? we both agree that there needs to be a form of interpretation of the Bill of Rights. that Greats I think that means that we agree with the substance of our arguements.

Yes, you were right about the 9th amendment though.

But hey, if you want to argue with me for the sake of argueing go right ahead....
Click to expand...

Even though i know outlawing machineguns violates the second, I am still support banning automatic machineguns for my political purposes. I am not going to pursue a strict interpretation of the Constitution in how I would vote if I was a politician.
Click to expand...

You've made it clear that you don't respect the Constitution and would not let it stand in the way of your agenda. Congratulations, you're a politician. Probably a Democrat, but you could be a RINO.

If you understood the 9th amendment correctly, and the writings of the founders and the general process of SCOTUS decisions, you would understand that where there is a question of what the Constitution means, or interpreting rights, it should always be interpreted in favor of individual liberty, except in cases where there is an overwhelming public intrest, provable and beyond question, in restricting something...and that "prior restraint" will result in great benefit to the citizenry.

It is provable that shouting "fire!" fraudulently in a crowded theater is overwhelmingly very bad for the public (1st Amd). It is provable that allowing Tom Dick and Harry to own nukes is overwhelmingly very bad for the public. It is not provable that the ownership of automatic firearms is an overall negative for the public, or that the public would benefit greatly from a restriction on them. Full-auto weapons, and the AWB "assault weapons list" of guns, (which are not the same thing) are so rarely used in crimes that we'd have to ban ballpeen hammers and kitchen knives first in order to be consistent.

G.
 
Last edited:
Maxientius said:
dude, there is a form of interpretation. First, its taken as what it says. There is no deeper context.
Also, the government can interpret it how they see fit. how are you going to stop them?
Click to expand...

and as I say... how will we know what it says. The SCOTUS interpreted the second amendment to have to do with normal military weapons at one time apparently. therefore that was interpreted the second amendment doeesn't say that rights to normal military weapons can't be infringed upon.

Goshin said:
You've made it clear that you don't respect the Constitution and would not let it stand in the way of your agenda. Congratulations, you're a politician. Probably a Democrat, but you could be a RINO.

If you understood the 9th amendment correctly, and the writings of the founders and the general process of SCOTUS decisions, you would understand that where there is a question of what the Constitution means, or interpreting rights, it should always be interpreted in favor of individual liberty, except in cases where there is an overwhelming public intrest, provable and beyond question, in restricting something...and that "prior restraint" will result in great benefit to the citizenry.

It is provable that shouting "fire!" fraudulently in a crowded theater is overwhelmingly very bad for the public (1st Amd). It is provable that allowing Tom Dick and Harry to own nukes is overwhelmingly very bad for the public. It is not provable that the ownership of automatic firearms is an overall negative for the public, or that the public would benefit greatly from a restriction on them. Full-auto weapons, and the AWB "assault weapons list" of guns, (which are not the same thing) are so rarely used in crimes that we'd have to ban ballpeen hammers and kitchen knives first in order to be consistent.

G.
Click to expand...

99% of all people even on this forum don't respect the constitution, especially the 10th amendment. I am just admiting it, and I can easily live with that. and just for your info, all republicans (who aren't libertarians) not just RINOs don't follow the Constitution.

And I have said my reasons for outlawing fully automatic weapons, but of course it isn't "provable." really, only economic issues can be "proven" and even then its fuzzy.
 
nerv14 said:
You aren't reading what I am writing. I have never said that second amendment won't be violated by banning machineguns. I have never said otherwise.

Even though i know outlawing machineguns violates the second, I am still support banning automatic machineguns for my political purposes. I am not going to pursue a strict interpretation of the Constitution in how I would vote if I was a politician.
Click to expand...
Well hell -- why bother having a xConstitution at all if you're simply going to ignore it "for [your] political purposes"?

For that matter, why bother discussing Constitutional issues at all?
 
Goobieman said:
Well hell -- why bother having a xConstitution at all if you're simply going to ignore it "for [your] political purposes"?

For that matter, why bother discussing Constitutional issues at all?
Click to expand...

To be completely serious, if I was a politician, I would be willing to follow the second amendment if other politicians were willing to follow the 10th amendment. If other politicians weren't going to restrict themselves with that, then I don't think I would.
 
nerv14 said:
To be completely serious, if I was a politician, I would be willing to follow the second amendment if other politicians were willing to follow the 10th amendment. If other politicians weren't going to restrict themselves with that, then I don't think I would.
Click to expand...
I dont think you answered my question.
 
Goobieman said:
C'mon... there has to be at least ONE other person that thinks this is a "strong argument for banning 'assault weapons'"

http://www.debatepolitics.com/Death...pened-ban-assault-weapons.html#post1058002944
Click to expand...

From your perspective, of following the Second Amendment as it was intended by the founding fathers, there is no arguement to ban assult weapons while the second amendment is in place.

So, basically by definition, you can't really lose in this specific arguement.
 
nerv14 said:
From your perspective, of following the Second Amendment as it was intended by the founding fathers, there is no arguement to ban assult weapons while the second amendment is in place.

So, basically by definition, you can't really lose in this specific arguement.
Click to expand...
I'll let you in on a secret...

I started this poll to bring ridicule to the person that created the topic I just linked to (look at the OP).

That person has yet to defend his position, even after numerous personal requests for him to do so. As expected.

And so, aside from the lenghty and legitimate debate started by the poll, the effort has had the effect I had hoped.

:mrgreen:
 
Goobieman said:
I'll let you in on a secret...

I started this poll to bring ridicule to the person that created the topic I just linked to (look at the OP).

That person has yet to defend his position, even after numerous personal requests for him to do so. As expected.

And so, aside from the lenghty and legitimate debate started by the poll, the effort has had the effect I had hoped.

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

lol

Well I guess I kinda defended his position... but I was argueing what should happen, not what can happen because of the second.

Those are two different issues and even though I didn't actually try to say that my reasons were Constitutional, I think the reasons in the thread do make sense if the second amendment didn't exist...

but unfortuantly the author of the thread chose the arguement that he inherently can't win...
 
there is NO valid argument for outlawing the ownership of any firearms.

butthenImbiasedsinceIhaveanextensivecollectionofassaultandhandguns:mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom