• 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

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Jimmy Carter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27Carter.html?_r=2&ref=global

THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994.

When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation — called on Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.

I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office.

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.

An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons, but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.

A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons. Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.

Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case.

Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty. In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows.

What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.

Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.

The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.

So:
Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?
 
Last edited:
no. carter and anyone who buys into this nonsense is a hoplophobic buffoon.
 
Lets look at Carter's Op-ed:

THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994
.
This is supposed to present the fascade of bi-partisan agreement on the issue.
All it really means is he, Reagan, GHWB and WJBC were all wrong.

When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation...
Did any of these organziations provide concrete evidence that their officers, in terms of their safety while on duty, drew a direct benefit from the 'awb'?
If so... what was it?
If not... then why did they support the continuation of the ban?

...called on Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.
This is, of course, fiction.
GWB publicly endorsed the continuation of the 'awb':
USATODAY.com - Federal ban on assault weapons expires
Congress, however, flatly refused to take up the issue.

I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office.
This is designed to protray JC as a pro-gun American, living in the best traditions of same. This is designed to add credibility to the next para...

(Ever notice how the anti-gun side always does this? "I support the 2nd amandment, but...")

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives.
Really, do I need to comment here?
Yes, I suppose I do.
1: What guns YOU want do not in any way create a sound argument regarding what guns I have a right to own;
2: False premise, that the ONLY reason someone might want to own an ;assault weapon' is to kill policemen;
3: False premise, that the ONLY reason someone might want to own an 'assault weapon' is to shoot up a school;
4: False premise, that 'assault weapons' are commonly used to kill police officers;
5: False premise, that 'assault weapons' are commonly used to shoot up schools

That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.
Obviously, if the argument, above, is why 'assault weapons' "must" be banned, then there's no sound reason ti ban them.

I wonder:
What does JC think of politcians that refuse to try to ban 'assault weapons' because they know it will cost them personal and partisan political power?
After all, if it "must" be done, then doesn't their retention of power take a back seat in importance?

An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons
This has been addressed.

but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.
So what?
If the overwhelming majority of Americans supported the abridgement of the right to the free exercise of religion, would that make it OK?

A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons.
See above.

Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban
Its no suprise that he is dismayed by the people that oppose his desire to infringe on the rights of law abiding Americans.

...and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.
I agree - if you REALLY believe that 'assault weapons' MUST be banned, then you should go after the ban regardless of what it will do to you politically.
However, those that support this ban are more concerned with their own personal and partisan political power to do what "must" be done.

Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us....
Wait...
He's arguing FOR a ban on firearms, and then arging that gun owners dont need to worry about their guns being banned..?

and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case.
How does bannng 'assault weapons' --not-- illustrate a threat to the constitutional right to keep and bear arms?

Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty
This is, of course, completely unsupprtable.
JC knows this, and so, this means his statement to this effect is a bald-faced loe.

In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows
.
Ah, the gun show 'loophole'. Still trying to sell this one.
"Private gun dealers" do not exist -- you are a licensed dealer or a private citizen.

What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people?
What guns are "designed to kill people"?
If you use one of these guns and do NOT kill someone, have you used it incorrectly?

In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.
What % of guns does that 30k represent?
0.01%? So, 99.99% of guns are NOT used to kill someone.
Where's the problem?

Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.
"Advanced weaponry"...like the 60-yr old AK47 and the 45-yr old AR-15?
And, how does crime in Mexico create an argument for infringing on the riughts of law-abiding Americans?

Never mind that the "imports" wee illegal in the first place...

The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons...
This is the same lame argument WR keeps making, one that has been thoroughly trounced -- it is based on the false dichotomy and false premise that the only "responible" actions in this regard are those that he/they think are responsible.

We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.
Two things:
1) I agree: if you REALLY believe that 'assault weapons' MUST be banned, then you should go after the ban regardless of what it will do to you politically.
However, those that support this ban are more concerned with their own personal and partisan political power to do what "must" be done.
2) that 'assault weapons' are 'designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend' is an outright lie.

Thus:
This is nothing more than the old, tired, re-hashed and demonstarbly false anti-gun dreck that we always hear.

I wonder if the people that think this makes a "strong case for the reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban" will address these issues with Carter's piece...
 
Last edited:
Not in the least. Its nothing but gross over exaggerations or obvious misrepresentation of things in hopes of appealing to emotion and paranoia instead of logic and reason.

Whoever acts like its only republicans that use the "politics of fear" are kidding themselves.
 
No, because... Jimmy Carter said it.
I am for banning certain assault weapons but can't come to take anything this guy says seriously.
And the idea that the NRA or the "gun lobby" somehow controlls Congress is simply ridiculous.
 
No, because... Jimmy Carter said it.
I am for banning certain assault weapons....
Like...?
Why those and not the others?
 
Like...?
Why those and not the others?

Because they are not necessary. You don't need a mega-powerful gun to defend yourself. Some weapons can do nothing but make murder more efficient and I don't see what advantages there are in not banning them.
 
Because they are not necessary. You don't need a mega-powerful gun to defend yourself.



so by that logic you are for banning:


cigarettes
suv's
motorcycles
excessivly large tv's
buffets
fatty foods


i can go on ad nauseum if you would like.

Some weapons can do nothing but make murder more efficient and I don't see what advantages there are in not banning them.


If they are more efficient at "murder" then by the same logic, would they not be also more efficient at preventing murder?
 
No. Because it violates the Second Amendment.

Also,

No. Because Carter is an idiot.
 
Because they are not necessary. You don't need a mega-powerful gun to defend yourself. Some weapons can do nothing but make murder more efficient and I don't see what advantages there are in not banning them.
I'm not trying to be difficult here - understand that I am genuinely curious.
Which specific 'assault weapons' do you believe should be banned?
Can you name one or more?
 
I wonder if the people that think this makes a "strong case for the reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban" will address these issues with Carter's piece...
Waiting...:2wave:
 
Because they are not necessary. You don't need a mega-powerful gun to defend yourself. Some weapons can do nothing but make murder more efficient and I don't see what advantages there are in not banning them.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the people have in their possession the means of overthrowing a tyrannical government. That means....so-called "assualt" weapons.
 
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the people have in their possession the means of overthrowing a tyrannical government. That means....so-called "assualt" weapons.

It was actually more to keep the government from having large standing armies. The idea was that if there were well armed and organized local militias, the federal government could call upon them to defend the nation if needed. Since the means of national defense would then primarily lie with the people, the government could never become tyrannical.
 
so by that logic you are for banning:


cigarettes
suv's
motorcycles
excessivly large tv's
buffets
fatty foods


i can go on ad nauseum if you would like.

Afraid I don't follow you... I'm not for banning unnecessary things, just unnecessary things which help murderers achieve their goals.

If they are more efficient at "murder" then by the same logic, would they not be also more efficient at preventing murder?

Not really. If you want to defend yourself, you don't need much more than something easily capable of killing a guy; beyond a point it just becomes excessive.

I'm not trying to be difficult here - understand that I am genuinely curious.
Which specific 'assault weapons' do you believe should be banned?
Can you name one or more?

No, and I will be completely honest here, but I don't know much about guns.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the people have in their possession the means of overthrowing a tyrannical government. That means....so-called "assualt" weapons.

So then it's OK for individual citizens to own nuclear weapons? After all, the Second Amendment only said "arms", not "guns".
 
Jimmy Carter's argument for banning assault weapons is a horrible one.

A much better argument would be to point out since the desire to own an assault weapon is an obvious coping mechanism to compensate for personal inadequacies such as:

Below average penis size.
Premature ejaculation.
Latent Homosexuality.
Impotence.
Inferiority Complexes.

It's quite detrimental to the mental health of individuals who use assault weapons as such a coping / compensation mechanism as it impairs their ability to undergo successful treatment for those types of issues. After all, why else would they care so much about the ability to own a cheap Russian or Chinese made assault weapon? Owning these weapons prevents them from coming to terms with these personal inadequacies, thus for public health, they should be banned. :mrgreen:
 
It was actually more to keep the government from having large standing armies. The idea was that if there were well armed and organized local militias, the federal government could call upon them to defend the nation if needed. Since the means of national defense would then primarily lie with the people, the government could never become tyrannical.

Nope.

Re-read Federalist 28. The Second Amendment was to ensure that if the local or federal government subverted the militia's the people still had recourse to their own weapons to defend their liberties.
 
So then it's OK for individual citizens to own nuclear weapons? After all, the Second Amendment only said "arms", not "guns".

Gee, I said "assualt" weapons, didn't I?

You can't argue against what's posted so you have to go nuclear non-sequitur on us, or what?
 
No - the word petulant comes to mind, like me and all your leaders decided, and it passed before, and it was good and you liked it, so why isn't it still there? I mean, Charlton "From My Cold Dead Hand" Heston, baby, look no further!
 
Most of Carter's reasons seemed pretty poor, but I agree with him in that assult weapons can kill many people at once.

Even though I roughly consider myself pro-gun, my reason are for hunting, self defence, overthrowing this gov, protection against invasions, and getting rid of ascess to all types of guns doesn't reduce crime.

and i dont' see how those reasons will be impeded by getting rid of assult weapons.
 
Because they are not necessary. You don't need a mega-powerful gun to defend yourself.

Yes I do. Who are you to say I don't?
 
and i dont' see how those reasons will be impeded by getting rid of assult weapons.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
Most of Carter's reasons seemed pretty poor, but I agree with him in that assult weapons can kill many people at once.

Even though I roughly consider myself pro-gun, my reason are for hunting, self defence, overthrowing this gov, protection against invasions, and getting rid of ascess to all types of guns doesn't reduce crime.

and i dont' see how those reasons will be impeded by getting rid of assult weapons.

Hmmmm....the reasons may not be impeded by eliminating "assualt" weapons, but successfully completing some of those missions certainly will be.

Wanna try overthrowing the government with peashooters? If a hundred million man horde of Chinese invaders hits the beach, do you want a single-shot .22 to hold them off, or a fully automatic squirt-gun of a bullet thrower in your hands?
 
Gee, I said "assualt" weapons, didn't I?

You can't argue against what's posted so you have to go nuclear non-sequitur on us, or what?

It's not non-sequitor. The fact that we can all agree on not letting ordinary citizens own nuclear weapons- we can all agree on that, right?- proves beyond doubt that there is a certain level of power beyond which marketable weapons should not legally go. The only question remaining is where that level is.

Yes I do. Who are you to say I don't?

Someone who doesn't want his whole family blown away before I can even pick up a weapon of my own?
 
The horse has left the stable.
 
It's not non-sequitor. The fact that we can all agree on not letting ordinary citizens own nuclear weapons- we can all agree on that, right?- proves beyond doubt that there is a certain level of power beyond which marketable weapons should not legally go. The only question remaining is where that level is.

The fact of the matter, however, is that the Second Amendment was referring specifically to handguns and rifles, as any reading of the founding documents reveals, and thus going nuclear is a non-sequitur.


Someone who doesn't want his whole family blown away before I can even pick up a weapon of my own?

Teach his whole family how to use guns in self-defense, then. How hard is that?

Then make sure they have the guns available to protect themselves with.

Trying to prevent others from getting guns is both impossible and unconstitutional.
 
Back
Top Bottom