• 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 have a conceal and carry license?

Do you have a conceal and carry permit?

  • Total voters
    66
Dirty Harry said:
And a naked guy chasing after you could be more lethal too.:roll:
Click to expand...

the naked guy chasing after me will most likely end up on some government list.
 
Dirty Harry said:
Exactly. That is the job of the other branches of government to decide.
Click to expand...
LOL
Its prettly clear that you're just throwing stuff against the wall to see what will stick. Keep tossing.

As I said, and as you have yet to address:

The right to arms is as absolute as 'free speech', in that some some weapons and some manner of their use do not fal under the right to 'keep and bear arms' in very much the same way that some forms of speech do not fall under 'free speech'.

This is effectively the same thing that Scalia said, using different words.
 
Dirty Harry said:
Exactly. That is the job of the other branches of government to decide.
Click to expand...

So long as it does so by the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
Guns don't kill people, extreme blood loss and damage to internal organs kill people. Therefore, we should outlaw extreme blood loss and severe damage to internal organs. I suggest using capital punishment on anyone caught having extreme blood loss and damaged internal organs.
 
Tucker Case said:
Guns don't kill people, extreme blood loss and damage to internal organs kill people. Therefore, we should outlaw extreme blood loss and severe damage to internal organs. I suggest using capital punishment on anyone caught having extreme blood loss and damaged internal organs.
Click to expand...
Those so convicted also need to pay damages. All that blood is messy and takes quite a bit to clean up.
 
Goobieman said:
LOL
Its prettly clear that you're just throwing stuff against the wall to see what will stick. Keep tossing.

As I said, and as you have yet to address:

The right to arms is as absolute as 'free speech', in that some some weapons and some manner of their use do not fal under the right to 'keep and bear arms' in very much the same way that some forms of speech do not fall under 'free speech'.

This is effectively the same thing that Scalia said, using different words.
Click to expand...

Scalia said more than that. Not only type, but how and when. Scalia made the point that the right to bear arms could be restricted. So government can make it illegal for the guy to carry an M60 machine gun on a playground even if their isn't a sign. Do you understand, yet?

What Scalia said that restrictions on the right to bear arms can constitutionally be implemented. It can not be any clearer than that.
 
Dirty Harry said:
What Scalia said that restrictions on the right to bear arms can constitutionally be implemented. It can not be any clearer than that.
Click to expand...

Nothing prevents tyranny of the courts either. The courts must abide by the rights and liberties of the individual, else they are acting unjust. Our rights are not unlimited, but the 1 limitation is that we may not infringe upon the rights of others. That's it. All rulings on exercise of rights must fall along this line.
 
Ikari said:
Nothing prevents tyranny of the courts either. The courts must abide by the rights and liberties of the individual, else they are acting unjust. Our rights are not unlimited, but the 1 limitation is that we may not infringe upon the rights of others. That's it. All rulings on exercise of rights must fall along this line.
Click to expand...

All rights are limited. We elect government to decide those limitations and the supremre court decides if what they decide is constitutional. That's democracy.
 
Dirty Harry said:
All rights are limited. We elect government to decide those limitations and the supremre court decides if what they decide is constitutional. That's democracy.
Click to expand...

All rights are limited, I gave you the limitation. Democracy itself is a bad system which only encourages mob rule. Which is why we're supposed to have a Republic where the government is restricted to acting in accordance to the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
Dirty Harry said:
Scalia said more than that. Not only type, but how and when.
Click to expand...
This is just sad.

The court (not Scalia) said:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
Click to expand...
This is a simple statemment that the right has boundaries. This is not new, as everyone knows that all rights have boundaries; things outside those boundaries do not enjoy the protection of the right.
This is my postion, exactly.

The court (not Scalia) then said:
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms
Click to expand...
This is an example of how there is a limit to the 'manner and purpose' of keeping and carrying a weapon, and how that limit is relatedto the boundary of the right itself. No one argues that these restrctions violate the right to arms as everyone agrees that these things lie outside the right.

THEN the court (not Scalia) said:
Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Click to expand...
Look! A reference to Miller! Who brought up Miller? Me!
As per Miller....
All classes firearns are "in common use" and "part of the regular equipment" of the standing army. This precludes the use of this decision to support the idea that some firearms can be prohibited from ownership and use by the citizenry, as ALL of them fall under the definition of "arms".

Scalia made the point that the right to bear arms could be restricted. So government can make it illegal for the guy to carry an M60 machine gun on a playground even if their isn't a sign. Do you understand, yet?
Click to expand...
Yes. I understand that the decision doesn't support your position.
What Scalia said that restrictions on the right to bear arms can constitutionally be implemented. It can not be any clearer than that.
Click to expand...
This interpretation is erronious.
The court (not Scalia) said that SOME restrictions, such as those noted, that deal with things that lie outside the right to arms, do not violate the amendment, not that any every manner of restriction is allowed by the Constitution. Allowable restrictions are based on the inherent limits to the right -- just I said.

So, the court (not Scalia) said that:
-The right to arms is held by the individual, regardless of his relationship to the militia;
-Restrictions that limit things that fall outside the right to arms are allowed by the Constitution.
-Keeping and bearing of any and all classes of fireams, being 'in common use' and 'part of ordinary military equipment' are protected by the Constitution
 
Dirty Harry said:
All rights are limited. We elect government to decide those limitations and the supremre court decides if what they decide is constitutional. That's democracy.
Click to expand...
That's also false.
The court, through its oipinions, sets the general and specific boundaries of rights.
 
Dirty Harry said:
Then I guess a sharp stick could be just as lethal as a SAW, too. Right?
Or how about a shovel or a rock? A fryin pan? Are you trying to say that anything that can kill is just as lethal as a SAW?
Click to expand...

How 'bout a soldering iron? :rofl

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9KQQrNDawM"]YouTube- Joe Dirt - Soldering Iron 1[/ame]
 
Tucker Case said:
Guns don't kill people, extreme blood loss and damage to internal organs kill people. Therefore, we should outlaw extreme blood loss and severe damage to internal organs. I suggest using capital punishment on anyone caught having extreme blood loss and damaged internal organs.
Click to expand...

Only if they die from it.
 
Last edited:
Dirty Harry said:
Scalia said more than that. Not only type, but how and when. Scalia made the point that the right to bear arms could be restricted. So government can make it illegal for the guy to carry an M60 machine gun on a playground even if their isn't a sign. Do you understand, yet?

What Scalia said that restrictions on the right to bear arms can constitutionally be implemented. It can not be any clearer than that.
Click to expand...

The redneck M60 playground example is a straw man argument.

An M60 is an infantry light support weapon. As such, it might be covered under the 2A, ideally.

In the libertarian ideal of a 2A legal structure, it might be legal for the man to carry the M60 onto a playground... but he may very well have cops or armed and concerned citizens approach him and ask him "WTF are you doing bringing an M60 onto a playground?" and if he doesn't have a very reasonable answer he might be questioned further... or some armed citizen might "escort" him elsewhere.

See, there is no context to this straw man example. WHY did he bring the M60 onto the playground? To kill children? Well, murder is illegal, isn't it?

Is there a loaded belt hanging out of the breech? If so, he would definitely draw the intrest of cops or armed citizens. Does he point the thing at anyone? That's assault with a deadly weapon, or possibly criminal negligence. In an armed society, it would also be a good way to get killed before you could unlimber that long heavy machinegun.

At 3', a handgun is a more effective weapon than an M60... because the M60 is too heavy and ungainly for close combat. In an armed society, people wouldn't be trembling in fear and scattering like sheep because this guy is walking around with an M60. It doesn't make him bullet proof...what it will make him is highly conspicuous.

The original intent of the 2A was to cover all small arms and weapons suitable for militia use and other lawful purposes (sport, hunting, self-defense). Handguns, shotguns and all rifles (including selective-fire AK's, AR's, M4's) are properly covered under that definition. M60's, maybe. A .50 machinegun is a MOUNTED weapon and may arguably be beyond the defintion of small arms and light weapons appropriate to militia service; a Stinger or RPG might or might not fit the definition... it could be debated.

Explosives are typically indiscriminate killers, and carry with them a substantial risk of accidental mass-destruction if mishandled or improperly stored... so some kind of license certifying that you are properly trained to handle same would not be too restrictive IMO. This might also apply to grenades, RPG's and Stingers, depending on exactly how you define militia small arms and light weapons.

Context is always important. What kind of gun a man is carrying and where are not as important as what his intentions are. I would assure you that a man carrying an M60 onto a playground would attract notice even if it were legal, and some concerned (and armed) citizen is likely to ask him for an explanation at the very least.
 
Goshin said:
The redneck M60 playground example is a straw man argument.

An M60 is an infantry light support weapon. As such, it might be covered under the 2A, ideally.

In the libertarian ideal of a 2A legal structure, it might be legal for the man to carry the M60 onto a playground... but he may very well have cops or armed and concerned citizens approach him and ask him "WTF are you doing bringing an M60 onto a playground?" and if he doesn't have a very reasonable answer he might be questioned further... or some armed citizen might "escort" him elsewhere.

See, there is no context to this straw man example. WHY did he bring the M60 onto the playground? To kill children? Well, murder is illegal, isn't it?

Is there a loaded belt hanging out of the breech? If so, he would definitely draw the intrest of cops or armed citizens. Does he point the thing at anyone? That's assault with a deadly weapon, or possibly criminal negligence. In an armed society, it would also be a good way to get killed before you could unlimber that long heavy machinegun.

At 3', a handgun is a more effective weapon than an M60... because the M60 is too heavy and ungainly for close combat. In an armed society, people wouldn't be trembling in fear and scattering like sheep because this guy is walking around with an M60. It doesn't make him bullet proof...what it will make him is highly conspicuous.

The original intent of the 2A was to cover all small arms and weapons suitable for militia use and other lawful purposes (sport, hunting, self-defense). Handguns, shotguns and all rifles (including selective-fire AK's, AR's, M4's) are properly covered under that definition. M60's, maybe. A .50 machinegun is a MOUNTED weapon and may arguably be beyond the defintion of small arms and light weapons appropriate to militia service; a Stinger or RPG might or might not fit the definition... it could be debated.

There are some here that think it is perfectly acceptable to carry an M60 machine gun onto a playground.

Explosives are typically indiscriminate killers, and carry with them a substantial risk of accidental mass-destruction if mishandled or improperly stored... so some kind of license certifying that you are properly trained to handle same would not be too restrictive IMO. This might also apply to grenades, RPG's and Stingers, depending on exactly how you define militia small arms and light weapons.

Context is always important. What kind of gun a man is carrying and where are not as important as what his intentions are. I would assure you that a man carrying an M60 onto a playground would attract notice even if it were legal, and some concerned (and armed) citizen is likely to ask him for an explanation at the very least.
Click to expand...


There are some here that think it is perfectly acceptable to carry an M60 machine gun onto a playground and it is his constitutional right. No strawman. They actually believe it.
My point is some common sense rules concerning firearms are neccessary in a modern society. The Supreme court agrees with me.
 
Dirty Harry said:
There are some here that think it is perfectly acceptable to carry an M60 machine gun onto a playground and it is his constitutional right. No strawman. They actually believe it.
My point is some common sense rules concerning firearms are neccessary in a modern society. The Supreme court agrees with me.
Click to expand...

As I said, the problem with your example is the lack of CONTEXT... just as the problem with "common sense restrictions" is that the phrase means wildly different things to different people.

What if I'm carrying a holstered and concealed Glock 19 on the playground? Does that make it any better to you? I'll give you a hint: the difference in danger is less about what weapon I am packing, but rather about what my intentions are.

If I am there playing with my child, I am packing the Glock for defensive purposes and, IMO, there is no harm/no foul, because I have no ill intentions. Before anyone starts screaming that some child could grab the gun from me and kill 17 people before I could stop him, let's note that it is in a Level II Retention Holster and as I mentioned, concealed.
 
Goshin said:
As I said, the problem with your example is the lack of CONTEXT... just as the problem with "common sense restrictions" is that the phrase means wildly different things to different people.

What if I'm carrying a holstered and concealed Glock 19 on the playground? Does that make it any better to you? I'll give you a hint: the difference in danger is less about what weapon I am packing, but rather about what my intentions are.

If I am there playing with my child, I am packing the Glock for defensive purposes and, IMO, there is no harm/no foul, because I have no ill intentions. Before anyone starts screaming that some child could grab the gun from me and kill 17 people before I could stop him, let's note that it is in a Level II Retention Holster and as I mentioned, concealed.
Click to expand...

It is about the right to bear arms. It really doesn't matter what your doing or what your intentions are. Does one have the right to carry a weapon on to a playground if their are no signs.
Intention means nothing. A guy could just be excercising his constitutional right.
 
Dirty Harry said:
It is about the right to bear arms. It really doesn't matter what your doing or what your intentions are. Does one have the right to carry a weapon on to a playground if their are no signs.
Intention means nothing. A guy could just be excercising his constitutional right.
Click to expand...

No sir... You chose to take an extreme example, "redneck with a M60 on a playground" and use that as your talking point. The lack of context renders the scenario meaningless.

Intentions mean nothing? On the contrary. If my intentions are honorable and benevolent, you are safe even if I am packing an M-60. If my intentions are psychopathically homicidal, you are not safe even if I am unarmed.

If some psychopath with homicidal intentions approaches the playground to kill the children, you'd likely end up being darn glad I was there with my Glock 19, because I'd stop him or die trying. There's the diff in intentions.
 
Last edited:
Dirty Harry said:
It is about the right to bear arms. It really doesn't matter what your doing or what your intentions are. Does one have the right to carry a weapon on to a playground if their are no signs.
Intention means nothing. A guy could just be excercising his constitutional right.
Click to expand...

some playgrounds are actually pretty violent places, you know.
 
Goshin said:
No sir... You chose to take an extreme example, "redneck with a M60 on a playground" and use that as your talking point. The lack of context renders the scenario meaningless.

Intentions mean nothing? On the contrary. If my intentions are honorable and benevolent, you are safe even if I am packing an M-60. If my intentions are psychopathically homicidal, you are not safe even if I am unarmed.

If some psychopath with homicidal intentions approaches the playground to kill the children, you'd likely end up being darn glad I was there with my Glock 19, because I'd stop him or die trying. There's the diff in intentions.
Click to expand...

And the police are mind readers so they know your intentions. Having bad intentions in itself is not a crime.
 
I don't hunt, and I live in the safest area in America. I have absolutely no reason to own a gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom