• 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!

2nd amendment rights.

Are restrictions on the purchase/sale of firearms constitutional?

  • Total voters
    61
ender1 said:
Wouldnt that be interesting. Would it be fill in the blank or multiple choice test?
Click to expand...

I like fill in the blank-gets rid of lucky guessers
 
TurtleDude said:
in the founders time there were three classes of weapons

arms , artillery and ordnance. arms were just that-individual weapons that a regular infantryman or militia man would carry. swords, dirks, daggers, sabers, muskets, pistols and rifles. Artillery were mortars and cannon, and ordnance were bombs and rockets (remember "the rockets' red glare"?). the second dealt with the arms.

now modern weaponry often blurs the lines. a submachine gun is an arm while a crew served heavy mg is more akin to artillery. a mortar is artillery but a grenade launcher attached to a marine's M4 carbine has elements of both. same with an RPG or a SA-7 surface to air missile though I note that normally grenade launchers and missiles are issued to squads or platoons to be carried by a selected soldier while the M16 or M4 rifles are issued to just about every combatant.

so when we come to weapons capable of being deployed by one soldier even if issued at squad or platoon level (as opposed to every infantryman) there is a gray area when it comes to the second amendment. and I will concede that when it comes to RPGs, Strelas, or LAWS, MAWS or HAWS there is no quick answer.

but right now, there are clear and obvious infringements on the second amendement by the federal government that do not require an examination of the RPG issue. for example, many weapons that civilian police departments use--ie weapons that the federal and state government have conceded are useful for self defense in urban environments and clearly protected by the second-that other civilians cannot buy without all sorts of red tape and in fact are often banned

in 1986- in an attempt to derail the McClure-Volker firearms owner protection act (that would prevent Boston POlice from say arresting the Yale Skeet team as it travels through that city to the Eastern Collegiate clay target championships in Nashua NH), Dem Rep Hughes of NJ tried to poison the bill by attaching an amendment that many though was never properly ratified that banned the sale to civilians of all machine guns registered by their makers after May 19, 1986. this of course meant that the number of machine guns for non LEO ownership was cut off and the prices skyrocketed to the point that a gun police can buy for 900 dollars would cost me over 22,000 dollars

BTW to say we would need heavy weapons to deal with a tyrannical government is specious. in such a scenario, the proper response is not to go head to head with the us military (assuming that the army would attack large numbers of civilians and say carpet bomb Columbus or Dallas). rather the response would be to target those who had caused the oppression and take them out. If someone can get within a half mile of someone they can kill them and if you are a dictator and 20 million pissed off american patriots want you dead, you are pretty much toast
Click to expand...

Only if they were rather stupid. If such a scenario took place, most officials in charge of the oppression of the people would improve security procedures to help prevent such killings. Armoured vehicles, restricted access etc. If they didnt take such precautions, I would be suprised they got into that position in the first place

You only have to look at the Gaza strip, Iraq and Afganistan to see what personal weapons will do against a modern military. You need high exposives, RPGs, shaped charges, missiles etc to be able to present a real threat to a modern military. A large mass of people equiped with M16's or the like would be easily wiped out with artillery or airstrikes
 
TurtleDude said:
Of course not-that is an infringement akin to saying you cannot vote until you can prove you know the positions of those who are running for office
Click to expand...

Is that a bad thing to want?
 
Reading through the arguments posted, it would appear that the language of the Constitution dictates no infringements on the second amendment, which is the subject of this thread. As Turtle pointed out, there is a grey area with some weapons, such as an underbarrel grenade launcher, or LMG's, etc. And as pointed out earlier, a completely strict interpretation of the Constitution can be somewhat useless with the complexities of our era, so it'd be fair to say some restrictions (back-ground checks, storage requirements, licenses) would be reasonable; however along with that, you should be able to get any "arm" (I'm going to fall back on Turtle's explanation of what an arm is).
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Only if they were rather stupid. If such a scenario took place, most officials in charge of the oppression of the people would improve security procedures to help prevent such killings. Armoured vehicles, restricted access etc. If they didnt take such precautions, I would be suprised they got into that position in the first place

You only have to look at the Gaza strip, Iraq and Afganistan to see what personal weapons will do against a modern military. You need high exposives, RPGs, shaped charges, missiles etc to be able to present a real threat to a modern military. A large mass of people equiped with M16's or the like would be easily wiped out with artillery or airstrikes
Click to expand...


so my nephew who is now a major in the special forces is going to shell his hometown. and in those areas its very different

there are 100 million at least armed americans. people in tanks have to get out of them. and many people were in the military. look what is happening in the ME with IEDs. and that is in an area where our shells and bombs aren't killing American civilians.

and the bottom line is your understanding of civil insurrection or assassination has nothing to do with the second amendment issue.
 
TurtleDude said:
so my nephew who is now a major in the special forces is going to shell his hometown. and in those areas its very different

there are 100 million at least armed americans. people in tanks have to get out of them. and many people were in the military. look what is happening in the ME with IEDs. and that is in an area where our shells and bombs aren't killing American civilians.

and the bottom line is your understanding of civil insurrection or assassination has nothing to do with the second amendment issue.
Click to expand...

If part of the 2 nd amendment is to protect the people from a tyranical government, which was in the quote of my initial post, the people would need more then just rifles to do the job. The founding fathers I doubt imagined tanks or RPG's let alone apache helicopters
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
If part of the 2 nd amendment is to protect the people from a tyranical government, which was in the quote of my initial post, the people would need more then just rifles to do the job. The founding fathers I doubt imagined tanks or RPG's let alone apache helicopters
Click to expand...

nor did they imagine the internet or high speed printing presses but the genius of the first amendment applies to those unknown mediums just as the second amendment is not limited to the state of the art in individual weaponry circa 1790
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
If part of the 2 nd amendment is to protect the people from a tyranical government, which was in the quote of my initial post, the people would need more then just rifles to do the job. The founding fathers I doubt imagined tanks or RPG's let alone apache helicopters
Click to expand...

actual the purpose of the amendment was to make sure the people could protect the people-not an amendment
 
Goshin said:
You are mischaracterizing my position.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention you or your position at all. Stop taking everything personally.
 
TurtleDude said:
nor did they imagine the internet or high speed printing presses but the genius of the first amendment applies to those unknown mediums just as the second amendment is not limited to the state of the art in individual weaponry circa 1790
Click to expand...

So how is it ok to tap my phone without a warrent and store all of my internet useage? I want my 1st back!!
 
TurtleDude said:
nor did they imagine the internet or high speed printing presses but the genius of the first amendment applies to those unknown mediums just as the second amendment is not limited to the state of the art in individual weaponry circa 1790
Click to expand...

Right, and as an RPG is operated by a single person it could be considered individual weaponry along with certain anti tank missiles or AA missiles.
 
TurtleDude said:
actual the purpose of the amendment was to make sure the people could protect the people-not an amendment
Click to expand...

The amendment of course can not protect people, it is supposed protect the right of the people to protect themselves
 
ender1 said:
So how is it ok to tap my phone without a warrent and store all of my internet useage? I want my 1st back!!
Click to expand...

yes if such actions are REASONABLE

the prohibition is not against warrantless searches but UNREASONABLE ONES

the government is probably figuring you were responsible for a bunch of valuable lab mice missing
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Right, and as an RPG is operated by a single person it could be considered individual weaponry along with certain anti tank missiles or AA missiles.
Click to expand...

I assume you didn't read my long post where I specifically mentioned that an RPG is in a gray area
 
TurtleDude said:
I assume you didn't read my long post where I specifically mentioned that an RPG is in a gray area
Click to expand...

I read it, the last paragraph in that post seemed to backtrack on that gray area and leaned on the "not allow side"
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I read it, the last paragraph in that post seemed to backtrack on that gray area and leaned on the "not allow side"
Click to expand...

not at all, when the anti gun nuts admit that I should be able to buy and own the same weapons municipal police departments issue to other civilians such as select fire assault rifles (M4 or M16 and other like weapons such as the AR70, Steyr AUG, HK G36, AKM, AK74, Type 56, and the FAMAS) or SMGs such as the HK MP5, the IDF UZI, the "Swedish K" (Carl Gustaf SMG), and the Colt 9mm SMG (AR15)
then we can get to dealing with destructive devices that are normally useful in squad activities

what is your position on say the 1986 Hughes Amendment?
 
TurtleDude said:
the government is probably figuring you were responsible for a bunch of valuable lab mice missing
Click to expand...

I had a starving snake.

Still want my 1st back. Its no different than opening my mail or going through my frig.
 
ender1 said:
I had a starving snake.

Still want my 1st back. Its no different than opening my mail or going through my frig.
Click to expand...

ah ok a vegetarian owl

the war on drugs and the terrorist "threat" has subjected the BOR to much bruising
 
TurtleDude said:
not at all, when the anti gun nuts admit that I should be able to buy and own the same weapons municipal police departments issue to other civilians such as select fire assault rifles (M4 or M16 and other like weapons such as the AR70, Steyr AUG, HK G36, AKM, AK74, Type 56, and the FAMAS) or SMGs such as the HK MP5, the IDF UZI, the "Swedish K" (Carl Gustaf SMG), and the Colt 9mm SMG (AR15)
then we can get to dealing with destructive devices that are normally useful in squad activities

what is your position on say the 1986 Hughes Amendment?
Click to expand...

I am flexible on the issue of gun control, I certainly like them

But as for the US and the 2nd. I would suggest if the intent of the 2nd was to ensure the people will have the ability to defend themselves vs a tyranical government (militia aspects which I believe it does) then they people should have fully automatic weapons of any sort. I would also suggest they should be able to own man portable RPGs and the like.

If it is just to protect people from criminals ( break and enter, car jacking etc) then stronger governmental control is in order.


I would tend to be on the side of the militia aspect of the 2nd
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I am flexible on the issue of gun control, I certainly like them

But as for the US and the 2nd. I would suggest if the intent of the 2nd was to ensure the people will have the ability to defend themselves vs a tyranical government (militia aspects which I believe it does) then they people should have fully automatic weapons of any sort. I would also suggest they should be able to own man portable RPGs and the like.

If it is just to protect people from criminals ( break and enter, car jacking etc) then stronger governmental control is in order.


I would tend to be on the side of the militia aspect of the 2nd
Click to expand...

I'd be on the correct side of the second amendment. the standard model for those of us who have delved in the academic field known as second amendment scholarship. IE that the second amendment guarantees an INDIVIDUAL right-a right that was presumed to exist before the existence of the USC
 
TurtleDude said:
I'd be on the correct side of the second amendment. the standard model for those of us who have delved in the academic field known as second amendment scholarship. IE that the second amendment guarantees an INDIVIDUAL right-a right that was presumed to exist before the existence of the USC
Click to expand...

Including psychos and/or people with prior convictions of a felony?
 
repeter said:
Including psychos and/or people with prior convictions of a felony?
Click to expand...

states all ban such people from owning guns
and someone convicted of a federal felony can be federally stripped of a right
not really an issue in this discussion

can you supply a valid argument why a civilian such as me (who btw is better trained with firearms than 99.5% of police officers in both the use and the law) cannot legally buy a Colt SMG that was made last week while civilian police agencies routinely issue them to civilians police agents?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom