M14 Shooter

This is the place for the actual debate.
The format for the debate is currently under discussion:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/privat...tml#post567420 (Niftydrifty wants a private debate)

Once we agree to a format, the debate will begin.

Stay tuned!!

__________________
Any time someone says there should be a prior restraint on gun ownership, ask them what they think about a person's right to talk to known al Qaeda operatives without fear of being listened in on.

M14 Shooter

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.

The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution has, over only the last 50 years or so, been a point of debate between two principle antagonists – the pro-gun side, who argue that the amendment absolutely protects an individual right to own and use firearms tat cannot be infringed by government, and the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.

The discussion presented here, however, does not deal with the question as to whose right is protected by the 2nd amendment, but what weapons might fall under its purview. The terms “arms”, used by the Founders, is less than specific, and since it is less than specific, it is not clear, upon a cursory reading of the amendment, exactly what weapons are considered “arms” and therefore protected by the amendment. This debate ranges far and wide, with some people arguing that since the weapon of the day was a smoothbore musket that the only weapons protected by are those similar; some argue that ‘arms” is a fully inclusive term and protects the private ownership of nuclear weapons. Naturally, the truth lies somewhere in between.

Given that the issue of 2nd Amendment most often, if not exclusively, comes up when discussing gun control, it is a useful exercise to determine, which, if any, firearms are considered “arms” in the context of the 2nd, thereby raising the possibility that their ownership and use by private individuals may fall under 2nd amendment protection.

In this debate, I shall show that the term “arms”, as used in the 2nd Amendment, certainly includes the any modern firearm that anyone might care to mention – and while other weapons may also be considered ‘arms”, certainly, all modern firearms are. This position will be supported by a legal and historical examination of the subject, and a practical assessment of how those examinations apply to today’s world. In the end, it will be impossible to reach any conclusion other than all modern firearms are included in the term “arms” and thus are all protected by the amendment.

niftydrifty

Niftydrifty's opening remarks

I agree with M14 Shooter that the term “arms”, as used in the second Amendment, includes any modern firearm. I also agree, along with most Democrats (whom I tend to vote along with), that the second amendment protects individual gun ownership. A definition for the word "arms" cannot be assumed. It is there, and so long as it is (so vague), I believe that arms, ie. all modern firearms, are protected by the second amendment.

__________________
"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - Bill Kristol

M14 Shooter

It is apparent that my opponent is unwilling and/or unable to debate a position opposite of mine, as he agreed that he would when he called me out to debate him.

But, as agreed to, I will present my argument for him to counter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part I

In this post, I shall show how the 2nd amendment, by protecting the right to arms, protects the right to own and use any modern firearm. This shall be done through an examination of the legal and constitutional issues surrounding the 2nd amendment insofar as what weapons are considered ‘arms”, the effect of the linkage of the right to arms to militia service has on determining what weapons are considered arms, and how those two terms, in concert, relate to how the term “arms” relates to weapons available today.

To determine the proper position regarding any given point of contention relating to the Constitution, there are several methods. Most obvious is to examine current and past jurisprudence, preferably that from the Supreme Court, but from the lower courts if the Supreme Court has not rendered a clear picture. To supplement the view from the Supreme Court, one can draw on rulings from the lower courts, as well as, if available and if necessary, the writings of the people involved in the creation of the Constitution and/or the bill of rights.

To that end, one must first look at the only case in which the SCotUS examines the 2nd amendment:

UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

In this case, the SCotUS in effect created a test to see if any given weapon was covered by the protections afforded to the right of the people to keep and bear arms by linking that weapon to its effectiveness if employed in militia service - that it must have a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia":


The key terms here, and the obvious conclusion from them is that to be protected by the 2nd amendment, a weapon must be of a kind that is “any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense” and thus bears “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. This necessitates that to enjoy the protection of the 2nd, a weapon must be of a kind found in current military service.

This is further supported by:


Note that “in common use at the time” not only supports the position that the 2nd amendment protects the sort of weapons one might find in current military service, but it also quickly and easily negates any argument that the amendment protects only weapons in use at the writing of the amendment, as “in common use at the time” means in commune use at the time of the service, which could mean from any point after the establishment of the British North American colonies to the present day. Indeed, this phrase readily indicates that the militiaman were expected to provide a weapon for service that was in line with those in service with the standing army.

Put more simply, the decision in Miller indicates that weapons considered as “arms” in the context of the 2nd must be or be substantially similar to the ordinary weapons in current use with the standing army, and be suitable for use in the missions the militia might be expected to undertake. Of course, missions define weapons necessary to undertake them, and so to determine what ordinary weapons in current use might be necessary for the militia to undertake its usual missions, we must look at what those missions are.

As per Article I section 8:15 of the US Constitution, the militia has three roles:
• execute the laws of the union,
• suppress insurrections
• repel invasions

Along with these three constitutionally mandated mission, the militia was held by the Founding Fathers as the nations bulwark from tyranny, in that an armed populace would and should resist, through force of arms, an oppressive government, Just a few lines of a great many to this effect:

Patrick Henry:
Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

Thomas Jefferson:
What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security.

James Madison:
The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.

Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.

... large and permanent military establishments which are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.

An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of

Clearly then, the militia carries 4 missions, two of which, to , when necessary, assist and/or resist the standing army, being the most relevant. In these missions, the militia must be sufficiently equipped and armed, thus the protection of the 2nd amendment, to ensure that the government might not ever strip the people of the means to resist said government.

And so, the question begs: what weapons are those necessary for the militia to resist and/or assist the standing army, and that are of the kind in common use as any part of the ordinary military equipment that its could contribute to the common defense?

We have already examined the missions of the militia, and what it is expected to do. To determine the particular weapons that the militia might need for these missions, we must look at the nature of the militia units themselves, particularly their size and composition.

The militia, historically, were company-sized units of infantry, raised and employed locally by local leaders, sometimes at the behest of the state government and sometimes not. There were, of course, examples of militia artillery, cavalry and dragoon units, but there huge majority of militia were infantry; while there were militia units of up to brigade size, these units were almost always comprised on individual militia companies serving under a single command. As such, it is accurate, if not all-encompassing, to describe the standard militia unit as a company of infantry or light infantry.

This determination serves to put into a modern context the militia as it might be seen today, and, more importantly, what weapons it might need to carry out its intended missions.

Today, US Army infantry is largely mechanized, with their armored components integrated into the infantry units themselves, under command of the infantry commander. As such, these are not infantry units in the strict sense, but more akin to dragoons or, obviously, armored or mechanized infantry. Within the US military, there are, however, 3 classes of infantry companies which match the classic infantry designation – US Army airborne companies, USMC infantry companies and US Army Ranger companies, which are, in moist respects, ‘light infantry’.
https://www.infantry.army.mil/infantry/
Infantry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Light infantry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The weapons “in ordinary use” for these units are well-known and widely seen in various forms from various sources – certainly, anyone who cares to notice while watching the nightly news will observe the vast array of weapons carried by our infantry forces. In summary, the US infantryman is generally issued one or more of the weapons from this list, or a derivative thereof:
Historic U.S. Small Arms
Small Arms Information

• M9/M1911A1 pistol
• M16A2 rifle
• M14/M21 rifle
• M24/M40 rifle
• M82A1 rifle
• M249 Squad Automatic Weapon
• M240 General Purpose Machine Gun
• M2 Heavy Machine Gun
• M590/M1200 shotgun
• M203 40mm grenade launcher

Note that these are currently issued small arms; a more inclusive historical listing is provided in the 1st link noted above.

Continued in Part II, below.

M14 Shooter

Part II

From this list, several classes of weapons are present – pistols, shotguns, rifles, automatic rifles, assault rifles, and machineguns. As these weapons are those issued to US infantrymen, one must conclude that these weapons are examples of weapons “of the kind in common use as any part of the ordinary military equipment” and that they “contribute to the common defense”; as such, the classes of weapons represented by these weapons are among those that are protected by the US Constitution, under the decision in Miller.

As noted, the classes of weapons themselves, with the weapons listed above as representative samples, not the weapons specifically issued to the military, are those “of the kind in common use”. That an M16A2 rifle might be the actual weapon issued to US infantry, this does not preclude an AK47 from consideration as being part of ‘ordinary military equipment in common use’, as the AK47 can (and has) filled exactly the same role as the M16A2, with a substantially similar degree of efficacy. Similarly, a Winchester M70 rifle can (and has) filled the same role as the M24/M40 rifle, and the M60 can (and has) filled the same role as the M240, all to a similar degree of effectiveness. This sort of substitution can be made for any weapon on the list, as any weapon of the same classification can be effectively used in place of the weapons noted on the list.

It must be remembered that when considering the weapons and how they fit into the classes noted above, that these weapons are for service in the militia, not the regular army, and as such, these weapons and their ammunition are to be supplied by the person(s) wielding them. Because of this, and that they only need to have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, they need not necessarily match the issue weapons of the standing army exactly.

Conclusion:

• The Constitution, as interpreted by the only case dealing directly with the 2nd amendment, requires that to enjoy the protection of that amendment, any giver weapon must qualify as “arms”; to do this, it must be a weapon that can be effectively used in when in service of the militia.

• The militia, judged historically, is a collection of company-sized infantry units that are expected to, among other things, assist and resist the standing army.

• To be effective in those roles, the militia needs to be equipped in manner similar to the standing army, and that when ordinarily called for service, the members of the militia were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

• The standing army is equipped, in part, with several classes of firearms – pistons, shotguns, rifles, assault rifles and machineguns; to be considered as “of the kind in common use at the time”, a weapon must be of the kind issued to the standing army, or a substitute of similar effectiveness.

• Any modern pistol is an effective substitute for those issued to the standing army, any modern shotgun is an effective substitute for those issued to the standing army, any modern rifle is an effective substitute for any rifle issued to the standing army, etc

And so, from this, it is clear that any modern firearm you might care to mention qualifies as “arms” under the 2nd amendment.

niftydrifty

Perhaps it doesn't fit here exactly, but M14 Shooter, you left out my favorite gun quote when you listed a few quotes of Jefferson.

"The real beauty of the second amendment is that it is absolutely meaningless until they try to take it away." - Thomas Jefferson

Niftydrifty's argument

M14 Shooter misunderstands the gun debate in this country.

As I've said before, the gun debate as M14 Shooter represents it is meaningless. For comparison sake, here are a couple of illustrative examples. Behold the sheer folly of M14 Shooter's "topic."

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Issue: What established religions are protected by the 1st amendment?
My side: I will argue that, certainly, any religion you care to mention is protected by the 1st.

The Third Amendment says, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Issue: What houses are protected by the 3rd amendment?
My side: I will argue that, certainly, any house you care to mention is protected by the 3rd.

Certainly, M14 Shooter has made the case that all arms are covered by the 2nd, and I agree. But this begs the question: how many actually disagree with M14 Shooter? I don't. It seems to me that most people don't. And as far as I can tell, most "anti-gun" people don't. I'm sure M14 Shooter can come up with a couple of anecdotal examples of people that do disagree. But in producing mere anecdotal evidence, this is a misrepresentation of the actual gun debate in this country.

When I read anti-gun statements on the web, I see mention of repealing the second amendment. When someone talks about repealing the second amendment in order to restrict individual gun ownership, it must be because they understand that individual ownership of modern firearms is protected by the second amendment, right? M14 Shooter fails to grasp this.

370,000 hits: repeal "second amendment" - Google Search

Now contrast that with mentions online (according to google and my search terms), of weapons not being protected or covered by the second amendment, as M14 Shooter claims:

3,280 hits "not protected by the second amendment" - Google Search

6,210 hits http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...22&btnG=Search

Here's a typical article. Please note that this "anti-gun" guy says to repeal the second amendment. He doesn't argue that modern firearms aren't covered by the second amendment.
It's Time To Repeal The Second Amendment

And here's another. Please note that this guy is anti-gun, but, somehow, he also agrees with M14 Shooter, too, just as I do. How can it be?
Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises -- 06/12/2007

Why is it that those on the "anti-gun side" don't fit the characterization that M14 Shooter has describes to us? It's because he doesn't understand the nature of the gun debate, as it exists for most people.

The "anti-gun side" actually seems to agree with M14 Shooter, that modern firearms are covered by the second amendment. The real difference between Shooter's "anti-gun side" and the real anti-gun side, is that the real anti-gun side (including both Conservatives and Liberals) would like to have (potentially un-Constitutional) regulations and restrictions placed on guns, or in rarer cases, they'd they'd like to see the second amendment repealed. The pro-gun side opposes the placing of harsh restrictions on gun ownership and purchase and/or repealing the second amendment altogether.

This is not a left/right issue. Many on "the right" agree with those on "the left:"
Don’t Blame Liberals for Gun Control

In reviewing several polls in which party affiliation is also disclosed, one actually cannot help but notice a remarkable consistency, across party lines, with regard to interpretation of the second amendment.

(source: Roper Center at University of Connecticut, via Lexis Nexis. Poll information is accessible by registering and logging in to iPoll, iPOLL Login)

Date: February 1999
Question: Do you favor or oppose a law which would require background checks before people--including gun dealers--could buy guns at gun shows?
Answer: Favor
Republican 81%
Democrat 85%
Independent 82%
Liberal 88%
Moderate 87%
Conservative 78%

Date: August 1997
Question: What does the Second Amendment (to the United States Constitution) protect?
Answer: "The right to bear arms / own a gun"
Republican 91%
Democrat 85%
Independent 87%

Date: August 1997
Question: The Second Amendment to the US (United States) Constitution reads as follows: '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.' Having heard that, do you feel that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to own guns?
Answer: "Yes"
Republican 79%
Democrat 61%
Independent 67%

Date: August 1997
Question: Do you think this Amendment (Second Amendment to the United States Constitution) should guarantee individuals the right to own guns?
Answer: "Yes"
Republican 74%
Democrat 54%
Independent 64%

Date: September 1995
Question: I'd like your views on some positions a political candidate might take on different issues. On gun control, suppose a candidate said: I firmly believe in the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but I am willing to put up with some inconvenience in getting or having guns--like registration or waiting a certain amount of time--to make sure that I am a responsible citizen who should be allowed to have a gun. Do you think this position on gun control is... too conservative, too liberal, or about right?
Answer: "About right"
Republican 74%
Democrat 69%
Independent 71%

Date: April 1995
Question: Do you think armed citizen militia groups generally pose a grave danger to American society or are they mostly just groups of citizens lawfully exercising their rights to assemble and bear arms?
Answer: "Pose a danger"
Republican 56%
Democrat 66%
Independent 56%

Perhaps M14 Shooter is thinking of someone like Ted Kennedy, whom once said that the "Supreme Court has repeatedly said that this amendment has nothing to do with the right to personal ownership of guns but only with the right of a state to establish a militia." But hasn't the SCOTUS only touched on the issue once? Regardless, most Democrats disagree with Ted Kennedy, although M14 Shooter seems to think that most do agree. M14 Shooter is wrong.

The gun debate isn't about what the amendment covers. It's about something else.

I'd like to see some evidence that a sizable contingent of anything or anybody disagrees with M14 Shooter's argument. I'd like to see some evidence that all or most of the "anti-gun side" believe that individual ownership of modern firearms isn't covered by the 2nd. Until this evidence is produced, M14 Shooter's argument is a meaningless straw man argument, and is therefore pointless. M14 Shooter speaks about an "anti-gun side" and then shows how this alleged "anti-gun side" is wrong. M14 Shooter, you made this claim. I'd like to see the evidence which supports your claim. Just how representative or how real is this alleged "anti-gun side" of yours?

M14 Shooter

Response I
Page 1 of 3

However true this may or may not be, it is irrelevant to the discussion, and any points made to this end are absolutely meaningless in those terms. My opponent is simply trying to change the subject.

The topic here is the question as to what weapons are protected by the 2nd.
My position is that, whatever else may be covered, certainly any modern firearm is.
My opponent agreed to argue a position contrary to mine – indeed, he agreed to argue a position contrary to any that I saw fit to choose – and is now apparently unwilling or unable to do so.

And as such, he has not met the terms of the challenge that he issued to me; indeed, he is trying to change the subject.

This is my opponents attempt to avoid having to argue a position contrary to mine, by attacking the topic as ‘meaningless’ rather than argue against my assessment that all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd. He is simply trying to change the subject.

As noted in the discussion leading up to this debate, there is indeed a valid topic for discussion here, as illustrated to the necessary degree by a poll here on this site, in which 49 poll responses that demonstrate a wide range of views on the subject, supported by 15 pages of debate. My opponent simply wants to avoid discussing a point of view he knows he cannot support, and is trying to change the subject.

Please note that my opponent challenged me to pick a topic and that he’d argue against me. The challenge was his, and I took him up on it. That I chose the side of a topic he agrees with does not in any way diminish his responsibility here.

However true this may be, two things are certain:
-A number of people do disagree with me, as illustrated by the aforementioned poll and shall be demonstrated later, through specific examples from prominent organization and political leaders.
-Regardless of his agreement, my opponent agreed to argue a position contrary to mine. In this, it doesn’t matter if he, personally, agrees with the position presented – he agreed to argue against whatever topic I put up.

Which is, again, irrelevant, and is, again, an example of my opponent trying to change the subject.

The topic here is the question as to what weapons are protected by the 2nd.
My position is that, whatever else may be covered, certainly any modern firearm is. My opponent’s responsibility here is to address the topic and argue against my position; instead he is trying to change the subject away from the topic I presented – a topic he pre-approved when issuing the challenge to me.

My opponent has offered nothing to challenge my position, allowing it to stand, unchallenged. He has failed in his responsibilities in this debate, he has argued in bad faith, and therefore the only possible conclusion is that in this debate, he is the losing participant – and, by his own standard, a coward.

However…
Understanding that my opponent, is in his own words, a “coward” for not taking up the discussion offered to him according to the terms of his challenge to me, and that my opponent has effectively conceded his inability to argue a position contrary to mine and thus defeat in that argument…

…My opponent desperately wants to redeem himself by changing the subject and picking an argument of his choosing (rather than making good on his challenge to me) and presenting it here – therefore, going well above and beyond MY responsibilities in this exchange, I shall argue against the points he makes.

His position here appears to be that ‘since ‘they’ want to repeal the 2nd amendment, ‘they’ must agree that the 2nd protects the individual ownership of modern firearms.

First and foremost, this is nothing but inference on his part.
Unless he can provide specific statements from ‘those’ that chose to repeal the 2nd, his position is nothing but supposition.

As support for his argument,, my opponent offers the results of Google searches, rather than specific articles from specific authors, and how each of those articles supports his position. To wit:
repeal "second amendment" - Google Search

First, it must be noted that several of the hits, even just on the first page, argue against the idea of repealing the 2nd, rather than argue that it should be repealed:
Disarm America? Should we repeal Second Amendment? - January 4, 1998
WorldNetDaily: Make them repeal the 2nd Amendment
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1848809/posts

And several others have nothing to do with the repeal of the 2nd at all:
Restoring the Second Amendment
Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-...s_Constitution

It appears my opponent, during his “amassing [of] evidence” didn’t really bother to look at the evidence he amassed – indeed, his claim of 370,000 regarding the repeal of the 2nd amendment is specious at best. Indeed, after the first few pages, there are rather few articles that support repealing the 2nd, and many of those are repeats.

Anyway...
Under the search, we find articles such as:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/052400-103.htm

Nowhere does this article specifically or implicitly recognize that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any given modern firearm -- in fact, the same source, commondreams.org, advocates the banning of certain weapons:

This article decries the failure to move forward with banning handguns:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/041900-02.htm

And here, there is similar displeasure expressed over the sunset of the 1994 ‘assault weapon’ ban:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0524-03.htm

Commondreams.org, contrary to the inference drawn by my opponent, clearly supports the banning of certain kids of modern firearms. My opponent insists that they recognize that the 2nd amendment exists, and so their position regarding handguns and assault weapons necessitates that they do NOT believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own these weapons.

M14 Shooter

Page 2 of 3

To continue with my opponent’s Google search, we find:

This is my opponent engaging a in a logical fallacy known as ‘an appeal to popularity’. He wants to pit his 370,000 hits against “my” <10,000 hits, and then conclude that my argument isn’t sound, whereas his is – since there are ’more articles’, he argues, ‘my position must be correct’.

Aside from the fallacy he presents, and as we have seen, of his 370,000 hits, few of them support the idea that the 2nd should be repealed, and he has not shown where ANY of them speak to ANY recognition that modern firearms are indeed protected by the 2nd.

Note that nowhere in the article does the author directly argue that modern firearms are protected by the 2nd; my opponent is inferring that because the doesn’t argue that they are not protected by the 2nd, he must therefore agree that they are. This is fallacious on its face.

And was noted before – Commondreams.org advocates the ban of certain weapons. My opponent insists that they recognize that the 2nd amendment exists, and so their position regarding handguns and assault weapons necessitates that they do NOT believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own these weapons.

Again, nowhere does this author directly argue that the 2nd amendment protects all modern firearms, and again, my opponent relies on the inference that that because he doesn’t argue that they are not protected by the 2nd, he must therefore agree that they are. This is, again, fallacious on its face

Here, my opponent presents a false characterization of my argument – how I have characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side - and then proceeds to tell me how wrong I am. Indeed, I have not here in any way characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side in any way shape or form -- indeed, my opponent’s argument here, ladies and gentlemen, is a classic strawman.

This is, of course, a laughable assertion.

Let us look at several examples from the leading members of the anti-gun side:

First, lets look at the leading organizations that support anti-gun positions:

As noted before, Commondreams.org supports the position that handguns and ‘assault weapons’ should be/remain banned:
Gun-Control Movement Split by Ambition to Ban Handguns
Return of Assault Weapons Feared in U.S.

My opponent insists that they recognize that the 2nd amendment exists, and so their position regarding handguns and assault weapons necessitates that they do NOT believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own these weapons.

Another anti-gun organization, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, is clearly in favor of banning ‘assault weapons’:
http://www.csgv.org/docUploads/awb%5Freport%2Epdf

Further note that this anti-gun organization specifically does NOT recognize that the 2nd amendment protects a right to own ANY weapons:
http://www.csgv.org/docUploads/2003%...g%20Book%2Epdf
Clearly, this is another example of the anti-gun side not agreeing with me.

And, yet –another- example of the anti-gun side not agreeing with me is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in its support of banning ‘assault weapons’:
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Brady Campaign - Assault Weapons Ban
Brady Campaign - Assault Weapons Threaten Our Safety and Security

Further note that this anti-gun organization also specifically does NOT recognize that the 2nd amendment protects a right to own ANY weapons:
Brady Campaign - Myth of the Second Amendment
Clearly, this is another example of the anti-gun side not agreeing with me.

Certainly, these are just three examples of anti-gun organizations that do not agree with me, but they are examples from leading anti-gun political organizations, of which there are many more

Of course, organizations are not the only members of the ‘anti-gun side’ -- lets look at various political candidates, properly characterized as anti-gun:

Hillary Clinton:
Supports the ‘assault weapon’ ban:
Hillary Watch Human Events - Find Articles
Gun Law News - Hillary Clinton

Clearly, as she recognizes the existence of the 2nd amendment while supporting the ban of a certain kind of modern firearm, she obviously does not believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any modern firearm. In that, he obviously disagrees with me.

Barack Obama:
Supports a ban on ‘semi-automatic weapons’:
Barack Obama on Gun Control
Radio Iowa: Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control

Clearly, as he recognizes the existence of the 2nd amendment while supporting the ban of a certain kind of modern firearm, she obviously does not believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any modern firearm. In that, she obviously disagrees with me.

John Edwards:
Supports the ‘assault weapons’ ban
Radio Iowa: Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control
John Edwards on Gun Control

Clearly, as he recognizes the existence of the 2nd amendment while supporting the ban of a certain kind of modern firearm, she obviously does not believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any modern firearm. In that, he obviously disagrees with me.

M14 Shooter

Page 3 of 3

Certainly, these are just three examples, but they are examples from leading anti-gun political figures that do not agree with me, of which there are many more.

And so, it’s very clear that the anti-gun side does indeed NOT agree with me.


… I haven’t characterized the anti-gun side? This strawman has already been dealt with, and since my opponent is arguing a strawman, there’s not really any sense in addressing his argument.

However…
Understanding that my opponent, is in his own words, a “coward” for not taking up the discussion offered to him according to the terms of his challenge to me, and that my opponent has effectively conceded his inability to argue a position contrary to mine and thus defeat in that argument…

…and that he finds it necessary to put up arguments that I did not make and attribute them to me – in classic strawman fashion – so that he can knock them down and then claim victory over me…

…I shall address these arguments as well.

The “real” anti gun side and their positions regarding what weapons are protected by the 2nd have already been described.

My opponent argues that many of the left/right/Democrats/Republicans agree regarding what restrictions they would like to place on the right to keep and bear arms, but he does not offer any specific examples. Clearly, I have been demonstrated (to no great surprise) that the left and the Democrats want more restrictions; my opponent claims that the right and the GOP also want these additional restrictions – but supplies no –specific- evidence to this end, his only support being a poll for which one must register to see. This does not effectively stand up to the level of evidence I have supplied for my argument, and as such, my opponent’s argument remains unsupported.

I have listed numerous sources from organizations and people – all on the leading edge of the gun control debate, the edge that pushes for more gun control -- that agree with Mr. Kennedy to varying, but strong, degrees. The sentiment he espouses here is well-represented in the leadership of the Democratic party, especially among its most recent member so the executive branch and their current and recent candidates for President, as well as the major anti-gun organizations.

I didn’t make any of the arguments my opponent attributes to me, and so its impossible for me to be wrong.

The gun debate is entirely about the amendment: who has the right, what weapons are protected, what actions with those weapons are protected, and what level of protection is afforded. My opponent simply dismisses these things because he knows he cannot make any specific argument regarding the amendment that might oppose my view and by dismissing the amendment itself, he hopes to never have to.


This has been aptly demonstrated by citing the positions of prominent anti-gun organizations and candidates, and noting that there are more examples available.

And if that’s not enough, please note the Debatepolitics.com poll results:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...amendment.html
19 of 49 (38.8%) of all responding do not believe that the 2nd amendment covers all modern firearms. 38.8% is a sizeable contingent.

Indeed, it has not been demonstrated by my opponent that anyone- but- my opponent agrees with my position, a tactic he is using in an attempt to avoid actually arguing against me.

This is yet another strawman.
However, it has indeed been shown that the major anti-gun organizations do not agree with the argument that the 2nd protects an individual right to own any gun whatsoever, much less any modern firearm, and it has also been shown that while certain anti-gun parties may agree that the 2nd protects the right to own a gun of some sort, it certainly doesn’t protect the right to own all modern firearms.

One must wonder what my opponent will say now that the evidence has been produced.

And until my opponent actually attempts to counter my argument, as he agreed that he would do, he is still, by his own words, a ‘coward’.

My opponent will please quote for me in this topic where I made this claim, or he will be guilty of putting up yet another strawman argument.

So, to summarize:

• My opponent, in that he refuses to argue against the position I took, as he said he would do in the challenge he put to me, is, by his own standard, a coward.

• My opponent, in that he moved away from trying to argue against my position, as he said he would when he issued his challenge, and tried to argue various issues unrelated to my position, is guilty of trying to change the subject away from an argument he knows he cannot support. He is, indeed, running away.

• My opponent’s assertions that “the "anti-gun side" actually seems to agree with M14 Shooter, that modern firearms are covered by the second amendment” has been demonstrated to be patently false by showing that while some of them may indeed recognize the 2nd amendment, their desire to ban certain guns necessitates that they do not believe the 2nd covers the guns they want to ban.

• My opponent argues that there is broad correlation between Republicans and Democrats and Liberals and Conservatives regarding gun control, but he offers no specific evidence to this end, especially that which shows a correlation between Republicans/Conservatives and the Democrat/liberal people and organizations that I cited.

• My opponent, not having any position of his own to stand on, finds the need to create straw men that he can knock down, even going so far that as to claim that I am “wrong” about a position that I did not take.

In conclusion, its clear that my opponent cannot argue against my position, and cannot support the arguments he made when he tried to change the subject in order to cover for the fact that he could not argue against my position

niftydrifty