• 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!

Toddler wounds both parents with 1 shot from handgun

smb said:
I take it then from post that you are strict constructionist on the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

But whether one is a strict constructionist or a broad constructionist, it's pretty hard to argue against the plain, unambiguous wording of the 2nd Amendment.

In any case, that doesn't change the fact that comparing a car to a weapon is invalid. The reason for the invalidity still stands.
 
Mycroft said:
Not necessarily.

But whether one is a strict constructionist or a broad constructionist, it's pretty hard to argue against the plain, unambiguous wording of the 2nd Amendment.

In any case, that doesn't change the fact that comparing a car to a weapon is invalid. The reason for the invalidity still stands.
Click to expand...



So why haven't you linked or cited it using the word guns?
 
SlevinKelevra said:
So why haven't you linked or cited it using the word guns?
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment was not limited to firearms (guns)...but it doesn't exclude them, either.
 
Mycroft said:
Sure:




Now...if you want to get into a brouhaha over what the 2nd Amendment "means", you'll have to do it without me. For me, it is very clear.
Click to expand...



Odd, to me I don't see "guns" in the text.

I see arms--- which is short for armaments, which depending on whether one strictly or loosely interprets the document and the founders' intents...

At the time it meant knives, bows, muskets, etc.

At the time it was to prevent government tyranny. What would those 3 weapons do against an f16 missiling you from 20 miles?

If you *want* to extend its meaning to 9mm, ak47, and modern GUNS, why do you ignore all other MODERN ARMS?


You see, if you actually, read, think, and pause before posting, you can avoid looking so foolish. If the 2A were about "guns", guns would be in its text explicitly.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Odd, to me I don't see "guns" in the text.

I see arms--- which is short for armaments, which depending on whether one strictly or loosely interprets the document and the founders' intents...

At the time it meant knives, bows, muskets, etc.

At the time it was to prevent government tyranny. What would those 3 weapons do against an f16 missiling you from 20 miles?

If you *want* to extend its meaning to 9mm, ak47, and modern GUNS, why do you ignore all other MODERN ARMS?


You see, if you actually, read, think, and pause before posting, you can avoid looking so foolish. If the 2A were about "guns", guns would be in its text explicitly.
Click to expand...

Didn't you read what I said to you?

Sorry, dude...if you want to debate the "meaning" of the 2nd Amendment, you'll be doing it without me. Heck, I'll go even further and suggest you go to one of the many threads on this forum where this has already been hashed out. It might save you some time.
 
Mycroft said:
Didn't you read what I said to you?

Sorry, dude...if you want to debate the "meaning" of the 2nd Amendment, you'll be doing it without me. Heck, I'll go even further and suggest you go to one of the many threads on this forum where this has already been hashed out. It might save you some time.
Click to expand...


It might save you some time to mean what you say, and say what you mean. I didn't hold a gun to your head when you said the 2A actually mentioned guns explicitly.
 
Mycroft said:
Not necessarily.

But whether one is a strict constructionist or a broad constructionist, it's pretty hard to argue against the plain, unambiguous wording of the 2nd Amendment.

In any case, that doesn't change the fact that comparing a car to a weapon is invalid. The reason for the invalidity still stands.
Click to expand...

You are right that it does not matter just not for the reason you think. As for the car=weapons argument I agree with you comparing the two is ridiculous. That was what I was pointing out in my response to someone who was trying to compare the two.

That being said your argument to Constitutionality of gun control is pertinent.

If you are going to argue from the strict constructionist point of view then you the Constitution would only grant you the right to bear arms that were in existence at the time of the Constitution. Therefore you would have the unfettered right to own any number of muzzle loading black powder guns you wish. That along with swords, black powder cannonade and mortars you are more than welcome to own free of regulation by the government. However since modern weapons are not included under a strict constructionist interpretation then they can be regulated as much or as little as the legislature sees fit unfettered by Constitutional constraints. Even if you take a more liberal strict constructionist view and believe that the fore fathers could envision automatic weapons and such there is still no Constitutional impediment to regulating gun ownership in order to promote the general welfare as it is clear that machine solely designed to maim and kill is a public health hazard and as such under the general welfare clause Congress does have the power to legislate legislation as long as that legislation does not outright ban weapons.

If you are broad constructionist than it there is no Constitutional impediment because the congress shall have the power to legislate gun control under the necessary proper clause. Either way meaningful, legitimate gun control IS Constitutional by any measure you want to stand it up to.

If you are arguing from
 
AJiveMan said:
No, the best line in the article was that their version of DCFS (Albuquerque's) had custody of their child.
Click to expand...
True.

I meant "best joke line", or "funniest line".

Because a 3-y/o would obviously have been suspected of attempted murder until proven otherwise.
 
Lursa said:
Why mandatory? Every state has different laws pertaining to the amount of training, some only on written, and some have none.

There is no correlation at all, in studies, that shows states with mandatory training have fewer gun incidents than those with less training or no training. (there is one study between WA and OR, where WA with a higher population, a shall issue state, and no training requirements at all, has fewer gun incidents/accidents than OR which has fewer people, is a may issue state, and has training requirements. I dont have link to it anymore tho.)

And it's not something that has any bearing on crime at all.

Is the assumption that people just wont get training if they are not forced to? In some states, it costs people $200 or more to fulfill such requirements. A way to actively keep some people from cc permits.

If that is your assumption, why? And if no data supports it, why mandate it? (Again, with no data to support otherwise, the assumption IS that people get necessary training on their own, not that they dont get training.)
Click to expand...

Well, because frankly, I dont believe that no data support it. If so, why is it offered at all, then?

While its nice to see your correlations, they do not necessarily lead to causation since there are a massive number of other factors at play. But common sense tells us that safety training is a good thing.
 
smb said:
You are right that it does not matter just not for the reason you think. As for the car=weapons argument I agree with you comparing the two is ridiculous. That was what I was pointing out in my response to someone who was trying to compare the two.

That being said your argument to Constitutionality of gun control is pertinent.

If you are going to argue from the strict constructionist point of view then you the Constitution would only grant you the right to bear arms that were in existence at the time of the Constitution. Therefore you would have the unfettered right to own any number of muzzle loading black powder guns you wish. That along with swords, black powder cannonade and mortars you are more than welcome to own free of regulation by the government. However since modern weapons are not included under a strict constructionist interpretation then they can be regulated as much or as little as the legislature sees fit unfettered by Constitutional constraints. Even if you take a more liberal strict constructionist view and believe that the fore fathers could envision automatic weapons and such there is still no Constitutional impediment to regulating gun ownership in order to promote the general welfare as it is clear that machine solely designed to maim and kill is a public health hazard and as such under the general welfare clause Congress does have the power to legislate legislation as long as that legislation does not outright ban weapons.

If you are broad constructionist than it there is no Constitutional impediment because the congress shall have the power to legislate gun control under the necessary proper clause. Either way meaningful, legitimate gun control IS Constitutional by any measure you want to stand it up to.

If you are arguing from
Click to expand...

Blah, Blah, Blah...

Off to one of the gun rights threads with you, dude.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Odd, to me I don't see "guns" in the text.

I see arms--- which is short for armaments, which depending on whether one strictly or loosely interprets the document and the founders' intents...

At the time it meant knives, bows, muskets, etc.

At the time it was to prevent government tyranny. What would those 3 weapons do against an f16 missiling you from 20 miles?

If you *want* to extend its meaning to 9mm, ak47, and modern GUNS, why do you ignore all other MODERN ARMS?


You see, if you actually, read, think, and pause before posting, you can avoid looking so foolish. If the 2A were about "guns", guns would be in its text explicitly.
Click to expand...

not much other than using a rifle to kill whomever ordered that jet to shoot missiles at American citizens

the 2A was about the arms citizens normally would own and be able to keep, bear, use and possess as individuals

rifles, shotguns, pistols, sabers, dirks, rapiers, spears, poleaxes, crossbows etc
 
SlevinKelevra said:
It might save you some time to mean what you say, and say what you mean. I didn't hold a gun to your head when you said the 2A actually mentioned guns explicitly.
Click to expand...

I didn't say "the 2A mentioned guns explicitly".

Are you trying to put words in my mouth again? You've done that enough to know I'll just reject your tactic.
 
Mycroft said:
I didn't say "the 2A mentioned guns explicitly".

Are you trying to put words in my mouth again? You've done that enough to know I'll just reject your tactic.
Click to expand...

you said

Mycroft said:
There is only one problem with your anti-gun rant...in your comparison of guns to cars: There is no Constitutional right to own or operate a car.
Click to expand...


ctrl+f
cars
0 results

guns
0 results

Sorry that a strict reading undermines your position.
 
JANFU said:
What is the connection between vehicles and guns. None.
Click to expand...

Incorrect: attitudes about death, injury, usage, and machines.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
you said




ctrl+f
cars
0 results

guns
0 results

Sorry that a strict reading undermines your position.
Click to expand...

I hear Bill Clinton is still arguing about the meaning of the word "is", and Obama is still trying to define what it is to "lie". :roll:

You are in good company, but it's not my kind of company.
 
Last edited:
flogger said:
An nuclear warhead is an inanimate object too so shouild we just let everyone have one of those ?
Click to expand...

Ha ha, so you didnt take a hint from the ridicule the other person got with their silly hyperbolic example, eh? Well please feel free to recycle it.
 
Mycroft said:
There is only one problem with your anti-gun rant...in your comparison of guns to cars: There is no Constitutional right to own or operate a car.
Click to expand...

I agree that's a difference but the accidents and body counts/injuries and comparisons to licensing/training do have some crossover IMO for illustrative purposes.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, because frankly, I dont believe that no data support it. If so, why is it offered at all, then?

While its nice to see your correlations, they do not necessarily lead to causation since there are a massive number of other factors at play. But common sense tells us that safety training is a good thing.
Click to expand...

I took training that I paid for. Voluntarily. So 'why is training offered at all' is one of the least intelligent things I've read here yet. People do want training. People do pay for it or get it in other ways.

Again, we're talking about mandatory training and why it needs to be mandated if there's no evidence that training is lacking? And if you dont believe there's no data to support it, please find some. (Obviously I cant find something that doesnt exist but in many discussions on gun forums where there are gun owners that believe as you do....none has turned up.)

I love that you miss the entire point I was making...AGAIN. No one...and this is where you screwed up with Capt. Courtesy...EVER said that training wasnt a good idea. My point is that there is no evidence that mandating training would make any difference. So why impose more govt and more $$ and more restrictions on people? Man, I ****ing HATE 'feel good' legislation that actually means nothing.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
I agree that's a difference but the accidents and body counts/injuries and comparisons to licensing/training do have some crossover IMO for illustrative purposes.
Click to expand...

shrug...

Then perhaps we should require one to get a license to own and operate a swimming pool.

Of course, you can't compare swimming pools to guns, either. You know...that 2nd Amendment thing.
 
smb said:
That is only because you do not read about it. There multiple examples of this.

Concealed carry holder misses attacker in Cleveland road rage incident; shoots another man | cleveland.com

Mikeb302000: South Carolina Gun Owner Shoots and Kills an Innocent Bystander and Blames the "Bad Guys" He Was Aiming At

Argument leads to shots fired, innocent bystander wounded in Milwaukee | FOX6Now.com

There are plenty of others if you want to dig.
Click to expand...

Nope, you still fail. In the first, they were committing a crime. Road rage is a crime.

In the second, the whole article is not there, it's cut and pasted into someone's post comments. And from the way it reads, the unarmed basketball player was one of the ones chasing his daughter. (And he was not prosecuted, so....?)

And if people are using their guns in an argument, they are breaking the law...commiting a crime....again, that is not what I claimed. I claimed legitimate use of a firearm in public.

Nice try tho.

We do know of incidents where people were carrying and did not do so to prevent a crime because it was not safe to do so. The Gabby Giffords shooting is one prominent example. There were 2 people that said there were armed in that crowd but could not do anything because it was not safe to do so. So we do have restraint and discipline documented.
 
Mycroft said:
shrug...

Then perhaps we should require one to get a license to own and operate a swimming pool.

Of course, you can't compare swimming pools to guns, either. You know...that 2nd Amendment thing.
Click to expand...

But the deaths of children in cars, pools, and guns are all looked at differently, even if the numbers are similar. The bias is against guns...everybody likes their cars and pools.
 
flogger said:
An nuclear warhead is an inanimate object too so shouild we just let everyone have one of those ?
Click to expand...

when civilian police departments start using them for self defense against civilian thugs-I suppose the answer would be yes
 
Lursa said:
I took training that I paid for. Voluntarily. So 'why is training offered at all' is one of the least intelligent things I've read here yet. People do want training. People do pay for it or get it in other ways.

Again, we're talking about mandatory training and why it needs to be mandated if there's no evidence that training is lacking? And if you dont believe there's no data to support it, please find some. (Obviously I cant find something that doesnt exist but in many discussions on gun forums where there are gun owners that believe as you do....none has turned up.)

I love that you miss the entire point I was making...AGAIN. No one...and this is where you screwed up with Capt. Courtesy...EVER said that training wasnt a good idea. My point is that there is no evidence that mandating training would make any difference. So why impose more govt and more $$ and more restrictions on people? Man, I ****ing HATE 'feel good' legislation that actually means nothing.
Click to expand...

Says training is useful.

Then says training is not useful.

Holding two opposing thoughts in ones mind is a cause of cognitive dissonance, you know.
 
The parents should listen to the duke:

LNRpNaV.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom