• 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!

Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturer Remington, lower court ruling overturned

ataraxia said:
Yeah sure. There are numerous medical doctors, researchers in the biomedical sciences, or public health specialists contributing to the field. If you have anything other than anecdotal evidence for your assertions, please provide it.
Click to expand...

I already proved that the most cited gun banner in the USA-at least one who claims an academic background (versus barking idiots like Feinstein or other politicians)is not a medical doctor. How about you start listing all those you claim are. I will save you having to find one-Arthur Kellerman-a guy who started the claims that guns don't make you safer is a medical doctor though he later admitted, he'd want his wife to have a gun in some situations
 
ataraxia said:
So why does it matter what you interpret?

Point is, “the right to arms shall not be infringed” has not come to mean by the Supreme Court to mean unlimited access to whatever you interpret you want.
Click to expand...

The Amendment specifies militia and arms. Infantry arms. I figure infantry firearms, not explosives. These are weapons of self defense. Delineated by the founders in a way that would transcend time. Other weapons (explosives, tanks, etc) are weapons of national defense, by default, and thereby the realm of the state not the individual.

A delineation between weapons of self defense (realm of the individual) and weapons of national defense (realm of the state).

Neat, tidy, transcends time.
 
ataraxia said:
Nope. That's what the Supreme Court is for.
Click to expand...

That is literally not what the Supreme Court is for.

the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter;

-Hamilton
Click to expand...
 
ecofarm said:
The Amendment specifies militia and arms. Infantry arms. I figure infantry firearms, not explosives. These are weapons of self defense. Delineated by the founders in a way that would transcend time. Other weapons (explosives, tanks, etc) are weapons of national defense, by default, and thereby the realm of the state not the individual.

A delineation between weapons of self defense (realm of the individual) and weapons of national defense (realm of the state).

Neat, tidy, transcends time.
Click to expand...

The word infantry does not appear in the Second Amendment.
 
ataraxia said:
The word infantry does not appear in the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

At that time, the word was militia. The dudes of an army. Not the machinery, the dudes. What they carry. Those are weapons of self defense. But not tanks. Just the stuff the dudes carry.
 
jonny5 said:
That is literally not what the Supreme Court is for.
Click to expand...

Trying to decide where to draw the line at what kind of arms a civilian populace can have, whether the line is drawn at semiautomatic, full autos, artillery, or nuclear weapons, is not oppression.
 
ecofarm said:
At that time, the word was militia. The dudes of an army. Not the machinery, the dudes. What they carry. Those are weapons of self defense. But not tanks. Just the stuff the dudes carry.
Click to expand...

The dudes carried front loading muskets. I would be OK with the line being kept drawn at those now.
 
ataraxia said:
The dudes carried front loading muskets. I would be OK with the line being kept drawn at those now.
Click to expand...

The idea was to transcend time. Thus a model and make number was not specified and an occupation was. The arms of an infantryman were deemed weapons of self defense. No tanks. No missiles. No airplanes or nukes. Only arms (I figure firearms) of the militia (infantry).
 
daeler said:
That answer didn't make any sense.

If I walk into a classroom with gasoline and set the building on fire killing 2 dozen people I used the gas as it was intended by burning it. the gas is made by Exxon should Exxon be liable?

If you don't see the correlation you are not being honest.
Click to expand...

Guns are made to shoot - and people are one of the things they are made to shoot at by the manufacturer as legitimate use of the product .

Gasoline is not intended to kill people in a building as a legitimate use of the product.

Our society probably could not function without gasoline. Across the world, lots of societies function rather well without civil use of weapons.

Your comparison is off.
 
ecofarm said:
The idea was to transcend time. Thus a model and make number was not specified and an occupation was. The arms of an infantryman were deemed weapons of self defense. No tanks. No missiles. No airplanes or nukes. Only arms (I figure firearms) of the militia (infantry).
Click to expand...

Yes. The idea of transcending time is very appealing. But one of the problems with technology is that it can be so disruptive.
 
ataraxia said:
Yes. The idea of transcending time is very appealing. But one of the problems with technology is that it can be so disruptive.
Click to expand...

That's why they didn't protect pamphlets, they protected the press. And they didn't protect muskets, they protected infantry arms.
 
joko104 said:
That is false. It is designed to be a firearm. It is not made to murder people. Killing people is not illegal. Murdering people is.

Cars can not only kill people, but also can be used to murder people. Killing people is not illegal. Murdering people is.
Click to expand...

The manufacturer does not make different guns for legal and illegal as those distinctions can and do change. It makes a weapon which functions as promised regardless of the law and exclusive of any law. And shooting a projectile into a victim is one of the functions of the firearm and it is intended by the manufacturer to do that.

No car manufacturer makes a car with its intent to be used as a weapon taking lives. Gun manufacturers make products which - as they are intended to function - take lives every day as they are intended to do.
 
ataraxia said:
Yes. The idea of transcending time is very appealing. But one of the problems with technology is that it can be so disruptive.
Click to expand...

I should note that even given a shared understanding of what the 2nd Amendment intended to address and how it did so, there's still room for debate. Is a light mg an infantry arm or a crew served weapon? Apparently, a crew served weapon and thereby a weapon of national defense. Auto fire? The prevailing wisdom is no, but that seems largely a facade because using auto to inflict casualties is inefficient.

I mean just because you get it doesn't mean you must change your positions. It just means taking a more sound angle on their advancement.
 
ecofarm said:
That's why they didn't protect pamphlets, they protected the press. And they didn't protect muskets, they protected infantry arms.
Click to expand...

They didn’t say anything about infantry arms, anymore than they did about nuclear arms. You made that up. You are just projecting, probably unconsciously, your opinions on the founding fathers. We really must take care and try to make the distinction between our most current opinions and what the constitution actually says.
 
ataraxia said:
They didn’t protect infantry arms. You made that up. You are just projecting your opinions on the founding fathers. We really must try to make the distinction between our most current opinions and what the constitution actually says.
Click to expand...

"Militia... arms."
 
haymarket said:
Gun manufacturers make their product so it propels a muller out of a weapon. That is their intended purpose and it matters now what the law in any jurisdiction says. That applies to mean, women and children.

Car makers - do NOT make their product as its main function or even its secondary function to kill school children.
Click to expand...

Then to use your logic, car makers make their cars to break the speed limit and thus are liable if someone decides to go 100 mph in a residential street.


That is false. I showed you why there analogy was a false one. Discuss the topic and stick to it.

Why do you want to change the subject in the first place since guns and cars are two very different things?
Click to expand...

How am I changing the subject?
 
ecofarm said:
"Militia... arms."
Click to expand...

So where does infantry come in to that? A modern militia worth the label is much more than just infantry. The point was to fight off potential government tyranny. You’re not going to be able to do that with just infantry arms.
 
Last edited:
Maccabee said:
Then to use your logic, car makers make their cars to break the speed limit and thus are liable if someone decides to go 100 mph in a residential
Click to expand...

There are numerous regulations on what makes a car street legal. If a manufacture breaks them, they are liable. People can’t just make and drive any crazy car on public streets, even if they drive at the speed limit and don’t hurt anyone.
 
ataraxia said:
So where does infantry coming into that? Modern militia is much more than just infantry. The point was to fight off potential government tyranny. You’re not going to be able to do that with just infantry arms.
Click to expand...

The point was the natural right to self defense. Secondarily, it delineated those weapons from weapons of national defense in specifying militia (infantry).

Does a nation not also need a navy, artillery and machines of war to secure itself? Of course, but the Amendment is not about the security of the nation, it's about the security of the individual. The security of the individual is what secures a free state.
 
ataraxia said:
The dudes carried front loading muskets. I would be OK with the line being kept drawn at those now.
Click to expand...

and your free speech being limited to a manual printing press or a quill for a pen?
 
ataraxia said:
There are numerous regulations on what makes a car street legal. If a manufacture breaks them, they are liable. People can’t just make and drive any crazy car on public streets, even if they drive at the speed limit and don’t hurt anyone.
Click to expand...

that's' not relevant because cops cannot use those cars either. You don't see cops driving F-1 cars or MI Abrams tanks either.
 
TurtleDude said:
and your free speech being limited to a manual printing press or a quill for a pen?
Click to expand...

Like any right, even the right to free speech is not unlimited. Just ask Facebook.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's' not relevant because cops cannot use those cars either. You don't see cops driving F-1 cars or MI Abrams tanks either.
Click to expand...

That was not my point. We were discussing a different issue- of whether it’s OK to put some reasonable regulations and limits on things people use, even if they are not necessarily using them in an illegal manner.
 
ataraxia said:
Like any right, even the right to free speech is not unlimited. Just ask Facebook.
Click to expand...

You are invoking state power rather than federal. what proper power does the federal government have concerning speech or firearms. Why do liberals often look to limit rights they don't like while interpreting ones they do-as expansively as possible?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom