• 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!

Why Nuclear Weapons are not a Second Amendment Issue

Absentglare said:
You must not have seen your own post. It didn't rebut anything in any capacity.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to-I was noting how stupid your post was. It was stupid
 
Absentglare said:
Are you able to articulate WHY you think that?
Click to expand...

well for one your stupid comment about automatic weapons. If collateral damage are almost a given as you claim, why do civilian cops have them. Tell me how much experience do you have with automatic weapons? I suspect none at all
 
TurtleDude said:
well for one your stupid comment about automatic weapons. If collateral damage are almost a given as you claim,
Click to expand...

Strawman. I didn't say it's "almost a given", i said that it's not used for precision targeting.

TurtleDude said:
why do civilian cops have them.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur. It is irrelevant what civilian cops have access to within the context of a discussion that outlines what weapons should be accessible to civilians.

TurtleDude said:
Tell me how much experience do you have with automatic weapons? I suspect none at all
Click to expand...

And ad hominem. Wholly irrelevant. A semi-automatic firearm fires a single round with each assertion of the trigger; an automatic firearm does not, which makes it less precise by definition. So where is the line drawn where precision becomes relevant? Hell, using too large of a projectile could cause collateral damage, for example, in the case of a cannonball.
 
Absentglare said:
Strawman. I didn't say it's "almost a given", i said that it's not used for precision targeting.



Non sequitur. It is irrelevant what civilian cops have access to within the context of a discussion that outlines what weapons should be accessible to civilians.



And ad hominem. Wholly irrelevant. A semi-automatic firearm fires a single round with each assertion of the trigger; an automatic firearm does not, which makes it less precise by definition. So where is the line drawn where precision becomes relevant? Hell, using too large of a projectile could cause collateral damage, for example, in the case of a cannonball.
Click to expand...

another completely moronic statement

CIVILIAN police officers are given firearms that government bureaucrats have determined are MOST SUITABLE FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES to use in a CIVILIAN ENVIRONMENT for self defense against violent criminals

private citizens living in those same civilian environments need weapons as good or BETTER than the second responders (cops) because unlike cops, private citizens don't choose when or where criminals attack them.
 
TurtleDude said:
another completely moronic statement

CIVILIAN police officers are given firearms that government bureaucrats have determined are MOST SUITABLE FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES to use in a CIVILIAN ENVIRONMENT for self defense against violent criminals

private citizens living in those same civilian environments need weapons as good or BETTER than the second responders (cops) because unlike cops, private citizens don't choose when or where criminals attack them.
Click to expand...

Based on your response, you completely failed to understand the point of my post.

My post was saying that a discussion of what the law currently is is not terribly meaningful in a discussion of what the law should be.
 
Absentglare said:
Based on your response, you completely failed to understand the point of my post.

My post was saying that a discussion of what the law currently is is not terribly meaningful in a discussion of what the law should be.
Click to expand...

how do you try to evade what you claimed that I highlighted? what civilian cops are issued is incredibly relevant to what private citizens can own.
 
Absentglare said:
Based on your response, you completely failed to understand the point of my post.

My post was saying that a discussion of what the law currently is is not terribly meaningful in a discussion of what the law should be.
Click to expand...
How am I supposed to defend my house without 50 caliber machine guns on either side of my porch? Lol
 
TurtleDude said:
that's just moronic. as usual when gun banners try to change what the second amendment says in order to allow their anti gun nonsense. Tell us what was the underlying natural right the second was supposed to recognize? a right that PRE EXISTS the Constitution and the government?
Click to expand...

There was no underlying "natural right" in the 2nd . It was simply a way for the founders opposition to standing armies to be implemented and recognized.
 
iguanaman said:
There was no underlying "natural right" in the 2nd . It was simply a way for the founders opposition to standing armies to be implemented and recognized.
Click to expand...

what a stupid comment. when trying to understand the second amendment, you have to understand what the founders believed in or what they intended
 
TurtleDude said:
what a stupid comment. when trying to understand the second amendment, you have to understand what the founders believed in or what they intended
Click to expand...

No you do not
 
iguanaman said:
There was no underlying "natural right" in the 2nd . It was simply a way for the founders opposition to standing armies to be implemented and recognized.
Click to expand...

Correct
 
TurtleDude said:
how do you try to evade what you claimed that I highlighted? what civilian cops are issued is incredibly relevant to what private citizens can own.
Click to expand...

Because, like i told you, it is IRRELEVANT. Perhaps you should re-read my post.
 
Lursa said:
Why would Americans need weapons so dangerous to themselves, heavy, impossible to manage, radioactive and capable of irradiating vast expanses of our country? When we have many other means of striking back and going on the offensive?

Not too familiar with that subject eh?
Click to expand...

I was wondering that about semiautomatic rifles with bump stocks on them.

Even if you are in a dark alley with 3-4 bad guys, it's nothing a small caliber pistol can't manage. If self-defense is your objective that's about all you need. If protection against potential government tyranny is your objective, then a nuclear ordnance with DC's coordinates in it is what you are going to need. I am not sure where you are coming up with all these weird lines you are drawing at semiautomatics with bump stocks. Seems pretty random to me: too much for the first scenario and not enough for the second.
 
ataraxia said:
I was wondering that about semiautomatic rifles with bump stocks on them.

Even if you are in a dark alley with 3-4 bad guys, it's nothing a small caliber pistol can't manage.
Click to expand...

So 100% wrong right here for starters. Holy crap :doh

ataraxia said:
If self-defense is your objective that's about all you need. If protection against potential government tyranny is your objective, then a nuclear ordnance with DC's coordinates in it is what you are going to need. I am not sure where you are coming up with all these weird lines you are drawing at semiautomatics with bump stocks. Seems pretty random to me: too much for the first scenario and not enough for the second.
Click to expand...

So you didnt read my post #6, that's obvious.

You write from abject ignorance.
 
TurtleDude said:
Scalia also understood that if the supreme court properly held that the commerce clause was never intended to allow the nonsense that FDR said it did, and struck down the bogus federal gun control laws, then the Court would have to strike down lots of laws that American Sheeple have become dependent on that were based on the dishonest expansion of the commerce clause

like Social Security, Title VII, IX, Medicaid etc
Click to expand...

Scalia understood that there were limits to the 2nd amendment, having nothing to do with the commerce clause. Here is what he said in his Heller ruling:

The late justice wrote that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today.

He wrote that the right to bear arms had limits. “Nothing in our opinion should 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.”
Antonin Scalia?s 2008 Ruling Set Parameters for Today?s Gun Control Reform Debate
Click to expand...
 
ataraxia said:
Scalia understood that there were limits to the 2nd amendment, having nothing to do with the commerce clause. Here is what he said in his Heller ruling:
Click to expand...

And those limits are defined in Miller, Heller and Caetano: firearms that are "bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" or "have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" are protected by the Second Amendment. McDonald extends those protections against the states.
 
Lursa said:
So 100% wrong right here for starters. Holy crap :doh



So you didnt read my post #6, that's obvious.

You write from abject ignorance.
Click to expand...

OK. This is what you wrote in post #6:

Do we wage war, today, with firearms? Expect to win wars using them? No. We use bombs and tanks, and espionage and inflitration and sabotage and hacking communications, etc etc etc.

But...who DOES carry firearms and why? Our soldiers do...for self-defense. To protect themselves and others in carrying out the war efforts.
Click to expand...

If that's ALL a soldier has going to war, he isn't going to win it. If government wants to get tyrannical on you, you are going to need something a little more than just your piddly shotgun or semiautomatic, even if it has a bump stock on it. You think it's going to do anything against that M-1 tank barreling toward your house? LOL.
 
ataraxia said:
Scalia understood that there were limits to the 2nd amendment, having nothing to do with the commerce clause. Here is what he said in his Heller ruling:
Click to expand...

Scalia was trying to get Kennedy to sign on to the Heller decision. Some of those limits are not controversial such as some state laws. You do understand that without the commerce clause expansion, there could be no federal gun laws due to the tenth amendment
 
ataraxia said:
OK. This is what you wrote in post #6:



If that's ALL a soldier has going to war, he isn't going to win it. If government wants to get tyrannical on you, you are going to need something a little more than just your piddly shotgun or semiautomatic, even if it has a bump stock on it. You think it's going to do anything against that M-1 tank barreling toward your house? LOL.
Click to expand...

Nobody wrote "all" they have.

And I also wrote that there ARE other ways that war would be waged (just like our govt today in other countries...we arent fighting wars with personal firearms, they are for protection of the combatants). That is the point. There are many ways to conduct war and they dont include firearms except as protection for the combatants.

There are tons of books out there...fiction and some even non-fiction...that describe ways to undermine the US in an active violent revolution. Firearms are not the primary weapons considered. I wont go into details, the books are out there.

Do we wage war, today, with firearms? Expect to win wars using them? No. We use bombs and tanks, and espionage and inflitration and sabotage and hacking communications, etc etc etc.

But...who DOES carry firearms and why? Our soldiers do...for self-defense. To protect themselves and others in carrying out the war efforts.

It's the same reason American citizens should have every right to keep and carry firearms. Not for the act of overcoming tyranny (as written, there are many, better ways to do that)....but to protect themselves and their families if they are considered 'enemy combatants' in such a conflict. Or as they carry out other acts of war/rebellion against the govt. *
Click to expand...
 
Rucker61 said:
And those limits are defined in Miller, Heller and Caetano: firearms that are "bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" or "have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" are protected by the Second Amendment. McDonald extends those protections against the states.
Click to expand...

A well regulated militia, something like the National Guard, has full auto guns, tanks, and artillery.

Here is training for the National Guard:

national.jpgheli.jpghelis.jpg

________________
You really want your kooky neighbor to have free access to these weapons in common use by our well regulated militia?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom