• 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!

Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity since Parkland shooting

Rucker61 said:
Are nuclear weapons or tanks bearable arms? Are they in common use for lawful purposes?
Click to expand...

Sure they can be if you make them legal. Put them on sale at the local WalMart and see what happens. Why try to limit it by law which could be unconstitutional?
 
Rucker61 said:
I can keep an AR-15 and 30 round magazines. I can't keep one, carry it locked and loaded at high ready and wander the mall with it.
Click to expand...

I don't know about your AR15, but Scalia clearly says you can't keep whatever crazy thing you want. Can we agree on that?
 
ataraxia said:
Sure they can be if you make them legal. Put them on sale at the local WalMart and see what happens. Why try to limit it by law which could be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

How does one carry a tank?
 
ataraxia said:
Like I said, we can go back and forth on exactly WHERE the limits should be drawn. But this whole idea of all this outrage and crying "unconstitutional" at any proposed limits is, I think you would agree, a little silly.
Click to expand...

I think largely it's because all of the proposed limits obviously violate the parameters I've laid out.

Do you accept the "in common use" guidelines I've laid out previously? If not, which parts don't you agree with?
 
ataraxia said:
I don't know about your AR15, but Scalia clearly says you can't keep whatever crazy thing you want. Can we agree on that?
Click to expand...

No, he said you can't keep whatever crazy thing you want AND use it for whatever purpose in whatever manner.
 
Rucker61 said:
How does one carry a tank?
Click to expand...

You drive it around. Not that hard.

If you don't like it and want to limit me in that way, I'll just mount my machine gun on the back of my pickup truck and put some armor around the truck. Easy enough.

But regardless, I'm pretty sure I can carry this little nuke anywhere I want, right? Put in on the free market, and I'm sure the price will drop pretty quickly enough where everyone can have one in their garage- I promise it will be in common use in no time.

nuke.jpg
 
Rucker61 said:
No, he said you can't keep whatever crazy thing you want AND use it for whatever purpose in whatever manner.
Click to expand...

So you agree that SOME limits are not unconstitutional. Great, thanks. That's all I'm saying here. I am getting tired of all this "Second Amendment means the government can't confiscate any weapons ever."
 
ataraxia said:
You drive it around. Not that hard.

If you don't like it and want to limit me in that way, I'll just mount my machine gun on the back of my pickup truck and put some armor around the truck. Easy enough.

But regardless, I'm pretty sure I can carry this little nuke anywhere I want, right? Put in on the free market, and I'm sure the price will drop pretty quickly enough where everyone can have one in their garage.

View attachment 67250371
Click to expand...

As soon as it's in common use for lawful purposes, apply for the tax stamp. The problem will be getting the fissile material.
 
ataraxia said:
So you agree that SOME limits are not unconstitutional. Great, thanks. That's all I'm saying here. I am getting tired of all this "Second Amendment means the government can't confiscate any weapons ever."
Click to expand...

The Constitution never gave the authority to the federal government to confiscate any weapons. It's not a Second Amendment. Since then the government has assumed the power to do so, mainly through FDR and his intimidation of the SCOTUS at the time.

Yes, they have the power. They don't have as much Constitutional authority as they have power, though.
 
Here are soldiers (in this case, from the N. Korean army) showing off their suitcase nukes. Looks like they are carrying it just fine. So why shouldn't every patriotic American be allowed to have one?

View attachment 67250372
 
ataraxia said:
Here are soldiers (in this case, from the N. Korean army) showing off their suitcase nukes. Looks like they are carrying it just fine. So why shouldn't every patriotic American be allowed to have one?

View attachment 67250372
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that those are actual nuclear devices? Are they in common use for lawful purposes? Are they still destructive devices under NFA 1934? Is the fissile material itself, regardless of weapon status, still controlled in the US?
 
Rucker61 said:
As soon as it's in common use for lawful purposes, apply for the tax stamp. The problem will be getting the fissile material.
Click to expand...

I can't (or at least it will be hard) because t's not on the free market. It's illegal. Make it legal and put in on Amazon and on the shelves at WalMart. I bet you the sales will go through the roof faster than you seem to think.
 
Rucker61 said:
The Constitution never gave the authority to the federal government to confiscate any weapons. It's not a Second Amendment. Since then the government has assumed the power to do so, mainly through FDR and his intimidation of the SCOTUS at the time.
Click to expand...

ANY weapons?!!! So like I said, ideally there should be no right for the government to confiscate any weapons, including nukes and tanks with live ammo. All this "common use" nonsense has just been through intimidation tactics by all those crazy liberals. OUTRAGE!!! :lamo
 
ataraxia said:
I can't (or at least it will be hard) because t's not on the free market. It's illegal. Make it legal and put in on Amazon and on the shelves at WalMart. I bet you the sales will go through the roof faster than you seem to think.
Click to expand...

Until such time as that happens, and until NFA 1934 and the sellers can ensure compliance with these laws, NRC: Regulation of Radioactive Materials, you're just dodging the points in post #271.

I'll reiterate:

Given Heller, McDonald and Caetano, do AR-15s, SBRs, 30 round magazines and suppressors meet the guidelines establish by SCOTUS for "in common use for lawful purposes"?

If you don't agree, be specific why not. Show your math.
 
ataraxia said:
ANY weapons?!!! So like I said, ideally there should be no right for the government to confiscate any weapons, including nukes and tanks with live ammo. All this "common use" nonsense has just been through intimidation tactics by all those crazy liberals. OUTRAGE!!! :lamo
Click to expand...

Governments don't have rights. They have powers, both legitimate and illegitimate. NFA 1934 is law. The laws concerning possession of fissile material, whether weapons grade or not, whether in a weapon or not, exist outside of the 2nd Amendment protections. As it is, neither suitcase nukes nor tanks with live ammo are in common use for lawful purposes by civilians.

Care to discuss actual firearms that are?
 
Rucker61 said:
No, he said you can't keep whatever crazy thing you want AND use it for whatever purpose in whatever manner.
Click to expand...

Wow, you are doing a level of mental acrobatics that is absolutely astounding. Bravo!

acrobatics.jpg

But at the risk of tipping some of your artfully balanced plates, you realize that will mean you can have your own briefcase nuke as long as you don't use it for any unlawful purposes. Is that OK with you?
 
Rucker61 said:
Until such time as that happens, and until NFA 1934 and the sellers can ensure compliance with these laws, NRC: Regulation of Radioactive Materials, you're just dodging the points in post #271.

I'll reiterate:

Given Heller, McDonald and Caetano, do AR-15s, SBRs, 30 round magazines and suppressors meet the guidelines establish by SCOTUS for "in common use for lawful purposes"?

If you don't agree, be specific why not. Show your math.
Click to expand...

You're arguing circularly: you are saying it's NOT in common use, so it shouldn't become legalized. You are confusing the chicken with the egg. AR15s wouldn't be in common use either if they were outlawed. The only reason they become more commonly used is when are legalized.

The point is not IF they are legal or common, but whether they SHOULD be.
 
Rucker61 said:
Governments don't have rights. They have powers, both legitimate and illegitimate. NFA 1934 is law. The laws concerning possession of fissile material, whether weapons grade or not, whether in a weapon or not, exist outside of the 2nd Amendment protections.
Click to expand...

Says who? The government? And you're OK with that?
 
ataraxia said:
Wow, you are doing a level of mental acrobatics that is absolutely astounding. Bravo!

View attachment 67250382

But at the risk of tipping some of your artfully balanced plates, you realize that will mean you can have your own briefcase nuke as long as you don't use it for any unlawful purposes. Is that OK with you?
Click to expand...

Does it really? Are there no other laws involved? It's still likely a destructive device under NFA 1934, which hasn't been overturned, and regardless of any 2A protections you aren't allowed to own fissile material, in a weapon or not?

Are you through playing silly games now? Is anyone debating that the laws (all of them that address fissile materials and destructive devices) be overturned in order to allow civilian ownership? No, they aren't, so you aren't debating a valid point - you're just waxing ridiculous to avoid actually addressing the Constitutional points that anyone cares about.

I understand why.
 
ataraxia said:
Says who? The government? And you're OK with that?
Click to expand...

Am I okay with the government regulating fissile material that's dangerous in and of itself? Yes. It's not a 2A issue, is it?
 
ataraxia said:
You're arguing circularly: you are saying it's NOT in common use, so it shouldn't become legalized. You are confusing the chicken with the egg. AR15s wouldn't be in common use either if they were outlawed. The only reason they become more commonly used is when are legalized.

The point is not IF they are legal or common, but whether they SHOULD be.
Click to expand...

But they are in common use for lawful purposes, aren't they? You're trying to put the egg back into the chicken.

Should they be banned doesn't enter into it. That's not a legal matter, that's just a matter of opinion. Banning AR-15s isn't rational at all.
 
Rucker61 said:
Does it really? Are there no other laws involved?
Click to expand...

Even if there are, so what? Why aren't they considered unconstitutional? If it's a matter of "guns don't kill people, people kill people", then what's wrong with "nukes don't kill people, people kill people", and leave the nukes open to the free market? What's the matter, you don't trust patriotic Americans or believe they have enough responsibility to own weapons which might make the government feel threatened a little bit?



Are you through playing silly games now? Is anyone debating that the laws (all of them that address fissile materials and destructive devices) be overturned in order to allow civilian ownership? No, they aren't, so you aren't debating a valid point
Click to expand...

No, fortunately I don't know anyone debating them. But my question is: why not? I am just following your line of argument. It seems to me then that all these arguments you have are just to have certain weapons that you want to have, and then you want the line drawn there. But it's arbitrary where you want that line drawn, it seems to me- like only with weapons that you may currently own, or have grown up with since you were a kid. But my point is that the arguments you are using can be used for far, far more dangerous weapons than even the crazy ones you are pushing right now. I am trying to understand the logic.

But I am realizing this is not about logic. This is just some people wanting to keep the kind of weapons they are used to being around- no more, and no less. But that line is not one drawn on logic, just habit and tradition.

I think you can see how for some of us, who may not have necessarily grown up with these things, The insistence of some people that they should be able to carry some of these more outlandish arms around because any regulations on any weapons is unconstitutional can seem, well, a rather odd argument.
 
Last edited:
Rucker61 said:
Am I okay with the government regulating fissile material that's dangerous in and of itself? Yes. It's not a 2A issue, is it?
Click to expand...

Nuclear arms are a type of arms. I don't see the distinction being made in the 2nd Amendment. You have made that up to justify your own intuitions. But if you're going to be a Constitutional fundamentalist, you have to be prepared to take it all the way to the bitter logical end. You sure you want to do that?
 
ataraxia said:
Even if there are, so what? Why aren't they considered unconstitutional? If it's a matter of "guns don't kill people, people kill people", then what's wrong with "nukes don't kill people, people kill people", and leave the nukes open to the free market? What's the matter, you don't trust patriotic Americans or believe they have enough responsibility to own weapons which might make the government feel threatened a little bit?
Click to expand...
Why do you think? It's not about what I believe, other than the restriction on the possession of fissile material is not a 2A issue.

No, fortunately I don't know anyone debating them. But my question is: why not? I am just following your line of argument. It seems to me then that all these arguments you have are just to have certain weapons that you want to have, and then you want the line drawn there. But it's arbitrary where you want that line drawn, it seems to me- like only with weapons that you may currently own, or have grown up with since you were a kid. But my point is that the arguments you are using can be used for far, far more dangerous weapons than even the crazy ones you are pushing right now. I am trying to understand the logic.

But I am realizing this is not about logic. This is just some people wanting to keep the kind of weapons they are used to being around- no more, and no less. But that line is not one drawn on logic, just habit and tradition.
Click to expand...

Sure it's drawn on logic: see Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano. You've yet to address how you would ban or further restrict AR-15s and 30 round magazines even though logic shows clearly according to SCOTUS that they are "in common use for lawful purposes".
 
ataraxia said:
Nuclear arms are a type of arms. I don't see the distinction being made in the 2nd Amendment. You have made that up to justify your own intuitions. But if you're going to be a Constitutional fundamentalist, you have to be prepared to take it all the way to the bitter logical end. You sure you want to do that?
Click to expand...


It's not a 2A issue. It's a fissile material issue.

Let's talk real world. Defend an AR-15 ban.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom