• 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!

Define assault weapon

Founding Father George Mason is often quoted by militia advocates that the militia is the WHOLE OF THE PEOPLE. And Given the constitutional provision already supplied in this thread, it is then obvious that there was INTENT for the Congress to regulate the weapons - at the very least weapons owned by the militia - or THE WHOLE PEOPLE.

And keep in mind that these were NOT weapons under lock and key at some government base or installation but rather the private weapons owned by the members and which they would be using for defense purposes.

The whole of the people? So we are all part of the military? And need military grade weapons?
 
And our present military does have that.

All of us are the militia. The whole of the people, as you quoted. All of us need militia capability.
 
The whole of the people? So we are all part of the military? And need military grade weapons?

George Mason said it. I merely reported on what Mason said and developed his contention.
 
All of us are the militia. The whole of the people, as you quoted. All of us need militia capability.

There is no militia. You are dealing with a fantasy that is long gone with the wind.
 
There is no militia. You are dealing with a fantasy that is long gone with the wind.

So then your "regulate the militia" argument is done. Thanks.
 
So then your "regulate the militia" argument is done. Thanks.

Not by any stretch as the articles cited from the Constitution clearly demonstrate an INTENT by the Founders to have Congress regulate firearms as they were owned by the people.
 
Not by any stretch as the articles cited from the Constitution clearly demonstrate an INTENT by the Founders to have Congress regulate firearms as they were owned by the people.

Nope. It simply says regulate the militia. And, since, as you say, there is no militia, there is nothing to regulate.
 
Not exactly. I was asking you for the quote from the Constitution regarding this so called compelling government interest.
I think that is covered by:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


Our present military has plenty of military capability.
What does the effectiveness of a standing army have to do with protections designed to preserve the effectiveness of militiamen?


And our present military does have that.
That wasn't the question though. We were talking about Constitutional protections that are intended to ensure the effectiveness of militiamen.


There is no militia. You are dealing with a fantasy that is long gone with the wind.
Weren't you the one who brought up the subject of regulating the militia?


Not by any stretch as the articles cited from the Constitution clearly demonstrate an INTENT by the Founders to have Congress regulate firearms as they were owned by the people.
That is incorrect. Militia regulations only cover militia weapons.

And the Second Amendment forbids this power from being abused to deprive militiamen of effective combat weapons.
 
Obviously, that's plenty. Otherwise, the democrat communists wouldn't be trying so hard to disarm the citizenry.

Ummm, no. It's because we are the massacre capital of the world. If you want to fight potential government tyranny, you should be fighting for gunships and attack helicopters. Why aren't you?
 
Ummm, no. It's because we are the massacre capital of the world. If you want to fight potential government tyranny, you should be fighting for gunships and attack helicopters. Why aren't you?

Don't people already have gunships and attack helicopters?

We need a militia that is as militarily effective as possible. Its members should probably have fully automatic rifles.
 
The militia needs to have an adequate military capability, no?

Adequate military capability would mean attack helicopters and gun ships. You want all members of the public to have access to such weapons without any background checks, screening, or training too?
 
Adequate military capability would mean attack helicopters and gun ships.
Indeed it would
You want all members of the public to have access to such weapons without any background checks, screening, or training too?
It would seem necessary for the militia (i.e. the whole of the people) to have the best gear available.

The American people are capable of making the most important decisions.
 
Don't people already have gunships and attack helicopters?

We need a militia that is as militarily effective as possible. Its members should probably have fully automatic rifles.

Why not ballistic nuclear missiles with DC's coordinates already pre-programmed in? Now THAT would be a serious deterrent.
 
Nope. It simply says regulate the militia. And, since, as you say, there is no militia, there is nothing to regulate.

It says that Founding Father George Mason considered THE WHOLE PEOPLE as the militia and thus the ability to regulate arms is given to the Congress.
 
Then who flies the attack helicopters? Space aliens?

Those who are heavily screened and trained and accountable to their superiors. Do you want them on sale at the local Walmart?
 
Why not ballistic nuclear missiles with DC's coordinates already pre-programmed in? Now THAT would be a serious deterrent.

A deterrent to what?

If nuclear missiles are going to be kept, they should be kept by the American people.
 
I think that is covered by:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The words COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST are NOT in the part of the Constitution you provided.

Nor are they in any part of the Constitution.

And the Second Amendment forbids this power from being abused to deprive militiamen of effective combat weapons.

The right is intact if it can be exercised. The Second Amendment says nothing about abuse. There are no militiamen today.
 
Back
Top Bottom