• 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

You say that like it’s a good thing. Why is that OK and not an infringement on the right to arms?

Which of congress's enumerated legislative powers would enable it to enact legislation that would prohibit the people of the several sovereign states from acquiring or possessing arms?
 
Which of congress's enumerated legislative powers would enable it to enact legislation that would prohibit the people of the several sovereign states from acquiring or possessing arms?

The ones that are keeping them from having their own personal nuclear arms in their garage.
 
The national militia (both organized and unorganized) is more selective than "every other American citizen" as I pointed out. I, for example, am no longer part of the national militia and haven't been for 20 years. Only woman who are already members of the National Guard are considered members of the organized national militia, for example.

Oh, I thought Haymarket intimated that the militia was the whole of the people, and that is why he thought that Art I, section 8 legitimized some sort of liberty violation on the part of the general government.
 
The ones that are keeping them from having their own personal nuclear arms in their garage.

And those would be....? Looking for some sort of text here...
 
Oh, I thought Haymarket intimated that the militia was the whole of the people, and that is why he thought that Art I, section 8 legitimized some sort of liberty violation on the part of the general government.

Haymarket is a troll. His only objective is to keep you arguing. One should never feed trolls.
 
Haymarket is a troll. His only objective is to keep you arguing. One should never feed trolls.

I know this, obviously. But in 2097, I want people to know that he was wrong. So I'm going to rebut his posts that advocate violence against his fellow man.
 
I know this, obviously. But in 2097, I want people to know that he was wrong. So I'm going to rebut his posts.

That is what trolls live for, the undeserved attention of others. It is pathetic really, but whatever floats your boat.
 
I know this, obviously. But in 2097, I want people to know that he was wrong. So I'm going to rebut his posts that advocate violence against his fellow man.

I'm sure that in the 1700's there were people who were damn certain that they had the right to whip and beat the bodies of their fellow man. And now we look at those people as troglodytes. I'm sure that by 2097 people will look at the people who call themselves the state in the same manner.
 
You say that like it’s a good thing. Why is that OK and not an infringement on the right to arms?

It is an infringement and it was stupid pandering to stupid people.
 
That is what trolls live for, the undeserved attention of others. It is pathetic really, but whatever floats your boat.

I know what it's doing. But the only way to counter bad ideas is with good ideas.
 
And those would be....? Looking for some sort of text here...

Just go to the nearest military facility and tell them those nukes are yours and you now want to take a few home. I am sure they will be happy to provide any texts for you in court.
 
Just go to the nearest military facility and tell them those nukes are yours and you now want to take a few home. I am sure they will be happy to provide any texts for you in court.

Hm. I'm not sure a military facility would be the answer. I'll try asking you again. Please read this very slowly:

Which of congress's enumerated legislative powers would enable it to enact legislation that would prohibit the people of the several sovereign states from acquiring or possessing arms?
 
As do all Americans however that is NOT the militia that was referred to in the Second Amendment.
In which case militia regulations do not apply to them.


So you made it up about COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST part of the Constitution. Got it.
No. The United States Supreme Court made it up.

It's been the standard used by all of our courts in all of their rulings dealing with fundamental rights for the past 75 years.


The intent as previously cited and explained was since the militia was the WHOLE PEOPLE, Congress could regulate arms.
Only those arms that are related to the militia.

And those regulations are not allowed to prevent militiamen from having effective combat weapons.


But tell me, which firearms would you claim could not be covered by the language in the Constitution?
Every single firearm that is not directly related to the militia and their duties.

At present, that includes every single firearm in the country.
 
Just go to the nearest military facility and tell them those nukes are yours and you now want to take a few home. I am sure they will be happy to provide any texts for you in court.

when anti rights posters bring up "nukes" in discussions about the second amendment, I, and many others, realize that a serious discussion is not possible.,
 
There are parts of Heller that are wrong, but overall they got it mostly right.
I see Heller as upholding the "private self defense" aspect of the Second Amendment while not even addressing the "militiaman" aspect of the Second Amendment.
 
Because the government can demonstrate a compelling interest in restricting them.

Which of congress's legislative powers (as enumerated in article I, section 8) would permit legislation restricting the people of the several sovereign states from acquiring and possessing arms?
 
Hm. I'm not sure a military facility would be the answer. I'll try asking you again. Please read this very slowly:

Which of congress's enumerated legislative powers would enable it to enact legislation that would prohibit the people of the several sovereign states from acquiring or possessing arms?

I don’t know. I would refer you to the military facility. I am sure their lawyers will be more than happy to explain it slowly to your satisfaction.
 
I don’t know. I would refer you to the military facility. I am sure their lawyers will be more than happy to explain it slowly to your satisfaction.

Are you aware that this is a political discussion board? Are you aware that "we're going to hurt you" is not really a valid argument for or against any political position.

So I'll ask you one more time: Which of congress's enumerated legislative powers would enable it to enact legislation that would prohibit the people of the several sovereign states from acquiring or possessing arms?
 
when anti rights posters bring up "nukes" in discussions about the second amendment, I, and many others, realize that a serious discussion is not possible.,

It stopped being serious when you told us you want unrestricted access to weapons that can kill or maime over 600 people in a few minutes.
 
Are you aware that this is a political discussion board? Are you aware that "we're going to hurt you" is not really a valid argument for or against any political position.

So I'll ask you one more time: Which of congress's enumerated legislative powers would enable it to enact legislation that would prohibit the people of the several sovereign states from acquiring or possessing arms?

Oh, no hurting. It would be explained patiently and in great detail in a court of law. That’s necessary for sentencing, you know.
 
It stopped being serious when you told us you want unrestricted access to weapons that can kill or maime over 600 people in a few minutes.

We the people (i.e. the militia) need the proper weapons to be able to carry out our designated function.
 
Oh, no hurting. It would be explained patiently and in great detail in a court of law. That’s necessary for sentencing, you know.

You can't even say, can you? There is no legislative power allowing the general government to prohibit the acquisition or possession of firearms.
 
Back
Top Bottom