• 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

Do you have a point?

Also, it's definitely not fact, I read some of your posts. You are often wrong and or ignorant, plainly.

It IS a fact dude.

Prove me wrong.
 
So you are genuinely delusional? You need someone to prove that you have never said anything stupid?


So you can't prove me wrong: like Turtledude, when challenged all you can do is post Ad-Hom...


:lamo
 
The words COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST are NOT in the Constitution. Somebody invented them and created them for their own self serving purposes.
That's an argument for forbidding all gun control laws whatsoever. I am surprised to see you making that argument.


Gun regulation does not impact any fundamental right you have as an American citizen.
That is incorrect. I have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Gun control impacts that right.


You have the right to keep and bear arms - NOT the right to have any firearm you want to have. There is no such right.
That is incorrect. The government is generally forbidden from passing any law that impacts a fundamental right.


And the militia language shows the Founders INTENT to allow Congress to regulate weapons for THE WHOLE PEOPLE. Even without clause 16, clause of Aof Article I Section 8 is more than enough to allow regulation of arms.
The Second Amendment supersedes these provisions.


They did... but I know of nothing that then was changed or revoked in any of the Powers of Congress in Article I Section 8. Do you have any verifiable evidence of that?
Since fundamental rights generally forbid all laws that impact those rights, the Second Amendment generally forbids all gun control laws.


But you offered no verifiable evidence as to what changes occurred to the previous existing Constitution - especially Article I.
The change is the fact that all gun control laws are generally forbidden.
 
It IS a fact dude.

Prove me wrong.

So you can't prove me wrong: like Turtledude, when challenged all you can do is post Ad-Hom...


:lamo

A serious question. Do you think it is possible that you are genuinely delusional regarding this subject? You don't seem to understand arguments or actual information, or be able to stay on track discussing them.

I'll do ask you ask, but I have my doubts you'll be able to comprehend the reality of it.
 
But you offered no verifiable evidence as to what changes occurred to the previous existing Constitution - especially Article I.

They added a restriction on government's legislative power. Look for the words "shall not" and that might help you understand the nature of the restriction.
 
I never say stupid things.


It IS a fact dude.

Prove me wrong.

stu·pid
/ˈst(y)o͞opəd/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: stupid; comparative adjective: stupider; superlative adjective: stupidest
having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.


Gun thugs

Assault rifles and banana clips.

Using your logic, people should own the M16 as well, or how about an M60. But we don't, and we can't for obvious reasons



Dude; the term "30-.06" refers to a hunting a hunting rifle and is a term I heard all during my growing up. I was raised around guns.

Not even a nice try. The NASCAR version wasn't made for the streets was it.... But an AR15 killed over 55 people in fell swoop didn't it.
And the NASCAR Camry can't be driven on the streets can it.

So would you rather have a sling shot, or an AR15.

I wonder how you're going to answer that.


That's not how the living wage works dude. It's not a matter of "give me what that guys has", it's a matter of "pay me so that I can live where I work".


The AR15 was designed for the military as a combat weapon - period, full stop.

That's a fact and you know it's a fact and so do your friends.


Prove that the AR15 was not designed for military combat.

Cite your sources.


There IS a difference between a 30-06 and a BAR wouldn't you say? Which one was specifically designed for heavy combat? A 30-06 could be used as sniper rifle



Well a pistol IS a revolver according to the ATF.

As long as you admit that I am correct, that's all that matters. And, why does a shotgun have sights?

No, jet reads everything he can get his hands on everyday about the many issues in the news and with respect to the history that created said issues. That's why jet argues very effectively and is almost never proven wrong


Just a small percentage of your wrong, odd, and awkward quotes, but each one "stupid" and ignorant in its own way.


Looking through the posts I became aware that you seem severely awkward with a great deal of false pride and have an issue with discussions involving you being overly defensive, emotional or irrational.

I'm not interested in that type of discussion. Thank you.

So, once again you can't prove anything you say .
Prove it.

Prove it.

Prove it.

Tell me one, and then prove it's wrong

The gun thugs always have to be right: they have to be right about what gun control is, they have to be right about why guns shouldn't be banned, they have to right abut their own (often regurgitated) interpretations of the US constitution and in particular the 2nd amendment, they have to be right about gun control history in this country and they have to be right that gun control is a secretive operation to disarm American citizens. The big problem for them is that the facts both historical and contemporary don't match their ideology. The very best public example of this is the current house fire going on at the NRA: that entire place is based on intellectual dishonesty, diversion, phony patriotism, bastardizing the second amendment and lying about being lobbyists for the gun industry.

They forget that they ARE NOT the King's men. They forget all about the '60s and how a determined populace can change the status quo. They are the Far Right; they are Fascism come to visit America
Your grip on reality seems loose.
 
stu·pid
/ˈst(y)o͞opəd/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: stupid; comparative adjective: stupider; superlative adjective: stupidest
having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.





































Just a small percentage of your wrong, odd, and awkward quotes, but each one "stupid" and ignorant in its own way.


Looking through the posts I became aware that you seem severely awkward with a great deal of false pride and have an issue with discussions involving you being overly defensive, emotional or irrational.

I'm not interested in that type of discussion. Thank you.











Your grip on reality seems loose.

Look at my signature for some of his other comments that are an affront to known reality.
 
Because that's private information.

Just last week, I had to fill out some medical paperwork and, wouldn't you know, one of the questions was "do you have access to firearms at home".

I lied and said 'no', because it's not relevant to the medical problem I was there to be treated fore.
 
Just last week, I had to fill out some medical paperwork and, wouldn't you know, one of the questions was "do you have access to firearms at home".

I lied and said 'no', because it's not relevant to the medical problem I was there to be treated fore.


This is commonplace. The "ownership records" are quite incorrect due to this response to the current political climate.
 
That's an argument for forbidding all gun control laws whatsoever. I am surprised to see you making that argument.

Already covered the Compelling Interest phrase. All you are doing is repeating yourself.

That is incorrect. I have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Gun control impacts that right.

Already covered that also.

That is incorrect. The government is generally forbidden from passing any law that impacts a fundamental right.

There is no right to have any gun you ant. Already covered that also.

The Second Amendment supersedes these provisions.

You offer no evidence that this is the case.

Since fundamental rights generally forbid all laws that impact those rights, the Second Amendment generally forbids all gun control laws.

It says NOTHING about forbidding gun control laws. All it does is guaranty your right to arms. We already heard this form you and it was refuted. Why do you repeat nonsense?
 
They added a restriction on government's legislative power. Look for the words "shall not" and that might help you understand the nature of the restriction.

You are simply repeating your opinion and offering no evidence that other parts of the Constitution are changed as you allege.
 
Already covered the Compelling Interest phrase.
It is still odd to see you presenting an argument that all rights are absolute and no gun control of any kind is allowed.


All you are doing is repeating yourself.
The nature of reality remains the same every time I reply.


There is no right to have any gun you ant.
That is incorrect. The government is generally forbidden from passing any laws that impact a fundamental right.


You offer no evidence that this is the case.
The fact that "amendments are changes to the existing Constitution" is self evident.


It says NOTHING about forbidding gun control laws.
That is incorrect. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


All it does is guaranty your right to arms.
Fundamental rights generally forbid all legislation that impacts them.


We already heard this form you and it was refuted.
Nothing that I have said has been refuted.


Why do you repeat nonsense?
Everything that I've said is true.


offering no evidence that other parts of the Constitution are changed as you allege.
That's what amendments do. They change the existing constitution.
 
It is still odd to see you presenting an argument that all rights are absolute and no gun control of any kind is allowed.



The nature of reality remains the same every time I reply.



That is incorrect. The government is generally forbidden from passing any laws that impact a fundamental right.



The fact that "amendments are changes to the existing Constitution" is self evident.



That is incorrect. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



Fundamental rights generally forbid all legislation that impacts them.



Nothing that I have said has been refuted.



Everything that I've said is true.



That's what amendments do. They change the existing constitution.

Pass the laws and let scotus decide. Fine with me
 
Not fine with me though.

Yes you have an opinion about that.

But ii is certainly a fact that Congress can pass any law you may think is unconstitutional....and then scotus will decide
 
stu·pid
/ˈst(y)o͞opəd/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: stupid; comparative adjective: stupider; superlative adjective: stupidest
having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.





































Just a small percentage of your wrong, odd, and awkward quotes, but each one "stupid" and ignorant in its own way.


Looking through the posts I became aware that you seem severely awkward with a great deal of false pride and have an issue with discussions involving you being overly defensive, emotional or irrational.

I'm not interested in that type of discussion. Thank you.











Your grip on reality seems loose.

You must be TD's cousin: you're not proving me wrong.
 
You must be TD's cousin: you're not proving me wrong.

You prove yourself wrong constantly. We merely highlight the errors
 
It is still odd to see you presenting an argument that all rights are absolute and no gun control of any kind is allowed.

You are talking pure nonsense as that has NEVER been an argument from me. Such unadultarted garbage dooms your entire post - the points of which have already previously been refuted.
 

Are these people part of that organization?

Armed Militias Pledge to Fight for Fugitive Oregon GOP Lawmakers ‘At Any Cost’

Right-wing militia groups across the Pacific Northwest are mobilizing to prevent Oregon state police from arresting Republican state senators who went into hiding on Thursday in order to prevent climate change legislation from passing.

All 11 of Oregon’s Republican state senators are currently on the lam, with some leaving for Idaho in an effort to deny the Democrat-controlled state senate a quorum to pass a cap-and-trade bill. In response, Oregon Governor Kate Brown (D), citing a provision in the state constitution that allows the state to “compel” absent lawmakers to attend legislative sessions, dispatched state troopers to bring them back.

One of the lawmakers on the lam, Republican Brian Boquist (R), warned that he would resort to violence rather than return to the state, implying in a local television interview that he would attack law enforcement officers sent to retrieve him.

“Send bachelors and come heavily armed,” Boquist said. “I’m not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon. It’s just that simple.”

Militia groups in the Pacific Northwest—a hotbed of far-right extremist activism—claim they’ve mobilized to protect those state senators.

Why is it the website you linked to tells us NOTHING about the group other than wanting people to join and contribute to it? That in itself is highly suspicious.

Or are these the person being referred to?

Militia threat shuts down Oregon Statehouse amid walkout | PBS NewsHour Weekend

SALEM, Ore. — The Oregon Capitol will be closed Saturday due to a “possible militia threat” from right-wing protesters as a walkout by Republican lawmakers over landmark climate change legislation drags on.

Republican state senators fled the Legislature — and some, the state — earlier this week to deny the majority Democrats enough votes to take up the climate bill, which would dramatically reduce fossil fuel emissions by 2050. It would be the second program of its kind in the nation after California if passed.

Gov. Kate Brown then dispatched the state police to round up the rogue lawmakers, but none appeared in the Capitol on Friday and the stalemate seemed destined to enter its third day with a week left in the legislative session.
 
Last edited:
Are these people part of that organization?

Armed Militias Pledge to Fight for Fugitive Oregon GOP Lawmakers ‘At Any Cost’



Why is it the website you linked to tells us NOTHING about the group other than wanting people to join and contribute to it? That in itself is highly suspicious.

Or are these the person being referred to?

Militia threat shuts down Oregon Statehouse amid walkout | PBS NewsHour Weekend


Are these people part of that organization?

Why don't you sign in and ask them?(LOL)


Why is it the website you linked to tells us NOTHING about the group other than wanting people to join and contribute to it?

You got to sign in guy!

Here's some info

WHAT WE OFFER: We offer a lifetime of brotherhood, training, and information so that you can ready your family and yourselves as individuals. Training meetings will consist of things as little as studying the United States Constitution, reading a map, or eating good BBQ food at the park....to as big and important as first aid, gun safety/training, tactics, and more.
 
You are talking pure nonsense as that has NEVER been an argument from me. Such unadultarted garbage dooms your entire post
The Supreme Court only allows a fundamental right to be regulated when there is a compelling government interest in that particular regulation.

When you say that there is no such thing as a compelling government interest, you are denying the government's authority to regulate a fundamental right (such as the right to keep and bear arms).


the points of which have already previously been refuted.
None of my points have been refuted.
 
Why don't you sign in and ask them?(LOL)




You got to sign in guy!

Here's some info

Your refusal to answer any questions confirms that these are a bunch of right wing yahoos.
 
The Supreme Court only allows a fundamental right to be regulated when there is a compelling government interest in that particular regulation.

When you say that there is no such thing as a compelling government interest, you are denying the government's authority to regulate a fundamental right (such as the right to keep and bear arms).

already covered and refuted.
 
Back
Top Bottom