• 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 Control

Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 39.9%
  • No

    Votes: 74 50.0%
  • Others

    Votes: 15 10.1%

  • Total voters
    148
Seriously, you are having this much trouble in understanding what I said? I suggest you again reread the conversation between us because once again you are going off into the weeds as you are prone to.

I suggest you get to know the second amendment and what the founders thought about it. There is plenty of historical reference for you to research.

No, that is the point, it was a compromise, not one view. Oh my...this is getting incomprehensible.

And the compromise is that the right shall not be infringed. If that is incomprehensible to you, you clearly do not understand the subject...or English.
 
Anytime you want to back that claim, with court references, just quote me and post it.

so you deny that the second amendment recognizes a pre existing right?

LOL, and the USSC stopped actually following the constitution during the New Deal

do you honestly believe the commerce clause was intended to allow congress to regulate small arms?
 
the only time a cop needs the weapon is when he is facing an imminent threat of severe bodily harm or death and that is the same for other civilians. what you are trying to say (and you are wrong) is that cops face more SERIOUS threats than other civilians. That is not true. and as I have noted, cops or almost never the target of unprovoked attacks like convenience store owners etc are. When cops are in a gun fight with mopes the cops usually know that they are going into a dangerous situation. When you are walking down the street or sitting in a movie theater or shopping in a mall you are not expecting a criminal attack. Same when you are sleeping in your bed.

that is why non LEOs usually are facing more dire circumstances than cops. Its because the criminals almost always initiate the deployment of a weapon FIRST against a civilian. Not so with cops who often do felony search warrants or arrest warrants on unsuspecting criminals or at least get a dispatch call of a problem

so your claim is completely wrong, counter to real life experience and is contrary to fact

You really do NOT seem it get it do you Turtle?

Stop telling me what you think "I am trying to say". What I have said is clear and if you simply flush all the other nonsense you can focus on that.

You are not a police officer and do not perform their job. As such, you do not need the tools they posses to do their job.

End of position.

All of your jumping through hoops pretending that you are is simply you trying to rationalize the right wing paranoid delusion of pretending that you need equal fire power in case the great war of liberation comes and youy have to battle the cops.
 
You really do NOT seem it get it do you Turtle?

Stop telling me what you think "I am trying to say". What I have said is clear and if you simply flush all the other nonsense you can focus on that.

You are not a police officer and do not perform their job. As such, you do not need the tools they posses to do their job.

End of position.

All of your jumping through hoops pretending that you are is simply you trying to rationalize the right wing paranoid delusion of pretending that you need equal fire power in case the great war of liberation comes and youy have to battle the cops.


I get it, you think that cops deserve better tools to protect themselves from armed attacks by criminals than the rest of us do

you seem to think that protection from armed criminals is a duty or a job only police have to do and that the criminal attacks on cops are more serious than those on other civilians

yet police stations don't see active shooter attacks


so you are WRONG

tell us why other civilians should not have those weapons

is it because you are afraid of your neighbors being as well armed as cops

or is it you just don't value the lives of citizens as much as state employees


TELL US WHY WE SHOULD HAVE LESSER ARMS
 
The second amendment clearly says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and the SCOTUS has confirmed that.



And in this case the conditions are to not infringe the right to keep and bear arms. :shrug:

My position is NOT based on SCOTUS. It is based on the meaning of the Second Amendment as it was written.

btw - you mentioned HINDERED as part of the definition.... here is that definition from the same 1828 source

hindered

HIN'DERED, pp. Stopped; impeded; obstructed; retarded.

That goes hand in hand with my position that the right must be stopped or defeated to be INFRINGED.
 
You really do NOT seem it get it do you Turtle?

Stop telling me what you think "I am trying to say". What I have said is clear and if you simply flush all the other nonsense you can focus on that.

You are not a police officer and do not perform their job. As such, you do not need the tools they posses to do their job.

End of position.

All of your jumping through hoops pretending that you are is simply you trying to rationalize the right wing paranoid delusion of pretending that you need equal fire power in case the great war of liberation comes and youy have to battle the cops.

Personally, I think the "great war of liberation", as you put, it is unlikely....but possible. More possible would be the eventual collapse of our govt leaving us to fend for ourselves (more likely). Given that possibility, I believe it well within our need to posses adequate weaponry to provide for our own security.
 
I never did try to argue that, as I explained to you.
You keep dancing around your own quotes, avoiding the arguments that they addressed and continuing this racing through the weeds.

You, however, took a single line out of a SCOTUS decision and misrepresented it's meaning.
If I have misunderstood that the SC has never viewed that the 2nd protects the right to possess military weaponry, then I ask you again, prove it.

The assault weapons ban was never challenged because it didn't actually do anything meaningful.
I can objectively disprove that subjective falsehood, but that isn't the point. It did prevent you or any other citizen from legally purchasing assault weapons....and it was never challenged in the SC.
 
I get it, you think that cops deserve better tools to protect themselves from armed attacks by criminals than the rest of us do

YOU do NOT get it.

You are not a cop. You do nto need the tools they need to do their professional job because you do not do their professional job.
 
Personally, I think the "great war of liberation", as you put, it is unlikely....but possible. More possible would be the eventual collapse of our govt leaving us to fend for ourselves (more likely). Given that possibility, I believe it well within our need to posses adequate weaponry to provide for our own security.

And the Constitution provides that for you as I have repeatedly indicated.
 
My position is NOT based on SCOTUS. It is based on the meaning of the Second Amendment as it was written.

No, as you want it to be. My point is that your point is in oppostion to what it actually means, and SCOTUS agrees with me.

btw - you mentioned HINDERED as part of the definition.... here is that definition from the same 1828 source



That goes hand in hand with my position that the right must be stopped or defeated to be INFRINGED.

This is nonsensical. Anything other than "full use of" is infringement.
 
so you deny that the second amendment recognizes a pre existing right?

LOL, and the USSC stopped actually following the constitution during the New Deal

do you honestly believe the commerce clause was intended to allow congress to regulate small arms?
You are off in the weeds with mac, you two have fun out there...mkay?

I have a game to watch, cya
 
YOU do NOT get it.

You are not a cop. You do nto need the tools they need to do their professional job because you do not do their professional job.

If there were no cops, he would be as much a cop as the currently existing ones are. As would you and I.
 
Oh BTW Haymarket, if i were intending to assassinate a politician after a war against guns was launched as opposed to defending myself against gangs, active shooters or looters I would use a far different weapon. an "assault weapon" whatever that may be is not ideal for taking out a politician who is surrounded by armed guards. For that, the best weapon is say a Lazzeroni War Bird or a Barrett 50 or an AI 300 Mag. stuff that you can make head shots at long distances with or stuff that is so powerful that it will blow right through body armor 800M out.

those weapons have almost no self defense use against criminals.

In case your are interested (since I doubt you have ever heard of a Lazzeroni) I have included a link of some of their current rifles. they cost a lot of money and take months to get



Lazzeroni Rifles
 
Bob and weave, homey.

their goal is to harass gun owners mainly because most gun owners are not far lefties

as long as they think a law will harass us they will support it and that is why they cannot rationally explain why a law they want will diminish crime

CRIME CONTROL PLAYS NOT ROLE IN WHAT MOTIVATES THEM
 
The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963

H.Lee and me are on the same page. I have at least 8 firearm books. I know Eugene Stoner and I have written papers on Browning (my favorite designer I believe). I will agree to disagree with you.

The relevant question in this thread is: do you think we as civilians should be allowed to own them? The AR 15 semi automatic. Or a fully automatic rifle built around the AR platform or any other Platform? I believe in the class 3 license we have right now for full autos. I think that is done.
 
No, as you want it to be. My point is that your point is in oppostion to what it actually means, and SCOTUS agrees with me.



This is nonsensical. Anything other than "full use of" is infringement.

According to the modern twist supplied by the gun lobby it well may be. According to the working definition employed at the time - it means nothing of the kind.
 
Not as you would have it infringed.

I have never advocated any measure by the government that would have it INFRINGED.
 
If there were no cops, he would be as much a cop as the currently existing ones are. As would you and I.

And if you and I had wings we would not need cars.

A cop does NOT have the weapons they have because of the Second Amendment. Cops all over the world in all sorts of countries bear weapons in nations where people have no right to keep and bear arms. But they do it for the same reason as American cops do it - because it is part of the equipment needed to do the job.
 
I have never advocated any measure by the government that would have it INFRINGED.

that is because anything short of a complete ban on someone being able to own even one gun, you claim is not an infringement.
 
And if you and I had wings we would not need cars.

A cop does NOT have the weapons they have because of the Second Amendment. Cops all over the world in all sorts of countries bear weapons in nations where people have no right to keep and bear arms. But they do it for the same reason as American cops do it - because it is part of the equipment needed to do the job.

so tell us why other civilians-when facing a lethal criminal attack-often of more serious nature than that of a cop,-should not be allowed to have a weapon as effective as that of a police officer

Is your answer

1) police are more valuable than say store owners

2) store owners are more likely to misuse such a weapon


it has to be one or the other

which is it
 
that is because anything short of a complete ban on someone being able to own even one gun, you claim is not an infringement.

I would never support a complete ban on guns as it would violate the Second Amendment.
 
so tell us why other civilians-when facing a lethal criminal attack-often of more serious nature than that of a cop,-should not be allowed to have a weapon as effective as that of a police officer

Is your answer

1) police are more valuable than say store owners

2) store owners are more likely to misuse such a weapon


it has to be one or the other

which is it

You are not listening.

What it is is simple: a police officer has the weapons he has NOT to exercise any Constitutional right - but to do a professional job they are hired to do.

You, me, all other civilians are NOT professional police officers. As such, we have no right to the make aclaim to have the same weaponry as a police officer does because that weaponry has not a darn thing to do with the second amendment and the exercise of it.

As such, your argument is a political one and NOT a Constitutional one. You are entitled to it. But it is not a Constitutional argument nor a legal one. It is a political one based on envy of the weaponry carried by professional police officers performing their job.

It has NOTHING at all to do with value judgments about who is more valuable. That is silly and irrelevant as that is NOT why officers have the weapons.
 
Back
Top Bottom