• 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!

A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

Would this compromise be acceptable?


  • Total voters
    75
Nor do I deny the possibility of three inch flaming monkeys playing professional basketball under the surface of Uranus sometime in the future. I will not however formulate current public policy around that sort of speculation.

Agreed. Nobody knows when exactly when or whether the American people will need to assemble themselves into a well regulated militia again, but we do know for sure that a militia is necessary to security of a free state. That's why the founders require that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the people don't have militarily effective weapons, then they can't very well act as a well regulated militia now, can they?
 
In this case it means that you no longer can exercise the right.

any infringement means you can no longer exercise your rights as the constitution intended. and a proper and honest interpretation of the second amendment would prohibit that
 
any infringement means you can no longer exercise your rights as the constitution intended. and a proper and honest interpretation of the second amendment would prohibit that

The Constitution does not say what it intends to any degree of certainty other than the prefacing remarks about the necessity of a militia and of course, the Preamble. . It only says that you have the right to exercise and the government cannot prevent you from doing so. And if you are doing so.... no state of being INFRINGED exists.
 
Which is how I read it. And quite frankly to read it ANY other way, including Turtledudes is a complete bastardization rendering the amendment absolutely meaningless. Its one of the reasons I dont support the NRA and think they are a bunch of ******s. All this started with the compromise on free speach. Its either free or its not. That includes yelling fire in a theature. You compromise on one right and then you compromise on all the rest.


both of you didn't understand what I was saying. I was saying theoretically people of good intentions can argue whether certain military weapons are "ORDNANCE" or ARTILLERY rather than arms even though modern weapons allow an individual to deploy a device that has the equivalent power of a crew served artillery piece circa 1790 or 1917 HOWEVER, there is absolutely no legitimate argument that common CIVILIAN police weapons come anywhere close to whatever honest line one wants to draw concerning what military weapons are protected and what are not
 
The Constitution does not say what it intends to any degree of certainty other than the prefacing remarks about the necessity of a militia and of course, the Preamble. . It only says that you have the right to exercise and the government cannot prevent you from doing so. And if you are doing so.... no state of being INFRINGED exists.

For that we look to the framer's writings, and they are all clear and specific on the matter of the Second. Their take on the Second and why they ratified it has been posted here before a few times.
 
If you are exercising the right, then by its very nature you cannot have the right violated or broken or destroyed. One cannot have their right INFRINGED if one also is enjoying the same right. One cancels out the other. The existence of one precludes the existence of the other. Its like being pregnant: you either are or are not.

that is as silly as saying if a Jew is told he can attend a Mass, his right to practice religion is not destroyed even if his Jewish faith is outlawed
 
For that we look to the framer's writings, and they are all clear and specific on the matter of the Second. Their take on the Second and why they ratified it has been posted here before a few times.

It sure would be nice if we could do that. Sadly and unfortunately we have the very real problem that silence is the loudest message from all but a few. And it certainly would be be right nor fair to judge the motivations or intent of many by the voice of the few that have survived.
 
that is as silly as saying if a Jew is told he can attend a Mass, his right to practice religion is not destroyed even if his Jewish faith is outlawed

This has nothing to do with being a Jew or attending mass in a Catholic Church. The comparison is irrelevant.
 
This has nothing to do with being a Jew or attending mass in a Catholic Church. The comparison is irrelevant.

opinion noted not shared. telling me I cannot own a gun that the second amendment says I can because I already own a different kind of gun is the same thing. Just as if I own a book that the left hates "Atlas Shrugs" and they try to ban "The Fountainhead" and claim I can already enjoy reading Rand and thus my rights are intact

if I wanted to buy a different gun every day of the year, the first day I am told NO my rights have been impermissibly and unconstitutionally violated
 
Yes. I find this perfectly acceptable and reasonable.
 
opinion noted not shared. telling me I cannot own a gun that the second amendment says I can because I already own a different kind of gun is the same thing. Just as if I own a book that the left hates "Atlas Shrugs" and they try to ban "The Fountainhead" and claim I can already enjoy reading Rand and thus my rights are intact

if I wanted to buy a different gun every day of the year, the first day I am told NO my rights have been impermissibly and unconstitutionally violated

Your first example of the Jew and Mass belongs in a discussion about religion and the First Amendment.

Your second about books belongs in a discussion about freedom of the press and the First Amendment.

None of those things are relevant here nor are they being discussed.

If you - by your own example - have purchased a gun on every day of the year and have 364 of them, and then you are told on December 31 that you can not buy one that day, you still have the others with which to exercise your rights. If you no longer have them, knowing of what the law says about the purchase of the gun on December 31, the problem exists with you and not the law since it was you who of your own free will and decision placed yourself in that position with the knowledge of the consequences.
 
Yes. I find this perfectly acceptable and reasonable.

that's because you are an anti gun advocate who would willingly strip the rights of conservatives that you don't find useful

its like some homophobic bible thumper saying a valid compromise is that every gay who wants to engage in sodomy has to have a STD test the day before he has sex
 
Your first example of the Jew and Mass belongs in a discussion about religion and the First Amendment.

Your second about books belongs in a discussion about freedom of the press and the First Amendment.

None of those things are relevant here nor are they being discussed.

If you - by your own example - have purchased a gun on every day of the year and have 364 of them, and then you are told on December 31 that you can not buy one that day, you still have the others with which to exercise your rights. If you no longer have them, knowing of what the law says about the purchase of the gun on December 31, the problem exists with you and not the law since it was you who of your own free will and decision placed yourself in that position with the knowledge of the consequences.

opinion noted and not shared. and yes they are relevant. Its all about constitutional rights and since some are not willing to say what constitutes an infringement as to the second amendment, references to the other amendments prove edifying
 
that's because you are an anti gun advocate
Because i favor restrictions on weapons that makes me "anti gun"? I own several weapons myself but somehow im "anti gun" because i favor restrictions?

who would willingly strip the rights of conservatives that you don't find useful
Only conservatives own assault weapons?


its like some homophobic bible thumper saying a valid compromise is that every gay who wants to engage in sodomy has to have a STD test the day before he has sex
That was a terrible analogy.
 
Because i favor restrictions on weapons that makes me "anti gun"? I own several weapons myself but somehow im "anti gun" because i favor restrictions?


Only conservatives own assault weapons?



That was a terrible analogy.

what exactly do pro rights people get in return for that idiotic infringement on our rights

what is an "assault weapon"

and at what point does a magazine limit (currently well below what NY cops can use) become an impermissible infringement on our rights

and we won't even get into the fact that the anti gun parts of that compromise have no empirical evidence of helping anyone other than criminals and pandering left wing politicians
 
opinion noted and not shared. and yes they are relevant. Its all about constitutional rights and since some are not willing to say what constitutes an infringement as to the second amendment, references to the other amendments prove edifying

Which is like applying the standards for evaluating sushi when eating a steak and then saying "well its all about food".
 
Which is like applying the standards for evaluating sushi when eating a steak and then saying "well its all about food".

analogy noted and rejected as not relevant. rights that are guaranteed are often discussed when evaluating other constitutional rights. strict scrutiny for example is applied to laws that may infringe on rights no matter which amendment is implicated
 
what exactly do pro rights people get in return for that idiotic infringement on our rights
What?


what is an "assault weapon"
From my understanding an "assault weapon" are stronger weapons and have more power than a standard rifle or battle rifle, have selective fire, and a discharge magazine.

and at what point does a magazine limit (currently well below what NY cops can use) become an impermissible infringement on our rights
Well you do realize multiple USSC decisions have stated that congress has the right to regulate firearms...

and we won't even get into the fact that the anti gun parts of that compromise have no empirical evidence of helping anyone other than criminals and pandering left wing politicians
:doh
 
analogy noted and rejected as not relevant. rights that are guaranteed are often discussed when evaluating other constitutional rights. strict scrutiny for example is applied to laws that may infringe on rights no matter which amendment is implicated

What you are attempting to do is move the goal posts to a different stadium and change the rules about the kicking of the field goal.
 
From everything I've read:
1. Assault weapons are owned by only a tiny fraction of the population.
2. Assault weapons are involved in a tiny fraction of actual gun crimes.

Why is so much money and energy spent on this? Is this just a big placebo where government acts like it's doing something but in reality it's just wasting everyone's time and money, pissing off the hobbyists who actually enjoy ARs, and essentially doing zip to protect the public? I would be embarassed as an anti-gun advocate if a renewed AR ban was the best they could come up with. Go shoot some. A pistol grip can be quite comfortable. It doesn't need a ****ing federal law against it.
 
What?From my understanding an "assault weapon" are stronger weapons and have more power than a standard rifle or battle rifle, have selective fire, and a discharge magazine. oh

Oh no, don't discuss it if you haven't read it please!

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
....because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:


Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.
 
The Constitution does not say what it intends to any degree of certainty other than the prefacing remarks about the necessity of a militia and of course, the Preamble. . It only says that you have the right to exercise and the government cannot prevent you from doing so. And if you are doing so.... no state of being INFRINGED exists.

Given the statement that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, it stands to reason that the government may not prohibit militarily effective firearms. To do so would render the population incapable of forming a militia, subverting the reason for the federal prohibition in the first place.
 
No, you're missing the point. If the tool is irrelevant, then we never go outside, because there is danger outside of our plastic bubbles. My point is that trying to create equivalence between tools that can be used to kill in addition to their normal functions and tools whose normal and only function is killing is a false equivalence. That's actually my whole point.

The tool is irrelevant because dead kids are still dead kids.And if it was about saving lives you would want restrictions on those things responsible for deaths just as you would guns.Its been pointed out more than once that guns have more than one function.
 
The tool is irrelevant because dead kids are still dead kids.And if it was about saving lives you would want restrictions on those things responsible for deaths just as you would guns.Its been pointed out more than once that guns have more than one function.

Collecting and killing (in some form or another). Those are really the only two functions that guns have.
 
Back
Top Bottom