• 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
Those are the desires of We the People who created the Republic, not the desires of government. Clearly.

Does the phrase from Lincoln "a government of the people, by the people and for the people" mean anything to you?
 
Does the phrase from Lincoln "a government of the people, by the people and for the people" mean anything to you?

That's the ideal on how government performs and if you control it well enough you can force it into that operational mode. But as we have seen throughout history, governments have not necessarily acted for their people. Indeed, left to its own devices all government trends towards tyranny.
 
That's the ideal on how government performs and if you control it well enough you can force it into that operational mode. But as we have seen throughout history, governments have not necessarily acted for their people. Indeed, left to its own devices all government trends towards tyranny.

You are correct that there certainly are governemnts that have acted as you described.
 
That's the ideal on how government performs and if you control it well enough you can force it into that operational mode. But as we have seen throughout history, governments have not necessarily acted for their people. Indeed, left to its own devices all government trends towards tyranny.

I voted "yes" in the poll. I think the Citizens owning lots of guns reminds the gov't that the people are armed. I think everyone should have a gun or two or three, but I really can't justify the 100 round clips. There is always the possibility that as Marijuana gets more legal that we will have to find another way to fill those Corporate owned and operated jails. Lots of guns leaves lots of room for prosecutions and a steady flow of inmates. Never ignore the possibility of another agenda as the driving force behind gov't. I'm not discussing conspiracy here but good business for profit practices that are the foundations of our current "Corporatism," and if I meant Capitalism I would have used that word.
 
I voted "yes" in the poll. I think the Citizens owning lots of guns reminds the gov't that the people are armed. I think everyone should have a gun or two or three, but I really can't justify the 100 round clips. There is always the possibility that as Marijuana gets more legal that we will have to find another way to fill those Corporate owned and operated jails. Lots of guns leaves lots of room for prosecutions and a steady flow of inmates. Never ignore the possibility of another agenda as the driving force behind gov't. I'm not discussing conspiracy here but good business for profit practices that are the foundations of our current "Corporatism," and if I meant Capitalism I would have used that word.

As the militia is a necessity to a free state, I feel the People should have access to much of Tue standard military hardware. Not only that but it is our duty to purchase, train with and maintain these weapons. Militia activity should be standard for all citizens. Above all else that would let government know that not only are we armed, we're prepared.
 
I voted "yes" in the poll. I think the Citizens owning lots of guns reminds the gov't that the people are armed. I think everyone should have a gun or two or three, but I really can't justify the 100 round clips. There is always the possibility that as Marijuana gets more legal that we will have to find another way to fill those Corporate owned and operated jails. Lots of guns leaves lots of room for prosecutions and a steady flow of inmates. Never ignore the possibility of another agenda as the driving force behind gov't. I'm not discussing conspiracy here but good business for profit practices that are the foundations of our current "Corporatism," and if I meant Capitalism I would have used that word.

that is one of the loonier things on this subject I have read
 
Liberal idea of "compromise"

"Give me your lunch money or I'll smash your face."

See doesn't a compromise require that both parties leave the table satisfied? All I'm seeing here pro second ammendment people leaving the table with less and less each time this debate comes up.

We can't have explosives.
We can't have automatic weapons.
We have background checks.
We have permits.
We banned "scary" guns and now seem planning to do so again.

What have we got in return? Basically "Just be glad we don't take all guns away"
 
No one Ingres anything. There's just not a lot of people so silly as to overreact as gun folks are.

The anti-2nd amendment side is trying to ban so called high capacity magazines, and so called assault weapons because of the rare mass shootings and its the pro-2nd amendment side that is overreacting?
 
The anti-2nd amendment side is trying to ban so called high capacity magazines, and so called assault weapons because of the rare mass shootings and its the pro-2nd amendment side that is overreacting?

Exactly. This restriction is a minor one. And too many make a leap from a minor restriction to banning all guns, to not being able to defend yourself, to killing legislators. It is extreme overreaction.
 
Liberal idea of "compromise"

"Give me your lunch money or I'll smash your face."

See doesn't a compromise require that both parties leave the table satisfied? All I'm seeing here pro second ammendment people leaving the table with less and less each time this debate comes up.

We can't have explosives.
We can't have automatic weapons.
We have background checks.
We have permits.
We banned "scary" guns and now seem planning to do so again.

What have we got in return? Basically "Just be glad we don't take all guns away"

I can understand how you feel that way since it has pretty much been all your way for so long now.
 
Exactly. This restriction is a minor one.

These restrictions are not minor.

And too many make a leap from a minor restriction to banning all guns, to not being able to defend yourself, to killing legislators. It is extreme overreaction.

Anti-2nd amendment loons do work in baby steps,so its not an extreme overreaction. If anything is an extreme overreaction its the anti-2nd amendment side trying to ban so called assault weapons and so called high capacity magazines over a handful of mass shootings doesn't justify infringing on the rights of millions of Americans,especially when only handful of weapons in those shootings were not so called assault weapons or so called high capacity magazines.
 
If we are to renew the "assault weapons" ban, then let's grandfather it in. I.e., if someone legally owns an "assault weapon" before the ban takes effect, then they may keep that gun. Afterward, no such weapon may be legally purchased for civilian use.

Would this be acceptable or not?

Only with a prevention of the insane AND semi-insane from owning any kind of weapons.....along with 100% checks.

After that a short word on todays society..
We are wrongly striving for "perfection".
This is no good...
We keep "raising the bar"....lets cool it ....lets be realistic.....sensitive
I agree with and buy this compromise, not perfect, but what/who is ?
 
Liberal idea of "compromise"

"Give me your lunch money or I'll smash your face."

See doesn't a compromise require that both parties leave the table satisfied? All I'm seeing here pro second amendment people leaving the table with less and less each time this debate comes up.

We can't have explosives.And what are you going to do with these - blow up little children after murdering them ?....NO, I do not need explosives, you do not need them !
We can't have automatic weapons. And what do you need these for ? See above...
We have background checks. These are partial, weak, and not enforced....no teeth.
We have permits.Did our mass-murderer have one ?
We banned "scary" guns and now seem planning to do so again. See the automatic response

What have we got in return? Americans are still the best armed, both military, police and citizens....what MORE do you want.. Basically "Just be glad we don't take all guns away"
I suspect that you NRA members are a bunch of misanthropes.
 
Hard to exactly say, I'll bet that 1/4 of 1/2 of the people do NOT want decent gun controls....maybe this should go to a type of national referendum.
The 25% approximate the tea bagging conservatives.
Most true Republicans and Democrats favor the prevention of the insane from owning guns..
On this forum, the NRA is well represented..
The "gun-haters" have no such dedicated lobbying power.
And, its only the liberal extremists who wish to have no guns...a small minority...
 
These restrictions are not minor.

There is certainly a bit of subjectivity to the word minor, so I'll explain why i use the word minor. A vast majority of people will never consider owning the types of weapons being mentioned. We are talking about a small minority of people. The guns talked about will not prevent people from owning guns, people will still be able to hunt, protect themselves, and do nearly any kind of sport shooting. In that context, it really is minor.

Anti-2nd amendment loons do work in baby steps,so its not an extreme overreaction. If anything is an extreme overreaction its the anti-2nd amendment side trying to ban so called assault weapons and so called high capacity magazines over a handful of mass shootings doesn't justify infringing on the rights of millions of Americans,especially when only handful of weapons in those shootings were not so called assault weapons or so called high capacity magazines.

It's a minor step, and won't solve all problems. But it does have the effect of an action taken. And there is a safety issue that is real, and mostly supported by police and other such professionals. So, it seems the most reasonable option available.
 
So do you therefore believe that the law should deny the people the possession of militarily effective firearms, such as are carried by the police and standing army?
That is a policy question for the duly elected representatives of the people. There certainly is no Constitutional right to have equal weapons with police and soldiers in the army.

So let me see if I've got this straight. For two days, you've be arguing against the people having the same firearms as the police and standing army, primarily based upon your opinion that there is no need for a militia composed of the American people.

And after all the effort you've put into these posts, you mean to tell me that you don't care after all.

You seriously expect us all to believe that you have absolutely no opinion as to whether the population should be allowed to carry the same firearms as the police and standing army. You want us all to believe that you've just been arguing against it for the last two day because....you really don't care.

Umm... yeah. Okay, I'm sure everyone else here believes you just as much as I do, which is to say not one bit.
 
So let me see if I've got this straight. For two days, you've be arguing against the people having the same firearms as the police and standing army, primarily based upon your opinion that there is no need for a militia composed of the American people.

And after all the effort you've put into these posts, you mean to tell me that you don't care after all.

You seriously expect us all to believe that you have absolutely no opinion as to whether the population should be allowed to carry the same firearms as the police and standing army. You want us all to believe that you've just been arguing against it for the last two day because....you really don't care.

Umm... yeah. Okay, I'm sure everyone else here believes you just as much as I do, which is to say not one bit.

All I have said is that there is no right under the Second Amendment for anyone to claim that they have a right to have the same level of weaponry as a police officer or soldier.

I have no idea what all this CARING nonsense is about.
 
I suspect that you NRA members are a bunch of misanthropes.

What *you* think I need is irrelevant. Some people may think I don't need a 300hp 4x4 truck, some people may think I dont need a car that can do 180mph, doesn't matter. As long as I am and continue to be a law abiding citizen, why should I be prevented from having such weapons.

It is liberal "Nannystate" thinking that simply having such a gun in your hand will cause an overwhelming urge to go on a rampage. Amazingly enough I have been trained, operated, and train others in the use of these weapons and we have managed to control ourselves.

Do I think everyone should be running around with machine guns and c4 strapped to them? Ofcourse not but I don't feel that just because you think someone doesn't need them is sufficient reason to ban them. There are books out there that can show you how to make a device that is just as deadly with ingredients you can buy from Walmart.
 
I can't really grasp all the objection to the current weapons proposals. What the hell, the massacres that have occurred require some kind of response. Politicians seldom initiate solutions in our current environment of partisan divide. OTOH, they are trapped into having to do something and we are in the middle of the experience. Keerist, I'm delighted that the proposals are as minor as they are. Knee jerk overrreaction was my fear and the proposals are instead relatively minor. Great. As far as the NRA is concerned, screw them. They've become the voice of the radical right.
 
Does the phrase from Lincoln "a government of the people, by the people and for the people" mean anything to you?

Yeah, does Washington's quote "Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master" mean anything to you?

How about Thomas Jefferson's quote "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."?

How about "Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."?

Or George Masons': "...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Or Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."

Alexander Hamilton: "...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..."

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them."

Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."





The Founders were pretty clear on the threat that government poses to the liberties of the citizenry, and the need to retain the ability to overthrow said government by force of arms.
 
All I have said is that there is no right under the Second Amendment for anyone to claim that they have a right to have the same level of weaponry as a police officer or soldier.

Yes, you've stated your opinion on this many times. I can only assume you continue to so doggedly do so because you want the law to prevent them from doing so and are backing up your wish with what you believe to be a constitutional justification.
 
All I have said is that there is no right under the Second Amendment for anyone to claim that they have a right to have the same level of weaponry as a police officer or soldier.

I have no idea what all this CARING nonsense is about.

maybe if you would finally tell us what arms are PROTECTED we pro rights advocates could have a more meaningful conversation with you
 
I can't really grasp all the objection to the current weapons proposals. What the hell, the massacres that have occurred require some kind of response. Politicians seldom initiate solutions in our current environment of partisan divide. OTOH, they are trapped into having to do something and we are in the middle of the experience. Keerist, I'm delighted that the proposals are as minor as they are. Knee jerk overrreaction was my fear and the proposals are instead relatively minor. Great. As far as the NRA is concerned, screw them. They've become the voice of the radical right.

MOre unabated idiocy. Of course you cannot see any objection. You want people disarmed.

claiming the NRA is the voice of the radical right is the sort of psychobabble your posts are famous for. The biggest argument against the NRA is that they don't take a strong enough position against the pimps in DC and their anti right idiocy
 
Exactly. This restriction is a minor one. And too many make a leap from a minor restriction to banning all guns, to not being able to defend yourself, to killing legislators. It is extreme overreaction.

your posting style is a perfect prototype of the incremental strategy of banning guns. Most people, unless they pay careful attention to your many gun posts, would not see your true agenda which of course is to incrementally ban guns. Almost every incrementalist pretends the "next step" is minor. Its obvious to us who understand the issue. I also note you often "like" more extremist suggestions of those whose anti gun agenda is not as well guarded as yours
 
your posting style is a perfect prototype of the incremental strategy of banning guns. Most people, unless they pay careful attention to your many gun posts, would not see your true agenda which of course is to incrementally ban guns. Almost every incrementalist pretends the "next step" is minor. Its obvious to us who understand the issue. I also note you often "like" more extremist suggestions of those whose anti gun agenda is not as well guarded as yours

If you weren't so incredibly wrong, you might have a point. If you're this wrong about me, it is likely you are wrong about others.
 
Back
Top Bottom