• 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?

  • Yes. This isn’t perfect, but no compromise is.

    Votes: 11 14.7%

  • No. I don’t mind some compromise, but this still takes away too much.

    Votes: 10 13.3%

  • No. We should never compromise our gun rights.

    Votes: 49 65.3%

  • No. This still gives too many gun ownership privileges.

    Votes: 3 4.0%

  • I can hit a target 400 yards away with my eyes closed.

    Votes: 2 2.7%
  • Total voters
    75
cpwill said:
Agreed. 100 round clips are stupid. Why, the rounds would fall right off, the whole dang thing would be impossibly unwieldy, you could never fire from the prone... That's why no one has ever built any. HOWEVER, the term is useful because it does highlight anyone in the gun debates who doesn't know what they are talking about :).
Click to expand...

I have two 100 round Beta C-mags. They work great.
 
Boo Radley said:
Are you sure?

I think the point is being missed. Technology has changed the world. Traditional weapons are no longer the end all they once were. Those countries relying on weapons are seriously crappy places to live. This country is a great place to live, and bee hold the power to overthrow the government without a shot being fired. The "gun" way is much less I viable today.
Click to expand...

Technology has certainly had a large impact. Government hold tremendous power (BTW, more reason to not trust it), they certainly are better able to defend themselves should the People wish a change. But it is still the right of the People to fight for that change, and it is not written in stone that the government will win. Our own troops have terrible times fighting low numbers of insurgents and they don't have a formal army, no tanks (in fact a formal army puts you in a worse situation with our military), etc.

People can succeed even against seemingly insurmountable odds, and we are owed the chance. It is our government and we have right to replace it should it be necessary.
 
Dammitboy! said:
I have two 100 round Beta C-mags. They work great.
Click to expand...

Yeah I had a gunny and a corporal that rolled with c-mags in Iraq (explanatory quote from the gunny: "Son, anyone worth shooting is worth shooting many times). They just didn't have C-clips.
 
haymarket said:
Your rights under the Second Amendment cannot be INFRINGED. That is clear and I have made that crystal clear over and over and over again. If the government creates a nation where the citizenry cannot have arms to keep and bear, then they have been INFRINGED.

I have explained this many many times.
Click to expand...
Yes, you have explained your "unique" understanding of what the founders meant when they used the word infringed.

Now all you have to do is to produce a constitutional scholar who agrees with you, and maybe, just maybe, someone will begin to actually take you seriously.
 
Federalist said:
In you own mind, perhaps. And now, I predict, you will evade.
Click to expand...

Okay, you know that making predictions that are garaunteed is a cheap way to boost your average, right?
 
Federalist said:
Yes, you have explained your "unique" understanding of what the founders meant when they used the word infringed.

Now all you have to do is to produce a constitutional scholar who agrees with you, and maybe, just maybe, someone will begin to actually take you seriously.
Click to expand...

What frustrates me the most about this is that decades of kids were taught American history and government under this set of assumptions. We really need better standards.
 
cpwill said:
Okay, you know that making predictions that are garaunteed is a cheap way to boost your average, right?
Click to expand...

Well, how else am I going to boost my average? The hard way? Sheesh!
 
Federalist said:
Well, how else am I going to boost my average? The hard way? Sheesh!
Click to expand...

Hm. How about an over/under on how long Haymarket will avoid gun threads, or this one in particular?
 
cpwill said:
What frustrates me the most about this is that decades of kids were taught American history and government under this set of assumptions. We really need better standards.
Click to expand...
A wall of separation between education and state would be a nice start.
 
cpwill said:
Yeah I had a gunny and a corporal that rolled with c-mags in Iraq (explanatory quote from the gunny: "Son, anyone worth shooting is worth shooting many times). They just didn't have C-clips.
Click to expand...

I like your gunny. He is a wise man. Make em dead and make sure they stay that way.
 
TurtleDude said:
I did and you said that civilians do not have the right to possess the same weapons that police do. so you believe that the police can own some weapons we cannot but you said all firearms are equally protected

ergo, if we don't have the right to own some firearms used by police we don't have the right to own any firearm under the second amendment
Click to expand...

That is your opinion - it is not my opinion.

It is your interpretation - it is not my interpretation.

Not having the right to any any weapons would constitute the Second Amendment right to be INFRINGED and thus be unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Now that's interesting. You realize that, added to your argument that the government has the right to ban "military style" weapons, this means that in your opinion the Second Amendment means that the government can ban any and all weapons?
Click to expand...

That is your opinion - it is not my opinion.

Were the government to ban any and all weapons, then the Second Amendment right would certainly be INFRINGED and that would be unconstitutional.
 
cpwill said:
Actually as members of the militia, they do.

10 USC 311: The Militia consists of all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States.

However, as I recall, you were a public school teacher, and so as I don't think that Howard Zinn covered that part, you can be excused for not knowing it.
Click to expand...

We have been through this many times in many threads. I have repeatedly stated that the militia is a fiction which exists only on paper. And what do you provide as your 'evidence? The same piece of paper. All you have done is proved my very point. Thank you.
 
Dammitboy! said:
Why does the police officer have those weapons, what would he use them for, what is their purpose? They would use them as any law abiding civilian would use them, in self-defense against armed criminals. I did not say the police have them "because of the 2nd amendment" I said they have them to be on an equal footing with criminals. Is there a reason you think criminals should have an advantage in firepower?
Click to expand...

Sadly for your position, the Second Amendment does not say this nor extend to you that right.
 
Federalist said:
Yes, you have explained your "unique" understanding of what the founders meant when they used the word infringed.

Now all you have to do is to produce a constitutional scholar who agrees with you, and maybe, just maybe, someone will begin to actually take you seriously.
Click to expand...

I have done better. I have produced the original meaning of the Founders. that trumps the opinion of anyone else.

Are you familiar with the school of thought regarding the Constitution known as Originalism or the people called Originalists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalists

Some of the names of the judicial experts contained there should be known to you.
 
haymarket said:
You can snort all you want. It is part of my job to play in role in the making of public policy. That is what I do for a living.
Click to expand...

Bwaahaahaa!

And I am a rocket scientist with numerous international commendations.


God, but I just LOVE the Internet!!!!!
 
SMTA said:
Bwaahaahaa!

And I am a rocket scientist with numerous international commendations.


God, but I just LOVE the Internet!!!!!
Click to expand...

Why does simple reality and truth seem to cause such a disagreeable reaction from you?

This is what you said to me earlier

Snort. You do not make public policy for anything.
Click to expand...

I then corrected your falsehood by pointing out that public policy is what I do for a living. If you doubt that I would be willing to put up a very large sum of money against yours to determine who is telling the truth on this point. Any significant sum at all is fine with me.

I have no idea why you continually seek to make personal attacks on me rather than speak to the issue being discussed.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I have done better. I have produced the original meaning of the Founders. that trumps the opinion of anyone else.
Click to expand...
Thank you for conceding that no constitutional scholar agrees with your interpretation.
 
Federalist said:
Thank you for conceding that no constitutional scholar agrees with your interpretation.
Click to expand...

I think he cannot get out of what he has said

1) all firearms are "protected equally under the second amendment"

2) we do not have a right under the second amendment to have the same civilian defensive weapons civilian police are issued for self defense

3) therefore no firearms are protected for civilians who are not servants of the local state or federal governments

there is no other possible explanation
 
haymarket said:
We have been through this many times in many threads. I have repeatedly stated that the militia is a fiction which exists only on paper. And what do you provide as your 'evidence? The same piece of paper. All you have done is proved my very point. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Failure to understand the difference between Statutory Law and the US Constitution = Taught American Government for how many years again?
 
haymarket said:
Why does simple reality and truth seem to cause such a disagreeable reaction from you?
Click to expand...

If this is true, I find it quite sad, as your lack of honesty mirrors what I see from all politicians.

I have no tolerance for people who will not give an honest yes or no when asked, but twist mysteriously in the political wind.....
 
haymarket said:
That is your opinion - it is not my opinion.

Were the government to ban any and all weapons, then the Second Amendment right would certainly be INFRINGED and that would be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

You stated that no class of weapons is more or less protected than any other, and that the government has the right to ban particular classes of weapons.

If the remaining classes of weapons are not protected more than those that were banned, what about the state move against the remaining classes causes it to suddenly become an infringement?
 
Federalist said:
Thank you for conceding that no constitutional scholar agrees with your interpretation.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about and apparently neither do you since you quoted no such thing from me. I provided you with the names of many judicial experts who also subscribe to the same methodology of ORIGINALISM that I am employing in correctly describing the original meaning of the word INFRINGED.

Why are you attempting to employ the fallacy of ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM in a discussion about ideas?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I have done better. I have produced the original meaning of the Founders. that trumps the opinion of anyone else.
Click to expand...

Really? Because as I recall when I quoted you the original meaning of the Founders you complained that you preferred Abraham Lincoln. Then I tried pointing out to you several points where the Founders had even written their meaning into law, and you claimed it was "just a piece of paper".


The Founders, it is worth noting, believed in the private ownership of artillery, and when the government tried to take theirs, they used it on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom