• 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
haymarket said:
You were proven wrong. Please see my response in 363 which preceded this statement of yours attacking me.
Click to expand...

yeah, except, in post 363 you didn't actually answer the question.
 
TurtleDude said:
clear your pm box

now he is saying that no firearms are protected

LOL
Click to expand...

We have had this discussion before. That is why I was rather shocked to see you misinterpret what I said last night. Classes of weapons - types of weapons - are not given any special protection in the Second Amendment. If they are - please quote that section for me.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is nothing there about protecting any type of weapons.
 
cpwill said:
yeah, except, in post 363 you didn't actually answer the question.
Click to expand...

I sure did. I told you that a nail gun was not intended to be a weapon nor was that its intended usage so it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
 
cpwill said:
Giving up liberty is the premise of the thread. If the government attempts to remove or seriously restrict your second amendment rights, then not only is your liberty reduced, but it has been done so forcibly, meaning that the government has attempted to seize sovereignty from the people. According to our theory of governance, this means that the government has initiated a state of war with the people, and the people have the right to defend themselves.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. It's the pretense some have put forth. The thread is about a compromise. having some regulation, restrictions, is not a situation where anyone loses 2nd amendment rights, and certainly no liberty is lost. Your side is largely overreacting, as has become quite typical.
 
haymarket said:
I sure did. I told you that a nail gun was not intended to be a weapon nor was that its intended usage so it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Which did not answer the question at all. Would it be legal for the government to ban all guns except nail guns? That's a Yes/No.


The follow on question was, by your answer you are implicitly arguing that the government does not have the right to ban guns intended for self-defense? That is also a yes/no.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it isn't. It's the pretense some have put forth. The thread is about a compromise. having some regulation, restrictions, is not a situation where anyone loses 2nd amendment rights, and certainly no liberty is lost. Your side is largely overreacting, as has become quite typical.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, encroachment is encroachment, and relative power is zero sum.
 
haymarket said:
I am NOT doing that. I have clearly told you the following:

Why is the employment of the fallacy of ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM so important to you?

Why do you refuse to consider the validity of an idea based on its merits alone?

That sort of approach by you seems terribly anti-intellectual.

I have not looked for anyone who either agrees with me or who may disagree with me. It means nothing to me and is irrelevant to the validity of the idea I have put forth.

So can you tell us why you refuse to consider the validity of an idea on its merits alone and insist upon using a fallacy to try to attack the idea since you are unable to do it on its own merits?
Click to expand...

Yes, because your opinion that "infringed" means "to completely destroy" is preposterous, especially since, as lizzie pointed out, it also means "to hinder".

However, never let it be said that Federalist has a closed mind. So if you can show me where a constitutional scholar agrees with your opinion on the definition of infringed, I might give your opinion more credence.
 
cpwill said:
Start Here. This may take you a while, as apparently it is new to you.
Click to expand...

I read Locke in college. A whole lot more than just that excerpt.

So what?

What is it in that excerpt that you identify and believe in as a theory of government? Be specific as I cannot argue against a long dead man and his article.
 
Federalist said:
Yes, because your opinion that "infringed" means "to completely destroy" is preposterous, especially since, as lizzie pointed out, it also means "to hinder".

However, never let it be said that Federalist has a closed mind. So if you can show me where a constitutional scholar agrees with your opinion on the definition of infringed, I might give your opinion more credence.
Click to expand...

When Lizzie pointed out the meaning of TO HINDER it clearly said that it was LITTLE USED and the other far more definitive meanings were there as in the 1828 Websters that I have repeatedly presented giving the meaning of destruction and negation of the right itself.

Why would you ignore the mainstream meaning which is definitive and obvious in favor of the obscure and little used?
 
haymarket said:
I read Locke in college. A whole lot more than just that excerpt.
Click to expand...

:) Then you should know better. :) but you don't.

What is it in that excerpt that you identify and believe in as a theory of government?
Click to expand...

Our theory of government is built upon Locke's argument that power flowing to the government from the sovereign individual is not final (which was Hobbes' argument, with his one notable exception). When government therefore abuses the rights of its' sovereign individuals, it has effectively voided the social contract and entered into a state of war with them. At that point, the citizenry can either defend themselves and retain sovereignty, or surrender and have its' exercise taken it from them.

Be specific as I cannot argue against a long dead man and his article.
Click to expand...

Well that is a sad, but, given your performance in this thread, I would have to say at least an honest self-assessment.
 
Federalist said:
Yes, because your opinion that "infringed" means "to completely destroy" is preposterous, especially since, as lizzie pointed out, it also means "to hinder".

However, never let it be said that Federalist has a closed mind. So if you can show me where a constitutional scholar agrees with your opinion on the definition of infringed, I might give your opinion more credence.
Click to expand...

Not a constitutional scholar but it really isn't that different than "abridged" in the first Amendment and the Courts allow Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions on those as long as they are reasonable. Since Reasonable really is measured in a more objective societal viewpoint, one might could argue that if society finds it reasonable that nobody be allowed a AR15, then that is Constitutional. Of course the danger of ceding that point is what is reasonable under the first amendment has become "theoretically possible" under the 4th amendment so it is a steep slope.
 
haymarket said:
When Lizzie pointed out the meaning of TO HINDER it clearly said that it was LITTLE USED and the other far more definitive meanings were there as in the 1828 Websters that I have repeatedly presented giving the meaning of destruction and negation of the right itself.

Why would you ignore the mainstream meaning which is definitive and obvious in favor of the obscure and little used?
Click to expand...
As I said, I'll consider entertaining you unique interpretation when I see this interpretation supported by some constitutional scholars.
 
cpwill said:
:) Then you should know better. :) but you don't.



Our theory of government is built upon Locke's argument that power flowing to the government from the sovereign individual is not final (which was Hobbes' argument, with his one notable exception). When government therefore abuses the rights of its' sovereign individuals, it has effectively voided the social contract and entered into a state of war with them. At that point, the citizenry can either defend themselves and retain sovereignty, or surrender and have its' exercise taken it from them.



Well that is a sad, but, given your performance in this thread, I would have to say at least an honest self-assessment.
Click to expand...

Well done, my friend! Well done.
 
Boo Radley said:
I do not suggest you trust the government. I suggest armed conflict is not the best, desirable or effective way to combat government today. Armed conflict is an antiquated idea that has limited effect today. And would last so long, cost so much, accomplish so little as to make it the least effective option.
Click to expand...

Armed conflict is certainly not the most desirable way to control government. Nor do I suggest its employ over any sort of trivial matter or minor disagreement. It's dangerous not only because of the obvious dangers inherent to war but more importantly because you don't really know what you'll get on the other side.

Revolution is the last act of a desperate and abused people. Yet it remains a proper and rightful act for the People and one of the ultimate checks upon government. Government is only permitted to liv e so long as it abides by the rights and liberties of the People. Government's legitimacy is derived through the consent of its People and that consent may be withdrawn.
 
haymarket said:
Sadly for your position, the Second Amendment does not say this nor extend to you that right.
Click to expand...

You seem confused. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment is a individual right to self-defense. If the police need such firearms to fight crime and defend themselves against criminals, other civilians who do not wear uniforms are entitled to the same level of defense against the same criminals.
 
cpwill said:
On the contrary, encroachment is encroachment, and relative power is zero sum.
Click to expand...

So, every act on everything is encroachment? I'm sorry, but the notion of regulation is well established.
 
Federalist said:
Yes, because your opinion that "infringed" means "to completely destroy" is preposterous, especially since, as lizzie pointed out, it also means "to hinder".

However, never let it be said that Federalist has a closed mind. So if you can show me where a constitutional scholar agrees with your opinion on the definition of infringed, I might give your opinion more credence.
Click to expand...

Why are you focusing on the trivial and the obscure which was clearly identified as LITTLE USED and ignoring the mainstream meaning which is far more definitive?

Every judge for the last 200 plus years who has ever upheld a law restricting guns agrees with my position that you can limit such things as long as you still allow people to keep and bear arms.

And that is a legion of scholars and judges.
 
cpwill said:
:)

Well that is a sad, but, given your performance in this thread, I would have to say at least an honest self-assessment.
Click to expand...

The reality that I cannot argue with a person dead for hundreds of years is labeled by you as "sad"?!?!?!?!? WOW!!!!!!

And your whole rant about the government violating and abusing the rights of "sovereign individuals" - what ever that may mean to you via your own self imposed belief system - has never been established by you. There is no evidence of it so any academic theory means nothing in the absence of reality.
 
Dammitboy! said:
You seem confused. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment is a individual right to self-defense. If the police need such firearms to fight crime and defend themselves against criminals, other civilians who do not wear uniforms are entitled to the same level of defense against the same criminals.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court said nothing of the kind about police weapons.

Neither does the Second Amendment.
 
Ikari said:
Armed conflict is certainly not the most desirable way to control government. Nor do I suggest its employ over any sort of trivial matter or minor disagreement. It's dangerous not only because of the obvious dangers inherent to war but more importantly because you don't really know what you'll get on the other side.

Revolution is the last act of a desperate and abused people. Yet it remains a proper and rightful act for the People and one of the ultimate checks upon government. Government is only permitted to liv e so long as it abides by the rights and liberties of the People. Government's legitimacy is derived through the consent of its People and that consent may be withdrawn.
Click to expand...

All governments ultimately live by the consent of the people. But to get to the point of revolution, we'd already be past the point of gun regulations. And regardless of such regulations, we'd find weapons, just as they do around the world. Dictators who got in power got there not primarily due to weapons bans, but due to people accepting their particular snake oil. Some preyed on the fear of some enemy. Some spoke of nationalism and national pride. Some stole it by using the already established military. The point is, today, having a gun will not prevent any possible future issue. The argument that we need semi automatics to defend democracy here really holds no water. If we need weapons, there is no democracy here. Guns are not magic, but merely a tool. And sadly, a tool that will always be in abundance.
 
haymarket said:
The reality that I cannot argue with a person dead for hundreds of years is labeled by you as "sad"?!?!?!?!? WOW!!!!!!

And your whole rant about the government violating and abusing the rights of "sovereign individuals" - what ever that may mean to you via your own self imposed belief system - has never been established by you. There is no evidence of it so any academic theory means nothing in the absence of reality.
Click to expand...

The sovereignty of the individual is one of the key fundamentals of our Republic style government. One cannot be so daft as to not understand what it means.
 
haymarket said:
The Supreme Court said nothing of the kind about police weapons.

Neither does the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

I see, you have a failure to comprehend issue, since I posted nothing of the sort. Either that or you are being intellectually dishonest on purpose in a failed effort to discourage open discourse.

Surely you are not claiming the the Court did not rule that the 2nd amendment is an individual right to self-defense?
 
Boo Radley said:
All governments ultimately live by the consent of the people. But to get to the point of revolution, we'd already be past the point of gun regulations. And regardless of such regulations, we'd find weapons, just as they do around the world. Dictators who got in power got there not primarily due to weapons bans, but due to people accepting their particular snake oil. Some preyed on the fear of some enemy. Some spoke of nationalism and national pride. Some stole it by using the already established military. The point is, today, having a gun will not prevent any possible future issue. The argument that we need semi automatics to defend democracy here really holds no water. If we need weapons, there is no democracy here. Guns are not magic, but merely a tool. And sadly, a tool that will always be in abundance.
Click to expand...

Guns are not magic, they are tools; quite right. And the remain legitimate and rightful tool of the People.
 
haymarket said:
The Supreme Court said nothing of the kind about police weapons.

Neither does the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

The second amendment has nothing to do with the police.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom