• 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!

Would you want a gun in this situation?

Would you want a gun in this situation?


  • Total voters
    59
what is hilarious is this claim he made yesterday when he now wants to ban all sorts of things



and this

Exactly where have I ever said I want to ban all sorts of guns? That's just you making up crap again. That said, there are guns that the civilian community simply doesn't need. Besides, where does one draw the line? Is the NRA going to come out next year saying it's our 2A rights to have fully-auto assault rifles? Or how about machine guns? Or automatic shotguns? Or grenade launchers? Or - in the not-too-distant future - firearms on drones? Where does one draw the line? And how many people have to die before we agree on where that line must be drawn? "It's my 18 y.o. son's 2A RIGHT to bring that automatic shotgun to school!"
 
Exactly where have I ever said I want to ban all sorts of guns? That's just you making up crap again. That said, there are guns that the civilian community simply doesn't need. Besides, where does one draw the line? Is the NRA going to come out next year saying it's our 2A rights to have fully-auto assault rifles? Or how about machine guns? Or automatic shotguns? Or grenade launchers? Or - in the not-too-distant future - firearms on drones? Where does one draw the line? And how many people have to die before we agree on where that line must be drawn? "It's my 18 y.o. son's 2A RIGHT to bring that automatic shotgun to school!"

1) someone who knows so little about guns has no business telling anyone but himself what he needs

what sort of weapons do you think were envisioned as being protected by the 2A

why are you so afraid of stuff that CIVILIAN PDs have.

You have yet to define what a sniper rifle is

and the rest of your post is the loony nonsense we see from hard core gun banners

WHY DON'T YOU TELL US WHAT THE CIVILIAN COMMUNITY NEEDS
 
Does it fire the same round as an M-16?



I didn't say that they would be used for home invasion or robbery, did I? I referred to assassination, didn't I? Outside of war and sporting competitions, assassination is pretty much all they're good for. Focus, guy.



As you know very well, I never said the cell phone was a weapon - that's you twisting words (again). I said it was something necessary for home defense - and I said that because while a homes phone lines can be cut, that's not so easy for cell phones.

You say that no one needs a cell phone. Dude, the ability to communicate is crucial in any crisis situation, whether at home or in business or on the street or in war. The better one's ability to communicate, the better his or her odds is in a crisis situation. What part that you don't get, I really don't understand. Give me a choice between a gun and a working cell phone, I'll pick the cell phone any day - because I can easily block the perp trying to force his way into my room, and the police are only minutes away. On the other hand, if I have a gun and no working cell phone, it becomes a gunfight that I may win but that I also might lose...and I'd have no hope of backup, rescue, or EMS.

Tactically speaking, in the modern world the ability to effectively communicate trumps having a gun on hand any day of the week.

(1) Look it up. Try Googling AR 15 calibers.

(2) I missed the part about the assassination. So, could you direct me to a case where a sniper rifle was used in an assassination? Civilian, of course. Or are you solving a problem we don't have?
(2a) Now the sniper rifle has another use. Do you advocate the banning of sporting weapons? Or just sniper rifles used in non existent assassination attempts?

(3) You did infer that the phone served as a defense item. Actually I agree with you. I have one. I do not consider it necessary, but I do not advocate banning them. I would call the authorities. But in 5 minutes, a fit male can run a mile. In the meantime, you rely on your barricade, I on my weapon. Again, whatever method works best for you. I might barricade myself in a secure area if given the chance, but I will take a weapon with me.
 
Many do, but I have one also that fires .22LR. They can be had in just about every rifle and many pistol calibers. Oh, and the last few real attempts to kill a sitting president were done with cheap junk ass guns. Hinkly and Oswald. I forgot what Squeeky Fromme used to try to shoot Ford

Again, where do we draw the line?
 
(1) Look it up. Try Googling AR 15 calibers.

I knew that it did. The point is, claiming an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle when it can fire the same round as an assault rifle...and don't say "but it's not an automatic" line because an assault rifle doesn't have to be automatic to be an assault rifle.

(2) I missed the part about the assassination. So, could you direct me to a case where a sniper rifle was used in an assassination? Civilian, of course. Or are you solving a problem we don't have?

Do we have to wait until it happens? That would be like saying, "there's no instances of civilians using grenades to kill each other, so why ban them?"

(2a) Now the sniper rifle has another use. Do you advocate the banning of sporting weapons? Or just sniper rifles used in non existent assassination attempts?

Y'know, I really wouldn't mind if we'd know that they could only be used in sporting events...but there's no practical way to limit it to one use and not the other. And as they become more available, it's only a matter of time before they are used for assassination.

(3) You did infer that the phone served as a defense item. Actually I agree with you. I have one. I do not consider it necessary, but I do not advocate banning them. I would call the authorities. But in 5 minutes, a fit male can run a mile. In the meantime, you rely on your barricade, I on my weapon. Again, whatever method works best for you. I might barricade myself in a secure area if given the chance, but I will take a weapon with me.

If you have a weapon, good for you. Me, I'm middle-aged with a bum right leg - I'm not running anywhere. But I'm strong enough to do what I need to do to quickly and effectively barricade my wife and myself and wait for help. And the older one gets, the more one recognizes the need to be able to quickly communicate.
 
Again, where do we draw the line?

lets see

lets look at the language of the 2A and its intent

citizens should have the same weapons that militia men should have

that seems to mean an assault rifle etc

How about making sure any citizen over the age of 18 with a clean record can own anything civilian police departments use for self defense in a civilian environment
 
I knew that it did. The point is, claiming an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle when it can fire the same round as an assault rifle...and don't say "but it's not an automatic" line because an assault rifle doesn't have to be automatic to be an assault rifle.

Do we have to wait until it happens? That would be like saying, "there's no instances of civilians using grenades to kill each other, so why ban them?"

Y'know, I really wouldn't mind if we'd know that they could only be used in sporting events...but there's no practical way to limit it to one use and not the other. And as they become more available, it's only a matter of time before they are used for assassination.

If you have a weapon, good for you. Me, I'm middle-aged with a bum right leg - I'm not running anywhere. But I'm strong enough to do what I need to do to quickly and effectively barricade my wife and myself and wait for help. And the older one gets, the more one recognizes the need to be able to quickly communicate.

Seriously, Glen, you are making less sense the farther you go. This will be my last attempt at education.

(1) Caliber has nothing to do with whether or not a weapon is termed a rifle or a weapon. Whether or not it will fire multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger does. Actually, assault rifles are selective fire. Non selective automatics are termed machine guns. AR 15s are assault weapons. Please look it up.

(2) You really believe that all sniper rifles should be banned based on the off chance that someone will use one in an assassination? That makes no sense, and certainly is at odds with your claim that you do not want to stop law abiding citizens from owning firearms.
Makes me wonder just which firearms you would allow. Could you enlighten me?

(3) There is no practical way to stop baseball bats, bowling balls, tennis racquets from being used in crimes. Should these to be banned?

(4) I'm 76, I have a weapon(s). I do recognize the need to communicate.
 
lets see

lets look at the language of the 2A and its intent

citizens should have the same weapons that militia men should have

that seems to mean an assault rifle etc

How about making sure any citizen over the age of 18 with a clean record can own anything civilian police departments use for self defense in a civilian environment

Nowhere in the actual text of the 2nd Amendment does it say any of that. Let's at least be honest and go by what it actually says, not by what you wish it said.
 
Nowhere in the actual text of the 2nd Amendment does it say any of that. Let's at least be honest and go by what it actually says, not by what you wish it said.

so why don't you tell us what YOU think it says

I am going by all the documents generated at the same time.

and given that there IS NOTHING in the constitution that discusses the federal government having ANY POWER to regulate arms, what were the founders thinking?

find me some constitutional language that PROPERLY allows the federal government to deprive citizens of the standard issue military rifle

Debate on gun control should ask whether Congress has power to regulate - CSMonitor.com

How the commerce power has been transformed is a long story. But in essence, Congress now claims the power to regulate any matter that affects the national economy. Such a reading of the Commerce Clause swallows up the Framers’ careful enumeration of powers, making the federal government omnipotent.
 
so why don't you tell us what YOU think it says

I am going by all the documents generated at the same time.

and given that there IS NOTHING in the constitution that discusses the federal government having ANY POWER to regulate arms, what were the founders thinking?

find me some constitutional language that PROPERLY allows the federal government to deprive citizens of the standard issue military rifle

Your statement is false. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution - paragraphs 1, 3, 16 and 18 all provide ample authorization for Congress to exercise authority over regulation of weapons.
 
Your statement is false. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution - paragraphs 1, 3, 16 and 18 all provide ample authorization for Congress to exercise authority over regulation of weapons.

that is dishonest. there is nothing in that that mentions firearms owned by private citizens

I want you to spell out those sections and explain where firearms regulation is mentioned


How the commerce power has been transformed is a long story. But in essence, Congress now claims the power to regulate any matter that affects the national economy. Such a reading of the Commerce Clause swallows up the Framers’ careful enumeration of powers, making the federal government omnipotent.
 
so why don't you tell us what YOU think it says

I don't have to tell you what I think it says, I can read the specific words contained within it.

I am going by all the documents generated at the same time.

None of which are enshrined in the founding documents of the United States, nor having any power in law. You're just trying to get it to say what you want it to say when the actual words don't support your desires.

Try again.
 
I don't have to tell you what I think it says, I can read the specific words contained within it.



None of which are enshrined in the founding documents of the United States, nor having any power in law. You're just trying to get it to say what you want it to say when the actual words don't support your desires.

Try again.

I want you to tell us what sort of weapons were intended to be protected


so tell us rather than playing evasive games
 
Two can play this game.

What say you to this similarly unlikely and absurd situation:

Thieves break in to steal your TV, and you go downstairs to check it out. As is almost always the case, the thieves only want your stuff and to leave. They threaten you to go away, and they start to make good their escape.

Suddenly you dive for your gun cabinet near your TV, throw it open, and one of the thieves, upon realising his life is in mortal danger because some moron intends to shoot him, hits you over the head with his crowbar.

At what point do you wish you had not had any guns in the house?

You don't shoot people who are trying to escape and pose no threat to you, but I see no reason anyone should rely on the goodness of theives or leave it up to them as to whether or not they are going to harm or kill you.
 
I want you to tell us what sort of weapons were intended to be protected

so tell us rather than playing evasive games

It doesn't specify, mostly because at the time, the people were the military, there was no absurd dick waving contest going on. It also doesn't restrict private citizens from owning nukes. Do you support that too?
 
what is the limit on the number of people you could kill that you would allow someone to buy in terms of a gun within a few minutes.

That is my general principal, I don't have a firm number of acceptable deaths per minute, nor the technical knowledge to specify types of guns.
 
that is dishonest. there is nothing in that that mentions firearms owned by private citizens

I want you to spell out those sections and explain where firearms regulation is mentioned


How the commerce power has been transformed is a long story. But in essence, Congress now claims the power to regulate any matter that affects the national economy. Such a reading of the Commerce Clause swallows up the Framers’ careful enumeration of powers, making the federal government omnipotent.

It is totally honest. It DOES NOT HAVE TO MENTION FIREARMS. The powers authorize Congress and lots of things can be included in taking those actions - firearms just one of them. But, your own argument is incorrect as paragraphs specificly covers arms.
 
I want you to tell us what sort of weapons were intended to be protected


so tell us rather than playing evasive games

No specific weapons are protected - just the right to keep and bear arms.
 
It is an absurb scenario that happens so rarely that you probably have a better chance of getting hit by lightning. That said...to play along with your little skewed game. Are you aware that a large number of people killed in these types of situations are killed with their own guns?

So a different scenario that probably is more likely to occur than yours would be:
It's late at night in your house, you and your family are asleep, when armed men break in. You don't know if they're there to rob you, rape you, murder you, or all of the above. At that point would you wish you had a gun?
 
I would rather have 2 taser's and some reload's in that situation as my first concern would be not inadvertently shooting/killing a loved one.

Now if I were alone, maybe it would be different (depending on the weapons carried by the intruder's)...though I would still want a taser or two first.
 
Your statement is false. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution - paragraphs 1, 3, 16 and 18 all provide ample authorization for Congress to exercise authority over regulation of weapons.

article 1 Section. 8.

1.....The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Records of the Federal Convention

constitutional convention NOTES on the clause----------not a word about firearms mentioned!


3.....To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce): Records of the Federal Convention

constitutional convention NOTES on the clause----------not a word about firearms mentioned!


16......To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16: Records of the Federal Convention


Mr Madison observed that "arming" as explained did not did not extend to furnishing arms; nor the term "disciplining" to penalties & Courts martial for enforcing them.

Mr. King added, to his former explanation that arming meant not only to provide for uniformity of arms, but included authority to regulate the modes of furnishing, either by the militia themselves, the State Governments, or the National Treasury: that laws for disciplining, must involve penalties and every thing necessary for enforcing penalties.

To establish an uniformity of arms, exercise & organization for the Militia, and to provide for the Government of them when called into the service of the U. States"


18........To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

foregoing powers are the powers listed above in article 1 section 8 clauses 1 to 17

this means congress can make federal laws, which deal with the powers above.

example.....congress has the power " To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States:

however congress needs to create a federal law, to determine what the punishment for counterfeiting is going to be.......clause 18 gives them that power of federal law creation.

these powers were ratified by the states in June 1788 making them binding......the bill of rights was passed in DEC 1791, making them binding, and placing a restriction on the federal government, ...stating "congress will make no law" which infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
 
Last edited:
these powers were ratified by the states in June 1787 making them binding......the bill of rights was passed in DEC 1791, making them binding, and placing a restriction on the federal government, ...stating "congress will make no law" which infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The Bill of Rights does not say that. You made it up.
 
The Bill of Rights does not say that. You made it up.


The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its[federal] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.


Article I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

this BOLD sentence applies to every clause not just the 1st........because a restriction has been placed squarely on congress.
 
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights....

is not part of the Constitution and you darn well know it from our previous conversations in which you were unable to present a single shred of evidence that it was ratified.

Clue for you Herr Barkmann: the First Amendment and the Second Amendment are two different things with two very different wordings and cover two (or more) very different subjects. Do NOT confuse one with the other. Do NOT attempt to substitute the language contained in one for the other.
 
Back
Top Bottom