• 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!

Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

Are gun owners STILL paranoid?


  • Total voters
    25
Debating with extremists is difficult....debating with those who do not understand the analysis is impossible. Do a little reading on Constitutional Analysis and then get back to me.
Do a little reading on the constitution? :roll: I had to take quite a few constitutional law classes to graduate so don't assume I'm unaware of constitutional law and protocol. You are correct about the tiers of protection, I already told you that, but you are trying to mis-apply them for your own ends, which makes you full of **** on that, I don't know if you are purposefully or unintentionally wrong here, but you are wrong, and it is not an extreme position to believe in upholding the constitution and it's principles, nor is it extreme to hold those in contempt of it as enemies of the state. I also love how you have pretty much been proven wrong in this thread, yet you assume we don't understand constitutional analysis, that is priceless, since we have demonstrated how your "analysis" doesn't hold up.
 
Ok....that's a start....now give us your full and complete argument why possession of assault weapons is a "fundamental right" and your argument on why a ban would not meet constitutional scrutiny.

Because an "assault weapon" does not exist. What you would call an "assault weapon" I would merely call a weapon. No different than a tool.

You are branding the item with a heinous (sounding) name in order to draw on the fear of the masses to help sway them into the anti-gun position. It is effective I'll give you that.

However, when you are talking about an "Assault weapon" I have to question your motives. What is it that you are trying to ban with that term? what is it that you are trying to take away? Why?
 
Then what is law? If it can be disregarded so easily then why shouldn't call them guidelines. The Supreme Court is made of men and as such do you not think they are infallible or perhaps they have hidden agendas?

They definitely have their flaws and their agendas. To argue otherwise would be ignorant.
However, I thought that what we were talking about was the process under which a ban would come and an amendment would be required.

I agree with your post here.
 
Because an "assault weapon" does not exist. What you would call an "assault weapon" I would merely call a weapon. No different than a tool.
There is no supportable reason to ban 'assault weapons'.
Its really that simple.
 
Because an "assault weapon" does not exist. What you would call an "assault weapon" I would merely call a weapon. No different than a tool.

You are branding the item with a heinous (sounding) name in order to draw on the fear of the masses to help sway them into the anti-gun position. It is effective I'll give you that.

However, when you are talking about an "Assault weapon" I have to question your motives. What is it that you are trying to ban with that term? what is it that you are trying to take away? Why?

I wouldn't even attempt to make an argument on what specific types of weapons should be limited and those that shouldn't. I am arguing a much more broad issue of whether any weapons can be limited. There are going to be a lot of weapons that fall within a gray area.

The extremists argue that no weapons can be banned...the extremists on the other end argue that all guns should be banned.
There is no question that some weapons can be banned under the Constitution....something that some here refuse to accept....the bigger question is WHAT can be banned.
 
Do a little reading on the constitution? :roll: I had to take quite a few constitutional law classes to graduate so don't assume I'm unaware of constitutional law and protocol.
Likewise.
Typcal of his ilk, DD assumes that if you disagree with him, it's because -you- are stupid.
 
They definitely have their flaws and their agendas. To argue otherwise would be ignorant.
However, I thought that what we were talking about was the process under which a ban would come and an amendment would be required.

I agree with your post here.

I'm trying to bring you to logical conclusions about why we should trust rigid law instead the whims of appointed individuals. Its part of the process, examining the individual motives of new laws. For every law brought forth with restrictions on individuals we have to ask "is it just". Something is only just when it applies to everyone or no one and that includes the government.
 
I wouldn't even attempt to make an argument on what specific types of weapons should be limited and those that shouldn't. I am arguing a much more broad issue of whether any weapons can be limited. There are going to be a lot of weapons that fall within a gray area.

The extremists argue that no weapons can be banned...the extremists on the other end argue that all guns should be banned.
There is no question that some weapons can be banned under the Constitution....something that some here refuse to accept....the bigger question is WHAT can be banned.

I will take your broad arguement that they should not be limited to LEO and military only.

Instead of arguing what CAN be banned, why not argue WHY it SHOULD be banned?

If this is something that you feel that you can deliver on, I will be glad to address every point you would like to make. I would be glad to provide you with every bit of statistical and factual evidence against any weapons that SHOULD (in terms not of my own) should be banned.

I will take anyone to true debate on this issue as well.
 
Likewise.
Typcal of his ilk, DD assumes that if you disagree with him, it's because -you- are stupid.
I can't stand that attitude, I will debate with people on the other side of my politics any day, but I like to keep it honest and civil, I hate when the superiorist assumptions and attitudes come out.
 
I'm trying to bring you to logical conclusions about why we should trust rigid law instead the whims of appointed individuals. Its part of the process, examining the individual motives of new laws. For every law brought forth with restrictions on individuals we have to ask "is it just". Something is only just when it applies to everyone or no one and that includes the government.

Amazing.

Truely amazing.
 
Let's just make all guns (excluding certain guns ex. grenade launcher, bazooka) completely legal and all, make them easy to get, but with a lot of oversight.

Most of the people who go on shooting sprees don't apply for a gun permit anyway. They 'borrow' a gun from someone, because it takes to long to go and apply for a gun.

But if you make it easier for the psychopaths to get a gun, you can check their records and all when they are trying to get a gun, and maybe catch a shooting spree before it happens.
 
I can't stand that attitude, I will debate with people on the other side of my politics any day, but I like to keep it honest and civil, I hate when the superiorist assumptions and attitudes come out.
Yes.

Someone saying "you obviously don't understand" when it is so very obvious that you do is nothng more than said someone try to cover up an unsound position.

That was so very well illustrated here when DD was caught making his 'potential threat' argument -- rather than to admit he was wrong, he ran away from it and then tried to change the subject.
 
I will take your broad arguement that they should not be limited to LEO and military only.

Instead of arguing what CAN be banned, why not argue WHY it SHOULD be banned?
If this is something that you feel that you can deliver on, I will be glad to address every point you would like to make. I would be glad to provide you with every bit of statistical and factual evidence against any weapons that SHOULD (in terms not of my own) should be banned.

I will take anyone to true debate on this issue as well.

Because you cannot talk about one without the other. When undergoing Constitutional analysis you have to address both. If you are going to ban something you have to address why such a ban is appropriate and also why such a ban is not appropriate. If there are compelling, important or legitimate reasons for people to possess such weapons and are there compelling, important or legitimate reasons for the government to restrict them.
Obviously gun owners have a much stronger argument with rifles and handguns than they do with grenade launchers. The difficult lies when you get to the weapons that fall within the gray areas.

Again....the extremists here will argue till their blue in the head that you cannot pry any weapon out of their cold dead hands. Unfortunately for them, there is little or no truth to that position. The true issue will be exactly WHAT can be banned and what cannot....and that remains to be seen.
 
Yes.

Someone saying "you obviously don't understand" when it is so very obvious that you do is nothng more than said someone try to cover up an unsound position.

That was so very well illustrated here when DD was caught making his 'potential threat' argument -- rather than to admit he was wrong, he ran away from it and then tried to change the subject.

You're funny in your feigned arrogance here. I haven't tried to change any argument. I'm still waiting for you to justify your position....which you started to try to do, before you started engaging in your song and dance again.
 
Again....the extremists here will argue till their blue in the head that you cannot pry any weapon out of their cold dead hands
Here we have yet -another- position that DD cannot defend.

Who, specifically, has made that argument?
 
Here we have yet -another- position that DD cannot defend.

Who, specifically, has made that argument?

Seems to me that this is the argument you are trying to make. Am I wrong?
If so....which weapons do you believe can be banned legitimately?
 
You're funny in your feigned arrogance here. I haven't tried to change any argument...
You ran away, wiping your tears and snotty nose, from your incendiary speech argument. You continue to do so.
 
Last edited:
Because you cannot talk about one without the other. When undergoing Constitutional analysis you have to address both. If you are going to ban something you have to address why such a ban is appropriate and also why such a ban is not appropriate. If there are compelling, important or legitimate reasons for people to possess such weapons and are there compelling, important or legitimate reasons for the government to restrict them.
Obviously gun owners have a much stronger argument with rifles and handguns than they do with grenade launchers. The difficult lies when you get to the weapons that fall within the gray areas.

Again....the extremists here will argue till their blue in the head that you cannot pry any weapon out of their cold dead hands. Unfortunately for them, there is little or no truth to that position. The true issue will be exactly WHAT can be banned and what cannot....and that remains to be seen.

The issue is not and never will be WHAT can be banned.

It is not possible at ALL to just ban guns in this country. You can write it, you can say it, you can preach it all you want. But the fact of the matter is, people will still have them and will still be able to attain them.

The only arguement that can be made is WHY. You can not reason with anyone without providing them with reason-able evidence that it is in their best interests.

Consider this. In the time that the constitution was formed, an assault rifle was a standard rifle that everyone was able to own. The military used the same weapons as hunters, hunters used the same weapons as concerned civilians, and concerned civilians used the same weapons as criminals.

What on earth would make you think that the founding fathers would restrict certain weapons to the public?

What on earth would make you think that we should be allowed less than our own government in which (if the case should arise) we are instructed to rise against?

I understand being skeptical of "need" for many weapons that are available. But I see absolutely no reason that we can not all have our own way by dictating what is and is not allowed in our own homes, or own businesses (assuming you are the owner)

Banning guns does not help solve gun violence.

Once again, WHY? is the only reasonable arguement.
 
Seems to me that this is the argument you are trying to make. Am I wrong?
If so....which weapons do you believe can be banned legitimately?
Thank you for admiting that you indeed can not provide an example of someone here that argues that 'you cannot pry any weapon out of their cold dead hands' or something similar.
 
Last edited:
Thanks! People often times forget that is why laws exist in the first place. :2wave:

People tend to put members of our government over the members of society that allow them to hold their positions.
 
The issue is not and never will be WHAT can be banned.

It is not possible at ALL to just ban guns in this country. You can write it, you can say it, you can preach it all you want. But the fact of the matter is, people will still have them and will still be able to attain them.

The only arguement that can be made is WHY. You can not reason with anyone without providing them with reason-able evidence that it is in their best interests.

Consider this. In the time that the constitution was formed, an assault rifle was a standard rifle that everyone was able to own. The military used the same weapons as hunters, hunters used the same weapons as concerned civilians, and concerned civilians used the same weapons as criminals.

What on earth would make you think that the founding fathers would restrict certain weapons to the public?

What on earth would make you think that we should be allowed less than our own government in which (if the case should arise) we are instructed to rise against?

I understand being skeptical of "need" for many weapons that are available. But I see absolutely no reason that we can not all have our own way by dictating what is and is not allowed in our own homes, or own businesses (assuming you are the owner)

Banning guns does not help solve gun violence.

Once again, WHY? is the only reasonable arguement.


You are asking to engage in a philosophical debate which would take forever and would really be a different topic. The Supreme Court never engages in that type of philosophical discussion and what we are talking about here is whether any ban of any weapon by the Supreme Court would meet constitutional muster.
 
Instead of arguing what CAN be banned, why not argue WHY it SHOULD be banned?
That is the exact point the anti-gun lobby fails on and I will use your next point to prove it.

If this is something that you feel that you can deliver on, I will be glad to address every point you would like to make. I would be glad to provide you with every bit of statistical and factual evidence against any weapons that SHOULD (in terms not of my own) should be banned.
My least favorite debate tactic is when people bring nuclear weapons and incendiary devices to the argument. Nuclear weapons serve no individual uses in that they cannot be controlled, they will destroy those looking to harm you, but will also cause collateral damage around them and harm those that are innocent, under no circumstances do these weapons serve legitimate second amendment uses and present a clear and present danger, therefore it is necessary to ban them, and public safety is provable, therefore it is a proper check to the right. Explosive devices can become unstable and not only injure those that are in posession, but also can harm those within the vicinity, however explosive devices should be allowed by license, issuance should be determined through a psych evaluation and competancy testing. I don't even have a problem with a federal licensing to own fully automatics and other illicitly banned firearms, however the current licensing system is prohibitively expensive and requires a need past that which follows the intent of the second, a license should be easily acquired for those arms, need not necessary, reasonably priced, and psych/competancy tests to prove the applicant is stable.
 
From:
Urban Policy



So now, it is official White House policy to reinstate the AW Ban.

Seems to me we were told there was no rational reason to express concern for our right to keep and bear arms under the Obama Administration...
For hunting and personal protection - yes.
For warfare and committing mass murder - no.
And WHY is England's murder rate so much lower than ours ?
 
Thank you for admiting that you indeed can not provide an example of someone here that argues that 'you cannot pry any weapon out of their cold dead hands' or something similar.

If you are NOT making that argument....then enlighten all of us on what weapons you believe CAN be legitimately banned....if you don't, we have to assume that you believe banning any weapon would be unconstitutional.

Easier yet....are you admitting that banning some weapons is ok under the constitution?
 
Back
Top Bottom