• 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!

Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?


  • Total voters
    40
Nerv shooting people is illegal for the most part owning a gun is not.
 
huh?

What does physically having a voice and using a voice have to do with the first amendment anyway? It says that no laws can prohibit speach, but yelling fire in a crowded building is still illegal.

I just don't see your point. If someone is punnishing my "use" of my mouth that is still violating my speach.
You are arguing that simple posession of a class of firearms should be banned, on the idea that it creates a danger to public safety -- because they could be used to kill large numbers of people.

The POTENTIAL to endanger public safety is not the same as ACTUALLY endangering public safety.

If it were, then you could ban penises on the argument that every man has the potential to rape.
 
What does physically having a voice and using a voice have to do with the first amendment anyway? It says that no laws can prohibit speach, but yelling fire in a crowded building is still illegal.
And, to reiterate, not all speech is "free speech".
 
So, what's the argument for banning simple posession?


>99.99% of guns are not used to kill anyone... so, no, I cannot.


It DOES directly put people at risk, which is why it is illegal,
What do you suppose the gun-related equivelant to yelling fire in a theater might be?

Doesn't matter for my point

Yelling fire in a crowded theater can, does, and did do harm to others, which is why it is unprotected speach, the utterance, an action, creates a clear and present danger. Owning an assault rifle in itself is not an intent to harm, and like Gobieman stated, the intent to harm would be firing the rifle, that is the actionn that could be considered a clear and present danger, the behavior of illicit use of the weapon can be banned constitutionally, NOT the action of owning it.
Doesn't matter for my point
Sure it can. Not all speech is "free speech".
"Fighting words", libel, slander -- all examples of things that are not free speech.


Sure it can.
Not all weapons are 'arms'.
Not everyone is among 'the people'.
Not every limitation is an 'infringement'.


You havn't shown that simple posession of an 'assault weapon' is a danger to public safety.
Doesn't matter for my point
Or you could read the whole thread, since that point was dismissed already. It's not a long thread, so have at it.
i am hearing everyone's reason now, and it doesn't work. i doubt it was explained better before.
All weapons, by the way you're using the term, "put people at risk".

Cars put people at risk, shall we ban cars?

Knives put people at risk, shall we ban Knives?

Razors put people at risk, shall we ban razors?

Hammers put people at risk, shall we ban hammers?

Someone owning an assult weapon does not infringe on anyones rights. If said person then brandishes or fires an assult weapon at someone else, then that argument can be made.

Likewise

Saying "Fire" does not infringe upon anyones rights. However, say "Fire" in the middle of a large crowd in a confined space with limited exits and then an argument can be made.
Doesn't matter for my point

wheere do people have a "right" to not hear someone yell fire in a crowded building. The Bill of Rights specifically says that rights can't be used to get rid of other rights
You are arguing that simple posession of a class of firearms should be banned, on the idea that it creates a danger to public safety -- because they could be used to kill large numbers of people.

The POTENTIAL to endanger public safety is not the same as ACTUALLY endangering public safety.

If it were, then you could ban penises on the argument that every man has the potential to rape.
no im not.
Nerv shooting people is illegal for the most part owning a gun is not.
thx for the info. and I agree, most of the time owning a gun is legal.

Wait, so you do think that owning some guns should be illegal? thats just what im saying.
And, to reiterate, not all speech is "free speech".

No, it doesn't say that all speech is "free speech."

The first amendment says that there can't be any violations in the freedom of speech. Its the freedom to say speech, not some strange "free speech"

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

All I am saying is that you can't take the Bill of Rights completely legal.

And by everyone else's logic, should we allow nuclear firearms and rocket launchers? Those don't harm anyone if they aren't used.


I draw the line against assult weapons because they allow one person to kill many other people at once. This is simillar to what nuclear weapons and rocket launchers do, which is why they should be illegal to private citizens.

However, if one person wants to kill someone else then I am not stopping them from doing that. They can buy a semi-automatic gun.

Is that too much to ask?
 
huh?

What does physically having a voice and using a voice have to do with the first amendment anyway?

Don't worry, everyone else figured it out.

It says that no laws can prohibit speach, but yelling fire in a crowded building is still illegal.

Yes. That's been explained to you.

I just don't see your point. If someone is punnishing my "use" of my mouth that is still violating my speach.

No, they're punishing the retarded judgement of someone willing to incite panic in a crowd.
 
exactly... we aren't gauranteed safety.

That's right, we aren't. Because we're free someone somewhere will make the decision to abuse their rights and infringe upon the rights of others. It's gonna happen, nothing you can do about it. We don't punish people because of possibility of abuse, we punish for actions which infringe upon the rights of others.

(
see bolded text from you) But then why can't i scream fire in a crowded building? It seems like a violation of my rights from a literal interepretation of the first amendment.

No it's not. The act of yelling fire in a crowded theater directly infringes upon the rights of others. It's action, you screaming fire in a crowded theater causes a panic in which people will get hurt. Your actions directly cause that result, that is why it's illegal. Me owning an assault rifle does not, that's not an action which infringes upon the rights of others. If I use that assault rifle to rob or murder, then that act does infringe upon the rights of others, is illegal, and may rightfully be punished.

However, it doesn't violate it because the amendments can't be taken literally,

It has to be taken literally, that's why it was written down in the language it was written down in. The Constitution is a very literal document. There's no story, no moral, no parable. It is a list of powers bestowed upon the government by We the People. It is nothing but literal.

which is why we can ban assult weapons. the second amendment can't be literal if the first amendment isn't.

They're both literal. The government can not abridge free speech, can not infringe upon expression or religion or freedom of press. It can not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. They are both literal. In the exercise of your rights, you may do as you like so long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others. That's it.

im happy that this confusion is settled. :D

I hope so...but something is telling me that you're still not going to get it.
 
I draw the line against assult weapons because they allow one person to kill many other people at once.

By this same logic we should ban cars or toxic substances or dynamite.

This is simillar to what nuclear weapons and rocket launchers do, which is why they should be illegal to private citizens.

Why should a rocket launcher be illegal? As for nuclear weapons, they are not relevant as no citizen could ever obtain one.

However, if one person wants to kill someone else then I am not stopping them from doing that. They can buy a semi-automatic gun.

What about a semi-automatic rifle?

Is that too much to ask?

Yes. Far too much.
 
I am so sick and tired of this "ban assault rifle" whine. What if I have to assault somebody? Answer me that.
 
I am so sick and tired of this "ban assault rifle" whine. What if I have to assault somebody? Answer me that.

Errr use your Remington 700 after all it will penetrate some body armor.
 
By this same logic we should ban cars or toxic substances or dynamite.



Why should a rocket launcher be illegal? As for nuclear weapons, they are not relevant as no citizen could ever obtain one.



What about a semi-automatic rifle?



Yes. Far too much.

thx lets talk about the issues.

Cars shouldn't be illegal, because the benefits from having cars outweigh their ability to kill many people. The same with dynamite. How else would you blow up **** that you have to move? But blowing up stuff isn't very common, so that does explain why I think they are illegal.

I don't have an answer for dynamite completely, because im doing something called "weighing the pros and cons" of a situation.

And with rocket launchers... you don't need to blow up anything at a distance that isn't suppose to kill lots of people or blow up other people's things.

However, assult rifles have no other purpose except killing lots of people.

Also, i am pretty sure its illegal to develope your own nukes in the US to use as a form of arms. but if the gov prevented people from making their own guns that would be seen as a violation of the second amendment. not to mention how yellow cake bullets are most likely illegal. so the second amendment is not literal. duh
 
No, it doesn't say that all speech is "free speech."

The first amendment says that there can't be any violations in the freedom of speech. Its the freedom to say speech, not some strange "free speech"
Ok... to remove your obtuseness here...
Not all speech is protected undr the "freedom of speach".
This is a long and well established constitutional issue.

All I am saying is that you can't take the Bill of Rights completely legal.
I don't think thats what you mean to say.

And by everyone else's logic, should we allow nuclear firearms and rocket launchers? Those don't harm anyone if they aren't used.
Please restrict the conversation to something relevant to the topic -- "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd doesnt cover nukes.

I draw the line against assult weapons because they allow one person to kill many other people at once.
The point of having the right to arms protected by the Constitution is that sometimes people need to kill other people.
Given this, how is your aregument for banning 'assault weapons' remain relevant?

However, if one person wants to kill someone else then I am not stopping them from doing that. They can buy a semi-automatic gun.
Um...
You don't know that ALL 'assault weapons', by definition, ARE semi-automatic?
 
thx lets talk about the issues.

Cars shouldn't be illegal, because the benefits from having cars outweigh their ability to kill many people.

Assault rifles permit the overthrow of tyrannical governments. I'd say that's quite beneficial.

The same with dynamite. How else would you blow up **** that you have to move?

How else would you overthrow a tyrannical government?

I don't have an answer for dynamite completely, because im doing something called "weighing the pros and cons" of a situation.

Yes, I know what you're doing; fact is it's not terribly relevant. My rights are not subject to an arbitrary "pro and con" litmus test.

And with rocket launchers... you don't need to blow up anything at a distance that isn't suppose to kill lots of people or blow up other people's things.

You don't need to do anything really - except consume enough food and water to survive. Consequently, whether or not something is needed is irrelevant to its legal status or standing.

However, assult rifles have no other purpose except killing lots of people.

1. This is not true.

2. "Killing lots of people" is a necessary side-effect of overthrowing tyrannical governments.

Also, i am pretty sure its illegal to develope your own nukes in the US to use as a form of arms. but if the gov prevented people from making their own guns that would be seen as a violation of the second amendment. not to mention how yellow cake bullets are most likely illegal.

Such a law would be meaningless. Obtaining nuclear weapons is virtually impossible. Also, you did not answer my question. Under your interpretation of the Second Amendment, am I allowed to possess a semi-automatic rifle?

so the second amendment is not literal. duh

This statement makes it extremely difficult to take your position seriously as it demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of legal theory and application. Such an interpretation would necessitate a figurative or metaphorical reading of the Constitution; this is beyond ridiculous. All legal documents are necessarily read literally, otherwise they would have no meaning or legitimacy.
 
Ok... to remove your obtuseness here...
Not all speech is protected undr the "freedom of speach".
This is a long and well established constitutional issue.

You are correct that not all speech is protected under freedom of speech.

However, once again... that is only because we aren't taking the first amendment literally.

I don't think thats what you mean to say.
Yes, my bad.
Please restrict the conversation to something relevant to the topic -- "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd doesnt cover nukes.

What is your definition of "arms"? The military currently, or has been trying to develope in the past a long range rocket launcher that fires nuclear weapons.

I just don't quite understand how rocket launchers could be Constitutional but nuclear rocket launchers aren't by a literal interpretation of the second amendment.

The point of having the right to arms protected by the Constitution is that sometimes people need to kill other people.
Given this, how is your aregument for banning 'assault weapons' remain relevant?

:doh I have said this many times. My reason for banning assult weapons isn't based specifically on the Constitution. Its based on which weapons have no other value except for killing many people at once.

Um...
You don't know that ALL 'assault weapons', by definition, ARE semi-automatic?

Fair enough. Whenever I have talked about "assult weapons" I meant completely automatic weapons. I was thinking that an assult "rifle" would be a semi-automatic.
 
Assault rifles permit the overthrow of tyrannical governments. I'd say that's quite beneficial.



How else would you overthrow a tyrannical government?



Yes, I know what you're doing; fact is it's not terribly relevant. My rights are not subject to an arbitrary "pro and con" litmus test.

Thank you, I am fine disagreing on what your rights are. We can discuss that. I am just tired discussion if the Constitution should be taken literally.

[/QUOTE]
You don't need to do anything really - except consume enough food and water to survive. Consequently, whether or not something is needed is irrelevant to its legal status or standing.



1. This is not true.

2. "Killing lots of people" is a necessary side-effect of overthrowing tyrannical governments.



Such a law would be meaningless. Obtaining nuclear weapons is virtually impossible. Also, you did not answer my question. Under your interpretation of the Second Amendment, am I allowed to possess a semi-automatic rifle?



This statement makes it extremely difficult to take your position seriously as it demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of legal theory and application. Such an interpretation would necessitate a figurative or metaphorical reading of the Constitution; this is beyond ridiculous. All legal documents are necessarily read literally, otherwise they would have no meaning or legitimacy.[/QUOTE]

I understand how laws must be upheld in there principle. No one (or incorrect interpretation) is above the law.

No, no. You are misinterpreting the Constitution by taking it literally. As I have said, for the first amendment it is "violated" in the literal sense with many laws that exist today. The Constitution says that none of the rights can be overrun in an attempt to retain other rights

Therefore, a right to life (related to the yelling in a crowded building) can't be used to violate the first amendment. So in effect, there is a contridiction in the Constitution. That is why it can't be taken literally.


Yes, you can have a semi-automatic rifle.

Let me clarify. when I said weapons that can kill many people without having any other benefit, I meant weapons that could kill many people at one time very quickly.

Hell, a handgun can kill many people, it just takes a while, which is why handguns should be legal.
 
No, no. You are misinterpreting the Constitution by taking it literally. As I have said, for the first amendment it is "violated" in the literal sense with many laws that exist today. The Constitution says that none of the rights can be overrun in an attempt to retain other rights

No, the Constitution is very literal. The Constitution says that the enumerated rights are not the only rights and that those rights not listed are still reserved by the People and the government may not infringe upon them. That is the point of the 9th amendment, what you're saying is a complete misrepresentation of the 9th. Read the anti-federalist papers, the reason for the 9th amendment is in there.
 
You are correct that not all speech is protected under freedom of speech.

However, once again... that is only because we aren't taking the first amendment literally.
Not at all. "Freedom of speech" has inherent limits; the 1st does not protect anything outside those limits. And so, the constitution is interpreted literally, as everything that IS inluded under "freedom of speech" IS protected.

What is your definition of "arms"?
This has been described in US v Miller and Heller v DC.

'Arms" means a weapon that is "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" and those that members of the militia "supplied themselves and of the kind in common use at the time".

This clearly covers any firearm you care to mention.

The military currently, or has been trying to develope in the past a long range rocket launcher that fires nuclear weapons.
Davey Crockett.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

:doh I have said this many times. My reason for banning assult weapons isn't based specifically on the Constitution. Its based on which weapons have no other value except for killing many people at once.
Well then - your argument fails at "has no other value", in that:
1: There's nothing inherently wrong with having the capacity to kill many at once
2: You have to show that these weapons have "no other value".
3: You have to show how these weapons are not covered as 'arms" under the 2nd.

Fair enough. Whenever I have talked about "assult weapons" I meant completely automatic weapons. I was thinking that an assult "rifle" would be a semi-automatic.
Then you are not having the same conversation we are.
 
Not at all. "Freedom of speech" has inherent limits; the 1st does not protect anything outside those limits. And so, the constitution is interpreted literally, as everything that IS inluded under "freedom of speech" IS protected.

He is confusing some very basics about government and the types of actions a Republic takes. As you say, freedom of speech has inherent limits; all our rights do. That being you may not exercise your rights in such a way as to violate the rights of others; that's the one and only restriction on our rights. This yelling fire crap he keeps spewing is getting old. The act of yelling fire, as has been explained to him a few times now, is illegal because that act infringes upon the rights of others. It's not that people have the right to not hear fire in a crowded movie theater. It's that yelling fire in a crowded movie theater will cause a panic and people can get hurt; for that reason the act of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater is illegal. The word "fire" isn't banned, or outlawed, or regulated in the least. You can use it as much as you want so long as you aren't Beavis and Butt-head. It's an actual action which is prohibited because its effects infringe upon the rights of others.

Owning a gun does not infringe on the rights of others. My personal owning of a gun does not infringe upon anyone's rights. Actions in which I use my gun to infringe upon the rights of others are prohibited and enforced through law and the courts; but owning it in and of itself is not a crime. There is an action beyond ownership which must be taken in order for it to constitute a threat on others' rights.

And this crap about the Constitution not being literal...enough. It's literal, it's not a work of fiction, it's not figurative, it's not Aesop's fables here. The Constitution very much means everything it says, it's a literal document.
 
This has been described in US v Miller and Heller v DC.

'Arms" means a weapon that is "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" and those that members of the militia "supplied themselves and of the kind in common use at the time".

This clearly covers any firearm you care to mention.


Davey Crockett.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)


Well then - your argument fails at "has no other value", in that:
1: There's nothing inherently wrong with having the capacity to kill many at once
2: You have to show that these weapons have "no other value".
3: You have to show how these weapons are not covered as 'arms" under the 2nd.


Then you are not having the same conversation we are.

I think im done with the discussions on literal interpretations of the Bill of Rights. For clarification, people should look at my post about how the Bill of Rights says that one right, can't be used to infringe upon another.

It meant that you can't LITEREALLY infringe on freedom of speech to protect someone's safety from a purposefully harmful action.
This means you can't infringe on my freedom of speech to protect a right to life.




but when you have your definition of an "arm" then can't a nuclear rocket launcher fit under that catagory of something "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" and those that members of the militia "supplied themselves and of the kind in common use at the time".

I suppose we can then argue what "ordinary military equipment" is.

hmmmm.... possibly, I can see your point if all types of weapons are considered "ordinary" weapons except for things like biological weapons and nuclear weapons, which I think we agree that they should be illegal to own. But I don't know who would classify what is what.

I would be curious what people think "ordinary weapons are"
 
Last edited:
I would be curious what people think "ordinary weapons are"

1. All small arms and light support weapons that can be carried and operated by a single infantryman, which are tactical in nature (ie not WMDs).
2. All weapons suitable for purposes of self-defense. (ie handguns, knives).
3. All weapons suitable for sporting purposes. (ie shotguns, deer rifles.)


I suppose I could put up with having to get a permit for light support weapons, like SAWs and LAWs. It's a compromise...

While I disagree with SouthernDemocrat on almost everything, he is right about one thing: the Founders intended the Militia (ie all armed citizens, per many quotes I've posted before) to be the cornerstone of America's defense, and did not intend for us to have a large standing army such as we have today.

G.
 
Thank you, I am fine disagreing on what your rights are. We can discuss that. I am just tired discussion if the Constitution should be taken literally.

Rights are a natural extension of liberty. I believe Thomas Jefferson defined liberty quite aptly:

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

Here Jefferson is articulating the concept of negative rights. Negative rights are those rights which oblige or require the inaction of others. Simply put, it is the right to be left alone. This is the philosophical cornerstone of rights, and what you are proposing is an explicit violation of these principles.

No, no. You are misinterpreting the Constitution by taking it literally.

As previously stated, this is not a statement I can take seriously. All legal documents are necessarily read literally. The alternative to reading something literally is to read it figuratively or metaphorically - to read legal documents or prescriptions in such a way is patently ridiculous.

As I have said, for the first amendment it is "violated" in the literal sense with many laws that exist today.

This is not true as the word "violation" implies an act or deed which falls outside the bounds of acceptable conduct. Restricting speech that directly endangers other people is not outside the scope of legitimate government authority, thus the literal meaning of the Constitution is in no way undermined.

The Constitution says that none of the rights can be overrun in an attempt to retain other rights. Therefore, a right to life (related to the yelling in a crowded building) can't be used to violate the first amendment. So in effect, there is a contridiction in the Constitution. That is why it can't be taken literally.

This is a misinterpretation of the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment simply states that the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive listing of rights retained by the people.

Yes, you can have a semi-automatic rifle.

Well, as a former Marine infantryman I can tell you that a semi-automatic rifle is just as deadly as an "assault rifle", if not more deadly.

Let me clarify. when I said weapons that can kill many people without having any other benefit, I meant weapons that could kill many people at one time very quickly.

A semi-automatic rifle can kill many people at one time very quickly.

Hell, a handgun can kill many people, it just takes a while, which is why handguns should be legal.

What difference does it make if a person kills ten people in one minute vs. ten people in thirty seconds?

Also, you did not answer my question. Why does it make sense to outlaw a rocket launcher?
 
I think im done with the discussions on literal interpretations of the Bill of Rights. For clarification, people should look at my post about how the Bill of Rights says that one right, can't be used to infringe upon another.

That's a misinterpretation. It is clearly obvious you are doing all you can to avoid my posts, you don't respond to anything. The 9th amendment does not say that one right can not infringe upon another. The 9th amendment says that the People have more rights that just those enumerated by the Bill of Rights, and that those rights are equally reserved by the People. The government may not infringe upon the rights of the individual, and our rights are not limited to those listed in the Bill of Rights

That's the meaning of the 9th. It's backed by writings by the founders, try reading the anti-federalist papers. For the love of all that is holy, quit regurgitating your lie about the 9th amendment, about the literal nature of the Constitution, and all the other BS arguments you've made which don't hold up to logic and reason.
 
If it were, then you could ban penises on the argument that every man has the potential to rape.

Well, actually, banning assault weapons would be more like banning men having 20 or more penises.
 
Well, actually, banning assault weapons would be more like banning men having 20 or more penises.

And the penises are built to be rape-ready.

Okay, this analogy has run its course.
 
Back
Top Bottom