• 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
It doesn't infringe on someone getting a gun if they want to though.
Yes, yes it does.

Because, as mentioned, it is an artificial waiting period for an unconstitutional background check -- an arbitrary precondition to the extercise of the right not inherent to that right, instituted to allow a form or prior restraint to be levied against the person exercisig the right in question.

How is that NOT an infringement?
 
Yes, yes it does.

Because, as mentioned, it is an artificial waiting period for an unconstitutional background check -- an arbitrary precondition to the extercise of the right not inherent to that right, instituted to allow a form or prior restraint to be levied against the person exercisig the right in question.

How is that NOT an infringement?


ANti Gun types-or the sheeple who mindlessly support or don't oppose some idiotic gun laws-often claim that a law is proper because it does not "INFRINGE" on our rights to a pernicious degree. Notice how they never can actually justify the law as doing any good.

A waiting period is worthless and is only designed to hassle people
 
Yes, yes it does.

Because, as mentioned, it is an artificial waiting period for an unconstitutional background check -- an arbitrary precondition to the extercise of the right not inherent to that right, instituted to allow a form or prior restraint to be levied against the person exercisig the right in question.

How is that NOT an infringement?

I looked up infringe, just to be sure, and it says to violate the rights of another.

So waiting periods don't violate rights to own a gun.

If there is some separate "legal definition" of infringe then I would like to hear it.

If those laws are used to just "hassle" people when they want to buy guns, and prevent them from purchasing them, then that violates the interpretation of the Second Amendment from the founding fathers. Anything less is fine Constitutionally though.
 
I looked up infringe, just to be sure, and it says to violate the rights of another.
So waiting periods don't violate rights to own a gun.
They do.
Both of the items I described -- a precondition not inherent and, especially, prior restraint -- are held to be infringements in regards to other rights. There is no way to argue that they are not also infringemrnts when applied to the right to arms.
 
ANti Gun types-or the sheeple who mindlessly support or don't oppose some idiotic gun laws-often claim that a law is proper because it does not "INFRINGE" on our rights to a pernicious degree. Notice how they never can actually justify the law as doing any good.
Funny thing is, when you suggest applying the restrictions they suggest do not infringe the right to arms to rights they DO like, they get all flustered.

Imagine, needing to get a license to report the news.
Imagine, needing to get a license to have an abortion.
Imagine, needing a 5-day wait to send a letter to the editor, so that the government can be sure that the letter does not include libel, slander, sedition, 'fighting words', etc.
 
His argument is that "assault weapons" should be illegal because they are not traditional hunting weapons. They are both semi-auto but since one is black rifle made of metal it should be illegal. Heck, hunting weapons are more dangerous than "assault weapons" in that they are accurate, have a large caliber intended for big game and have a scope for long range shots.

So Carter wrote this piece? Well you know what they say, Democrats make the best gun salesmen. Might have talked me and many others, who never intended of owning a so called "assault weapon" into getting one before the ban is reinstated. Great job Dems.
 
Funny thing is, when you suggest applying the restrictions they suggest do not infringe the right to arms to rights they DO like, they get all flustered.

Imagine, needing to get a license to report the news.
Imagine, needing to get a license to have an abortion.
Imagine, needing a 5-day wait to send a letter to the editor, so that the government can be sure that the letter does not include libel, slander, sedition, 'fighting words', etc.


ask a NARAL advocate what the only purpose for a 24 hour waiting period for an abortion is.
 
His argument is that "assault weapons" should be illegal because they are not traditional hunting weapons. They are both semi-auto but since one is black rifle made of metal it should be illegal. Heck, hunting weapons are more dangerous than "assault weapons" in that they are accurate, have a large caliber intended for big game and have a scope for long range shots.

So Carter wrote this piece? Well you know what they say, Democrats make the best gun salesmen. Might have talked me and many others, who never intended of owning a so called "assault weapon" into getting one before the ban is reinstated. Great job Dems.


at one time there was no real difference between hunting and military weapons. In the 1700's military weapons were less lethal than hunting weapons-the muskets of the redcoats were designed to be loaded faster (smooth bore-less ramming the ball home) for the group volley tactics used by Euro armies. Like the british longbow, such weapons were pretty worthless as one on one weapons. The kentucky long rifle, on the other hand, was accurate to 200 Yards and could kill at half a mile.

During the late 1800's the single shot springfield rifles had no where near the rate of fire of the heavy winchester lever guns. Civilians had semi auto center fire rifles when our WWI and early WWII soldiers were still using bolt action rifles. It wasn't until Vietnam did the average infantryman have a faster shooting weapon than what a civilian could buy.


BTW almost every modern hunting design was based on a military model-the Mauser 98 is the basis of most bolt action hunting rifles-which of course was Germany's Main Battle Rifle in both war.
 
It bears repeating: There is no "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'.
 
It bears repeating: There is no "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'.
Not according to certain nameless people (WillR) who refuse to come here and defend their position to that effect...
 
I think the use of the term "assault weapon" is obnoxious to begin with. It is nebulous, and not specific enough, and definitely has a tinge of subjectivity. Any weapon can be used in an assault. We have to stop the use of this term entirely, before we can have a true adult discussion about arms.
 
I think the use of the term "assault weapon" is obnoxious to begin with. It is nebulous, and not specific enough, and definitely has a tinge of subjectivity. Any weapon can be used in an assault. We have to stop the use of this term entirely, before we can have a true adult discussion about arms.
The anti-gun loons that coined the term 'assault weapon' have met their objective -- they have managed to turn a group of people that know nothing about guns against the private ownership of an entire class of guns.

This isnt the first time the left has preyed upon (and counted on) the ignorance and incuriousness of Useful Idiots to achieve their poliical goals.
 
They do.
Both of the items I described -- a precondition not inherent and, especially, prior restraint -- are held to be infringements in regards to other rights. There is no way to argue that they are not also infringemrnts when applied to the right to arms.

I suppose so.

But I thought that we understood that the MEANING of what the founding fathers wanted is what should be taken into consideration for the second amendment.

For instance, "a well regulated militia being nescesary to the security of a free state" and ideas about ownership of guns by citizens are not violated from a one day waiting period.


Once again... if we take the second amendment literally, then ANY sort of weapons (which is an arm) should be allowed by normal citizens. That includes rocket launchers and nuclear arms.

What about violations of the first amendment too?

I thought that the meaning of the intent of the amendments is what matters, not the specific wording and loopholes. Do you disagree with that?
 
Last edited:
I suppose so.
So, you admit these things are infringements and therefore prohibited by the 2nd, Thank you.

But I thought that we understood that the MEANING of what the founding fathers wanted is what should be taken into consideration for the second amendment.
How is that not the case here?

For instance, "a well regulated militia being nescesary to the security of a free state" and ideas about ownership of guns by citizens are not violated from a one day waiting period.
Meaningless. The key term here is "infringement", under which, as you admit, your ideas fall.
 
It's so funny, that my NEGATIVE RIGHT gets soo many people's feathers fluffed up.


The idea that this nation should be persecuting people for something they *COULD* do, is ridiculous.

Really, step back and look at your argument. You sound ****ing stupid with your speculative bull**** being spewed from your fingertips.
 
So, you admit these things are infringements and therefore prohibited by the 2nd, Thank you.


How is that not the case here?


Meaningless. The key term here is "infringement", under which, as you admit, your ideas fall.

Thats regardless.

If we take the second amendment completely literally then a one day restraint, or even any sort of restraint for ANYTHINT (including being a criminal) would be infringing on someone's right to own a gun.

I just can't see how people can accept some restrictions on guns but not others if the second amendment will be taken literally.

I thought the second amendment was for the goal that the founding fathers had for the amendment, and not whatever the hell we want them to mean.
 
If we take the second amendment completely literally then a one day restraint, or even any sort of restraint for ANYTHINT (including being a criminal) would be infringing on someone's right to own a gun.
False.
The amendment protects:
-the right of the people
-to keep and bear
-arms
Thus:
-If you arent of the people...
-If what you're doing doesnt fall unber "keep" or bear"...
-If the weapon in question doesnt qualify as an 'arm" as the term is used...
...then the 2nd doesnt protect you.

I just can't see how people can accept some restrictions on guns but not others if the second amendment will be taken literally.
See above.

Note that none of this in any way negates the argument that waiting persiod and background checks ARE infringements, for the reasons stated.
 
I suppose so.

But I thought that we understood that the MEANING of what the founding fathers wanted is what should be taken into consideration for the second amendment.

Yes. WE understand perfectly what was intended. YOU do not. You still seek infringements, even though that was forbidden by the Second Amendment.

For instance, "a well regulated militia being nescesary to the security of a free state" and ideas about ownership of guns by citizens are not violated from a one day waiting period.

You can look "infringement" up in a dictionary, right?

Once again... if we take the second amendment literally, then ANY sort of weapons (which is an arm) should be allowed by normal citizens. That includes rocket launchers and nuclear arms.

The intent was clearly firearms. Again, this is the usual non sequitur nonsense introduced by people who don't have the nads to admit that the government isn't allowed to infringe on private gun ownership.

What about violations of the first amendment too?

Another non sequitur.

Jeez, don't you people have the decency to admit when you're wrong?

It's illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater because that harms people. Notice, how ever, that it's no illegal to bring a mouth that can shout "fire" into a theater. The act is punished, not the potential.

Similarly, it's not lawful under the Second Amendment to ban firearm ownership, but all states have perfectly constitutional laws punishing people who use guns to harm others.
 
Last edited:
If we take the second amendment completely literally then a one day restraint, or even any sort of restraint for ANYTHINT (including being a criminal) would be infringing on someone's right to own a gun.

Absolutely correct.

A waiting period infringes on the right to own guns.

Personally I don't care if an ex-con owns a weapon. If he uses it in a crime, put him back in jail and forget he existed. A gun not used harms no one.

I thought the second amendment was for the goal that the founding fathers had for the amendment, and not whatever the hell we want them to mean.

The goal of the Founding Daddies was to ensure the people had the means, in their hands, to depose any new tyrant that might arise. That means we can't allow wannabe tyrants to impose their anti-gun tyranny upon us in the name of our alleged safety.
 
False.
The amendment protects:
-the right of the people
-to keep and bear
-arms
Thus:
-If you arent of the people...
-If what you're doing doesnt fall unber "keep" or bear"...
-If the weapon in question doesnt qualify as an 'arm" as the term is used...
...then the 2nd doesnt protect you.


See above.

Note that none of this in any way negates the argument that waiting persiod and background checks ARE infringements, for the reasons stated.

Wait a sec, I thought that you were for background checks for criminals even though you are saying that they are Unconstitutional. There has been many people in this thread, I may be getting you confused with another comment.


I have said my point before though about how we should take the Amendments on what their purpose is.

Even if not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded building is violating the rights of others to safety it is still a violation of your freedom of speach.

So whos "rights" do you take away? If all literal rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights must be upheld, then it is impossible for the system to function because some rights contridict others. Does someone think I am wrong on that?

So instead, we should just follow common sense. Background checks for criminals and 1 day wating to give someone a day to cool off.

Those things do need to go together, we have them both or they are Unconstitutional. They can also be Constitutional and we can decide not to have them of course.
 
Wait a sec, I thought that you were for background checks for criminals even though you are saying that they are Unconstitutional.
Then you arent paying attention.

Even if not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded building is violating the rights of others to safety it is still a violation of your freedom of speach.
No. It isn't An inhernet part of a right is that when you exercise a right, you arent harming or endangering anyone else -- and so, "speech" that harms/endangers someone else isnt "free speech" and thus not protected.

So whos "rights" do you take away? If all literal rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights must be upheld, then it is impossible for the system to function because some rights contridict others. Does someone think I am wrong on that?
Rights, by their nature, do not conflict, as they end at the point where they cause harm to someone else.

So instead, we should just follow common sense. Background checks for criminals and 1 day wating to give someone a day to cool off.
Both of these things violate the constitution, for the reasons already given (and never addressed).
 
Then you arent paying attention.


No. It isn't An inhernet part of a right is that when you exercise a right, you arent harming or endangering anyone else -- and so, "speech" that harms/endangers someone else isnt "free speech" and thus not protected.

So by definition, you are saying that any expression can't harm someone else???

Well that is an exception to a literal right of "freedom of speech". If we both agree that there is exceptions to rights then thats great. I can settle with that.

I think the idea of rights is much more interesting then just how it relates to the second or first Amendment anyway...

Rights, by their nature, do not conflict, as they end at the point where they cause harm to someone else.

I think that is too simplistic. Unfortuantly, you are talking about a senario when one right is FIRST considered to be a true right and then asking yourself when it violates someone else's other rights. That doesn't have to do with if the second right has been violated.


What you are saying doesn't fullfill a criteria of when the MOST rights of people are being upheld. I believe that should be strived for, and the way to do that is to take rights on their overall themes, instead of worrying about exceptions TOO much.

Both of these things violate the constitution, for the reasons already given (and never addressed).

I disagree, because the Constitution is based on what the founding father's intended or else all of the Rights in the Constitution would contridict.


Once again... when someone screams "fire" in a crowded building there is two rights involved.

1. Right for someone to lie that there is a fire.
2. Right for someone's own life.

How isn't lying that there is a fire not free speech? Lying is legal. Free speech involves the expression of a certain view that someone has, and even if someone held out a sign saying "fire" in a crowded building that would also be illegal.

and the first amendment says there can be no laws "abridging the freedom of speech" it does not say that "free speech" must be protected, but that there is "freedom of speech." This means that the freedom is in how any sort of speech can be used, when "free speech" is not a criteria of what speech is protected.

Unfortuantly, if you outlaw either someone expressing that there is a fire or you allow someone to die in a panic then one of the rights are being violated.

Therefore, rights sometimes contridict each other. Therefore, we must pick which combination is the best for everyone based on the intent of the rights (and not the literal translation of the rights of life and expression).

Since the intent of the Second Amendment is to allow people to have guns, a 1 day waiting period on that does not violate the right.



This has been going on long enough, I am trying to make this as direct and even as consice as I can though.
 
It is impossible for me to believe that there are reasonably intelligent people out there that think that restrictions on law abiding citizens will suddenly disarm criminals. Criminals have no respect for the law, that's why they are criminals. They will find, modify or whatever to get the weapon they think they need.
 
So by definition, you are saying that any expression can't harm someone else???

Hang it up, you're only embarassing yourself. The restrictions on speech are such that the intention of the First Amendment is not violated by applying them.

People can be held criminally liable for speech that harms others, ie, inciting riot, causing mass panic, and slander and libel.

However, they have to use their freedom of speech before they can be held liable for it.

Similarly, absolutely ZERO harm can occur from anyone excercising their right keep and bear arms.

Ergo, absolutely no rational interpretation of the Second Amendment can be constructed that limits gun ownership.
 
Hang it up, you're only embarassing yourself. The restrictions on speech are such that the intention of the First Amendment is not violated by applying them.

People can be held criminally liable for speech that harms others, ie, inciting riot, causing mass panic, and slander and libel.

However, they have to use their freedom of speech before they can be held liable for it.

Similarly, absolutely ZERO harm can occur from anyone excercising their right keep and bear arms.

Ergo, absolutely no rational interpretation of the Second Amendment can be constructed that limits gun ownership.

Thats irrelevant to the issue about what rights in the Constitution mean.

Just because the literal Second Amendment doesn't infringe on other rights (such as the First Amendment can) that doesn't mean that the Second Amendment must be taken completely literally.

If Constitutional rights must be taken literally, then it doesn't matter if the First Amendment starts violating the right to life. It would then be Unconstitutional to violate the First Amendment anyway even if it did harm others.
 
Back
Top Bottom