• 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!

Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

Are ANY government regulations of the 2nd Amendment acceptable?

  • No. It's a Constitutional Right & no regulatioins are acceptable.

    Votes: 25 35.7%

  • Yes. Reasonable regulations are acceptable.

    Votes: 36 51.4%

  • A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry full auto weapons.

    Votes: 16 22.9%

  • A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry flame throwers.

    Votes: 7 10.0%

  • A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry tactical nukes.

    Votes: 1 1.4%

  • gun restrictions are necessary to prevent unauthorized use by nuts.

    Votes: 12 17.1%
  • Total voters
    70
Goobieman said:
There. You've been proven wrong.
Click to expand...

No, you have expressed your opinion, to which you are entitled.

I disagree, and find it both unusual and cruel.
How is it not unusual ? It makes them different from a normal citizen, and from someone who did time (possibly more) for multiple misdemeanors.

How is it not cruel to disenfranchise your fellow citizen ? How is it not cruel to expect them to live the rest of their lives under "taxation without representation" ? How is it not cruel to callously deprive the citizen of his right to self defense ?

Remember, the fact that we have been doing it, is not justification for continuing it, in a normative discussion.

What do you think you gain disenfranchising this citizen ?

What do you think you gain, neutering this citizen's Second Amendment ?

If you are going to release a citizen, release them intact, so that they can function as a fully vested member of your society again.
 
BTW Goobieman, I apologize for letting my temper get the best of me on post #582.

I believe I may have forged my point a little too barbed.
 
Voidwar said:
No, you have expressed your opinion, to which you are entitled.
I disagree, and find it both unusual and cruel.
Click to expand...
Well you're wrong, which I have proven, by stating that you're wrong.

-Restriticng the voting and gun rights of those that have served their time in prison do not violate the 8th amendment because it is neoither cruel nor unusual.
-Restricting the voting and gun rights of those that have served their time in prison do not violate the 5th amendment because they are liberties that may be depreived by due process.
 
Goobieman said:
-Restriticng the voting and gun rights of those that have served their time in prison do not violate the 8th amendment because it is neoither cruel nor unusual.
Click to expand...

Rather than restate this assertion of your opinion, why not answer the questions, or address my characterization of what I think IS wrong with it ?


Goobieman said:
--Restricting the voting and gun rights of those that have served their time in prison do not violate the 5th amendment because they are liberties that may be depreived by due process.
Click to expand...

We may be talking past each other here, as I believe I only brought up the fifth with regard to the Sex offender registry. The registry is a pretty clear violation of the 5th, wouldn't you agree ? (Self incrimination)
 
Voidwar said:
Rather than restate this assertion of your opinion, why not answer the questions...
Click to expand...
Under the method you've practiced here, all I need to do to prove my position is to do exactly what I have done.

I know I am wet because it it raining; I know it is raining because I am wet.
 
Goobieman said:
Under the method you've practiced here, all I need to do to prove my position is to do exactly what I have done.
Click to expand...

Did you ever look into what a "normative discussion" is ?

In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong. Normative is usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are factual statements that attempt to describe reality.

For example, "children should eat vegetables", "smoking is bad", and "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" are normative claims. On the other hand, "vegetables contain a relatively high proportion of vitamins", "smoking causes cancer", and "a common consequence of sacrificing liberty for security is a loss of both" are positive claims. Whether or not a statement is normative is logically independent of whether it is verified, verifiable, or popularly held.
Click to expand...

So, you can see that if we discuss a practice, and how it should be, the tyranny of tradition does not hold sway, and the fact that "it has been done this way" does not carry weight. The question is how should it be done, not how has it been done.

Your position is no more proved than mine, as both are matters of opinion.

Mine however, is better supported, as I have supplied my reasoning, and asked pertinent questions.

Your support, seemed to be quoting precedent, and that carries no weight in a normative discussion.

Why don't you provide some pertinent answers ?
 
Voidwar said:
Your position is no more proved than mine, as both are matters of opinion.
Click to expand...
So, you admit that you have not proevn your position.
Gee... I seem to have said that a LONG time ago.

You can throw your opinion around all you want - if you can't back up that opinion with relevant facts, its just you flapping your gums.

When discussiing law, the relevant facts are those found in precendent, et al, as that is how the meaning of the law is determined.

And so, your opinion of how the law should be, especially absemt any -relevant facts- supporting it, is in no way persuasive in a discusion regarding what the law IS.
 
Goobieman said:
So, you admit that you have not proevn your position.
Click to expand...

The question is not one of proving. It is a matter of opinion about the best practices. I have provided sound reasoning for my position. Have you ? Or have you merely cited incidents of other people doing what has been the ongoing practice ? Precedent nets you nothing in a normative discussion.

Goobieman said:
You can throw your opinion around all you want - if you can't back up that opinion with relevant facts, its just you flapping your gums.
Click to expand...

Relevant is a matter of opinion too.

Goobieman said:
When discussiing law, the relevant facts are those found in precendent, et al, as that is how the meaning of the law is determined.
Click to expand...

When you are discussing what to change about that law, the entire discussion changes. Precedent nets you nothing in a normative discussion.

Goobieman said:
And so, your opinion of how the law should be, especially absemt any -relevant facts- supporting it, is in no way persuasive in a discusion regarding what the law IS.
Click to expand...

And there is your error. This is not a discussion of what the law IS. This is a discussion of what the law should be. I already know the present state of the law, and that is not what is under discussion.

I supplied plenty of relevant facts and reasoning. It is you who wants to stick your head in the sand and hold up a sign that says "precedent". It is you who avoids my questions.
 
Voidwar said:
The question is not one of proving. It is a matter of opinion about the best practices. I have provided sound reasoning for my position.
Click to expand...
No. All you have provided is opinion, and then a challenge to show that you are wrong. Your opinion has no relevant fact behind it, and, it being YOUR opion, is up to YOU to supprt, not for others to knock down.

All you have done is said "I think this, I'm right, show how I am wrong".

Or have you merely cited incidents of other people doing what has been the ongoing practice ? Precedent nets you nothing in a normative discussion.
Click to expand...
Like I siad:
You can throw your opinion around all you want - if you can't back up that opinion with relevant facts, its just you flapping your gums.

that is, I dont really care what you think the las -should- be, unless you can create a substantive, supported argument surrounding it. So far all you have done is expressed your opinion and asked me to show how you are wrong.
 
Goobieman said:
All you have done is said "I think this, I'm right, show how I am wrong".
Click to expand...

A simple falsehood, easily demonstrated so. . . .

Voidwar said:
The fact that we currently punish citizens after release does not justify itself.

Its just what we are doing now, and that does not add in to a discussion of whether it is the right thing to do or not.

I disagree with the practice, completely.

A free citizen has the right to weapons for self defense.
This need does not go away just because the citizen did time.
Click to expand...
+
Voidwar said:
As I explained, NO , IT DOES NOT.

IT is just how we have been doing it so far.

Your "Consequence", is a violation of the Second Amendment, since we end up with a member of "the people" who's right to keep and bear arms is permanently infringed.

If you can lose em, THEY ARE PRIVELEGES.

It is merely how it has been, and it has been an ongoing violation of our constitution. It is not logical to release a man but release him as a second class citizen with a neutered set of rights. We are supposed to have one set of equal rights for all citizens. Citizens convicted of crimes are still citizens. As such, denying them their rights, whether they be suffrage, or the right to keep and bear, or the right to buy a home for sale in an overzealous sex offender bailiwick, is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
+
Voidwar said:
I already have shown it. Releasing a citizen with a neutered set of rights is inconsistant with our sytem of law. Citizens have the right to self defense, and the right to use weapons to succeed in that end. Suffrage ? To borrow your tactic of quoting the Declaration, , No Taxation without Representation !! Sex offender crap ? OBVIOUS violation of the fifth and the fourteenth.
Click to expand...
+
Voidwar said:
No, they are rights, and they cannot be violated after incarceration is over.
Click to expand...
+
Voidwar said:
False. My reasoning may be simple, but that does not make it unsound. My reasons are mostly quoted directly from the Bill of Rights, or other Constitutional Amendments, but also from documents like the Declaration, and even possibly subjective notions about the spirit of this country. . .
Click to expand...
 
Voidwar said:
A simple falsehood, easily demonstrated so. . . .
Click to expand...
All ths does it show that you stated your opinon, and then stated that your opinuion is right, because of other opinions you have.
Thus, my statement isnt in any way deomstrated as false.

And your position, based only on your opinon, is far from supported.
 
Goobieman said:
All ths does it show that you stated your opinon, and then stated that your opinuion is right, because of other opinions you have.
Thus, my statement isnt in any way deomstrated as false.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, if it is that petty, you have a misspelling or three there, which is an error (or a few), so you are wrong once (or thrice), so I win. :roll:

Goobieman said:
And your position, based only on your opinon, is far from supported.
Click to expand...

My opinion is supported by the reasoning I have provided. It is apparently reasoning you cannot or will not counter, so in a debate setting, it stands.

Answer some of the many pertinent questions I have asked if you want to be worth discussing this with.
 
Voidwar said:
Oh, well, if it is that petty...
Click to expand...
Noting that you supporting your opinion with nothing more than your opinion is nothing more than you saying your're right because you think you're right isnt petty, its a direct assult on your position.

Anyone can say that they're right because they say so, as you have done.
It means absolutely nothing.

My opinion is supported by the reasoning I have provided.
Click to expand...
Which is nothing more than more opinion on your part.

It is apparently reasoning you cannot or will not counter, so in a debate setting, it stands.
Click to expand...
And THIS is where you demand that I prove you wrong.

And thus, my statement:
All you have done is said "I think this, I'm right, show how I am wrong".
Click to expand...
Has been proven true.
 
Goobieman said:
Noting that you supporting your opinion with nothing more than your opinion
Click to expand...

It is supported with sound reasoning that you are scared to address, hence your inability to answer the numerous questions I have posed.

Goobieman said:
is nothing more than you saying your're right because you think you're right isnt petty, its a direct assult on your position.
Click to expand...

No, it is not. It is a petty tactic explained by the Father in "Thank You for Smoking". You think if your one statement isn't in any way demonstrated false that it scores some magic touchdown. It doesn't. Your "statement" isn't relevant to a normative discussion.

Goobieman said:
Anyone can say that they're right because they say so, as you have done.
It means absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

An already disproven refrain. To refuse to acknowledge the fact that I have provided sound reasoning and a rationally supported position, is mere cowardice on your part. When you can address the content I posted, you will merit further discussion. When you address the several pertinent questions I have asked, you will merit further respect.
 
Last edited:
Voidwar said:
It is supported with sound reasoning that you are scared to address, hence your inability to answer the numerous questions I have posed.
Click to expand...
The "sound reasoning" your speak of is nothing more than more opinion. As such, there's no need for me to address anything, as your opinion doesnt qualify as support your opinion - it simply says thay you are a right because you say so.

And, I note again that you're again arguing that I need to prove you wrong.

So, yet again, my statement that "all you have done is said 'I think this, I'm right, show how I am wrong'" has been proven true -- your ad hominens to the contrary not withstanding.

No, it is not. It is a petty tactic....
Click to expand...
Telling you exactly how you havent supported your position isn't petty.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
The "sound reasoning" your speak of is nothing more than more opinion. As such, there's no need for me to address anything, as your opinion doesnt qualify as support your opinion - it simply says thay you are a right because you say so.

And, I note again that you're again arguing that I need to prove you wrong. So, yet again, my statement that "all you have done is said 'I think this, I'm right, show how I am wrong'" has been proven true -- your ad hominens to the contrary not withstanding..
Click to expand...

The same defeated refrain. I did not just say "I'm right" I provided several chunks of my reasoning in that composite post.

You repeating this refrain, instead of addressing my content, is an ongoing act of cowardice.
 
Goobieman said:
"all you have done is said 'I think this, I'm right, show how I am wrong'"
Click to expand...

Really ? Gosh, it looks a LOT bigger when I write it.

Originally Posted by Voidwar
The fact that we currently punish citizens after release does not justify itself.

Its just what we are doing now, and that does not add in to a discussion of whether it is the right thing to do or not.

I disagree with the practice, completely.

A free citizen has the right to weapons for self defense.
This need does not go away just because the citizen did time.

+

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voidwar
As I explained, NO , IT DOES NOT.

IT is just how we have been doing it so far.

Your "Consequence", is a violation of the Second Amendment, since we end up with a member of "the people" who's right to keep and bear arms is permanently infringed.

If you can lose em, THEY ARE PRIVELEGES.

It is merely how it has been, and it has been an ongoing violation of our constitution. It is not logical to release a man but release him as a second class citizen with a neutered set of rights. We are supposed to have one set of equal rights for all citizens. Citizens convicted of crimes are still citizens. As such, denying them their rights, whether they be suffrage, or the right to keep and bear, or the right to buy a home for sale in an overzealous sex offender bailiwick, is unconstitutional.

+

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voidwar
I already have shown it. Releasing a citizen with a neutered set of rights is inconsistant with our sytem of law. Citizens have the right to self defense, and the right to use weapons to succeed in that end. Suffrage ? To borrow your tactic of quoting the Declaration, , No Taxation without Representation !! Sex offender crap ? OBVIOUS violation of the fifth and the fourteenth.

+

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voidwar
No, they are rights, and they cannot be violated after incarceration is over.

+

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voidwar
False. My reasoning may be simple, but that does not make it unsound. My reasons are mostly quoted directly from the Bill of Rights, or other Constitutional Amendments, but also from documents like the Declaration, and even possibly subjective notions about the spirit of this country. . .
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Voidwar said:
The same defeated refrain. I did not just say "I'm right" I provided several chunks of my reasoning in that composite post.
Click to expand...
What you fail to understand -- and at this point, one can only conclude that this failure is deliberate -- is that your "reasoning" is nothing more than you stating additional opinion; when these additional opinions are used to support your original opinion, you are in fact saying that you are right because you say you are right.

Remember -- YOU couched this a normative discussion. In that, all of your "reasoned arguments" are statements of how you things things SHOULD be, and as such, nothing more than opinion.

Since you -deliberately- fail to understand this, the only logical conclusion is that you'd rather save face than have to admit that you are wrong.

You repeating this refrain, instead of addressing my content, is an ongoing act of cowardice.
Click to expand...
Ah, the ad hom -- the final refuge of those that know they have been defeated.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
is that your "reasoning" is nothing more than you stating your opinion; when said opinions are used to support your original opinion, you are in fact saying that you are right because you say you are right.
Click to expand...

Its nothing I don't understand Goob.

It is the very nature of a normative discussion.

We are not talking about what is. We are talking about what should be. I have expressed a well thought out opinion and supported it with solid reasoning. I have quoted the portions of the Constitution that I believe rule out this practice, and so my opinion is that it is unconstitutional as well. There, you at least had the mettle to respond to my content, but your response was just precedent citation. That is just what one set of fallible human judges decided on one occasion. I know what precedent is, and its significance in verdicts and sentencing, but its significance in our context, of a normative discussion, is greatly reduced. They were just humans, so are we.

Goobieman said:
Ah, the ad hom -- the final refuge of those that know they have been defeated.
Click to expand...

I did not describe you, I described your actions.
You are attempting to paint my position as something it is not, deliberately posting and reposting a very brief and inaccurate version of it in an attempt to marginalize my content. Avoiding that content, in this shoddy way, and the further avoidance of my several pertinent questions, is an ongoing act of cowardice.
 
Goobieman said:
Remember -- YOU couched this a normative discussion.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The Thread Title contains the word "Should".

I certainly understand that we are on a "sub-topic", but the normative nature of the discussion was present in the OP.
 
Voidwar said:
Its nothing I don't understand Goob.
It is the very nature of a normative discussion.
We are not talking about what is. We are talking about what should be.
Click to expand...

As I said:
As this a normative discussion, all of your "reasoned arguments" are statements of how you things things SHOULD be, and as such, nothing more than opinion.

Thus, the "sound arguments" that support your opinion are nothing more than opinions supporting opinions -- which is nothing more than you saying you are right because you say you are right.

Just as I said.

To continue to argue otherwise is an ongoing act of pre-pubescent denial.
 
Voidwar said:
Do you have quotes to prove your outlandish claims ? Or it is just more of you making crap up, as I have exposed on this very thread ?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't admit it initially, but I still like to point it out from time to time since it happened...

Already addressed, can she vote? no ? Red Herring.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant...

I know she is technically a "citizen",
Click to expand...

Then answer the question... should a child, who is a citizen, be allowed to carry an AK-47?

however she is a minor, and that is not a parallel to being a felon, so you don't really have a point in the original discussion, just an irrelevant red herring you would rather persue.
Click to expand...

I was not trying to make a parallel argument, I am arguing against something else, your premises that a citizens rights should not be infringed simply because they were a felon. Once out, they are granted all previous rights since they are a citizen. I ask if all citizens should have this right, since if you don't think so, then that is a flaw in your reasoning. If you think that a child should not since they are a minor, just say it and move on and modify your intitial statement. I am poking a hole in the way that you communicate your ideas, that is all...

You said your daughter is a "free citizen", so why are you such a bad parent as to let a four year old roam free ? ? ?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant and pathetic to such a degree as to be laughable... :rofl

You would like to nitpick your daughter into relevance, but it is just your sidestep from the discussion. If you want to talk about your daughter, we can talk about the poor parenting you are displaying by letting her roam free, and I will admit she is a citizen. You did claim she was a "free citizen" right ? So she is four, and free to stay up late, or free to eat ice cream all day ? Or were you caught in a lie I can nitpick ?
Click to expand...

You said free citizen in reference to the felon being free upon release. I used your term, grow up already... :lol:

Cease Mentioning your irrelevant daughter or we will just continue to discuss the need for CPS involvement in her boundary-free life.
Click to expand...

Are you a professional clown or just a geeky internet dork? They are soooo similar...
 
Y'all know everybody else quit reading pages and pages ago, right? :mrgreen:
 
I think law abiding citizens should have the right to carry most weapons, but not flamethrowers or nukes of course. :lol:

However, I think this should be up to the states to decide instead of the federal government. Some states like New York would require more restrictions since they have more people and more crime then a smaller state.
 
Phantom said:
I think law abiding citizens should have the right to carry most weapons, but not flamethrowers or nukes of course. :lol:

However, I think this should be up to the states to decide instead of the federal government. Some states like New York would require more restrictions since they have more people and more crime then a smaller state.
Click to expand...

If you look at a map of the northeast USA NY is not that small of a state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom