• 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!

Do you have a conceal and carry license?

Do you have a conceal and carry permit?


  • Total voters
    66
4 of us are lifetime members of the NRA.
Not to derail the thread too much, but I am an NRA member and a GOA member as well. I love the NRA for the magazine, but I like the advocacy of GOA a lot better.
 
Not to derail the thread too much, but I am an NRA member and a GOA member as well. I love the NRA for the magazine, but I like the advocacy of GOA a lot better.

I like GOA much better. The NRA has gone off the reservation a little in the last decade or so.
 
Not to derail the thread too much, but I am an NRA member and a GOA member as well. I love the NRA for the magazine, but I like the advocacy of GOA a lot better.
I agree with this.
 
I like GOA much better. The NRA has gone off the reservation a little in the last decade or so.
Indeed. I am trying to find an article about the Heller case I read a while back. Basically it said the NRA was not on board with it at all, and it was the Institute for Justice and GOA that did most of the work. Naturally, the NRA took credit ... :roll:
 
Indeed. I am trying to find an article about the Heller case I read a while back. Basically it said the NRA was not on board with it at all, and it was the Institute for Justice and GOA that did most of the work. Naturally, the NRA took credit ... :roll:
Not sure about that -- I read quite a bit about the NRA and its support of Heller.
 
Not sure about that -- I read quite a bit about the NRA and its support of Heller.
Here we go. This is the article I read.
reason said:
[...]

The Heller case quickly found a powerful opponent in the National Rifle Association. This surprises nearly every layman I discuss the case with, most of whom assume the NRA was behind the lawsuit in the first place. The Parker lawyers received backroom visits from allies of the NRA before their case was filed, discouraging them from going forward. The Supreme Court (which still had Sandra Day O’Conner back then) would not reliably deliver a victory, they argued, and an authoritative statement from the Supremes that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right could prove devastating to the long-term cause.

[...]
 
Indeed. I am trying to find an article about the Heller case I read a while back. Basically it said the NRA was not on board with it at all, and it was the Institute for Justice and GOA that did most of the work. Naturally, the NRA took credit ... :roll:

What actually soured me on the NRA was when the kid accidentally shot another kid to death, while showing his gun, in a classroom in Flint, Michigan. Heston picked the day of the kid's funeral for the NRA rally.

I have no problem with gun advocacy. There are just times when people need to use their heads, and allow the bereaved to mourn. This incident was a black eye for the whole NRA, in what could have otherwise been a great event, had Heston not been so calloused as to pick that kid's funeral day for the rally. Michael Moore, with his anti-gun agenda, was able to get a lot of mileage out of this huge blunder.
 
Last edited:
The only reason Canadians have less guns than we do in America is because there are less Canadians.

Please stop right there. As far as gun ownership goes Canada has a much lower percentage than the U.S. - 10% of the population(3.3 million gun owners). As opposed to 80 million americans who are gun owners(NRA statistics). That is almost 30% of the population. Same goes for Norway.
 
Really. How about an RPG on a public lake? Or an ex-con bringing a couple grenades to a picnic in a public park.

So we're done with the intelligent part of the debate then. Just going into hyperbole and ridiculousness, k.
 
So we're done with the intelligent part of the debate then. Just going into hyperbole and ridiculousness, k.

A M60 machine gun at a playground is not ridiculous? Some here didn't see anything wrong with that as long as there was no sign.
You see, there does have to be limits to the right to bear arms argument.
 
If he asnt been convivted of a violent crime, if the gun was pruchased legally and the playground (or park or whatever) does not have a sign, then it is legal.

.

You really don't see anything wrong with a guy having an M60 machine gun on a playground?
OK for gangbangers that haven't been convicted to carry Ak 47s?
 
Last edited:
A M60 machine gun at a playground is not ridiculous?
What's ridiculous with someone that can legally own a gun taking a legally purchased gun to someplace that he can legally take a gun?
You see, there does have to be limits to the right to bear arms argument.
Who has argued otherwise?
All rights have a inherent limit to them; said limits define the boundaries of those rights. Things outside a paticular right do not fall under the protection affordrd to that right becasue, well, they arent part of the right.

For isntance, the 2nd protects the right to "arms". Weapons that do not fall under the definition of "arms" are not protected by the 2nd, just as speech that does not qualify as "free speech" does not fall under protection of the 1st.
 
For isntance, the 2nd protects the right to "arms". Weapons that do not fall under the definition of "arms" are not protected by the 2nd, just as speech that does not qualify as "free speech" does not fall under protection of the 1st.

By definition arms are weapons, weapons are arms. What weapons do not fall under the definition of arms?
 
You really don't see anything wrong with a guy having an M60 machine gun on a playground?
The idea of law-abiding people having legal guns somewhere that they are legally able to have a gun doesnt scare me - so, no.
 
By definition arms are weapons, weapons are arms.
By simple dictionary defintion, yes -- but not by legal defintion as described by the court in US v Miller, which superceeds any dictionary definition.

Miller states, in effect, that for a weapon toi qualfy for protection under the sceond -- that is, to fall under the defintion of 'arms" -- it must be 'part of the ordinary military equpiment' that is 'in common use at the time' and that has some 'reasonable relationship to the efficacy of the militia'.

As noted before, and as has been unaddressed by you, this covers any class of firearm you care to mention.

What weapons do not fall under the definition of arms?
See above. As stated before, whatever the upper limit, it covers all firearms.
 
Last edited:
By simple dictionary defintion, yes -- but not by legal defintion as described by the court in US v Miller, which superceeds any dictionary definition.

Miller states, in effect, that for a weapon toi qualfy for protection under the sceond -- that is, to fall under the defintion of 'arms" -- it must be 'part of the ordinary military equpiment' that is 'in common use at the time' and that has some 'reasonable relationship to the efficacy of the militia'.

As noted before, and as has been unaddressed by you, this covers any class of firearm you care to mention.


See above. As stated before, whatever the upper limit, it covers all firearms.

From your definition it covers all arms, pretty much everything the military uses. What would not qualify?
 
A good thing to add, in any law regarding things that could potentially be dangerous, is--"in a safe and prudent manner"
 
From your definition it covers all arms, pretty much everything the military uses.
No, it does not.
The real limit is 'the efficacy of the militia'. The militia, given its historical and legal role, has little use for many of the things the standing military uses. Tanks, aircraft, SPARTY, heavy artillery, battlefield missles, and any sort of strategic weapon would not be included.

Essentially, if you can find it in the TO&E of a Ranger company, the 2nd covers it.

But, as I said -- it CLEARLY covers all firearms, and as such, any discussion beyond that is meaningless.
 
No, it does not.
The real limit is 'the efficacy of the militia'. The militia, given its historical and legal role, has little use for many of the things the standing military uses. Tanks, aircraft, SPARTY, heavy artillery, battlefield missles, and any sort of strategic weapon would not be included.

Essentially, if you can find it in the TO&E of a Ranger company, the 2nd covers it.

But, as I said -- it CLEARLY covers all firearms, and as such, any discussion beyond that is meaningless.

Ok, are 50 cal machine guns, satchel charges, claymores, grenades, RPGs, C4, SAWs, LAWs, stingers, bazookas included?
Yes or no?
 
Last edited:
Ok, are 50 cal machine guns satchel charges, claymores, grenades, RPGs, C4, SAWs, LAWs, stingers, bazookas included?
Yes or no?
M2HB and M249s are firearms, so they obviously fall under the defintion.
Grenades and rocket launchers -- yes.
Explosives -- insomuch as they are 'part of the ordinary equipment'.

How is any of that relevant to anything?
 
M2HB and M249s are firearms, so they obviously fall under the defintion.
Grenades and rocket launchers -- yes.
Explosives -- insomuch as they are 'part of the ordinary equipment'.

How is any of that relevant to anything?

So people should be allowed to carry these weapons wherever they want as long as there is no sign?
 
So people should be allowed to carry these weapons wherever they want as long as there is no sign?
You didnt answer my question.
How is any of that relevant to anything?
 
You didnt answer my question.
How is any of that relevant to anything?

Because most people including the supreme court believe that these weapons should be restricted.
You see nothing wrong with Joe Six Pack possessing and carrying these types of weapons wherever he wants?
 
So people should be allowed to carry these weapons wherever they want as long as there is no sign?

criminals can. why not law abiding citizens?

Furthermore, a single shot .22 rimfire can be just as lethal as an M249 SAW. The distinction that must be made is between types of people (criminals vs. law-abiders) not between types of guns (which all exist for the same purpose).
 
Back
Top Bottom