• 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
Dirty Harry said:
Because most people including the supreme court believe that these weapons should be restricted.
Click to expand...
Please cite the court where it says this.
Then tell me what any of that has to do with the restrictions on firearms.
 
We have open carry up here. They are non-stop going back and forth on concealed carry laws in Madison. But he have not yet arrived. :(

I carry when I have to. I don't like to but it's just a matter of self-preservation. It's a job thing. I find mine to be cumbersome and heavy at the end of the day.

If I'm not workin', I'm not packin'. (Usually. :mrgreen:)
 
Goobieman said:
Absolutely it can.
Click to expand...

Then I guess a sharp stick could be just as lethal as a SAW, too. Right?
Or how about a shovel or a rock? A fryin pan? Are you trying to say that anything that can kill is just as lethal as a SAW?
 
Captain America said:
We have open carry up here. They are non-stop going back and forth on concealed carry laws in Madison. But he have not yet arrived. :(

I carry when I have to. I don't like to but it's just a matter of self-preservation. It's a job thing. I find mine to be cumbersome and heavy at the end of the day.

If I'm not workin', I'm not packin'. (Usually. :mrgreen:)
Click to expand...

Minnesota passed the conceal carry law a few years ago. Lots of people were excited at first but now most of those don't carry anymore. It's too big of a hassle and most don't fear for their lives going about their everyday activities.
 
Goobieman said:
You can kill someone with both, so yes.
Click to expand...

So what does that mean?
You could probably kill a one or two people with the stick or a few dozen with the SAW? Which is more lethal? Both the same?
 
Dirty Harry said:
Then I guess a sharp stick could be just as lethal as a SAW, too. Right?
Or how about a shovel or a rock? A fryin pan? Are you trying to say that anything that can kill is just as lethal as a SAW?
Click to expand...

I think you understand now.

The next step is to realize that it is certain people that are dangerous, not actually objects. In general, laws should regulate the actions of people, not peoples' property.

I believe a distinction should only be made between ordinary arms and say, ordnance, which could ACCIDENTLY lead to loss of life through massive explosions (ie. very difficult to store safely), and are specifically designed for INDISCRIMINATE killing, etc.
 
Dirty Harry said:
So what does that mean?
Click to expand...
The meaning looks pretty plain to me -- not sure why you don't understand it.

Now, were you going to cite the court where it said that it "believe that these weapons should be restricted", or not?
Be sure to clarify what they mean by "these weapons" and "restricted".
And then tell me how or why any of that is relevant when discussing firearms.
 
other said:
I think you understand now.

The next step is to realize that it is certain people that are dangerous, not actually objects. In general, laws should regulate the actions of people, not peoples' property.

I believe a distinction should only be made between ordinary arms and say, ordnance, which could ACCIDENTLY lead to loss of life through massive explosions (ie. very difficult to store safely), and are specifically designed for INDISCRIMINATE killing, etc.
Click to expand...

So you believe a guy with a stick is just as lethal as a guy with a SAW?
 
Dirty Harry said:
So you believe a guy with a stick is just as lethal as a guy with a SAW?
Click to expand...
He CAN be. He COULD be.
He COULD be MORE lethal.

(Psst... its the person and his intentions, not the weapon)
 
Goobieman said:
.

Now, were you going to cite the court where it said that it "believe that these weapons should be restricted", or not?
[/U].
Click to expand...

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. But it did allow for individuals to have guns for lawful purposes, such as hunting and defending themselves, he said. The majority clearly saw the individual right to own a gun"

I do believe that is what he is saying here.
 
Dirty Harry said:
So you believe a guy with a stick is just as lethal as a guy with a SAW?
Click to expand...

He CAN be.

Think: Bruce Lee w/ a stick vs. ordinary joe (no, make that Ghandi) w/ a SAW.... set 3' apart...now, GO!

Joking aside. It is the "Guy" part of your question that makes a SAW or a stick lethal, not just the SAW or stick.
 
Last edited:
Dirty Harry said:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. But it did allow for individuals to have guns for lawful purposes, such as hunting and defending themselves, he said. The majority clearly saw the individual right to own a gun"

I do believe that is what he is saying here.
Click to expand...

None of our rights are unlimited. All come with the one limitation that we cannot infringe upon the rights of others.
 
Goobieman said:
He CAN be. He COULD be.
He COULD be MORE lethal.

(Psst... its the person and his intentions, not the weapon)
Click to expand...

And a naked guy chasing after you could be more lethal too.:roll:
 
Dirty Harry said:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,..."
I do believe that is what he is saying here.
Click to expand...
So, the court didn't actually say what you said it said, you just -interpret- it that way.

You still havent explained how what he said is meanngfully different from what I said.
 
Goobieman said:
Funny... 'Round here, its MOST places. "No Guns" signs are prety rare.
Click to expand...

Oregon here...... I've never even seen a "no Guns Allowed" sign. I have seen pistols carried in the local grocery store.... Oregon is an open carry State.
 
Crunch said:
Oregon here...... I've never even seen a "no Guns Allowed" sign. I have seen pistols carried in the local grocery store.... Oregon is an open carry State.
Click to expand...
So is Ohio.
 
Goobieman said:
So, the court didn't actually say what you said it said, you just -interpret- it that way.

You still havent explained how what he said is meanngfully different from what I said.
Click to expand...

It says the right has limitations. It's very clear. It's not my interpretation, it is what it says.
 
Crunch said:
Oregon here...... I've never even seen a "no Guns Allowed" sign. I have seen pistols carried in the local grocery store.... Oregon is an open carry State.
Click to expand...

Texas here and I'm looking at a state mandated sign that states it is a felony to carry weapons into a bar punishable by up to ten years.
 
winston53660 said:
Texas here and I'm looking at a state mandated sign that states it is a felony to carry weapons into a bar punishable by up to ten years.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the same one that cites an ordinance numbered 30.06? I always thought that was a funny coincidence.
 
Dirty Harry said:
It says the right has limitations.
Click to expand...
It does -- but it doesnt specify those limits.

It doesnt specify what weapons are beyond the limit of the right to arms.
You have interpreted that to mean certain weapons, but your interpretation is just that - your interpretation.

Same can be said for "in any manner whatsoever" - the court says nothing as to what 'manner' lies beyond the limit of the right; you have interpreted that phrase to mean something.

Further, you havent given any basis for your interpreation of the words you posted.

It's not my interpretation, it is what it says.
Click to expand...
No, its your unsupported interpretation, as illustrated above.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
We are only talking about horn honking and name calling here. People shouldn't have to be afraid for their lives, just because they are assholes. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Yes they should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom