• 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!

Shouldn't the entire U.S be considered a gun free zone?

Rich2018 said:
Who you mind alluding to its identity ?
Click to expand...

citizens of a nation, or subjects of a state, who can be called upon for military service during a time of need,
 
jimbo said:
citizens of a nation, or subjects of a state, who can be called upon for military service during a time of need,
Click to expand...

Are you forgetting what you said what constitutes a "militia" ?

"...an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers..."


Do you not understand what the word "Organization" means ?



A bunch of citizens showing up totting guns of all sizes and calibers is NOT an organization. It's a mob.
Good for lynchings I hear...
 
Rich2018 said:
Are you forgetting what you said what constitutes a "militia" ?

"...an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers..."


Do you not understand what the word "Organization" means ?



A bunch of citizens showing up totting guns of all sizes and calibers is NOT an organization. It's a mob.
Good for lynchings I hear...
Click to expand...

Sure, it's a group of people getting together for a common cause.

You're not making any valid point.
 
Rich2018 said:
Are you forgetting what you said what constitutes a "militia" ?

"...an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers..."


Do you not understand what the word "Organization" means ?



A bunch of citizens showing up totting guns of all sizes and calibers is NOT an organization. It's a mob.
Good for lynchings I hear...
Click to expand...

Here ya' go. The first one up on Google. From dictionary.com:

1.
an organized body of people with a particular purpose, especially a business, society, association, etc.
"a research organization"
 
jimbo said:
Sure, it's a group of people getting together for a common cause.

You're not making any valid point.
Click to expand...

That might describe a mob out to do a lynching


It does not describe an organization.


An organization is by definition organized. A group of people getting together is not organized.


Go look up the word "Organized".
 
jimbo said:
Here ya' go. The first one up on Google. From dictionary.com:

1.
an organized body of people with a particular purpose, especially a business, society, association, etc.
"a research organization"
Click to expand...



Yes, operative word "Organized".


An army is organized
A corporation is organized
A police force is organized
A refuse collection agency is organized



Are group of guys showing up toting guns of all sizes are not organized.

They're a mob.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes, operative word "Organized".


An army is organized
A corporation is organized
A police force is organized
A refuse collection agency is organized



Are group of guys showing up toting guns of all sizes are not organized.

They're a mob.
Click to expand...

You got a link to that definition?
 
jimbo said:
That's the definition of a mob?
Click to expand...


Yes, i'd call that a "mob"



It's hardly "well regulated"



A bunch of guys showing up with guns is not a organized force, it's a mob.

That's how lynching happened...a bunch of guys with guns get together and do whatever they can get away with.



You appear to be OK with mob rule. I am not.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes, i'd call that a "mob"



It's hardly "well regulated"



A bunch of guys showing up with guns is not a organized force, it's a mob.

That's how lynching happened...a bunch of guys with guns get together and do whatever they can get away with.



You appear to be OK with mob rule. I am not.
Click to expand...

Ya' know, a definition is not about what you call something. That's an opinion. I haven't used the term mob in this thread, so none of what I said about mobs is relevant.
 
jimbo said:
Ya' know, a definition is not about what you call something. That's an opinion. I haven't used the term mob in this thread, so none of what I said about mobs is relevant.
Click to expand...

All the same a group of armed citizens gathering together to take direct action...(correct me if I got this wrong so far) is just a mob.

There's no regulation
There's no organization

What else would you call it but an armed mob ?

As in lynch mob

What is the difference ?
 
Rich2018 said:
All the same a group of armed citizens gathering together to take direct action...(correct me if I got this wrong so far) is just a mob.

There's no regulation
There's no organization

What else would you call it but an armed mob ?

As in lynch mob

What is the difference ?
Click to expand...

You got this wrong.

You stand corrected.
 
jimbo said:
You got this wrong.

You stand corrected.
Click to expand...


You said that the USA has a "well regulated" militia (without saying who was regulating it)

You said this militia was a fighting organization coming together for a common cause (no details on how this militia is organized)


Sorry but you can deny it all you want, but a group of armed citizens coming together is neither regulated or organized and is frankly just a mob.


Mob: A large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence


This is what citizens with guns coming together for a common cause looks like. I'd call it a mob, but of course you may have a different opinion:


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/us/white-nationalists-rally-charlottesville-virginia.html
 
Dittohead not! said:
The SCOTUS has already ruled on that issue. In Heller Vs. DC, the ruling was that an individual does have the right to have a gun.

more
Click to expand...

Too bad David Hogg isn't part of this thread, he might actually learn something.
 
UtahBill said:
Yeah, back then they were called massacres....usually with them pesky Indians being either the victims or the perps....
Click to expand...

At least they were armed.
 
American said:
...and properly equipped. An unarmed militia is worthless, and would not fulfill that obligation.
Click to expand...


I would say an armed militia is more dangerous and therefore worth even less.



The concept of a "militia" is an outdated relic from the 18th century. Just like a sheriff's posse or the Saxon Fyrd.
 
Rich2018 said:
Are you forgetting what you said what constitutes a "militia" ?

"...an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers..."
Click to expand...

Are you forgetting what the word "or" means?

How about we use the definition, as described by one of the first pieces of legislature passed by the new United States Congress?

Of course, I am talking about the Militia Act of 1792, which mandated that all Male citizens between the ages of 18 and 40 be members of the militia.

That was the definition that the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote that amendment, and that is the one that should be used. Anything else is simply being deceptive.

Rich2018 said:
That's very interesting

BUT does the Supreme Court's judgement mean a legal resident in the USA can own ANY kind of gun ?
Click to expand...

Of course not.

But cherry picking random options with in reality do absolutely nothing but alter the appearance of a gun is stupid in the extreme.

That is why I see the majority of those behind "assault weapon bans" as either liars, or mentally unstable.

Because I can guarantee that I could post 10 pictures of 10 different guns, and the vast majority would not have an idea what they are looking at. And the statements they make show complete and utter ignorance. Sorry, I want to see policy and law based on facts, not hysteria and fear mongering.

I would like anybody to tell me which of the following rifles is an "assault rifle"...

6.png


Now realize, all 3 are the exact same weapon. They fire the exact same round, the exact same range, and at the exact same rate of fire. And the top one is even legal to own in the state of California, which has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.

The only difference between the top one and the bottom two? Cosmetic changes, nothing else but cosmetic.

California recognizes the stock of the middle one as a "thumbhole stock", which by it's definition makes it an assault rifle. And for those that love judging things only upon looks, that is all that matters.
 
Last edited:
Oozlefinch said:
...the Militia Act of 1792, which mandated that all Male citizens between the ages of 18 and 40 be members of the militia.

That was the definition that the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote that amendment, and that is the one that should be used. Anything else is simply being deceptive....
Click to expand...

This is the problem with constitutions generally - they are products of their time. Like an old B&W movie they become terribly dated.

Back then the citizenry of a state could reasonable expect to own something similar to what regular soldiers carried. Not any longer.

Today's military would wipe the floor with the best that the USA could field in say the Second World War or the Korean war and maybe even the Vietnam War.

To organize a group of civilians into a fighting force you need a lot of training, a lot of spending, and an organization into which to assimilate them. I'm not sure but is the National Guard the direct descendant of the militia ?

Armed citizens getting together now are nothing more than an armed mob.


...of course not.

But cherry picking random options with in reality do absolutely nothing but alter the appearance of a gun is stupid in the extreme.

That is why I see the majority of those behind "assault weapon bans" as either liars, or mentally unstable.

Because I can guarantee that I could post 10 pictures of 10 different guns, and the vast majority would not have an idea what they are looking at....
Click to expand...

IIRC the SCotUSA are still to decide whether a sawn off shotgun is permitted under the 2nd amendment.



I would like anybody to tell me which of the following rifles is an "assault rifle"...

6.png


Now realize, all 3 are the exact same weapon. They fire the exact same round, the exact same range, and at the exact same rate of fire. And the top one is even legal to own in the state of California, which has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.

The only difference between the top one and the bottom two? Cosmetic changes, nothing else but cosmetic.

California recognizes the stock of the middle one as a "thumbhole stock", which by it's definition makes it an assault rifle. And for those that love judging things only upon looks, that is all that matters.
Click to expand...


Not sure from the pictures, but the bottom one looks to have a greater magazine capacity and also a detachable magazine. That would make it an "assault type weapon" when coupled with the pistol grip.

EDIT: I say "looks to have"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom