• 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!

A proposed compromise on "assault weapons"

Would this compromise be acceptable?


  • Total voters
    75

If you think that a militia is not necessary to the security of a free state that's your choice. Apparently the founders felt differently, which is why they took steps to ensure that the people would always be adequately armed with militarily effective weapons.
 
Its funny that it is the pro second ammendment people that are the ones accused of overreacting.

There are hundreds of more likely ways to be killed in this country than from guns and yet liberals are focused like a laser on this one specific type. People get stabbed, people get beat with baseball bats, golf clubs, hammers, ice picks, brass knuckles, they get run over by cars, they get poisoned, choked, killed by home made explosives.....there are lots of ways someone can kill another person but this is their singular focus.

It's called and agenda and we see it for what it is. It is simply liberals trying not to "let a crisis go to waste".
 

It is not what I think that is important. Nor is it what you think that is important. Reality has spoken loud and clear on this issue. Your militia - the contriavance that you need to employ to justify these weapons - is a convenient fiction that exists only on paper. That reality trumps belief.
 

True enough. And it's ugly, ugly, ugly.
 

:doh


All of our rights exist on paper, Haymarket. That's why we have a written Constitution.
 

Snort. You do not make public policy for anything.
 

History according to Haymarket:

 

So do you therefore believe that the law should deny the people the possession of militarily effective firearms, such as are carried by the police and standing army?
 

A "compromise" on any right is a loss of that right, regardless of whether it's guns, speech, due process, search and seizure, etc. Not just no, but a very firm and uncompromising no.
 

Because the desires and motivations of government have changed very little over the centuries.
 
Just be happy that there are people who are willing to fight for what is yours by right, regardless of how much you value it.

No one should ever do anything mindlessly. There needs to be a rationale behind that right that applies.
 

I'm sorry CP, but people talk about those things all the time. And that's even when we account for how different those things are than guns. So, no, the side I see the most silliness from are the gun folks. This does not mean there isn't some silliness on the other side, but more a matter of degree. Go over your face book page sometime. See the nonsense being posted by gun folks. I can't find anything matching them.
 
:doh


All of our rights exist on paper, Haymarket. That's why we have a written Constitution.

You are confusing rights which are in a paper Constitution and also are evdient every day of our lives in real action with a fiction on paper that has not played a role in America in many generations.
 
Snort. You do not make public policy for anything.

You can snort all you want. It is part of my job to play in role in the making of public policy. That is what I do for a living.
 
So do you therefore believe that the law should deny the people the possession of militarily effective firearms, such as are carried by the police and standing army?

That is a policy question for the duly elected representatives of the people. There certainly is no Constitutional right to have equal weapons with police and soldiers in the army.
 
Because the desires and motivations of government have changed very little over the centuries.

That is outlined in the Preamble of our Constitution.
 
That is a policy question for the duly elected representatives of the people. There certainly is no Constitutional right to have equal weapons with police and soldiers in the army.

Why do you quote my question and then make a statement that has nothing to do with it?

Do YOU believe that the law should deny the people the possession of militarily effective firearms, such as are carried by the police and standing army?
 
Why do you quote my question and then make a statement that has nothing to do with it?

Do YOU believe that the law should deny the people the possession of militarily effective firearms, such as are carried by the police and standing army?

I answered your question. You did not like the answer. But it was answered.

I would be glad to give you my opinion of any prospective law if you would be good enough to provide me with the proposed bill.

I informed you long ago when you asked similar questions that my position was then and always has been that the devil is in the details and I insist upon reading those details before pontificating about if I support or do not support a particilar piece of legislation.
 
That is outlined in the Preamble of our Constitution.

No, the preamble lists the reasons why We the People created this specific Republic. I'm talking of the historical evolution of governments and how when left unchecked the tend towards tyranny. Government desires power and control, always has. Which is why you must be careful with them and also why revolution is a reserved right and duty of the People.
 


Here is your post

Because the desires and motivations of government have changed very little over the centuries.

Those desires and motivations are found in the Preamble of the US Constitution. That is exactly what it tells us - the motivation for writing the Constitution and the desires the Founders had for the nation in writing it.


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 

Those are the desires of We the People who created the Republic, not the desires of government. Clearly.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…