• 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!

Are firearms the problem? [W:874]

Re: Are firearms the problem?

Nope. Its right there on a piece of paper. I used some other paper this morning that had some stuff left on it also. But that was more real and more useful that that century old law which no longer has any real world meaning attached to it in real Americans lives.

Thank you for acknowledging that legally we are all members of the militia.

So why would you want to restrict the militia from owning the same sorts of firearms used by a police officer. Their respective jobs are similar, are they not?
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

Nope. Its right there on a piece of paper. I used some other paper this morning that had some stuff left on it also. But that was more real and more useful that that century old law which no longer has any real world meaning attached to it in real Americans lives.

As an aside, I find it interesting that you, a legislative aid, would compare the written law to toilet paper, especially when writing laws on paper is your profession.
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

Yeah. I read the decision. Which part of it exactly do you believe proves your point because I see NOTHING in there that speaks to the idea that you have a right to the same weapons police officers use as part of their job.

Do quote that for me.

SUMMARY OF D.C. V. HELLER
According to the Court, the ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Similarly, the requirement that any firearm in a home be disassembled or locked made “it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” These laws were unconstitutional “under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights.” But the Court did not cite a specific standard in making its determination, and it rejected the interest-balancing standard; proposed by Justice Breyer, and a “rational basis” standard.

The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas.

Interpretation of the Second Amendment. Scalia argues that the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment is supported by scholars, courts, and legislators. Also, none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's individual right interpretation. He rejects Stevens' notion that that Miller (United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)) held that the Second Amendment “protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the legislature's power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons” (Heller, at 2814). Miller “did not hold that and cannot possible be read to have held that. . . It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what is said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment” (Id., at 2814). Rather, the Miller holding is consistent with and “positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”) (Id., at 2814).

Limitations on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Second Amendment rights are not absolute, according to Scalia. Thus, the amendment does not grant the “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose” (Heller., at 2816). Among “presumptively lawful” regulatory measures are laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, (3) forbid the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or (2) impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. He adds that he could also find “support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons” (Id., at 2816, 2817). In a footnote, Scalia says the list of presumptively lawful measures “does not purport to be exhaustive.”

Standard of Determination

The Court did not identify the specific standard it used to make its individual-right determination. But it rejected the rational basis standard. And it rejected Breyer's interest-balancing approach, which asks whether a law “burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out or proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests” (Id., at 2852). According to Scalia, the Second Amendment is the “product of an interest-balancing by the people . . . and it elevates above all other interests the right of law–abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” (Heller at 2821). The enumeration of that right, Scalia reasons:


takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject of future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all (Id., at 2821).

While acknowledging the serious problem of handgun violence, Scalia asserts that the Second Amendment “necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” including an absolute ban on handguns in the home for self-defense (Id., at 2822).

Let me know if you need cliff notes to understand what this placed off the table when it comes to gun confiscation.
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

It has nothing to do with it as police are NOT using those weapons under their Second Amendment rights.

But by all means Turtle, feel free to do what some of your allies could not do and quote from the decision where it applies to police weaponry and sets up an equal standard for the the citizen.

that's as stupid as saying those in the organized militia.

feel free to quit switching standards in order to evade the intrinsic fail in your posts
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

By all means - lets see it...... and by that I mean MY EXACT WORDS.

Not you paraphrasing.
Not you telling me what you think I said.
Not you telling me what you think I meant.
Not some frankensteins monster version of what I said.

Give us my exact words.

Lets see them.

Fat chance that is going to happen. :roll:

The search function on this forum is not conducive to find something you posted in July two years ago

we all saw what you wrote
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

By all means - lets see it...... and by that I mean MY EXACT WORDS.

Not you paraphrasing.
Not you telling me what you think I said.
Not you telling me what you think I meant.
Not some frankensteins monster version of what I said.

Give us my exact words.

Lets see them.

Fat chance that is going to happen. :roll:

This is one of the most two faced things Ive ever seen after the amount of **** you gave me in this very thread about reproducing information from JUST this forum posted in the last few weeks, yet you want Turtle to reproduce something from a few years ago?

My god, how do you post with any credibility whatsoever? The level of hypocrisy is staggering.
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

It has NOTHING to do with the Consitution.

Why is that point escaping you?

Go ahead, show me where the idea comes from.
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

This is one of the most two faced things Ive ever seen after the amount of **** you gave me in this very thread about reproducing information from JUST this forum posted in the last few weeks, yet you want Turtle to reproduce something from a few years ago?

My god, how do you post with any credibility whatsoever? The level of hypocrisy is staggering.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Apparently neither do you as you are impotent to present anything other than your own claims and allegations supported by nothing in the way of verifiable evidence.
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

The search function on this forum is not conducive to find something you posted in July two years ago

we all saw what you wrote

Yeah - you got nothing. Just like I said.
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

that's as stupid as saying those in the organized militia.

feel free to quit switching standards in order to evade the intrinsic fail in your posts

Stupid?!?!?! If you and others claim certain facts are there, lets see them. Step up and show us where Court decisions set a precedent by quoting from the decision where it applies to police weaponry and sets up an equal standard for the the citizen.

Lets see it.
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

SUMMARY OF D.C. V. HELLER








Let me know if you need cliff notes to understand what this placed off the table when it comes to gun confiscation.

First, what you gave me was somebody's opinion on the case.

Second, there is nothing in there about citizens being able to have the same weapons as police use for their job. Nothing.

Why would you bring forth so called evidence if it does not speak to the issue we are discussing? That seems really dishonest.
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

Thank you for acknowledging that legally we are all members of the militia.

So why would you want to restrict the militia from owning the same sorts of firearms used by a police officer. Their respective jobs are similar, are they not?

No. That was not what I said. I stated that there is a century old law with those words on the paper. And i further stated that beyond that - the so called militia is a fiction in the real America we live in.
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

If we use the term "Common" the same way Haymarket uses "infringed" then; as long as one person carries a certain type of weapon it is common.

actually, I provided authoritative experts from the era to support my use of the word INFRINGED. You have given us nothing to support your strange interpretation of the word COMMON except a poor attempt at drive-by sarcasm.
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Apparently neither do you as you are impotent to present anything other than your own claims and allegations supported by nothing in the way of verifiable evidence.

For months your retort to everything was check my post history. You did it to everyone. Now when Turtle does it you go off. That is hypocrisy. Using bigger words doesnt make your arguments any more honest.
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

actually, I provided authoritative experts from the era to support my use of the word INFRINGED. You have given us nothing to support your strange interpretation of the word COMMON except a poor attempt at drive-by sarcasm.

I gave you plenty of support that your infringed comment was without legal foundation, quit being two faced.
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

For months your retort to everything was check my post history. You did it to everyone. Now when Turtle does it you go off. That is hypocrisy. Using bigger words doesnt make your arguments any more honest.

When a person tells me in their own words what they believe or they claim or they allege I said or what I believe, I do indeed challenge them to reproduce the words I said to back it up. That is right an proper in debate.

I am NOT telling you what you said. You are making a claim of fact and I am asking you to back it up.

Those are two very different things as one involves YOU backing up what YOU YOURSELF said while the other involves ME asking you or others to support claims that YOU or others made about MY OWN BELIEFS OR STATEMENTS.

I have never asked anybody to search for or prove any positions that I take for myself as a part of my own argument or case. If you make an argument or present a case and it is devoid of verifiable evidence, it is right and proper to ask for it.

Those are two very different things.
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

First, what you gave me was somebody's opinion on the case.

Second, there is nothing in there about citizens being able to have the same weapons as police use for their job. Nothing.

Why would you bring forth so called evidence if it does not speak to the issue we are discussing? That seems really dishonest.

I gave you the assenting opinion from the Supreme Court--in our society it has more bearing than the 1828 dictionary and Yahoo-Answers. Common use weapons are just that, weapons in common use. If a variety of police agencies are using them they are IN common use and barred from gun control.

The common use test applies directly if you can read it without an agenda. Apparently you cant.
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

I gave you plenty of support that your infringed comment was without legal foundation, quit being two faced.

A dictionary definition by its nature is different than a legal standard. One has nothing to do with the other. That was explained to you.

I made it very clear that I was using that definition to show what the word meant at the time of the era of its adoption.
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

When a person tells me in their own words what they believe or they claim or they allege I said or what I believe, I do indeed challenge them to reproduce the words I said to back it up. That is right an proper in debate.

I am NOT telling you what you said. You are making a claim of fact and I am asking you to back it up.

Those are two very different things as one involves YOU backing up what YOU YOURSELF said while the other involves ME asking you or others to support claims that YOU or others made about MY OWN BELIEFS OR STATEMENTS.

I have never asked anybody to search for or prove any positions that I take for myself as a part of my own argument or case. If you make an argument or present a case and it is devoid of verifiable evidence, it is right and proper to ask for it.

Those are two very different things.

Nah they arent. Its asking someone to reproduce what they said, re-introduce it into the conversation. Not wanting to or not being able to usually means parsing of words to avoid lying or being caught lying.
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

No. That was not what I said. I stated that there is a century old law with those words on the paper. And i further stated that beyond that - the so called militia is a fiction in the real America we live in.

Wait, so now you are denying that, by law, we are all members of the militia?

Which is it, does the law say that we are members of the militia or not?
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

A dictionary definition by its nature is different than a legal standard. One has nothing to do with the other. That was explained to you.

I made it very clear that I was using that definition to show what the word meant at the time of the era of its adoption.

Good to see you admit your bull**** has nothing to do with rights because those are legal matters. Ya know if you actually read the court case, you would see the assenting opinion digs into authors and writers of laws all through the 19th century and even dictionaries and they didnt agree with you. Funny how that works.
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

Stupid?!?!?! If you and others claim certain facts are there, lets see them. Step up and show us where Court decisions set a precedent by quoting from the decision where it applies to police weaponry and sets up an equal standard for the the citizen.

Lets see it.

You made the original claim that police should be given more weapons than ordinary citizens, the burden of proof is upon you.
 
Re: Are firearms the problem?

Nah they arent. Its asking someone to reproduce what they said, re-introduce it into the conversation. Not wanting to or not being able to usually means parsing of words to avoid lying or being caught lying.

They are different.

Person A tells person B that they support C and they believe D. It is right and proper for person B to demand that person A produce evidence that person B supports C and D.
That is what I have done. That is what I will continue to do.

In your case, you make claims of fact about certain things regrading police and weapons and the Second Amendment. You give us statements of what you claim are facts. It is then right and proper for anyone to challenge you to bring for the the verifiable evidence to support YOUR OWN CLAIMS.

In the first case, it is right and proper for me or anyone to do so.
In the second case, it is right and proper for me or anyone to do so.
 
Back
Top Bottom