'Assault weapons' - How long before...

[ReverendHellh0und]

This thread is Ramborific.

Settle down, we can start a thread on mops, aprons, and the best baking pans if you prefer a more "bettycrokerific" thread.

 

[Goobieman]

This thread is Ramborific.

And your post is a waste of disk space.
Good to see you remain consistient.

 

[rsixing]

So, you would similarly agree and argue that the 1st amendment doesnt cover cable TV news networks, and that ther 4th amendment doesnt cover telephones or hard-disk drives -- because the founding fathers did not know about them and did for forsee their creation.
Right?

That's a good point but what is at issue is will Obama take away your assault weapons...I say no, or at least unlikely, given there are issues of far greater concern to Obama and his upcoming administration. But you and your ilk will ignore that reality because your goal is to foment fear in your base.

 

[Thorgasm]

Settle down, we can start a thread on mops, aprons, and the best baking pans if you prefer a more "bettycrokerific" thread.

And your post is a waste of disk space.
Good to see you remain consistient.

Hey, I liked Red Dawn too. :mrgreen:

 

[rsixing]

Yes. This was the entire point of our discussion. We're not talking about our current government, although it does display some totalitarian leanings, we were discussing the hypothetical situation in which our government had become tyrannical. Should this happen I would rather die than live under the yoke of its oppression. Wouldn't you?

Actually I would rather the poor dumb bastards die defending their tyranical gov't then me dying defending against it.

 

[Ethereal]

Actually I would rather the poor dumb bastards die defending their tyranical gov't then me dying defending against it.

This we can agree on.

 

[Goobieman]

Originally Posted by rsixing
Wow...are you saying our founding fathers knew about assault rifles, machine guns etc? Because, as you have claimed, for us to "spit in (their) face" by banning the ownership of these types of weapons that means they foresaw their creation and future ownership, specifically writing into the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment the right to own these types of weapons.

So, you would similarly agree and argue that the 1st amendment doesnt cover cable TV news networks, and that ther 4th amendment doesnt cover telephones or hard-disk drives -- because the founding fathers did not know about them and did for forsee their creation.
Right?

What? No response?
No surprise...

 

[LaMidRighter]

So in other words, you fantasize about murdering people with your guns even though you know full well it will accomplish nothing.

Murder would be the illegitimate killing of another human being, you need to use the correct legal definition, homicide. Homicide applies to any killing of another human being justified or not, AND, we have the constitutionally proscribed right to overthrow an oppressive government, which would REQUIRE homicide, considering they wouldn't just leave quietly. Be honest.

I find it somewhat scary that the people who are obsessed with the Second Amendment are the same people who I would least trust with a gun.

I trust people willing to use their guns to defend this countries principles much more than I trust many of our countrymen with other rights, such as free speech or the vote, but they are still entitled to those rights and I wouldn't DARE infringe them.

 

[LaMidRighter]

2. Unless you're claiming that the Second Amendment applies to roadside bombs, Iraq is a poor example of this because the US military certainly has NOT been defeated by guns. :roll:

Any chemistry teacher, producer, or enthusiast can create an improvised explosive with household chemicals, hell, most explosives are easy to create by someone not knowledgable in that, the 2nd doesn't apply to explosives and doesn't need to cause under the nightmare scenario they would exist anyway. Again, be honest.

 

[rsixing]

What? No response?
No surprise...

Um...d00d...I know you're bitter about the election but try to focus on this topic:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/39556-assault-weapons-how-long-before-2.html#post1057805747

 

[Goobieman]

Um...d00d...I know you're bitter about the election but try to focus on this topic:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/39556-assault-weapons-how-long-before-2.html#post1057805747

I was focusing on your argument regarding the topic, and your failure to address the question I put to you.

Would you or would you not similarly agree and argue that the 1st amendment doesnt cover cable TV news networks, and that ther 4th amendment doesnt cover telephones or hard-disk drives -- because the founding fathers did not know about them and did for forsee their creation?
Why?

 

[rsixing]

I was focusing on your argument regarding the topic, and your failure to address the question I put to you.

Would you or would you not similarly agree and argue that the 1st amendment doesnt cover cable TV news networks, and that ther 4th amendment doesnt cover telephones or hard-disk drives -- because the founding fathers did not know about them and did for forsee their creation?
Why?

Then you were just being disingenuous by trying to make it look like I hadn't responded at all. I see...

I think when a question of freedom of speech, freedom of press, illegal search and seizure, etc. come up it requires interpreting the Amendments they fall under. Not unlike your examples of cable TV news networks, or even cable companies themselves and their rights to put whatever they wish over cable. Telephones and hard-drives and whether the gov't has a "right" to capture information off of these devices without a properly served search warrant (which I don't think they do, it's an egregious violation of our 4th Amendment rights when they do and they have under Bush). Equally so does assault weapons and the 2nd Amendment.

IMO it comes down to a Constitutional Convention to interpret and define whether the 2nd Amendment includes assault weapons, or whatever types of weapons it's determined citizens should be allowed to possess to protect against confrontation and whether the 14th Amendment should be considered when defining the 2nd.

With that said do you believe the founding fathers intended for "all" types of weapons (i.e. assault rifles, automatic weaponry, et al) to be covered under the 2nd Amendment? And back to the topic, are you "afraid" that Obama is going to take away your assault rifles and is this "feeling" based on unreasonable fear of Obama himself and motivated by right-wing fear mongering?

 

[Ikari]

With that said do you believe the founding fathers intended for "all" types of weapons (i.e. assault rifles, automatic weaponry, et al) to be covered under the 2nd Amendment?

I believe the founding fathers wished to allow people access to all that we allow the government access to. While the mere price of things would make that impossible today, I think many of the banned weapons (especially fully automatic and military weapons) should be allowed to the People. A well regulated militia is a necessity to the continued freedom and liberty of a State. Without such thing, the State would quickly steal the rights and liberties of the People.

 

[rsixing]

I believe the founding fathers wished to allow people access to all that we allow the government access to. While the mere price of things would make that impossible today, I think many of the banned weapons (especially fully automatic and military weapons) should be allowed to the People. A well regulated militia is a necessity to the continued freedom and liberty of a State. Without such thing, the State would quickly steal the rights and liberties of the People.

I'm not certain how I feel. What I do know, though, is to clear up this issue a Constitutional Convention needs to be convened and the disparity between our 18th century Constitution and 21st century weaponry needs to be addressed.

 

[Goobieman]

I think when a question of freedom of speech, freedom of press, illegal search and seizure, etc. come up it requires interpreting the Amendments they fall under. Not unlike your examples of cable TV news networks, or even cable companies themselves and their rights to put whatever they wish over cable. Telephones and hard-drives and whether the gov't has a "right" to capture information off of these devices without a properly served search warrant (which I don't think they do, it's an egregious violation of our 4th Amendment rights when they do and they have under Bush). Equally so does assault weapons and the 2nd Amendment.

Yes.... but YOU put forth the technology argument, in that the 2nd amendment only applies to weapons in use at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

Given that, do you or do you not apply that same agrgument to the examples I gave? Why?

IMO it comes down to a Constitutional Convention to interpret and define whether the 2nd Amendment includes assault weapons, or whatever types of weapons it's determined citizens should be allowed to possess to protect against confrontation and whether the 14th Amendment should be considered when defining the 2nd.

The SCotUS cannot do this, because...?

With that said do you believe the founding fathers intended for "all" types of weapons (i.e. assault rifles, automatic weaponry, et al) to be covered under the 2nd Amendment?

They intedned the 2nd to protect the people right to keep and bear weapons that would be useful for service in the militia, necessitating that the weapons were the same as, similar to, or analogous to those in current service, 'in common use' in the standing army. Today, that would include any firearm you care to mention.

And back to the topic, are you "afraid" that Obama is going to take away your ['assault weapons']* and is this "feeling" based on unreasonable fear of Obama himself and motivated by right-wing fear mongering?

*your post edited for accuracy
Obama supports a ban on 'assault weapons', as do the Dems in Congress.
Thus, there's no "fear" involved.

 

[rsixing]

Yes.... but YOU put forth the technology argument, in that the 2nd amendment only applies to weapons in use at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

Given that, do you or do you not apply that same agrgument to the examples I gave? Why?

Perhaps it's the issue of potential "abuse". I have a difficult time comparing "abuse" of the 1st Amendment or the 4th with the 2nd. Yes, words can hurt, yes our privacy can be violated, and determining this potentiality seems less complicated. So IMO it seems rather frivolous, even illogical to try and compare the mindset of our founding fathers, the 2nd Amendment with todays reality. It's a much different world, wouldn't you agree?

The SCotUS cannot do this, because...?

I'm not saying they can't interpret the Constitution. Obviously they do given Roe V. Wade, etc. However, a Constitutional Convention would erase any doubt of what exactly the 2nd Amendment meant. Good or bad. Your way or not.

They intedned the 2nd to protect the people right to keep and bear weapons that would be useful for service in the militia, necessitating that the weapons were the same as, similar to, or analogous to those in current service, 'in common use' in the standing army. Today, that would include any firearm you care to mention.

Your argument's fine but it still doesn't address the fact that the only permanent way to codify whether we should be allowed to own "every" weapon the military has is to have the Amendment speak specifically on this point. Else, like here and now, it's two sides of the argument arguing their position from a point of interpretive conjecture what the founding fathers meant.

*your post edited for accuracy
Obama supports a ban on 'assault weapons', as do the Dems in Congress.
Thus, there's no "fear" involved.

You should never edit the words of another writer. That is very egregious and borders on fascism. You either address what I have written, in the context it is written, with the words I have written or ignore my points acquiescing to my position by silence but don't change my words.

With that said...Bull****. At least have the integrity, the courage, to admit your position is based on fear. I've read it in the papers. I've heard it from my friends. I've read it on this board. I've read it in your writings.

You are "afraid" that Obama is going to take your assault weapons. Nothing more, nothing less, and you are basing all your arguments on this fear. But not only that you are also further fomenting fear among your right-wing base by trying to declare your "right to bear arms" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as correct. That is not proved as the 2nd Amendment has not been interpreted to support either position explicitly.

 

[Goobieman]

Perhaps it's the issue of potential "abuse". I have a difficult time comparing "abuse" of the 1st Amendment or the 4th with the 2nd.

Rights are rights, and arguments towards one apply to them all.

I'm not saying they can't interpret the Constitution. Obviously they do given Roe V. Wade, etc. However, a Constitutional Convention would erase any doubt of what exactly the 2nd Amendment meant. Good or bad. Your way or not.

Unnecessary.

Your argument's fine but it still doesn't address the fact that the only permanent way to codify whether we should be allowed to own "every" weapon the military has is to have the Amendment speak specifically on this point.

Who made that argument?
The question is the definition of 'arms'. That has been taken care of by the SCotuUS.

You should never edit the words of another writer. That is very egregious and borders on fascism. You either address what I have written, in the context it is written, with the words I have written or ignore my points acquiescing to my position by silence but don't change my words.

LOL
OK then....
Your question is meaningless, as there has been no dicussion from anyone regarding assault rifles.

With that said...Bull****. At least have the integrity, the courage, to admit your position is based on fear.

I have no fear whatseoever regarding the Obama administration taking away assault rifles.

I've read it in the papers. I've heard it from my friends. I've read it on this board. I've read it in your writings

Please, cite any of my posts that describe my fear of an Obama administration taking away assault rifles.

You are "afraid" that Obama is going to take your assault weapons.

Wait... are you talking about assault rifles, or 'assault weapons'?

But not only that you are also further fomenting fear among your right-wing base by trying to declare your "right to bear arms" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as correct.

According to the SCotUS, it is correct.

That is not proved as the 2nd Amendment has not been interpreted to support either position explicitly.

Sure it has. US v Miller, Heller v DC.

 

[Kandahar]

Any chemistry teacher, producer, or enthusiast can create an improvised explosive with household chemicals, hell, most explosives are easy to create by someone not knowledgable in that, the 2nd doesn't apply to explosives and doesn't need to cause under the nightmare scenario they would exist anyway. Again, be honest.

The point is that the US military has certainly NOT been defeated in Iraq by guns. Be honest.

 

[LaMidRighter]

The point is that the US military has certainly NOT been defeated in Iraq by guns. Be honest.

1) This is what I was addressing from your argument:

Are you suggesting that the Second Amendment applies to roadside bombs? Or are you suggesting that the US military would operate the same way under a tyrannical regime as it does now?

not this:

Are you suggesting that the Second Amendment applies to roadside bombs? Or are you suggesting that the US military would operate the same way under a tyrannical regime as it does now?

2) I gave you an honest answer to what I addressed. Once a U.S. government decides to become tyranical and ignores constitutional principles, then the constitution would be irrelevant anyway, so explosives, which fall under ordinance rules, and would be illegal anyway, would still exist AND the point was that many americans can make those easily.

And no, honestly, the Iraqis aren't beating us with bombs and small arms, nor are most of them trying, however insurgents AND terrorists HAVE done some chaotic damage to both our military and innocent civilians with I.E.D's, military type weaponry, and other means.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Perhaps it's the issue of potential "abuse". I have a difficult time comparing "abuse" of the 1st Amendment or the 4th with the 2nd. Yes, words can hurt, yes our privacy can be violated, and determining this potentiality seems less complicated. So IMO it seems rather frivolous, even illogical to try and compare the mindset of our founding fathers, the 2nd Amendment with todays reality. It's a much different world, wouldn't you agree?

Words can more than hurt, words can destroy, ruin, and kill. If you incite a riot, you will be criminally and civilly liable, same as for slander, libel, etc. One perfectly timed lie about someone can completely ruin their lives via damage to good reputation, financial ruin, cripling emotional damage, etc. , yet no one has suggested having a government appointed censor be supplied, or have a registered speech license, or a speech tax be applied to those who exercise that right, nor should it be. A riot that gets out of control can cause more damage to civilian property, health, and even take more lives than any unchecked nutcase with a military weapon ever could, yet we don't consider speech dangerous, same with a violent repeat offender who disappears after getting out of punishment on a technicality, yet those rights are there for a reason, and much less checked than the second. In fact, those rights could vanish easily AND quickly without the second to back them up.

I'm not saying they can't interpret the Constitution. Obviously they do given Roe V. Wade, etc. However, a Constitutional Convention would erase any doubt of what exactly the 2nd Amendment meant. Good or bad. Your way or not.

What would be the point, since the court could pick that apart eventually again anyway? The principles set fourth in the original conventions easily apply today, why give corrupt politicians the opportunity to screw them up?

Your argument's fine but it still doesn't address the fact that the only permanent way to codify whether we should be allowed to own "every" weapon the military has is to have the Amendment speak specifically on this point.

It does. Next.

Else, like here and now, it's two sides of the argument arguing their position from a point of interpretive conjecture what the founding fathers meant.

Incorrect, historical writings have shown the practice and extent of the amendment, it is the side that wants to limit the right that has convoluted the meaning and extent.

 

[rsixing]

Rights are rights, and arguments towards one apply to them all.

If your claim were true or even logical each Amendment wouldn't have been written as separate from each other. Ergo your claim is spurious.

Unnecessary.

And the SCotUS can overturn Roe V. Wade. With that said if an upcoming SCotUS determines that the 2nd Amendment doesn't address ownership of certain assault weapons (definition to remain undetermined at this time) and allows their banning will you be satisfied with that?

Who made that argument?
The question is the definition of 'arms'. That has been taken care of by the SCotuUS.

Proof.

LOL
OK then....
Your question is meaningless, as there has been no dicussion from anyone regarding assault rifles.

Okay. I have used the words interchangeably. I will be more careful to not allow such a minimal nuance to affect your position.

I have no fear whatseoever regarding the Obama administration taking away assault rifles.

Then why are you in this debate?

Please, cite any of my posts that describe my fear of an Obama administration taking away assault rifles.

Wait... are you talking about assault rifles, or 'assault weapons'?

Isn't 'assault weapons' inclusive of 'assault rifles'?

According to the SCotUS, it is correct.

Sure it has. US v Miller, Heller v DC.

Neither is a full-scope interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Harshaw]

A Constitutional right is a Constitutional right. They will necessarily have different sets of facts, due to their natures, but the standards of protection are the same for all. The rights in the Bill of Rights are "fundamental rights," and as such, laws restricting them receive strict scrutiny. It does not matter that they're written into individual amendments.

Which is why so many want to claim the 2A means something it does not, i.e., that it's a right which belongs to states and not individuals.

 

[First Thought]

Who is gonna go collect all these guns off people?

That's not how it works. If you bought the weapon before the ban came into effect, you can legally own it.

 

[Goobieman]

If your claim were true or even logical each Amendment wouldn't have been written as separate from each other. Ergo your claim is spurious.

Not at all so. Each right enumerated right covers seperate topics -- but rights are rights, and whatever argument you want to apply to one must then also be applied to the others.

And the SCotUS can overturn Roe V. Wade.

So...?

Proof.

US v Miller, 1939.
To be protected by the 2nd amendment, a given weapon must be part of the ordinary military equipment that is in common use at the time.

Okay. I have used the words interchangeably. I will be more careful to not allow such a minimal nuance to affect your position.

Minimal nuance? In using the term 'assault rifle', and in your insistance that I address yoru statement as written, you might as well have been using the term 'spoon'.

I expect an apology for your reaction to me correctly correcting you.

Then why are you in this debate?

The discussion centers around 'assault weapons' not assault rifles.
Aske me a question relevant to the discussion.

Isn't 'assault weapons' inclusive of 'assault rifles'?

Um...no.
If you dont know what the terms mean, you should not be having the conversation.

Neither is a full-scope interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Both address who has the right and what weapns are covered.
Together, that's more than good enough for this discussion.

 

[rsixing]

Not at all so. Each right enumerated right covers seperate topics -- but rights are rights, and whatever argument you want to apply to one must then also be applied to the others.

No. You made it clear, "Each...enumerated right covers (separate) topics...". Enough said.

So...?

Come on. Follow the line of thought. If Roe V. Wade can be overturned so can any SCotUT recent interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. Ergo, Constitutional Convention.

US v Miller, 1939.
To be protected by the 2nd amendment, a given weapon must be part of the ordinary military equipment that is in common use at the time.

So why then aren't automatic weapons included? Grenade launchers? Heavy portable machine guns? No. I'm afraid your response doesn't indicate the interpretations have determined exactly what weapons are guaranteed.

Minimal nuance? In using the term 'assault rifle', and in your insistance that I address yoru statement as written, you might as well have been using the term 'spoon'.

I expect an apology for your reaction to me correctly correcting you.

*cricket....cricket....cricket*

The discussion centers around 'assault weapons' not assault rifles.
Aske me a question relevant to the discussion.

Okay then show me how assault rifles aren't considered assault weapons and I will concede your point.

Um...no.
If you dont know what the terms mean, you should not be having the conversation.

Again, show me that assault rifles aren't assault weapons and I'll bow out of this debate. Until then suffer my presence.

Both address who has the right and what weapns are covered.
Together, that's more than good enough for this discussion.

No. The SCotUS has not fully interpreted the 2nd Amendment. But let's say for discussion sake you're correct and the "weapons" in question have been discussed. The SCotUS can reverse it's decision. You know that right? And the recent DC decision was a marginal 5 to 4 vote so a soon coming change may indeed do so.