• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

At the time the 2cd Amendment was written

zsu2357 said:
However it is in the Declaration of Independence. Except of... "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."- What is life without self defense.
Click to expand...
The DOI holds no force of law in the US
 
vegas giants said:
So then you are fine with all current gun control in each of the states.
Click to expand...
Sure, as long as the conform with Heller and McDonald, as the law requires. Sadly, some of them still don't, in the biggest defiance of the rule of law since George Wallace defied Brown v Board of Education.
 
Questerr said:
Self defense does not require military weapons.
Click to expand...
depends who you are fighting, and the stuff the democrats want to ban are not military weapons.
 
Bullseye said:
It may not require them but they sure makes it easier.
Click to expand...
Gun banners never really can define military weapons. A Colt 45 ACP 1911 handgun was a military weapon. A 26 shot CZ Czechmate race gun is not. An MI Carbine is a military weapon, a Daniels Defense AR 15 is not.
 
TurtleDude said:
depends who you are fighting, and the stuff the democrats want to ban are not military weapons.
Click to expand...

I’m not “the Democrats”. If you are saying you are going to be fighting the military and this need military weapons, what are the limits?

Should individuals be able to own guided anti-tank missiles or SAM’s?
 
swing_voter said:
Everyone had a muzzle loading musket. An expert infantry man could fire 4 balls in a minute, if it was smooth bore. The accuracy sucked. A shot every 15 seconds sounds kind of high, but that's what the internet says.


At the shootings in Vegas where 50+ victims were shot dead and at Orlando, in that gay bar, where 50+ victims were shot dead, how different would be the outcome if the shooters were using muzzleloaders?
Click to expand...
How different do you think freedom of the press would have been if there were cellphones during the founding?

The advent of technology shouldn't effect the rights of people. Mass murder didn't start with the advent of a repeating rifle.
 
Questerr said:
I’m not “the Democrats”. If you are saying you are going to be fighting the military and this need military weapons, what are the limits?

Should individuals be able to own guided anti-tank missiles or SAM’s?
Click to expand...

no, that should be supplied by the community if the militia is mobilized. Arms mean individual arms that are discriminatory and useful for self defense.

You don't have any standards as to what weapons are allowed-you merely want the "community" to be able to ban what it wants to ban. I support the following

1) if it is issued to civilian police-it and similar firearms should be readily available to private citizens

2) the standard individual weapon of the infantry should be readily available.

3) all firearms that are designed for an individual use, are protected
 
Bullseye said:
Probably not.
Click to expand...
agreed, that is akin to artillery or ordnance and is not sufficiently discriminating for use in a civilian environment. I am not familiar with civilian police departments being issued RPGs either and they are issued at a squad level in the military
 
TurtleDude said:
no, that should be supplied by the community if the militia is mobilized. Arms mean individual arms that are discriminatory and useful for self defense.

You don't have any standards as to what weapons are allowed-you merely want the "community" to be able to ban what it wants to ban. I support the following

1) if it is issued to civilian police-it and similar firearms should be readily available to private citizens

2) the standard individual weapon of the infantry should be readily available.

3) all firearms that are designed for an individual use, are protected
Click to expand...

Why shouldn’t assault rifles and the like be locked up in the same place heavier weapons? Why should standard individual weapons be readily available but not the defense against aircraft?

Aircraft can show up a lot more suddenly than infantry can.
 
Questerr said:
Why shouldn’t assault rifles and the like be locked up in the same place heavier weapons? Why should standard individual weapons be readily available but not the defense against aircraft?

Aircraft can show up a lot more suddenly than infantry can.
Click to expand...
That is the province of our national defense forces. Lets get real. Do you even know what an assault rifle is?
 
TurtleDude said:
That is the province of our national defense forces. Lets get real. Do you even know what an assault rifle is?
Click to expand...

Yes: an intermediate caliber, magazine-fed rifle, usually, but not always, with select fire capability. For all practical purposes, there’s no real difference between a civilian AR-15 and a military M-4/M-16 (especially since burst fire basically never gets used).

Why not have any threat you would need a civilian owned assault rifle for also be the province of national defense forces?
 
Questerr said:
Yes: an intermediate caliber, magazine-fed rifle, usually, but not always, with select fire capability. For all practical purposes, there’s no real difference between a civilian AR-15 and a military M-4/M-16 (especially since burst fire basically never gets used).

Why not have any threat you would need a civilian owned assault rifle for also be the province of national defense forces?
Click to expand...
why do civilian police have fully automatic weapons. You do know that real assault rifles were banned from future sales for no reason whatsoever-no one has ever been murdered in the USA by a legally owned assault rifle
 
TurtleDude said:
why do civilian police have fully automatic weapons. You do know that real assault rifles were banned from future sales for no reason whatsoever-no one has ever been murdered in the USA by a legally owned assault rifle
Click to expand...

Not all civilian police do have fully automatic weapons. The most popular versions of the AR-15 in police service (the Colt Police Carbine, for instance) are semi-auto only. But more to the point, they shouldn’t have them either.

The militarization of the police is a direct outgrowth of the failed war on drugs.

Also, once again: assault rifles do not have to have full auto capability to be assault rifles.
 
Questerr said:
Not all civilian police do have fully automatic weapons. The most popular versions of the AR-15 in police service (the Colt Police Carbine, for instance) are semi-auto only. But more to the point, they shouldn’t have them either.

The militarization of the police is a direct outgrowth of the failed war on drugs.

Also, once again: assault rifles do not have to have full auto capability to be assault rifles.
Click to expand...
you can make up your own definitions. Those of us who actually understand the issue can laugh at your attempts to use a term improperly.
 
TurtleDude said:
you can make up your own definitions. Those of us who actually understand the issue can laugh at your attempts to use a term improperly.
Click to expand...

So to be clear, you are claiming all assault rifles have full auto capability? And therefore, all one would have to do is show a military issue assault rifle that is semi-auto only to prove you wrong, yes?
 
Questerr said:
So to be clear, you are claiming all assault rifles have full auto capability? And therefore, all one would have to do is show a military issue assault rifle that is semi-auto only to prove you wrong, yes?
Click to expand...
by definition, an assault rifle has selective fire capability. Under the US Code that means either full automatic or burst fire capability. You need a Class III tax stamp and you cannot own an assault rifle made after May 19, 1986
 
TurtleDude said:
by definition, an assault rifle has selective fire capability. Under the US Code that means either full automatic or burst fire capability. You need a Class III tax stamp and you cannot own an assault rifle made after May 19, 1986
Click to expand...

So the ATF’s definitions are what we’re talking about now? Would you like to see what they define as a “pistol” and then an example of what they define as a “short barreled rifle”?
 
Questerr said:
Why not? My right to self defense is infringed with a rocket launcher.
Click to expand...
Storing incendiary devices such as ammo for an RPG presents a danger just by it's presence. Meaning without aiming Without your interaction at all it could infringed on other people's rights.

You can get licensure to handle explosives but this is to make sure you are competent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom