• 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!

Biden calls for ban on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines

The 2A was written in the late 18th century by people whose view of guns was the muskets kept by militia members behind there doors for quick response if they were called up. Hence the 2A wording about militias. Now that we have local, state & Federal authorities, the 2A is obsolete except to gun fanatics.
When the amendment was written, they also had rifles not just muskets, as well as air guns with the same power as muskets but could fire numerous times before recharging the air chamber, there were also repeaters like the lorenzoni repeater with dual 7 round magazines, meaning they could fire 14 times without reloading just by moving a lever similar to modern lever actions.

There was also semi automatic guns back then that used multiple lockes and held between 3-8 shots actuated by a pulling the trigger over and over, and was accomplished by stacking multiple loads down a single barrel and having multiple locks to set off the last load first then keep it going in series.

There was also the fully automatic belton rifle, demonstrated before congress before the bill of rights was written, it could fire 8 shots in less than a second, and between beltons semi and fully auto rifles congress approved the musket conversion, but later dropped them deeming them too expensive, belton later petitioned the british govt and was rejected, likely for the same reason.

There were also revolvers before the 13 colonies existed, and before the constitution there was the puckle gun, which later became an inspiration for colt.


So there are plenty of examples of things besides muskets existing and being well known or in beltons case directly shown to congress, so the claim they only knew muskets is not only a complete lie but blatent ignorance of history and an epic failure for you to even research the most basic knowledge of what you are debating. This is why most anti gun debaters are ignored, they ignore all facts and assume emotion makes them correct over any logic or fact, ya'll can't even get definitions right, or words, or facts.

Arguing the way you are now is like a kindergartener arguing with a banker because the kindergartener feels like atms should give free money and his opinion should over rule fact, but with the case with most anti gunners it is adults making such pathetic debates assuming their opinion and emotion with somehow over ride all logic and fact which it does not.
 
Between 1 & 2 you are talking apples & oranges. The 2A is very clear as to what the framers' original intent was & it wasn't shooting up gay night clubs or elementary schools with assault weapons designed for use only on a battlefield. It was the muskets behind the doors of a 'well-regulated militia.' That's it. Anyone who says it is valid for anything today is not reading it right.
No. Anyone who says something as spectacularly wrong as this hasn't read Heller at all.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. DC v Heller, page 8

Your argument borders on the frivolous all right. On the far side of the border. You might want to actually read Heller before you spout any more nonsense about it.
 

President Biden on Thursday called for Congress to pass an assault weapon ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines in outlining his requests for Congress on gun control policy.

“There’s no reason someone needs a weapon of war with 100 rounds, 100 bullets, that can be fired from that weapon. Nobody needs that, nobody needs that,” Biden said in the Rose Garden.

He mentioned that Congress passed a 10-year ban on assault weapons in 1994 under President Clinton, when Biden served in the Senate. It expired in 2004.
==================================================================
Assault weapons & high capacity magazines are not intended for game hunting or target shooting. They are designed for killing or gravely injuring men. You have to wonder at the thought processes of the thousands of men who line up to buy these in gun stores across the country.

Good. Doubt it will happen though.
 
No. Anyone who says something as spectacularly wrong as this hasn't read Heller at all.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. DC v Heller, page 8

Your argument borders on the frivolous all right. On the far side of the border. You might want to actually read Heller before you spout any more nonsense about it.
Here is how many gun banners operate.

1) they see the gun issue as a right cherished by people they despise politically

2) so they attack gun rights in an attempt to attack their political enemies. but they realize they have to create a facade to cover their true motivations. So they pretend that gun bans are going to make us safer and that the second amendment actually allows gun bans

3) when they get called on their bullshit (which is common since their facades are based on ignorance) they get upset and claim that gun owners are nuts or "fetishists" or worse
 
My point was that simply because lawmakers (and you in your previous post) refer to AR’s as “assault” weapons doesn’t make them such.
Your logic is confusing. Assault weapon doesn’t have any meaning besides the legal definitions. So ARs, AKs, and other weapons that match the definition are, by definition, assault weapons. Just like, by definition, Mellivora capensis is a honey badger even though it is not a badger nor made of honey. Is it an inaccurate name? Yes. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a honey badger.
 
Good. Doubt it will happen though.
what is a high capacity magazine? Senile Joe thinks it is slightly more than half the capacity of many normal handguns
 
40 million guns purchased legally in 2020. 39,427 gun-related injuries or deaths including self-inflicted. Do you want to do the math, or shall I?


Approx 10,000 gun related homicides

400+ mass shootings.
 
Approx 10,000 gun related homicides

400+ mass shootings.
the vast majority of illegal gun homicides are committed by people who already are banned from owning guns
 
Gun owners and slave owners both hate abolitionists in Congress.
you're lying about gun owners. there were plenty of gun owners who opposed slavery. Like the volunteers from NY, PA and Ohio who were a backbone of the union army
 
Rate of fire for every semi-automatic fire arm is exactly the same. 1 fire per trigger pull.

Ignorance on guns seems to be ubiquitous among the banners.
that is because they come by their positions based on politics, rather than actually studying the issues
 
No, the correct description is 'commonly used.' That mass shooter in that gay night club in FL had an AR-15. The crazy kid who killed all t hose kids in that school in CT had an AR-15 - that his murdered mother had bought from. In German the expression is 'genug ist genug' or in English as its spoken in this country, 'enough is enough.'
Banning ownership of a specific rifle will do nothing.
I've read that in 18th century legal jargon, the primary argument in the amendments comes first: A well regulated militia. That's all it's about.
no it isn't it's about the right of the people to keep and bear arms but specifically says the right of the people not the militia.
2A: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of whom? Are the people only people if they're in the militia
 
that is because they come by their positions based on politics, rather than actually studying the issues
I don't think they even really have positions I think they hate you and me and that defines their position anything you think is good is really bad because you think it, not based on what it is.

This is some extreme devolution happening in our society.
 
Banning ownership of a specific rifle will do nothing.
no it isn't it's about the right of the people to keep and bear arms but specifically says the right of the people not the militia.
The right of whom? Are the people only people if they're in the militia

The 2A was written only to address the arms held by state militias. Nothing else.
 
When the amendment was written, they also had rifles not just muskets, as well as air guns with the same power as muskets but could fire numerous times before recharging the air chamber, there were also repeaters like the lorenzoni repeater with dual 7 round magazines, meaning they could fire 14 times without reloading just by moving a lever similar to modern lever actions.

There was also semi automatic guns back then that used multiple lockes and held between 3-8 shots actuated by a pulling the trigger over and over, and was accomplished by stacking multiple loads down a single barrel and having multiple locks to set off the last load first then keep it going in series.

There was also the fully automatic belton rifle, demonstrated before congress before the bill of rights was written, it could fire 8 shots in less than a second, and between beltons semi and fully auto rifles congress approved the musket conversion, but later dropped them deeming them too expensive, belton later petitioned the british govt and was rejected, likely for the same reason.

There were also revolvers before the 13 colonies existed, and before the constitution there was the puckle gun, which later became an inspiration for colt.


So there are plenty of examples of things besides muskets existing and being well known or in beltons case directly shown to congress, so the claim they only knew muskets is not only a complete lie but blatent ignorance of history and an epic failure for you to even research the most basic knowledge of what you are debating. This is why most anti gun debaters are ignored, they ignore all facts and assume emotion makes them correct over any logic or fact, ya'll can't even get definitions right, or words, or facts.

Arguing the way you are now is like a kindergartener arguing with a banker because the kindergartener feels like atms should give free money and his opinion should over rule fact, but with the case with most anti gunners it is adults making such pathetic debates assuming their opinion and emotion with somehow over ride all logic and fact which it does not.
Everyone seems to forget at the time the amendment was written muskets and muzzle loading rifles were assault weapons so it was for assault weapons.

I wonder why people picking shoes what amendments have expiration dates and which ones don't.
 
I don't think they even really have positions I think they hate you and me and that defines their position anything you think is good is really bad because you think it, not based on what it is.

This is some extreme devolution happening in our society.

Do you really think people outside of TX hate those who live there? We did let you into the Union.
 
Everyone seems to forget at the time the amendment was written muskets and muzzle loading rifles were assault weapons so it was for assault weapons.

There were no assault weapons around in the 18th C. Assault weapon is a much more recent & modern definition.
 
The 2A was written only to address the arms held by state militias. Nothing else.
Then why did they specifically write that the right of the people (not the miltia) to keep and bear arms?

The only mention of a miltia in the second amendment was that it's necessary for the freedom of the state. It said nothing about arms held by them.

You are lying.
 
Do you really think people outside of TX hate those who live there? We did let you into the Union.
No people who want to ban guns are either profoundly ignorant or profoundly dishonest. Mostly driven by their hatred of the other party.

Your crap about Texas joining the union is the farthest from relevant possible.
 
There were no assault weapons around in the 18th C. Assault weapon is a much more recent & modern definition.
Yes there were muskets and muzzleloaders were assault weapons in those days.

The modern definition is meaningless. It applies to no single gun in existence.

Get some knowledge.
 
Rate of fire for every semi-automatic fire arm is exactly the same. 1 fire per trigger pull.

Ignorance on guns seems to be ubiquitous among the banners.
Bump stocks make the recoil pull the trigger and the firing rate of 7 rounds/sec. is similar to full auto. No one can deny that.
 
The 2A was written only to address the arms held by state militias. Nothing else.

People came to muster with arms, they left with arms. They were armed before and after muster. So their weapons were their own and NOT those of the militia. Your entire argument is devoid of logic. The militias of the founders time were dependent upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The people were not meant to be dependent upon the militia to remain armed.

Mason, Washington, Jefferson, and others agreed that an armed populace was an assurance to liberty. They also did not believe the government should have the power to remove the right but that it existed to ensure the right or it wasn't a legitimate government, it was a tyranny. Consent of the governed was always meant to work to the advantage of the populace, not the government.
 
Bump stocks make the recoil pull the trigger and the fire rate is similar to full auto. No one can deny that.
Not it doesn't the rate of fire for every semi-automatic firearm ever to exist is exactly the same.

I can deny your ignorant clap trap because it's false. You don't know the first thing about this.

You can isn't whatever nonsense you choose to believe cannot be denied. That doesn't make it so. Sorry you want to believe the world to be flat it simply isn't.
 
Bump stocks make the recoil pull the trigger and the firing rate of 7 rounds/sec. is similar to full auto. No one can deny that.
The same thing can be done without a bump stock. Why are you so worried about them? They're illegal now, despite they weren't even a problem warranting a ban.
 
Back
Top Bottom