• 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!

Create your list of which weapons should be banned and which should be allowed


Oh yes. That is certainly true. But it doesn't mean that we should allow government to break the Constitution.
 
joG said:
Oh yes. That is certainly true. But it doesn't mean that we should allow government to break the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Agreed, they've done enough of that already. I would say in that case the states should reserve the right of ordnance licensure.
 
Andalublue said:
And also provide security and protection to its citizens. Your government seems to be extremely half-hearted in that commitment.
Click to expand...

Really? I would say that they're actually rather overzealous in that regard. Security is a responsibility of the State, but it is secondary to liberty. Protection is, and can only ever be, an individual responsibility; no State on Earth can field enough police to actually protect its citizens.
 
Andalublue said:
And also provide security and protection to its citizens. Your government seems to be extremely half-hearted in that commitment.
Click to expand...

Freedom and Liberty is primary, Security is secondary.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Freedom and Liberty is primary, Security is secondary.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll put that down to culture clash. Liberty's high on the agenda but at best it shares top priority with security, equality, solidarity and peace.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Really? I would say that they're actually rather overzealous in that regard.
Click to expand...
Not when it sits on its hands when over 30,000 people die needlessly every year in the so-called home of freedom. You spend more on policing and correction than any other nation on Earth but enjoy the murder rate of the Third World. What's that buying you? Go figure.

As I said, that's your choice, your decision. If that's the way you want it then I've nothing to say to change your mind, but don't pretend you're powerless in the face of unavoidable carnage. You have the gun crime you have because you choose not to do what it would take to change it.
 
BrewerBob said:
I keep it simple. At a minimum, any weapon that civilian police officers are authorized to use, the general public should be authorized to have.
Click to expand...

Police officers are NOT civilians so that phony baloney standard needs to be crushed and flushed.
 
BrewerBob said:
I keep it simple. At a minimum, any weapon that civilian police officers are authorized to use, the general public should be authorized to have.
Click to expand...

right you are. Most police officers are civilians. Federal agents such as FBI, IRS-CID, USMS, DEA Clearly are and are so designated by the fact that the ultimate federal law enforcement officer, the Attorney general and below her-the US Attorneys for the 93 or so Judicial districts are civilian employees of the US Government's executive branch. civilian police officers face the same criminals the rest of us civilians do and have no greater right to shoot anyone. So we need the same weapons they do because we -unlike civilian police officers-don't CHOOSE when and where we are confronted by violent criminals.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
I would say, if a ban on a type of weapon would pass strict scrutiny, and if it were acceptable to ban it for the police (including federal law enforcement), then it would be OK to ban it for civilians as well.
Click to expand...

well that is why cops cannot use flamethrowers or claymore mines or 105 mm Smoothbore cannon firing HE shells
 
haymarket said:
Police officers are NOT civilians so that phony baloney standard needs to be crushed and flushed.
Click to expand...

Do they fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice? No? Then they are civilian. Are they permitted to enforce the laws on US soil even if martial law isn't declared? Yes? Then they are civilian.

There is civilian and there is military. The only police officers that are not civilians are Military Police.
 

I think the legislator's pen should be banned.

Not only is it more powerful than the sword, it is also far more deadly and more damaging than the sword, especially when wielded by an incompetent.
 

Why is that your standard? Nearly every standard dictionary I have ever seen on the English language identifies police as NOT civilians.

Just google "civilian definition"


from Merriam Webster

[h=2]Full Definition of civilian[/h]
  • 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
  • 2a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force : outsider 1
Click to expand...


from dictionary.com

civilian
[si-vil-yuh n]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
Click to expand...

from the Free dictionary.com


from Oxforddictonaries.com

civilian
Pronunciation: /səˈvilyən/
NOUN

1A person not in the armed services or the police force.
Click to expand...

The accepted experts on the meanings of words in our English language clearly identify POLICE as not being civilians.
 
Last edited:
RetiredUSN said:
Without individual liberty, there is zero security.
Click to expand...

...and vice versa. The trick is in the balance. Jefferson knew that when he warned against giving up 'essential liberty' for 'temporary safety'. Neither word was used unqualified. Many of us don't regard the ownership of firearms as 'essential' when we may create situations of greater and permanent safety by limiting the circulation of those weapons.
 

Without a documented guarantee of individual liberties, governments will always trample over people.

Limiting the rights of individuals to protect themselves would be just another form of a governmental arbitrary abuse of power.
 
As banning would be a function of the law, maybe you should be using the accepted legal definition?

What is CIVILIAN?

One who is skilled or versed in the civil law.
A doctor, professor, or student of the civil law.
Also a private citizen, as distinguished from such as belong to the army and navy or (in England) the church.​
​
​

The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed. | What is CIVILIAN?​



Civilian

In general, a civilian is "a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force", as defined by Merriam Webster's Dictionary.[1] The term also includes chaplains and medical personnel who are not part of the organizations mentioned in the preceding sentence, as well as those who are not perpetrators, in order to distinguish between those who are law-abiding people and those who are dedicated criminals. From the U.S. Department of Defense perspective, Chapter 18 of Title 10 United States Code refers to non-military law enforcement officers as civilians, since they are employees rather than enlisted personnel, and also in order to distinguish itself from military police.[2] In military and law enforcement slang, the term "Civies" or "Civvies" are often used to refer civilian population or civilian clothing.

Under the laws of war (also known as international humanitarian law), a civilian is one not being a member of the armed services and does not take a direct part of hostilities in times of armed conflict. The term "civilian" is slightly different from a non-combatant under the laws of war, because some non-combatants are not civilians (for example, military chaplains attached to the belligerent armed forces or neutral military personnel). Under international law, civilians in the territories of a Party to an armed conflict are entitled to certain privileges under the customary laws of war and international treaties such as the Fourth Geneva Convention. The privileges that they enjoy under international law depends on whether the conflict is an internal one (a civil war) or an international one.

[...]​

Civilian | Wikipedia​


Our Federal Government under 10 U.S. Code Chapter 18 - MILITARY SUPPORT FOR CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, does not recognize Civilian Police Forces as anything but Civilians.


So if you are discussing this topic as being under the control of the Federal Government, you should be using their legal accepted position under the law.
Police are not civilians.
 

Recognized and accepted experts in the English language say they are indeed civilians.

The Department of Defense - in determining who they have authority over - uses a very different standard because they are attempting to identify the parameters of their own authority and it has nothing to do with police since they are NOT under their control.

The section of law you cited has nothing to do with it.
 

I am not disputing how the word is used in popular vernacular, which is what the dictionary describes. I am going off the US government's view of a civilian for the purpose of deciding which weapons we can have. Maybe it is because I am retired military that I consider police civilians but US Code refers to them as civilians as well.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/373
 

The code that you refer to says this

(1) to train Federal, State, and local civilian law enforcement officials in the operation and maintenance of equipment, including equipment made available under section 372 of this title; and


The term CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT is referring to law enforcement over civilians as opposed to military authority over military personnel.

It is NOT a definition of police officers as CIVILIANS.
 

You do understand the denotation/connotation when many refer to non federal/military law enforcement as civilian. So how about simply discussing the substance of the argument vice the semantics. Any firearms deemed acceptable for state and local law enforcement, should be permissable for all citizenry
 

For the purpose of this discussion I will concede that point as it doesn't change my criteria. I believe civilians should have the right to own any weapons that the law enforcement charged with protecting them on US soil are allowed to have.
 

I understand perfectly. Where are you getting this standard of yours from..... any firearms etc?
 
BrewerBob said:
For the purpose of this discussion I will concede that point as it doesn't change my criteria. I believe civilians should have the right to own any weapons that the law enforcement charged with protecting them on US soil are allowed to have.
Click to expand...

What is the basic utilitarian purpose for that?
 

Well, one, our murder rates are considerably better than in the Third World. That's ridiculous hyperbole.

Second, one of the main reasons our crime rate is so high is because we spend more on policing and correction than other countries. We're a police state, and we would be both safer and freer if we were not.


I don't think we're helpless to stop the carnage at all. I think there's a number of lawful and liberal things we can do to reduce the carnage, and I support doing those things; the reason we're not doing them already is because our government profits from the carnage. If the corrupt Democrats spent as much political capital on improving our quality of life as they waste on restricting our human rights, we'd have the improved health care and the community policing we need to prevent these tragedies. If either of our main political parties invested in solidarity instead of polarization, we would have the kind of social cohesion that prevents these kinds of tragedies.

But as long as the Republicans don't want to do anything and the Democrats' first and only answer is gun control, nothing will ever get done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…