• 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!

Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Yes I want a national discussion with the American people.

We need to discuss if the American people want to live in a society where constantly advancing technology is the only defining authority on what weapons somebody may possess.

We need to discuss if the American people want to live in a society where open carrying of weapons on the streets and inside of buildings becomes common place and allowed.

That would be a good beginning to a needed national conversation.
 


There is definately a Constitutional Right to own any weapon you want.
 
Aberration said:
Why would the Supreme Court have to recognize anything? Our right is not derived from Supreme Court recognition.
Click to expand...

Because if the Court does not recognize your claimed right - then mister - you ain't got it pure and simple.
 
ecofarm said:
There is definately a Constitutional Right to own any weapon you want.
Click to expand...

Can you quote the Supreme Court decision which states that please?
 
haymarket said:
Can you quote the Supreme Court decision which states that please?
Click to expand...

I didn't come up with this idea, you did. If you're gonna give me a hard time, then find someone else to represent your fantasy claim.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I didn't come up with this idea, you did.
Click to expand...

No. I asked you the question. But reality tells us that there is no such right.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For ten years - 1994 to 2004 - there existed a federal ban on certain weapons. The Supreme Court did not throw that out.

States today have bans on such weapons. The Supreme Court has not thrown those out either.

If your claim was true - and one could own any weapon they wanted to own - the Court would have acted to throw these restrictions out as unconstitutional. But they did not.

http://rense.com/general17/supremecourtrejects.htm


there it is for you. The state or feds can indeed restrict weapons. There is no recognized Constitutional right to own any weapon you want to own.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I'll try one more time.


We can have ANY weapon we want; it's our Constitutional Right.


This time, either you agree with me or I will reject your premise as nonsense.
 

What the SC has said is that the 2d Amendment confers an individual right to own a weapon, but that does not mean that there are no limits on the right. It just means that any limits that are imposed have to survive a strict scrutiny test. Just like we have a right to free speech, but there are a few exceptions where speech can be limited.
 
Last edited:

Exactly. And what we argue about is the exceptions and the limits.
 
ecofarm said:
Ok, I'll try one more time.


We can have ANY weapon we want; it's our Constitutional Right.


This time, either you agree with me or I will reject your premise as nonsense.
Click to expand...

I just gave you several factual sources which state without a doubt you are wrong.

You can reject anything you want to reject. Faith in a self imposed belief system permits you to do that.
 
Ok, you got me.
 
haymarket said:
So now that we have established that, all we are arguing about is what limits are reasonable and should be allowed.
Click to expand...

Fighter jets including missiles, subs and bombers are ok - but no nukes.
 
ecofarm said:
Ok, I'll try one more time.


We can have ANY weapon we want; it's our Constitutional Right.


This time, either you agree with me or I will reject your premise as nonsense.
Click to expand...

Can you buy a modern tank and the shells that make it effective?
 

So, all is fine, keep pumping endless tax money into "the hood", have an endless war on drugs that keeps profits high, gangs in control and simply try to isolate that crime into the proper zip codes. When crime occurs in "nice" areas then have marathon TV coverage and still not acknoweldge that gov't funds given to the Batman killer (or was he the Joker killer?) allowed him to purchase his arsenal and kill lots of folks.

As you say, what we have now is 99% effective, but does not address the REAL areas of massive crime, those "urban areas" that are allowed to remain both lawless AND heavily (if not completely) funded by tax money. Perhaps the first step is to NOT supply endless federal tax money to high crime areas, stop federal subsidizing of ALL out of wedlock childbirth and concentrate on keeping those that commit crime in prison for MUCH longer times.

Legalize and tax recreational drugs, just like alcohol, and when morons choose to spend their money on dope, to stay stoned (addicted), instead of working and buying food, they starve (perfect and honest drug education). Rewarding failure through gov't "help" is not really helping, except to create a gov't dependent underclass free to breed criminals.

More gov't "help" is not working, so let us try less gov't "help", more law enforcement and stop trying to blame THINGS for the behavior problems of 1% to 2% of our criminal morons.
 
Last edited:

By that measure, there is no war on terror, either.
 
Dittohead not! said:
By that measure, there is no war on terror, either.
Click to expand...

Bingo! That is why the most powerful military on the planet, in over a decade, with "allied support" can not advance beyond a stalemate, in Afghanistan, against an enemy that has no navy, no air force and a "rag tag", at best army. While we fight these "terrorists" we supply/support their corrupt governements (Karsai and the Taliban) and over 70% of the entire nation's GDP with our tax money. It is totally insane, yet that is our foreign policy; piddle along playing world policeman and buying "friends" in low places. After spending MANY BILLIONS and wasting many U.S. lives, we are no further along in fighting terror or drugs but continue to play at it, since many profit handsomely along the way. USA, USA, USA...
 

A 100 round drum in competitive shooting? Where in the world have you ever seen/heard that? A 100 round drum would severely alter shooting position. The only practical application for a 100 round drum is to suppress a target. That is why the military has 100-200 round drums for all squad automatic and crew serve weapons. We use them to suppress targets while riflemen maneuver. WE DON'T EVEN CARRY 100 ROUND DRUMS FOR M-4/M-16'S!! If you ever see someone carrying one it was purchased on the civilian market.

I think you are just toeing the "conservative" line that says our country has to allow everything that is involved with guns. Thats asinine. The 2nd Amendment says nothing of magazine size. Look, I don't think gun laws should change an iota based on this incident. However, I do believe large magazines (over 15 rounds) and Small Arms Protective Inserts for body armor should be outlawed for purchase on the civilian market. There is no practical application for any of it.

If you think magazine size makes no difference, try something for me. Go buy an AR-15, get your buddy an 9mm pistol, and have him shoot at you while you try to reload. Thats what a criminal would encounter. Trust me, its not easy. We practice mag changes constantly when working up for a deployment. Guess what? I've still screwed them up while getting shot at. The more mag changes you make a criminal execute, the more likely he is to screw up and give cops a chance to maneuver/take a shot at him. Most civilians don't know to take cover while reloading, retain their magazines for future use, or have the skill to keep their eyes on the target while executing their mag change. Imagine if this guy would have only gotten off 15 rounds at a time. He's obviously a medical geek who doesn't even know how to clear a jam on his own weapon. Changing mags for him, with the amount of adrenaline he had going through his system, may have allowed cops (or even a civilian) to take him down. At the least, he would have become frustrated and maybe transitioned to his sidearm. That would have been much better than the AR-15 or shotgun. Don't buy into the party line of "all things gun should be legal".
 

Maybe it's the first half of the sentence. Specifically, the part where it says "well-regulated."

Pretty sure that the right to keep and bear arms is the only one mentioned that includes those words.
 
ecofarm said:
There is definately a Constitutional Right to own any weapon you want.
Click to expand...

Uh. Cruise missiles? Attack submarines? Nukes?
 
Harshaw said:
Not in every case, no. That's a fact.
Click to expand...

Guns "were designed" to kill... that is, back in the day. Kinda accurate actually...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…