• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

M14 v Nifty

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Introduction and Opening Statement

Amendment II
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 2nd amendment to the US Constitution has, over only the last 50 years or so, been a point of debate between two principle antagonists – the pro-gun side, who argue that the amendment absolutely protects an individual right to own and use firearms tat cannot be infringed by government, and the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.

The discussion presented here, however, does not deal with the question as to whose right is protected by the 2nd amendment, but what weapons might fall under its purview. The terms “arms”, used by the Founders, is less than specific, and since it is less than specific, it is not clear, upon a cursory reading of the amendment, exactly what weapons are considered “arms” and therefore protected by the amendment. This debate ranges far and wide, with some people arguing that since the weapon of the day was a smoothbore musket that the only weapons protected by are those similar; some argue that ‘arms” is a fully inclusive term and protects the private ownership of nuclear weapons. Naturally, the truth lies somewhere in between.

Given that the issue of 2nd Amendment most often, if not exclusively, comes up when discussing gun control, it is a useful exercise to determine, which, if any, firearms are considered “arms” in the context of the 2nd, thereby raising the possibility that their ownership and use by private individuals may fall under 2nd amendment protection.

In this debate, I shall show that the term “arms”, as used in the 2nd Amendment, certainly includes the any modern firearm that anyone might care to mention – and while other weapons may also be considered ‘arms”, certainly, all modern firearms are. This position will be supported by a legal and historical examination of the subject, and a practical assessment of how those examinations apply to today’s world. In the end, it will be impossible to reach any conclusion other than all modern firearms are included in the term “arms” and thus are all protected by the amendment.
 

niftydrifty

Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
4,725
Reaction score
1,391
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Niftydrifty's opening remarks​

I agree with M14 Shooter that the term “arms”, as used in the second Amendment, includes any modern firearm. I also agree, along with most Democrats (whom I tend to vote along with), that the second amendment protects individual gun ownership. A definition for the word "arms" cannot be assumed. It is there, and so long as it is (so vague), I believe that arms, ie. all modern firearms, are protected by the second amendment.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It is apparent that my opponent is unwilling and/or unable to debate a position opposite of mine, as he agreed that he would when he called me out to debate him.

But, as agreed to, I will present my argument for him to counter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part I

In this post, I shall show how the 2nd amendment, by protecting the right to arms, protects the right to own and use any modern firearm. This shall be done through an examination of the legal and constitutional issues surrounding the 2nd amendment insofar as what weapons are considered ‘arms”, the effect of the linkage of the right to arms to militia service has on determining what weapons are considered arms, and how those two terms, in concert, relate to how the term “arms” relates to weapons available today.

To determine the proper position regarding any given point of contention relating to the Constitution, there are several methods. Most obvious is to examine current and past jurisprudence, preferably that from the Supreme Court, but from the lower courts if the Supreme Court has not rendered a clear picture. To supplement the view from the Supreme Court, one can draw on rulings from the lower courts, as well as, if available and if necessary, the writings of the people involved in the creation of the Constitution and/or the bill of rights.

To that end, one must first look at the only case in which the SCotUS examines the 2nd amendment:

UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

In this case, the SCotUS in effect created a test to see if any given weapon was covered by the protections afforded to the right of the people to keep and bear arms by linking that weapon to its effectiveness if employed in militia service - that it must have a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia":

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense

The key terms here, and the obvious conclusion from them is that to be protected by the 2nd amendment, a weapon must be of a kind that is “any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense” and thus bears “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. This necessitates that to enjoy the protection of the 2nd, a weapon must be of a kind found in current military service.

This is further supported by:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Note that “in common use at the time” not only supports the position that the 2nd amendment protects the sort of weapons one might find in current military service, but it also quickly and easily negates any argument that the amendment protects only weapons in use at the writing of the amendment, as “in common use at the time” means in commune use at the time of the service, which could mean from any point after the establishment of the British North American colonies to the present day. Indeed, this phrase readily indicates that the militiaman were expected to provide a weapon for service that was in line with those in service with the standing army.

Put more simply, the decision in Miller indicates that weapons considered as “arms” in the context of the 2nd must be or be substantially similar to the ordinary weapons in current use with the standing army, and be suitable for use in the missions the militia might be expected to undertake. Of course, missions define weapons necessary to undertake them, and so to determine what ordinary weapons in current use might be necessary for the militia to undertake its usual missions, we must look at what those missions are.

As per Article I section 8:15 of the US Constitution, the militia has three roles:
• execute the laws of the union,
• suppress insurrections
• repel invasions

Along with these three constitutionally mandated mission, the militia was held by the Founding Fathers as the nations bulwark from tyranny, in that an armed populace would and should resist, through force of arms, an oppressive government, Just a few lines of a great many to this effect:

Patrick Henry:
Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?

Thomas Jefferson:
What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security.

James Madison:
The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.

Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.

... large and permanent military establishments which are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.

An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of​

Clearly then, the militia carries 4 missions, two of which, to , when necessary, assist and/or resist the standing army, being the most relevant. In these missions, the militia must be sufficiently equipped and armed, thus the protection of the 2nd amendment, to ensure that the government might not ever strip the people of the means to resist said government.

And so, the question begs: what weapons are those necessary for the militia to resist and/or assist the standing army, and that are of the kind in common use as any part of the ordinary military equipment that its could contribute to the common defense?

We have already examined the missions of the militia, and what it is expected to do. To determine the particular weapons that the militia might need for these missions, we must look at the nature of the militia units themselves, particularly their size and composition.

The militia, historically, were company-sized units of infantry, raised and employed locally by local leaders, sometimes at the behest of the state government and sometimes not. There were, of course, examples of militia artillery, cavalry and dragoon units, but there huge majority of militia were infantry; while there were militia units of up to brigade size, these units were almost always comprised on individual militia companies serving under a single command. As such, it is accurate, if not all-encompassing, to describe the standard militia unit as a company of infantry or light infantry.

This determination serves to put into a modern context the militia as it might be seen today, and, more importantly, what weapons it might need to carry out its intended missions.

Today, US Army infantry is largely mechanized, with their armored components integrated into the infantry units themselves, under command of the infantry commander. As such, these are not infantry units in the strict sense, but more akin to dragoons or, obviously, armored or mechanized infantry. Within the US military, there are, however, 3 classes of infantry companies which match the classic infantry designation – US Army airborne companies, USMC infantry companies and US Army Ranger companies, which are, in moist respects, ‘light infantry’.
https://www.infantry.army.mil/infantry/
Infantry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Light infantry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The weapons “in ordinary use” for these units are well-known and widely seen in various forms from various sources – certainly, anyone who cares to notice while watching the nightly news will observe the vast array of weapons carried by our infantry forces. In summary, the US infantryman is generally issued one or more of the weapons from this list, or a derivative thereof:
Historic U.S. Small Arms
Small Arms Information

• M9/M1911A1 pistol
• M16A2 rifle
• M14/M21 rifle
• M24/M40 rifle
• M82A1 rifle
• M249 Squad Automatic Weapon
• M240 General Purpose Machine Gun
• M2 Heavy Machine Gun
• M590/M1200 shotgun
• M203 40mm grenade launcher

Note that these are currently issued small arms; a more inclusive historical listing is provided in the 1st link noted above.

Continued in Part II, below.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Part II

From this list, several classes of weapons are present – pistols, shotguns, rifles, automatic rifles, assault rifles, and machineguns. As these weapons are those issued to US infantrymen, one must conclude that these weapons are examples of weapons “of the kind in common use as any part of the ordinary military equipment” and that they “contribute to the common defense”; as such, the classes of weapons represented by these weapons are among those that are protected by the US Constitution, under the decision in Miller.

As noted, the classes of weapons themselves, with the weapons listed above as representative samples, not the weapons specifically issued to the military, are those “of the kind in common use”. That an M16A2 rifle might be the actual weapon issued to US infantry, this does not preclude an AK47 from consideration as being part of ‘ordinary military equipment in common use’, as the AK47 can (and has) filled exactly the same role as the M16A2, with a substantially similar degree of efficacy. Similarly, a Winchester M70 rifle can (and has) filled the same role as the M24/M40 rifle, and the M60 can (and has) filled the same role as the M240, all to a similar degree of effectiveness. This sort of substitution can be made for any weapon on the list, as any weapon of the same classification can be effectively used in place of the weapons noted on the list.

It must be remembered that when considering the weapons and how they fit into the classes noted above, that these weapons are for service in the militia, not the regular army, and as such, these weapons and their ammunition are to be supplied by the person(s) wielding them. Because of this, and that they only need to have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, they need not necessarily match the issue weapons of the standing army exactly.

Conclusion:

• The Constitution, as interpreted by the only case dealing directly with the 2nd amendment, requires that to enjoy the protection of that amendment, any giver weapon must qualify as “arms”; to do this, it must be a weapon that can be effectively used in when in service of the militia.

• The militia, judged historically, is a collection of company-sized infantry units that are expected to, among other things, assist and resist the standing army.

• To be effective in those roles, the militia needs to be equipped in manner similar to the standing army, and that when ordinarily called for service, the members of the militia were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

• The standing army is equipped, in part, with several classes of firearms – pistons, shotguns, rifles, assault rifles and machineguns; to be considered as “of the kind in common use at the time”, a weapon must be of the kind issued to the standing army, or a substitute of similar effectiveness.

• Any modern pistol is an effective substitute for those issued to the standing army, any modern shotgun is an effective substitute for those issued to the standing army, any modern rifle is an effective substitute for any rifle issued to the standing army, etc

And so, from this, it is clear that any modern firearm you might care to mention qualifies as “arms” under the 2nd amendment.
 

niftydrifty

Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
4,725
Reaction score
1,391
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Perhaps it doesn't fit here exactly, but M14 Shooter, you left out my favorite gun quote when you listed a few quotes of Jefferson.

"The real beauty of the second amendment is that it is absolutely meaningless until they try to take it away." - Thomas Jefferson


Niftydrifty's argument​

M14 Shooter said:
And so, from this, it is clear that any modern firearm you might care to mention qualifies as “arms” under the 2nd amendment.
M14 Shooter misunderstands the gun debate in this country.

M14 Shooter said:
It is apparent that my opponent is unwilling and/or unable to debate a position opposite of mine, as he agreed that he would when he called me out to debate him.

But, as agreed to, I will present my argument for him to counter.

M14 Shooter said:
The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution has, over only the last 50 years or so, been a point of debate between two principle antagonists – the pro-gun side, who argue that the amendment absolutely protects an individual right to own and use firearms tat cannot be infringed by government, and the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.

As I've said before, the gun debate as M14 Shooter represents it is meaningless. For comparison sake, here are a couple of illustrative examples. Behold the sheer folly of M14 Shooter's "topic."

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Issue: What established religions are protected by the 1st amendment?
My side: I will argue that, certainly, any religion you care to mention is protected by the 1st.

The Third Amendment says, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Issue: What houses are protected by the 3rd amendment?
My side: I will argue that, certainly, any house you care to mention is protected by the 3rd.

Certainly, M14 Shooter has made the case that all arms are covered by the 2nd, and I agree. But this begs the question: how many actually disagree with M14 Shooter? I don't. It seems to me that most people don't. And as far as I can tell, most "anti-gun" people don't. I'm sure M14 Shooter can come up with a couple of anecdotal examples of people that do disagree. But in producing mere anecdotal evidence, this is a misrepresentation of the actual gun debate in this country.

When I read anti-gun statements on the web, I see mention of repealing the second amendment. When someone talks about repealing the second amendment in order to restrict individual gun ownership, it must be because they understand that individual ownership of modern firearms is protected by the second amendment, right? M14 Shooter fails to grasp this.

370,000 hits: repeal "second amendment" - Google Search

Now contrast that with mentions online (according to google and my search terms), of weapons not being protected or covered by the second amendment, as M14 Shooter claims:

3,280 hits "not protected by the second amendment" - Google Search

6,210 hits http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="not+covered+by+the+second+amendment"&btnG=Search

Here's a typical article. Please note that this "anti-gun" guy says to repeal the second amendment. He doesn't argue that modern firearms aren't covered by the second amendment.
It's Time To Repeal The Second Amendment

And here's another. Please note that this guy is anti-gun, but, somehow, he also agrees with M14 Shooter, too, just as I do. How can it be?
Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises -- 06/12/2007

Why is it that those on the "anti-gun side" don't fit the characterization that M14 Shooter has describes to us? It's because he doesn't understand the nature of the gun debate, as it exists for most people.

The "anti-gun side" actually seems to agree with M14 Shooter, that modern firearms are covered by the second amendment. The real difference between Shooter's "anti-gun side" and the real anti-gun side, is that the real anti-gun side (including both Conservatives and Liberals) would like to have (potentially un-Constitutional) regulations and restrictions placed on guns, or in rarer cases, they'd they'd like to see the second amendment repealed. The pro-gun side opposes the placing of harsh restrictions on gun ownership and purchase and/or repealing the second amendment altogether.

This is not a left/right issue. Many on "the right" agree with those on "the left:"
Don’t Blame Liberals for Gun Control

In reviewing several polls in which party affiliation is also disclosed, one actually cannot help but notice a remarkable consistency, across party lines, with regard to interpretation of the second amendment.

(source: Roper Center at University of Connecticut, via Lexis Nexis. Poll information is accessible by registering and logging in to iPoll, iPOLL Login)

Date: February 1999
Question: Do you favor or oppose a law which would require background checks before people--including gun dealers--could buy guns at gun shows?
Answer: Favor
Republican 81%
Democrat 85%
Independent 82%
Liberal 88%
Moderate 87%
Conservative 78%

Date: August 1997
Question: What does the Second Amendment (to the United States Constitution) protect?
Answer: "The right to bear arms / own a gun"
Republican 91%
Democrat 85%
Independent 87%

Date: August 1997
Question: The Second Amendment to the US (United States) Constitution reads as follows: '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.' Having heard that, do you feel that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to own guns?
Answer: "Yes"
Republican 79%
Democrat 61%
Independent 67%

Date: August 1997
Question: Do you think this Amendment (Second Amendment to the United States Constitution) should guarantee individuals the right to own guns?
Answer: "Yes"
Republican 74%
Democrat 54%
Independent 64%

Date: September 1995
Question: I'd like your views on some positions a political candidate might take on different issues. On gun control, suppose a candidate said: I firmly believe in the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but I am willing to put up with some inconvenience in getting or having guns--like registration or waiting a certain amount of time--to make sure that I am a responsible citizen who should be allowed to have a gun. Do you think this position on gun control is... too conservative, too liberal, or about right?
Answer: "About right"
Republican 74%
Democrat 69%
Independent 71%

Date: April 1995
Question: Do you think armed citizen militia groups generally pose a grave danger to American society or are they mostly just groups of citizens lawfully exercising their rights to assemble and bear arms?
Answer: "Pose a danger"
Republican 56%
Democrat 66%
Independent 56%

Perhaps M14 Shooter is thinking of someone like Ted Kennedy, whom once said that the "Supreme Court has repeatedly said that this amendment has nothing to do with the right to personal ownership of guns but only with the right of a state to establish a militia." But hasn't the SCOTUS only touched on the issue once? Regardless, most Democrats disagree with Ted Kennedy, although M14 Shooter seems to think that most do agree. M14 Shooter is wrong.

The gun debate isn't about what the amendment covers. It's about something else.

I'd like to see some evidence that a sizable contingent of anything or anybody disagrees with M14 Shooter's argument. I'd like to see some evidence that all or most of the "anti-gun side" believe that individual ownership of modern firearms isn't covered by the 2nd. Until this evidence is produced, M14 Shooter's argument is a meaningless straw man argument, and is therefore pointless. M14 Shooter speaks about an "anti-gun side" and then shows how this alleged "anti-gun side" is wrong. M14 Shooter, you made this claim. I'd like to see the evidence which supports your claim. Just how representative or how real is this alleged "anti-gun side" of yours?
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Response I
Page 1 of 3

M14 Shooter misunderstands the gun debate in this country.

However true this may or may not be, it is irrelevant to the discussion, and any points made to this end are absolutely meaningless in those terms. My opponent is simply trying to change the subject.

The topic here is the question as to what weapons are protected by the 2nd.
My position is that, whatever else may be covered, certainly any modern firearm is.
My opponent agreed to argue a position contrary to mine – indeed, he agreed to argue a position contrary to any that I saw fit to choose – and is now apparently unwilling or unable to do so.

And as such, he has not met the terms of the challenge that he issued to me; indeed, he is trying to change the subject.

As I've said before, the gun debate as M14 Shooter represents it is meaningless. For comparison sake, here are a couple of illustrative examples. Behold the sheer folly of M14 Shooter's "topic."

This is my opponents attempt to avoid having to argue a position contrary to mine, by attacking the topic as ‘meaningless’ rather than argue against my assessment that all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd. He is simply trying to change the subject.

As noted in the discussion leading up to this debate, there is indeed a valid topic for discussion here, as illustrated to the necessary degree by a poll here on this site, in which 49 poll responses that demonstrate a wide range of views on the subject, supported by 15 pages of debate. My opponent simply wants to avoid discussing a point of view he knows he cannot support, and is trying to change the subject.

Please note that my opponent challenged me to pick a topic and that he’d argue against me. The challenge was his, and I took him up on it. That I chose the side of a topic he agrees with does not in any way diminish his responsibility here.

Certainly, M14 Shooter has made the case that all arms are covered by the 2nd, and I agree. But this begs the question: how many actually disagree with M14 Shooter? I don't…

However true this may be, two things are certain:
-A number of people do disagree with me, as illustrated by the aforementioned poll and shall be demonstrated later, through specific examples from prominent organization and political leaders.
-Regardless of his agreement, my opponent agreed to argue a position contrary to mine. In this, it doesn’t matter if he, personally, agrees with the position presented – he agreed to argue against whatever topic I put up.

But in producing mere anecdotal evidence, this is a misrepresentation of the actual gun debate in this country.

Which is, again, irrelevant, and is, again, an example of my opponent trying to change the subject.

The topic here is the question as to what weapons are protected by the 2nd.
My position is that, whatever else may be covered, certainly any modern firearm is. My opponent’s responsibility here is to address the topic and argue against my position; instead he is trying to change the subject away from the topic I presented – a topic he pre-approved when issuing the challenge to me.

My opponent has offered nothing to challenge my position, allowing it to stand, unchallenged. He has failed in his responsibilities in this debate, he has argued in bad faith, and therefore the only possible conclusion is that in this debate, he is the losing participant – and, by his own standard, a coward.

However…
Understanding that my opponent, is in his own words, a “coward” for not taking up the discussion offered to him according to the terms of his challenge to me, and that my opponent has effectively conceded his inability to argue a position contrary to mine and thus defeat in that argument…

…My opponent desperately wants to redeem himself by changing the subject and picking an argument of his choosing (rather than making good on his challenge to me) and presenting it here – therefore, going well above and beyond MY responsibilities in this exchange, I shall argue against the points he makes.

When I read anti-gun statements on the web, I see mention of repealing the second amendment. When someone talks about repealing the second amendment in order to restrict individual gun ownership, it must be because they understand that individual ownership of modern firearms is protected by the second amendment, right?

His position here appears to be that ‘since ‘they’ want to repeal the 2nd amendment, ‘they’ must agree that the 2nd protects the individual ownership of modern firearms.

First and foremost, this is nothing but inference on his part.
Unless he can provide specific statements from ‘those’ that chose to repeal the 2nd, his position is nothing but supposition.

As support for his argument,, my opponent offers the results of Google searches, rather than specific articles from specific authors, and how each of those articles supports his position. To wit:
repeal "second amendment" - Google Search

First, it must be noted that several of the hits, even just on the first page, argue against the idea of repealing the 2nd, rather than argue that it should be repealed:
Disarm America? Should we repeal Second Amendment? - January 4, 1998
WorldNetDaily: Make them repeal the 2nd Amendment
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1848809/posts

And several others have nothing to do with the repeal of the 2nd at all:
Restoring the Second Amendment
Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It appears my opponent, during his “amassing [of] evidence” didn’t really bother to look at the evidence he amassed – indeed, his claim of 370,000 regarding the repeal of the 2nd amendment is specious at best. Indeed, after the first few pages, there are rather few articles that support repealing the 2nd, and many of those are repeats.

Anyway...
Under the search, we find articles such as:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/052400-103.htm

Nowhere does this article specifically or implicitly recognize that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any given modern firearm -- in fact, the same source, commondreams.org, advocates the banning of certain weapons:

This article decries the failure to move forward with banning handguns:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/041900-02.htm

And here, there is similar displeasure expressed over the sunset of the 1994 ‘assault weapon’ ban:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0524-03.htm

Commondreams.org, contrary to the inference drawn by my opponent, clearly supports the banning of certain kids of modern firearms. My opponent insists that they recognize that the 2nd amendment exists, and so their position regarding handguns and assault weapons necessitates that they do NOT believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own these weapons.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Page 2 of 3

To continue with my opponent’s Google search, we find:

Now contrast that with mentions online (according to Google and my search terms), of weapons not being protected or covered by the second amendment, as M14 Shooter claims:
…3280 hits
…6210 hits

This is my opponent engaging a in a logical fallacy known as ‘an appeal to popularity’. He wants to pit his 370,000 hits against “my” <10,000 hits, and then conclude that my argument isn’t sound, whereas his is – since there are ’more articles’, he argues, ‘my position must be correct’.

Aside from the fallacy he presents, and as we have seen, of his 370,000 hits, few of them support the idea that the 2nd should be repealed, and he has not shown where ANY of them speak to ANY recognition that modern firearms are indeed protected by the 2nd.

Here's a typical article. Please note that this "anti-gun" guy says to repeal the second amendment. He doesn't argue that modern firearms aren't covered by the second amendment.
It's Time To Repeal The Second Amendment
Note that nowhere in the article does the author directly argue that modern firearms are protected by the 2nd; my opponent is inferring that because the doesn’t argue that they are not protected by the 2nd, he must therefore agree that they are. This is fallacious on its face.

And was noted before – Commondreams.org advocates the ban of certain weapons. My opponent insists that they recognize that the 2nd amendment exists, and so their position regarding handguns and assault weapons necessitates that they do NOT believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own these weapons.

And here's another. Please note that this guy is anti-gun, but, somehow, he also agrees with M14 Shooter, too, just as I do. How can it be?
Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises -- 06/12/2007

Again, nowhere does this author directly argue that the 2nd amendment protects all modern firearms, and again, my opponent relies on the inference that that because he doesn’t argue that they are not protected by the 2nd, he must therefore agree that they are. This is, again, fallacious on its face

Why is it that those on the "anti-gun side" don't fit the characterization that M14 Shooter has describes to us? It's because he doesn't understand the nature of the gun debate, as it exists for most people.

Here, my opponent presents a false characterization of my argument – how I have characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side - and then proceeds to tell me how wrong I am. Indeed, I have not here in any way characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side in any way shape or form -- indeed, my opponent’s argument here, ladies and gentlemen, is a classic strawman.

The "anti-gun side" actually seems to agree with M14 Shooter, that modern firearms are covered by the second amendment.

This is, of course, a laughable assertion.

Let us look at several examples from the leading members of the anti-gun side:

First, lets look at the leading organizations that support anti-gun positions:

As noted before, Commondreams.org supports the position that handguns and ‘assault weapons’ should be/remain banned:
Gun-Control Movement Split by Ambition to Ban Handguns
Return of Assault Weapons Feared in U.S.

My opponent insists that they recognize that the 2nd amendment exists, and so their position regarding handguns and assault weapons necessitates that they do NOT believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own these weapons.

Another anti-gun organization, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, is clearly in favor of banning ‘assault weapons’:
http://www.csgv.org/docUploads/awb_report.pdf

Further note that this anti-gun organization specifically does NOT recognize that the 2nd amendment protects a right to own ANY weapons:
http://www.csgv.org/docUploads/2003 Briefing Book.pdf
Clearly, this is another example of the anti-gun side not agreeing with me.

And, yet –another- example of the anti-gun side not agreeing with me is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in its support of banning ‘assault weapons’:
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Brady Campaign - Assault Weapons Ban
Brady Campaign - Assault Weapons Threaten Our Safety and Security

Further note that this anti-gun organization also specifically does NOT recognize that the 2nd amendment protects a right to own ANY weapons:
Brady Campaign - Myth of the Second Amendment
Clearly, this is another example of the anti-gun side not agreeing with me.

Certainly, these are just three examples of anti-gun organizations that do not agree with me, but they are examples from leading anti-gun political organizations, of which there are many more

Of course, organizations are not the only members of the ‘anti-gun side’ -- lets look at various political candidates, properly characterized as anti-gun:

Hillary Clinton:
Supports the ‘assault weapon’ ban:
Hillary Watch Human Events - Find Articles
Gun Law News - Hillary Clinton

Clearly, as she recognizes the existence of the 2nd amendment while supporting the ban of a certain kind of modern firearm, she obviously does not believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any modern firearm. In that, he obviously disagrees with me.

Barack Obama:
Supports a ban on ‘semi-automatic weapons’:
Barack Obama on Gun Control
Radio Iowa: Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control

Clearly, as he recognizes the existence of the 2nd amendment while supporting the ban of a certain kind of modern firearm, she obviously does not believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any modern firearm. In that, she obviously disagrees with me.

John Edwards:
Supports the ‘assault weapons’ ban
Radio Iowa: Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control
John Edwards on Gun Control

Clearly, as he recognizes the existence of the 2nd amendment while supporting the ban of a certain kind of modern firearm, she obviously does not believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any modern firearm. In that, he obviously disagrees with me.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Page 3 of 3

Certainly, these are just three examples, but they are examples from leading anti-gun political figures that do not agree with me, of which there are many more.

And so, it’s very clear that the anti-gun side does indeed NOT agree with me.


The real difference between Shooter's "anti-gun side" and the real anti-gun side, is that…
… I haven’t characterized the anti-gun side? This strawman has already been dealt with, and since my opponent is arguing a strawman, there’s not really any sense in addressing his argument.

However…
Understanding that my opponent, is in his own words, a “coward” for not taking up the discussion offered to him according to the terms of his challenge to me, and that my opponent has effectively conceded his inability to argue a position contrary to mine and thus defeat in that argument…

…and that he finds it necessary to put up arguments that I did not make and attribute them to me – in classic strawman fashion – so that he can knock them down and then claim victory over me…

…I shall address these arguments as well.

the real anti-gun side (including both Conservatives and Liberals) would like to have (potentially un-Constitutional) regulations and restrictions placed on guns, or in rarer cases, they'd they'd like to see the second amendment repealed… This is not a left/right issue. Many on "the right" agree with those on "the left:"

The “real” anti gun side and their positions regarding what weapons are protected by the 2nd have already been described.

My opponent argues that many of the left/right/Democrats/Republicans agree regarding what restrictions they would like to place on the right to keep and bear arms, but he does not offer any specific examples. Clearly, I have been demonstrated (to no great surprise) that the left and the Democrats want more restrictions; my opponent claims that the right and the GOP also want these additional restrictions – but supplies no –specific- evidence to this end, his only support being a poll for which one must register to see. This does not effectively stand up to the level of evidence I have supplied for my argument, and as such, my opponent’s argument remains unsupported.

Perhaps M14 Shooter is thinking of someone like Ted Kennedy, whom once said that the "Supreme Court has repeatedly said that this amendment has nothing to do with the right to personal ownership of guns but only with the right of a state to establish a militia

I have listed numerous sources from organizations and people – all on the leading edge of the gun control debate, the edge that pushes for more gun control -- that agree with Mr. Kennedy to varying, but strong, degrees. The sentiment he espouses here is well-represented in the leadership of the Democratic party, especially among its most recent member so the executive branch and their current and recent candidates for President, as well as the major anti-gun organizations.

M14 Shooter is wrong.
I didn’t make any of the arguments my opponent attributes to me, and so its impossible for me to be wrong.

The gun debate isn't about what the amendment covers. It's about something else.

The gun debate is entirely about the amendment: who has the right, what weapons are protected, what actions with those weapons are protected, and what level of protection is afforded. My opponent simply dismisses these things because he knows he cannot make any specific argument regarding the amendment that might oppose my view and by dismissing the amendment itself, he hopes to never have to.


I'd like to see some evidence that a sizable contingent of anything or anybody disagrees with M14 Shooter's argument

This has been aptly demonstrated by citing the positions of prominent anti-gun organizations and candidates, and noting that there are more examples available.

And if that’s not enough, please note the Debatepolitics.com poll results:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/poll-418-what-arms-ptotected-2nd-amendment.html
19 of 49 (38.8%) of all responding do not believe that the 2nd amendment covers all modern firearms. 38.8% is a sizeable contingent.

Indeed, it has not been demonstrated by my opponent that anyone- but- my opponent agrees with my position, a tactic he is using in an attempt to avoid actually arguing against me.

I'd like to see some evidence that all or most of the "anti-gun side" believe that individual ownership of modern firearms isn't covered by the 2nd.

This is yet another strawman.
However, it has indeed been shown that the major anti-gun organizations do not agree with the argument that the 2nd protects an individual right to own any gun whatsoever, much less any modern firearm, and it has also been shown that while certain anti-gun parties may agree that the 2nd protects the right to own a gun of some sort, it certainly doesn’t protect the right to own all modern firearms.

Until this evidence is produced, M14 Shooter's argument is a meaningless straw man argument, and is therefore pointless

One must wonder what my opponent will say now that the evidence has been produced.

And until my opponent actually attempts to counter my argument, as he agreed that he would do, he is still, by his own words, a ‘coward’.

M14 Shooter speaks about an "anti-gun side" and then shows how this alleged "anti-gun side" is wrong. M14 Shooter, you made this claim

My opponent will please quote for me in this topic where I made this claim, or he will be guilty of putting up yet another strawman argument.

So, to summarize:

• My opponent, in that he refuses to argue against the position I took, as he said he would do in the challenge he put to me, is, by his own standard, a coward.

• My opponent, in that he moved away from trying to argue against my position, as he said he would when he issued his challenge, and tried to argue various issues unrelated to my position, is guilty of trying to change the subject away from an argument he knows he cannot support. He is, indeed, running away.

• My opponent’s assertions that “the "anti-gun side" actually seems to agree with M14 Shooter, that modern firearms are covered by the second amendment” has been demonstrated to be patently false by showing that while some of them may indeed recognize the 2nd amendment, their desire to ban certain guns necessitates that they do not believe the 2nd covers the guns they want to ban.

• My opponent argues that there is broad correlation between Republicans and Democrats and Liberals and Conservatives regarding gun control, but he offers no specific evidence to this end, especially that which shows a correlation between Republicans/Conservatives and the Democrat/liberal people and organizations that I cited.

• My opponent, not having any position of his own to stand on, finds the need to create straw men that he can knock down, even going so far that as to claim that I am “wrong” about a position that I did not take.

In conclusion, its clear that my opponent cannot argue against my position, and cannot support the arguments he made when he tried to change the subject in order to cover for the fact that he could not argue against my position
 
Last edited:

niftydrifty

Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
4,725
Reaction score
1,391
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
M14 Shooter said:
My opponent will please quote for me in this topic where I made this claim, or he will be guilty of putting up yet another strawman argument.

M14 Shooter, this post is not my formal rebuttal. I'd simply like to briefly chime in here, as a gentleman, and offer you the opportunity to edit your above posts, in light of this embarrassing bit of forgetfullness on your part.

According to the schedule, you have until Friday. Feel free to edit your posts if you wish. You erroneously claimed at least four times (I stopped counting), that you made no such characterization. But, whoops!, there it is:

M14 Shooter said:
The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution has, over only the last 50 years or so, been a point of debate between two principle antagonists – the pro-gun side, who argue that the amendment absolutely protects an individual right to own and use firearms tat cannot be infringed by government, and the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.

You made this claim. Now I'd like to see some evidence. Anecdotal evidence is just that. Anecdotal. Your "anti-gun side" is what? 20% of Democrats, maybe? Show us some data.

You also may want to fix up your errors comparing this debate about modern firearms with the poll asking about "any weapons" covered by the second amendment. Oh, and also, you may want to offer more than mere anecdotal examples, just as I said you would, seeing as how most Democrats disagree with them. There are extremists on both sides. To point at extremists or at a single group or a few groups and to call them a "side," is inaccurate. Oh, oh, oh, and you may also want to refrain from ad hominems, since they detract from your argument, and your presentation, seeing as how I agreed to argue from the point of view of "Liberalism," and indeed, I am. I could go on and on, but you may want to work on your posts some more, to bring them up to a suitable standard. I am graciously extending you that opportunity. I'll check back on Friday.
 
Last edited:

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I am graciously extending you that opportunity. I'll check back on Friday.

Bring it on, bub. You dont have a prayer, and if what you posted, above, is where you're going to hang your hat, you're in much worse shape than even -I- thought.
 

niftydrifty

Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
4,725
Reaction score
1,391
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Niftydrifty’s Second Rebuttal​

Part 1 of 4

I have been accused of changing the subject. But what is the subject? M14 Shooter is confused about what the subject is, relevant to the context of this debate. I agreed to argue any issue from the point of view of Liberalism. Seeing as how I lean pretty far left, this is easy for me to do. But M14 Shooter has been surprised to learn that this issue has very little to do with Liberalism, per se. And M14 Shooter has further confused the matter by mixing up “Liberalism” with any “position contrary to” his own. I’ve demonstrated how there is generally a consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable), on the issue. This debate isn’t just about a static question that exists in a vacuum. An agreement brought us here. I’m honoring that agreement. M14 Shooter wishes to dismiss that agreement, make up claims that he cannot support, and call his debate opponent names.

A clear majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all agree:
• That the second amendment protects the right of an individual to own guns.
• That there should be laws which would require background checks before people--including gun dealers--could buy guns at gun shows.
• That registration and waiting periods are a good idea.

If M14 Shooter must persist in referring to me as a “coward,” the onus is on him to provide evidence for a correlation between political ideology and “gun politics” opinion. I’ve attempted to show that there is no correlation by referring to the opinions of millions of people. M14 Shooter has tried to do so by referring to the opinions of 3 people. Liberalism is not 3 people.

M14 Shooter introduced the entire topic by misrepresenting the “sides” and then going from there. I pointed out how. His premise for proceeding into a discussion of what was protected by the second amendment began in this way:

M14 Shooter said:
The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution has, over only the last 50 years or so, been a point of debate between two principle antagonists – the pro-gun side, who argue that the amendment absolutely protects an individual right to own and use firearms tat cannot be infringed by government, and the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.

This is wrong. How does M14 Shooter explain that most Democrats and most Republicans agree that the second amendment protects an individual’s right to own and use firearms? How does M14 Shooter explain that (not just a few Democratic candidates but) most of the people in this country, majorities of both Democrats and Republicans, have agreed that assault weapons should be banned?

It’s not a Liberal or a non-Liberal issue. I agree with most Americans about individual rights. And I would love it if assault weapons were banned, like most Americans seem to. But I believe a ban would be unconstitutional. Just as M14 Shooter does. I’m guessing M14 Shooter doesn’t want for assault weapons to be banned. I agree with most Conservatives. Most Conservatives disagree with Shooter. Does that make him a Liberal? In the classic sense, perhaps.

I was called a coward for wanting to argue a topic for which there was a Liberal side. And I was called a coward once I did argue a non-debatable topic from the “Liberalism” side. Clearly, M14 Shooter likes to call others names when they point out M14 Shooter’s misunderstanding of current events.

I’ll now respond to M14 Shooter’s previous post point-by-point. When I pasted M14 Shooter’s previous argument into MS Word, it filled 9 pages. M14 Shooter took 9 pages to repeat the same few points over and over and over. Check it out.

M14 Shooter said:
However true [my misunderstanding of the gun debate in this country] may or may not be, it is irrelevant to the discussion, and any points made to this end are absolutely meaningless in those terms. My opponent is simply trying to change the subject.
M14 Shooter is eager to forget the context from which this debate arose, and the agreement that was made when the debate was hatched. And, yes, it’s absolutely true that M14 Shooter misunderstands the gun debate in this country.

M14 Shooter said:
The topic here is the question as to what weapons are protected by the 2nd. My position is that, whatever else may be covered, certainly any modern firearm is. My opponent agreed to argue a position contrary to mine – indeed, he agreed to argue a position contrary to any that I saw fit to choose – and is now apparently unwilling or unable to do so.
And as such, he has not met the terms of the challenge that he issued to me; indeed, he is trying to change the subject.
Wrong again. I agreed to argue on behalf of Liberalism. I have done so and I am doing so.

M14 Shooter said:
This is my opponents attempt to avoid having to argue a position contrary to mine, by attacking the topic as ‘meaningless’ rather than argue against my assessment that all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd. He is simply trying to change the subject.
It was convenient for M14 Shooter to omit the comparative examples I provided. By addressing them at all, it would have made the meaninglessness of M14 Shooter’s topic all too clear. And again, M14 Shooter mistakes “Liberalism” with a position contrary to his. It has been a shock for him to learn that most Democrats and Republicans agree on nearly every poll question I’ve ever seen which has anything to do with guns. I challenge him to find as many poll results as I have, that demonstrate otherwise.

M14 Shooter said:
As noted in the discussion leading up to this debate, there is indeed a valid topic for discussion here, as illustrated to the necessary degree by a poll here on this site, in which 49 poll responses that demonstrate a wide range of views on the subject, supported by 15 pages of debate. My opponent simply wants to avoid discussing a point of view he knows he cannot support, and is trying to change the subject.
It’s really unbelievable to me that M14 Shooter can confuse the term “modern firearm” with the term “weapon.” The poll he talks about mentions nukes. Are nukes covered by the second amendment? That’s a completely different question and a different topic than what is being discussed here. All firearms are weapons, but not all weapons are “modern firearms.” M14 Shooter is either confused or forgetful, or perhaps both.

M14 Shooter said:
Please note that my opponent challenged me to pick a topic and that he’d argue against me.
Again, not true. I said I’d argue on behalf of Liberalism.
M14 Shooter said:
The challenge was his, and I took him up on it. That I chose the side of a topic he agrees with does not in any way diminish his responsibility here.
Of course not, and I have in fact fulfilled my responsibility. M14 Shooter must believe that by stating the same falsehoods over and over that he might convince someone of his falsehoods. He again omitted any mention of my offer to debate on behalf of Liberalism, and misrepresented what was agreed would happen here. My responsibility was to debate on behalf of Liberalism. M14 Shooter is confused, forgetful, or both.
M14 Shooter said:
However true this may be, two things are certain:
-A number of people do disagree with me, as illustrated by the aforementioned poll and shall be demonstrated later, through specific examples from prominent organization and political leaders.
“A number of people” is not most Liberals.
M14 Shooter said:
-Regardless of his agreement, my opponent agreed to argue a position contrary to mine. In this, it doesn’t matter if he, personally, agrees with the position presented – he agreed to argue against whatever topic I put up.
Again, M14 Shooter refers to the irrelevant poll, which I’ve already discredited for use as a valid comparison. It isn’t. And again, M14 Shooter repeats his mistaken understanding of the agreement. I stated I would argue on behalf of Liberalism, not anything contrary to anything he said. How many times has it been now? Wow.
M14 Shooter said:
[M14 Shooter’s misrepresentation of the actual gun debate in this country] is, again, irrelevant, and is, again, an example of my opponent trying to change the subject.
My prediction is that we’ll hear a lot more of my “efforts to change the subject,” so that M14 Shooter won’t have to actually debate me. M14 Shooter actually did make claims about the gun debate in this country. He said:
M14 Shooter said:
“The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution has, over only the last 50 years or so, been a point of debate between two principle antagonists – the pro-gun side, who argue that the amendment absolutely protects an individual right to own and use firearms tat cannot be infringed by government, and the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.”
He said it in this thread. I asked for evidence supporting these claims. I have yet to see any. Instead, he claims he didn’t make those claims. But there they are, for all to see.

M14 Shooter said:
The topic here is the question as to what weapons are protected by the 2nd. My position is that, whatever else may be covered, certainly any modern firearm is. My opponent’s responsibility here is to address the topic and argue against my position; instead he is trying to change the subject away from the topic I presented – a topic he pre-approved when issuing the challenge to me.
Again, M14 Shooter confuses arguing on behalf of Liberalism, with arguing against anything he picks. How many key strokes M14 Shooter could have saved if he could read or remember? How many more times will he say it? Astounding.

M14 Shooter said:
My opponent has offered nothing to challenge my position, allowing it to stand, unchallenged. He has failed in his responsibilities in this debate, he has argued in bad faith, and therefore the only possible conclusion is that in this debate, he is the losing participant – and, by his own standard, a coward.
There is another possible conclusion. But this conclusion would rely upon facts and reading comprehension. I have challenged M14 Shooter’s position, but not in the way he expected. Now he forgets that I have challenged his position. And he responds to it in this very same post, but claims that he didn’t make the claims I say that he did. I did in fact offer something to challenge his position. I said that the “anti-gun side” that he depicted is inaccurate, and that his topic is meaningless. There are much more contentious aspects to the gun debate.

M14 Shooter said:
However…
Understanding that my opponent, is in his own words, a “coward” for not taking up the discussion offered to him according to the terms of his challenge to me,
Wrong again, I in fact, did take up the discussion offered to me according to the terms of the challenge.
M14 Shooter said:
…and that my opponent has effectively conceded his inability to argue a position contrary to mine and thus defeat in that argument…
Again we hear M14 Shooter state the monumental error, his misrepresentation of my actual words and the real agreement. How unfortunate that M14 Shooter misremembered it. How embarrassing that he has stated it so many times, putting his foot in his mouth, over and over and over again. If this debate was public and there had been an audience, the laughter would have stopped him dead by now.
 

niftydrifty

Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
4,725
Reaction score
1,391
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Niftydrifty's second rebuttal, Part 2 of 4

M14 Shooter said:
…My opponent desperately wants to redeem himself by changing the subject and picking an argument of his choosing (rather than making good on his challenge to me) and presenting it here – therefore, going well above and beyond MY responsibilities in this exchange, I shall argue against the points he makes.
Perhaps deep down, M14 Shooter does recognize that I was arguing on behalf of Liberalism, and that I had made good on the challenge, and that this was the right thing to do in the first place. So now we’re getting somewhere. But I doubt it.
M14 Shooter said:
His position here appears to be that ‘since ‘they’ want to repeal the 2nd amendment, ‘they’ must agree that the 2nd protects the individual ownership of modern firearms.

First and foremost, this is nothing but inference on his part.
Unless he can provide specific statements from ‘those’ that chose to repeal the 2nd, his position is nothing but supposition.
Well, this article, which I posted earlier, was written by someone that wants to repeal the second amendment. He does say that the amendment protects individual ownership.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/052400-103.htm

How unfortunate for M14 Shooter that a complete rebuttal of nearly everything he has typed involves me simply reminding him of something which I’ve already said, again and again. Yawn.

M14 Shooter said:
As support for his argument,, my opponent offers the results of Google searches, rather than specific articles from specific authors,
wrong again! I offered two specific articles. And M14 Shooter addressed them.

M14 Shooter said:
…. and how each of those articles supports his position. To wit:
repeal "second amendment" - Google Search
The google search was offered in addition to specific articles. Not in lieu of. Again M14 Shooter is confused.

M14 Shooter said:
First, it must be noted that several of the hits, even just on the first page, argue against the idea of repealing the 2nd, rather than argue that it should be repealed:
Disarm America? Should we repeal Second Amendment? - January 4, 1998
WorldNetDaily: Make them repeal the 2nd Amendment
Repeal Second Amendment, Analyst Advises
Yes, of course. Those links arguing against the idea of repealing the second amendment are evidence of a debate about appealing or not appealing the second amendment. This is a debate that M14 Shooter has not acknowledged. It seems I’ve made him aware of it. He told us that the pro-gun and anti-gun sides were about something else. But there are hundreds of thousands, yes that’s right, hundreds of thousands, of more hits for “repeal second amendment.” There is a much more lively gun debate that is about something other than M14 Shooter thinks.

M14 Shooter said:
And several others have nothing to do with the repeal of the 2nd at all:
Restoring the Second Amendment
Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-...s_Constitution
Yes, “several” others. So in other words, 370,000, give or take a few “several.”

There is no comparison with the 3,280 or 6,210 hits for the other terms.

M14 Shooter said:
And It appears my opponent, during his “amassing [of] evidence” didn’t really bother to look at the evidence he amassed – indeed, his claim of 370,000 regarding the repeal of the 2nd amendment is specious at best. Indeed, after the first few pages, there are rather few articles that support repealing the 2nd, and many of those are repeats.
M14 Shooter misses the point that there are a hundred (a hundred!) times as many webpages which mention second amendment and repeal than mention what the second amendment protects.

M14 Shooter said:
Anyway...
Under the search, we find articles such as:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/052400-103.htm

Nowhere does this article specifically or implicitly recognize that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any given modern firearm –
Actually, it does. Reading comprehension. It says, “The right to bear arms made sense in the 18th Century…” M14 Shooter wants to make assumptions about what the author meant by “arms.” The author wants to repeal the second amendment. ‘Nuff said.

M14 Shooter said:
in fact, the same source, commondreams.org, advocates the banning of certain weapons:

This article decries the failure to move forward with banning handguns:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/041900-02.htm

And here, there is similar displeasure expressed over the sunset of the 1994 ‘assault weapon’ ban:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0524-03.htm

Commondreams.org, contrary to the inference drawn by my opponent, clearly supports the banning of certain kids of modern firearms. My opponent insists that they recognize that the 2nd amendment exists, and so their position regarding handguns and assault weapons necessitates that they do NOT believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own these weapons.
What an acrobatic feat of deception M14 Shooter attempts. I cite an article by an author, and M14 Shooter calls the website upon which it appeared the same “source.” The website, which is a clearing house for hundreds of Leftist authors is not one and the same entity as a single author whose article appears there.

M14 Shooter said:
To continue with my opponent’s Google search, we find:
niftydrifty said:
Now contrast that with mentions online (according to Google and my search terms), of weapons not being protected or covered by the second amendment, as M14 Shooter claims:
…3280 hits
…6210 hits
This is my opponent engaging a in a logical fallacy known as ‘an appeal to popularity’. He wants to pit his 370,000 hits against “my” <10,000 hits, and then conclude that my argument isn’t sound, whereas his is – since there are ’more articles’, he argues, ‘my position must be correct’.
M14 Shooter doesn’t know what an appeal to popularity is. An appeal to popularity is a fallacy when it is used to argue that the position taken by most people is true. M14 Shooter does not realize that it is necessary to use an appeal to popularity to establish what it is that most people think – the opinion that is most popular. That is what I did. It isn’t a logical fallacy. I argued that the opinions taken by most Democrats are probably the same opinions taken by most Liberals. I also used an appeal to popularity to point out that there is more of a debate over repealing the second amendment than there is about what the second amendment covers. I argued that the number of hits on a search engine reveal what is the more active part of the gun debate. This isn’t a logical fallacy. An example of a logical fallacy would be for me or for M14 Shooter to point to a poll after this debate is over, and to say that more people think that I won this debate, therefore, one of us really did.

M14 Shooter said:
Aside from the fallacy he presents,
It wasn’t a fallacy, as I’ve demonstrated, but you may continue…
M14 Shooter said:
and as we have seen, of his 370,000 hits, few of them support the idea that the 2nd should be repealed, and he has not shown where ANY of them speak to ANY recognition that modern firearms are indeed protected by the 2nd.
You spoke about a few of them. What about the other 300-and-something-thousand? If you’d like to do a representative sampling of those links, how about one with a margin of error that isn’t immense?
M14 Shooter said:
Note that nowhere in the article does the author directly argue that modern firearms are protected by the 2nd; my opponent is inferring that because the [sic] doesn’t argue that they are not protected by the 2nd, he must therefore agree that they are. This is fallacious on its face.
I’d like to hear what M14 Shooter thinks the author does believe the second amendment covers, if it isn’t modern firearms.

M14 Shooter said:
And was noted before – Commondreams.org advocates the ban of certain weapons. My opponent insists that they recognize that the 2nd amendment exists, and so their position regarding handguns and assault weapons necessitates that they do NOT believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own these weapons.
If you want to see an example of a fallacy, this is a good one. M14 Shooter repeats that the article I cited, written by a single author, was written by “they,” commondreams.org. It wasn’t. He’s already said this and I’ve already refuted it.
M14 Shooter said:
Again, nowhere does this author directly argue that the 2nd amendment protects all modern firearms, and again, my opponent relies on the inference that that because he doesn’t argue that they are not protected by the 2nd, he must therefore agree that they are. This is, again, fallacious on its face
Again, I’d like to hear what M14 Shooter thinks the Brookings guy does believe the second amendment covers, if it isn’t modern firearms.
M14 Shooter said:
Here, my opponent presents a false characterization of my argument – how I have characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side - and then proceeds to tell me how wrong I am. Indeed, I have not here in any way characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side in any way shape or form -- indeed, my opponent’s argument here, ladies and gentlemen, is a classic strawman.
Readers, read this statement. Now read the first paragraph of his first post.

M14 Shooter, 6/13/07: “I have not here in any way characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side in any way shape or form”

M14 Shooter, 6/8/07: “…the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.”

Amazing.

Okay, dear readers, now when you’re done LYAO, please compose yourselves and continue. If you do, you are to be commended. I doubt I would bother.
M14 Shooter said:
niftydrifty said:
The "anti-gun side" actually seems to agree with M14 Shooter, that modern firearms are covered by the second amendment.
This is, of course, a laughable assertion.

Let us look at several examples from the leading members of the anti-gun side:

First, lets look at the leading organizations that support anti-gun positions:

As noted before, Commondreams.org supports the position that handguns and ‘assault weapons’ should be/remain banned:
Gun-Control Movement Split by Ambition to Ban Handguns
Return of Assault Weapons Feared in U.S.

My opponent insists that they recognize that the 2nd amendment exists, and so their position regarding handguns and assault weapons necessitates that they do NOT believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own these weapons.
Again, M14 Shooter mistakenly connotes what I said about the single author with other authors on a website. He confuses “him” with “they.”

M14 Shooter said:
Another anti-gun organization, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, is clearly in favor of banning ‘assault weapons’:
http://www.csgv.org/docUploads/awb_report.pdf
While Shooter runs thru these examples of “Liberal” organizations in favor of banning assault weapons, keep in mind that most Conservatives are in favor of banning assault weapons, too.
 

niftydrifty

Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
4,725
Reaction score
1,391
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Niftydrifty’s second rebuttal, Part 3 of 4

For the record, I’m in favor of banning assault weapons also. But I recognize that they’re covered by the Constitution. Anyone can have an opinion about something, stuff they’d like to see happen, but have it conflict with the Constitution. For beaucoup examples, see: “Bush Administration, The.”

Source: Roper Center at University of Connecticut
Date: August 1996
Question: “Do you think Congress should repeal the ban on assault rifles which was passed in 1994, or do you think Congress should keep the ban on assault rifles?”
Answer: Keep ban.
Liberal 80%
Moderate 80%
Conservative 66%
(results viewable at iPoll link I posted earlier).


M14 Shooter said:
Further note that this anti-gun organization specifically does NOT recognize that the 2nd amendment protects a right to own ANY weapons:
http://www.csgv.org/docUploads/2003%...g Book.pdf
Clearly, this is another example of the anti-gun side not agreeing with me.
This is a position that both Liberals and Conservatives agree on. Again, there is a national consensus on this issue. Just as I’ve stated before.

M14 Shooter said:
And, yet –another- example of the anti-gun side not agreeing with me is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in its support of banning ‘assault weapons’:
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Brady Campaign - Assault Weapons Ban
Brady Campaign - Assault Weapons Threaten Our Safety and Security
This is a position that both Liberals and Conservatives agree on.

M14 Shooter said:
Further note that this anti-gun organization also specifically does NOT recognize that the 2nd amendment protects a right to own ANY weapons:
Brady Campaign - Myth of the Second Amendment
Clearly, this is another example of the anti-gun side not agreeing with me.
A single organization is not most Liberals. A single organization is not “Liberalism.”

M14 Shooter said:
Certainly, these are just three examples of anti-gun organizations that do not agree with me, but they are examples from leading anti-gun political organizations, of which there are many more
Yep, just three examples. Anecdotal evidence. I asked for a sizeable contingent. A majority of something.

M14 Shooter said:
Of course, organizations are not the only members of the ‘anti-gun side’ -- lets look at various political candidates, properly characterized as anti-gun:

Hillary Clinton:
Supports the ‘assault weapon’ ban:
Hillary Watch Human Events - Find Articles
Gun Law News - Hillary Clinton

Clearly, as she recognizes the existence of the 2nd amendment while supporting the ban of a certain kind of modern firearm, she obviously does not believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any modern firearm. In that, he obviously disagrees with me.
Uh, she. A single she is not most Liberals. And most Conservatives agree with her. Where is the debate here?

M14 Shooter said:
Barack Obama:
Supports a ban on ‘semi-automatic weapons’:
Barack Obama on Gun Control
Radio Iowa: Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control

Clearly, as he recognizes the existence of the 2nd amendment while supporting the ban of a certain kind of modern firearm, she obviously does not believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any modern firearm. In that, she obviously disagrees with me.
Uh, he. And most Conservatives agree with him.

M14 Shooter said:
John Edwards:
Supports the ‘assault weapons’ ban
Radio Iowa: Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control
John Edwards on Gun Control

Clearly, as he recognizes the existence of the 2nd amendment while supporting the ban of a certain kind of modern firearm, she obviously does not believe that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own any modern firearm. In that, he obviously disagrees with me.
Uh, he. And most Conservatives agree with him.

M14 Shooter said:
Certainly, these are just three examples, but they are examples from leading anti-gun political figures that do not agree with me, of which there are many more.

And so, it’s very clear that the anti-gun side does indeed NOT agree with me. .
Yup, just three examples. M14 Shooter’s “anti-gun side” also contains most Conservatives. M14 Shooter is confused on the gun issue.

M14 Shooter said:
niftydrifty said:
The real difference between Shooter's "anti-gun side" and the real anti-gun side, is that…
… I haven’t characterized the anti-gun side? This strawman has already been dealt with, and since my opponent is arguing a strawman, there’s not really any sense in addressing his argument.
I really think M14 Shooter ought to. How much farther this “debate” would be along by now if M14 Shooter weren’t so forgetful, confused, or both.

M14 Shooter said:
However…
Understanding that my opponent, is in his own words, a “coward” for not taking up the discussion offered to him according to the terms of his challenge to me, and that my opponent has effectively conceded his inability to argue a position contrary to mine and thus defeat in that argument…
Here we are at the calling names. What was that M14 Shooter said about me being “desperate?” LOL. Remember, the agreement I made was to argue on behalf of “Liberalism.”

M14 Shooter said:
…and that he finds it necessary to put up arguments that I did not make and attribute them to me – in classic strawman fashion – so that he can knock them down and then claim victory over me…
I do hope that now M14 Shooter has been reminded of what he did say, that he will respond now and that hopefully this “debate” will get somewhere.

M14 Shooter said:
…I shall address these arguments as well.
Cool. I just hope M14 Shooter can read them better.
M14 Shooter said:
niftydrifty said:
the real anti-gun side (including both Conservatives and Liberals) would like to have (potentially un-Constitutional) regulations and restrictions placed on guns, or in rarer cases, they'd they'd like to see the second amendment repealed… This is not a left/right issue. Many on "the right" agree with those on "the left:"
The “real” anti gun side and their positions regarding what weapons are protected by the 2nd have already been described.
Ooops. Poor Shooter. My statement in light of my evidence stands soundly. M14 Shooter makes it out to be a Left/Right issue, which it isn’t.

M14 Shooter said:
My opponent argues that many of the left/right/Democrats/Republicans agree regarding what restrictions they would like to place on the right to keep and bear arms, but he does not offer any specific examples.
If I did that it would be anecdotal evidence. I’m trying to establish what most people believe, not a few.
M14 Shooter said:
Clearly, I have been demonstrated (to no great surprise) that the left and the Democrats want more restrictions; my opponent claims that the right and the GOP also want these additional restrictions – but supplies no –specific- evidence to this end,
Clearly, to no great surprise, M14 Shooter doesn’t know that pointing to anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy. M14 Shooter doesn’t understand poll methodology.
Anecdotal Evidence
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Anecdotal_evidence
M14 Shooter said:
… his only support being a poll for which one must register to see. This does not effectively stand up to the level of evidence I have supplied for my argument, and as such, my opponent’s argument remains unsupported.
The registration for my poll would have taken about as long as it took for M14 Shooter to complain about it. Complaining about the nature of the poll isn’t a refutation of the actual data. As such, M14 Shooter has no argument. I have supplied evidence. It’s too bad that M14 Shooter didn’t like it. We could be having a real debate if M14 Shooter didn’t wish to remain willfully ignorant.
M14 Shooter said:
I have listed numerous sources from organizations and people – all on the leading edge of the gun control debate, the edge that pushes for more gun control -- that agree with Mr. Kennedy to varying, but strong, degrees. The sentiment he espouses here is well-represented in the leadership of the Democratic party, especially among its most recent member so the executive branch and their current and recent candidates for President, as well as the major anti-gun organizations.
But most Democrats disagree. End of story.
M14 Shooter said:
I didn’t make any of the arguments my opponent attributes to me, and so its impossible for me to be wrong.
There he goes again. Sorry readers, I’m forced to repeat myself.

M14 Shooter, 6/13/07: “I have not here in any way characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side in any way shape or form”

M14 Shooter, 6/8/07: “…the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.”

http://static1.grsites.com/archive/sounds/comic/comic003.wav

M14 Shooter said:
niftydrifty said:
The gun debate isn't about what the amendment covers. It's about something else.
The gun debate is entirely about the amendment: who has the right, what weapons are protected, what actions with those weapons are protected, and what level of protection is afforded. My opponent simply dismisses these things because he knows he cannot make any specific argument regarding the amendment that might oppose my view and by dismissing the amendment itself, he hopes to never have to.
Reading comprehension. Please note that I said “amendment covers.” Please note that M14 Shooter said nothing about repealing the admendment. Also note how M14 Shooter repeats his misunderstanding of the debate challenge. I’m making an argument on behalf of Liberalism. I don’t disagree with M14 Shooter regarding what the amendment covers. I haven’t seen evidence that most Liberals do, either.
M15 Shooter said:
niftydrifty said:
I'd like to see some evidence that a sizable contingent of anything or anybody disagrees with M14 Shooter's argument
This has been aptly demonstrated by citing the positions of prominent anti-gun organizations and candidates, and noting that there are more examples available.
anecdotal evidence

M14 Shooter said:
And if that’s not enough, please note the Debatepolitics.com poll results:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...amendment.html
19 of 49 (38.8%) of all responding do not believe that the 2nd amendment covers all modern firearms. 38.8% is a sizeable contingent.
The poll choices included Nukes. M14 Shooter is trying to connote the debatepolitics.com population with the US population. The percentages of political opinions represented at debatepolitics.com do not in any way resemble the opinions of most Americans.
 

niftydrifty

Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
4,725
Reaction score
1,391
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Niftydrifty’s second rebuttal, Part 4 of 4
M14 Shooter said:
Indeed, it has not been demonstrated by my opponent that anyone- but- my opponent agrees with my position, a tactic he is using in an attempt to avoid actually arguing against me.
I have not been arguing against M14 Shooter? Actually, I have been, just not in the way he would prefer or in the way that he anticipated.
M14 Shooter said:
niftydrifty said:
I'd like to see some evidence that all or most of the "anti-gun side" believe that individual ownership of modern firearms isn't covered by the 2nd.
This is yet another strawman.
cue the laugh track again.

M14 Shooter, 6/13/07: “I have not here in any way characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side in any way shape or form”

M14 Shooter, 6/8/07: “…the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.”

M14 Shooter said:
However, it has indeed been shown that the major anti-gun organizations do not agree with the argument that the 2nd protects an individual right to own any gun whatsoever, much less any modern firearm, and it has also been shown that while certain anti-gun parties may agree that the 2nd protects the right to own a gun of some sort, it certainly doesn’t protect the right to own all modern firearms.
Anecdotal evidence. Lobbying or advocacy groups tend to be more extreme than most people.
M14 Shooter said:
niftydrifty said:
Until this evidence is produced, M14 Shooter's argument is a meaningless straw man argument, and is therefore pointless
One must wonder what my opponent will say now that the evidence has been produced.
Now you know. One must wonder what M14 Shooter will say now that he has been taught what an anecdotal evidence fallacy is. One must wonder if M14 Shooter will be able to now produce evidence demonstrating that most of any section of the population believe anything, or if he will shrug it off or misunderstand it completely, as he has with nearly everything else.

M14 Shooter said:
And until my opponent actually attempts to counter my argument, as he agreed that he would do, he is still, by his own words, a ‘coward’.
LOL, more name calling. He repeats the misunderstanding again, the part where he confuses “Liberalism,” with something counter to his argument.
M14 Shooter said:
niftydrifty said:
M14 Shooter speaks about an "anti-gun side" and then shows how this alleged "anti-gun side" is wrong. M14 Shooter, you made this claim
My opponent will please quote for me in this topic where I made this claim, or he will be guilty of putting up yet another strawman argument.
6/13/07: “I have not here in any way characterized the ‘anti-gun’ side in any way shape or form”

M14 Shooter, 6/8/07: “…the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.”

M14 Shooter said:
So, to summarize:

• My opponent, in that he refuses to argue against the position I took, as he said he would do in the challenge he put to me, is, by his own standard, a coward.
demolished.

M14 Shooter said:
• My opponent, in that he moved away from trying to argue against my position, as he said he would when he issued his challenge, and tried to argue various issues unrelated to my position, is guilty of trying to change the subject away from an argument he knows he cannot support. He is, indeed, running away.
demolished.

M14 Shooter said:
• My opponent’s assertions that “the "anti-gun side" actually seems to agree with M14 Shooter, that modern firearms are covered by the second amendment” has been demonstrated to be patently false by showing that while some of them may indeed recognize the 2nd amendment, their desire to ban certain guns necessitates that they do not believe the 2nd covers the guns they want to ban.
I said that, but I also said, “the real anti-gun side (including both Conservatives and Liberals) would like to have (potentially un-Constitutional) regulations and restrictions placed on guns, or in rarer cases, they'd they'd like to see the second amendment repealed… This is not a left/right issue. Many on "the right" agree with those on "the left."

demolished.

M14 Shooter said:
• My opponent argues that there is broad correlation between Republicans and Democrats and Liberals and Conservatives regarding gun control, but he offers no specific evidence to this end, especially that which shows a correlation between Republicans/Conservatives and the Democrat/liberal people and organizations that I cited.
I argued that there is a “broad correlation” by providing “broad evidence.” Specific evidence would not demonstrate a broad correlation. Three people do not represent Liberalism. M14 Shooter either does not understand poll methodology, or he is simply frustrated that no poll in existence denies my claims. So he harps on specific examples. And calls me names. Specific examples are anecdotal and do not demonstrate a “broad correlation.”

M14 Shooter said:
• My opponent, not having any position of his own to stand on, finds the need to create straw men that he can knock down, even going so far that as to claim that I am “wrong” about a position that I did not take.
My position is to argue on behalf of Liberalism, just as I agreed to. M14 Shooter’s alleged “strawman position that he did not take” is there for all to see: it’s the first paragraph in his first post.

M14 Shooter, 6/8/07: “…the anti-gun side, who argue that the amendment protects only a state-based collective right, meaning that private ownership of guns may be regulated in any and every manner whatsoever, without running afoul of the Constitution.”
Ouch.
M14 Shooter said:
In conclusion, its clear that my opponent cannot argue against my position, and cannot support the arguments he made when he tried to change the subject in order to cover for the fact that he could not argue against my position
When you have no case, just simply repeat the same falsehoods over and over. Maybe someone will be gullible enough to believe it.

Summary

M14 Shooter:
• has mistakenly assumed that an argument on behalf of Liberalism would be an argument counter to anything he could think of.
• does not know what an appeal to popularity is.
• has misrepresented the gun debate in this country
• did not know that there is not a correlation between political ideology and the “sides” in the national gun debate
• has wrongly drawn a parallel between a debate about firearms covered by the second amendment and about weapons covered by the second amendment. Nukes are not firearms.
• does not know that anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy.
• did not remember that he made claims about the anti-gun side of the gun debate, and therefore feels that he does not have to substantiate those claims.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You're going to have to wait until tomorrow for my response and close.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
M14 Shooter introduced the entire topic by misrepresenting the “sides” and then going from there.
My opponent failed to notice that after characterizing the gun control argument as generally being one of the individual right v collective right, I immediately said that THIS discussion didn’t deal with who had the right, but what weapons were protected:


The discussion presented here, however, does not deal with the question as to whose right is protected by the 2nd amendment, but what weapons might fall under its purview


As such, my opponent is trying to argue that I am mischaracterizing a position that I, myself, declared irrelevant to the discussion and that when presenting my ACTUAL argument, a position on what weapons are protected by the 2nd, a position that I never took. Yes indeed, my opponent is grasping at straw men.

Thus, the remainder of his argument to this effect has been sufficiently addressed in that he is arguing against a point that I declared irrelevant to the issue I presented and was not included in my –actual- argument concerning the issue I presented. He may continue to shadow box at his leisure, however.

I have been accused of changing the subject. But what is the subject? M14 Shooter is confused about what the subject is, relevant to the context of this debate.
My opponent is trying to tell –me- that –I- don’t know what the subject is when –I- chose the subject and laid out –my- position regarding same. This is, of course, my opponent trying to change the subject from what I presented to what he wants to argue.

It’s not a Liberal or a non-Liberal issue. I agree with most Americans about individual rights. And I would love it if assault weapons were banned, like most Americans seem to. But I believe a ban would be unconstitutional. Just as M14 Shooter does.
We all know that my opponent personally agrees with me – which is why he is trying to change the subject away from what I argued to something that I did not. He doesn’t have the mental ability to create a sound argument contrary to mine, and he’s trying desperately to avoid displaying that inability for all to see.

I agreed to argue on behalf of Liberalism. I have done so and I am doing so.
I agreed to argue any issue from the point of view of Liberalism. Seeing as how I lean pretty far left, this is easy for me to do.
And yet, my opponent has –refused- to argue from that position. Instead, he has made feeble attempts to show that the “liberal” position agrees with mine and with everyone else’s, even after being shown that prominent liberals and gun control organizations do NOT agree with me or everyone else.

Really, that’s all that needs to be said here – I picked the subject, and my opponent rather pathetically avoided it by trying to change it. By his own words, avoiding the subject makes him a coward.

I’ve demonstrated how there is generally a consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable), on the issue. This debate isn’t just about a static question that exists in a vacuum.
Regarding the ACTUAL issue, that the 2nd protects all modern firearms, my opponent has shown nothing.

He –has- demonstrated that there is a poll that shows that liberals and conservatives believe X Y and Z based on the particular way a question was asked. This proves nothing other than there is a poll that shows liberals and conservatives believe X, Y, and Z based on the particular way a question was asked. His sole support for his position that “there is generally a consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable), on the issue” is this poll, and at best, it is lacking.

If M14 Shooter must persist in referring to me as a “coward,” the onus is on him to provide evidence for a correlation between political ideology and “gun politics” opinion.
All that’s necessary to show my opponent as a coward is to show that he did not argue the liberal position against the position I presented. This is clearly the case, as shall be demonstrated.

I’ve attempted to show that there is no correlation by referring to the opinions of millions of people. M14 Shooter has tried to do so by referring to the opinions of 3 people. Liberalism is not 3 people.
This is, of course, hogwash. My opponent has cited one, just one poll. He claims this reflects the opinion of “millions” which is, of course, silly.

He then refuses to accept that the organizations I cited, being the leading examples of the anti-gun side, are indeed representative samples of the liberal anti-gun argument. I have to wonder that if these organizations do NOT effectively and legitimately illustrate the liberal argument regarding what weapons are protected by the 2nd, then what organizations do?

He –then- tries to dismiss the samplings I provided from leading liberal Democratic presidential candidates as ‘anecdotal’ and therefore not representative of the liberal/Democratic side of the debate regarding what weapons are protected by the 2nd – forgetting, of course, that as leading candidates for high office, especially those who are already elected to office, are necessarily indicative of not only the party they represent and the ideology of that party, but their own ideology and, to at least a significant degree, the ideology of the people that voted for them. In that, the people noted indeed represent the opinions of millions – a claim based on concrete voting results rather extrapolated from some poll.

My opponent wants to dismiss quotes from people and organizations as the ‘fallacy of anecdotal evidence’, which is nothing more than a pitiful attempt to nullify information that damages his position. IF one is to establish what the liberal position on a given subject, one MUST examine what the liberals themselves say about that subject. My opponent tries to dismiss this approach because he knows that examining what liberals say and do and compare that to what conservatives say and so will quickly and easily show how wrong he is.

So, to –further- emphasize my point, I will provide MORE evidence that the liberal position, as illustrated by liberal Democrats elected to office and/or running for their party’s nomination for President, is NOT one that holds that ‘all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd’ and NOT in broad agreement with that of conservatives and/or Republicans.

Remember that Hillary, Obama and Edwards, all noted mainstream liberal democrats, and all elected senators,– one of which was the Dem nomine for VP in 2004 – all of whom having received millions of votes, have already been shown to NOT agree that all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd. To them, I shall add:

Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), an elected representative in the state of Ohio, receiving 138,000 votes in 2006, and as liberals as liberals get, is “is currently drafting [federal] legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians”.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich

John Kerry (D-MA), an elected senator and past Democratic nominee for President, receiving 59,028,109 votes in the 2004 election, characterized as the 12th most liberal in the senate (John Kerry: The Most Liberal Senator? An Analysis ), says that “I am for the assault weapons ban”
John Kerry on Gun Control

Al Gore, former VP and the democratic party’s nominee for president in 2000, receiving received 50,996,116 to that end, and noted liberal, supports a “complete ban on junk guns and assault weapons”
Al Gore on Gun Control

Bill Clinton, Democrat, Liberal – elected twice as President of the United States, garnering a total of 92,309,931 votes, proudly signed into law an act “that bans the sale of 19 assault weapons-guns made expressly for killing people” (Bill Clinton on Gun Control) and professed, even vowed, that he “will not see that ban repealed”
January 1995 State of the Union Address (Prepatory Speech)

Mark Dayton (D-MN), characterized as THE most liberal senator (John Kerry: The Most Liberal Senator? An Analysis ), having received 1181553 votes in 2000, supports “current law, including the ban on assault weapons”. He also supports making it a “federal offense to possess and discharge a gun within 1,000 feet of a school”.
Mark Dayton on Gun Control

And the list goes on and on and on – each of the 10 most liberal senators (John Kerry: The Most Liberal Senator? An Analysis) all support the banning of ‘assault weapons’, and therefore do NOT agree with me.:

2. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md.
Supported re-authorization of AW ban
Paul Sarbanes on Gun Control

3. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
Co-sponsored a bill to re-authorize the ‘assault weapon’ ban
Senate to Vote on Feinstein-Warner-Schumer Assault Weapons Ban Extension Next Tuesday

4. Jon Corzine, D-N.J.
Supports the ‘assault weapon’ ban and promises to “fight day in and day out to enact the toughest possible gun control”
Jon Corzine on Gun Control

5. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
Co-sponsored a bill to re-authorize the ‘assault weapon’ ban
Senate to Vote on Feinstein-Warner-Schumer Assault Weapons Ban Extension Next Tuesday

6. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
Co-sponsored a bill to re-authorize the ‘assault weapon’ ban
Senate to Vote on Feinstein-Warner-Schumer Assault Weapons Ban Extension Next Tuesday

7. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
Voted to renew the ‘assault weapon’ ban
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
 
Last edited:

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
8. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
Co-sponsored a bill to re-authorize the ‘assault weapon’ ban
Senate to Vote on Feinstein-Warner-Schumer Assault Weapons Ban Extension Next Tuesday

9. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
Co-sponsored a bill to re-authorize the ‘assault weapon’ ban
Senate to Vote on Feinstein-Warner-Schumer Assault Weapons Ban Extension Next Tuesday

10. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt
Voted to renew the ‘assault weapon’ ban
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

Let us compare these people to the positions of the 10 most conservative Senators:
Top 10 Most Conservative Senators - HUMAN EVENTS

10. Elizabeth Dole (R.-N.C.)
Votes NO to re-up the ‘assault weapon’ ban
Michael Enzi on Gun Control

9. Michael Enzi (R.-Wyo.)
Votes NO to re-up the ‘assault weapon’ ban
Enzi scores A+ by NRA on pro-gun rights policies
Michael Enzi on Gun Control

8. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.)
Votes NO to re-up the ‘assault weapon’ ban
Cornyn scores A by NRA on pro-gun rights policies
John Cornyn on Gun Control

7. Saxby Chambliss (R.-Ga.)
Votes NO to re-up the ‘assault weapon’ ban
Chambliss scores A+ by NRA on pro-gun rights policies
Saxby Chambliss on Gun Control

6. Jim Bunning (R.-Ky.)
Votes NO to re-up the ‘assault weapon’ ban
Jim Bunning on Gun Control

5. John Thune (R.-S.D.)
(No quotes or voting record against the ‘assault weapon ban’)
Thune scores A by NRA on pro-gun rights policies
John Thune on Gun Control

4. John Ensign (R.-Nev.)
Votes NO to re-up the ‘assault weapon’ ban
John Ensign on Gun Control

3. Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.)
(No quotes or voting record against the ‘assault weapon ban’)
Coburn scores A by NRA on pro-gun rights policies
Tom Coburn on Gun Control

2. Jim DeMint (R.-S.C.)
(No quotes or voting record against the ‘assault weapon ban’)
DeMint scores A by NRA on pro-gun rights policies
Jim DeMint on Gun Control

1. James Inhofe (R.-Okla.)
Votes NO to re-up the ‘assault weapon’ ban
Inhofe scores A+ by NRA on pro-gun rights policies
James Inhofe on Gun Control

If he wishes, my opponent can try dismiss the power, the clarity, and the relevancy of this comparative information, all of which show beyond a doubt that prominent liberal Democrats, the leaders of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, representing the views of the millions upon millions of liberal people that voted for them, are espousing the liberal position of what guns are protected by the 2nd, and that their position contrasts sharply to those of Conservatives – but to do so is to self-sodomize his credibility as a sentient being.

Note that the ACTUAL liberal position, illustrated above and below, that certain modern weapons are NOT protected by the 2nd is FAR different than the his so-called ‘liberal position’ of the ‘broad consensus’ that ‘all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd’ my opponent claims to have argued.

My opponent also dismisses the views of liberal anti-gun organizations noted previously, even though one of –his- sources lists one of them as a resource for further investigation of the liberal position on gun control. Searching for other liberal organizations and their stances on guns, and picking out the most prominent of those found, we find many similar positions:

List of Liberal Organizations:
Liberal Organizations

Democratic leadership Council
Laments the expiration of the ‘assault weapon’ ban:
DLC: Surrendering the Assault Weapons Ban
Offers advise re: gun control to Dem candidates:
DLC: Guns and Values by Jim Kessler, Matt Bennett, and Jonathan Cowan

ACLU:
“We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias…
The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration….
Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms…”
American Civil Liberties Union : Gun Control

NAACP:
The NAACP also strongly opposes any move to repeal the District's self-enacted gun safety measures (the handgun ban)
NAACP - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RESIDENTS VOTING RIGHTS HELD HOSTAGE TO EXTREMIST GUN LOBBY
resolves to support a measure that makes the assault weapon ban permanent, and make it harder for people to obtain firearms
http://www.naacp.org/pdfs/resolutions/5-2007_Resolutions_mailing-all_files_combined_for_printing.pdf

NEA:
Ran an ad in the Washington Post demanding: that Congress:
• Require locks or other safety devices on all guns;
• Ban the sale of semiautomatic assault rifles;
• Stop the sale and importation of high-capacity ammunition clips;
• Require mandatory background checks;
• Prohibit handgun possession by those under 21;
• Establish tip lines for students to alert adults about potential violence.
They also sent a letter “to every member of Congress signed by the country's leading education groups, calling for this common-sense legislation.”NEA: NEA Home
Compare these positions to those of several prominent conservative groups: Conservative Organizations
The American Conservative Union:
"Like its predecessor, this (assault weapon) re-authorization bill is wholly unconstitutional.
American Conservative Union

Cato Institute
Calls for the repeal of the 1994 ‘assault weapon’ ban
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb107/hb107-23.pdf

Claremont Institute
Argues the 1994 AW ban should die
The Claremont Institute - Let a Bad Law Die
The Claremont Institute - Assault-Weapons Ban, R.I.P.

Libertarian party:
Foolish politicians and police now seek to ban semi-automatic "assault rifles". They ignore the fact that only honest citizens will comply; criminals will still have them. Such a ban will only increase the criminals' ability to victimize the innocent
http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-rights.shtml

And to –further- illustrate the point, that there is NO consensus across ideology and party let us look at the vote that passed the 1994 ‘assault weapon’ ban.
This bill passed the house 216-214,
216 yeas: 177 Dems 38 Republicans
214 nays: 77 Dems 137 Republicans
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll156.xml

Let’s also look at the 2004 senate vote to re-up the ‘assault weapon’ ban.
52 yeas: 10 Republicans, 41 Dems, 1 independent
47 nays: 6 Dems, 41 Republicans.
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

These votes dispel any illusion that there is general partisan agreement on this issue. It should be plain that -one- side supports the -liberal- position here that, since it is, indeed, “necessary”, to ban certain modern firearms, not ALL modern firearms are protected by the 2nd.

Of course, since my opponent seems to think that polls are the be-all end all of evidence useful in a debate, let’s look at a few that specifically asks about support for banning guns:
Source:
Guns

ABC news, 4-22-07
67-80% support banning ‘assault weapons’, 1994-2007
32-38% support banning handguns, 1999-2007

CBS/NYT 4-22-07
33-43% support banning handguns, 1999-2007

Pew research 4-22-07
45-37% support banning handguns, 1993-2007

Gallup 9-12-2006
41-37% support banning handguns 1981-2006
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Gallup 10-14 2004
50% support banning ‘assault weapons’

NBC/WSJ 9-19-2004
61% “dissatisfied” that ‘assault weapons’ no longer banned

Harris 9-13-2004
71% favor the continuation of the ‘assault weapon’ ban

So:
50-80% of people support banning ‘assault weapons’
32-45% of people support banning handguns

IF, as my opponent suggests, that there is a broad consensus that the 2nd protects the individual right to own a gun, then, given the large percentages of people that support banning guns, there is clearly NO “consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable)” that the 2nd protects all modern firearms, and that there is significant variance of opinions across ideological and partisan lines.

To continue to show how invalid his ‘broad consensus’ argument really is – from the Harris poll noted above:
Republicans and Democrats hold very different views on the overall issue of making gun control stricter. Just under half (48%) of Republicans favor making gun control stricter and 41 percent favor making it less strict. This compares to Democrats who by 72 to 21 percent favor stricter gun control. U.S. adults who classify themselves as Independent feel that gun control should be made stricter (63% to 32%).

And, again, to the argument that there is consensus between right/left GOP/Dem regarding the basic tenets of gun control, that these ideological groups echo one another regarding gun control:

• Liberals and populists generally favor more gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "more registration" or "more licensing" to describe seeking further restrictions legal ownership; or "close the loopholes" and "restrict access" for further restrictions on illegal ownership.
• Moderate liberals and populists will generally favor more restrictions on ownership while paying lip-service "sportsmen's rights" or respecting "the right of self-protection." A moderate compromise is to "extend waiting periods" before allowing ownership, to perform "background checks" of varying degrees of severity.
• Conservatives and libertarians generally oppose gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "Second Amendment rights" or "allow concealed carry". A call for "instant background checks" pays lip-service to gun-control advocates: it sounds like a restriction, but means allowing purchasing guns on the spot.
• Moderate conservatives and libertarians oppose gun laws while acknowledging that restrictions are inevitable. Look for buzzwords like "enforce existing gun laws," which implies not passing any NEW gun laws. Similarly, "more strict enforcement" of gun laws implies a pro-Gun Rights stance, unless it is accompanied by a call for new gun laws.
• Centrists and moderates from both the right and left generally support restrictions on juvenile access to guns, especially in the wake of tragedies like Littleton and other gun-related deaths.
SpeakOut.com - Gun Control

Then, compare:

Liberal view on gun control
The conflict here involves distrust of government, individual responsibility, and attitudes towards violence within society. Giving everyone a mechanism to hurt other people quickly, easily, and at a distance is dangerous; people are more likely to do it. On the other hand, a basic liberal principle is that people should be trusted, and that large organizations should not. One approach to resolving this conflict is the Swiss system, in which large numbers of people own guns, but they are registered such that usage can be easily traced; such weapons are kept in a manner that reduces the possibility of sudden, irrational use. Many liberals prefer the outright banning of guns intended only to kill people, on the grounds that such weapons are by now ineffective in dealing with abuse of power by government.
Turn Left: Liberalism FAQ
(Please note that this source, one put forth by my opponent, links to the Brady Campaign as a extension of its remarks on gun control)

With:

Why are conservatives so opposed to gun control?
Not only do conservatives think gun control is only effective at disarming law abiding citizens, not criminals who obviously can't be expected to follow the rules, we also believe the 2nd Amendment gives us the constitutional right to be armed. Because of that, conservative opposition to gun control is a given.

It’s really unbelievable to me that M14 Shooter can confuse the term “modern firearm” with the term “weapon.” The poll he talks about mentions nukes.
My opponent fails to notice that there are other classes of weapons noted in the polls, all of which have to do with various – indeed, all – kinds of firearms, modern and otherwise. Why my opponent thinks the inclusion of nukes into the poll is relevant, one can only guess.

The point of this poll, of course, is that there is –obviously—some degree of ideological disparity regarding who believes what firearms are covered by the 2nd, contrary to his claims. Please note the results of the poll:

Views.jpg


From this, it is fair to say that liberals and Democrats are more restrictive on this issue, and conservatives and Republicans are less so. My opponent argues there is “generally a consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable), on the issue” that all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd. It appears this poll negates this claim. Please note too that this poll is specific regarding the classes of weapons protected by the 2nd, and does not simply ask whether or not ‘assault weapons’ should be banned.

So much for that “broad consensus” between the ideologies and the parties and the people of the United States.

That his entire argument here rests on that concept that there is such a consensus, ans clearly no consensus exists, his entire argument that there is “no liberal side” ultimately fails. That there is no consensus indicates there is a difference of opinion from which he could indeed argue; rather than argue this difference of opinion from the liberal side, as he agreed he would, my opponent tried to run away from the debate by changing the subject.

So, to conclude:

My opponent has continued to refuse to argue against the issue I presented, choosing instead to change the subject to something that I did not bring up but that he thought he could argue against.

My opponent has tried to redefine the argument into one of consensus between ideologies and parties in an attempt to show that there is no “liberal position” against mine, in an attempt to justify not arguing against my position – and since it has been demonstrated that there is no such consensus, both in terms of gun control in general, and what weapons are protected by the 2nd in specific, he has failed.

My opponent continues to argue against a position that I, myself, declared irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion, and thinks his efforts to that end have some meaning.


In the end, my opponent, knowing he can’t argue against my position, simply said “oh yeah, well I agree because there isn’t any argument against this”, and has since done everything he can to avoid addressing my argument. Each of the justifications he has used to avoid the argument have been shot down, while illustrating that there is, indeed an argument contrary to mine, leaving him with naught while still facing a position that he has yet to address in any meaningful way.
 
Last edited:

niftydrifty

Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
4,725
Reaction score
1,391
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LOL, I guess you're going to have to wait two days for my response and close, also.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
LOL, I guess you're going to have to wait two days for my response and close, also.

Take your time, dude - there's little you can do here except continue to argue strawmwn and dodge the issue.
 

M14 Shooter

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
68
Location
Toledo-ish OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Nifty:

Enerything OK there, champ?
Hope there's not been some sort of emergency or whatnot.
If you need more time, please feel free to take it - just let me know.

M14
 

niftydrifty

Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
4,725
Reaction score
1,391
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
maybe another day. had company over the weekend and lost my dsl yesterday. i know you just can't wait to read all about how the 10 most extreme members of congress don't represent the opinions of most people, etc etc. lol.
 

niftydrifty

Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
4,725
Reaction score
1,391
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Niftydrifty’s Closing Remarks

Part one of three

I will now respond to M14 Shooter’s entire post point-by-point, without excluding any passages, as he has done with mine that were problematic for him.
M14 Shooter said:
My opponent failed to notice that after characterizing the gun control argument as generally being one of the individual right v collective right, I immediately said that THIS discussion didn’t deal with who had the right, but what weapons were protected:

The discussion presented here, however, does not deal with the question as to whose right is protected by the 2nd amendment, but what weapons might fall under its purview

As such, my opponent is trying to argue that I am mischaracterizing a position that I, myself, declared irrelevant to the discussion and that when presenting my ACTUAL argument, a position on what weapons are protected by the 2nd, a position that I never took. Yes indeed, my opponent is grasping at straw men.
niftydrifty said:
M14 Shooter introduced the entire topic by misrepresenting the “sides” and then going from there.
That is exactly what M14 Shooter did, is it not? What I said was true. Regardless of whether he said “however,” or not, M14 Shooter said those things preceding it. M14 Shooter makes statements that he later tries to disavow himself from, by pointing out how they are “irrelevant,” by his use of the word “however.” One must wonder why M14 Shooter said such things in the first place. He didn’t really mean them. They were off limits for me to address them. Right off the bat, M14 Shooter talks about his actual arguments, and his non-actual arguments. M14 Shooter is a gifted politician, actually. He might just actually be the most likely candidate at DP that there actually is … HOWEVER, there’s not a there “there,” and it all depends one what the actual definition of “is” is. So don’t bother addressing M14 Shooter’s non-actual words. Only address his “actual” words. I’d vote for the actual M14 Shooter. We’ll just have our campaign strategists actually clean up non-actual M14 Shooter and it’ll all be actually good.
Actual M14 Shooter said:
Thus, the remainder of his argument to this effect has been sufficiently addressed in that he is arguing against a point that I declared irrelevant to the issue I presented and was not included in my –actual- argument concerning the issue I presented. He may continue to shadow box at his leisure, however.
While my interest lies in the full context of the world in which we live, M14 Shooter can only “win” by constantly referring to how he wishes to speak about this world. Any mention by me of what really happens in our world beyond how he thinks about it, is deemed a “foul” by M14 Shooter.
M14 Shooter said:
My opponent is trying to tell –me- that –I- don’t know what the subject is when –I- chose the subject and laid out –my- position regarding same. This is, of course, my opponent trying to change the subject from what I presented to what he wants to argue.
Look again M14 Shooter. I said “relevant to the context of this debate.” You left that out. What I “wants to argue,” is what I agreed to argue when you accepted the challenge. Again, reading comprehension.
niftydrifty said:
It’s not a Liberal or a non-Liberal issue. I agree with most Americans about individual rights. And I would love it if assault weapons were banned, like most Americans seem to. But I believe a ban would be unconstitutional. Just as M14 Shooter does.
M14 Shooter said:
We all know that my opponent personally agrees with me – which is why he is trying to change the subject away from what I argued to something that I did not. He doesn’t have the mental ability to create a sound argument contrary to mine, and he’s trying desperately to avoid displaying that inability for all to see.
Yes, I’d rather avoid lying, seeing as how I’m a Christian and all. M14 Shooter was banking on the false hope that I’d be “forced” into saying stuff that I didn’t believe.
M14 Shooter said:
And yet, my opponent has –refused- to argue from that position. Instead, he has made feeble attempts to show that the “liberal” position agrees with mine and with everyone else’s, even after being shown that prominent liberals and gun control organizations do NOT agree with me or everyone else.

Really, that’s all that needs to be said here – I picked the subject, and my opponent rather pathetically avoided it. By his on [sic] words, avoiding the subject makes him a coward.
I’m Liberalish, my views lean left. And it is my opinion that the second amendment protects what it says it does. Just as anyone whom would say that the second amendment ought to be repealed, is acknowledging. We’ve been going back and forth (ad nauseum) already about how M14 Shooter misunderstood what a “Liberal” stance was. (He thought anything that disagreed with him was Liberalism.) So I’ve had to drill it into M14 Shooter that this isn’t about him, it’s about the world we live in. And M14 Shooter isn’t entirely all the way there (in the actual world) with me yet.
niftydrifty said:
I’ve demonstrated how there is generally a consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable), on the issue. This debate isn’t just about a static question that exists in a vacuum.
M14 Shooter said:
Regarding the ACTUAL issue, that the 2nd protects all modern firearms, my opponent has shown nothing.

He –has- demonstrated that there is a poll that shows that liberals and conservatives believe X Y and Z based on the particular way a question was asked. This proves nothing other than there is a poll that shows liberals and conservatives believe X, Y, and Z based on the particular way a question was asked. His sole support for his position that “there is generally a consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable), on the issue” is this poll, and at best, it is lacking.
Actually, I have shown quite abit regarding the actual issue. In my opinion, “actualness” has to do with what really exists in the world. Carving an “issue” out of current day politics and removing it from contexts, and calling it the “actual issue” is inaccurate. In this regard, M14 Shooter misunderstands the gun debate. The gun debate most certainly doesn’t exist in a vacuum of M14 Shooter’s design. I’ve already pointed out other ways that M14 Shooter doesn’t properly understand the gun debate in this country.
niftydrifty said:
If M14 Shooter must persist in referring to me as a “coward,” the onus is on him to provide evidence for a correlation between political ideology and “gun politics” opinion.
M14 Shooter said:
All that’s necessary to show my opponent as a coward is to show that he did not argue the liberal position against the position I presented. This is clearly the case, as shall be demonstrated.
LOL, bring it on.
M14 Shooter said:
This is, of course, hogwash. My opponent has cited one, just one poll. He claims this reflects the opinion of “millions” which is, of course, silly.
I’ve cited several polls. Anyone can scroll up and see that. Reading comprehension and/or selective memory.

It’s easy to just call something silly, but M14 Shooter conveniently neglected to demonstrate how the polling methodology I referred to didn’t reflect the opinion of millions of people. In a representative random sample, if the sample is large enough there is a relatively slim margin of error. When using anecdotal examples, as M14 Shooter is fond of doing, there is a vastly large margin of error.

M14 Shooter said:
He then refuses to accept that the organizations I cited, being the leading examples of the anti-gun side, are indeed representative samples of the liberal anti-gun argument. I have to wonder that if these organizations do NOT effectively and legitimately illustrate the liberal argument regarding what weapons are protected by the 2nd, then what organizations do?
If M14 Shooter chose to address what I actually said, we would be getting somewhere. I said that the opinions of Liberals can be determined by looking at polls, not by merely looking at the opinions of organizations, which tend to be more ideologically extreme than the general population. M14 Shooter is hung up on organizations. “What organizations do?” I’ve already said that I don’t think they do. And I explained why. Again, reading comprehension.

M14 Shooter said:
He –then- tries to dismiss the samplings I provided from leading liberal Democratic presidential candidates as ‘anecdotal’ and therefore not representative of the liberal/Democratic side of the debate regarding what weapons are protected by the 2nd
… because they are …

M14 Shooter said:
– forgetting, of course, that as leading candidates for high office, especially those who are already elected to office, are necessarily indicative of not only the party they represent and the ideology of that party, but their own ideology and, to at least a significant degree, the ideology of the people that voted for them. In that, the people noted indeed represent the opinions of millions – a claim based on concrete voting results rather extrapolated from some poll.
This is a rather ludicrous claim. M14 Shooter is spinning out of control here. He argues that we shouldn’t look at the opinions of people, we should look at the opinions of elected leaders. Bush is the POTUS. Do his opinions match those of most Americans? No, they don’t. Such is the flawed logic being argued by M14 Shooter.

M14 Shooter said:
My opponent wants to dismiss quotes from people and organizations as the ‘fallacy of anecdotal evidence’, which is nothing more than a pitiful attempt to nullify information that damages his position.
M14 Shooter calls it pitiful. I call it reasonable. Anecdotal evidence is just that. I stated before that M14 Shooter didn’t know that he had committed a logical fallacy. Looks like he still doesn’t.

M14 Shooter said:
IF one is to establish what the liberal position on a given subject, one MUST examine what the liberals themselves say about that subject. My opponent tries to dismiss this approach because he knows that examining what liberals say and do and compare that to what conservatives say and so will quickly and easily show how wrong he is.
Wrong, you can reasonably establish what the Liberal position is by looking at a representative sample of the opinions of all Liberals, not by looking at the individual opinions of some of them.

M14 Shooter said:
So, to –further- emphasize my point, I will provide MORE evidence that the liberal position, as illustrated by liberal Democrats elected to office and/or running for their party’s nomination for President, is NOT one that holds that ‘all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd’ and NOT in broad agreement with that of conservatives and/or Republicans.
MORE anecdotal evidence? Oh, goody.

M14 Shooter said:
Remember that Hillary, Obama and Edwards, all noted mainstream liberal democrats, and all elected senators,– one of which was the Dem nomine for VP in 2004 – all of whom having received millions of votes, have already been shown to NOT agree that all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd. To them, I shall add:
[snip] … more anecdotal evidence … [snip]

I really tried to help M14 Shooter by providing a link with an explanation of anecdotal evidence. I really did.
 
Last edited:

niftydrifty

Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
4,725
Reaction score
1,391
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Niftydrifty’s closing remarks, part two of three

M14 Shooter said:
And the list goes on and on and on – each of the 10 most liberal senators (John Kerry: The Most Liberal Senator? An Analysis) all support the banning of ‘assault weapons’, and therefore do NOT agree with me.:

[snip]

Let us compare these people to the positions of the 10 most conservative Senators:
Top 10 Most Conservative Senators - HUMAN EVENTS

[snip]
Comparing the “10 most ideologically extreme” of anything does nothing to change the facts about what most Americans believe. M14 Shooter has engaged in a pointless exercise. It is obvious why the “10 most ideologically extreme” opinions on any given topic aren’t going to match the opinions of most people, let alone most Liberals or Conservatives.

M14 Shooter said:
If he wishes, my opponent can try dismiss the power, the clarity, and the relevancy of this comparative information, all of which show beyond a doubt that prominent liberal Democrats, the leaders of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, representing the views of the millions upon millions of liberal people that voted for them, are espousing the liberal position of what guns are protected by the 2nd, and that their position contrasts sharply to those of Conservatives – but to do so is to self-sodomize his credibility as a sentient being.
Done. It all can be quite easily dismissed. What do most people believe? Is it the identical to what our elected leaders believe? M14 Shooter seems to think so.

M14 Shooter said:
Note that the ACTUAL liberal position, illustrated above and below, that certain modern weapons are NOT protected by the 2nd is FAR different than the his so-called ‘liberal position’ of the ‘broad consensus’ that ‘all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd’ my opponent claims to have argued.
What M14 Shooter fails to grasp is that all people, Left, Right and other, tend to agree that the second amendment covers individual ownership of “arms” but that they’d also like to see restrictions anyway. M14 Shooter also fails to grasp there is more talk of repealing the second amendment than of quibbling over what it covers. M14 Shooter neglected to mention this last point at all in his last post. A convenient omission on his part.

M14 Shooter said:
My opponent also dismisses the views of liberal anti-gun organizations noted previously, even though one of –his- sources lists one of them as a resource for further investigation of the liberal position on gun control. Searching for other liberal organizations and their stances on guns, and picking out the most prominent of those found, we find many similar positions: [snip]
I’ve already talked about how the opinions and motivations of activist groups can differ from the opinions of most people. I’m talking about the opinions of most people, while M14 Shooter loves to present anecdotal evidence.

M14 Shooter said:
And to –further- illustrate the point, that there is NO consensus across ideology and party let us look at the vote that passed the 1994 ‘assault weapon’ ban.
This bill passed the house 216-214,
216 yeas: 177 Dems 38 Republicans
214 nays: 77 Dems 137 Republicans
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll156.xml
Does anyone really believe that the opinions of the members of the House mirror the opinions of most people?

M14 Shooter said:
Let’s also look at the 2004 senate vote to re-up the ‘assault weapon’ ban.
52 yeas: 10 Republicans, 41 Dems, 1 independent
47 nays: 6 Dems, 41 Republicans.
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
Does anyone really believe that the opinions of the members of the Senate mirror the opinions of most people?

M14 Shooter said:
These votes dispel any illusion that there is general partisan agreement on this issue. It should be plain that -one- side supports the -liberal- position here that, since it is, indeed, “necessary”, to ban certain modern firearms, not ALL modern firearms are protected by the 2nd.
Only if one doesn’t understand that the opinions of Congress aren't the identical opinions of the general public. Only if one ignores points made before about repealing the second.

M14 Shooter said:
Of course, since my opponent seems to think that polls are the be-all end all of evidence useful in a debate, let’s look at a few that specifically asks about support for banning guns:
Source:
Guns
When discussing public opinion, of course they are.

M14 Shooter said:
ABC news, 4-22-07
67-80% support banning ‘assault weapons’, 1994-2007
32-38% support banning handguns, 1999-2007

CBS/NYT 4-22-07
33-43% support banning handguns, 1999-2007

Pew research 4-22-07
45-37% support banning handguns, 1993-2007

Gallup 9-12-2006
41-37% support banning handguns 1981-2006

Gallup 10-14 2004
50% support banning ‘assault weapons’

NBC/WSJ 9-19-2004
61% “dissatisfied” that ‘assault weapons’ no longer banned

Harris 9-13-2004
71% favor the continuation of the ‘assault weapon’ ban

So:
50-80% of people support banning ‘assault weapons’
32-45% of people support banning handguns

IF, as my opponent suggests, that there is a broad consensus that the 2nd protects the individual right to own a gun, then, given the large percentages of people that support banning guns, there is clearly NO “consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable)” that the 2nd protects all modern firearms, and that there is significant variance of opinions across ideological and partisan lines.
I spoke about a consensus across ideologies and I used polls that disclosed ideological leanings and the poll results broken down by those variables. M14 Shooter didn’t.

M14 Shooter said:
To continue to show how invalid his ‘broad consensus’ argument really is – from the Harris poll noted above:
Republicans and Democrats hold very different views on the overall issue of making gun control stricter. Just under half (48%) of Republicans favor making gun control stricter and 41 percent favor making it less strict. This compares to Democrats who by 72 to 21 percent favor stricter gun control. U.S. adults who classify themselves as Independent feel that gun control should be made stricter (63% to 32%).
M14 Shooter left out this portion of the article: “… a substantial majority (71%) of all U.S. adults favors continuation of this ban. Support for the ban is equally favored across all groups including Republicans, Democrats and Independents.” M14 Shooter also neglected to mention what is meant in his quote by “stricter” gun control favored by Democrats. Would it have anything to do with arms protected by the second amendment? The article isn’t clear at all. It doesn’t mention it. Making vague inferences and pretending that they’re actual, is just fine for M14 Shooter. Perhaps “stricter” gun control refers to waiting periods and registration numbers, which Conservatives also favor, just not as much? I won’t eagerly make such assumptions. I’ll leave that to M14 Shooter.
M14 Shooter said:
And, again, to the argument that there is consensus between right/left GOP/Dem regarding the basic tenets of gun control, that these ideological groups echo one another regarding gun control:
Quote:
• Liberals and populists generally favor more gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "more registration" or "more licensing" to describe seeking further restrictions legal ownership; or "close the loopholes" and "restrict access" for further restrictions on illegal ownership.
• Moderate liberals and populists will generally favor more restrictions on ownership while paying lip-service "sportsmen's rights" or respecting "the right of self-protection." A moderate compromise is to "extend waiting periods" before allowing ownership, to perform "background checks" of varying degrees of severity.
• Conservatives and libertarians generally oppose gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "Second Amendment rights" or "allow concealed carry". A call for "instant background checks" pays lip-service to gun-control advocates: it sounds like a restriction, but means allowing purchasing guns on the spot.
• Moderate conservatives and libertarians oppose gun laws while acknowledging that restrictions are inevitable. Look for buzzwords like "enforce existing gun laws," which implies not passing any NEW gun laws. Similarly, "more strict enforcement" of gun laws implies a pro-Gun Rights stance, unless it is accompanied by a call for new gun laws.
• Centrists and moderates from both the right and left generally support restrictions on juvenile access to guns, especially in the wake of tragedies like Littleton and other gun-related deaths.
SpeakOut.com - Gun Control
M14 Shooter has pasted a list of bullet points explaining what the typical ideological labels “generally” believe. No evidence is presented to support these opinions. While I point to opinion polls and data, M14 Shooter points to how the political scene seems to appear to somebody.

M14 Shooter said:
Then, compare:
Quote:
Liberal view on gun control
The conflict here involves distrust of government, individual responsibility, and attitudes towards violence within society. Giving everyone a mechanism to hurt other people quickly, easily, and at a distance is dangerous; people are more likely to do it. On the other hand, a basic liberal principle is that people should be trusted, and that large organizations should not. One approach to resolving this conflict is the Swiss system, in which large numbers of people own guns, but they are registered such that usage can be easily traced; such weapons are kept in a manner that reduces the possibility of sudden, irrational use. Many liberals prefer the outright banning of guns intended only to kill people, on the grounds that such weapons are by now ineffective in dealing with abuse of power by government.
Turn Left: Liberalism FAQ
(Please note that this source, one put forth by my opponent, links to the Brady Campaign as a extension of its remarks on gun control)
While I point to opinion polls and data, M14 Shooter points to how the political scene seems to appear to somebody. Is “many liberals” the same as “most liberals?” M14 Shooter hopes that no one will notice these details, as he pastes and pastes and pastes.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom