• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What should your rights in regards to weaponry be?

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
A lot of gun control / gun rights debates revolve around constitutional issues. This is fine, because that's ultimately what really matters in the US, but it prevents us from discussing more important issues. I would like to hear people's opinions on what your rights "ought to be" and why, putting the existing constitution aside. Another way of thinking of this would be: if there were no constitution and you were part of the committee tasked with writing one, what would you propose as the government's position on firearms and other weaponry and what is the rationale for that position?
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

Could you change your avatar CrabCake ?

Do you know what it's like looking at your avatar and being on the left coast and not being able to get any crab cakes ?
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
18,579
Reaction score
8,962
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Could you change your avatar CrabCake ?

Do you know what it's like looking at your avatar and being on the left coast and not being able to get any crab cakes ?

You can get crab cakes all day long on the west coast. What are you smoking? Pass it here.

On the op. Everything short of strategic nuclear weapons and some particularly nasty chemical and biologicals.
 

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
24,430
Reaction score
21,958
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A lot of gun control / gun rights debates revolve around constitutional issues. This is fine, because that's ultimately what really matters in the US, but it prevents us from discussing more important issues. I would like to hear people's opinions on what your rights "ought to be" and why, putting the existing constitution aside. Another way of thinking of this would be: if there were no constitution and you were part of the committee tasked with writing one, what would you propose as the government's position on firearms and other weaponry and what is the rationale for that position?

To me it should be a human right to allow one whatever is necessary to defend one's self, family, and property. Now the debate comes down to what constitutes what's necessary. I believe that hand guns up to repeating rifles (non-automatic) and shotguns is more than sufficient to accomplish this task. If it would require more than that then we have a whole other ball of wax to deal with and it would be time for the community to come together.
 

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
To me it should be a human right to allow one whatever is necessary to defend one's self, family, and property. Now the debate comes down to what constitutes what's necessary. I believe that hand guns up to repeating rifles (non-automatic) and shotguns is more than sufficient to accomplish this task. If it would require more than that then we have a whole other ball of wax to deal with and it would be time for the community to come together.

So, for you it's tied to the right to personal defense. I think that's sensible way to approach it. Sporting uses might also be important to a lot of people, but I suppose the right to practice certain sports is not something that rises to the level of requiring constitutional protection.
 

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
24,430
Reaction score
21,958
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So, for you it's tied to the right to personal defense. I think that's sensible way to approach it. Sporting uses might also be important to a lot of people, but I suppose the right to practice certain sports is not something that rises to the level of requiring constitutional protection.

The type of weapons I listed can be used for sport as well.
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You can get crab cakes all day long on the west coast. What are you smoking? Pass it here.

On the op. Everything short of strategic nuclear weapons and some particularly nasty chemical and biologicals.

The crab cakes on the west coast aren't even close to the crab cakes you get on the east coast.

It's like pizza, I didn't know what a real pizza was until I visited New York.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
A lot of gun control / gun rights debates revolve around constitutional issues. This is fine, because that's ultimately what really matters in the US, but it prevents us from discussing more important issues. I would like to hear people's opinions on what your rights "ought to be" and why, putting the existing constitution aside. Another way of thinking of this would be: if there were no constitution and you were part of the committee tasked with writing one, what would you propose as the government's position on firearms and other weaponry and what is the rationale for that position?

I should be able to buy and carry it without registration.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The crab cakes on the west coast aren't even close to the crab cakes you get on the east coast.

It's like pizza, I didn't know what a real pizza was until I visited New York.

Naples is the place for a pizza.
 

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
I should be able to buy and carry it without registration.

What is "it"?

The more important part of the question is the rationale. Not what right should you have, but why should you have that right?
 

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Naples is the place for a pizza.

Post WW ll Naples.

Pizza use to be the food of the poor in Italy. It was the Italian-American GI's during WW ll who turned Italy on to the American style pizza. It was Italian immigrants in America who started putting cheese and toppings on top of pizza during the early 1900's.

Just like the hamburger. Hamburger is German (Hamburg Germany) it was America who decided to put the burger between a bun.

But I digress.

All gun laws passed since FDR became POTUS should be repealed.

Under the U.S. militia laws, any American who doesn't have a military type rifle in their home isn't honorably serving his country. Dereliction of duty of being an American citizen.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
What is "it"?

The more important part of the question is the rationale. Not what right should you have, but why should you have that right?

It is a weapon.
Ownership is a control on the state and protection of oneself in extremis.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Post WW ll Naples.

Pizza use to be the food of the poor in Italy. It was the Italian-American GI's during WW ll who turned Italy on to the American style pizza. It was Italian immigrants in America who started putting cheese and toppings on top of pizza during the early 1900's.

Just like the hamburger. Hamburger is German (Hamburg Germany) it was America who decided to put the burger between a bun.

But I digress.

All gun laws passed since FDR became POTUS should be repealed.

Under the U.S. militia laws, any American who doesn't have a military type rifle in their home isn't honorably serving his country. Dereliction of duty of being an American citizen.

A pizza in Naples is certainly different than at Pizza Hut, unless it is at a Pizza Hut.
 

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
Last edited:

KevinKohler

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
25,789
Reaction score
12,321
Location
CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My views on this are complicated. I believe that I should have the right to own a means of defense for myself and my family. However, I tend to think of some weapons as being, by their nature, a violation of the rights of others, even those who don't mean me harm. Land mines, for instance. See, with a decent aim, I can ENSURE that a .38 revolver is going to drop my presumed threat, with minimal to no collateral. Land mines simply aren't similar at all. Same with a grenade, or other explosives. They are designed precisely to cause as much wide spread damage and collateral as possible. That is their purpose. They are designed for WAR.


So I guess, to radically simplify my positions, I could say that I believe the common man, unless they are enlisted, does NOT have a right to own weapons of WAR. Weapons whose ONLY primary use is to make war upon another GROUP of people.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
80,461
Reaction score
35,296
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is clear, as was the intent of the founding fathers. Regardless of the conniptions and manipulations done by those trying to shoehorn the 2A into something it was never meant to be, the 2A covers military grade weapons a citizen/soldier could be expected to brandish in times of need. Personal defense weapons...things like handguns, shotguns, or rifles etc for use in defense of person family and castle are unquestionably protected.

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams (patriot and apparently a hell of a beer maker)

Hunting weapons were again, unquestionably protected. For citizens to lose those rights would have been unthinkable. The 2 A was intended for combat weapons intended to preserve the nation.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

What weapons should I be able to own? Essentially anything I can carry.

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

Jefferson spoke more than a word or two on the armed citizen. There is nothing to fear from the armed law abiding citizen..."those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes". He saw only too well that passage of gun laws meant to target only the law abiding citizen.

Yes...I should be able to possess a SAW...and you should be comfortable sleeping at night knowing it is where it belongs and presents no threat to you whatsoever.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,344
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A lot of gun control / gun rights debates revolve around constitutional issues. This is fine, because that's ultimately what really matters in the US, but it prevents us from discussing more important issues. I would like to hear people's opinions on what your rights "ought to be" and why, putting the existing constitution aside. Another way of thinking of this would be: if there were no constitution and you were part of the committee tasked with writing one, what would you propose as the government's position on firearms and other weaponry and what is the rationale for that position?
My rights are and ought to be exactly how the 2A is written.
 

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
Why not. Same with the rest of the Bill of Rights. We were not given rights, only to have them taken away.

Because that's an appeal to the constitution. The whole point of this thread is to ask people to establish the theory underpinning their view of what rights we should have when it comes to weaponry in the same way that the framers of the constitution did when they wrote it, not by referring to an existing document but by presenting the case for why things should be that way.

Thus far, only one theory has been presented. That being that we should have the right to those things required for us to defend our selves, our family, and our property.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
80,461
Reaction score
35,296
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Did you read the post you're responding to?
I did. I responded. The content of the 2A accurately reflects my beliefs. If I was setting up a Constitution I would use that as my guide. The rationale stated directly by the founding fathers was also included in my comment. Can you not see that or are you just itching for a fight?
 

LagerHead

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2014
Messages
2,410
Reaction score
1,179
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What is "it"?

The more important part of the question is the rationale. Not what right should you have, but why should you have that right?

This is the problem with modern thinking on rights. Rather than a free person justifying why they should have a right, the government needs a clear and compelling reason why I shouldn't. If you want a free and just society, put restrictions on governments, not on people. After all, the biggest threat to your safety is an unfettered government.
 

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
I did. I responded. The content of the 2A accurately reflects my beliefs. If I was setting up a Constitution I would use that as my guide. The rationale stated directly by the founding fathers was also included in my comment. Can you not see that or are you just itching for a fight?

There is disagreement about what the founders intended and why. Rather than get into a debate about what they meant, I'd rather get into a debate about what our rights should be.

Can you present your position and why you feel that way? It's ok if it is also the founder's position, just put it in your own words.
 
Top Bottom