• 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?

Whatever you can afford.
Dependant on nothing at all.
Of course all the law concerning who / what you shoot / blow up apply. Doesnt matter if its a butter knife or a stinger, if you kill without cause youre going down.
 
For arms? Any caliber, any action (including full auto), any magazine capacity, open or concealed, no permit required.

For ordnance, permit required for anything other than common explosives (tannerite, fireworks, etc..) while on planet, off Earth all explosives without permit.
 
Whatever you can afford.
Dependant on nothing at all.
Of course all the law concerning who / what you shoot / blow up apply. Doesnt matter if its a butter knife or a stinger, if you kill without cause youre going down.

Is the theory behind this view that weapons are tools and thus morally neutral and it's what you do with those tools that may or may not deserve punishment?
 
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.
Meh. There is no reason or cause for disagreement about the founding fathers intent as their words were as clear as can be. Those that are confused are deliberately confused, because they WANT the intent to be something other than what it so clearly and obviously was.

My rationale is quite clear as well. Law abiding citizens should have the right to own and carry any defensive weapons they choose. They can carry a Klingon Bat'leth for all I care. Carry a Samurai sword. I dont fear law abiding citizens as they do not represent a threat to me. Conversely, criminals have clearly demonstrated they do not and will not follow the laws regardless.

When it comes to carrying weapons, I view the obsession the anti-gun people have as identical and as screwed up as the unhealthy attitudes people have that caused human sexuality to be such a problem. People freak out at the sight of pubic hair and nipples...its no wonder so many people are so ****ed up about it. Same goes for firearms. OHMIGAWD...a gun!!! Get over it. If its in its holster where it belongs, go on about your business. If it isnt and its pointed at you, you might want to consider drawing your own.

Now...a note on this. Since I get to make the rules on firearms ownership, you will be pleased to know that my justice system will handle violent criminal acts far differently than existing laws. That should make people rest a little more at ease. Commit a violent criminal act with ANY weapon and you will go to jail for a very, very, very....ummmm.....VERY long time. You might say our sentencing guidelines would be draconian. I dont give a **** how bad your home life was. I dont care how bad your community is.

Oh...and you can count on stiff penalties for failing to properly secure your firearms as well.

Now...on to the main concern...military grade weapons. I answered it before but I believe law abiding citizens are the worst case scenario best defense for the nation. To that end, my citizens would be authorized to possess up to squad automatic weapons and ammunition. Never want to HAVE to employ. Glad you have it if you do.

Im not afraid of law abiding citizens. Im not afraid of criminals. Im not afraid of would be oppressors. Trust, handle, handle. In that order.
 
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.

any firearm any local, state or federal civilian law enforcement agency has access to, so should lawful citizens. the standard issued individual weapon of a regular infantry soldier or equivalent weapons
 
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.

actually the best pizza in the USA is in the city where American style pizza originated

New Haven Connecticut. Peppy's and Sally's Legendary stuff
 
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.

there is no real disagreement as to what the founders intended. Those who claim that the 2A says something different than preventing the federal government from encroaching on the natural right the founders accepted as the basis for the amendment are dishonest statists who realize that the 2A prevents their disgusting schemes so they pretend that the 2A says something else in order to advance their disgusting schemes
 
For arms? Any caliber, any action (including full auto), any magazine capacity, open or concealed, no permit required.

For ordnance, permit required for anything other than common explosives (tannerite, fireworks, etc..) while on planet, off Earth all explosives without permit.

for space flight, photon torpedoes are definitely in order!!
 
The question posed in the OP points out the root of the problem. The Constitution was not written from the perspective of the government but from the perspective of the people, and I would not have it any other way. Which is why the current government needs to go **** themselves.
 
Is the theory behind this view that weapons are tools and thus morally neutral and it's what you do with those tools that may or may not deserve punishment?

Objects are neither moral nor amoral. No theory there.
 
The question posed in the OP points out the root of the problem. The Constitution was not written from the perspective of the government but from the perspective of the people, and I would not have it any other way. Which is why the current government needs to go **** themselves.

The current administration seems to have no problem of doing that to themselves, but why are they trying to **** the American people and the Constitution at the same time ?
 
The current administration seems to have no problem of doing that to themselves, but why are they trying to **** the American people and the Constitution at the same time ?

My bet would be jst to see how many will play along. When it starts to come apart I am willing to sit back and watch the most compliant fail just so I don't have to deal with them later. It has been said that we can survive a corrupt government but not those who put them in charge. If the government depends on the compliant let them eat themselves first. Makes my life easier and I already know who my friends are.
 
That's an unsophisticated answer. You mean, a tank, ICBM, nuclear bomb, etc?

This requires further explenation.

I thought that was self-explanatory. If the state at some point in time fails the mission to protect it while it pursues happiness as the citizenry mandated or individuals in large number misuse the power they received from the state to harm the citizens, there need to be controls, checks and balances the last resort being the use of weapons.
 
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?

Simple. If I can afford an aircraft carrier and two squadrons of F-18's then I shouldn't be prohibited from owning them.
 
As a baseline I should be able to own anything civilian law enforcement is permitted to use. I am also 100% against registration.
 
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?

All honest, law abiding citizens may keep and bear unlimited numbers of any firearm up to .75 cal and unlimited amounts of any ammunition.

All honest, law adiding citizens may have the right to keep and bear any destructive device: tank, APC, fighter jet, attack helecopter, hand-held rocket laucher, gernade launcher or howetizer---if they have no criminal arrest or conviction history, are upstanding members of their community and are part of a community defence force (a militia, not a gang).

Anyone covicted of acutually using a standard firearm in a violent criminal act shall at a minimum, do at least one year hard labor.

Anyone using a destructive device for the above reasons should face automatic execution.
 
Excellent question I hope I can do it justice.

Given that in the last century 262 million civilians have been killed by their own government, a figure that is 6 times more than all these killing wars in the same period, it can be concluded that government's are the most dangerous things we have on earth. That you are more likely to be killed by your own government than for any other reason. It would therefore be irresponsible not to take into consideration civilian arms should be sufficient to present a formidable and deterrent force to government. This was a stated intention of the 2nd so I am not alone in this belief civilians need protection from governments.

I can think of no valid reason any ARM should not be available to civilians. It is not as if the arm controls anyone so what is there to fear from the arm? Far better for our government to stop trying to control objects and get on with the job of providing a suitable environment where crime is not a paying trade or only chance of employment. That people can hold their head up high and be proud of who they are, not having to depend on government handouts and overcrowded living conditions in squalor and poverty.
 
Last edited:
I am with TurtleDude. The standard should be that any free citizen should be able to own, purchase, and carry-- openly or concealed, without a permit-- any weapon that is allowed for use by civilian law enforcement, or that is issued to individual infantry soldiers. This right should not be subject to any training requirement, license, fee or other infringement (except, possibly, proving that one is a lawful resident and/or citizen) and should be inalienable except for the duration of any court-ordered institutional confinement.

This is in recognition that the free citizen is not subordinate to the State, but the key component making up the State, and that it is his consent alone that authorizes the State to, itself, bear arms in defense of its laws and territories.
 
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 actually have asked this question before, albeit worded differently. I am glad you asked.

I feel that the weaponry debate should not be based on need. It should be based on defense, hunting, and so on. But the important part is defense.

We as humans, as living beings, have a right to defend ourselves. It is our instinct. And the reality is that there is no perfect world where we won't need to. And the thing about a gun is it is am equalizer. If you are a tiny woman you can stop a big man. With limited training too. The limitations on tasers and pepper spray is also ridiculous. They are arms for defensive purposes.

The limits I feel are acceptable are age, on violent felons (or Felons in general), and any "explosive" weapon, Ordinance basically.

The gun has been the great equalizer humans. The rights of man did not truly exist until them, and with good reason. Simply looking at cavalry, a rich man's tool, and the role they played until the firearm became the dominant piece, is really the best evidence. We deserve defense, and tyrants are not only in government. Sometimes they are simply criminals.
 
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.

That is the point of the bill of rights, to put restrictions on the government. But you need to be able to justify why the government should be restricted from passing laws related to weaponry. Thus the question of what your rights should be.
 
That is the point of the bill of rights, to put restrictions on the government. But you need to be able to justify why the government should be restricted from passing laws related to weaponry. Thus the question of what your rights should be.

Wrong. The Constitution, and indeed the Bill of Rights, is a restriction on government, as you pointed out. If the document is a restriction on their powers, the onus is on them to provide the need for the law, not for me to disprove the need for it.
 
Wrong. The Constitution, and indeed the Bill of Rights, is a restriction on government, as you pointed out. If the document is a restriction on their powers, the onus is on them to provide the need for the law, not for me to disprove the need for it.

Right, but I'm not asking which laws should or should not be passed. I'm asking what rights you should have in regards to weapons. Of course if we wanted to pass laws against ownership of certain weaponry, we would have to justify those laws. But that's the point of the bill of rights, to stop the government from passing those laws even if the need for the law exists (and is justified).

You can argue that there is nothing special about firearms ownership if you want. That's fine. But that's the equivalent of saying it should not be a constitutionally protected right.
 
I am with TurtleDude. The standard should be that any free citizen should be able to own, purchase, and carry-- openly or concealed, without a permit-- any weapon that is allowed for use by civilian law enforcement, or that is issued to individual infantry soldiers. This right should not be subject to any training requirement, license, fee or other infringement (except, possibly, proving that one is a lawful resident and/or citizen) and should be inalienable except for the duration of any court-ordered institutional confinement.

This is in recognition that the free citizen is not subordinate to the State, but the key component making up the State, and that it is his consent alone that authorizes the State to, itself, bear arms in defense of its laws and territories.

This is considered crazy talk by gun haters.
 
That is the point of the bill of rights, to put restrictions on the government. But you need to be able to justify why the government should be restricted from passing laws related to weaponry. Thus the question of what your rights should be.

another complete and utter failure when it comes to understanding the entire foundation of our government

WRONG-the duty is upon YOU to show where government was given a specific power to so act

GUESS WHAT-for the federal government it does not exist

By making that claim you have completely demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the basis upon which the federal government was created.
 
Right, but I'm not asking which laws should or should not be passed. I'm asking what rights you should have in regards to weapons. Of course if we wanted to pass laws against ownership of certain weaponry, we would have to justify those laws. But that's the point of the bill of rights, to stop the government from passing those laws even if the need for the law exists (and is justified).

You can argue that there is nothing special about firearms ownership if you want. That's fine. But that's the equivalent of saying it should not be a constitutionally protected right.


How can any of your comments be taken seriously in this area when you think we have to justify why the government shouldn't restrict our rights when the duty is upon the government to establish it has a proper and specific power to so act?
 
Back
Top Bottom