• 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?

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?



Self-defense is a fundamental and natural right; evidence exists in that all living creatures defend themselves against attack as best they can.

If we value life, then we should consider self-defense to be a fundamental right.



Essential to that right is the right to be AT LEAST equally armed to any likely threat, as long as those arms do not endanger the existence of society or constitute an existential threat to the neighbors just by sitting there. (examples would be WMD, radiological stuff, certain types of high explosive that can spontaneously detonate if stored/maintained improperly).

Basically all personal weapons in common use should be protected for possession, carry and lawful use.
 
So it's a question of where the line is drawn, conceding that a line should exist?
 
So it's a question of where the line is drawn, conceding that a line should exist?

well an objective common sense line is

1) whatever CIVILIAN police departments have in terms of firearms is for defense against criminals in a civilian environment. That is grounds for other civilians to have such weapons and government is estopped from arguing the legitimate use and possession of such weapons by issuing them to civilian employees

2) the standard issue military arm of the armed forces or equivalents.

once we achieve that sort of sanity, we can argue about individually deployed weapons that blur the lines between personal arms and "artillery" or Ordnance
 
I understand most of the positions people are presenting. But I can't wrap my head around the position that answers "whatever the police have". No one who has given such an opinion has explained why. They have simply said if law enforcement can have it, everyone should be able to have it. What's the reasoning behind that though? It seems that just kicks the can further down the road, it still leaves you having to answer the question of which weapons people should have a right to, it just makes it clear that law enforcement doesn't get special exemptions. It doesn't seem those people are even really answering the question. The weapons law enforcement are allowed to use might be nothing but billy clubs. Surely those people don't intend to say it's ok if the only constitutionally protected weapon is a billy club as long as that's all the police use.
 
Last edited:
well an objective common sense line is

1) whatever CIVILIAN police departments have in terms of firearms is for defense against criminals in a civilian environment. That is grounds for other civilians to have such weapons and government is estopped from arguing the legitimate use and possession of such weapons by issuing them to civilian employees

2) the standard issue military arm of the armed forces or equivalents.

once we achieve that sort of sanity, we can argue about individually deployed weapons that blur the lines between personal arms and "artillery" or Ordnance

That line is neither objective nor common sense. It's barely sane.
 
I understand most of the positions people are presenting. But I can't wrap my head around the position that answers "whatever the police have". No one who has given such an opinion has explained why. They have simply said if law enforcement can have it, everyone should be able to have it. What's the reasoning behind that though? It seems that just kicks the can further down the road, it still leaves you having to answer the question of which weapons people should have a right to, it just makes it clear that law enforcement doesn't get special exemptions. It doesn't seem those people are even really answering the question. The weapons law enforcement are allowed to use might be nothing but billy clubs. Surely those people don't intend to say it's ok if the only constitutionally protected weapon is a billy club as long as that's all the police use.

I guess I made the mistake of assuming others actually understand why police have weapons

I also made the mistake of assuming other people understand what an argument based on estoppel means

but my life is as valuable as a cop's, So I should have the same defensive weaponry that our government(s) have determined are the optimal for use against criminals in the same environment.

Cops have certain powers that come with their jobs--carrying weapons into courtrooms etc. but I should have the same weapons available in my own house even if my job does not permit me to carry those weapons into a jail, a courthouse or a police station.

it also is a self regulating check on the police becoming too militarized
 
That line is neither objective nor common sense. It's barely sane.

well you don't believe anyone but government minions should be able to own firearms so I really have no use for what you think is sane or common sense.

tell us why should police officers' lives be more valuable than that of the members of the supreme sovereign

and yes, having been a federal law enforcement official for almost a quarter of a century, I trust shop keepers, taxi drivers, gynecologists, pet store owners an pizza delivery drivers as much as I do cops and federal agents.
 
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?

The people can have any small arms and machine guns that the police and military can have.
 
That line is neither objective nor common sense. It's barely sane.



Yet the very type of weapon that bothers you so, is used to murder less often than clubs and bare hands... despite being legal and widely owned in most US states.
 
Last edited:
I understand most of the positions people are presenting. But I can't wrap my head around the position that answers "whatever the police have". No one who has given such an opinion has explained why.

This is a classic example of the old adage, "Don't ask a question if you don't want to know the answer." The answer is plain and simple. Rights for the people are not to be enumerated and everything you didn't list is excluded. Rights are inherent and in for government to take them away, there must be a clear and articulable reason to remove or limit those rights. One example is a felony conviction. It is easy to define and defend a policy that limits a person's rights while they are serving time for committing a felony. However, "what if" scenarios are fantasies and not sufficient reason to limit an individual's rights. The better question is, why shouldn't I have the right to the same weapons as the police?

They have simply said if law enforcement can have it, everyone should be able to have it. What's the reasoning behind that though?

Contrary to the way they often think and act, police are not above the law. They are not special. Therefore, why should they have ready access to weapons to which I do not?

It seems that just kicks the can further down the road, it still leaves you having to answer the question of which weapons people should have a right to, it just makes it clear that law enforcement doesn't get special exemptions.

And yet they actually do get special exemptions. And that is a problem.

It doesn't seem those people are even really answering the question. The weapons law enforcement are allowed to use might be nothing but billy clubs. Surely those people don't intend to say it's ok if the only constitutionally protected weapon is a billy club as long as that's all the police use.

You're going the wrong direction with the argument. The argument isn't that it should be limited to what the police use, it's that we shouldn't be limited to less than what they use. After all, when a life threatening situation happens, who is the first line defender; you, or the police? Obviously it's you. So why should you have any less firepower to deal with a thug than the police have to take a report and possibly investigate your death after the fact?

We, as citizens, should have access to whatever weapons we want, short of tactical nukes and weapons like that. Short of that, if I can afford it, I should be able to have it. Period.
 
The people can have any small arms and machine guns that the police and military can have.

Well technically small arms is anything you can fire without mounting on a vehicle. Mortars and .50 cal hmgs and mk19 40mm grenade launchers. Lol
 
The rub with any thing as a right that has a momentary value attached is how do you provide that right to people that cannot afford it. Consider monetary penalties - a speeding ticket for example. Is that penalty the same for all income levels? No. The same argument can be made for weapons. If personal protection is a right, should your ability to exercise that right be a monetary concern?
 
Well technically small arms is anything you can fire without mounting on a vehicle. Mortars and .50 cal hmgs and mk19 40mm grenade launchers. Lol

Mortars and 40mm grenade launchers are not small arms. Anything this is indirect fire is not a small arm.
 
Negative. Small arms:

Small arms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Defined by army and the un pronounced un like hun without the h lol).

that definition claims Light weapons, not small arms

In international arms control, small arms include revolvers and self-loadingpistols, rifles and carbines, assault rifles, submachine guns and light machine guns. Together with light weapons (heavy machine guns; hand-held grenade launchers; portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns; recoilless rifles; portable launchers of anti-aircraft and anti-tank missile systems; and mortars of calibres of less than 100 mm), they comprise the Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) protocol.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]
 
that definition claims Light weapons, not small arms

In international arms control, small arms include revolvers and self-loadingpistols, rifles and carbines, assault rifles, submachine guns and light machine guns. Together with light weapons (heavy machine guns; hand-held grenade launchers; portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns; recoilless rifles; portable launchers of anti-aircraft and anti-tank missile systems; and mortars of calibres of less than 100 mm), they comprise the Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) protocol.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]

Small arms definition is broad. Could include those explosive weapons.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/160/153887.pdf

Page 4...up to 20mm. I suppose I was a little wrong. 20mm is still huge. Almost 6.3mm bigger than a .50 cal and is capable of a lot more damage.

Edit:My bad

Contain some not "those"
 
Small arms definition is broad. Could include those explosive weapons.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/160/153887.pdf

Page 4...up to 20mm. I suppose I was a little wrong. 20mm is still huge. Almost 6.3mm bigger than a .50 cal and is capable of a lot more damage.

Edit:My bad

Contain some not "those"

There are official conventions that define these things, but beyond the conventions is a matter of perspective. We fire anything form 5.45 to 30mm, but in the tank and artilery world these rounds are considered child's play. To the layman and ordinary citizen anything rifle up to .30 cal or maybe .50 cal would be considered small arms (and what a soldier would carry).
 
There are official conventions that define these things, but beyond the conventions is a matter of perspective. We fire anything form 5.45 to 30mm, but in the tank and artilery world these rounds are considered child's play. To the layman and ordinary citizen anything rifle up to .30 cal or maybe .50 cal would be considered small arms (and what a soldier would carry).

We seem to keep coming back to what a soldier would carry as if the 2A has something to do with arming somebody or something instead of reflecting on what the PURPOSE of the 2A is. So what arms does one need if one considers the many times stated purpose of the 2A?.
 
We seem to keep coming back to what a soldier would carry as if the 2A has something to do with arming somebody or something instead of reflecting on what the PURPOSE of the 2A is. So what arms does one need if one considers the many times stated purpose of the 2A?.

What do you think its purpose is?
 
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 own a gun a private citizen would have to pass an instant background check, demonstrate knowledge of firearm safety, and demonstrate basic competency once with a type of weapon (i.e. pistol, rifle, shotgun, automatic weapon) before being allowed to own that type of weapon. Classes would be offered voluntarily to high schoolers to teach them safety and basic competence. Once you meet the requirements, you can own small arms in any number, and any type you're competent with. There might be some other exceptions or restrictions, but that would be the gist of it.
 
To own a gun a private citizen would have to pass an instant background check, demonstrate knowledge of firearm safety, and demonstrate basic competency once with a type of weapon (i.e. pistol, rifle, shotgun, automatic weapon) before being allowed to own that type of weapon. Classes would be offered voluntarily to high schoolers to teach them safety and basic competence. Once you meet the requirements, you can own small arms in any number, and any type you're competent with. There might be some other exceptions or restrictions, but that would be the gist of it.

since criminals cannot legally own weapons, they would be exempt from those requirements
 
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 ?

You've never wanted a three way?
 
And your point is? Should we not bother making laws because criminals won't obey them?

I don't believe in testing people for constitutional rights. what we should do is punish those who use firearms in a harmful or illegal manner
 
Back
Top Bottom