the benefits of banning assault rifles outweigh the costs

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 90
#31
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
2nd Amendment:
"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."

If the militia is made up of citizens, and citizens have no right to keep and bear arms, then where will the militia get it's arms from?
#32
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I always found this doomsday prepper bullshit comical. Is there any other country in the world that's so backwards devoted to a sheet of paper drawn up hundreds of years ago?
#33
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
I mean the whole debate is ludicrous always, but. fauxlaw compared an assault rifle to water the other day. Talk of banning hands, that sort. Meanwhile your kids are bringing assault rifles to school and blowing each other away. 

I don't know why anyone enters earnest discussion with this shit. 

Topic's author
#34
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
anyone who is in the militia has a right to a gun. they have a right whether they are at home or on duty. that's the way it was in the original days. the large majority of people are not in the militia. 

also, it shouldn't be so hard to provide evidence that that amendment protects the right to a gun for self defense. the reason you can't find any, or it's hard to find... is because it doesn't exist. and, it would exist, if that's what they intended. 
#35
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
It seems like you are asserting that the founding fathers only approved of gun ownership for members of a standing army known as the "militia," while no other citizens had the right to own a firearm. Is that an accurate summary?
#36
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@badger
I am not fauxlaw. Do you believe that anyone should have the right to own at least some type of firearm, or do you want them all banned?
Topic's author
#37
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
i would agree that the regular person had a common law right to a gun for self defense, and you could use the ninth amendmend to justify that constitutionally. i dont think they had that right based on the second amendment, and i dont like people using that amendment to argue for no restrictions or such. i trust our elected representatives over un-elected judicial bureaucrats. 
#38
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
But I asked you to confirm whether my summary of your position was accurate. It seems like you are asserting that the founding fathers only approved of gun ownership for members of a standing army known as the "militia," while no other citizens had the right to own a firearm (outside of common law). Is that an accurate summary?
Topic's author
#39
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
yes that's accurate. 

this isn't really a matter of interpretation. i asked u for clear evidence, and you can't provide it. u should just admit it instead of playing your mental gymnastics that i assume u must be playing. if there was evidence that the second amendment protects a right to a gun for self defense, those websites or somewhere would have posted it. the evidence doesn't exist. 

i think there may be some laws written about 'informal militias' being everyone, and that might give many more rights than they'd otherwise have, but not because the amendment protects non-militia rights, but because that's the only thing it does protect. 
#40
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
If that's your position, then as I said before, we are wasting our time. If you are convinced that the founding fathers approved of standing armies and did not care whether all citizens had a right to own firearms, then we are living in two different worlds. I assumed we were at least operating from some common ground, but I apparently assumed wrong.
#41
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
2nd Amendment:
"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."


Thank God janesix and fauxlaw are not supposed to have guns.

The term “militia of the United States” was defined to comprehend “all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,” between the ages of eighteen and forty-five.



Topic's author
#42
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
the problem is you can't provide basic evidence or a coherent argument for why your position is true.... you're just joinin the rest of the gun nut crowd in playing gymnastics and reading into things that dont exist. i think we should be true to the way things were originally, not liberal rewriting of the constitution to serve an agenda. there's a reason why the traditional conservative position is mine, and why the first hundred years of law reviews at law schools, took my position. 
Topic's author
#43
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@FLRW
that definition of militia was defined by statute, not constitution. meaning it can change. and, it doesn't include females or anyone outside the age groups. plus there were exceptions like mail men etc who weren't included in the militia. 
#44
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
There are no gymnastics here required. If you are going to argue that the founding fathers approved of standing armies as the only ones who should have firearms, rather than the general population, I won't even contest. I will let your argument stand on its own and let others judge it's merit.
#45
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
What you guys think about would women be a sufficient militia, maybe just arm your women and no man can legally own an assault rifle? It's probably all men shooting the place up anyway. Honest suggestion. 

They'd probably better look after the guns too not to have kids getting them.
#46
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
I guess we'd have to worry about the tyranny of women then. The great period synchronisation the history books would remember it as. 
#47
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
I guess we'd have to worry about the tyranny of women then. The great period synchronisation the history books would remember it as. 

Wait, wait. The American Red Terror. 
#48
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@badger
I would rather a woman never be exposed to violence or combat that requires her to use a firearm. But since we live in a world of evil people, I think women should also be armed for the purpose of self-defense. A firearm is the best way for a woman to protect herself against a male aggressor.
#49
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Aren't you so noble. I offered a suggestion though and you talked some other shite at me, didn't address it at all. 

Why do you need to be armed as well as the woman? She'd fare better against the male aggressor if he wasn't armed. 
Topic's author
#50
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
i never said the fathers preferred standing armies. they preferred militias. but if states dont include people in their militia, and the government decides to have a standing army, the fathers wouldn't have forced them to have a milita instead. and it isn't implied that they would have wanted everyone armed an informal militia either. that's too big of an assumption. the lack of evidence from your position is what u should focus on and what speaks for itself.... if your position was true, there would be evidence for it. it's not true, so there's no evidence. 
#51
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Is there a definitive definition of what constitutes an assault rifle such that such could be addressed?
#52
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
noun

  1. 1.
    a colourless, transparent, odourless liquid that forms the seas, lakes, rivers, and rain and is the basis of the fluids of living organisms.

#53
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@n8nrgmi
The lack of a specific historical record that you say is the only valid form of evidence is not a valid argument to say that your position is true. It just means that we do not have the specific historical record you are asking for. And if nothing short of a historical record where the founding fathers had to make a specific statement that you determined is the only form of valid evidence, then I already stated we are wasting our time. I also said I would let your argument stand on its own without contesting and let others judge it's merit and that's what I intend to do.
#54
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@badger
Yes I did. If the militia is responsible for defense of the state/nation/etc, I would rather have men be the ones exposed to that violence than women. To be explicit, I would reject your suggestion that women be combatants while men stay home. But each woman (not part of any formal combatant force) should also have the right to a firearm for self-defense.
#55
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Ah, my apologies. I underestimated your profound respect for women. But kids can get shot up and women should be ready for a fire-fight anyway. And the same kooky doomsday prepper bullshit. I got you. 
#56
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@n8nrgmi
N8g, you dont really expect rational, logical common sense from those on other side who believe it is a God given right, via man-made law, that, every human on planet has a right to all assulat weapons ---ex AR-15--- and even much worse weapons of mass-destruction { lill masses of people in short time } and especially so the more of these guns fired round the planet as same time ione location where there is mass of people.

The gun nuts are mostly paranoids ---and sometimes for good reason---   whose religious fanaticism { God given right to man-made liberty law }.

They are a cult that is no differrent from so many religious fanaatics.  They believe peace on Earth ---not survival of humanity--   is defined by how many firearm  [piece } each human on Earth can aquie and pass on to their off-spring.

End-date-for-humanity 2232.  These gun nuts and others is why the is my prognostication for humanity. So, humanity is going out, and they agree, then they wan to go out guns blazing, and that includes hydrogen bombs.  Humans are basically barbarians ---butt forward into the future--  and so many are proud of it.


#57
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@zedvictor4
See post 3.
#58
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@badger
Meanwhile your kids are bringing assault rifles to school and blowing each other away. 

I don't know why anyone enters earnest discussion with this shit. 
That's actually not what usually happens. Most of the unreported school shootings involve black kids, gangs, and handguns. Most of the handguns used are the same kinds of handguns the military uses, but we don't call them "military grade"

I can source all this out for you if you need proof.

All the media focus on some obscure scary looking gun of the day is just a deflection from the real problems to avoid accountability for bad policies that encourage decades-old chronic handgun deaths at schools. Nothing is really going to change and maybe it shouldn't. Maybe America is a better nation for allowing massive amounts of handgun violence. Who am I to argue otherwise?

just for fun, here is a very recent mass shooting carried out with just military grade handguns.

God Bless America!
#59
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Handguns should be banned too. The kids shooting each other shit is much more obscene though. If you guys can sort that, shoot each other away tbh. Be like a western, I'll watch on. 
#60
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@badger
The kids shooting each other shit is much more obscene though. If you guys can sort that, shoot each other away tbh. Be like a western, I'll watch on. 

Most of the kids are actually shot full of holes in drive-bys and turf war crossfire. Even the wild west was actually far less deadly than today, especially for the kids.

Gun fights were actually very uncommon historically in the Wild West. While many men carried guns for self defense rarely were men shooting at each other in the middle of the street like Hollywood portrays. Even notable legends like Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday had very few shootouts. A list of gunfights for the approximately 70 years of the “Old West" would be a very short one if you took the time to source it all out.

Most men carried guns for protections from animals and potential Indian attacks which were also not that frequent. And indeed many men did not carry guns at all, certainly not handguns, they usually kept rifles handy though.

While the idea of all men carrying a Colt and ready to shoot someone at a moments notice... that is Hollywood's creation, it is not a depiction of real life. Reality is, as usual, a lot different than Hollywood and their fantasies.

The Wild west was actually WAY less dangerous than today with rifle ownership rates far exceeding handgun ownership rates. Today, it's exactly the opposite. Most guns today are handguns, and that is where almost all of the gun deaths originate. And the rifle is always given the blame for handgun deaths somehow. Every time.

If only America could have been as safe as it was 150 years ago.