The debate "Democrats can't define the term assault rifle without going into aesthetics" was started by
April 16, 2018, 6:25 pm.
16 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 4 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Matthew354 posted 9 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 4 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Slymcfly, Matthew354, LiberalsAversion and 13 visitors agree.
historybuff and 3 visitors disagree.
I'm not sure you understand what the words due process mean. it just means fair treatment before the law. as long as everyone is treated equally by gun laws, then they are not a violation of due process.
by the sounds of it, a police officer has determined that you were a severe risk to yourself or others. they have therefore temporarily siezed your weapons to stop you from killing someone. what did you do that made them think you were so dangerous?
"furthermore speech and belief are part of us. to regulate either would be to simply silence what continues to be felt inside. they are part of what makes us human."
You are forgetting that using tools is also what makes us human, and we are nothing without them to defend ourselves or other means to do our tasks.
"due process just means that the law applies to the government as well. I'm having trouble explaining something so obviously essential."
You do realize that due process is a casualty for stricter gun laws? That's right, my due process was violated why my guns were taken away in California when 2nd Amendment rights are not longer applied! A detective has signed a "gun violence restraining order" on me that made me go to court and make me prove my innocence; the complete opposite of due process after they took my guns/property. I have to be innocent until proven guilty for any due process, so you can't support other rights without supporting the 2A, and suspect other rights will hold.
I am legitimately shocked you would think that the right to speech and thought is the equal of owning a weapon.
the freedom to speak is integral to a functioning democracy. without it we are not a democratic republic. furthermore speech and belief are part of us. to regulate either would be to simply silence what continues to be felt inside. they are part of what makes us human.
due process just means that the law applies to the government as well. I'm having trouble explaining something so obviously essential.
no other right refers to ownership of an object. I would say right to basic food is more important than right to a gun.
the 9th ammendment doesn't defend the previously enumerated rights, it defends the rights not included in the bill of rights. I think your completely misreading it.
If you want my logical proof that the 2nd Amendment is equally relevant to other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, I bring you the 9th Amendment.
"The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not constructed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
What this means is nothing in the Bill of Rights (including 2A) cannot be canceled out by other amendments after it, rule of construction of the Constitution and effectively making it all equal. Anything after the Bill of Rights, like the 18th Amendment banning alcoholic beverages, can be repealed.
"I mean there are reasons for the 2nd ammendment, but they are not the equal of freedom of speech, belief, or due processes"
What proof or logical explanation do you have that says 5th (due process among others here) and 1st Amendment are more important or not equal to the 2nd Amendment?
because each one of the other rights is independently justifiable by reasons other than "it's in the constitution".
I mean there are reasons for the 2nd ammendment, but they are not the equal of freedom of speech, belief, or due processes.
slippery slope arguments are a fallacy.
No, I'm joking. I put that out because you still haven't given me a logical reason why we should keep every other right on the Constitution other than the 2nd Amendment, because I have gotten the collateral damage of my 2nd Amendment rights being violated as well as my 5th Amendment of due process. If one right falls, others follow.
those are HUGE caveat. no ammo turns guns into metal rods, and only shooting them in ranges means you can even go hunting with them. also isnt every adult man in Switzerland a part of the army?
I cant fathom making anything mandatory without exceptional circumstances. does that mean I should be jailed?
so if someone doesn't have something in their house that is more likely to kill their own children than to do any good at all, they should be put in prison? that is psychotic.
And BTW, Switzerland is already doing something like what I speak of. The only caveat is that all citizens are not permitted to privately own the ammo, and can only shoot when at the gun range.
I would have thought of only permitting 2,000 rounds provisioned every month to every citizen for private use. All ammo is free to shoot in state funded gun ranges, as long as its stocked.
Actually, I do question the 2nd Amendment, but not likely in the way you will like it.
Why isn't it a requirement, instead of a right, for every citizen in the United States armed with at least one rifle to be capable to define him or herself? The 2nd Amendment is repealed; requirement to bear arms instead.
If I want any gun control, it would be having the state/federal government forcing everyone to taking firearm training, having understanding of how firearms work and basic firearm terminology, and every individual must have at least one AR15.
Can't fathom having a firearm if it's requirement instead of a right? You should either have your American citizenship revoked or you face prison time.
between dogma and ignored there is A HECK OF A LOT of grey area that you tend to ignore. not everything is a choice of extremes.
because examining the validity of its reasons is the same as ignoring the whole thing?
can you address the concern raised instead of exaggerating the concern into ridiculousness? I repeatedly said that right to speech, belief, due process, and others are very much vital to this day.
*the concern is, are we allowed to even hint at questioning any statement in this (according to you) infallible document?* the only one who mentioned that it should be altogether ignored was you. dont put words in people's mouths.
Yeah, lets just blatantly ignore the Constitution completely because it's such an old document, and clearly there are no totalitarian governments existing today so we can blindly accept every law the state and the rule of the mob passes for us.
A well organized militia has nothing to do with the state with controlling guns, as the Bill of Rights is aimed to do the complete opposite: limiting what the government/state can control.
And really? Do you really think the Founding Fathers would be so short sighted that they don't see technology advancing that rights don't apply any longer? That is illogical. They already saw civilisations in history books use swords instead of rocks, then long bows to crossbows, crossbows to muskets, they can easily see muskets to evolve into more powerful firearms like the AR15!
If you were right, we would need mental health/criminal screenings before anybody can access the internet (protected on the 1st Amendment) in government approved facilities only so we don't have access to information how to kill more a lot more efficiently than firearms, because the freedom of speech or information is not predicted to be expressed in cyber space.
Conservatives cant define the love for their nation without waving flags of Confederate States.
yes, no need for thought or reason!
blind ideology and strict worship of dogma is the American way!
except the bill of Rights specificies that it is for the purposes of a well organized militia. so yes, they should need to specify why they need one.
also, the bill of Rights was written a very long time ago. guns have become significantly more deadly since then. taking the opinion of men as gospel is incredibly dangerous in a world which changes very fast.
It is under the Bill of Rights that a person in the United States has a right to own a firearm, that person does not need to specify why he or she needs one under it.
splitting hairs over whether something is an assault weapon or not isn't helpful. no one needs to own a high powered weapon designed solely to kill people.
I dont think the category of the gun that killed 17 children is the primary concern of Democrats, or most people.