Should Assault weapons and Semi-Automatic Rifles Be Under The Protection of the Second Amendment

Zeb

Argument Topic: No

No. The only reason you should need these weapons is for self defense or attacking. If we limit magazine size for all guns to 6 bullets, that would solve all problems of worry of attack. For semi-automatic rifles, you don’t need those for hunting, which is the only reasonable argument I’ve heard.

anarchist100

Yes, they should. A hand gun or hunting rifle will do little to no good against an assault weapon, and while gun control would certainly limit the amount of assault weapons, to the point where they are very uncommon, certain criminals will always have the ability to gain access to them, have the means of defense in your own control gives you a great degree of power over where you live, and the kinds of experiences you choose to engage in, while if the government controls your means of defense you are limited by their lack of ability to protect you in all circumstances.

Now regarding mass shootings, the things that gun control aims to prevent, these are incredibly rare, of course when ever one happens the media will talk all about it, but considering the size of the United states, the amount of mass shootings does not equal any large risk for an individual who has not willfully put them self in a position of risk, by which I mean things such as living in high crime areas or going on hunting trips with drunk teenagers. Ultimately the Freedom that will be gained as a result far outweighs the few hundred deaths that are also the result.

jack

Argument Topic: Should assault weapons and semi auto-matic rifles be under the protection of the second amendment?

Hello Z:

If the following means handguns, then it means rifles too.

The right of the people to keep and bear ARMS, shall not be infringed.

excon

Nomenclature

@anarchist100

while gun control would certainly limit the amount of assault weapons, to the point where they are very uncommon, certain criminals will always have the ability to gain access to them, have the means of defense in your own control gives you a great degree of power over where you live

It just doesn't work this way. When you proliferate guns, people who would not ordinarily have become killers, and people who would not ordinarily have committed suicide, do these things. The statistics are absolutely clear about this. If the focus instead becomes taking guns out of the hands of everybody, then the infinitely small minority of people who can still obtain them makes it extremely unlikely you'll ever encounter a firearm. 

American society is gradually imploding and the vast increase in mass shootings over recent decades is just one symptom of it. Keeping these weapons legal provides an easy and convenient option for everybody who feels let down or forgotten, to take out their rage and pain on completely innocent people. 

Luigi7255

There is no reason to allow the sale of military-grade weapons to civilians; it's a huge liability. Pistols, however, are fine enough. You don't need an entire rifle to protect a home.

anarchist100

Nomenclature said:

@anarchist100

while gun control would certainly limit the amount of assault weapons, to the point where they are very uncommon, certain criminals will always have the ability to gain access to them, have the means of defense in your own control gives you a great degree of power over where you live

It just doesn't work this way. When you proliferate guns, people who would not ordinarily have become killers, and people who would not ordinarily have committed suicide, do these things. The statistics are absolutely clear about this. If the focus instead becomes taking guns out of the hands of everybody, then the infinitely small minority of people who can still obtain them makes it extremely unlikely you'll ever encounter a firearm. 

American society is gradually imploding and the vast increase in mass shootings over recent decades is just one symptom of it. Keeping these weapons legal provides an easy and convenient option for everybody who feels let down or forgotten, to take out their rage and pain on completely innocent people. 

America is a country of 334,443,787 people, these mass shootings in which totally innocent uninvolved people are killed happen, but considering the size of the American population, the probability that they will ever happen to you is incredibly low, far more common are cases in which someone gets shot because they put themselves at risk, such as people going on hunting trips, or participating in gun exhibitions, all things within your control. Now gun control would definitely improve things here, it is undeniable that less people would die, but consider that there will still be some criminals who will have these guns, mind you very few, the cartels for example cannot be disarmed, and that puts us in the position where there are a lot of situations you cannot enter, and a lot of places you cannot live, without you own independent means of self defense, you cannot rely on the government to protect you in some backwater place in the middle of nowhere, and that greatly restricts your Freedom, and considering the amount of Freedom that would be gained by how many people, the few hundred deaths are acceptable.

But that said, perhaps we should regulate them, (not ban them mind you) after all, if your intent is clear and moral you're more likely to follow through with purchase, while a mass-shooter may think twice and not act on impulse, so I suppose that is a bit of a second amendment violation right there, so I'll concede my position on this matter is far from loyal to the second amendment.

Nomenclature

@anarchist100

America is a country of 334,443,787 people, these mass shootings in which totally innocent uninvolved people are killed happen, but considering the size of the American population, the probability that they will ever happen to you is incredibly low, far more common are cases in which someone gets shot because they put themselves at risk, such as people going on hunting trips, or participating in gun exhibitions, all things within your control.

Sure, but when you say "put themselves at risk" the statistics show that includes simply being around guns:-

Most notably, people living with handgun owners were seven times more likely to be shot by their spouse or intimate partner. In many of these cases, instead of being protective, the household gun probably operated as the instrument of death.

https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/

In my experience, the vast majority of people are idiots. Giving them guns is the worst possible idea imaginable. 

anarchist100

Nomenclature said:

@anarchist100

America is a country of 334,443,787 people, these mass shootings in which totally innocent uninvolved people are killed happen, but considering the size of the American population, the probability that they will ever happen to you is incredibly low, far more common are cases in which someone gets shot because they put themselves at risk, such as people going on hunting trips, or participating in gun exhibitions, all things within your control.

Sure, but when you say "put themselves at risk" the statistics show that includes simply being around guns:-

Most notably, people living with handgun owners were seven times more likely to be shot by their spouse or intimate partner. In many of these cases, instead of being protective, the household gun probably operated as the instrument of death.

https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/

In my experience, the vast majority of people are idiots. Giving them guns is the worst possible idea imaginable. 

No one is forcing them to live with handgun owners, although in the case of children I could definitely see a reason for imposing rules on the storage and handling of these guns. I am absolutely in favor of making owning a gun something that only intelligent responsible people can do, I just don't want them banned, but as for regulating the process of buying them, that would certainly help with things. So let's do that.

Nomenclature

@anarchist100

No one is forcing them to live with handgun owners

Nobody forces handgun owners to buy handguns either. Sometimes you do stuff for other reasons than force.

anarchist100

Nomenclature said:

@anarchist100

No one is forcing them to live with handgun owners

Nobody forces handgun owners to buy handguns either. Sometimes you do stuff for other reasons than force.

That's right, and we shouldn't restrict people's personal autonomy to prevent the handgun owner from shooting them-self either, they know what they're doing, so we're not going to sacrifice everyone else's Freedom to make this nonessential choice Free of risks for them, the amount of people who are actually going to be restricted by this is far out weighed by the amount of people who would lose control over their own lives, it's just not worth it.

John_C_87

@Zeb

Should Assault weapons and Semi-Automatic Rifles Be Under The Protection of the Second Amendment

They are held as a self-evident truth under United States Constitutional Right not just 2nd Amendment United State Constitutional Right. It is the 2nd Amendment United States Constitutional Right that may be argued a lesser state of the union with "we the people" as a united-state. The group of people protected under the 2nd Amendment are not even the same group as those protected by the United States Constitutional Right as a state of the union.

John_C_87

What law describes when it is Right to apply the lethal force provided from any fire-arm? As we are arguing connections made by state of the union with established justice. I find it alarming that law makes no connection to right at all in this matter. It is a political argument that is based on a lose / lose scenario. 

Nomenclature

@anarchist100

we shouldn't restrict people's personal autonomy to prevent the handgun owner from shooting them-self either

Um... OK. Lol.

we're not going to sacrifice everyone else's Freedom

You have this depressingly upside down. By legalising guns you've sacrificed the freedom of everybody in society, because now they have to worry about being shot if they accidentally venture into the wrong area. 

You're equally free whether you have a gun or don't have a gun. But everybody else has to suffer if you decide to use your gun to take hostages, or shoot up a school, or to manufacture fear. Your entire society has been brainwashed by this upside down gun logic and it's just plain sad.

MayCaesar

The question is not "should they", but "are they", as the 2nd Amendment is what it is. And last I read that amendment, it said "Arms", it did not say "Arms other than assault and semi-autimatic arms". Therefore they, indeed, are protected by said amendment.

However, the amendment itself is not very clear. It specifically mentions a "well regulated militia", implying first that it talks about a militia and not individual citizens, and second that it does endorse "good regulations". Given how many interpretations of this exist, it is unclear whether the amendment means anything at all.

A much better amendment would be something like this: "The government shall not restrict the right of the individual to bear arms". Of course, in the current political climate the chance of such an amendment being implemented is infinitesimally small.

anarchist100

Nomenclature said:

@anarchist100

we shouldn't restrict people's personal autonomy to prevent the handgun owner from shooting them-self either

Um... OK. Lol.

we're not going to sacrifice everyone else's Freedom

You have this depressingly upside down. By legalising guns you've sacrificed the freedom of everybody in society, because now they have to worry about being shot if they accidentally venture into the wrong area. 

You're equally free whether you have a gun or don't have a gun. But everybody else has to suffer if you decide to use your gun to take hostages, or shoot up a school, or to manufacture fear. Your entire society has been brainwashed by this upside down gun logic and it's just plain sad.

It's very rarely accidentally, it's almost always fully within your own control, furthermore there are very few additional circumstances in which you are in danger that are added in comparison to the new ones that you now have the ability to enter, at least that would be the case with the light regulation I advocate for, there are many factors at play when it comes to people being killed by a cohabitant with a gun, it is incredibly unlikely, and the only time it is a real threat is when the gun owner is mentally unstable, in which case it would be extremely unlikely that they would even have a gun with the regulations that I suggest, the amount of restriction by added danger is really exaggerated. The solution you advocate for is worse than the problem which could be almost entirely fixed with less harmful methods.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar
However, the amendment itself is not very clear. It specifically mentions a "well regulated militia", implying first that it talks about a militia and not individual citizens, and second that it does endorse "good regulations". Given how many interpretations of this exist, it is unclear whether the amendment means anything at all.

The debate is over wording...The 2nd Amendment is very clear, first point is that it is an Amendment to a self-evident truth made on United States Constitutional Right ahead of its creation as a United State. Do you know what, then where that self-evident truth is located in the American United States Constitution that acts as its creator? I do not think you understand the encompassing powers of a republic united states of constitutional right becuase of the way you address the state of the union. The right to own and keep operational fire-arm comes to an American holding self-evident truth from the Preamble of the American United States Constitution. There it is clearly marked as the introduction of all fact and truth to be entered in the creation of what is to be described as the perfect right. Higher then law...

The self-evident truth in argument is made in the events taking place in the War of Independence from a foreign form of established Justice, and this fact and self-evident truth rests in the holding a common defense to gedneral welfare and the tranquility between all Armed services and the people. What is the largest and most perfect state of the union to hold these two groups together? It is the use of lethal force when using a fire-arm is my self-evident truth. Again the coaching already given on the principles that create a President of the Untied States of America in the American United States Consitution may be unclear to you as it is not sexist or gender descrimination by whole truth to state there is a devine visible difference by law of nature between men and women.

Again, not to be rude by where is the law describing how to apply lethal for with a firearm within the boundaries of law? It must exist in legislation or the idea of connection to established justice is lost from the start. Suggesting to the people there is none, they have no right at all. Concerning is it not? We do prove people fail to uphold the law do we not? Please do not be obtuse and say everyone should then have the right to own a firearm for that idea is clearly not a United States Constitutional Right either.

John_C_87

A much better amendment would be something like this: "The government shall not restrict the right of the individual to bear arms". Of course, in the current political climate the chance of such an amendment being implemented is infinitesimally small.

The self-evident truth in this matter is a member of the American House, President / Presadera would be lucky to even start then finish such a state of the union. Yet! Then see it through in their own term, terms, or lifetime for that matter. The point being simple no matter how complicated politics is the perfect state of the union would precede them as it is what will remain perfect. A right, a model, and example above all law. 

"Aim low achive little, look at the impossible and find right and abolish a thousands wrongs before they even enter your line of sight.'

Nomenclature

@anarchist100

It's very rarely accidentally, it's almost always fully within your own control

Brother, people get shot accidentally all the time, but that isn't the point. You were talking about freedom. Guns are the number one tool on the planet for taking away freedom.

with the light regulation I advocate for

If you have to be licensed to drive a vehicle because of the potential dangers to yourself and the public, then it's simple common sense to license firearms in a similar way. At the moment there's no requirement to prove you're a careful and responsible person who wants a firearm for a legitimate purpose and that system desperately needs to change. Every day I turn on the news and hear about another mass shooting. Another guy who snapped and killed a bunch of people. Nothing on this Earth is more insane than American attitudes towards guns.

John_C_87

Brother, people get shot accidentally all the time, but that isn't the point. You were talking about freedom. Guns are the number one tool on the planet for taking away freedom.

Cost is the number one tool on the planet for taking away freedom........firearms are a restriction on liberty both civil and judicial as a union made as united state.

John_C_87

Nothing on this Earth is more insane than American attitudes towards guns. Yes there is, The people who first claim a perfect connection to a state of the union made on established justice is not globally relevant. Then openly complains about failings of the people to make perfect connection in law. The attitude of all American is by lack of Presidential leadership and can be easily corrected, whereas some applications of speech by people at liberty simply describe insanity to the Tee.
Four! Slice! Tough break…see you on the green?

anarchist100

Nomenclature said:

@anarchist100

It's very rarely accidentally, it's almost always fully within your own control

Brother, people get shot accidentally all the time, but that isn't the point. You were talking about freedom. Guns are the number one tool on the planet for taking away freedom.

with the light regulation I advocate for

If you have to be licensed to drive a vehicle because of the potential dangers to yourself and the public, then it's simple common sense to license firearms in a similar way. At the moment there's no requirement to prove you're a careful and responsible person who wants a firearm for a legitimate purpose and that system desperately needs to change. Every day I turn on the news and hear about another mass shooting. Another guy who snapped and killed a bunch of people. Nothing on this Earth is more insane than American attitudes towards guns.

I am no American and am not familiar with American gun laws, however if it is true that they don't have gun licenses then they should probably do something about that, doing something to ensure that only sane logical people own guns, especially assault weapons, will certainly do a lot to prevent mass shootings, as I said I think regulation is the way to go, not banning, letting every crazy person who wants to own a gun get one will likely cost people their Freedom, and preventing sane logical people from owning one will also cost them their Freedom, both of these options are bad.

John_C_87

Assault Gun not assualt weapon a pencil and pen are assault weapons. Assault gun is a self-evident truth to be held true……at least. At very least.

John_C_87

Also, by American Constitutional right a person must first sign and keep a affidavit they swear to upholding self-evident truth as a Untied States Constitutional right issued on a Federal lever to keep, own, and operate a firearm under United States Constitutional right.

But that is how it goes when legislators don’t have any clue as to how a person would go about preserving united states constitutional right. Yet alone, how to do it in the most perfect way…

Nomenclature

@anarchist100

however if it is true that they don't have gun licenses then they should probably do something about that

100 percent they should. I completely agree.

I think regulation is the way to go, not banning

I'd be happy with regulation, but heavy regulation. In my opinion you should need a legitimate purpose to own a firearm. 

John_C_87

I'd be happy with regulation, but heavy regulation. In my opinion you should need a legitimate purpose to own a firearm. 

legal equality on the burden of lethal force is a united state describing said purpose by law...in advance...

John_C_87

To be direct the law paying well-regulated abiding gun owner as a united state would be happy if a law describes when a person can legally shoot another person. Want a poll that liberty?

John_C_87

MayCaesar said:

The question is not "should they", but "are they", as the 2nd Amendment is what it is. And last I read that amendment, it said "Arms", it did not say "Arms other than assault and semi-autimatic arms". Therefore they, indeed, are protected by said amendment.

However, the amendment itself is not very clear. It specifically mentions a "well regulated militia", implying first that it talks about a militia and not individual citizens, and second that it does endorse "good regulations". Given how many interpretations of this exist, it is unclear whether the amendment means anything at all.

A much better amendment would be something like this: "The government shall not restrict the right of the individual to bear arms". Of course, in the current political climate the chance of such an amendment being implemented is infinitesimally small.

Not to bother you again but is it possible to make a better connection on lethal force form a different Amendment?

bjinthirty

I think the 2nd amendment was created under a time in history where the United States did not have to worry about foreign countries massively spying or overtaking the country with only muskets and parrots. Today, the weapons available can certainly cause a huge impact in the hands of only a few groups. If you loosely allow the purchase of weapons in US soil, you risk your government collapsing under civil threats of unrest. Sure there will be patriots of America but what better way to take care of that problem other than deceiving them using the media. If you restrict the purchase of firearms for Americans then you sure as heck better improve the police force and government oversight to bring comfort into Americans. 

I think the best answer is not the best answer. The government is going to have to take responsibility for this one and restrict the use of firearms to the public in order to protect itself and at the same time take the burden of protecting Americans vulnerable to being victims. Some will love it and many will hate it. At the end of the day it makes the most sense.

if you throw a birthday party and alot of people statt walking into your party with guns wouldnt you feel like its out of ur control? wouldnt ubrestrict access to weapons to ur party and beef up security? yeah.

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

It says:
"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."

So it includes not just a regulsted militia but the right of the people.

Specifically its pointing out a militia is needed for the countries security. Immediately aftet that it is emphazing the people should also be able to bear arms, mostly for defense against a corrupt government which was understood as a possibility as they just won their dependence from one.

John_C_87

"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." <------This is a self-evident truth to be held.

Don’t tell me interpretation tell us the best perfect description of a state of the union the self-evident truth describes to you. Understand the power in that? Let us compare and chose the best right to act as guide to all laws in there filed category? Don’t tell me you interpolation tell us the best perfect description of a state of the union this self-evident truth describes to you. Understand the power in that? Let us compare and chose the best right to act as guide to all laws in there filed category?

Remember a perfect free state is ever only a one without cost ...agree? disagree?

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

Immediately aftet that it is emphazing the people should also be able to bear arms, mostly for defense against a corrupt government which was understood as a possibility as they just won their dependence from one.

Yes, but the authors didn't anticipate the uselessness of guns in a state where the government ceased to use force and began using propaganda to manipulate public opinion. Back when the constitution was written there was really only one way to run a tyranny. Much better ways were developed which made the threat of revolt almost obsolete. Just turn to Nazi Germany for another good example. There were plenty of guns in Germany, but nobody organised a revolution to kick the Nazis out.

John_C_87

The principle of the 2nd Amendment delt directly by intelligent design, self-evident truth, a means of the relief of command of a President of the United States of America until the 22 United States Constitutional Amendment had been ratified. It had a possible dual purpose as a self-evident truth depending on how and why it is held in a state of the union.

Twenty-second Amendment | United States Constitution | Britannica

John_C_87

I forgot the most infamous revolutionist against the Germany during WW II known as the French Underground never happened. Let alone the many lesser unknown efforts that ended at the end of a firing squad and no I didnt read that in a book. I heard it come from the lips of a German soldier who lived through it, metal plate in his head an all. "Ever talk to man who sees all of the friends he had lost in your face every time he talk to you" ?

MichaelElpers

@Nomenclature

The rise of propaganda increasing the chances of corruption would be all the more reason to allow firearms.
Propoganda is more likely to make the majority to agree with a corrupt government, but what your suggesting is remove any chance a minority opposition has to tyranny.

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

The rise of propaganda increasing the chances of corruption would be all the more reason to allow firearms

No it wouldn't, since you're pointing your firearms at each other, not at the forces producing the propaganda. I just gave you an example of another propaganda system in Germany, where the residents pointed their guns at their neighbours rather than their corrupt government. I'm not sure you understand the concept of propaganda or the fact that it's a soft approach to tyranny. Propaganda is how you manufacture public consent to tyranny. It doesn't necessarily have to be tyranny run by government either, because plenty of countries have had governments which are mere puppets of the economic interests that hold the true power.

The very fact that you are sat here arguing in favour of guns, despite the smorgasbord of statistics showing the great harm they have caused to your society, is evidence enough of the huge influence of propaganda on your culture.

Barnardot

@Nomenclature ;There were plenty of guns in Germany, but nobody organised a revolution to kick the Nazis out.

I reckon thats because the Nazis were the revolation any way and I have never heard of one revolt taking over another one because what happened in Germany is that all the common people got sucked into all the propergander that Goballs spewed out so they believed him so thats why they did not go round shooting the gestapos any way Any way in the end the Nazis ruled Germany and when the war was over the Germans weren't aloud any weapons any way.

Nomenclature

@Barnardot

the common people got sucked into all the propergander that Goballs spewed out so they believed him 

Yes, and there's a much more egregious problem in your own country because it isn't just one man running the propaganda. It has become integrated into the system itself as a by-product of shared financial interests.

I can ask two people who live at opposite ends of your country the same question and get back the exact same canned answer. I know this through direct experience. There are only a handful of fallacies used to argue against fixing the proliferation of firearms in America, and they are repeated on an endless loop. 

John_C_87

@Barnardot

I can ask two people who live at opposite ends of your country the same question and get back the exact same canned answer. I know this through direct experience. There are only a handful of fallacies used to argue against fixing the proliferation of firearms in America, and they are repeated on an endless loop. 

Do you think that the answer is truth,  whole truth, nothing but truth or is it a statement from coaching of some kind?

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

Do you think that the answer is truth,  whole truth, nothing but truth or is it a statement from coaching of some kind?

I think that when different people with no obvious social connection give the same canned answers and/or make the same arguments, they are consuming the same media. 

John_C_87

Would you say they are coached by the media or is it truth or better yet whole truth?

Pepsiguy

Argument Topic: YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!!!

You wanna defend yourselves in the most effective way possible.

The definition of a semi auto is according to Wikipedia(left wing source): " A semi-automatic firearm, also called a self-loading or autoloading firearm (fully automatic and selective fire firearms are also variations on self-loading firearms), is a repeating firearm whose action mechanism automatically loads a following round of cartridge into the chamber (self-loading) and prepares it for subsequent firing, but requires the shooter to manually actuate the trigger in order to discharge each shot."

Assault weapon is a made up category.

Nomenclature

@Pepsiguy

You wanna defend yourselves in the most effective way possible.

Then you'll want a large shield, not something which blows holes in people. Your belief that blowing holes in people is a defensive action is indicative of the upside down reasoning which has infected your country like a plague.

The definition of a semi auto is according to Wikipedia(left wing source)

Wikipedia is a left wing source in the same way that I'm Mahatma Gandhi.