• 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 is protected under the 2nd amendment.

What weapons should be legal for civilians to own?

  • No firearms at all

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • Non-automatic rifles and shotguns

    Votes: 23 69.7%

  • handguns

    Votes: 28 84.8%

  • fully automatic weapons

    Votes: 21 63.6%

  • military-grade explosives (hand grenades, mines, etc.)

    Votes: 5 15.2%

  • Any man-portable weapon in use by the military

    Votes: 6 18.2%

  • Military vehicles and vehicle-mounted weapons (tanks, jets, etc.)

    Votes: 4 12.1%

  • No restrictions on civilian weapon ownership at all (up to and including nuclear)

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 3 9.1%
  • Total voters
    33
While I believe that automatic weapons should be legal to own, I would like to see a more thorough background check done to legally own that type of weapon. My reasoning is that the amount of harm that can be done with such a weapon (mass shootings like VA tech) justifies a more careful background check for mental health issues before someone gets an automatic weapon. Personally, I think a person's insurance records should be accessible for this purpose.

Items like laws rockets, missiles, grenades have no business being available to anyone other than the military IMO.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
While I believe that automatic weapons should be legal to own, I would like to see a more thorough background check done to legally own that type of weapon. My reasoning is that the amount of harm that can be done with such a weapon (mass shootings like VA tech) justifies a more careful background check for mental health issues before someone gets an automatic weapon. Personally, I think a person's insurance records should be accessible for this purpose.

Items like laws rockets, missiles, grenades have no business being available to anyone other than the military IMO.
Click to expand...

Thats basically my stance on the subject except I also believe you should have to take a weapons safety course for fully automatic weapons.
 
Why has my post been ignored:

Who (over 200 years ago) could of predicted our current weapons we have today, for starters. They couldn't so therefore the constitution has no say on the matter. How does a vehicle mounted weapon help you defend your home? and for that matter, from who!?
Click to expand...
 
Jryan said:
Why has my post been ignored:
Click to expand...


Because I went out to dinner and a movie with some people and just got back in. :lol:


Jryan said:
Who (over 200 years ago) could of predicted our current weapons we have today, for starters. They couldn't so therefore the constitution has no say on the matter. How does a vehicle mounted weapon help you defend your home? and for that matter, from who!?
Click to expand...


Yeah, we've seen this argument before.

At the time the BoR was written, the most sophisticated weapon was the flintlock rifle with the rifled bore, enabling a skilled rifleman to kill out to 200 yards. I expect some folks felt that such a deadly weapon shouldn't be in civilian hands... indeed some Brit officers during the Rev-War complained about American sharpshooters targeting officers, which was Not Done in their book.
The most powerful weapons were muzzle-loading black-powder cannons... and it was perfectly legal for private citizens to own them. One of those, loaded with grapeshot or chain-shot, could be fired into a crowd killing dozens.
Private citizens could own a sailing ship and arm it with as many cannons as they pleased, effectively making it a private frigate (warship). If they were so inclined, they could use that private frigate to pirate, raid and plunder.

The Founders didn't seem overly concerned with these weapons, trusting that the majority of citizens would use them wisely and prudently and lawfully... and that the few that didn't would either find themselves on the wrong end of law officers or outraged (and armed) fellow citizens.

Clearly they believed that the citizenry (the Unorganized Militia, I have Founder quotes if you need them) should have rough parity with the Regular Army and Select Militia in terms of arms.

Now, to further explain why your point is not the trump-card, I will express it differently with a different Amendment.... the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"But the Founders could not have concieved of a time when Muslim extremism would threaten the country! Or how media would diversify to the point that any idiot commentator with a microphone and a radio station or a blog could say crazy stuff and agitate people and feed them wrong information! They couldn't have concieved how the Internet would make flash-mobs possible, or allow groups to lobby the government with email spam! So the First Amendment doesn't really apply to all that stuff, just the religions they had back then, and media printed on real paper!"

See how ridiculous it is? :lol:
 
Jryan said:
Who (over 200 years ago) could of predicted our current weapons we have today, for starters. They couldn't so therefore the constitution has no say on the matter. How does a vehicle mounted weapon help you defend your home? and for that matter, from who!?
Click to expand...

By that logic since there was no electronic listening devices, telephones, mass printing presses, photographs, color magazines, computers and all sorts of other things then the 1st amendment and 4th amendment have no say in the matter.
 
Last edited:
Non-automatic guns, handguns, and fully automatic guns should be legal. Everything else should be illegal, and I think it's a silly notion to suggest that nukes should be able to be legally sold.
 
Your Star said:
Non-automatic guns, handguns, and fully automatic guns should be legal. Everything else should be illegal, and I think it's a silly notion to suggest that nukes should be able to be legally sold.
Click to expand...


Some States still have an actual State Militia, that answers to the Governor.

Personally, I think that every State should have one. If you're a member of the State Militia, I'd have no problem with you owning a mortar, grenade launcher, anti-tank "bazooka" or artillery piece... you put it in the militia armory where it is locked up when not in use... you check it out and take it to the ordinance range to practice shooting it under safe conditions.... then lock it back up in the Militia armory afterward. If we're invaded or something, well there it is, ready for use... State Militias are usually poorly funded and many members bring their own weapons anyway.

Of course you'd have to pass Class III level background checks and so on, just like buying an LMG.

But as far as Joe Blow keeping a 155mm howitzer in his garage, no I'm not overly keen on the idea pragmatically speaking.
 
jamesrage said:
By that logic since there was no electronic listening devices, telephones, mass printing presses, photographs, color magazines, computers and all sorts of other things then the 1st amendment and 4th amendment have no say in the matter.
Click to expand...

What it means is that the constitution is obsolete in a lot of ways. It needs to be updated.
 
Goshin said:
Some States still have an actual State Militia, that answers to the Governor.

Personally, I think that every State should have one. If you're a member of the State Militia, I'd have no problem with you owning a mortar, grenade launcher, anti-tank "bazooka" or artillery piece... you put it in the militia armory where it is locked up when not in use... you check it out and take it to the ordinance range to practice shooting it under safe conditions.... then lock it back up in the Militia armory afterward. If we're invaded or something, well there it is, ready for use... State Militias are usually poorly funded and many members bring their own weapons anyway.

Of course you'd have to pass Class III level background checks and so on, just like buying an LMG.

But as far as Joe Blow keeping a 155mm howitzer in his garage, no I'm not overly keen on the idea pragmatically speaking.
Click to expand...

I could live with this, just allow the Mythbusters to get anything they want so they can blow **** up :mrgreen:
 
The 2nd Amendment say: "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."

It does not specify the type, caliber, or magazine capacity.

The Militia is all the citizens who are not restricted from fire arm ownership because of Felony Convection's.

This Amendment was added to insure that the Government could never get out of control and try to institute the Tyranny the Colonies saw under King George.

They foresaw the possibility of someone trying to become a dictator not unlike what some things happening today suggest are in the air.

Keep your powder dry and your eyes on the enemies of our Nation because they are here today, and they are not Muslims . Well one might be.
 
Councilman said:
The 2nd Amendment say: "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."

It does not specify the type, caliber, or magazine capacity.

The Militia is all the citizens who are not restricted from fire arm ownership because of Felony Convection's.

This Amendment was added to insure that the Government could never get out of control and try to institute the Tyranny the Colonies saw under King George.

They foresaw the possibility of someone trying to become a dictator not unlike what some things happening today suggest are in the air.

Keep your powder dry and your eyes on the enemies of our Nation because they are here today, and they are not Muslims . Well one might be.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Because when the constitution was written, there was no such thing as a 20mm Vulcan cannon.
 
atrasicarius said:
Yeah. Because when the constitution was written, there was no such thing as a 20mm Vulcan cannon.
Click to expand...


The "when the constitution was written, there weren't...." argument has already been dispensed with and shot down in flames.


There are other legitimate reasons to apply some restrictions to who can own a 20mm rotary cannon... I'm sure you can think of a few.
 
atrasicarius said:
How. How did he acquire this.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that he applied for and received his expensive and time-consuming Class III license, and then he bought it from someone else who had followed the same procedure. It certainly isn't difficult for any law-abiding citizen to purchase a machine gun; they're rare because very few people want a machine gun so badly as to spend that much time and money on acquiring one. My total arsenal is only worth a few hundred dollars, because that's all the money I'm willing to spend on hardware I'm only likely to ever actually use once or twice in a lifetime.

Besides, number of machine guns that have ever been used in a felony is negligible. You want a dangerous weapon that any idiot can get his hands on, buy a car.
 
obvious Child said:
Billion? What makes you think it's that high? No one is advocating MAKING your own nuke. You simply buy an existing one. Furthermore, have you seen the state of Russian finances? Not to mention how poorly their military is paid? The same military who guards the nukes?
Click to expand...

To me, the state has the right to keep their property. The only nukes the private sector would have claim to is the ones they built themselves.

As for the price I was guessing, but I still don't consider them something people could afford to build or sell.
 
atrasicarius said:
What it means is that the constitution is obsolete in a lot of ways. It needs to be updated.
Click to expand...

What it really means is people are scared of what it says, not that constitution is outdated.
 
Henrin said:
What it really means is people are scared of what it says, not that constitution is outdated.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I am scared of the idea of some idiot running around with an anti tank gun that can blow up your house. I think the founding fathers would agree that that's probably not such a great idea.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Besides, number of machine guns that have ever been used in a felony is negligible. You want a dangerous weapon that any idiot can get his hands on, buy a car.
Click to expand...

Injury Mortality Reports
44,000 auto deaths in the US in 2007 (131 suicide) - 400,000 from 1999 to 2007. In 2007 the firearm (all firearms) related deaths was about 30,000, but 17,000 of those were suicides. Only 600 or so were accidental.

44,000 accidental deaths vs. 13,000 intentional deaths - the car is the ultimate weapon for the idiots. And, it's the weapon most likely to be used against you and I.

Of course, most people don't need their gun to get to work everyday (depending on what neighborhood they live in).
 
atrasicarius said:
Yeah. I am scared of the idea of some idiot running around with an anti tank gun that can blow up your house. I think the founding fathers would agree that that's probably not such a great idea.
Click to expand...

The Founders did not pass any law against civilians of their day owning a muzzle-loading cannon, the most powerful weapon of the time, which could certainly blow your house apart. We've been over this.


Pragmatically speaking, I'm okay with unusually heavy weapons being restricted somewhat... which they ARE already. License and background and storage requirements and subject to unannounced inspections of same.... these heavier weapons are mostly just rich men's play-toys and show-pieces, not something Bubba has in his garage. To my knowlege there's never been a case of someone who owned a cannon or anti-tank gun or other heavy weapon using it unlawfully in the past 45 years... that should tell you something: ie that it isn't an actual problem.
 
Last edited:
Anything that qualifies as a gun.
Why do so many people have trouble with interpreting such a simple line?
 
Goshin said:
The Founders did not pass any law against civilians of their day owning a muzzle-loading cannon, the most powerful weapon of the time, which could certainly blow your house apart. We've been over this.


Pragmatically speaking, I'm okay with unusually heavy weapons being restricted somewhat... which they ARE already. License and background and storage requirements and subject to unannounced inspections of same.... these heavier weapons are mostly just rich men's play-toys and show-pieces, not something Bubba has in his garage. To my knowlege there's never been a case of someone who owned a cannon or anti-tank gun or other heavy weapon using it unlawfully in the past 45 years... that should tell you something: ie that it isn't an actual problem.
Click to expand...

Wow, this thread has actually changed my view on it. Anybody who wants any weapon should be able to get it, as long as the process to get it is insane and requires you to be a perfect citizen. IE, you have to have background checks, interviews with FBI, lie detector test, etc etc. Although, this makes it only so the rich can get these weapons and not the poor.... Class Warfare anybody? :lol:
 
Jryan said:
Wow, this thread has actually changed my view on it. Anybody who wants any weapon should be able to get it, as long as the process to get it is insane and requires you to be a perfect citizen. IE, you have to have background checks, interviews with FBI, lie detector test, etc etc. Although, this makes it only so the rich can get these weapons and not the poor.... Class Warfare anybody? :lol:
Click to expand...

:doh :slapme:


I need an aspirin, teenagers give me a headache.... :lol:
 
Goshin said:
:doh :slapme:


I need an aspirin, teenagers give me a headache.... :lol:
Click to expand...

Let me clarify, I was referring to automatic rifles and up. Although, I do agree with the current regulations on handguns.
 
Jryan said:
Let me clarify, I was referring to automatic rifles and up. Although, I do agree with the current regulations on handguns.
Click to expand...


What regulations? You realize that regs on handguns, and other guns, vary dramatically from state to state...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom