• 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!

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

  • Total voters
    69
earthworm said:
1 those people who use a gun in the commission of a crime...this is obvious
2 those men in the mental wards of hospitals
3 men with an IQ in the moran range
4 and a toughie - those men who fail a test established by police and judges, those close to the results of gun use/misuse.
5 me( bi-polar, ect)
I somehow suspect that you would OK just about anyone owning a gun....
That was easy and common sense....
Click to expand...
1) Absolutely. However if someone can keep their nose clean for a time period certain and apply for clemency then all rights should be restored. I believe in earned second chances.
2) Once again, certification of mental problems is quite different than requiring people to submit to checks without probable cause. If someone has severe mental problms as to require confinement then yes they may be disbarred from owning a weapon. However if the problem is temporary and they gain a clean bill of mental health then all rights should be restored.
3) There is no reason for this. There are plenty of people who would score in the sub-intelligent range who are capable of owning weapons responsibly.
4) I will never accept having an authority designate rights. They may only strip them if they can prove their case.
5) Bi-polar disorder can range from mood swings to psychosis. This goes to certification by a medical professional.
* As to your last point. I am okay with VERY limited restrictions on any right but the state must prove necessary and proper and there is no leeway. Just as they should prove guilt in court they should prove need and authority in law.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Can automatic weapons be infringed for the same reason?
Click to expand...
That is a tricky subject. Full autos are inaccurate because of ride up and the rate of fire, they are usually undersized compared to a typical hunting rifle, and aren't really all that reliable. Where they become dangerous is the chance of a lucky shot, this goes up due to the rate of fire but is much less dangerous than a ranged shot placed on target. If some moron decides to open fire on his neighborhood with a SAW there are ordinances to deal with that locally, such as laws prohibiting discharge within corporate or city limits. If someone misses at a firing range "no harm, no foul" Whereas if someone misses with a mortar round or artillery it could ruin someone's property values signifigantly(yes I'm understating).
 
LaMidRighter said:
Violent crime has been up every year I've checked the statistics in gun control countries, moreso than firearms violence in the U.S. It doesn't matter if you are shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, burned, beaten, or curb kicked. Dead is dead, raped is raped, robbed is robbed.
Click to expand...

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homicide rate by country. The difference between the US and other 1st world countries is pretty significant. The only countries we're comparable to are bannana republics. I don't see how in any way making access to firearms as easy as possible has made the US a safer country for anyone.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
The problem with your logic is you answered the question for me instead of letting me respond to it myself and then criticized me for the answers that you made up. Good job.
Click to expand...

Right, my bad. So I'll rephrase. Who should decide who is mentally competent to own and use a firearm for any reason? As it stands now (in Virginia), a background check is made which eliminates convicted felons, and previous mental patients are precluded, although I do not know how this is checked. I think you might run afoul of the patient-doctor privilege. I know of no test that predetermines with any degree of certainty the chances of someone committing a violent crime. If you are talking about after the fact, those measures are already in place.

As I said, if and when you can show me a test that will determine future violent criminals without infringing on my rights, I would agree with your premise.
 
LaMidRighter said:
That is a tricky subject. Full autos are inaccurate because of ride up and the rate of fire, they are usually undersized compared to a typical hunting rifle, and aren't really all that reliable. Where they become dangerous is the chance of a lucky shot, this goes up due to the rate of fire but is much less dangerous than a ranged shot placed on target. If some moron decides to open fire on his neighborhood with a SAW there are ordinances to deal with that locally, such as laws prohibiting discharge within corporate or city limits. If someone misses at a firing range "no harm, no foul" Whereas if someone misses with a mortar round or artillery it could ruin someone's property values signifigantly(yes I'm understating).
Click to expand...

Full automatic weapons are not much of a problem in the US. Going from memory, there are around 210,000 legal automatics in the US, about equally divided between LEO and population. From the inception of the law in the 30's there have been 4 deaths attributable to these firearms, 2 on each side. Not a major problem.

Automatics are expensive to own, expensive to shoot, and are inaccurate to shoot if the need arises.
 
jimbo said:
Full automatic weapons are not much of a problem in the US. Going from memory, there are around 210,000 legal automatics in the US, about equally divided between LEO and population. From the inception of the law in the 30's there have been 4 deaths attributable to these firearms, 2 on each side. Not a major problem.

Automatics are expensive to own, expensive to shoot, and are inaccurate to shoot if the need arises.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I knew the stat, I just give a little more restraint on those for some reason.
 
jimbo said:
Right, my bad. So I'll rephrase. Who should decide who is mentally competent to own and use a firearm for any reason? As it stands now (in Virginia), a background check is made which eliminates convicted felons, and previous mental patients are precluded, although I do not know how this is checked. I think you might run afoul of the patient-doctor privilege. I know of no test that predetermines with any degree of certainty the chances of someone committing a violent crime. If you are talking about after the fact, those measures are already in place.

As I said, if and when you can show me a test that will determine future violent criminals without infringing on my rights, I would agree with your premise.
Click to expand...
Mental health professionals should decide and then legislators (and judges in specific cases) should use their decisions to form law. I don't think there's a test to predict the future either. However, there are tests that doctors use to determine the threat an individual poses to himself and society and they use those tests to reasonably predict future actions and to treat people according to their diagnoses.

In addition to people with severe mental illnesses, there are also individuals with IQs at the level of children. Consequently, if mental health professionals determine that people of certain IQ level cannot handle a weapon any more responsibly than a child can, then they should also be prohibited from owning weapons.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Mental health professionals should decide and then legislators (and judges in specific cases) should use their decisions to form law. I don't think there's a test to predict the future either. However, there are tests that doctors use to determine the threat an individual poses to himself and society and they use those tests to reasonably predict future actions and to treat people according to their diagnoses.

In addition to people with severe mental illnesses, there are also individuals with IQs at the level of children. Consequently, if mental health professionals determine that people of certain IQ level cannot handle a weapon any more responsibly than a child can, then they should also be prohibited from owning weapons.
Click to expand...
Considering that no two psychological health professionals will reach the same conclusion who then do you appoint?
 
LaMidRighter said:
Considering that no two psychological health professionals will reach the same conclusion who then do you appoint?
Click to expand...
That's up to the lawmakers and judges just like it's up to them in deciding any law in which more than one professional opinion exists (which is nearly every law and political decision from foreign policy to environmental issues). Hopefully, they'll choose the conclusions supported by the most reliable evidence.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
That's up to the lawmakers and judges.......
Click to expand...
So "Shall not be infringed" as prohibited by the U.S. Constitution is now "shall be infringed by psychologists determined by politicians and judges" in your book? And you say you are pro-second. Hint, the amendment was written specifically to disbar the governmnet from establishing infringements at will.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Considering that no two psychological health professionals will reach the same conclusion who then do you appoint?
Click to expand...

given his agenda, probably the one that is most likely to ban someone from owning a weapon
 
LaMidRighter said:
So "Shall not be infringed" as prohibited by the U.S. Constitution is now "shall be infringed by psychologists determined by politicians and judges" in your book? And you say you are pro-second. Hint, the amendment was written specifically to disbar the governmnet from establishing infringements at will.
Click to expand...

He is not pro second amendment as it was intended. he has problems with honest people owning guns. I find it interesting he has not voted in the poll. so far only top cat (along with a lurker)has voted NO
 
at least 300 million guns in the hands of Americans.

and yet, we are one of the most dangerous societies in the Western world.

clearly, more guns does NOT equal a safer society.
 
LaMidRighter said:
So "Shall not be infringed" as prohibited by the U.S. Constitution is now "shall be infringed by psychologists determined by politicians and judges" in your book? And you say you are pro-second. Hint, the amendment was written specifically to disbar the governmnet from establishing infringements at will.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that diagnoses were made by mental health professionals, laws were made by lawmakers and those laws were interpreted by judges. Am I wrong? Who else do you suggest should determine whether or not a paranoid schizophrenic with frequent delusions and threats to kill people should not have access to a weapon?
 
TurtleDude said:
given his agenda, probably the one that is most likely to ban someone from owning a weapon
Click to expand...
What is my "agenda"? And which post did I detail it?

Be specific. You wouldn't want to make your post look like a lie.
 
Thunder said:
at least 300 million guns in the hands of Americans.

and yet, we are one of the most dangerous societies in the Western world.

clearly, more guns does NOT equal a safer society.
Click to expand...
that is a stupid comment

more guns in the hands of honest people =more safety

more guns in the hands of scumbags=less safety

gun bans and the gun control laws you crave only decreases the guns in the hands of honest people
 
ThePlayDrive said:
What is my "agenda"? And which post did I detail it?

Be specific. You wouldn't want to make your post look like a lie.
Click to expand...

You have adopted a discredited view of the second amendment which runs counter to the obvious intentions of the founders, and has been rejected by every major league legal scholar who has opined on the subject. You have adopted an interpretation based on fiction that was an outcome based interpretation by those who want to ban guns and made up an interpretation that would allow them to visit their nefarious schemes on our society.
 
Thunder said:
then how come the USA is a lot less safer than other countries that have many fewer guns?
Click to expand...

We have more gun crime for sure. Are we less or more safe? Violent crime is everywhere; maybe Americans are inherently a bit more violent. Who really knows. But because we do allow guns and we have a significantly higher number than other places, we are likely to see significantly higher gun crime than places without guns. Obviously.
 
TurtleDude said:
You ...
Click to expand...
I didn't ask you to restate your opinion. I asked you to quote the post where I detailed this agenda in order to prove that it's not just something you made up. So WHAT IS MY AGENDA ? AND QUOTE THE POST WHERE I WROTE IT OUT.
 
Thunder said:
then how come the USA is a lot less safer than other countries that have many fewer guns?
Click to expand...

and how come the USA is safer than places like Mexico that has severe gun laws
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom