• 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
Simple yes or no answer.


I'm sorry, I'm unable to comply with your request for a simple yes or no answer. The closest I can come is ...



Oh HELL YES!!!


:mrgreen:
 
As far as the 2nd Amendment being the general right of lawful citizens to own firearms for sporting/self-defense, yes, I support that right and oppose efforts to unduly restrict that right for, again, lawful citizens.

I agree. Where the argument begins is when the term unduly is defined. My definition is different than other definitions.

As I've stated, I fairly satisfied with the current regulations in Virginia and the US laws. The major exception is the inability to carry a firearm across the country without violating someone's law.
 
I agree. Where the argument begins is when the term unduly is defined. My definition is different than other definitions.

As I've stated, I fairly satisfied with the current regulations in Virginia and the US laws. The major exception is the inability to carry a firearm across the country without violating someone's law.

I also agree.

The problem is, the Second Amendment doesn't say that the right to bear arms shall not be unduly infringed.

Which is why it needs to be updated to 21st. century reality.
 
I also agree.

The problem is, the Second Amendment doesn't say that the right to bear arms shall not be unduly infringed.

Which is why it needs to be updated to 21st. century reality.


Actually, it is infringed on enough already, even without Constitutional support for such.... so let's just leave it as it is.
 
I also agree.

The problem is, the Second Amendment doesn't say that the right to bear arms shall not be unduly infringed.

Which is why it needs to be updated to 21st. century reality.

I have always said that the threshold limit is this. anything the state police or county sheriff in YOUR locality can use, you should be able to possess with no more restrictions than a simple background check
 
I have always said that the threshold limit is this. anything the state police or county sheriff in YOUR locality can use, you should be able to possess with no more restrictions than a simple background check

and you were appointed to the SCOTUS, when again?
 
I have always said that the threshold limit is this. anything the state police or county sheriff in YOUR locality can use, you should be able to possess with no more restrictions than a simple background check
This, and military small arms should require a very basic license that anyone can attain with minor qualifications such as finger prints on file, serial # documentation, basic psych eval(to disqualify only the violently psychotic), no criminal/involuntary commission to a mental facility. And as well the 1986 machine/auto ban should be repealed to comply with the above.
 
and you were appointed to the SCOTUS, when again?

that is a most stupid reply. It is my opinion based on the fact that law enforcement personnel are civilians and the constitution does not discuss one group of citizens having different rights than others. and furthermore, under the posse commitatus act, the military is prohibited from engaging in civil law enforcement. since civilian employees of the government have no greater right to self defense or using lethal force than other civilians, other civilians should clearly be entitled to the same weaponry as such people

additionally, by issuing such arms to civilian employees, the government entities are estopped from claiming that such weapons have no useful purpose when owned by civilians
 
that is a most stupid reply. It is my opinion based on the fact that law enforcement personnel are civilians and the constitution does not discuss one group of citizens having different rights than others. and furthermore, under the posse commitatus act, the military is prohibited from engaging in civil law enforcement. since civilian employees of the government have no greater right to self defense or using lethal force than other civilians, other civilians should clearly be entitled to the same weaponry as such people

additionally, by issuing such arms to civilian employees, the government entities are estopped from claiming that such weapons have no useful purpose when owned by civilians

It is your opinion.

Opinions are like noses: Everyone has one. Not that yours isn't any more valid than anyone elses, it just is your opinion.

Just like any opinion of how the second amendment should be infringed.
 
Back
Top Bottom