• 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
Certification is the key problem. Many of the people who throw out mental deficiency and criminal intent paint with such a broad brush that anyone who would show any mild spectrum problem would be disqualified, if you look deeply enough that could be applied to anyone.
Then make it more sever; define the metal disorder as bahivior that the is uncontrollable by the patient and will result in violence or something along those lines.
 
Even if control freaks were able to remove all fire arms from the US there still would be firearms not only in a black market, but there are thousands of gun smiths capable of building a firearm from scratch. And the prohibition of alcohol and the current prohibition of drugs should be proof enough that prohibitions do not work as intended. Plus the fact the the right to bear arms is American culture if that right is removed you might as well just say hey we are starting civil war by trying to take away your right to bear arms. And I have no doubt that Americans would over react to such action.

Whose making that argument? I havent' seen one person make the argument to remove all guns from the US.
 
You cannot get rid of all fire arms that just nonsense. I personally believe you should be able to own any firearms. I believe however you should have to be able to go through a license process if you want to own assault rifles or fully autos.
 
Whose making that argument? I havent' seen one person make the argument to remove all guns from the US.
I voted as requested by the OP and then voiced my opinion, just like everyone else did. I do not need to address anyone to voice my opinion.

But non the less there are people who advocate the same control laws that are in Australia and elsewhere. Which is should be an obvious connection to whether we approve of the second amendment or not.
 
So you don't think we have any issues? That the higher the normal gun death rate in the US is abnormal or proof that our lax gun controls are not working? I'm definately not for any sort of gun ban, I honestly don't care if responsible people have weapons and in a rural area I wouldn't live without one. At the same time, obviously we have an issue with a huge amount of guns that get out into the wrong hands very easily. I'm guessing it's very easy to get a gun...like go to a gun show and buy one bypassing any laws.

There's a major difference between requiring something and not enforcing it.
We have a lower overall violent crime rate, even with different reporting standards that favor the international community. We have higher gun crime rates but others are trending up.
 
Then make it more sever; define the metal disorder as bahivior that the is uncontrollable by the patient and will result in violence or something along those lines.
I agree with that completely. I was bringing up the lax standards set forth by the anti-gun groups and some in our government who agree, they use PTSD as an example which is a broad spectrum disorder that can range from a person locking up to hallucinating, or they will use other things like Schizophrenia, autism, etc. which all run the spectrum from mild to severe. I have no problem with individual behavioral precedent being used to prohibit, what I have a problem with is people using any diagnosis to justify said prohibition.
 
You cannot get rid of all fire arms that just nonsense. I personally believe you should be able to own any firearms. I believe however you should have to be able to go through a license process if you want to own assault rifles or fully autos.
People can already be licensed for full auto ownership, it's hard though, you have to obtain an FFL3 license which requires one to either be a dealer or collector, then they must pay tax on all licensed weapons in the catagory, have prints on file with the F.B.I., pass a psych evaluation, and maintain the license. I don't have a problem with licensure in that case but it should be relatively easy. Pass a psych eval. every five years, pay a yearly fee, keep records up to date, pass competency exam.
 
Yes. No one has the right to cut off my arms without my consent!
 
So you don't think we have any issues? That the higher the normal gun death rate in the US is abnormal or proof that our lax gun controls are not working? I'm definately not for any sort of gun ban, I honestly don't care if responsible people have weapons and in a rural area I wouldn't live without one. At the same time, obviously we have an issue with a huge amount of guns that get out into the wrong hands very easily. I'm guessing it's very easy to get a gun...like go to a gun show and buy one bypassing any laws.

There's a major difference between requiring something and not enforcing it.

Perhaps some references to the statement that the US has a higher than normal gun death rate is in order.

The gun show loophole, at least in Virginia is pretty much a myth. At the last gun show I attended, of the several hundred vendors, only a couple were selling from their own collections. Private sales are exempt in Virginia. Of the rest, those selling guns are FFL holders, and as such do the proper background checks prior to purchase.
 
People can already be licensed for full auto ownership, it's hard though, you have to obtain an FFL3 license which requires one to either be a dealer or collector, then they must pay tax on all licensed weapons in the catagory, have prints on file with the F.B.I., pass a psych evaluation, and maintain the license. I don't have a problem with licensure in that case but it should be relatively easy. Pass a psych eval. every five years, pay a yearly fee, keep records up to date, pass competency exam.

Yea i realize that people can own full autos. But i partly agree with your statement. I believe you should have to obtain a special (FFL3) license to own a full auto weapon. I believe that you should have to pay a tax, and obtain the license. I believe that you should have to take a special class, and must be 21 years or older. I however believe that the psych test and the FBI profile is ridiculous.
 
I voted yes but im sure theres some out there that would say im not

Im all for the rights of every american to own a gun. I would change the handgun age to 18 and I would also make CWP national or recognized by every state like drivers licenses.

and here where it gets tricky

I am fine with background checks, i want this, as long as they are quick and efficient.
I am fine with limiting the number of guns able to be bought at one time unless you are a dealer. I want this
I am fine with limiting the areas you can actually carry your weapon BUT my limit would only be SOME government buildings, large commercial airplanes and of course maybe some other places like an MRI room etc where metal period is a problem. I want this
I am fine with registering all guns, I want this too

now even though I want those things and support those things, I do think they violate the 2nd and would not argue that they dont. I just want those things enforced the proper way, legally.

there maybe some other stuff i agree or disagree with but this is of the top of my head

I also wish we had a national castle law that reflected the same in all states giving property and person protection rights to use lethal force if needed. The fight or flight laws are ridiculous IMO.
 
And what mental problems would that be? What "Other traits" do you and the rest of the anti-gun crowd consider to qualify for "no business owning guns"? Give us a complete list. Considering that not all "mental problems" are created equal and even two different cases of the same affliction aren't created equal. Give us some "other traits" within your distinct "weapons expertise".
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....
 
It can be proven that they cause unintended collateral damage when used properly. BTW, some of those things are legal with a proper ordnance license.

Is that any reason to infringe on my right to bear arms?
 
Yes, it is a reason due to the rights of other people.
 
I believe strongly in the right to own a gun and if I had one it would be for social unrest not home defense. As long as I'm physically able to use a putter against someones kneecap that will have to suffice. My worst nightmare is to unload a clip into a family member or teenage kid making a stupid decision. How many times have you hopped out of bed because something went "crick!" in the night and held a bat, club etc? Or did you have a handful of .44 magnum Desert Eagle ready to turn someone into meatloaf?

I highly suggest (and practice) that the FIRST round in a home defense firearm should be non-lethal (only rarely causing death) such as rubber bullets. It would be very, very rare that would not deter someone the extra second you need to fully wake up or fully realize the level of actual danger. It also provides a better legal defense in some situations. If someone keeps coming at you after you shoot them with a rubber bullet (or bean bag if a shotgun) you have a clearer claim that only deadly force would stop the person, that your pre-mindset is to NOT wanting to kill someone, and - of course - that you did at least something to avoid reckless endangerment by you in relation to your children.

Anyone who's been hit by a rubber bullet could confirm that only a lunatic would keep charging at someone even if just firing those. However, never play with those too. They do have lethal potential.
 
Last edited:
I highly suggest (and practice) that the FIRST round in a home defense firearm should be non-lethal (only rarely causing death) such as rubber bullets. It would be very, very rare that would not deter someone the extra second to wake up or fully realize the level of actual danger. It also provides a better legal defense in some situations. If someone keeps coming at you after you shoot them with a rubber bullet (or bean bag if a shotgun) you have a clearer claim that only deadly force would stop the person, that your pre-mindset is to NOT wanting to kill someone, and - of course - that you did at least something to avoid reckless endangerment by you in relation to your children.

I would think, if some intruder with a knife/gun, was in your home, you'd be more inclined to have a nice and effective metal bullet as the first shot, instead of a bean bag or a rubber bullet.

You know, I'm not partial to giving the intruder added chances of succes in robbing/killing me.

Don't know about you, but I sure don't.
 
Anyone who's been hit by a rubber bullet could confirm that only a lunatic would keep charging at someone even if just firing those. However, never play with those too. They do have lethal potential.

So we are to rely on the fact that the criminal intruding is going to be reasonable and logical when attacking?
 
So we are to rely on the fact that the criminal intruding is going to be reasonable and logical when attacking?

me personally, and this is just a little rant not really directed at anybody lol

I would NEVER do that, I deem you dangerous and irrational the moment you try to break in. There is no LOGICAL reason to think other wise, you are a stranger that forced your way in to my house therefor you are a threat, if you dont want to be deemed a threat keep your ass outside of my house.

I will NEVER buy into the nonsense thats its my responsibility to risk/chance injury/death to me or my family by trying to decide why you are breaking the law and made yourself a threat.

Wanna live, stay outside until you are invited it.
 
An intruder accepts the possibility death when he breaks into my home.
 
And who would those otherwise law abiding citizens be?

...

The problem with your logic, and by no means an original thought on my part in these threads, is that it is you who wants to decide who is mentally capable of owning and handling a weapon before the fact. Frankly, if you come up with a 100% effective method for weeding out these before the fact incompetents, without infringing on my rights, then I would be in favor.
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.
 
Per my personal policy of only reading threads that have over 50 posts if I am really interested in the topic, I'm responding to the OP:

Which interpretation of the 2nd amendment do you refer to?

If I answer “Yes”, am I agreeing with the interpretation that supports a right to personal weapon ownership?

If I answer No, am I disagreeing with the interpretation that supports a right to own ANY weapon, up to and including nuclear bombs?
 
Is that any reason to infringe on my right to bear arms?
Technically that isn't an infringement, every single right has a limit but those limits must have a definitive argument. A mortar round isn't a .22 which isn't a nuke which isn't a cruise missle.....etc. etc.
 
The problem is, we agree that the modern U.S. is not something that the founding fathers would have wanted, clearly what they wrote in the founding documents can no longer be said to be applicable to the modern world, with a military situation outside of their intent, then people take the second amendment, which is a single sentence, strip off the first half of that sentence, and pretend that they're following the intent of the founding fathers?

And then they do backflips desperately trying to rationalize that action. I don't get it.

This is precious, more yet that you call yourself conservative at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom