• 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
Does it start by claiming the right to declare anyone a terrorist and lock them up without a trial?

Or deny people their second amendment rights just because some government bureaucrat claims a US citizen is on some sort of watch list?
 
Every 2, 4 and 6 years Americans have an opportunity to have a non-violent revolution OR to not have a revolution. That's what elections are. On the fringe are people who if they don't get their way in the elections think they should then get their guns.
Elections are not the only way in which your voice can be heard. MLK did not vote yet he led the movement that created the Civil Rights Act. They fired not one bullet, although some were fired upon them, and they were victorious nonetheless.
 
People who claim guns are necessary to keep government in check are particularly dangerous people. Foolish too. Borrowing from the movie "The Aviator." The government beat Germany and Japan. Who are you thinking you and yours can stop the government with a gun?

They beat Germany and Japan with our support. If you want to know what happens when the government fights a war without the backing of the people, look at Vietnam.
 
They beat Germany and Japan with our support. If you want to know what happens when the government fights a war without the backing of the people, look at Vietnam.

and I know why the architect of pearl harbor cautioned against his armed forces trying to invade America
 
okay, I honestly was curious
\

same reason why Britain-which had a major case of the Goos over gun ownership after WWI, asked Americans to send as many privately owned small arms we could to the Brits in case the Nazis tried to invade.

100 million people with even bolt action 30-06 rifles pissed off at you is gonna make your life a real bitch
 
please don't lie about my views, as I don't lie about yours.

why are you posting here when you haven't voted?

You are on record as defending the NYC's idiotic laws concerning guns
 
yeah, which just proves that you have lied about my views.

so you now deny that you support the NYC licensing requirements? the ones that require people to have a license that the NYPD can deny for any reason?
 
and now, you are being dishonest about the NYPD's gun regulations.
unless it is a SHALL ISSUE law, then you can be denied for any reason

but lets get back on topic

do you support the NYC gun laws?
 
unless it is a SHALL ISSUE law, then you can be denied for any reason

but lets get back on topic

do you support the NYC gun laws?

Hmm no answer

I guess I will have to rely on what the other posters saw
 
The whole part about belonging to a well-regulated militia too?

that has nothing to do with the right's application
 
that has nothing to do with the right's application

Funny, that's exactly how it's written. Now while I have absolutely nothing against the right to bear arms, we are talking about the second amendment AS WRITTEN, not as later interpreted. At the time, the people were the military. Well, the white, male, property-owners were the military. They owned all of the arms, including cannons, and brought them out for national defense. It was a system that made sense to the founding fathers. They had no concept of a standing army. Unfortunately, modern people kind of gloss over the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" part because it's inconvenient. However, it is as the founding fathers intended it.
 
And there is still argument in some sense against a standing army. I think given the realities of the global political arena, it's wise to have a standing army. However, because that was essentially made after the fact it should have also come with further restrictions. Practically speaking, the government may need to assume new responsibilities or technologies; but it should never e unrestricted in those means.

As to the militia; it's still necessary. The part of a "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." is still true. Even if we have a standing army to take care of our foreign wars (many of which we shouldn't engage in in the first place), the militia is important as well; including its ability to rise against the State if need be (if that State prove a significant threat to our freedom). Yet as the 2nd is written, the first part of the amendment is a necessity for the amendment. But it further states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". In short, because of the necessity of a well regulated militia in regards to keeping a free State, the individual right of the People to keep and bear Arms cannot be infringed upon.
 
ANY reason?

prove it. I think you're just making it up.

Shall Issue is more standard, there are criteria and so long as the criteria is met the State cannot deny the permit. However, a few stats have May Issue, which is completely up to the discretion of State. A few of the States use the May Issue to severely restrict the ability of one to gain a permit. Of course, the best option is Vermont style.
 
Funny, that's exactly how it's written. Now while I have absolutely nothing against the right to bear arms, we are talking about the second amendment AS WRITTEN, not as later interpreted. At the time, the people were the military. Well, the white, male, property-owners were the military. They owned all of the arms, including cannons, and brought them out for national defense. It was a system that made sense to the founding fathers. They had no concept of a standing army. Unfortunately, modern people kind of gloss over the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" part because it's inconvenient. However, it is as the founding fathers intended it.

the potential of being in the militia was a sufficient reason not a necessary one

and more importantly, the federal government was never delegated the power to regulate small arms thus the 9th and Tenth amendments are actually more important
 
ANY reason?

prove it. I think you're just making it up.

we tire of your evasions

since there is no reason the cops have to give for the denial then yes, they can deny it because they don't like your haircut or if you are fat, hispanic, gay, Jewish whatever

You support the NYC gun laws and that means you approve of honest people being denied the right to keep, bear or carry arms
 
Back
Top Bottom