• 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
Thunder said:
well, "gun-grabbers" aren't motivated by extremist religious dogma.
Click to expand...

Yet their zealous behavior in going after guns oft reminds others of extreme theists.
 
Ikari said:
Yet their zealous behavior in going after guns oft reminds others of extreme theists.
Click to expand...

on the contrary, the defense of owning guns, even to the point of calling for the murder of those politicians who disagree with them, is more similar to extremist theists.
 
Thunder said:
yes, and apparently some folks believe that if any more restrictions are placed upon gun-ownership in the USA, those politicians who vote for such laws, and those people who lobby & support such rules, should be killed.
Click to expand...
I'd like a list of those people.
 
Thunder said:
on the contrary, the defense of owning guns, even to the point of calling for the murder of those politicians who disagree with them, is more similar to extremist theists.
Click to expand...
Here's the deal. You have no legal standing in the constitutional sense to take away the rights of others to own guns, the facts are not on the gun grabbers side, even the invented "facts" don't pan out and it's provable that the gun control crowd is uninformed and without constitutional merit. The movement ignores reality, it's own failings, and any contrary informationand is willing to act as if there is some "moral superiority" to the position. The pro-second side says we have a right to them and are sick of compromising with people who don't have legitimate standing or arguments so leave us alone. Yeah, the gun control side is the better fit.
 
Thunder said:
well, "gun-grabbers" aren't motivated by extremist religious dogma.
Click to expand...

Neither are pro-lifers. They're just both motivated by irrational beliefs and moral values I consider depraved.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Neither are pro-lifers. They're just both motivated by irrational beliefs and moral values I consider depraved.
Click to expand...

Some of us do not think that it is in any way “depraved” to be concerned with protecting the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings from those who would kill them.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Some of us do not think that it is in any way “depraved” to be concerned with protecting the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings from those who would kill them.
Click to expand...

Some people don't think it is in any way depraved for a democratically-elected government to confiscate dangerous military weapons from civilians who have no business carrying them. I don't agree with them, either; if I agreed with them, I'd agree with them.
 
Most gun crimes also involve criminals. I think that's a much better angle to approach the issue from.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Most gun crimes also involve criminals. I think that's a much better angle to approach the issue from.
Click to expand...

I don't need to say anything else here, do I? You nailed it. When some crazed crack head breaks into your house which would you rather have, a phone to call the cops or a glock to put the bastard down?
 
Last edited:
Psychoclown said:
I don't need to say anything else here, do I? You nailed it. When some crazed crack head breaks into your house which would you rather have, a phone to call the cops or a glock to put the bastard down?
Click to expand...

Glocks are for field work. Home invaders get to meet the big guns.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
You are putting the cart before the horse. The militia cannot be properly supported and function as intended until it is allowed to operate as it was intended to-- our immoral and unconstitutional gun laws are preventing the militia from serving its intended purpose, and then you are using its failure to function as intended to justify those immoral and unconstitutional laws. I know you're not a Brady man, but the argument you're making here was taken directly from their playbook; this is what operations like Fast & Furious were all about.
Click to expand...

Please quote where I've said anything whatsoever about any gun laws. Go ahead.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Yep. Least of all the government.



Hey, you can kill a man with a gun. Kill as many men as you want. But you can kill a species with nukes, and that's not okay.
Click to expand...

and I readily concede that deployment of a nuclear weapon would IMPACT interstate and international commerce and politics and thus congress clearly has the power to regulate such items.
 
If we had to mobilize a citizen's militia in order to go to way, it would ensure that we wouldn't go to war unless the populace wanted to go to war.

Now, that would make some changes in our foreign policy, wouldn't it?
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Glocks are for field work. Home invaders get to meet the big guns.
Click to expand...

true, never bring a pistol when you are EXPECTING a gun fight or you can have something more suitable
 
Dittohead not! said:
If we had to mobilize a citizen's militia in order to go to way, it would ensure that we wouldn't go to war unless the populace wanted to go to war.

Now, that would make some changes in our foreign policy, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

this is why I oppose a draft
 
Dittohead not! said:
so we can go to war against the will of the people?
Click to expand...

We already do. A draft doesn't stop that. The possibility of a draft means that we are all in the militia, however. As they can call that up at their whim.
 
Dittohead not! said:
so we can go to war against the will of the people?
Click to expand...

its harder for commanders to use volunteers as cannon fodder. I oppose the draft without exception. If we are invaded we won't have any problems getting enough volunteers. its crap like vietnam where the leadership of the war effort should have been tried for gross incompetence that shows what a bad idea the draft is
 
TurtleDude said:
its harder for commanders to use volunteers as cannon fodder. I oppose the draft without exception. If we are invaded we won't have any problems getting enough volunteers. its crap like vietnam where the leadership of the war effort should have been tried for gross incompetence that shows what a bad idea the draft is
Click to expand...

Agreed, 100%

Now, about that militia, is that the same as a draft, or is it a sort of citizen's army? As you said, it would have no problems mobilizing it if we were invaded, but to start a fight like we did in Vietnam and in Iraq might engender just a little opposition.

In fact, I can remember some opposition to the war in Vietnam.
 
Cephus said:
Please quote where I've said anything whatsoever about any gun laws. Go ahead.
Click to expand...

I'm not accusing you of supporting those immoral and unconstitutional laws, merely of using the same arguments to justify them that their supporters do.
 
Amigo said:
Simple yes or no answer.
Click to expand...
If by second amendment, you mean the right to bear arms in conjunction with service in the militia, then yes, I support it. However, if by second amendment you mean the right to bear arms as an individual right (which I believe is a misinterpretation of the amendment), then no, I don't.

I think the former should be a right and the latter should be allowed since the ability to defend oneself is essential, but it should not be a right anymore than being able to punch someone in the face out of self defense should be a right.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
If by second amendment, you mean the right to bear arms in conjunction with service in the militia, then yes, I support it. However, if by second amendment you mean the right to bear arms as an individual right (which I believe is a misinterpretation of the amendment), then no, I don't.

I think the former should be a right and the latter should be allowed since the ability to defend oneself is essential, but it should not be a right anymore than being able to punch someone in the face out of self defense should be a right.
Click to expand...

that's really funny. what sort of evidence do you derive your rather statist interpretation from? and explain how the 9th and Tenth amendments figure into this issue.

yeah its an individual right because the right was never limited by a delegation of power to the federal government

constitutional law 101
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really funny. what sort of evidence do you derive your rather statist interpretation from? and explain how the 9th and Tenth amendments figure into this issue.

yeah its an individual right because the right was never limited by a delegation of power to the federal government

constitutional law 101
Click to expand...
It's like the anti-gun lobby doesn't understand what a subordinate clause is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom