• 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
I'm pro accurate reading of the second amendment.
 
I'm pro correct grammar; at least to the extent that I think one ought to use sufficiently correct grammar in order to write something that actually means something understandable.
 
I'm sorry, I made a mistake. :3oops:
 
Simple yes or no answer.
yes but no. I don't think that military grade weapons should be allowed to be bought. I don't think college students should be allowed to buy guns. I think that there should be further screening before purchase. There are too many murders daily to allow weapons such as Uzis and Ak's to be bought and sold (legally or illegally). At the same time, if you like to hunt I see no problem with buying a rifle.
 
yes but no. I don't think that military grade weapons should be allowed to be bought. I don't think college students should be allowed to buy guns. I think that there should be further screening before purchase. There are too many murders daily to allow weapons such as Uzis and Ak's to be bought and sold (legally or illegally). At the same time, if you like to hunt I see no problem with buying a rifle.

so I shouldn't be able to own the 7 shot colt 1911 45 my late grandfather willed to me since it was issued to him as an officer of the AEA in WWI but I can own the 13 shot GLOCK 45 since it is not military issue.

what sort of libertarian is against people owning weapons? Lots of college students are older than my nephew when he was first deployed as a ranger in command of guys who had stuff that could level a city block in 5 seconds
 
The problem with this poll is that the most anti gun politicians (like the late not so great Ted Kennedy) say they fully support the second amendment. Only dem congressman Major Owens (IIRC) a dem from NY admitted he wanted the second amendment repealed. The gun haters claim they support the amendment and then pretend it only applies to the National Guard
 
so I shouldn't be able to own the 7 shot colt 1911 45 my late grandfather willed to me since it was issued to him as an officer of the AEA in WWI but I can own the 13 shot GLOCK 45 since it is not military issue.

what sort of libertarian is against people owning weapons? Lots of college students are older than my nephew when he was first deployed as a ranger in command of guys who had stuff that could level a city block in 5 seconds
I really have to stop leaving such large loopholes when I post... Obviously it's okay if they are in the military. And yes you should be able to own your grandfather's colt. I don't think you should be able to buy an AK or a Barrett to shoot for fun.
 
I really have to stop leaving such large loopholes when I post... Obviously it's okay if they are in the military. And yes you should be able to own your grandfather's colt. I don't think you should be able to buy an AK or a Barrett to shoot for fun.

why not? I have a dozen AKs-mostly SAIGA (Russian) built but none with the giggle switch. what makes a semi auto Barrett so bad at 4 dollars a shot and the fact that most ranges cannot accommodate them. A Barrett for most people is like buying a Ferarri when you can only drive 70MPH

and shooting them is for fun.
 
why not? I have a dozen AKs-mostly SAIGA (Russian) built but none with the giggle switch. what makes a semi auto Barrett so bad at 4 dollars a shot and the fact that most ranges cannot accommodate them. A Barrett for most people is like buying a Ferarri when you can only drive 70MPH

and shooting them is for fun.
Would it bother you if you had to store them at the range that you shot them at? Maybe it's because I personally don't own guns, but I don't see the point in owning anything other than for hunting or maybe protection.
 
Would it bother you if you had to store them at the range that you shot them at? Maybe it's because I personally don't own guns, but I don't see the point in owning anything other than for hunting or maybe protection.

Protection from what? Protection from the government may require some additional arms.
 
Would it bother you if you had to store them at the range that you shot them at? Maybe it's because I personally don't own guns, but I don't see the point in owning anything other than for hunting or maybe protection.
yeah, criminals won't why should I.


I don't believe in being forced to do silly things that have no basis in the constitutional powers delegated to the government or have no rational reasons to do

I really don't care what you see as legitimate reasons for owning guns. That is between you and your gun dealer. But one of the reasons why I own weapons is because there are people who want to impose their beliefs as to guns on honest law abiding citizens such as me
 
Protection from what? Protection from the government may require some additional arms.

or from control freaks who want to impose idiotic restrictions on the rest of us

I have noted many times that if the government starts jailing and killing people for merely refusing to surrender once lawfully purchased or acquired arms, the FIRST people patriots should start killing are those who pushed for such laws-rather than the cops forced to engage in such fascism
 
Home security

So we shouldn't be able to defend ourselves from government forces? Well that is one theory I suppose, yet it is the right and duty of the People to overthrow government should that government err to grievously for too long against our rights and liberties. As such, the People need to be allowed access to the tools to do just that.
 
or from control freaks who want to impose idiotic restrictions on the rest of us

I have noted many times that if the government starts jailing and killing people for merely refusing to surrender once lawfully purchased or acquired arms, the FIRST people patriots should start killing are those who pushed for such laws-rather than the cops forced to engage in such fascism

Perhaps, but the cops are one of the militant arms of the government to use against the People. They make a choice to enforce those rules and cannot be considered separately from the government itself.
 
or from control freaks who want to impose idiotic restrictions on the rest of us

I have noted many times that if the government starts jailing and killing people for merely refusing to surrender once lawfully purchased or acquired arms, the FIRST people patriots should start killing are those who pushed for such laws-rather than the cops forced to engage in such fascism

perhaps you should focus first on more peaceful & democratic ways of solving problems??

its just a thought.
 
perhaps you should focus first on more peaceful & democratic ways of solving problems??

its just a thought.

And what happens if those means are shut down?
 
One original intent of the Second Amendment was so the populace could defend itself against the government if necessary. Back then, the musket was the weapon of choice for the military.

Can you imagine the result of a band of citizens armed with handguns and hunting rifles against the US military?
Times change.
 
One original intent of the Second Amendment was so the populace could defend itself against the government if necessary....

and yet, the 2nd refers to the well-regulated Militia, which according to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, has as one of its purposes...to assist in the putting down of insurrections.


interesting huh?
 
Perhaps, but the cops are one of the militant arms of the government to use against the People. They make a choice to enforce those rules and cannot be considered separately from the government itself.

I was merely noting where to start but you are correct

however, when big mouthed Darryl Gates former Chief, LAPD brayed about breaking down doors of NRA members if they didn't comply with some proposed gun ban in California, the head of the LAPD union told Gates he could do it himself since the rank and file didn't fancy getting shot by people who normally were very pro police if they police were forced to do such a thing
 
and yet, the 2nd refers to the well-regulated Militia, which according to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, has as one of its purposes...to assist in the putting down of insurrections.


interesting huh?

Insurrections can be bad

so can government-just ask the 100 million or so people murdered by GOVERNMENT over the last century
 
One original intent of the Second Amendment was so the populace could defend itself against the government if necessary. Back then, the musket was the weapon of choice for the military.

Can you imagine the result of a band of citizens armed with handguns and hunting rifles against the US military?
Times change.

well trained marksmen with 338 caliber or so accurate rifles are the best weapon to use against a tyranny. You don't shoot at an M1 Abrams tank-you shoot at the scumbag politicians who ordered the tanks to attack your neighborhood
 
Back
Top Bottom