• 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!

constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership

Support a constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership?


  • Total voters
    35
I just think people should be allowed to have all the weapons they want, but one irresponsble act and they should be banned from ownership.

What's on your list of irresponsible acts?
 
I just think people should be allowed to have all the weapons they want, but one irresponsible act and they should be banned from ownership.
Fully agree....even with the first part...but, if good psychological testing reveals murderous traits, then
"pre-limits" are necessary.
 
So you want to punish for future crime? Interesting, though I cannot agree. I think one can be held responsible for crimes they have committed; but not for ones they MAY commit. I suppose you and I differ there.

If the punishment is not "effective" change the punishment. That doesn't mean that government gets infinite power to punish for infinite time frames. The one and only proper infinite punishment which may be handed down by government is life in prison without parole. Beyond that, every punishment ends. And when punishment ends, the rights and liberties of the individual should be recognized once again.

We are not living in 1985 just yet....news flash to the progressives.

Good response.....makes me think...
I am, I think, anti-punishment....there must be better ways of doing things....
I do not think that a loss of gun ownership is any kind of "punishment" for the felon..
 
No, not at all. The Second Amendmend already does that and I see no reason why we need another amendment to guarantee the same right already guaranteed under the Second Amendment.
 
I don't agree with adding additional amendments when things are already established under the current amendment.

Partially because, if you fail at getting the amendment passed for whatever reason...which isn't unlikely with how difficult it is to get such passed...then it presents fodder for the other side to use to suggest that what you wanted ISN'T already protected or else you wouldn't have needed to add an amendment.
 
There will be "ray-guns" before this proposal ever comes up for a vote for addmission as an Admentment.
 
What's on your list of irresponsible acts?

When I was ten years old, I didn't carry my .22cal pump, octagon barrel, double peep Savage up the river for target practice when it was loaded. Nor did it point anyplace but toward the ground. We didn't point at each other, even in fun. We made no attempts to appear menacing or in flagrant display of our weapons. We were, however, irresponsible at times. For instance, we used to tape shotgun shells to the front of the BBgun and shoot at small birds. Stupid, even irresponsible ten year olds, just learnin'. I'm sure you and I would disagree on what's irresponsible because I consider "torture" irresponsible.
 
When I was ten years old, I didn't carry my .22cal pump, octagon barrel, double peep Savage up the river for target practice when it was loaded. Nor did it point anyplace but toward the ground. We didn't point at each other, even in fun. We made no attempts to appear menacing or in flagrant display of our weapons. We were, however, irresponsible at times. For instance, we used to tape shotgun shells to the front of the BBgun and shoot at small birds. Stupid, even irresponsible ten year olds, just learnin'. I'm sure you and I would disagree on what's irresponsible because I consider "torture" irresponsible.

You never had BB gun fights? Aw man, those were the best.
 
You never had BB gun fights? Aw man, those were the best.

When I was a kid, we used to have slingshot fights, until I shot across the street and hit another little girl square in the eye with a green chinaberry.:shock: That ended my fascination with casual gunfights. :lol:
 
Funny how filthy language and silly insults seem to fly from the "minds" of conservatives..

The person using the term tea bagging conservatives has room to comment about silly insults and filthy language of others? Really?
 
Last edited:
When I do a search I find no such consensus among DP members. But even if there were, and you remove the nukes, bunker busters, and AA, everything else I mention can be deployed by a soldier. And that is still a very scary scenario for most people.

Its also a pretty silly one.
 
Last edited:
Wow, I'm surprised how much flak my very pro gun amendment has gotten from the pro gun crowd. Yes, we already have the Second Amendment. However, that somehow has not prevented citizens from being allowed to own fully automatic rifles such as the AR-15 or the AK-47. I think Americans should be allowed to own these weapons. If I were out in the wilderness and I were being charged by an extremely dangerous animal that I can't outrun, I would be extremely glad to have a fully auto AK with me! I've heard of bears taking multiple rounds before they actually go down. Just to be clear, I would never go out and kill a bear just to kill one. The only circumstance in which I would kill any animal would be in self defense. I'm a vegetarian. I don't hunt. That's not a big deal. I only mention it because some people seem to measure the legitimacy of owning a firearm based on its suitableness for hunting. The truth is, there are reasons to own a gun besides hunting.

We've got the 2nd Amendment. Yet, somehow we're not allowed to own fully automatic assault weapons.

Why stop at convicted felons? Or are they still criminals after they´ve served their time and repaid their debt to society? I´ll never understand how people can be so in favor of gun ownership as long as we get to deny big bag former criminals from being citizens with every right again.

I support the gun ownership rights, but I believe some people can forfeit those rights by being irresponsible with guns. If you go into a convenience store and hold a double barrel shot gun in the clerk's face, that's being irresponsible with a firearm. I wouldn't feel sorry for the person if he's never allowed to own a gun again. At the very least, he should be banned for a long period of time. Maybe he gets 10 years in jail and 20 years of not being allowed to own a gun.

Absolutely not. If you're going to go to the trouble of drumming up support for an Amendment to somehow update the 2nd for modern times then there should be no limits at all. In short, you're thinking too small for my taste.

Well, I don't believe the 2nd Amendment affords any citizen the right to own an atomic bomb. The 2nd was written before many, many modern weapons existed. It therefore requires some interpretation. For me it's automatic assault rifles, yes; atomic bombs, no. I also agree with the other posters that a person should not be allowed to own things like cluster bombs.

...

But then, others have stated that the 2nd amendment already allows for auto weapons. So has anyone ever challenged making autos illegal? That would probably cost a fortune in attorney fees. Would the Supremes rule in their favor?

I guess I'll vote No, the 2nd already allows for militia weaponry.

I'm not sure if anyone has challenged the constitutionality of the 1986 automatic weapons ban. You would think the NRA would. They've got the resources. Another option would be to get Congress to overturn the ban. The other option is the Constitutional Amendment I talked about.
 
Wow, I'm surprised how much flak my very pro gun amendment has gotten from the pro gun crowd. Yes, we already have the Second Amendment. However, that somehow has not prevented citizens from being allowed to own fully automatic rifles such as the AR-15 or the AK-47.

That comes from government overstepping its boundaries, and a new amendment won't protect against that.
 
Oops, I guess there must be a time limit on editing your own post on this board. I can't edit a mistake.

This error:
However, that somehow has not prevented citizens from being allowed to own fully automatic rifles such as the AR-15 or the AK-47.

Should have read:

However, somehow citizens have been banned from owning fully automatic rifles such as the AR-15 or the AK-47, despite the 2nd.

That comes from government overstepping its boundaries, and a new amendment won't protect against that.

It will if assault weapons are clearly defined or specifically mentioned. The problem comes from the amendment having been written before those kinds of arms existed. The 2nd only says citizens have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say what kind. The government could allow people to only own single shot 22 caliber weapons and claim that we have the right to bear arms. I think the only reason they don't do that is there would be hell to pay. I've even met a person who claimed since the amendment was passed in 1789, it only applies to arms that were available at that time. We would only be allowed to own guns like muzzle-loading flintlocks if he had his way. I personally think that's a ridiculous interpretation of the Constitution, but the problem extends from the 2nd being interpretable. That's why I'm for either an amendment or some type of law guaranteeing the right to own fully automatic weapons.
 
Last edited:
It will if assault weapons are clearly defined or specifically mentioned.
No it won't. Shall not infringe is already in the 2nd amendment and the government deliberately ignores that part.

The problem comes from the amendment having been written before those kinds of arms existed.

The 1st amendment and 4th amendment existed before mass printing presses, color photo printing, photographs, the only megachurch at the time was the catholic church,TVs, computers, phones,cameras, long range listening devices, cell phones, wire taps,FLIR, and other electronic devices. Does that mean the 1st and 4th amendment should be amended to include these things?

The 2nd only says citizens have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say what kind.
That is because it doesn't matter what kind.


I've even met a person who claimed since the amendment was passed in 1789, it only applies to arms that were available at that time.

People who say that are full of ****. I guarantee those same people would not Americans owning arms that were made at or before 1789,especially once they find out what kind of arms were available.What many of those hoplophobes fail to realize is a lot of arms today are just modern versions of the ones that existed back then. Hoplophobes want all firearms banned.This is why Brits are not running around the UK with old fashioned single shot firearms.
 
When I was ten years old, I didn't carry my .22cal pump, octagon barrel, double peep Savage up the river for target practice when it was loaded. Nor did it point anyplace but toward the ground. We didn't point at each other, even in fun. We made no attempts to appear menacing or in flagrant display of our weapons. We were, however, irresponsible at times. For instance, we used to tape shotgun shells to the front of the BBgun and shoot at small birds. Stupid, even irresponsible ten year olds, just learnin'. I'm sure you and I would disagree on what's irresponsible because I consider "torture" irresponsible.

I'm still waiting for that list. Guess it's not going to happen.
 
That comes from government overstepping its boundaries, and a new amendment won't protect against that.

Especially since the original amendment hasn't.
 
I would have thought by now one of the ballistic experts would have chimed in.

In most pro-weapon states if you can legally own a pistol you can own a selective fire weapon like an AR/AK.

You can own a fully automatic, belt fed weapon.

You can own a grenade.

You can own an RPG.

You can own a mortar.

You can own a tank.

You can own an artillery piece.

Look up Class-III

I agree a citizen should be able to regain full rights after screwing up, we are supposed to be a nation of second chances. Do think it is three strikes and your out 'coz baseball is the national past time. Lunatics with M16s.... can't get warm n fuzzy with that.

Now for all those ranters who think the reason the gubment won't go all the way, or even dumber thinks that if the gubment goes too far thinks their deer rifle will seize the high ground... Please mail me pics of the Mrs., I'd like to see where I'll be a'courting...

Lots of tuff guys sitting around the interwebz, whole different head count once the two way range opens up for it's grim business, and there will be an incredibly lopsided body count very quickly.

Better to cling to the ballot box than a rifle... it won't go well if the balloon goes up.
 
don't we all know people who shouldn't be allowed outside, unsupervised, and aren't even felons yet?
I would limit gun ownership so that known idiots cannot own them or have them

Once a felon, always a felon, but there are non-violent felonies where I would support the perp owning a gun but only after petitioning the courts, and after "paying his debt to society". Bernie Madoff will never get a gun, based on his ability to repay his victims.....

People do not easily change,, not without significant emotional events in their lives. If the courts deem a former felon sane enough to own a gun, and he commits a crime with it, back into the slammer, forever....
 
Do you support a constitutional amendment that guarantees all citizens who are not convicted felons the right to own fully automatic assault weapons? It would be meant to amend or clarify the second amendment.

The 2nd Amendment was suppose to cover any firearms that the military has. Anything that they can carry onto the field of battle then the citizens should be able to do the same. The reason for this was two fold. 1: To keep the country protected incase there was ever an invasion. 2: To keep the government from gaining so much power that they didn't need to fear the citizens. Our FF's were not stupid. Considering they promoted advancement of science I'm quite sure that they knew that technology would progress beyond what they could imagine.
 
If the Supreme court shows some balls and returns the Commerce Clause to what it should be rather than FDR's wet dream for unlimited congressional power we'd all be able to own select fire weapons since without the FDR expansion of the CC, congress couldn't ban such ownership
 
TO be honest...I just dont know bout this one...Im all for gun ownership...but I pause at full automatic ownership....I believe there has to be some limits in a society...Police must retain the ability to protect the public....

people who own guns legally aren't the problem

drug dealers with full auto weapons already ignore the laws
 
It will if assault weapons are clearly defined or specifically mentioned. The problem comes from the amendment having been written before those kinds of arms existed.

True, so if the government wanted to further restrict ownership, they'd have to amend the Constitution first.
 
Is there anyone who actually believes that the commerce clause is a proper delegation of power to the federal government to regulate small arms in violation of the 2nd and Tenth Amendments? because if you believe the federal government should so regulate you will have to make that argument
 
Truth be told, there are some stupid sumbitches out there who I wouldn't want to see with a full auto.

Uncle Sam deems it important to teach everyone to appropriately handle and fire weapons. You must qualify. Some people don't qualify! That's right. I doubt those people ever make it to full auto in training. You'd be an idiot not to weed them out first if you could.

The idea of giving some dickweed, who has no idea what the hell he is doing, the right to own a full auto assault rifle would make me uncomfortable. Sorry. There are ways to address the issue, I would be open to them, but just throwing the door open to everybody is not the answer I support.

Anyone who has fired an weapon on full auto certainly enjoyed getting the juiced on the thrill the first few times. After that it's not such a big deal. If you have to buy your own ammo, it damn sure isn't worth it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom