• 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!

How long will it take to repeal the 2nd amendment?

When do you think the 2nd amendment will be repealed?

  • within the year

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • next year

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5-10

    Votes: 4 5.2%
  • 10-20

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 20-50

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 50+

    Votes: 2 2.6%
  • Never, things are fine as is

    Votes: 41 53.2%
  • Never, too many stupid people in this country

    Votes: 9 11.7%
  • We should have less gun laws and arm everyone to protect them selves!?!?!?!?

    Votes: 21 27.3%

  • Total voters
    77
I don't even know where to start.

Rights and laws? Rights are defined by laws.

You can legally own a gun with minimal requirements because of the 2nd amendment. Go to most other developed nations and you won't find it so easy.
 
Why would you limit your google inquiry to "gun related deaths?"

Search for all homicides.

The following map shows the per capita murder rate by country. Darker colors mean a higher murder rate.

Map_of_world_by_intentional_homicide_rate.png


The USA is relatively safe.

Good job we beat the Gangs of Latin America, the Genocides of Africa, and the Mafia of the Russians. Lets pop a campaign bottle.

Iraq does better than the US in this area.
 
You libs have picked a battle that you're just not going to win this time.

Higher gun deaths ? What a generic goofy braod brushed statement.

Yes CRIMINALS shoot each other alot in the US.

Good riddance.

I encourage liberals to push full tilt with their newest and most retarded agenda driven objective yet.

Good luck


I'm aware I picked the "too many stupid people" option myself.
 
I should ask these questions.

When you were a kid learning about the constitution for the first time. Which amendment seemed the most out of place to you?

Those of you that support the 2nd amendment. Do you guys know the primary reason our founding fathers put it in place?
 
You're nieve if you think people are rational as individuals.

Regarding your argument how do you explain the statistics?

Also I care more about those dead kids than your rights to have fun with a gun.

And what gun law would have stopped the massacre?
 
I don't even know where to start.

Rights and laws? Rights are defined by laws.

You can legally own a gun with minimal requirements because of the 2nd amendment. Go to most other developed nations and you won't find it so easy.

No, Rights are not defined by laws. Rights are restricted by laws. There are more rights than those listed in the Bill of Rights.
 
I should ask these questions.

When you were a kid learning about the constitution for the first time. Which amendment seemed the most out of place to you?

Those of you that support the 2nd amendment. Do you guys know the primary reason our founding fathers put it in place?

1: When it came to the Bill of Rights none of them seemed out of place. Especially when you consider the history.

2: There are three reasons that the Founding Fathers made the 2nd Amendment. The first reason can be found in the Declaration of Independence. That being the right of the people to over throw the government should that government ever become tyrannical. The second reason is that they believed that everyone had the right to defend themselves from harm. The third reason is that people had the right to hunt for food.
 
It will never be "repealed" in America as we know it.

It is a trigger issue. Meaning one that will inevitably lead to revolution/civil war, destroying what remains of the US in the process. It is not just repealing a law, but a right. If that right is assailable, then what right is not? Once anyone starts taking away rights, they have destroyed the very fabric of what makes America the country that it is.
 
We get it. The NRA is a right wing organization that subscribes to a false interpretation of the actual wording of the Second Amendment but that is still not extreme enough for some here.

Yup - we get it loud and clear.

And then some wonder why LIBERTARIANS cannot even get 1% of the vote at election time. :doh:roll: Extremism such as this is the answer.

their interpretation is that the federal government cannot pass silly laws that are designed to harass honest people as a pretext for pretending to care about crime

your interpretation is other than an outright ban on some guns, the government can do what ever the masses want?

but what you have consistently failed to do is either discuss what laws, short of an outright ban are clearly unconstitutional (the 7th circuit ruled a ban on carrying guns is unconstitutional) or told us where the federal government PROPERLY was delegated the POWER to impose those silly restrictions that your posts appear to support

finally, your posts suggest you see the NRA as an enemy to something--your party, your agenda or what?
 
their interpretation is that the federal government cannot pass silly laws that are designed to harass honest people as a pretext for pretending to care about crime

your interpretation is other than an outright ban on some guns, the government can do what ever the masses want?

but what you have consistently failed to do is either discuss what laws, short of an outright ban are clearly unconstitutional (the 7th circuit ruled a ban on carrying guns is unconstitutional) or told us where the federal government PROPERLY was delegated the POWER to impose those silly restrictions that your posts appear to support

finally, your posts suggest you see the NRA as an enemy to something--your party, your agenda or what?

Interesting that my plan announced a week ago is the same plan endorsed by the NRA..... what you call my enemy.

It matters not to my position what the circuit court ruled - just like it mattered not to your position what you thought the second amendment meant before the Court ruled it was an individual right rather than one linked to the militia.

And I agree that the government should not pass silly rules. We all want them to pass only wise and useful legislation to the benefit of America and the American people.

As to what can they do short of a ban - I imagine that depends greatly on the combination of several things including the will of the people, the prevailing political and social environment of the day, the quality of representatives passing the legislation, the conditions facing the nation.... in other words ..... all the same factors which impact the passage of any legislation.
 
the one that got rid of gun free school zones

And even that is not guaranteed.

I mean.... this is a New England hand flopping state after all......
 
You don't think that mother in Newton increased HER risk of being murdered by having those weapons in the home? Of course she did.

I never blame the victim, nor do I know that had she been without guns her son still wouldn't have killed her.

Your risk is greater too, you just are too hooked to realize it.

Hooked? Hooked on what? What a baseless non-sequitur. Freedom isn't safe, but I challenge you to prove on quantify my risk.

The word is getting out though and gun ownership is declining because of it.

Any source for your claim that gun ownership is going down because of perceived increased risk? Or is this another one of your baseless assertions?
 
It matters not to my position what the circuit court ruled - just like it mattered not to your position what you thought the second amendment meant before the Court ruled it was an individual right rather than one linked to the militia.

It always has been an individual right. The court just upheld it.
 
It always has been an individual right. The court just upheld it.

For two full centuries of American jurisprudence , no Supreme Court or even a Federal Court that I am aware of ever ruled that the Second Amendment was a individual right apart from any consideration with the language about the militia.

If I am in error I would be happy to be corrected and read the appropriate legal decision which says otherwise.
 
I never blame the victim, nor do I know that had she been without guns her son still wouldn't have killed her.



Hooked? Hooked on what? What a baseless non-sequitur. Freedom isn't safe, but I challenge you to prove on quantify my risk.



Any source for your claim that gun ownership is going down because of perceived increased risk? Or is this another one of your baseless assertions?

Your hooked on guns, you have swallowed the kool-aid and not even your increased risk of gun violence will change that. Others are more thoughtful and logical.
Like these people in New Jersey who gave up their guns because they realize they are safer without them.

CAMDEN, NJ — Residents of New Jersey's most impoverished and murder-prone city turned in a record number of weapons in a recent gun buyback program, and officials on Tuesday surmised that the Connecticut school shooting could have something to do with that.

"A lot of people said they don't want the guns around the house now," said state Attorney General Jeffrey Chiesa as he announced the result of the program held Friday and Saturday at two Camden churches.

The state brought in 1,137 guns, surpassing the previous record of 700 weapons from a 2009 Essex County event. Among them were scores of rifles, shotguns and pistols, sawed-off shotguns, a century-old antique weapon, a rifle used for hunting elephants and five fully automatic weapons. Some 90 percent were in working condition. Many were illegal weapons under state laws; some were so-called community guns stashed around neighborhood. Nearly all are to be destroyed

Record setting weekend for New Jersey's gun buyback program in wake of Newtown massacre - NYPOST.com

The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. The number of gun owners has gone down almost 10% over the same period, the report found

Analysis: Fewer U.S. gun owners own more guns - CNN.com
 
Your hooked on guns, you have swallowed the kool-aid and not even your increased risk of gun violence will change that. Others are more thoughtful and logical.

You say baseless crap like this then proceed to talk about being thoughtful and logical? What kool-aid? Are you completely ignorant of the facts regarding the failures of gun control, and how CCW effects crime rates?

There is no increased chance if you take suicide out of the picture, but no amount of facts will change your mind.


So then that's a no on sourcing your baseless claim that gun ownership is going down because of perceived increased risk?

Citing a source that states that gun ownership is going down doesn't do that, not to mention that I already knew this.
 
Last edited:
You say baseless crap like this then proceed to talk about being thoughtful and logical? What kool-aid? Are you completely ignorant of the facts regarding the failures of gun control, and how CCW effects crime rates?

There is no increased chance if you take suicide out of the picture, but no amount of facts will change your mind.



So then that's a no on sourcing your baseless claim that gun ownership is going down because of perceived increased risk?

Citing a source that states that gun ownership is going down doesn't do that, not to mention that I already knew this.

Calling accredited studies "baseless crap" is typical among Kool-aid drinkers. I am not surprised.
Guns in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than BenefitApr. 28, 2011 — Despite the fact that nearly one-third of American households have a firearm, studies show that having a gun in the home poses a household a greater health risk than a potential benefit. A new study released in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine examined scientific research on both sides of the debate to put hard numbers to this on-going discussion.

Author David Hemenway studied the various risks of having a gun in the home, including accidents, suicide, homicide, and intimidation. Additionally, the benefits of having a firearm in a household were also examined and those benefits included deterrence, and thwarting crimes (self-defense). From this in-depth look, it was concluded that homes with guns were not safer or deter more crime than those that do not. In fact, it was found that in homes with children or women, the health risks were even greater.

"Whereas most men are murdered away from home," wrote Hemenway. "Most children, older adults, and women are murdered at home. A gun in the home is a particularly strong risk factor for female homicide victimization."

Guns in the home provide greater health risk than benefit
 
You're nieve if you think people are rational as individuals.

Regarding your argument how do you explain the statistics?

Also I care more about those dead kids than your rights to have fun with a gun.

It seems to me that you shiang are the naive one for the following reasons: (A)You lack proper grammar skills, since you cannot properly spell NAIVE, (B)You do not understand statistics, since statistics are not cold hard truth, but merely inferential means of displaying data accumulated from an experiment, observational study, etc. (C) What on God's green Earth makes you think that repeal of our civil liberties will make you safer? How on Earth do you fail to understand that criminals are CRIMINALS because they BREAK the law and will never abide the law no matter what it is.
 
For two full centuries of American jurisprudence , no Supreme Court or even a Federal Court that I am aware of ever ruled that the Second Amendment was a individual right apart from any consideration with the language about the militia.

If I am in error I would be happy to be corrected and read the appropriate legal decision which says otherwise.

You don't need a court to know the truth. Just need to know your history and what the Founders had to say on the subject. Since you're suppose to be a Constitutional Scholar on the subject you should be well aware of this.
 
How about the right to walk down the street without a fear of being shot ?
And these law-abiding "sane" men, are they 20% of the population ? 40% ?....
A law with teeth in it will have an effect on the criminals.....

There is no such thing as freedom from "fear". And human beings can be afraid of a lot of things.

I assume in most situations that the sane part of the population is 99+%. When we are talking about the shooter that are insane we are talking about outliners.

If you are talking about having laws that have penalties for misusing a weapon, that is in commission of a crime, then I would agree. However if you mean that the general populace would have to abide further restrictions on gun ownership then I would have to disagree.
 
Number of murders by guns do not matter, the only thing that matters is number of murders total, regardless of what was used. When you look at actual murders, the US ranks

Being below average is acceptable?
Also if you look at more developed regions of the world such as Europe or Asia we look even worse.

I agree with the bettering society part. Lets begin with not allowing guns to be privately owned unless there presents a need. If you want to go hunt, you should go to a gun licensed range where guns are less accessible to those who wish to do harm. Not that I think killing animals for sport is all that glamorous to begin with.

Of course other nations are careful to exclude firearms deaths by LEOs and other government officials (special police forces like the DEA). Try getting info on actual homicides by firearms in the US and you have your work cut out for you.
 
Back
Top Bottom