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When do you think the 2nd amendment will be repealed?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

I care more about those dead kids than your desires to ban guns.

If the law that the Michigan Legislature recently sent to their Governor had been in effect in CT, it's more likely those kids would be alive today...than if all guns were banned.


On a side note...because I consider your poll to really be just that, a side note...anyone who selects the first 4 choices has shown they really don't know anything about the process to amend our Constitution. The Equal Rights Amendment took DECADES to run its course...and it failed.
 
I do not see this on the horizon any time in our future.

If a perfect storm of events happen down the road, I can see the day when the current interpretation that the gun lobby has successfully pushed for the meaning of the Amendment will be re-evaluated and changed in the minds of most Americans. Then we will begin to get different court decisions which will impact gun ownership but still allow the right to keep and bear arms.

Yet more proof that haymarket is an ardent advocate for our right to keep and bear arms and staunch supporter of the second amendment.
 
I agree. If the "law with teeth" deters someone from going on a killing rampage, then the death penalty would be just as an effective deterrent - and it's not. The death penalty is a just punishment for certain crimes... definitely not a deterrent, otherwise, we would have nobody on death row.

A tougher law regarding firearm ownership is NOT going to deter those who have heinous criminal mindsets or the criminally insane from carrying out their sick and twisted crime sprees.

exactly.

99% of us refrain from killing or hurting people because of our personal moral convictions... laws barring such behavior run a distant 2nd, if they are a consideration at all.
 
The US ranks one of the highest in gun related deaths in the world, and of the top developed countries the highest.

Just google "gun related deaths by country" and find your own sources so as not to include my bias.

How long will it take before a law that's out dated by over 200 years be repealed?

The founding fathers had the intention of arming their militia against the British.

Nothing has changed in 200 years, only the names of the tyranical govts that the people have to be prepared to defend themselves against. American Idol starts soon and the people will forget about this emotional reaction as they have every other one.
 
Here I agree, and should our society be allowed to have so many guns, in this condition ?
I'd say maybe 30% are responsible and sane enough for gun ownership.
No to all the others...
Its insane to allow the even partially insane to own guns.

So 70% of the population is insane in your opinion? Where are you getting these stats, and why do you think you should have to ability to be judge and jury when doling out constitutional rights?
 
The US ranks one of the highest in gun related deaths in the world, and of the top developed countries the highest.

Just google "gun related deaths by country" and find your own sources so as not to include my bias.

How long will it take before a law that's out dated by over 200 years be repealed?

The founding fathers had the intention of arming their militia against the British.

I hope never. My desire is to push the Republic back towards being a Republic based on the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
Yet more proof that haymarket is an ardent advocate for our right to keep and bear arms and staunch supporter of the second amendment.

There is a significant and qualitative difference between being a supporter of the Second Amendment and being a toadie, sycophant and general buttboy for the gun lobby. We all would do well to remember that reality.
 
There is a significant and qualitative difference between being a supporter of the Second Amendment and being a toadie, sycophant and general buttboy for the gun lobby. We all would do well to remember that reality.

and what, in your estimation, is the significant difference?
 
and what, in your estimation, is the significant difference?

I thought that was self evident. I am frankly surprised you do not know the difference.

One can indeed support the right to keep and bear arms without swallowing and then regurgitating the gun lobby line on extremist interpretations of the Second Amendment viewing every little thing as some huge INFRINGEMENT or ENCROACHMENT when it in reality does not deny anyone the right to keep and bear arms.
 
I thought that was self evident. I am frankly surprised you do not know the difference.

One can indeed support the right to keep and bear arms without swallowing and then regurgitating the gun lobby line on extremist interpretations of the Second Amendment viewing every little thing as some huge INFRINGEMENT or ENCROACHMENT when it in reality does not deny anyone the right to keep and bear arms.

you are surprised that I am unable to read your mind?.... you really shouldn't be... I can tell you, with a high degree of accuracy, that my mind reading skills are subpar.

your explanation is bereft of specifics... you mention "gun lobby line" and "extremist interpretations", but never illuminate exactly what you are talking about.

what measures, in your estimation, do not infringe or encroach on 2nd amendment rights, but are still opposed by the gun lobby?
 
you are surprised that I am unable to read your mind?.... you really shouldn't be... I can tell you, with a high degree of accuracy, that my mind reading skills are subpar.

your explanation is bereft of specifics... you mention "gun lobby line" and "extremist interpretations", but never illuminate exactly what you are talking about.

what measures, in your estimation, do not infringe or encroach on 2nd amendment rights, but are still opposed by the gun lobby?

My thoughts on this issue are based on a reading of what I believe the average American thinks about the issue. It could be right or wrong or partially right or partially wrong, but it is based on 63 years as an American.

I believe that most people want the right to keep and bear arms. They want this for personal protection, for home protection, for business protection, or for sport and recreational use. As such, they distinguish between firearms that are necessary to do that and powerful weapons often described by some as military or assault weapons. And please spare me and all of us a pedantic discussion about how to define such things.

People will support reasonable things that protect the right and also do not simply allow technology to dictate our size and scope of weaponry.

I really do NOT think the average person has a firearm to aid them when they have to someday fight a totalitarian government house by house and block by block in the streets of America. Sorry. That is a delusional paranoid mental construct of those on the far right and their use of it to justify matching the military and police in weaponry is just BS of the worst sort.

The NRA and the gun lobby has falsely interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that any limit at all on arms is unconstitutional. Please look up the meaning of the word INFRINGED as it was used 200 years ago.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/139998-abc-nightline-pushing-gun-issue-w-194-a-48.html
see posts #476 and 483

It DID NOT mean what the nra wants it to mean to them today. INFRINGED meant a destruction of the right...... not any incremental obligation it might place upon in regards to use of firearms.

As long as the NRA insists on that erroneous and false interpretation of the term, the enitre issue is hopelessly skewed in their favor. I do not think the average American accepts that false interpretation.
 
Last edited:
My thoughts on this issue are based on a reading of what I believe the average American thinks about the issue. It could be right or wrong or partially right or partially wrong, but it is based on 63 years as an American.

I believe that most people want the right to keep and bear arms. They want this for personal protection, for home protection, for business protection, or for sport and recreational use. As such, they distinguish between firearms that are necessary to do that and powerful weapons often described by some as military or assault weapons. And please spare me and all of us a pedantic discussion about how to define such things.

People will support reasonable things that protect the right and also do not simply allow technology to dictate our size and scope of weaponry.

I really do NOT think the average person has a firearm to aid them when they have to someday fight a totalitarian government house by house and block by block in the streets of America. Sorry. That is a delusional paranoid mental construct of those on the far right and their use of it to justify matching the military and police in weaponry is just BS of the worst sort.

The NRA and the gun lobby has falsely interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that any limit at all on arms is unconstitutional. Please look up the meaning of the word INFRINGED as it was used 200 years ago.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/139998-abc-nightline-pushing-gun-issue-w-194-a-48.html
see posts #476 and 483

It DID NOT mean what the nra wants it to mean to them today. INFRINGED meant a destruction of the right...... not any incremental obligation it might place upon in regards to use of firearms.

As long as the NRA insists on that erroneous and false interpretation of the term, the enitre issue is hopelessly skewed in their favor. I do not think the average American accepts that false interpretation.

The NRA are a bunch of gun-control loving ******s.
 
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.
I'm not sure how persuasive a person that can't spell "naive" right and uses improper grammar will be.

According to the poll, not very.
 
I believe that most people want the right to keep and bear arms. They want this for personal protection, for home protection, for business protection, or for sport and recreational use. As such, they distinguish between firearms that are necessary to do that and powerful weapons often described by some as military or assault weapons. And please spare me and all of us a pedantic discussion about how to define such things.
i agree that most people want the right to keep and bear arms... but we we begin to part ways is where you decide that definition don't matter.
it's really not my problem that you find definition inconvenient or whatever....it is not my fault that factual information does not support your arguments.
a cure to a great many ills is education... factual and accurate information
you are correct that people tend to differentiate between military styled weapons and other "regular weapons.... where you err is in propagating myths surrounding those .
for instance.. all this talk about "high powered assault rifles" and such... it sure sounds scary to claim such things are true.. but if we are being honest and truthful, we'll find that perceptions do not match reality.
for an example... most folks will not want to ban Remington 700 rifles.. it's the worlds most popular hunting rifle after all.... they also happen to be more powerful than any "assault weapon".
that is not perception speaking or political agenda.. it is simple physics.

anyways, now we know you are uninterested in factual and accurate information.. we can move along.


People will support reasonable things that protect the right and also do not simply allow technology to dictate our size and scope of weaponry.
yes, people will support reasonable things..... unfortunately, there is no universal standard of "reasonbale" and quite often, unreasonable things are sold as being reasonable or sensible.

I really do NOT think the average person has a firearm to aid them when they have to someday fight a totalitarian government house by house and block by block in the streets of America. Sorry. That is a delusional paranoid mental construct of those on the far right and their use of it to justify matching the military and police in weaponry is just BS of the worst sort.
you are entitled to this opinion... but you must acknowledge that it is not born from factual information...
history is rife with scenarios that shows your opinion to be quite ignorant.
The NRA and the gun lobby has falsely interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that any limit at all on arms is unconstitutional. Please look up the meaning of the word INFRINGED as it was used 200 years ago.
this is factually incorrect....
1st, you have been utterly unsuccessful in showing how the NRA's interpretation is in err....
2nd, the NRA does not oppose any or all limits, they have even authored and lobbied for gun control measures...ans they have supported measures authored by others
.3rd,I can find no corroboration to your claim that the definition of "infringed" has changed in 200 years.

you quite literary struck out 3 times in one at bat.

It DID NOT mean what the nra wants it to mean to them today. INFRINGED meant a destruction of the right...... not any incremental obligation it might place upon in regards to use of firearms.
you keep insisting the definition has undergone a radical change that is being ignored by the gun lobby, yet you never prove it.... your word is insufficient proof of ..well.. anything.

As long as the NRA insists on that erroneous and false interpretation of the term, the entire issue is hopelessly skewed in their favor. I do not think the average American accepts that false interpretation.
I have been utterly unsuccessful on corroborating your claim that the NRA erroneously or falsely interprets the 2nd amendment.. you have been unsuccessful in providing factual information to substantiate your claim..... your argument is riding on the thinnest of ice here, dude.
 
anyways, now we know you are uninterested in factual and accurate information.. we can move along.

All you have done is to intentionally misrepresent nearly everything I wrote so you can attack it and keep the NRA gun lobby line in place.

I provided definitions for you and then you have the gall to claim I failed to present factual information. Why are you lying? Why are you lying over and over and over again?
 
The NRA are a bunch of gun-control loving ******s.

this is a far more accurate representation of the NRA than what Haymarket has given us.

the NRA has authored, lobbied for, and supported tons of gun control measures... that is fact.

the notion that they are extremists that oppose any and all gun control measures is ..well... a lie... a myth... a complete and utter falsehood.
 
this is a far more accurate representation of the NRA than what Haymarket has given us.

the NRA has authored, lobbied for, and supported tons of gun control measures... that is fact.

the notion that they are extremists that oppose any and all gun control measures is ..well... a lie... a myth... a complete and utter falsehood.

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.
 
My thoughts on this issue are based on a reading of what I believe the average American thinks about the issue. It could be right or wrong or partially right or partially wrong, but it is based on 63 years as an American.

I believe that most people want the right to keep and bear arms. They want this for personal protection, for home protection, for business protection, or for sport and recreational use. As such, they distinguish between firearms that are necessary to do that and powerful weapons often described by some as military or assault weapons. And please spare me and all of us a pedantic discussion about how to define such things.

People will support reasonable things that protect the right and also do not simply allow technology to dictate our size and scope of weaponry.

I really do NOT think the average person has a firearm to aid them when they have to someday fight a totalitarian government house by house and block by block in the streets of America. Sorry. That is a delusional paranoid mental construct of those on the far right and their use of it to justify matching the military and police in weaponry is just BS of the worst sort.

The NRA and the gun lobby has falsely interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that any limit at all on arms is unconstitutional. Please look up the meaning of the word INFRINGED as it was used 200 years ago.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/139998-abc-nightline-pushing-gun-issue-w-194-a-48.html
see posts #476 and 483

It DID NOT mean what the nra wants it to mean to them today. INFRINGED meant a destruction of the right...... not any incremental obligation it might place upon in regards to use of firearms.

As long as the NRA insists on that erroneous and false interpretation of the term, the enitre issue is hopelessly skewed in their favor. I do not think the average American accepts that false interpretation.

So, what measures, in your estimation, do not infringe or encroach on 2nd amendment rights, but are still opposed by the gun lobby?
 
All you have done is to intentionally misrepresent nearly everything I wrote so you can attack it and keep the NRA gun lobby line in place.

I provided definitions for you and then you have the gall to claim I failed to present factual information. Why are you lying? Why are you lying over and over and over again?

sorry, at the time i hit "quote" you had not entered in your link to your definition argument.....

after looking at the link you provided for the old definition.. and looking at the new definition( a few different sources)... I fail to find your argument compelling.. whatsoever.
I find no substantial difference between the definitions.

those "incremental obligations" you claim are not infringements.... what examples can you provide?


the logical conclusion of your argument here is that a right can be incrementally violated... and it wouldn't qualify for being considered as "infringed upon" as it was not crushed ( medievil latin)
i'm afraid you will find little support for your ill thought out and ill supported argument.
 
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.

it's not my fault, or the fault of libertarians, that you are passing on factually incorrect information... the fault lies with you and you alone.

the proper course of action is to correct your false information... not to lash out like a child.
 
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.

What about my right to defend me and my wife from an attacker,or my daughter's right to defend herself from a rapist?


Since having a C&C permit and a legal handgun is what kept my and my wife from getting robbed by some knife wielding methhead a few years back,and my oldest daughter owning a hand gun saved her my eldest daughter from being raped, (her assailant is doing 25 years at Angola State Pen.confined to a wheelchair courtesy of my daughter's handgun.) I'm going to vote no on making handguns illegal.

Once a person is successful using an excuse to take away peoples Constitutional Rights,what's to stop them from trying to use other excuses to take away more Constitutional Rights from other people.

People with good intentions can be just as dangerous and destructive as a madman with a gun.
 
after looking at the link you provided for the old definition.. and looking at the new definition( a few different sources)... I fail to find your argument compelling.. whatsoever.
I find no substantial difference between the definitions.

Self imposed belief based on extremist ideology will do that to you.
 
So, what measures, in your estimation, do not infringe or encroach on 2nd amendment rights, but are still opposed by the gun lobby?

As long as you can exercise your right to keep and bear arms, you are being protected by the Second Amendment. As long as the law does not negate that right, anything else could be permissible under the Constitution.
 
it's not my fault, or the fault of libertarians, that you are passing on factually incorrect information... the fault lies with you and you alone.

the proper course of action is to correct your false information... not to lash out like a child.

NO. You lied about the contents of my post. Pure and simple.
 
Back
Top Bottom