• 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!

Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 18.2%

  • No

    Votes: 53 80.3%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Total voters
    66
  • Poll closed .
TurtleDude said:
Anyone who supports magazine limits is in a criminal conspiracy with armed criminals and should be seen as such
Click to expand...

Anyone that supports magazine cap bans has NOT thought it thru, period.

Just another feel good restriction that would only harm people trying to defend themselves.
 
Lursa said:
Anyone that supports magazine cap bans has NOT thought it thru, period.

Just another feel good restriction that would only harm people trying to defend themselves.
Click to expand...


we disagree.

the hand wringing, garment soiling low information ninny probably hasn't so I agree with you there

however, the scumbags like Biden and Feinswine who push these laws in congress are dishonest POS who are using magazine limits as Don Cuomo did in NY to incrementally ban guns

first 20 rounds than 10 then seven etc

scumbag politicians should not be protected by anyone having more rounds in their weapons than other citizens are allowed to own
 
TurtleDude said:
we disagree.

the hand wringing, garment soiling low information ninny probably hasn't so I free wit your there

however, the scumbags like Biden and Feinswine who push these laws in congress are dishonest POS who are using magazine limits as Don Cuomo did in NY to incrementally ban guns

first 20 rounds than 10 then seven etc

scumbag politicians should not be protected by anyone having more rounds in their weapons than other citizens are allowed to own
Click to expand...

Are you on your cell? That's barely readable.
 
Lursa said:
Are you on your cell? That's barely readable.
Click to expand...

auto correct does strange crap. plus my keyboard sometimes skips a letter.

Note I edited it and there is no evidence of doing so in my post
 
Lursa said:
Yeah Jerry! What's wrong with you?!

That round is way too expensive for casual killing :)
Click to expand...
I kinda what to know who Jet57 thinks is running around with a machinegun which costs as much as a car, weighs a friggin ton and costs $7 per round. You have to be in good shape just to pick the damn thing up and lug it across the room, and it has to be mounted on something in order to use it; it cannot be shoulder-fired.

Is Jet saying that someone with an NFA machinegun is performing all these killings? Is Jet saying someone bought a modern .50cal illegally?
 
Jerry said:
I kinda what to know who Jet57 thinks is running around with a machinegun which costs as much as a car, weighs a friggin ton and costs $7 per round.

Is Jet saying that someone with an NFA machinegun is performing all these killings? Is Jet saying someone bought a modern .50cal illegally?
Click to expand...

or even a Barrett "LIGHT" 50 which costs 14K and weighs more than three AR 15s and can hardly be concealed even if it doesn't require a tax stamp
 
TurtleDude said:
or even a Barrett "LIGHT" 50 which costs 14K and weighs more than three AR 15s and can hardly be concealed even if it doesn't require a tax stamp
Click to expand...
Well I'm sure when Jet posts his source material we will see exactly what kind of .50cal machinegun he claims is being used in all this crime.
 
Jerry said:
Well I'm sure when Jet posts his source material we will see exactly what kind of .50cal machinegun he claims is being used in all this crime.
Click to expand...

might be one of those brown bess styled muskets. some of those suckers were 50 or even 70 caliber IIRC

28G shotguns are close to 50 caliber

I suppose someone shot dove out of season with one
 
Goshin said:
I don't wish to be Germany, nor Japan.




Comparing nations tends to be apples and orangutans anyway.


But looking at various jurisdictions, there is no reason to believe gun control leads to any decline in violence.

Rates of violence are chiefly a result of


Poverty
Corrupt/ineffective gov't
Gangs/tribes/factions
drug trade
cultural traits.


After studying this issue for many years, I am convinced of that.
Click to expand...
I'd be happy to have Germany or Japan's homicide rates, even if I don't want to adopt every aspect of their culture and society.

The fact that we don't believe we're capable of achieving things that nations with less resources are achieving bothers me.
TurtleDude said:
well mother jones is a joke and it ignores legal vs illegal gun owners
Click to expand...
How exactly do you intend to accurately determine the number of illegal gun owners?
 
Unrepresented said:
I'd be happy to have Germany or Japan's homicide rates, even if I don't want to adopt every aspect of their culture and society.

The fact that we don't believe we're capable of achieving things that nations with less resources are achieving bothers me.

How exactly do you intend to accurately determine the number of illegal gun owners?
Click to expand...

prove that it is strictly the amount of fire arms in our nation causing this issue.
 
CLAX1911 said:
prove that it is strictly the amount of fire arms in our nation causing this issue.
Click to expand...
That's a nearly impossible task, just as proving the inverse would be. We're both in a position of being forced to work with correlation rather than causation for support of our respective views.

I do know that zero guns would bring the gun homicide rate down to zero. You can't argue the opposite, and that our gun ownership rates and homicide rates are much higher than the rest of our developed nation equivalents.

GunHomicideByCountry4_7_13.jpg
 
Telling a gun fetishist that there will be a cap on their magazine volume is like telling an alcoholic that they are on a two drink limit.
When too much still ain't enough any restriction sounds like the end of the ****ing world.
 
Unrepresented said:
That's a nearly impossible task, just as proving the inverse would be. We're both in a position of being forced to work with correlation rather than causation for support of our respective views.

I do know that zero guns would bring the gun homicide rate down to zero. You can't argue the opposite, and that our gun ownership rates and homicide rates are much higher than the rest of our developed nation equivalents.
Zero guns isn't possible.

And if it's a correlation issue, I would much rather keep the guns. Until you can do better than correlation, you aren't going to get any where with me.

Restricting ownership likely won't go any good. However there are far more reasons to keep them.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Buck Ewer said:
Telling a gun fetishist that there will be a cap on their magazine volume is like telling an alcoholic that they are on a two drink limit.
When too much still ain't enough any restriction sounds like the end of the ****ing world.
Click to expand...
Until Somebody can give a good reason for a lower magazine capacity, there isn't really any argument.
 
Unrepresented said:
That's a nearly impossible task, just as proving the inverse would be. We're both in a position of being forced to work with correlation rather than causation for support of our respective views.

I do know that zero guns would bring the gun homicide rate down to zero. You can't argue the opposite, and that our gun ownership rates and homicide rates are much higher than the rest of our developed nation equivalents.

GunHomicideByCountry4_7_13.jpg
Click to expand...

There is no correlation world-wide between gun ownership rate and total homicide rate. Our problem is poverty, plain and simple. If it weren't, homicide rates would follow the guns and not the poverty. The inner city in many cities isn't dangerous because of the number of guns, it's dangerous because of the immense poverty and desperation people live in.

Many people want to take a complex, human problem and try to oversimplify it into blaming inanimate objects. It completely ignores the entire context of the situation and cherry picks to fit a predetermined goal. Having a gun does not make you want to commit crime, being unable to put food on your family's table does.

Buck Ewer said:
Telling a gun fetishist that there will be a cap on their magazine volume is like telling an alcoholic that they are on a two drink limit.
When too much still ain't enough any restriction sounds like the end of the ****ing world.
Click to expand...

I think you're being purposely obtuse to bait someone into yelling at you. Do you honestly think that a magazine cap is going to reduce the homicide rate? What do you think is more responsible for our above average homicide rate? Our above average gun ownership levels? Or our above average poverty?

Why do homicide rates correlate with poverty but not with gun ownership? Shouldn't the richer white neighborhoods where people can afford lots of guns have substantially more killings?
 
haymarket said:
Nope. All we need is a Supreme Court who is not a slave to right wing ideology and will not let than determine how they interpret it. And elections and time will take care of that.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to interpret, it is as plain as day. The left only puts on a charade of "interpretation" to advance their tyrannical ideology.

If you don't like the 2A, why not change it Constitutionally? Why does the left always run to an activist court to get their way? Even when you lose at the ballot box.
 
jet57 said:
No, the red herring is you not being able to read and interpret the language. There are clubs for people with .50s. I was at a range where a guy had a home made semi auto .50. Why does someone need a .50? And under the gun nut banner; that and carrying around a weapon supercedes the general public's desire for a safer society.

carry on
Click to expand...

In a free society, need has nothing to do with anything. Public misperception due to propaganda campaigns, means less than nothing.
 
sawdust said:
The language of the second amendment is arcane and if it were to be changed the language could be cleaned up so that everyone can plainly understand that owning firearms is an absolute right which is granted to us by our bill of rights.
Click to expand...

But it is not a right "granted" to us. It is an inherent right which is affirmed by the BOR.
 
countryboy said:
There is nothing to interpret, it is as plain as day. The left only puts on a charade of "interpretation" to advance their tyrannical ideology.

If you don't like the 2A, why not change it Constitutionally? Why does the left always run to an activist court to get their way? Even when you lose at the ballot box.
Click to expand...

As long as it agrees with your I suspect.

It would be difficult to imagine a more activist Court in the area of guns that the current Court.
 
countryboy said:
But it is not a right "granted" to us. It is an inherent right which is affirmed by the BOR.
Click to expand...

So where do we find this inherent right before state and national constitutions other than a self imposed willful belief inside somebodys head?
 
TurtleDude said:
You have a civic right not to have someone criminally attack you or menace you. someone merely owning or using a weapon lawfully is not grounds for someone to demand a ban because they soil their garments over the mere thought that someone has a 50 BMG rifle
Click to expand...

And in fact, is contrary to their stated goal. But when dealing with the modern lib, one must remember. Liberalism always, always, always, generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent.
 
Lursa said:
Anyone that supports magazine cap bans has NOT thought it thru, period.

Just another feel good restriction that would only harm people trying to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Modern liberalism, in a nutshell.
 
haymarket said:
So where do we find this inherent right before state and national constitutions other than a self imposed willful belief inside somebodys head?
Click to expand...

Normal, thinking people, understand the right to defend oneself against all who would do us harm, or enslave us, is inherent.
 
countryboy said:
Normal, thinking people, understand the right to defend oneself against all who would do us harm, or enslave us, is inherent.
Click to expand...

So outside of a self imposed willful belief, where does one find this RIGHT before state and national constitutions?
 
haymarket said:
So outside of a self imposed willful belief, where does one find this RIGHT before state and national constitutions?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should avail yourself of a dictionary if you have a low vocabulary. There are a number of great online versions.

I'll help you this time, but next time you'll have to look it up yourself.

in·her·ent
inˈhirənt,inˈherənt/
adjective
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
"any form of mountaineering has its inherent dangers"
synonyms: intrinsic, innate, immanent, built-in, indwelling, inborn, ingrained, deep-rooted; More
antonyms: acquired
LAW
vested in (someone) as a right or privilege.
"the president's inherent foreign affairs power"
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom