• 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 .
You have no right to a job. You don't have to work where a background check is required.

Well, they have to report earnings, etc to the IRS, etc so all employers that pay (legally and not under the table) have to have your SSN.
 
Never said any of that. What I said was that our society is divided into two camps of responsibility and that the right-wing camp is what will eventually cause the 2nd Amendment to be tampered with. I believe that very strongly. For instance, the right-wing is fixated on the notion that only a real American believes in no gun control. That's witch hunt mentality and the public at large has never done well with that.

I'm a liberal and know plenty of 'liberals' or Democrats that are strong supporters of the 2A and less restriction. Certainly no more.
 
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, take out the underlined part, it will make it more clear.

I don't see how the underlined clause makes less clear the stated right, unless of course someone is intentionally trying to force an unreasonable meaning upon that clear statement. I would go as far as to say that the underlined clause clarifies the intent and strengthens the 2nd amendment's claim.
 
I don't see how the underlined clause makes less clear the stated right, unless of course someone is intentionally trying to force an unreasonable meaning upon that clear statement. I would go as far as to say that the underlined clause clarifies the intent and strengthens the 2nd amendment's claim.

Not really. Because for one, we haven't the mandate in place of the underlined clause, and for two, it appears that the only right of citizens to have and bear arms is as militia members. If you removed that clause as Bigfoot suggests, then it would simply be a guarantee.
 
Not really. Because for one, we haven't the mandate in place of the underlined clause, and for two, it appears that the only right of citizens to have and bear arms is as militia members. If you removed that clause as Bigfoot suggests, then it would simply be a guarantee.

That's not how that should be....and is...interpreted. All citizens were supposed to be capable of being the militia...'irregulars.' The 'regulars' are the army, etc. And related to that, 'well-regulated' meant 'trained.' That was the language of the time. So all citizens have the right to own and have the opportunity to train with arms.
 
Not really. Because for one, we haven't the mandate in place of the underlined clause, and for two, it appears that the only right of citizens to have and bear arms is as militia members. If you removed that clause as Bigfoot suggests, then it would simply be a guarantee.

The explanatory clause, in my mind, neither adds nor subtracts from the right that is expressed (not granted), however it (the explanatory clause) gives usefulness and reason to why it is mentioned. There are many so called rights not mentioned, because they are not vital to the very foundation and survival of a republic. This one is.
 
What part of the 10th Amendment do you not understand?

What part of states regulate guns within borders so this is a state issue do you not understand?

States have ultimate authority, if not theoretically, then literally.

Citizens of the state should vote on what gun laws they find appropriate for their state. Power to the people to determine what they believe is natural to them.
 
That's not how that should be....and is...interpreted. All citizens were supposed to be capable of being the militia...'irregulars.' The 'regulars' are the army, etc. And related to that, 'well-regulated' meant 'trained.' That was the language of the time. So all citizens have the right to own and have the opportunity to train with arms.

Wrong, all citizens are not supposed to be in the militia, only males of a certain age group.

Btw, I wasn't saying that that is a correct interpretation, or should be, but many argue it that way, so, with the clause edited as Bigfoot suggests, the individual mandate would be undeniable.
 
Last edited:
What part of states regulate guns within borders so this is a state issue do you not understand?

States have ultimate authority, if not theoretically, then literally.

Citizens of the state should vote on what gun laws they find appropriate for their state. Power to the people to determine what they believe is natural to them.

The Constitution disagrees with you, and you with it. Which is what I said in the first place. Geez Louise.
 
The Constitution disagrees with you, and you with it. Which is what I said in the first place. Geez Louise.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

State issue, supreme court hasn't said anything at all for the past years. Maybe the constitution doesn't disagree with me.

Hey look, be happy, the conservative states are looking out for you against the big bad wolf obama. However, in the process of looking out for you, they seem to be breaking something in the constitution that you hold dearly.
 
State issue, supreme court hasn't said anything at all for the past years.

You might want to review McDonald v Chicago, 2010 . . .

Maybe the constitution doesn't disagree with me.

Wishful thinking . . . the full extent of consideration that liberals afford the US Constitution.

Hey look, be happy, the conservative states are looking out for you against the big bad wolf obama. However, in the process of looking out for you, they seem to be breaking something in the constitution that you hold dearly.

A liberal arguing state's rights is a case study in schizophrenic thinking.
 
Wrong, all citizens are not supposed to be in the militia, only males of a certain age group.

Btw, I wasn't saying that that is a correct interpretation, or should be, but many argue it that way, so, with the clause edited as Bigfoot suggests, the individual mandate would be undeniable.

True, but our civil rights laws have changed that in practice.
 
True, but our civil rights laws have changed that in practice.

But there is no such practice. The second amendment is as much a mandate to maintain a trained militia as it is a right for its members to bear arms without infringement.
 
Expanding this discussion beyond the 2nd amendment, we need to do more to protect all of our rights, not just the right to bear arms. Though, to answer the question, there is no amending needed of the second amendment.
 
But there is no such practice. The second amendment is as much a mandate to maintain a trained militia as it is a right for its members to bear arms without infringement.

It's not about 'maintaining,' it's about 'enabling,' meaning they have the right to do so. No one is forced to do so, nor was that the intent. But the need was recognized and addressed by creating the 2A. As with other rights, no one is forced to exercise them.
 
Expanding this discussion beyond the 2nd amendment, we need to do more to protect all of our rights, not just the right to bear arms. Though, to answer the question, there is no amending needed of the second amendment.

My views are almost interchangeable with the ACLU.
 
It's not about 'maintaining,' it's about 'enabling,' meaning they have the right to do so. No one is forced to do so, nor was that the intent. But the need was recognized and addressed by creating the 2A. As with other rights, no one is forced to exercise them.

Your avoiding two fundamental points that has our discussion failing. Based on the literal wording of the second amendment, there are folk that make a good argument that it applies to the male members of the militia, and secondly, that it's not my argument.
 
I'm happy to adopt a system more like the UK. Less guns means less gun deaths.

What a carefully worded piece of tripe. Fewer cars means fewer car deaths. Fewer swimming pools means fewer swimming pool deaths.

Tell me, why is dying by gun worse than dying by, say a hammer? Is there a super secret level of death that is reached only by gun violence?
 
What a carefully worded piece of tripe. Fewer cars means fewer car deaths. Fewer swimming pools means fewer swimming pool deaths.

Tell me, why is dying by gun worse than dying by, say a hammer? Is there a super secret level of death that is reached only by gun violence?

I'm in favor of increasing public transit and increasing access to swimming lessons to reduce deaths. Join me.
 
Your avoiding two fundamental points that has our discussion failing. Based on the literal wording of the second amendment, there are folk that make a good argument that it applies to the male members of the militia, and secondly, that it's not my argument.

I'm not clear on what points you are trying to make.
 
The second amendment is as much a mandate to maintain a trained militia as it is a right for its members to bear arms without infringement.

There is no "militia" aspect to the 2nd Amendment. It has never been inspected to inform or held to inform on anything to do with militia organization, training or control. Members of the organized militia are not exercising the right to arms; their being armed is entirely at the whim of Congress who also possesses plenary power to organize the militia and establish the training regimen to be implemented by the states.

There is no right to form or be a member of a militia, either a government formed one or private citizen initiated (see Presser v Illinois).

It's not about 'maintaining,' it's about 'enabling,' meaning they have the right to do so. No one is forced to do so, nor was that the intent. But the need was recognized and addressed by creating the 2A.

The power to organize the citizens, train them and deploy them as militia is a power that has been completely conferred to the federal government. There is no residual power for citizens (or, since 1903, the states) to exercise in this regard.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't "do" anything but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.
 
I think that it will be amended, in time. Maybe two generations from now. I think that it will be amended because the amount of and technology of modern arms has created a situation in the US wherein mass shootings are almost too easy to pull off. Moreover, the divide that now exists between the conservative 2nd Amendment political movement and most of the US who are for a safer and more secure society is being pushed to it's brink.

I don't have concerns about pistols and rifles, but as I said, it's the high capacity magazines and the devil-may-care attitude about their use in assault weapons that will eventually tip the balance. As I say, it's the political 2nd Amendment will eventually sacrifice the amendment itself.

I think ultimately the gun grabbers might try to grab guns. Then they will be killed and the nonsense will disappear
 
There's fluctuation in both, but the statistics say I'm still more likely to survive in England than in America.

homocides_g8_countries_640x360_wmain.jpg


our rates are going down and we have more and more and more guns. white americans have lower rates of violent crime gun deaths than whites in gun restricted areas in Europe
 
There is no "militia" aspect to the 2nd Amendment. It has never been inspected to inform or held to inform on anything to do with militia organization, training or control. Members of the organized militia are not exercising the right to arms; their being armed is entirely at the whim of Congress who also possesses plenary power to organize the militia and establish the training regimen to be implemented by the states.

There is no right to form or be a member of a militia, either a government formed one or private citizen initiated (see Presser v Illinois).



The power to organize the citizens, train them and deploy them as militia is a power that has been completely conferred to the federal government. There is no residual power for citizens (or, since 1903, the states) to exercise in this regard.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't "do" anything but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.

absolutely correct. the federal government never was delegated ANY power to interfere with what small arms citizens may own or use
 
Back
Top Bottom