• 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 .
Sure I do. They use actual verifiable stats we can see, even if we can explain the flaw. You throw up stats that are opinion and not measureable or verifiable, and use mind reading as if it were evidence. And I did not say I was neutral, I said I have no emotional stake and that I don't care to ban guns. There is a difference.

that is such silliness I am laughing hard. what verifiable stats. you are fibbing yet again
 
But they did in Article I Section 8 as I have told you again and again and again and again in thread after thread after thread complete with the appropriate clauses cited and repeated for you.

false, the power to regulate commerce is stated as "AMONG THE STATES"......no where in the general powers of congress to be involved in the personal life's liberty , property of the people.

as an added bonus
to this statement..........you are also one who believed that clause 1 of article 1 section 8 granted the federal government the power to tax people via their incomes, until you were shown to be wrong,...... here you are wrong again on commerce.
 
false, the power to regulate commerce is stated as "AMONG THE STATES"......no where in the general powers of congress to be involved in the personal life's liberty of property of the people.

as an added bonus
to this statement..........you are also one who believed that clause 1 of article 1 section 8 granted the federal government the power to tax people via their incomes, until you were shown to be wrong,...... here you are wrong again on commerce.

He has never posted the exact words he claims delegates these powers. and using his standards as to the 2A, since the commerce clause says nothing about firearms, his claims are completely false
 
What you need to say is the SO WHAT part you were asked. What does all that mean to you and what claim to do you make about these so called "facts" that you claim?

ps - Madison can't answer that for you - only you can.

hay, i have been very clear about what i have stated, if you feel as if you got lost in that conversation, please revisit previous post to find your questions answered.
 
that is such silliness I am laughing hard. what verifiable stats. you are fibbing yet again

The numbers that show people with guns are more likely to shoot themselves, for example, is verifiable. The study showing that guns prevent crime is based on opinion of gun owners. Two specific examples.
 
The numbers that show people with guns are more likely to shoot themselves, for example, is verifiable. The study showing that guns prevent crime is based on opinion of gun owners. Two specific examples.

its hard to shoot yourself with out a gun-that's a moronic tautology that has no relevance. the fact remains that there are millions upon millions of gun owners and more than 99.9% don't shoot themselves and thus that claim is moronic and does not counter all the benefits gun owners derive from firearms

and of course it ignores the obvious-what would banning guns do to prevent that-almost nothing

so your argument is completely worthless
 
its hard to shoot yourself with out a gun-that's a moronic tautology that has no relevance. the fact remains that there are millions upon millions of gun owners and more than 99.9% don't shoot themselves and thus that claim is moronic and does not counter all the benefits gun owners derive from firearms

and of course it ignores the obvious-what would banning guns do to prevent that-almost nothing

so your argument is completely worthless

No, it shows what we actually do with the tool. We shoot ourselves more than anyone else. It's not enough to ban guns, but it is a valid study and does tell us something.

And yes, it would do someting. It would reduce accidental shootings and make death less likely. Not end it, but reduce it.
 
No, it shows what we actually do with the tool. We shoot ourselves more than anyone else. It's not enough to ban guns, but it is a valid study and does tell us something.

And yes, it would do someting. It would reduce accidental shootings and make death less likely. Not end it, but reduce it.

you are making stupid comments again

gun ownership and the number of guns in circulation have gone way up and accidental shootings are decreasing

and posting a fact-does nothing unless it supports a proposal or a conclusion

so what is your "conclusion"
 
that's bald faced dishonesty. there is no plain or obvious desire for federal gun control expressed there

I want you to

1) post the language

2) show us which words delegate that power to the federal government

Sure Turtle. Its the same evidence from the Constitution that I have reproduced time after time after time in thread after thread after thread when you ask for the same thing over and over and over.

Article I, Section 8, clauses 1, 3, 14, 15, and 16. And of course 18 applies then to all of them.
 
you are making stupid comments again

gun ownership and the number of guns in circulation have gone way up and accidental shootings are decreasing

and posting a fact-does nothing unless it supports a proposal or a conclusion

so what is your "conclusion"

Which means very little. And I like the laws where they are. But that doesn't mean I support mind reading as an argument.
 
Sure Turtle. Its the same evidence from the Constitution that I have reproduced time after time after time in thread after thread after thread when you ask for the same thing over and over and over.

Article I, Section 8, clauses 1, 3, 14, 15, and 16. And of course 18 applies then to all of them.

more evasive nonsense

post the actual words and show us where that power was delegated

not even the most venal and dishonest gun banners have ever tried to use most of those clauses

using your standards as to the 2A-since NONE OF THOSE CLAUSES EVEN HINT at gun control as a federal power-your argument is worthless
 
you are making stupid comments again

gun ownership and the number of guns in circulation have gone way up and accidental shootings are decreasing

and posting a fact-does nothing unless it supports a proposal or a conclusion

so what is your "conclusion"

But the percentage of American who own a gun or live in a household with a gun is way down from previous years.

A minority of Americans own guns, but just how many is unclear | Pew Research Center

A Pew Research Center survey conducted in February found that 37% of households had an adult who owned a gun — 24% said they owned a gun, and 13% said someone else in their household did.

The Pew Research and GSS surveys both have found declining gun-ownership rates over time. In 1973, for example, when the GSS first asked about gun ownership, 49% reported having a gun or revolver in their home or garage.

Yes - there are more guns but the percentage of people with them has gone way down.
 
Sure Turtle. Its the same evidence from the Constitution that I have reproduced time after time after time in thread after thread after thread when you ask for the same thing over and over and over.

Article I, Section 8, clauses 1, 3, 14, 15, and 16. And of course 18 applies then to all of them.


false...

James Madison--The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
 
But the percentage of American who own a gun or live in a household with a gun is way down from previous years.

A minority of Americans own guns, but just how many is unclear | Pew Research Center

that poll is a joke and the reason why it is a joke is that many many gun owners refuse to admit to pollsters that they own guns

Polls are only accurate if those responding to them are telling the truth

Mythbusting: Gun Ownership Is On the Decline in the U.S. - The Truth About Guns

On the other hand, the number of NRA instructors certified to teach the basic NRA classes has increased by nearly 66% over the past five years. Experienced gun owners adding to their collections generally don’t drive demand for introductory courses. New gun owners do


oh BTW Haymarket-I belong to three gun clubs and frequent two others. ALL have had increases in membership-two now have 40 month waiting periods. That was not the case 10 or 20 years ago.

now if its all about the same gun owners buying more guns, that wouldn't happen
 
that poll is a joke and the reason why it is a joke is that many many gun owners refuse to admit to pollsters that they own guns

Polls are only accurate if those responding to them are telling the truth

Mythbusting: Gun Ownership Is On the Decline in the U.S. - The Truth About Guns

On the other hand, the number of NRA instructors certified to teach the basic NRA classes has increased by nearly 66% over the past five years. Experienced gun owners adding to their collections generally don’t drive demand for introductory courses. New gun owners do


oh BTW Haymarket-I belong to three gun clubs and frequent two others. ALL have had increases in membership-two now have 40 month waiting periods. That was not the case 10 or 20 years ago.

now if its all about the same gun owners buying more guns, that wouldn't happen

Yet you used one to say guns stopped crime?
 
more evasive nonsense

post the actual words and show us where that power was delegated

If I were any more direct you would have been handed the Constitution directly from a special messenger. My response was the direct opposite of EVASIVE and suggests you do not know what the word means.

As to posting the exact words to show you where that power was delegated and to whom it was delegated...Do the words THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER sound familiar to you? They are the first words of Article I, Section 8 and clearly give the following powers to the Congress - part of the Federal government of the United States of America.
 
that poll is a joke and the reason why it is a joke is that many many gun owners refuse to admit to pollsters that they own guns

Polls are only accurate if those responding to them are telling the truth

Mythbusting: Gun Ownership Is On the Decline in the U.S. - The Truth About Guns

On the other hand, the number of NRA instructors certified to teach the basic NRA classes has increased by nearly 66% over the past five years. Experienced gun owners adding to their collections generally don’t drive demand for introductory courses. New gun owners do


oh BTW Haymarket-I belong to three gun clubs and frequent two others. ALL have had increases in membership-two now have 40 month waiting periods. That was not the case 10 or 20 years ago.

now if its all about the same gun owners buying more guns, that wouldn't happen

So you say. But you provide no verifiable evidence of public ownership otherwise.

The evidence you site is anecdotal at best and simply shows a increased fervor among those decreasing gun owners at worst. It does nothing to negate the PEW numbers. In fact, when you couple it with the increase in the number of guns held by a decreasing percentage of people, it only confirms that those who own guns are becoming more fervent in their tendencies with firearms.
 
false...

James Madison--The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Sadly for you, the personal views of Madison are not part of the Constitution and as so are irrelevant next to the document itself. But then you know that because I have told you that many many times whenever you bring up this canard.
 
Yet you used one to say guns stopped crime?

Exactly! Everyone knows guns don't stop crime. I really have no idea why cops even carry guns, when they play absolutely no role in stopping crime. All that's really needed is for the cops to say, in a stern voice, "stop, police".
 
Exactly! Everyone knows guns don't stop crime. I really have no idea why cops even carry guns, when they play absolutely no role in stopping crime. All that's really needed is for the cops to say, in a stern voice, "stop, police".

Which doesn't answer the point as I did not say anything of the kind. A poor study is a poor study. An opinion is an opinion. You can use it and then complain others are using it.
 
So you say. But you provide no verifiable evidence of public ownership otherwise.

The evidence you site is anecdotal at best and simply shows a increased fervor among those decreasing gun owners at worst. It does nothing to negate the PEW numbers. In fact, when you couple it with the increase in the number of guns held by a decreasing percentage of people, it only confirms that those who own guns are becoming more fervent in their tendencies with firearms.

the only fact that is undisputed is that millions upon millions of more firearms are in circulation

and gun clubs and gun instructors are seeing more and more people seeking their services
 
Which doesn't answer the point as I did not say anything of the kind. A poor study is a poor study. An opinion is an opinion. You can use it and then complain others are using it.

So, do guns stop crime, or not? Yes, or no?
 
If I were any more direct you would have been handed the Constitution directly from a special messenger. My response was the direct opposite of EVASIVE and suggests you do not know what the word means.

As to posting the exact words to show you where that power was delegated and to whom it was delegated...Do the words THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER sound familiar to you? They are the first words of Article I, Section 8 and clearly give the following powers to the Congress - part of the Federal government of the United States of America.

there is no obvious language or even language that reasonably can be inferred to delegate the power of gun control to the federal government.

and guess what-DOn't you think anti gun politicians would have used that language if they thought it meant that?

your contradictory interpretations of two parts of the constitution are hilarious.

Congress doesn't have any power to regulate guns. that's why FDR made up that power in the commerce clause

try again, your argument is without any merit and is completely contrary to the entire concept of a government limited to specific powers
 
So, do guns stop crime, or not? Yes, or no?

As I've stated before, a person with a gun is more likely to defend themselves than one without. But they are also more likely to shoot themselves or some innocent person. Both are true. But when we measure how many times either is done, we have to measure reported and verifiable events and not just poll and garner opinions.
 
there is no obvious language or even language that reasonably can be inferred to delegate the power of gun control to the federal government.

and guess what-DOn't you think anti gun politicians would have used that language if they thought it meant that?

your contradictory interpretations of two parts of the constitution are hilarious.

Congress doesn't have any power to regulate guns. that's why FDR made up that power in the commerce clause

try again, your argument is without any merit and is completely contrary to the entire concept of a government limited to specific powers

is the sale of firearms not considered an act of commerce?
 
Back
Top Bottom