• 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:
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
Click to expand...
As long as white Americans are safe, that's all that we should be concerned about, right?
 
Unrepresented said:
As long as white Americans are safe, that's all that we should be concerned about, right?
Click to expand...

you as usual, missed the point. The point being that the dominant ethnic group in a nation with fairly free access to guns has lower rates of gun crimes as that same ethic group in countries that ban guns
 
Luftwaffe said:
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.
Click to expand...

from our nations founding up to after the civl war, the bill of rights did not apply to states at all......they are restrictions placed solely on the federal government.....[bill of rights preamble]

state governments depending on what their state Constitution stated, determined gun laws.

however by the USSC making the decision, that all the states must adhere to the bill of rights, this then placed those same restrictions on state governments...making the 2nd supreme for the nation.
 
Last edited:
I would just add

"the following amendment, when exercised does not make you more patriotic, more brave or a 17th Century revolutionary when exercised"
 
Jetboogieman said:
I would just add

"the following amendment, when exercised does not make you more patriotic, more brave or a 17th Century revolutionary when exercised"
Click to expand...

I wish to make an amendment to the proposed amendment.

"the following amendment, when exercised does not make you more patriotic or more brave, nor an 18th century revolutionary when exercised." ;)
 
TurtleDude said:
you as usual, missed the point. The point being that the dominant ethnic group in a nation with fairly free access to guns has lower rates of gun crimes as that same ethic group in countries that ban guns
Click to expand...
It's weird. The thread title is about the 2nd Amendment, but it's like the posts I'm reading are from the White Privilege thread.
 
Unrepresented said:
I'm in favor of increasing public transit and increasing access to swimming lessons to reduce deaths. Join me.
Click to expand...

I have nothing against gun safety education. In fact, it should be taught in our public schools since the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected right. And if we're going to have the government teach our kids, the very least they can do is teach them to enjoy ALL of their rights, not just the ones approved by the PC police. But claiming that gun control is the answer to reducing gun deaths is an argument too easily defeated. Unfortunately, gun grabbers have never let the accuracy of their "facts" or "studies" act as any sort of impediment to repeating them over and over again, ad nauseum.

But I am glad you're in favor of gun safety education. That says a lot about your character.
 
Unrepresented said:
It's weird. The thread title is about the 2nd Amendment, but it's like the posts I'm reading are from the White Privilege thread.
Click to expand...

you must have some strange perspective that sees white privilege anyplace in this thread.
 
LagerHead said:
I have nothing against gun safety education. In fact, it should be taught in our public schools since the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected right. And if we're going to have the government teach our kids, the very least they can do is teach them to enjoy ALL of their rights, not just the ones approved by the PC police. But claiming that gun control is the answer to reducing gun deaths is an argument too easily defeated. Unfortunately, gun grabbers have never let the accuracy of their "facts" or "studies" act as any sort of impediment to repeating them over and over again, ad nauseum.

But I am glad you're in favor of gun safety education. That says a lot about your character.
Click to expand...

Misattributing a position is my thing. :p
 
Lursa said:
I'm not clear on what points you are trying to make.
Click to expand...

I'm Sorry. The language lends itself to the notion that the right to bear arms is for the purposes of security of states, provided by their militias, and that the right of the people (in context, that would be the members of the militia, males ages 17-47, I think the ages) to keep and bear arms (again, in context, for the purpose of state security) shall not be infringed. But for myself, I prefer the traditional interpretation that it is for personal security and extends to all citizens, not just the members of the militia.
 
Montecresto said:
I'm Sorry. The language lends itself to the notion that the right to bear arms is for the purposes of security of states, provided by their militias, and that the right of the people (in context, that would be the members of the militia, males ages 17-47, I think the ages) to keep and bear arms (again, in context, for the purpose of state security) shall not be infringed. But for myself, I prefer the traditional interpretation that it is for personal security and extends to all citizens, not just the members of the militia.
Click to expand...

Nope, "the people" means, the people. That's the context. Nowhere else in the Constitution does "the people" mean anything other than, the people.
 
mdw99 said:
I am from Scotland and doing a modern studies assignment at school on the second amendment of the US constitution and would like to gather views from US citizens.
Could you tell me if you think the second amendment needs to be changed or not and give reasons why.
Many thanks
Click to expand...
I honestly do not understand why Scots surrendered their arms. Yes, I know about the Dublin shooting, and your gun ban will not prevent the next mass homicide.

Banning private arms is a human rights violation.
 
Jerry said:
Banning private arms is a human rights violation.
Click to expand...

It absolutely is. Even the 2nd amendment doesn't "grant" the right to keep and bear arms, it merely affirms the inherent right of self defense.
 
countryboy said:
It absolutely is. Even the 2nd amendment doesn't "grant" the right to keep and bear arms, it merely affirms the inherent right of self defense.
Click to expand...
Banning private arms is like banning a porcupine from having quills.
 
Unrepresented said:
I'm in favor of other people not getting shot as well.
Click to expand...
Restricting responsible owners rights won't really do anything.

Are you against other people being stabbed or strangled? Should we control icepicks, screwdrivers, wooden stakes, and knives? How about piano wire?

I personally am against reckless homicide, criminally negligent homicide, accidental death, and murder, it doesn't matter if they are shot, stabbed, fall, or die in a car accident.

Why does it only matter to you if they are shot?
 
TurtleDude said:
you must have some strange perspective that sees white privilege anyplace in this thread.
Click to expand...
The separating out of races strikes me as missing the point of protecting the population.
Luftwaffe said:
It's a derailment attempt on the thread...
Click to expand...
I actually thought we were getting closer.
CLAX1911 said:
Restricting responsible owners rights won't really do anything.

Are you against other people being stabbed or strangled? Should we control icepicks, screwdrivers, wooden stakes, and knives? How about piano wire?

I personally am against reckless homicide, criminally negligent homicide, accidental death, and murder, it doesn't matter if they are shot, stabbed, fall, or die in a car accident.

Why does it only matter to you if they are shot?
Click to expand...

Ideally we'd stop all murder, but I'm okay with starting with the 900 lb gorilla in the room.

Homicides-by-weapon-type-US.jpg
 
Unrepresented said:
.......
Click to expand...
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence ( 2013 )


Sources used in the video:



Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.
Din B. Kates* and Gary Mauser**

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
Click to expand...

EDITORIAL: Guns decrease murder rates
In Washington, the best defense is self-defense
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

More guns in law-abiding hands mean less crime. The District of Columbia proves the point.

<snip>
Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.

This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities as well. The phenomenon of higher murder rates after gun bans are passed is not just limited to the United States. Every single time a country has passed a gun ban, its murder rate soared.

<snip>
Click to expand...

 
Unrepresented said:
The separating out of races strikes me as missing the point of protecting the population.

I actually thought we were getting closer.


Ideally we'd stop all murder, but I'm okay with starting with the 900 lb gorilla in the room.

Homicides-by-weapon-type-US.jpg
Click to expand...

So you think somebody that knows murder is against the law, wouldn't break the law to get a gun?

Do you think the only reason people commit murder is because they have a gun?

I am not really willing to give up my gun to lower a murder rate. I just won't murder anybody with them. Seems like a reasonable solution to me.

I think it would be prudent to make murder illegal for everybody that legally carries a gun. If making murder illegal doesn't stop murder, how would making the possession of one specific type of weapon capable of being used as a murder weapon stop murder?
 
CLAX1911 said:
So you think somebody that knows murder is against the law, wouldn't break the law to get a gun?

Do you think the only reason people commit murder is because they have a gun?

I am not really willing to give up my gun to lower a murder rate. I just won't murder anybody with them. Seems like a reasonable solution to me.

I think it would be prudent to make murder illegal for everybody that legally carries a gun. If making murder illegal doesn't stop murder, how would making the possession of one specific type of weapon capable of being used as a murder weapon stop murder?
Click to expand...

Decreasing access to murder weapons decreases murder. Increasing access to murder weapons increases murder.

The reason our atomic bomb murder rate didn't make much impact on the chart is because we don't allow access to atomic bombs. The reason our elephant trampling murder rate is so low is that we don't allow access to trained battle elephants. If we didn't allow access to guns...
 
Unrepresented said:
Decreasing access to murder weapons decreases murder. Increasing access to murder weapons increases murder.
Click to expand...
Explain that logic.

The reason our atomic bomb murder rate didn't make much impact on the chart is because we don't allow access to atomic bombs. The reason our elephant trampling murder rate is so low is that we don't allow access to trained battle elephants. If we didn't allow access to guns...
Click to expand...
Murder by some other means would increase.

You are saying restricted access to an object will change human nature. I call bull****.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Explain that logic.

Murder by some other means would increase.

You are saying restricted access to an object will change human nature. I call bull****.
Click to expand...
Human nature won't change, but we can limit its less desirable effects.
 
Willie Orwontee said:
So you celebrate and endorse the profound ignorance of the US population for foundational constitutional principles?



I'm sure that some have this altruistic "safer society" intention but the reality is, gun control is always a political tool used to achieve and maintain political control (ensuring the security of the government, not the free state). Those who advocate European style gun control because of gun crime are just useful idiots employed by those who wish to reverse engineer European style political control over US citizens (the rejection of which was the point of the Constitution)



Well, at least you admit the political aspect of the debate . . . If what you say comes to fruition, it won't be the "political 2nd Amendment" that causes the usurpation of the right to arms; it will be the citizens abdicating their duty to hold the government to the constraints placed on it by them, though the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I had hoped for a more interesting and profound reply.

Hmmm… celebrating the public’s profound ignorance of constitutional principles.. hmmm; nope. I just know that the American public is educated enough to know how the amendment process works. Let’s not forget the flip flop of the 18th and 21st amendments.

Well I happen to be one of those with altruistic intentions for a safer society. We can have nuts with 100 round magazines, or young kids with mac 10s walking into movie theaters and schools and killing people. Enough is enough. Gun violence in and of itself is going through the roof as well. It reflects a very sick society. Like I said: not just now, but down the road people are going to put the brakes on this nonsense.

Of course it’s the politics; that’s the other side of the rusty coin. The gun nuts are making hay of the 2nd amendment when none need be made. The gun nuts put their right to carry and .50 cal machine guns over and above the citizen’s right to a peaceful existence with all of the nuts killing people. It’s not a hard thing to understand. It would be nice if the gun nuts did more to help the situation rather than talk about useful idiots: that phrase can be reversed ya’know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom